Roundtable: Reassembling Fractured Immigrant Families

MS: The clock is ticking for the government to reunite immigrant families separated at the border. Confusion still reigns on how that will be accomplished. Democrats are disappointed by three big supreme decisions -- Supreme Court decision this week. Plans are made and signatures are collected but what about developing the new stadium site are they legal? I might sour the KPBS Roundtable starts now. -- I am Mike Sauer. MS: Welcome to our discussion of the week's top stories. I am Mike Sauer. Joining me are John, severed the scope morning host of the morning report. And environment reporter Eric Anderson. And editor and publisher of the Times of San Diego. The chaos and outrage prompted by Donald Trump zero tolerance policy at the border continues. This despite Trump having back down last week with an executive order that reportedly Eddins the practice of separating children from parents. In a federal judge in San Diego this week stepped in. John, I'll start there what did the U.S. district -- judge ruled this week. JS: Basically, young kids need to be related with her parents 14 days, older kids 30 days. First I was told by several sources, that the judge actually wrote this decision, the elves and it's really key because often these judges have the clerks write it. He wanted to withhold later scrutiny later review. The second thing is I spoke to other lawyers who are outside of this court ruling. It also who represent kids all across the country right now from New York, and Houston. Into alcohol. There are kids there. They cannot find their clients. So there's a legitimate question, if these attorneys were contracted by the office of refugee resettlement, which is holding these kids cannot find their clients, how can the government? MS: Strongly worded ruling. What did the they say about the trumpet ministrations actions. JS: He was not a fan of the trumpet ministrations actions but was actually interesting again, going back is a restraint you showed. Because keep in mind there is expected to be various reviews, and appeals of this decision in various ways. Also, the setting for this an idea parents are being torn from children is a very emotional issue. So while there was some very stern words against the Trump administration, it really seemed to focus a lot on the actual legal basis for why they ruled that way. MS: You said something about the facts pretraining reacting governance and so forth. JS: I'm glad you brought that up. I'm sorry I missed the point they were trying to tell me earlier. The ACLU there is a theory about the suit that essentially zero tolerance. If you look at the timeline of it. The suit that the ACLU rots. Is a class action status because our people involved separated. After that it looked very bad in the arguments the Department of Justice announced zero tolerance ruling as a way to give cover to a practice they were already doing. MS: Eric? EA: Where are we now at the actual people who are still crossing the border today? what's happening with them? JS: That's a great question. I wish I could answer it. Part of the reason why cannot is because border patrol give mixed messages. We know for example in Houston, the head of border patrol that sector so they will no longer refer prosecutions. But when I was speaking for these people crossing if they're not referring to prosecution there's no reason to separate the families. I got stop by border patrol yesterday when I was in the Yuma sector, talk to someone at border control and they said we are very much setting them to prosecution. If the families are not separated, and I'd like to say that for example, the foster care facility in lemon Grove, had 2 workers tell me they are still receiving separated children when we have beds empty, but the separation has indeed stopped, then we are looking if indeed there's prosecution are looking at families being housed together and is a whole other set of problems. Long answer but the bottom line is it's complicated. CJ: Is there any indication that there some catch and release going on again under the circumstances? JS: I'm hesitant to use the term catch and release. Because it is what we do with animals and humans are not animals. But there is indication in Brownsville for example, that they are being detained if you will, and then being let go with different types of bail requirements when they are in a family situation. But if you go to El Centro, there's some indication it's not happening. We are not getting a lot of answers. Lasting I will say about this, as it's been really hard because they're not giving us a lot of information. Journalists are doing very strange things. Unethical things in Yuma we saw 3 network reporters pose as translators and essentially try to sneak in. One was able to get through overheard protected privileged conversation between an attorney and the client, and that is not ethical it's not appropriate and is not acceptable. At the same time, it's not an excuse but at the same time are getting no information from federal government and we do it conflicts. MS: Really frustrated -- frustrated with the lack of transparency. Speaking of legal actions, and other class actions it felt just today. And connected with a another issue.:Its way into the weeds. Tells which can. JS: Very briefly, this class action is looking to protect the children who either are in current attention or who are put in detention as a result of zero-tolerance policy. Florez, for the viewers and listeners who don't know, it is the court agreement that kind of guides the child welfare and in most cases prohibits to keep a child for more than 20 days. The government would like to change that. Advocates would not. Is nothing new in the suit that caught my eye. And if you got a chance to read it. There was any any -- any bombshells that I saw. MS: There was a report this week, to reveal the journalism center about the Texas detention center and kids forcibly being given psychotropic drugs. JS: I contributed to that report. Basically it is what it sounds. They were using, there were some foster care facilities, in Texas, and other places that were essentially, giving kids - If you've ever been on a long car ride with the child in need of some crying, every parent has thought maybe you should give them some Benadryl? they were giving this in permanent capacity. Essentially chemical restraints. They do not label it as such or say as such. But what has happened is not only are those kids unable to help themselves with their own placement, there are rules governing any type of restraint including chemical restraint. Moreover, these children did not display according to reporting, did not display any issues, that should of got warranted psychotropic drugs. MS: This could be another story that construction international press? JS: Absolutely but I want to make something very clear to the folks who were wondering about the shelters here in El Cajon and a -- lemon Grove. Our partners went and visited them after and when things kind of died down as far as the media. There's a great report done at the El Cajon facility. We have found no indication that any of those types of abuses were seen in San Diego County. MS: Another story you did this week, about the immigration policies putting a dent in California's agricultural world. JS: Yes, that's a huge one. Right now, we are seeing in northern County San Diego where the flowers are grown for example. We are seeing in Watsonville and sent -- and Santa Cruz were strawberries are picked up to Napa vineyards. We are seeing a lack of migrant labor. That's because normally, the migrants would often come through Yuma and cross income on a visa or they would overstay their visa, or whatever but they're not crossing anymore. There's a couple different reasons. For small California's really expensive and a lot of them cannot afford it on a migrant salary. More to the point, there's a legitimate fear, and a lot of confusion about the Trump administration's policies. When I talk to people who are monitoring farmworkers housing or her on the ground running these companies, they say this fear is keeping them from coming here. EA: One more quick issue, politically, this issue really took off a couple of weeks ago. It burned very brightly. It seems to have subsided a little bit now. Did to get more complicated to energize viewers and listeners when you start to talk about court rulings or specific cases? JS: Yes and I'm saying this is someone who loves and grew up listening to KPBS. When people talk about court rulings I fall asleep at the time. That is part of it. We can understand at a base level the horror and the fear to be child or parent and have a separation. We start talking about court cases and getting in a detention. I think that is been one of the incredible challenges on this. I'm hearing from a lot of folks who said this has been happening in various forms for years. And anyone care then? I really think the visual images of the story and hearing the audio I think really cause a lot of people to take notice. MS: One must question. We talked about due process. The president said due process is getting in the way. Is get rid of the asylum law. Might that spark some national debate? JS: Yes. Is there anything the president says that does not spark debate? I think that we signed a treaty because we were committed, and I want to remind you that this was a treaty negotiated at a time when American values were very much at the forefront of trying to put them in the world stage. The short answer is if we pull out of this treaty ports allowed to happen or we don't uphold to it, it's going to create and label us as a country just let me say it will be very damaging. The other thing is, the fact of the matter is, we are not giving people the process. I was at the port of entry and send to Sedro at the chaparral site I thought the teen mothers present themselves -- 13 mothers. They did the equivalent of when your little kid and you say all I can hear you you know they mean literally saw them and then pretend like you can see them -- hear them. When a person that is seeking asylum, border control is supposed to conform -- inform them how to proceed with asylum and do so with in a manner that is within the bounds and law. EA: It is not an illegal act. MS: Plenty to talk about here in the weeks ahead. Thank you for coming down and joining us today. Rumors have been opening in the Supreme Court opened when justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. A swing vote he leaves an opportunity for Donald Trump to firm up the 5-for conservative majority. Chris, are the Democrats as powerless as they appear? CJ: It really will be tough for the Democrats thanks to the nuclear option which allows judicial confirmations to be done with only 51 votes. MS: Otherwise they need 60. CJ: That was what used to be done, and that is the way the previous supreme court justice did that before the latest were confirmed 51 is exactly the one Republican senators of course. There are three Mac independently monitored Republicans that might vote against a right-wing nominee. John McCain, but he's battling cancer. Susan Collins of Maine. On the other hand, there are three Mac senators who are Democrats who face reelection in Trump voting states. West Virginia, Heidi. So, it will be a battle. I think the Republicans also know, Trump certainly knows this. Majority of Americans, do not want the most right wing candidates for Supreme Court. So think there's a likelihood it will be some kind of slightly to the right but Center judge who is nominated for this. MS: Maybe Merrick Garland? CJ: Throughout 2017 the Democrats tried to secure his position. Mitch McConnell said no. Will wait for the election. MS: Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and others. McConnell -- Democrats eight McConnell needs to adhere to his own rules. We have a sound bite from Chuck Schumer. [Clip] Millions of people are months away from determining the senators who should vote to confirm or reject the president's nominee. Their voices, deserve to be heard now, as leader McConnell thought they should be heard then. Anything, but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy. MS: Mitch McConnell said this is different. Here's one of his tweets from 2016. The next justice could dramatically change. The American people deserve a voice in this conversation. A bit of a hypocrisy here. CJ: The fact of the matter is there's president for nominating and conferring a Supreme Court justice in the midterm year. President Obama did it back in 2010. It is a difficult argument to make. Now, there has been some discussion of fighting this in some other way maybe Democrats like Harris could boycott the hearings, but it does not seem like the Democrats can do much more than try to lobby Susan Collins and Lisa Markowski. MS: The court of public opinion, we saw it come up with the ball -- Obama care debate last year. A lot of people said it could have an impact. CJ: It will be difficult let's take a right wing candidates who may be says publicly he's against Roe versus Wade but that will way on the two female senators. Who have reasons beyond just party politics. They are women. They care about reproductive rights. Reasonably perhaps more so than the male members. EA: Talking about the Republican senators right? CJ: Yes. EA: Charity said today, if Roe versus Wade is an issue, but they do or die issue. I thought it was interesting that some people were putting the Republican women in the Senate is kind of balancing out that fulcrum. They have the potential to make a decision on this nominee, or have influence they might not otherwise have. CJ: Had some impact on Obama care as well. Having a significant. They are going to get and face a lot of lobbying from the Democrats. Likewise those three Mac -- three -- 3 Democrats well. MS: Kennedy has been in had a independent mind for same-sex marriage and abortion rights. He certainly showed his conservative covered -- colors in recent decisions. CJ: Just this week, if you look at his record you can -- he was the swing vote in social and cultural issues. Gay rights, racial discrimination. Certainly upholding Roe versus Wade. And will -- in most other examples he was a conservative. He voted against Obama care. On the key Obama care vote it was Chief Justice John Roberts who was the swing vote. There is a lot of and some speculation out there that Roberts who is a moderate comes off as a swing voter. The most recent example of where Kennedy voted is a union fees for political employee unions. And trumps third travel band. He voted with the Republicans. The conservative majority. JS: I'm just wondering based on your experience, it seems that we are in a much more nakedly political time. I can remember a time when, we wouldn't necessarily ask directly how a judge wouldn't rule or would or would not rule on an issue. Now, it's very clear that with the election and also with the president Trump they will support a nomination for the judiciary where ideology local liens really matter. CJ: We live in a much more divisive time -- divisive time. You for example another judge who could certainly retire very soon. So I think there is a real concern that every voice in the Supreme Court, counts. Certainly, among trumps Republican base. They were looking for when Trump said early on, I want to appoint conservative justices, that was someone that drew out the base and I think that something that he's hoping for. JS: Any possibility that Democrats are more motivated for the midterms. We've seen the polling that says Republicans have been getting ground maybe because Democratic enthusiasm is dropped? CJ: I think that is a great question. Is interesting that Mitch McConnell said that he would consider the confirmation in the fall. Very vague answer. He did mean after the election he meant making it as late as possible to energize the Republican base. A right-wing one Wade energize the Democrats and -- as well as independence. Independence and Democrats are twice as many as Republicans. That would produce the blue wave. MS: We are out of time on the segment. It will be interesting. San Diego voters will have a interesting issue to vote for via ballot box. Were talking about the big stadium site. Specifically 2 competing proposals. Now comes the city attorney tossing a big fat wrench into the works. A little fun male tell us the two puzzles briefly and what the city is proposing. EA: Think in a circuit keeping it interesting. You have two development groups. A year and half ago at as investors decided they wanted to redevelop a stadium site. Became public with a proposal. Shortly after that happened the Chargers said they were going to leave town. They said we want to build housing and put commercial space in. Will build you a River Park, sports stadium, and eight major league soccer team. They were within talks of San Diego State University at the time. Those talks broke off. That was during the course of the year. Another, effort emerged. That was friends of SDSU said we like to see this land sold to San Diego State University. We want to buy 130 acres of that and turn it into an auxiliary campus and that has many of the same things that sucker city has. If the housing, commercial space, the sports stadium and the Riverpark. These 2 ideas coalesced around ballot measures. Petition signatures were assigned, and brought before the city Council. The city Council, did what they could do in the trace really. They could approve it or put it on the ballot. Both issues on the ballot in November. So, and of story to November right? except the city attorney says, wait a minute. I have serious concerns. After the sucker city proposal came out she issued a public document that said, these are the concerns I have, I think it violates the city's ability to manage the property and it violates state law. Is too specific in these points. She issued a similar opinion about the SDSU West proposal and felt bad it had some of the same concerns there. But thought that the proposal was too vague. What she decided to do this summer, is go to the city Council, get their blessing, they voted 6-3 and a closed session back in April to go ahead and ask a judge to remove both of these measures from the ballot. These are voter approved measures, more than 100,000 voters approved them. To put them on the ballot. She says no, she want the judge to take measures off the ballot, and review whether or not they are legal. That is where we are now. MS: What is the timetable? EA: We will find out actually relatively soon. Early in July the first of the two measures. Different judges and different courtrooms. I believe a couple of weeks later the second measure we will get a hearing. We will nobody and of July. MS: This is pretty unusual correct? EA: It is. It is not something that happens very often. I think that the city officials are not of the mind to deny the will of the voters. Which it seems you. We did talk to the former city attorney Jerry Goldsmith about this and this is what he had to say. [Clip] Data think carefully about doing that. If you do it, what about the rights? while the one that turn off the ballot appeals, what happens to the other one? because, then that would get challenged if it passes. On the basis of that while we had 1 and it was illegally thrown off the ballot. It has the potential of being a can of worms. EA: A can of worms a scenario he's talking about is if one gets torn off and the other remains on. Then it creates all kinds of legal tension. Also expressed concern about who's paying for this. The city hired outside counsel, they brought in an outside legal firm to help adjudicate this. So they will pay those attorneys fees they will pay their own attorney fees. CJ: I think you reported it was $100,000 or something? EA: It could be bigger because if there are challenges later. The city could be on the hook for those challenges. MS: Is a judge likely to kick these things off the ballot with all the signatures? EA: Nobody really knows what a specific judge will do on a specific case. I think a lot depends on arguments that are presented. But we do know, just from past ballot measures that have been challenged before and it has to be a pretty high bar. It has to be pretty obviously wrong or illegal for a judge to say look, this will not past pass. -- Pass. I think the bar is high for her to make that case. MA: So there is a chance that both measures could be on the ballot? CJ: Is her high-level motivation here? JS: Political motivation? EA: Well, it's a very good question. And, we will leave it there. One thing we do know, is we didn't get a chance to sit down with Mara to talk to her about those issues. MS: Why would she answer questions? EA: It was a long with the actual legal action and I thought the way that was presented was unusual. She released the information on our website. Couched the action as a legal review think she wanted to protect the voters here is why. And she wanted the judge to look it over. When you sit down and look at it. It's very clearly it says what I want you to do is take this off of hold. MS: Okay were out of time. We will see how this plays out. That does wrap up another week of stories at the KPBS roundtable. I would like to think my guests. Thank you for being here. A reminder all the stories we discussed today are available on the website KPBS.org. I am Mike Sauer. Thank you for joining us today on the roundtable.