 I'm happy to say that this has been an exciting area for immigration law. That's not an unmixed blessing because there are no such thing. The Trump administration has brought to the surface many very important issues that those of us who have been in this field not includes many of the folks who we have the privilege of hosting here today as speakers. Many of us in the field know are perennial issues about immigration law. They've been with us pretty much from the founding. Since the founding we've been ambivalent about do we welcome in foreigners? Do we try to escort them out? So that's been a theme throughout the history of this republic. It started out worrying about folks like the Irish. Then we segued into moving to think about folks from southern and eastern Europe. Then we started thinking about people from the third world. Should they be welcomed or squirted out or some mixture of both? There are a few signposts along the way that are useful background for our discussion throughout the day. First thing is, and I think Matthew Lindsay will talk about that in our first panel of the day after Mayor Lorza speaks, and that is the first century of our republic really had very little of what we currently know as immigration regulation. We basically were a new republic. We were anxious to increase our population, and so we welcomed in people. There were some pushback against the Irish and folks like that as I mentioned, but there's really no federal immigration law the way there is today. For the first century or so after the Declaration of Independence, there were state laws and there were some Supreme Court cases on whether states have the ability or power to regulate immigration. Matthew talked about that, but very little federal action. Then we decided to move into immigration as the country, and the founding episode there, if you will, was the Chinese Exclusion Act, where we decided in roughly 1880 to try to escort out folks who would help us build our transcontinental railway system. The glory of the new republic, what knit us together in country, had really been done by immigrants, and then we said once the job was done, get out. And the Supreme Court said that once Congress had enacted legislation to that effect, that was perfectly okay because Congress has plenary power, the Supreme Court said, over immigration. But from that period until roughly 1925 we still had very little federal immigration apart from certain disfavored groups like the Chinese. In 1925 all that changed, and we had a system of national origin quotas where we rigidly demarcated how many people could come in from which country. We basically discriminated on the basis of nationality, particularly respect to Asians, but with respect to other groups as well. That continued through World War II where we didn't even fill our quotas for immigrants, including for refugees. And so in response to the crisis in Europe, the Holocaust, we didn't even allow in all the people who we legally were able to allow in. That's a sad part of the history, but it bears repeating. In 1965, thanks in part to the efforts of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, we changed again. At that point we decided the national origin quotas that had been in place for decades were a part of American history that we wanted to pivot away from. We wanted to do things in a different way that focused on neutral values like family reunification, getting families together, including close relatives. We didn't want to have a national origin system, a quota system anymore. So that 1965 act is a great signpost that ushered in a wave of immigration, particularly from the Third World, that's really been unparalleled in human history, and that was legal immigration. Fundamentally change our country and much for the better. Then we finally pivot to the new administration, which one could argue is in some ways trying to roll back legal immigration. They have champion proposals that would do that. And you also have the travel ban, which is now going through three iterations that we'll discuss in detail in a subsequent panel, and measures to increase domestic enforcement, as well as recision of programs like the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that were pioneered by the Obama administration. That's a very, very short history of immigration. Well, at least that a lot, but it gives us opportunity to fill in a little bit later in the program, and we're very happy to have the opportunity to do that again with some of the very best folks in this field, scholars, folks from government, advocates, and last but not least, alumni of this law school, who are very happy to have participated in this great event. So welcome, and with that said, I want to introduce our dean, Michael Yonasky. Thank you, and I want to welcome you on behalf of the law school community. It's great to see so many of you here for this important conversation. It's also important, I think, for me to realize that I am the least interesting person who will be at the podium today, so I'm going to try to make this quick. I do want to give a special welcome back to our alumni, many of whom, as Peter mentioned, will be participating on panels, but also folks who are in the audience and who are in the trenches doing immigration work day after day. And I also want to congratulate and thank the members of our law review and Professor Margolis for putting together such a rich symposium for today. So it is my great privilege to introduce our keynote speaker this morning, the mayor of Providence, Jorge Alorza. Jorge has become a leader among American mayors in dealing with the changes and responding to the changes in immigration law and the threats that they pose to members of the community in Providence. He has pledged to do what is legally permissible to protect the immigrant communities in Providence, including undocumented residents of the capital city. He is the co-chair of the U.S. Conference on Mayor's Immigration Reform Task Force. He met with then Homeland Security Secretary Kelly and has met with the Attorney General to discuss many of the issues that you'll be thinking about today. Jorge is the son of parents who came to the United States from Guatemala. He then grew up in Providence, attended URI and Harvard Law School, worked as a legal services lawyer before joining the faculty here, and we were gracious enough to lend him to the city of Providence to clean things up and move things forward, and he's done a remarkable job and it's always great to have him here and I know that you will find his remarks and his spirit quite provocative. So please join me in welcoming Jorge Alorza. Good morning and thank you to Roger Williams University Law School for this invitation. It truly is an honor to be here in this capacity and so it feels nice just being back in the building. It feels like being home. I want to take a moment also to thank the university and the law school in two particular ways. The first is with the leadership here at the law school, Michael Yalnowski has done a phenomenal job as dean and I thank you for always being on the right side of these social justice issues. Roger Williams Law School from its very beginning has always distinguished itself for being public interest oriented and I think that's one of our core strengths because it's baked in our mission, it's baked into our curriculum and it's baked into our graduation requirements as well. So Roger Williams University, our law school, certainly puts its money where its mouth is and is leading the way in law schools in providing the public interest leaders that we need in the legal profession in the future. The second reason and the second way that I want to recognize and thank Roger Williams Law School is that they've also led the way on immigration issues over the past. So I remember when I was a faculty member here, the faculty made a decision to create an immigration law clinic and having an immigration law clinic is really an amazing thing and not every law school of course has an immigration law clinic but this law school has one because the entire faculty prioritized this work and through the leadership of Professor Peter Margolies also with the leadership of Professor Debra Gonzalez, oh here we go, great to see you Debbie. And the great and continuing support of the entire faculty, we've continued to produce attorneys who are graduating and are already prepared on day one to step into a courtroom and represent folks who are filing for asylum and who have immigration law issues. So for all of these reasons Roger Williams Law School should be commended. Now I remember when I was a law school here, I was part of a group that created the Latino Policy Institute and we ended up forming this very close partnership with the university and in fact one of the first issues that we took on was in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants here in Rhode Island. And so early on when we took up that cause I believe that the state finally passed it or the state finally changed the policy the very next year. So in no small way but as part of a broad coalition Roger Williams Law School, the university, our clinic and the Latino Policy Institute has been making a difference on immigration issues and so that's a story that really should be commended and I thank Roger Williams for leading the way. So it truly is an honor to be here to talk about this important issue. In fact I don't think there are any other issues that are as important to our communities and also to our country as the issue of immigration reform and immigration rights. So I'd like to begin by sharing with you a little bit of my personal story. Dean Yalnowski mentioned that I'm the son of immigrants. So I remember growing up and sitting around the kitchen table, the breakfast table, our parents every so often would talk about their immigrant experience and one really stands out to me. Now my mother talks about how when she was 21, 22 years old how she crossed the border from Mexico into Texas and she spent about two weeks in the desert between Mexico and Texas. Now she had absolutely nothing on her. The only thing she carried was my one-year-old sister in her arms. So you can imagine the heat during the day and the cold at night and it really brings to life the fact that immigrants risk everything. They leave everything behind and they come to this country knowing that they don't speak a lick of English. They know they're going to confront challenges. There's going to be discrimination but why do they do it? And to this day I asked my mom and my mother still tells me she says, Miho, I did it so that you and your sister would have a better life. And I can't think of anything more noble than that. And so I come to this immigration debate, certainly I have a point of view and I have a perspective. One of the things that I'm most proud of in this world is to be the son of immigrants and the values that they've instilled in me as a result of their experience. And so when it comes to this immigration challenge that mayors and cities throughout the country are facing, this has been an issue that frankly it's been easy for me to lean into because it's personal for me, but it's also something that is a matter of deeply rooted values that we have to stand up for. But the truth is that immigration today truly is one of the most divisive issues that we face. We have our current president who launched his campaign and a tirade against immigrants equating all immigrants to Mexicans and equating all Mexicans to rapists and all Mexicans and rapists to murderers. And this message truly, truly took hold. One of the main building blocks of his campaign was this cry to build this wall and not just to build the wall but to have in a very insulting way Mexico pay for it. And we live in a time right now where even before this administration politics has been increasingly fractured and increasingly divisive. And so this nationalist voice, this very divisive voice has been frankly very, very effective at a national level in getting our current president elected. Now in spite of all of this language and rhetoric at the national level now I believe that there is hope on this issue. I believe you've seen progress and we have all collectively seen progress on this issue. And that's why I'm very proud to be part of this national coalition of mayors through the United States Council of Mayors who has taken a leadership role in this. As soon as President Trump was elected, in fact even before he was inaugurated or sworn in, we held an emergency meeting and we called for an emergency resolution where we called for the protection of our dreamers and a call for comprehensive immigration reform. So collectively 1600 mayors from throughout the country said that from here on out we will be speaking with one voice on this issue of immigration. Now it's often said that there are three main political parties in the United States. They're Republicans, they're Democrats, and they're mayors. And I truly believe that. And the role of a mayor is really important in this story because mayors we don't have the luxury of being ideological. We don't have the luxury of fighting these divisive battles because when the rubber meets the road it's our communities that suffer. And as mayors we spend almost all of our time trying to find ways to bring people together. If I could distill the role of mayor down to one phrase I would say that mayors are the main brokers of social capital in our communities. And social capital is truly the difference of a successful or failing city. Social capital is a difference whenever there's a natural or man-made disaster. It's the difference between our communities looting or our communities giving each other a helping hand. And so at the local level that's where we're just practical. We're not focused on winning arguments. We're focused on finding solutions. And we're not driven by ideology. We're driven by evidence. And all of the evidence as far as I can see is truly on our side on this issue of immigration. So we've taken this message directly to Washington. As a group of mayors we've met with Attorney General Sessions. We've met with then Secretary John Kelly. We've also met with Senator Durbin the main sponsor of the DREAM Act. We've met with Nancy Pelosi, minority leader in the House. And we've met with a number of other folks both in the House and in the Senate pressing our case. Now remember when President Trump became president and he said and he launched his attack on so-called sanctuary cities. There was a massive scramble at the time. And the scramble was because frankly no one knew what sanctuary city actually meant. To this day we still don't know what sanctuary city actually means. But there's also a scramble because we didn't know what the federal government would do and we didn't know what the federal government could do. So in this area of uncertainty you know this basic principle always kicks in then when there are gaps in our knowledge and there are uncertainty we fill in those gaps with our worst fears. And so there was this concern about federal dollars being pulled perhaps up to 70 million dollars in the city of Providence and hundreds of million dollars across the country. There was this concern about federalizing our police departments. Could they actually force our police departments to become federal immigration agents? And there was this concern about do we honor detainers and not require 14th amendment probable cause and judicially signed warrants. And so it's in this great area of uncertainty that we were pressed into action and forced to make a choice are we going to stand up and defend our immigrants or are we going to cave in to some of the federal pressure that we hear. So since then some of that uncertainty has been clarified some of the dust has settled and we have a much clearer picture of the landscape in which we stand. The first question what is a sanctuary city? So it is abundantly clear that no one knows what a sanctuary city means but what's so interesting about the sanctuary city conversation is that when we sat down with Attorney General Sessions we asked them we don't care, well we do care but we don't care as much about what the federal position actually is. We talk with DHS, we talk with the DOJ and we speak with the White House and we get three different answers as to what we face. Just let us know where we stand give us clarity so we know what position to take and where we stand legally. So finally the Department of Justice defined sanctuary cities as any cities that aren't complying with section 1373 which is essentially a communications recording requirement. And it's so interesting because when the term sanctuary city is used as a political term it seems as though every city in the United States is a sanctuary city but when it's used as a legal term as those cities that are violating or not complying with section 1373 then it turns out that I don't think there's a single sanctuary city in the entire United States of America and what's so interesting about this is that I believe that as attorneys we get this. You have to specifically define what the terms you're using mean and then we can start the conversation because if we're not speaking a common language if we don't have common terms with agreed upon definitions then we're simply spinning our wheels and we can't make progress but at the same time you also wonder whether giving clarity and defining sanctuary city in these very clear terms is in the interest of the administration and whether in fact they do want to provide the clarity that there are in fact virtually no sanctuary cities in the entire country. The second issue that we asked for clarity on and that we were very concerned about as city leaders was federalizing our police departments. Could the federal government actually force us to convert our police departments into federal immigration agents and so without knowing exactly where we stood legally we all put our backs up and said not over our dead bodies anyone who's taken federal constitutional law knows that this is something that's going to be very hard for the federal government to do but could they try could they push but we push back as all mayors do with facts and with reason and sense what we heard directly from the federal government was that we want to federalize or we want to turn local police departments into immigration agents because it's going to make our community safer mind you the same trope or the same frame about immigrants being rapists and murderers and we pushed back and said let's sit down and let's talk about this let's think it through for a moment well what happens if our police departments actually do become federal immigration agents over the past 25 years in the United States something remarkable has happened in public safety in our cities at a time where we're seeing fewer and fewer police officers in departments across the country we've also seen an incredible massive decline in the crime rate now how can that be well it happens that around that same time virtually every police department and major police department in the country has adopted the community policing model and the community policing model is based on this idea that if you build relationships with the community not only are you engendering that trust so that we don't have that division but you can actually get valuable information and actually prevent crimes from occurring that otherwise you would be solving and arresting folks over so based on decades worth of experience that community policing works we took that message to Washington and told leaders in the administration that if we're eroding that trust we're going to see people go back under the radar or go back underground and they're going to be afraid to call the police whenever they're the victim of the crime or God forbid any of us are the victims of a crime ourselves they're going to be afraid and shy to come forward and lo and behold after six or seven months that we were able to collect data on this that's exactly what we've experienced levels of reports of domestic violence have decreased among immigrant communities and Spanish speaking communities whether they're undocumented or not and so enforcing immigration laws at the local level actually make us less safe because it makes folks less likely to participate and not just that but actually enforcing immigration law is time consuming so for example if a police officer pulls over a right turn signal or forgot to fully stop or didn't fully stop at a stop sign you can run the whole check of whether they have legal status and let's say they don't have legal status then you have to detain them you have to bring them back to the station and every moment that our police departments are spending on following these kinds of crimes often petty misdemeanors and not spending their time focusing on hard and serious criminals that's time that we can all agree is misspent and is misspent in a way that's making our communities less safe so making our police officers at the local level become federal immigration agents without any doubt makes us less safe and then this last issue that arose early on in the immigration debate was the question of enforcing detainer requests so anytime someone is detained the way that it actually works is there's this national NCIC system and any time that we run the print so the 10 print process that information gets automatically shared with the federal government back maybe about 10 or 12 years ago when that system was put in place the city of Providence and many other cities throughout the country were out of that system so that we didn't automatically share the information with the federal government but we were told that was actually mandatory and so every city in the country complies with that and the information is automatically shared so once we share the information we get a read we get a effectively sometimes we get a ping and it pings us and tells us that there's a detainer order we have no idea in the system whether it's an administratively signed detainer order or whether it's one that actually complies with 14th amendment probable cause requirements and has been signed by an article 3 judge we have no way of knowing well it turns out that the case law is very clear that us as cities if we're detaining folks longer than longer than allowed for any reason including immigration that we stand liable for unlawful incarceration for holding that person longer than we should so on the one hand we have the federal government telling us that if we don't detain them after they may be released we're subject to either having our federal funds withheld or other kinds of punitive action and on the other hand we're hearing from courts that if we do keep them longer than we can then we face judicial penalties and so we're stuck in this very tough position and again we've pushed back with the administration and told them just let us know where we stand we'll let you know where we stand there are certain things that we are just not willing to do so can we come together in advance in the interest of public safety and come up with a solution for our goals as cities and lets the federal government know where you can count on our support and where you can't so as mayors we try to be very practical and we'd like to think that with some of the pushback that we've given to the federal government that has caused them to change some of their practices around immigration from at the very least changing their forms to drawing this threat to withhold federal funds to actually working with us on a public safety basis on the question of immigration and focusing more of our attention on those hardened and serious criminals so the last issue that we've been very very engaged in and it is still all the concern in our minds at this point is the issue of DACA I'm sure everyone in this room is familiar with the debate and conversation that's happening around our dreamers at this time and so just a little bit of background on it we know that by the repeal of the executive order roughly 800,000 dreamers are at risk of losing their status potentially being deported and certainly not being able to continue working and studying here in the United States so we've come to Washington we've met with a number of leaders behind behind the effort not just to repeal but also with behind the effort to codify DACA or Dream Act into law and something is happening right now where there seems to be broad bipartisan support to protect our dreamers but there are two issues that are complicating it the first one is security and the second one is interior enforcement now interior enforcement that brings us back to this idea of converting our police departments into federal immigration agents that's a non-starter and we are not going to negotiate we are going to completely walk away from the table if there's any conversation about interior enforcement however there is talk about some sensible border security measures so we are not supporting any damn wall I mean that has to be clear from the very beginning it's the stupidest idea in fact I believe the cost on it is somewhere from 20 to 30 million dollars you can get a 20 or 30 dollar shovel and simply go under it or a ladder to go over it it's the dumbest idea that you can think of so that's something that's a non-starter but when we talk about border security right now if we go to any post office throughout the country they'll tell you that they don't have the technology to be able to screen which packages which packages contain fentanyl fentanyl is one of the most deadly and potent opioids that we are facing and is behind many of the opioid deaths but border security is also about the importance to make sure that drugs of this kind aren't coming in through our mail system and through our post offices and there's also some national security elements that we have to take into account and so as mayors we're very practical of course if we have to make improvements perhaps this is an opportunity but what should be clear is that when it comes to pitting one kind of immigrant versus another you know one dreamer versus their parents this is simply a choice that we are not even going to entertain we're not going to sacrifice one for the other and we're going to make sure that we keep advocating for this in a way that's consistent with our values and our principles and so as mayors we have discovered that we have a very powerful voice even on issues that have traditionally been considered federal issues, national issues and maybe even international issues but it's not just at that level where we're finding we can have a great impact mayors throughout the country are also enacting many measures at the local level to directly support our immigrant communities because let's face it if there's this uncertain national environment around immigration it's at the local level where we feel it first and so the kinds of steps that we've taken both here in Providence and in other cities are things such as municipal ID laws municipal ID started in New Haven, Connecticut and in New Haven it turns out that they had a string of robberies really violent robberies against undocumented immigrants because folks came to realize that undocumented immigrants are less likely if not all together unlikely or if not all together unlikely to have bank accounts so on Fridays after work they cash their checks and they carry big wads of cash and if they get mugged then we know that they're not likely to report it to the police because they're afraid of the immigration consequences so they're easy targets so the city of New Haven began with a program to create municipal IDs to give it to every one of their residents not just the undocumented but every one of their residents and make it much easier for undocumented immigrants to open bank accounts so we recently announced in the city of Providence our own municipal ID program and it should be online but by some point in either January or February of this coming year if we have any Providence residents in the room whether you're documented or undocumented I encourage you to get your own municipal ID as well I'll be sure to get mine what other cities have done is they've also funded legal services for undocumented immigrants and one dirty little secret is that if you're represented by an attorney the federal immigration or the federal deportation courts are so clogged up that it can take years before someone is actually deported and so having that immigration law of representation can make all the difference between a family being separated or family being united at the local level and we've also funded our own city hall into a naturalization sign up center screening folks who are eligible to become United States citizens and then helping them fill out the applications and walking them through the process as mayor I also invited about 20 attorneys from throughout the state and many folks are right here in the room and we had a conversation and Trump was inaugurated about what we can do as immigration attorneys here in our state we actually met in my living room and many of these attorneys have continued to provide free legal services have spoken at a number of community gatherings and continue to outreach to the immigration to the immigrant community to let them know that resources are available so in many ways city halls mayors and cities throughout the country have picked up the slack they picked up the slack because we recognize that our cities have always been the main way stations for immigrants as they've come to this country they come they plant their roots they work their way up to the middle class they give their children a better life than they had and they live out the American dream that's what makes our cities great and that's what's made America great the narrative that's so important to reinforce to all of our colleagues at every level of government is that America is already a great country and it's a great country not in spite of our immigrants but because of our immigrants and so I'm very proud to be part of this effort of mayors mayors who have found this collective voice that amplifies our message makes us a much stronger voice at the national level but at the same time it also makes us more effective and makes us more creative to address these immigration issues in our own communities so I want to thank everybody here for being part of this conversation and not just being part of the conversation I know folks in this room are rolling up their sleeves and getting to work there is a community out there that is extraordinarily and extremely anxious they're fearful they are concerned but frankly it's folks like you and the work that you're doing for the least fortunate and for folks who need it the most that gives them hope and gives me hope so thank you so much for engaging in this I look forward to hearing the results of this great conversation and the conference and more than that I look forward to seeing all of you as partners to see what we can do to support all of our residents including documented and undocumented to make sure they feel part of our community now Professor do we have time for some questions absolutely so Mr. Mayor I know one of the concerns historically of Providence has been with gang violence so one group involved with that is the so-called MS-13 group which has established at least some foothold in Providence as it has in many other cities do we cooperate with the federal government with respect to dealing with gangs like MS-13 that's a great question Peter first things first it's so interesting to learn the history of these violent gangs these violent gangs they're coming from Central America but the truth is that they originated here in the United States in fact they originated in the in the jail system in Los Angeles Greater Los Angeles County they were deported back to Central America and they brought these violent tactics that they learned in L.A. prisons down to Central America and now it's coming back to the United States so that's always interesting to keep in mind so we cooperate with state law enforcement and federal law enforcement on a whole range of issues and what we always emphasize is that we have our priorities our priorities are those serious violent criminals that are out there because there are many bad guys and it's funny with the whole sanctuary city debate we almost caricature the conversation and liberal blue city mayors we're painted as we're inviting criminals into our community more so if you're a violent criminal and even more so if you're an undocumented come to our cities we want you here and it's such a silly frame to put around this the truth is that all of our priorities is making sure that we're focusing all of our attention on them and what's a great concern and is a major major change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration is that they've changed their priority enforcement program and under Obama their PEP listed the folks who are committing these serious crimes at the very top and those are the folks who are targeted but the Trump administration has done two things and they're both of concern first of all the folks who are listed as priority for enforcement has grown much larger and it goes way further down the scale so even if you've committed even a meaningless misdemeanor now you're subject to deportation sometimes maybe even overstaying your visa and the second which is really concerning and in my opinion frankly cold hearted is this idea that when you do go to enforce an immigration warrant or an immigration warrant you arrest not only the person who you're after but also anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time so we're deporting just honest folks going about their business and the reason why I think it's so wrong hearted and mean hearted is that now every single undocumented immigrant knows that they might be swept up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time they could be on their way to work they could be on their way to drop in their kids off at school they could be at the supermarket they literally can be anywhere and it's the sense of anxiety that creates in folks that I think is so shameful so you know that's what we believe the priority should be focus on those hearted criminals let's focus on public safety and if the federal government is indeed focusing on those folks who are those public safety risks then we are more than willing to work with them in fact we welcome you into our community but we will not be agents we will not be part of any process that targets folks outside of those enforcement priorities thank you Mr. Mayor Hi thank you I'm Lenny Benson I teach in New York and I run a big project for unaccompanied alien youth or immigrant minors and I just wanted to say I really have loved all your remarks today in June Mr. Sessions the Attorney General rolled out a program called Operation Matador lovely name to round up alleged gang members and I just wanted to follow up on Peter's comment the committee will be prepared in your social workers, your schools your principals, your juvenile justice system because we've had our project represents over 700 youth and we're part of a network and every child that has been arrested that we know of there's allegations there's no factual basis and unlike yourself some elected officials in Long Island are saying things like well we know we can't use criminal law it's too complicated we sometimes can't prove the case we're so lucky to have immigration enforcement so I guess I was commenting more than asking you a question but I was hoping that if you haven't already become vigilant on this issue that you and your administration will look to protect the youth of your city well first of all thank you for your work thank you for the very important work that you're doing let's remember here and just want to refer to my notes to make sure I have this completely right but the truth is that cities with highest levels of immigration actually safe for cities they're safe for cities so crime rate is lower unemployment is lower even poverty rates are lower in cities that have high levels of immigrants in fact even median household income on average in cities that are so-called sanctuary cities or sanctuary counties and so this notion that immigrants are criminals immigrants are bringing down our way of life and our quality of life that is just objectively false that is just not true so let's remember that and then in Providence we are seeing a great number of unaccompanied foreigners coming to our city and what we realized in this immigration debate is that teachers and educators have a huge voice and role to play in this so we've attempted and I think successfully so but still just scratching the surface we've attempted to amplify the voice of these educators folks that work directly with children we've done a couple of things in Providence the first thing that we've done is we've let it be known to messages home to parents and spoken directly to students that they are safe inside of our schools so to the extent that all of that anxiety and fear exists outside you need not worry about it inside of our schools the second thing that we've done is in an effort even more proactively to help the newcomers immigrants and refugees we've created a welcoming center in fact a welcoming school within our school department it turns out that for years when we received new students we would pluck them into a traditional classroom right away and I visited some of these classrooms and it's a total shame you have a child maybe 10, 12 years old doesn't speak a lick of English in a classroom with a teacher who doesn't speak a lick of their language it's a complete waste of time for the child and you can imagine how very early on they get turned off to school so we've created this welcoming center basically it's this onboarding it's a school that helps onboard recent arrivals until they're ready to transition into a traditional classroom if the child is close to being prepared for a traditional classroom and it only takes them two weeks then after two weeks they transfer if they're far behind and it takes them months well then they can spend those couple of months or few months in this welcoming school when they're ready to transition and this school is in partnership with a number of social service providers for the refugee and immigrant community and so we've braided these services as best as possible to make sure that our recent arrivals are connected to the resources available to them yeah good morning mayor, thank you so much for being here today I thought your comments were fabulous so thanks but my question goes off of Peter's question and we all know that MS-13 or for those of us who've read about this MS-13 generally tends to target younger kids on the premise that if they get arrested you know the prosecution isn't going to be as harsh because they're minors in many instances this targeting is happening in schools and so kids are being identified as gang members usually based on hearsay from other children who may be going to a resource officer and saying hey you know what Johnny is an MS-13 member because I heard it from Manuel who told Jose who told me so I was wondering if you could comment on what's the city's policy, what's the Providence police's policy for actually putting a minor who's been identified as a gang member on that gang list yeah that's a great question so we actually just changed our policy on this so the city maintains a gang database and the gang database has been extremely helpful to our police department but through an effort that's been very much community-led we've been engaged in a conversation of how valuable is this list how is it being used and how can we ensure transparency so that it's not being abused and there are two specific things that we changed very importantly well it turns out even broader beyond simply immigration issues but in the gang database it turns out that the gang database wasn't being scrubbed periodically meaning that names were added and added and added to it to the point that and never deleted sometimes the former gang members they were grown they weren't in the game anymore and had no business being on the list and so the less accurate that this list is the less valuable and useful it is to law enforcement and so what we've agreed to do as a matter of policy is that now every two years we're going to make sure that the list is scrubbed to if not ensure at least at least allow for a greater probability that folks who are on the list are actually active gang members so that's one thing and I think that that's a vast improvement the second thing is we were also concerned about minors on the list so we did a thorough search and it turns out that only about three to five percent of people on the list were minors so it's a very very small percentage so that that leaves some of the concerns that we had but still three percent are minors and so we have to we have to come up with a sensible plan and so we have a new plan that if a minor is identified as a gang member before they go on the list the police department is going to notify their parents and this is the best practice that we took I believe the entire state of California does this so California notifies the parents of minors and you know you have to think that you know sometimes many kids are involved in a gang but not fully in a gang and the sooner you can reach them the more likely you are to keep them before they really jump in and so I think that through this policy these policy changes not only do we have a more accurate and valuable effective list but we're also being more proactive about reaching kids before they go too far and the last thing that I mentioned in this and this is a broader effort that we have in our school department is we've transitioned from punitive measures to restorative justice measures now our suspensions have declined dramatically over the past couple of years we basically told our teachers and schools you will suspend fewer kids because a lot of school suspensions truly make no sense if kids are acting up they spend a week or two out they're further behind they're more likely to act up when they come back and so now we're focused on restorative justice making a student making a child take responsibility for what they've done and force them to take steps to restore the community to where it was before they did what they did and we're finding that this is so much more effective it's so much more engaging because kids academically don't fall behind because they're not in school and we're also finding that you've got to reach kids younger and younger and so we're rolling out this creative partnership with the institute for the study and practice of non-violence and provenance where we're teaching these restorative justice and non-violence principles even in our middle schools thank you mayor sorry I'm just taking this out of here for those who don't know me in China I used to be a student here at Roger Williams Law and now I work at the Bronx Defenders a public defender's office in New York City I'm sure the one of the things that you get all the time is the fact that because you're a mayor of a blue city and because you're trying to put forward all of this very positive I believe initiatives to protect the immigrant community and provenance you're not getting people always happy with you, right? On one side or the other people are going to be unhappy and I'm here today really to push you a little more to do a little bit more for the people of Providence and for the people of Rhode Island in general and I think one of the things that it always has stricken me in this whole debate about immigrants committing crimes and this whole idea of the criminalization of immigrants is the fact that somehow our politicians and our communities have come to believe that our immigration system should be dealing and should be taking care of our in general people who are committing crimes and the thing is that our police officers is our judges and our criminal courts who should be dealing with people who have potentially committed crimes, right? So there's this idea that because a city is not cooperating with a federal government on passing information or unlawfully detaining somebody who could be potentially deportable from the US automatically we have people who have committed criminal convictions just running around freeing our cities, right? But the truth is that if a person has committed a crime and has been convicted of a crime somebody has already dealt with that the person has already been through the criminal justice system, right? Somebody has arrested the person somebody has prosecuted the person and somebody, a magistrate or a judge has already convicted that person and put forward a sentence that our criminal justice system believed was enough for the type of crime that the person committed So the question is why should our immigration system that was never and has been again and again established to not be a punitive system be dealing with people who have criminal convictions and why federal immigration officers or why cities should actually cooperate with the federal government in order to control a problem that actually seems to be lying on our criminal justice system and not on our immigration system and the second thing that I wanted to say and this is partly a question is there's also this idea that once a person commits a crime the person is forever marked with this label of criminal or felon and how long does it take for a person to actually have been convicted of a crime pay their debt to society serve their sentences reintegrate into the community and will the person ever be able to actually completely reintegrate into our community which is actually what we want through our criminal justice system So the question that I have on this is I don't know exactly what the policies of the city of Providence are honoring detainers but if there is a policy honoring certain detainers and not honoring other detainers what are the what were the thoughts behind putting together those policies and what are those marks on when the city of Providence honors those detainers? Thank you Luis So on this issue you began on this question of mayors and cities doing more on this issue one of the neat things about being mayor is that you get criticized for everything every decision you make there is someone you are going to make unhappy but really there is actually something liberating about that really counterintuitively as mayor and as an executive you are making decisions very consequential decisions every single week and I may make a decision one week that has someone really upset at me but you know what, next week or the following week I am going to make two or three other decisions that people will be very happy with and so there is something liberating about that in that I can't make decisions based on public perception of upsetting a certain group I can follow my conscience on that and that's very very different I think institutionally that's a very different position to be in than say legislators truth is that legislators at the local or at the national level they may be one or two consequential decisions a term like really important heart wrenching decisions and they are going to be held accountable on those decisions but as mayors it's different as mayors you are making so many different decisions you have a much much larger record of decision making that people will hold you to and so that's why throughout the country you've seen mayors more than anyone else leaning into this issue more than representatives and legislators at the local level so you know armed with that I guess you might say kind of cover or armed with that ability or ability to get into the issue mayors have really stepped in you mentioned this issue of why are we placing the burden of criminal enforcement of our criminal laws on an immigration system they are two entirely separate systems and I agree entirely when we say that as local law enforcement officers we are willing and actually invite the federal government to come and help us focus on serious you know we mean we work very closely with DEA we work very closely with the FBI we work very closely with the Department of Justice so I agree with you entirely we treat this as this is criminal law enforcement matters and we treat it as such when it comes to purely immigration issues that's something that we're just not going to comply with we've told the federal government that they say they don't do sweeps but it's hard keeping them taken them at their word but we've told them if you do sweeps you can expect no cooperation at the local level if you're coming to enforce simply an immigration detainer you can expect no cooperation beyond what's constitutionally required at the local level then you ask a question of what exactly our detainer policy is so we don't honor a detainer unless it's judicially signed and I'm assuming that it's judicially signed it complies with 14th Amendment probable cause requirements but anything short of that just isn't sufficient look if someone is a big enough priority to you that you want to take them from our hands just go before a judge now show that there's probable cause get it signed and we'll hand them over to you but unless you go before a judge there's no constitutional protection that we're that we're comfortable with that won't expose us to liability and won't deny a human being of their rights thank you I have a question about about a week and a half ago the operation safe city nationally about 500 immigrants were targeted and arrested and detained and the federal government said they actually focused on both sanctuary cities specifically a couple of the cities that had filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the possibility of withholding federal dollars to local law enforcement and also there were some in Massachusetts where there's been a Supreme Court decision finding that they don't think it's lawful under Massachusetts law to honor detainers but I wondered if the mayor's association talked or met since that happened about the concern or notion that immigrants in quote-unquote sanctuary cities might actually be more targeted now and that the federal government may be using their limited resource at least at the moment to rain down on those cities thank you Cecily the federal government they're not even pretending anymore they're specifically going after cities that have spoken out against their policies which is just a total shame you know I made the comment earlier that I think there are three political parties in the country Republicans Democrats and mayors as mayors we're just focused on results we're practical about what we do at the federal level it's something else there really is this you know circus and show aspect to it all it it truly is driven by ideology connecting with people at a visceral level even if it's striking up anger and divisiveness and I saw that as a cheap political ploy to push back on cities that have successfully filed lawsuits that have successfully voiced their opposition and that are resisting this administration with respect to immigration law I saw it as a blatant and naked attempt to stick it in our eye and remind us that they still have significant power over these issues and there's little that we can do to stop them so I mean I think that's just unfortunate I can tell you that I've spoken with my colleagues throughout the country and they're not a single person not a single mayor not a single city is changing any of its policies as a result of this federal action you know the last thing that I'll mention too is when we met with Secretary Kelly but even more so when we met with Secretary with Attorney General Sessions I have to tell you that I was he understood the details of the issue they're at 30,000 feet and the truth is that they have so many other things that are occupying their mind but we try to engage in a conversation about the details about the consequences at the local level, at the police officer level, at the person level this was beyond their capacity to grasp at that moment and I walked away feeling somewhat optimistic thinking all right maybe these folks just have no idea but once they get educated they come up to speed on the issue it'll be a different story within a matter of days I was disabused of that often my personal assessment is that these folks are not fully concerned about the actual impact of their policies if their goal is truly public safety there are steps that we could help them as boots on the ground to get to that point but they're not concerned they're not truly concerned about effective measures part of this whole bit is the show aspect speaking to a base for political support and approaching it with that end in mind it's just unfortunate I think this is just a bare classic good example of them doing exactly that Good morning my name is Danlet Mr. Mayor thank you so much I heard you talking about your municipal card for banking and of course I think you've been very proactive on safety but my question is here as you know with all of the policies going on around safety my question is with the travel license as you know now at the DMV if you have a work permit for 30 days it's when that's how your travel license is issued what have you done or what are you planning to do about this because this is also a safety issue a mother taking a child to the day care and don't have a travel license it creates another safety issue someone trying to get to work that's another safety issue have you all thought of something that will provide a safety net for those who are undocumented and don't have the proper document to get travel licenses beyond that time Yes and let me just make sure I understand your question you ask what we're doing about driver's licenses thank you for the question ma'am so driver's license is a tough issue for us at the city level because those are controlled by the state the issues driver's license is now you know I've been very vocal and I've been very clear on what my position is I think that undocumented immigrants should have access to a driver's license I think that all they're looking to do they're looking to get to work they want to get their kids to school and you know live their lives just as anybody else and it's not just that but it's also a safety issue it's an insurance issue if any of us are ever a bit were rear-ended by a car we hope that that person behind us has a license and has insurance it makes us all safer and then you know the last piece behind this too is that if you talk to police departments city police and state police they all support driver's licenses they see it as a security issue themselves they want every person throughout the state if they ever come in contact with someone they want to make sure that that person has an ID so they can identify them it makes the whole process so much easier and I think this is another issue where everyone agrees if it's a matter of evidence if it's a matter of policy it just makes sense but the stumbling block is politics you know politics immigration truly is one of the most divisive issues in our country right now it's been very successfully actively used by the current administration to drive a wedge between communities and I think that it was one of the main drivers behind candidate Trump's success in the mid-western states so it's good politics to divide people on this basis but if we're talking just about policy we're designing a society based on evidence and common sense I think all of us would want to make sure that everyone has an ID and has the ability to drive so that they have insurance and they make us all safer is there anything being done to work around it? done to work around it again it's tough for us to we can't give drivers licenses but what we have learned is that immigrants not only have a different undocumented immigrants have a difficult time opening bank accounts also when you move into a new apartment it's difficult to turn on the utilities if you don't have that ID and so many day-to-day transactions are made very difficult if you don't have this ID card a driver's license well that's where at the city level we can provide this municipal ID as far as driver's license I mean we'll keep pushing and advocating at the state house I hope you'll join us but that really is a decision that needs to be made either by the general assembly or by the executive order by the governor thank you okay okay I think we're out of time thank you very much everyone