S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Today's conversation is about free speech and immigrant rights as the Trump administration threatens both with recent actions. I'm Jade Hindman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and engaged. First amendment scholars are sounding the alarm.
S2: This is a fundamental violation not just of these individuals rights , but a violation of the very fabric of what it is to be an American.
S1: More than 60 universities are under federal investigation after protest as several students have been arrested by Ice. Hear how local legal scholars are responding. That's ahead on midday edition.
S3: Hey , it's Andrew Bracken here. Before we get started with today's show , we just wanted to start with a quick update. In the following conversation , Midday Edition host Jade Hyneman speaks with San Diego experts about the arrest of Mahmud Khalil in New York. He's a legal US resident and Columbia University graduate. The Trump administration argued that Carlyle's major role in pro-Palestinian and antiwar protests at Columbia last spring amounted to antisemitism and support of a terrorist group. We tape the following conversation on Friday , March 21st. Since then , the Trump administration has filed new papers accusing Carlyle of providing inaccurate information on his green card application that includes involvement in the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees , the British Embassy for Syria and Columbia University. Apartheid divest a lawyer for Khalil called the allegations , quote , plainly thin. Meanwhile , the Trump administration has said it's investigating 60 universities for allegedly failing to combat anti-Semitism connected to protests. UC San Diego is among them. All right , I'll let Jade Heineman take it from here. Here's today's show.
S1: Joining me now is David Lloyd. He's legal director with the First Amendment Coalition in San Diego. David , welcome to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you. Great to be here.
S1: Great to have you. Also , Annie Rios is an attorney coordinating the defense for student protesters at UC San Diego. And welcome to you. Hi.
S4: Hi. Thank you. Good afternoon.
S1: Well , David , I'm going to start with you. So Cal's case is significant because he was not charged with any crimes when he was arrested.
S2: It is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment. And unless there is something that the administration has not told us , Mr. Carlyle should be immediately released from custody and there should be no legal grounds to detain him or remove him from the United States. The Supreme Court has been clear for 80 years or more that the First Amendment applies to everyone in the country , not just US citizens. And the government may not lock you up and throw you in a cage simply because it does not like what you have to say.
S1:
S2: This is unfortunately not new. This administration is showing a flagrant disregard for fundamental principles , foundational principles of First Amendment law.
S1: Annie , I want to bring you into this , too. I want to get your reaction. What does it mean for the US judicial system and campus free speech.
S4: What it means for the US judicial system , as David just mentioned , is that it's being completely disregarded. We have established case law that protects our First Amendment rights regardless of you are a citizen or not. We also have established due process where folks would need to go through a trial or some sort of criminal process so that they could be decided as to whether or not they are a criminal , not just alleged to be one , and then placed in deportation proceedings. What this means for students , and what this means for UCSD students in particular , is that it's quite a frightening moment for everybody in history. I have students that are worried about their safety , their family safety and their future at UCSD.
S1:
S2: It guarantees the right to protest , organize dissent , and criticize the government. It guarantees the right to express a point of view , no matter how offensive that point of view may be to some or many people , no matter how much the president or anyone object to that point of view. The First Amendment does not protect the right to commit an actual crime , such as an assault , battery , robbery , and so on. It does not protect , for example , true threats to cause actual harm to a specific individual. Um , it does protect rhetorical hyperbole. Uh , what ? The line there is , is obviously going to depend on the facts and circumstances. Um , you know , it's not unlimited , right ? To protest anywhere , at any time , in any way you see fit. There's no First Amendment right to , you know , take over City Hall during a city council meeting , for example. There is a first minute right to give public comment within the limits of , say , the Brown Act within your time frame as a as a member of the public. Um , there's a much stronger. Right , of course , to protest outside City Hall on the sidewalk.
S1: So to clarify , merely criticizing a country , whether it's the U.S. or Israel is not illegal. So then what is illegal ? Obviously , you know , there's some rules around that in terms of protesting at a city council meeting , as you just mentioned.
S2: But I want to be clear. The First Amendment protects the right to be outrageous , to say even outrageous or incredibly offensive things. The First Amendment protects the right , you know , whether I agree with it or not. However repugnant I find it might be. You know , the First Amendment protects the right , for example , of the Ku Klux Klan , to advocate white supremacy. I disagree with that vehemently , as a as an individual , but as a as a First Amendment lawyer , I would defend their right to advocate that point of view. It would not guarantee their right to commit a hate crime in which they actually , you know , hurt somebody because of their because of their race , but it guarantees their right to advocate their point of view , however repugnant I might find it to be.
S1: Annie , you've been representing UC San Diego student protesters who were arrested last spring for their part in the Gaza Solidarity encampment. In October , the San Diego City Attorney's Office decided not to bring charges against the 60 plus students arrested , but they still face discipline at UCSD.
S4: There has been a very lengthy process for the students where they have advocated for their due process rights they have refused to accept accountability um , for the schools allegations against them , primarily because the school does not have sufficient evidence to find the burden of proof , which is a preponderance of the evidence against the students. And because they realize this , and they know that they have a right to not self incriminate themselves , they also know that they have the right to confront any witnesses that are going to be used against them. They've used that right. And it has taken a very , very long time. I would say that about from the 60 students , there are still 20 or so students that need to go through the hearing conduct process. And in addition , there are students that had their hearings and let's say , December , that have not been given their sanctions yet. So this entire process has really just stalled for the students. For those who have graduated , some of them have not received their transcripts or their diplomas. For some of the students , this means a lengthy probation where either they're on formal probation or they're on constructive probation because they don't want to get in trouble again , um , before their hearing has been determined. So it's just been a very lengthy process. That would be the word that I would use to describe the fact that we're still at this almost a year later.
S1:
S4:
S1: Well , in an emailed statement to KPBS , a UC San Diego spokesperson said it's committed to upholding free expression and that , quote , because of student privacy laws , the university cannot comment on disciplinary cases , end quote. So any help us understand who these student protesters are. It's it's quite a range of folks we're talking about here. So please explain.
S4: I'm so glad that you asked that question , I really am. It has been something that has brought so much honor to me and to to my career. It has really humbled me to be able to represent these students because they are just such phenomenal individuals. They are honors students. They are Jewish students. They're queer students. Some of them were minors when this occurred last year. Um , and they have such bravery , compassion and courage that I don't think people get a realistic depiction of who these folks are because of the way that our administration and media may be biased towards folks who who were part of or who supported Palestinian movements.
S1: David , in his first public statement since the arrest , a letter dictated over the phone from the Ice detention center in Louisiana.
S2: With rare exceptions , virtually every right in the Bill of rights applies to every person , not every citizen. So the right to freedom of speech , the right to due process , the right to freedom of religion. These rights apply to every single person , not just us citizens.
S1:
S4: That is what I do as an officer of the court. And to see this being dismantled is incredibly concerning and frightening. Um , yeah. So my my position would be that that everyone deserves rights and those rights should be as inclusive as we possibly can be. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. I want to be clear. We live in a nation of laws , not a nation of whims. And these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution , by the Bill of rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court for decades. And the fact that this administration may be violating those rights does not change the fact that those rights are written into the fabric of our country and the fabric of our law. And so I take issue with the premise of the question that these rights can change until or unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. It is the law of the land , and the fact that this administration is flagrantly disregarding the law does not mean it is not the law does not mean this administration should not be held accountable for breaking the law , in the same way that anyone who breaks the law is held accountable , whether in a civil lawsuit or a potentially criminal prosecution. If that is allowed , the law is the law and it must be followed for everyone.
S1: Coming up , the harm being caused to universities by threats to funding and the Trump administration demands.
S4: How are we going to promote higher education being places of free will and free thinking.
S1: Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. This hour we're talking about the arrest of a student protester by Ice agents in New York and the consequences for San Diego students and universities. I'm speaking with David Loy , legal director with the First Amendment Coalition in San Diego. Also Annie Rios , she is an attorney coordinating the defense for student protesters at UC San Diego. So Jewish organizations in San Diego have raised alarms about antisemitism on college campuses. The Trump administration says it is investigating colleges across the country for allegedly failing to combat anti-Semitism. And in a statement to KPBS , the University of California said it is , quote , unwavering in its commitment to combating anti-Semitism and protecting everyone's civil rights , end quote. More than 1300 Jewish faculty , staff and students across the country have signed a statement denouncing Carlisle's arrest and encouraging universities to protect free speech.
S4: And I think that those who are looking and hearing , and who are being able to see things without a skewed lens , are able to understand that this is an outrageous situation , that it is. It has gone in , surpassed anything within reason. And so I am not sure if we can classify anything that has happened , or at least what we know of what Mahmoud Khalil has been involved in as being anti-Semitic. And so I think that in that in that way it has banded together , people , Jewish or otherwise , the same way that during the encampments last year , there were numerous students participating throughout the country that were Jewish as well. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. You know , David , on Friday , Columbia University agreed to a list of demands by the Trump administration in order to get federal funding back.
S2: And let me explain what I mean by that. Federal civil rights law does attach certain conditions to the receipt of federal funding. One of those conditions is the obligation not to engage in or or turn a blind eye to discrimination or harassment based on race , religion , gender , and so on. If a university or other recipient of federal funding were alleged to have engaged in or turned a blind eye to unlawful discrimination or harassment , bona fide discrimination or harassment , there is a process to be followed. There's a notice of violation , there's an investigation. There are findings that have to be made , hearings that must be held , a process to be followed. And if at the end of the day , the agency or the court finds that the university did break the law , the remedy for that violation must be narrowly tailored to the program at issue where the violation occurred. So let's assume , for example , and I'm not going to agree. But let's assume that , for example , there were grounds to conduct such an investigation at Columbia. There's a process to be followed well established under federal law. What federal law does not authorize is shaking down Columbia University or any recipient of federal funding by arbitrarily , unilaterally withholding all federal funds from that institution , even as to programs and matters completely unrelated to any alleged violations , for example , scientific research , health care funding , breast cancer research , and so on certainly does not authorize the administration to have demand that a university silence an entire academic program , place an academic department into receivership , does not authorize the federal government to essentially hijack and micromanage a university's entire operations. So what this administration did to Columbia was outrageous. Now Columbia , for its own purposes , may have decided to negotiate rather than litigate. That's its prerogative. Personally , I don't think there's any form of negotiation with an autocrat that will ever satisfy the autocrat. And let's be clear , this president is behaving not like a president in a nation governed by law , but an autocrat in a nation governed by whims. That is what he is doing. That is not a political statement based on his party. That is a statement based on his actual behavior. Whatever he calls himself Democrat or Republican or anything else.
S1:
S2: I only can assess what this president has said. This president promised on the campaign trail to exact revenge and retribution on those that he perceives as critics and opponents , and that is exactly what he has done. He has kept his promise.
S1:
S4: And that that I think is are we in a nation that is free ? That's the question that I'm asking myself right now.
S2: Yeah , I want to amplify that. And I want to emphasize that autocracy depends on acquiescence. The first thing the autocrat does , or the aspiring autocrat does , is to attempt to bully and intimidate civil society and institutions within civil society , and those who bend the knee are forever compromised. I am not in charge of Columbia University. If I were , I would potentially have taken a different course. I would have potentially stood up for freedom of speech and academic freedom and due process of law. Now it takes extraordinary courage , extraordinary resilience , extraordinary persistence to resist an autocrat. It does not come without risk. It does not come without cost. And so I'm certainly not going to sit in personal judgment of anyone who makes a different decision. But I do believe at the end of the day , it is of overwhelming importance that civil society , institutions and individuals resist autocracy. This transcends partisan politics. This transcends left right divisions. Anyone who cares about rule of law should be standing up and resisting and fighting back.
S1: We hear this term autocrat.
S2: And that is exactly how this president is behaving. You know , we are not all the way at the end of the road , but this president has launched us at the beginning of a road toward autocracy. I think that's terrifying. And that's why I think it's incumbent upon anyone who cares about rule of law and fundamental rights to stand up and fight back.
S1: And when we're talking about these demands , I know some of the demands include doing away with certain academic programs.
S2: I believe it was a department of Middle Eastern , African and South Asian Studies or something to that effect. And that is a gross violation of the First Amendment , even if , and I will assume , for the sake of argument , that Columbia had violated title six of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and had failed to take proper steps to prevent genuine , actionable harassment of Jewish students. Let's assume that to be true. That would still not give the federal government the right to hijack an entire university and demand that it shutter an entire department or place it into receivership. The administration might have the right to require certain remedial measures to prevent actionable harassment. But , you know , this is way beyond anything that's allowed by the First Amendment or due process or the statutes , the applicable statutes and regulations.
S1:
S4: And when you juxtapose that to acquiesce , what does that mean ? Well , it means to hold your own against some of the allegations or some of the I don't even want to call it reprimands because it's more than that. David used the word extortion. Extortion that's happening against the the universities. Um , so I think that the question being , how can universities resist is by keeping their autonomy. And I don't know what that looks like in a situation when they're losing billions of dollars of funding. But I do think that they would need to insist on on keeping their autonomy and not falling in line with an administration that is demanding the end to due process and free thinking. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Well , let's explore the consequences of acquiescing. I mean , David , in general , college campuses are historically a place of social activism and debate.
S2: It's the oxygen of experimentation , of learning , of growth , of innovation , of research , of everything that has made this country the best of what it can be over time. And to stifle that is to kill what is best in this country. And so this is I am genuinely terrified for this country , for the future of this country. I don't think we're all the way at the end of the line , but we're going much farther down this road than I ever thought we would , and farther down this road than we ever should.
S4: And more quickly , I want to add more quickly. I think if we look at the amount of time that this has occurred , uh , it's it's been what how long has it been ? It feels like a lifetime , but it's only been a few months. Imagine the destruction that can happen in years when this has taken four months or three months or whatever it may be. And and so I would just say that not only do I echo David's concerns , But I would also like to highlight the quickness with which this has happened.
S2: I want to be clear , this is not the first administration to assault the First Amendment and other government. Other presidential administrations , um , Democratic and Republican , have done so. Um , but this is the first administration to do so with such relentless speed and such relentless fervor that I have seen in my lifetime that I'm aware of. You know , I have to go back to , you know , the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. I have to go back to the the Red scare of of 1919 , 1920 , the Palmer Raids. I have to , you know , I have to go back to the mass internment of Japanese Americans in World War two. Uh , this is we're at that scale of threat to our constitutional order. And I had hoped that we had looked back on those episodes with shame. I had hoped we look back on them as ignominious departures from the best of who we are. And I'm frightened that we are reverting and regressing.
S1: On a personal level.
S4: For the first time in my practice , which has been over 15 years , I'm actually afraid there are huge doxing measures that happen against anybody that has supported the students or people that have been engaged with them. And for the first time , I have wondered whether or not I'm I should continue to do this type of work , not whether or not it's what I want to be doing or what my heart calls for me to do. But instead it's me concerned for my safety , the well-being of myself , my family , my loved ones. Um , because of what's happening for the first time , I have wondered , what if I'm on a walk and somebody picks me up and that is never , I think , something that an attorney should be worried about. So this has been just a very unsettling time for me. Mhm.
S1: Mhm.
S2: Um , and I think Annie makes excellent points and we should all be frightened. At the end of the day , this is my life's work. It's what I've been doing. The better part of my legal career is standing up for free speech , uh , against all assaults from left , right and center. And I don't know what else to do with my life. And I could not look at myself in the mirror if I didn't stand up for my principles. There are many , many people who have come before me who have risked far more and suffered far more for their beliefs. And I feel the obligation to honor them and their sacrifice. I am inspired by their sacrifice , and I've suffered relatively little from myself. Personally , I'm very privileged , and I feel an obligation to use that privilege to the best of my ability to fight for what I think is right , and to honor those who came before me , who suffered far more and risked far more.
S1: I've been speaking with David Loy. He's a legal director with the First Amendment Coalition in San Diego. David. Thank you.
S2: Thank you for the time.
S1: Appreciate it. And also , Annie Rios , she's an attorney coordinating defense for student protesters at UC San Diego. Annie. Thank you.
S4: Thank you for having me.
S1: Still ahead.
S5: They may be targeting folks now that are students or that are green card holders , but they are also detaining U.S. citizens. And there is hardly any outrage of any sort about that.
S1: The horrifying reality of being detained by Ice without due process when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition , I'm Jade Hindman. On today's show , we're discussing the federal government's move moved to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his role in protest against the war in Gaza and the far reaching implications for students and universities everywhere , including San Diego. So what rights do non-U.S. citizens actually have when it comes to political activism ? We've got an immigration attorney here to help us make sense of it. Tammy Lin is a professor and supervising attorney for the University of San Diego School of Law immigration clinic. Tammy , welcome back to the show.
S5: Thanks for having me back.
S1: So glad to have you here.
S5: I find it very troubling , and especially for the fact that he's a lawful permanent resident. So for everyone else , that's equivalent of a green card. That's what everyone knows it by. That means that he has even additional rights that most , maybe student visas folks don't have. Um , and also just kind of the the constitutional rights that are afforded to everyone within the country. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.
S1: Everyone who lives in the US , you know , as you alluded to , has the right to free speech for non-U.S. citizens.
S5: Everyone knows that when you can't scream fire in a theater , you can't ask for any type of violence against anyone type type of thing. That might be something that might be , you know , that you could get in trouble for , depending on the , I guess , severity of what you've said. But generally even hate speech is protected speech.
S1: Right ? And what kind of situation could someone's green card be revoked.
S5: So there's there's something called inadmissibility such as a fancy way of saying disqualifies. So if you have any criminal convictions not arrest convictions , if you have any type of associations with terrorist groups. Yes , those types of situations , you could get it revoked , but it can't just be revoked because the Secretary of State says I'm revoking it. It technically isn't a visa anymore. They have that legal status until an immigration judge says you're in violation , we're going to take it away , and now we're going to send you out.
S1: And if you're associated with a terrorist organization , it can be revoked.
S5: There are designated terrorist groups that the United States government will have. There's tiers of them , um , you know , al-Shabab , ISIS , those are the ones that we really think about. Uh , secondarily , the definition could be a group of , again , I don't know the exact specific number , but let's just say a group of five people or more that are conspiring together to , you know , invoke a terrorist acts against the government or anything like that. So there are already laws in place and things in the statutes that say that if you want to overthrow the government , the U.S. government , if you're a spy for against the US government , these are all reasons why you could potentially get your status revoked if you're a green card holder. But those things have already been vetted when they applied for their green card. So , um , just protesting , uh , just having your free speech rights , uh , it was very troubling that he was taken away , and it seemed like maybe they weren't even going to let him potentially go before an immigration judge to plead his case , because to the best of my knowledge , there has been no actual criminal conviction that would put him in violation of anything as a green card holder.
S1:
S5: And , you know , with anyone on a temporary type visa at any point , it can be revoked. And when it is revoked , it's typically the school that does that. They have their own system that is tied in with Immigration Customs Enforcement. With Ice , it's called CVS. Um , if someone doesn't pay their tuition , if someone doesn't show up to classes and fails all their classes , if someone doesn't have the requisite number of credits that are necessary to maintain that student visa , they'll be terminated by the campus through the civil system , which then notifies Ice. Hmm.
S1: Hmm.
S5: You know it. It is a status. It's not a status. It's this weird limbo. But basically it defers action. It means that they still have all their constitutional rights , just like it's afforded to everyone , despite their status. But if they were to be put in removal proceedings in front of an immigration court judge , they're really not supposed to. And the only way that would happen would be if there was a criminal conviction. Again , arrests , charges. A lot of times people get arrested and they aren't charged. They get arrested , they get charged , but it gets dropped. It has to be an actual criminal conviction. And it's not all criminal conviction. It needs to rise to a very high level.
S1:
S5: Is that part of their rights or due process rights ? And if some Ice officer knocks on the door , says , open up it's ice , they can ask to see a warrant and maybe they won't feel comfortable about opening the door to ice , but they can have them slide it underneath the door dorsal and see is it an ice warrant or is it an actual warrant from a judge ? And if it's an Ice warrant , they can tell him you can come back with a judicial warrant. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Anything else.
S5: You know oftentimes I think what they do there's often scare tactics that are used um where they'll say well if you don't open the door right now we'll , we'll do this , we'll do that. Uh , and again , just be very firm or , you know , for most folks that are here right now , it's a very scary time. Get connected with a local nonprofit immigration nonprofit organization or local immigration attorney , and you can say , hey , you can contact this attorney at this organization or my immigration attorney if you want to do anything. But the reason why we talk about the judicial warrant is it's an extra eyes , extra level of scrutiny , because an Ice warrant is an Ice officer saying this person needs to be arrested because of an immigration violation. Um , but it doesn't really give much detail and it's just basically their own sworn statement. A judicial warrant means they have to go to a federal judge. They have to say , here's the violations , whatever it is that leads to this arrest , and it has additional scrutiny on there. And that's oftentimes why you maybe don't see as much judicial warrants , because they have to be able to prove why they're in that place , especially when it's private property to take someone away.
S1:
S5: And we're hearing stories of U.S. citizens that are detained. I think there was a situation of a naturalized U.S. citizen that had , at gunpoint , been told to get out of their car and kept saying , I'm a citizen , I'm a citizen and was detained. And for some folks that are citizens , they may say , well , what's the big deal ? You're a US citizen. They'll let you out. Well , you know , I think about my 82 year old father. He is a US citizen. He. His English is fine , but he's very , very intimidated when it comes to speaking English because of his thick accent. I can imagine that he gets falsely accused of being a non-citizen , or he doesn't have documentation on hand saying he's a U.S. citizen and then held. And when you're held , you don't know where where they are. They are often oftentimes don't get to call someone immediately. And so that fraught kind of feeling of searching for your loved one and then having to bring a document showing , hey , they are a U.S. citizen , you know , even just a few hours of having someone detained. That is not what we are in the United States when it comes to due process.
S1: Um , but that's the reality for so many people right now.
S5: If they're in a facility that is not an Ice recognized detention facility , they may not be on there. But typically you can type in their name , their birth date and see where they are. I would advise talking to a legal immigration organization or getting an immigration attorney that knows how the system works , to really deep dive and try to find where your loved one is. But it is a very scary time when you could be an hour , a few hours not knowing where they are. It's not unusual. From the stories I've been hearing , yeah.
S1: I mean , Tammy , in addition to being an immigration attorney , you're also a practicing professor at USD.
S5: I have international students from all over the world who are attorneys in their own countries , maybe getting a master's degree here and they are concerned about what they can and can't say , and they are concerned about even doing some of the work we do at the clinic , like going to a detention facility because they're they're worried that maybe they go in , they don't go out. Um , and so in the past few weeks , I've been trying to ease their concerns , but unfortunately , I've been having to also prep them on what to be prepared for and to have my business card on hand and to immediately contact me if anything happens. Um , what's very troubling to me is that in my career and with some of the students I have had , they come from areas where the regimes are doing things that we're seeing now or have done things that we're seeing now. They are silencing people. They are frightening them so that they won't feel that they have the right to free speech and to say what they feel. Um , and it's from the same playbook that I'm hearing in my career of authoritarian regimes. You silence the intellectuals , the professionals. You scare people into self-censorship. And , um , you know , it's happening even with nonprofits. It's happening with U.S. citizens and private firms. And it is very troubling in that regard.
S1:
S5: And and that is troubling. And I think that that it has its intended effect of maybe some attorneys pulling back on , on being more vocal against violations of , of judges orders or the rule of law. But it's a slippery slope and they may be targeting folks now that are students or that are green card holders , but they are also detaining US citizens and there is hardly any outrage of any sort about that. And , you know , most of them maybe might even be naturalized U.S. citizens , but they are still U.S. citizens. And a slippery slope is when is the next group going to be targeted who are citizens ? Um , and like I said , an example of that is the president saying that protesters , just protesters at Tesla dealerships are terrorists. If that was the case , I would think that the insurrectionists in January 6th should have been called terrorists. But yet they had a pardon. And in those situations , we saw someone die. We saw violent acts against police officers and law enforcement. And these are just friendly protesters. Yes , there are some vandalism at some of these dealerships. For most parts that I've seen , it is large groups of people exercising their constitutional rights.
S1:
S5: And that , you know , was one of the earliest executive orders. And I remember the decision , I think , from the judge to stop it while while it goes through the courts , um , basically lambasting the attorneys on the government side , saying , this is this is something you learn in day one in law school about the Constitution. And , you know , I would even say this is stuff that you kind of learn in civics and in history classes , maybe not in elementary school , but certainly in junior high of what our rights are and what we are as a United States our foundation is based on. So to outright say that by executive order , I can end something that is a constitutional right. Um , they're trying to push the boundaries of the executive power , and I don't see as much concern from our elected officials or even other everyday folks. And I understand people are just trying to make it through the through the day. Things are very expensive , but eventually this is going to impact everyone.
S1:
S5: I would have if you would have asked me a few days ago , I would say no. Um , but , you know , hearing that they have now targeted local nonprofits who have used federal funds that were correctly allocated to them at the time to help folks that are undocumented and to target , uh , NGOs who are helping people. Rumors abound , but the concern is they targeted large law firms , the biggest names that you probably have. One capitulated yesterday to the demands. I don't know if the next step would be to actually target immigration attorneys. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened , but it is a concern , and that should never be a concern of anyone doing their job as lawyers. It doesn't matter where you are in the United States. We take an oath , and our oath is to the Constitution and the law and following it. And the laws are on the books. A lot of stuff that is going on is by executive orders. It reflects very much these dictatorial , um , edicts where they just make a pronouncement and that is supposed to be the law , and that is not how it works. We have a Congress for a reason. And I find it very contradictory that in previous terms of other presidents , this current administration has said executive orders are illegal , but now it's the largest number of executive orders that have been issued. You know , and so these type of things are very troubling because at first people are laughing about it. But there seems to be crickets when it comes to the expansion of these executive orders and who it targets.
S1: It's all very chilling and horrifying at the same time. Well , as always , you can find resources on our website at pbs.org. I've been speaking with Tammy Lynn. She is a professor and supervising attorney for the University of San Diego School of Law immigration clinic. Tammy , thank you so much for your insight and for joining us.
S5: And thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
