Mayors of several “sanctuary cities” pushed back on Trump’s plan to deport 3 million undocumented immigrants. What can CA state government do to prevent Trump’s mass deportation plans?; How will the new President-elect reshape the Supreme Court and what are the implications?; plus, we dive into the history, as well as the pros and cons, of the Electoral College.
Here’s how Trump could carry out his deportation plan and what California could do to stop it
Mayors of several so-called “sanctuary cities” across the country are pushing back on President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to deport as many as 3 million undocumented immigrants immediately upon taking office.
Here in California, the state senate’s top leader, Kevin de León released a statement this week to assure undocumented immigrants living in California that “State leaders will defend your due process rights and aggressively avail ourselves of any and all tools to prevent an unconscionable over-reach by a Trump administration in California. We will protect our people and prosperity.”
But what exactly can the state government do to prevent Trump’s mass deportation plans? Larry talks with the California Senate President pro Tempore about his plans. We also drill down into the specifics of how such a deportation plan would work.
Guest:
Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), California Senate President pro Tempore; he joins us live from the United Nations climate change conference (COP22), which is currently taking place in Marrakech, Morocco
Policy experts debate how Trump’s plan to deport 3 million immigrants would work
After President-elect Trump’s interview on CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’ in which he said his administration would deport 2-3 million immigrants who have committed crimes, many wondered how his administration will go about doing that and which immigrants will be targeted for deportation.
Many say that a mass removal of this scale would be impossible without workplace raids and other potentially divisive tactics. There’s also the issue of the massive backlogs in immigration courts, and since many of those who might be deported would have to go through the courts system before being deported, it’s unclear exactly how sweeping this deportation would be.
There’s also the issue of impact to sanctuary cities, federal funding for which President-elect Trump has promised to cut if they refuse to cooperate with the feds. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco are sanctuary cities, and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has said publicly his agency will not help deport immigrants under President Trump because that’s not their job.
How exactly does President-elect Trump plan to carry out his plan to deport up to 3 million immigrants? Is this a realistic goal or more heightened rhetoric? What would it take on the federal level for funding to sanctuary cities to be cut and what would the impact be locally for those cities?
Guests:
Apolonio Morales, political director for Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a D.C.-based organization that studies the impact of immigration on American society
What Trump’s presidency means for the Supreme Court
Given Justice Antonin Scalia’s empty seat and the advanced age of some members of the Supreme Court, President-elect Trump could fundamentally shift the Court to the right by filling not one but potentially two justice slots during his four years in office.
During his campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to fill Scalia’s vacancy with a conservative justice, releasing a shortlist of potential nominees in September. Now, Trump’s win guarantees a conservative majority on the Court and many liberals fear that civil rights, marriage equality and reproductive rights may be at risk.
This Sunday, in an interview on “60 Minutes,” he sent seemingly mixed messages, saying the question of gay marriage was “settled” by the Court, though Roe v. Wade might still be overturned.
What do you think are the implications of a SCOTUS shaped by President Trump? What are your hopes or fears?
Guest:
Margaret Russell, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University; her areas of expertise include Constitutional law and the Supreme Court
The history, benefits and flaws of the electoral college
Donald Trump won the presidential election by clinching 290 electoral votes versus Hillary Clinton’s 228. But the popular votes tell a pretty different story. By the time the final tally comes in, Clinton could be ahead as many as 2 million votes over Trump.
The electoral college system was established in the Constitution in 1787, and has come under criticism for being antiquated.
Los Angeles Times’s reporter David G. Savage has written a piece on the history of the electoral college, and efforts over the years to reform the system.
Guest:
David Savage, reporter covering the Supreme Court for the Los Angeles Times, who recently published a piece on the electoral college