Category: Transcripts

Grimm A Threat To The Community?

February 7, 2014 - David Feldman Show, The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

After President Obama’s fifth State of The Union, GOP Congressman Michael Grimm was being asked on camera for his reaction to the president’s speech. When questions turned to ethics investigations into Grimm’s alleged campaign finance irregularities Congressman Grimm cut short the interview with NY1-TV political reporter Michael Scotto.

Thinking the camera was no longer running Grimm got into Scotto’s face, threatened to throw him over the balcony saying, “I’ll break you in half. Like a boy.”

Tape of the incident quickly went viral as other people came forward recounting their experiences with the 44-year-old ex Marine’s violence laced temper.  

Melanie Sloan is Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC. She recently filed an ethics complaint against Congressman Michael Grimm.

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Melanie, who is Michael Grimm?

Melanie Sloan: Michael Grimm is, I believe, in his third term now. He’s a congressman from Staten Island, and Mr. Grimm has had ethics problem after ethics problem.

David: Is Michael Grimm running for re-election?

Melanie: He is running for re-election.

David:  Is that a safe seat for him?

Melanie: It is considered a safe Republican district.

Congressman Grimm about to threaten a reporter.

Congressman Grimm about to threaten a reporter. Grimm served in the Marines and then became an FBI agent.

David: He threatened a reporter with violence right after the State of the Union. He was having a bad day. I mean, who hasn’t threatened to throw somebody over a balcony?

Melanie:  I haven’t. I don’t know if you have. It’s a pretty bad thing to do, particularly if you’re a member of Congress and you’re being asked questions by a reporter. The fact that you don’t like the questions isn’t a reason to suggest to the reporter that you’ll throw him over the bridge and break him in half.

David: We have an entire Congress threatening Iran with violence. Isn’t that what congressmen do, they threaten violence?

Melanie: I think it’s pretty different. Discussions about foreign policy are not at all the same as having a member of Congress personally threaten bodily harm to a reporter who’s asking legitimate questions.

David: By threatening a reporter with physical violence, is Congressman Grimm violating any specific House rule?

Melanie: Yes, there’s a House rule number 23 that says you may not engage in conduct that reflects discreditably upon the House. It’s intended to be a very inclusive rule that encompasses all sorts of conduct that might make Congress look bad. And clearly when a member of Congress threatens a reporter, asking legitimate questions, with bodily harm, that makes Congress on the whole look bad.

David: Michael Grimm is a rarity in the Republican Party. He’s actually served in the armed forces. He was an FBI agent. I think there are a lot of people who saw the widely circulated video and thought ‘Good. Somebody finally standing up to the media.’

Melanie: You know, the problem for Mr. Grimm is that he’s under a federal inquiry and ethics investigations already, and clearly he has a short fuse about it. But if you’re going to be a member of Congress, you have to be able to stand tough questions, and there have been some very tough questions to be asked about Michael Grimm’s conduct.

David: Your organization, CREW, has named Congressman Grimm one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

Melanie: Yes, he has been the subject of an investigation about whether or not he has raised money illegally and whether he, in return for accepting campaign contributions, offered to help people with their immigration status.

David: So let’s focus on the campaign finance irregularities.

Michael Scotto is a reporter for NY1. Grimm threatened to throw Scotto over the balcony when questions turned to Grimm's ethics problems.

Michael Scotto is a reporter for NY1. Grimm threatened to throw Scotto over the balcony when questions turned to Grimm’s ethics problems.

Melanie: During the 2010 election cycle, Representative Grimm was frequently seen with an Israeli citizen and close aide to a well-respected rabbi in New York. This Israeli citizen’s name is Ofer Biton. And Mr. Grimm and Mr. Biton travelled around the New York region together. Mr. Biton helped Grimm raise money from this rabbi’s followers.

And New York Times’ analysis of the campaign contributions found that Representative Grimm raised more than $500,000 from members of the rabbi’s congregation, which was more than half the money Grimm received during that election cycle. The Times also found that the vast majority of those who donated to Representative Grimm had never given to a federal candidate before at all and lived outside of Representative Grimm’s congressional district.

And several of the rabbi’s followers who spoke anonymously to reporters said Representative Grimm had told donors there were ways to evade campaign finance laws. And one person said that Grimm had requested a $20,000 contribution and set a meeting near the FBI building in lower Manhattan, where the follower then met Grimm and gave him a cash-filled envelope with $5,000. And a week later, the same person gave Grimm another $5,000.

David:  And you’re allowed to give how much cash each election cycle?

Melanie: Well, it varies. Each election cycle, it goes up slightly. You know, I think last cycle it was $2,500 to a primary and $2,500 for the general. So if you were giving a cash-filled envelope with $5,000 for the general election, you would have gone above the campaign finance limit.

David: What are Grimm’s other campaign finance irregularities that CREW is concerned about?

Melanie Sloan is the executive director of CREW and filed the ethics complaint against Congressman Grimm.

Melanie Sloan is the executive director of CREW and filed the ethics complaint against Congressman Grimm.

Melanie: There’s an ongoing federal inquiry into whether Representative Grimm was getting straw donations.

David: What are straw donations?

Melanie: Straw donations are donations made by one person in the name of another. So it’s a way to cover up who’s really making the donation. It’s a conduit contribution. If you’re a candidate, and I made a contribution to you, but really somebody else was giving me the money to give to you, then that would be a “straw donation.”

David: What other ethics problems does Congressman Grimm face?

Melanie: He’s had a series of other minor ethics problems as well. He used his position to help the security firm of a friend. He made a video ad for that friend, and members of Congress are not allowed to use their status to endorse any commercial enterprises. The guy just is really lacking an ethical compass.

David: Can anybody file an ethics complaint against a U.S. congressman?

Melanie: Anybody can file an ethics complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics. This was an office that was established in 2006 in the wake of many, many ethics scandal in the House because the House Ethics Committee does not accept ethics complaints from outsiders, only from members of Congress.

So this Office of Congressional Ethics is the place where anybody can file a complaint, and they do a preliminary investigation, and if they’d find that there’s probable cause to believe an ethics violation may have occurred, then the complaint gets forwarded to the Ethics Committee.

David: Is that process bipartisan?

Melanie: The Office of Congressional Ethics and the House Ethics Committee are both evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. The Ethics Committee is the only committee in the House that has a completely even split.

David: When was CREW founded?

Melanie: I founded CREW back in 2003, and if your listeners would like to learn more about CREW, they can go to our website, www.citizensforethics.org.

David: Thank you for your time.

Melanie: Thanks for having me.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think of Congressman Grimm? I’d like to hear. Please join the conversation below.

Read More »

Does FDA Work For You? Or Big Pharma?

February 5, 2014 - David Feldman Show, Full Interviews With Our Guests, Journalists, The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

The Center for Disease Control issued a report late last year warning that, conservatively speaking, more than 2 million Americans are sickened and 23,000 are killed each year by antibiotic-resistant infections. 

The CDC warns half of all antibiotic prescriptions for humans are unnecessary.

The CDC warns half of all antibiotic prescriptions for humans are unnecessary.

Meanwhile, 80% of all antibiotics used in America are placed in animal feed.

Now comes word the Food and Drug Administration conducted a ten-year study of 30 animal feed antibiotics, and concluded that 18 of them posed a high risk for developing antibacterial-resistant superbugs, which can make their way into humans.

The FDA withheld this study. But through the Freedom of Information Act, the Natural Resources Defense Council got its hands on the study and is making it public this week.

Avinash Kar is one of the attorneys with the Natural Resources Defense Council who sued for the release of this study. He joins us from Washington, D.C.

Listen to original broadcast

David:  How can the FDA possibly defend this behavior?

Avinash: FDA is likely to point to its recent guidance, its policy recommendations that it put out late last year, which are voluntary and ask for drug manufacturers to give up some of the uses of antibiotics to animals that are not sick. We think that’s inadequate. It’ll simply allow many current uses to continue under a different name. And, of course, it is still voluntary.

Margaret A. Hamburg became the 21st commissioner of food and drugs on May 18, 2009.

Margaret A. Hamburg became the 21st commissioner of food and drugs on May 18, 2009.

David: What was in this study, Avinash? What was the FDA not telling the American people?

Avinash: FDA reviewed the safety of 30 different penicillin and tetracycline antibiotics added to animal feed over the course of the last decade. It concluded that almost none of these antibiotics meet the safety standards that FDA established in 1973. FDA also compared these antibiotics against the most recent policy standard for looking at the safety of antibiotics in feed, and concluded they would not be approvable today under those standards if they were to come up.

Having made these conclusions, FDA should have acted on them, and should have stopped the use of these antibiotics in animal feed. Instead, it’s put out mere recommendations that don’t go far enough.

David:  This study involves two of my favorite people, Big Ag and the pharmaceutical industry. So, Big Ag and the pharmaceutical industry are working hand in hand to encourage farmers to give our livestock penicillin. Why are they giving our livestock penicillin?

Avinash: Antibiotics are used in animal feed, whether it’s cattle, swine, or poultry, for a couple of reasons when they’re used on animals that are not sick. The first is to speed up animal growth. The second is to compensate for the crowded and often unsanitary conditions that often exist in facilities.

So it’s to speed up animal growth artificially, and to compensate for the conditions and none of the animals are sick. We’re not opposed to the use of antibiotics on animals that are sick, but this is basically the equivalent of adding antibiotics to the cereal of children day after day because they might get sick in daycare. It’s not an appropriate use.

David:  Instead of housing the animals properly, and treating them properly, they’re looking for a quick fix, which is just throw some antibiotics into the feed. The FDA did not release this study. Why not?

The NRDC sued through the Freedom Of Information Act to make FDA's study public.

The NRDC sued through the Freedom Of Information Act to make FDA’s study public.

Avinash: I’m not sure why they didn’t release this study, because it calls for action on their part. It shows that these antibiotics are not being used in a way that is protective of human health. FDA has consistently given in to the livestock and pharmaceutical industries on this issue, and this continues their pattern of inaction on this issue, and their failure to really engage meaningfully on it.

David:  Who does the Food and Drug Administration work for, the American people, or Big Ag and Big Pharma?

Avinash: Well, they’re supposed to be working for us, and they’re supposed to be protecting public health. Unfortunately, their actions don’t often move towards protecting public health. They seem to be protecting industry.

David:  Are lobbyists allowed to lobby the FDA?

Avinash: Yes, they are. For instance, when FDA put out its voluntary recommendations late last year, the Animal Health Institute, which is the animal pharmaceutical industry association, had advanced word of the announcement, which none of us knew about until we heard about it through their press release.

David: Is there something American farmers could be doing to raise our animals without antibiotics?

Avinash: We think there’s a really good example in the experience in Denmark. Denmark produces about 30 million hogs a year in an industrial system of production. It’s about the same number of hogs as Iowa produces in a year. They have managed to reduce their use of antibiotics by over 40% since they stopped the use of antibiotics in animals that are not sick.

They’ve done it through measures that are not exactly rocket science. They are doing better sanitation. They’re providing a little bit more space for animals. We’re not talking about pasture-raised animals here. We’re talking still about an industrial system of production. They’re weaning the animals a little bit later, and they’re taking other such good management measures that are helping them produce even more pigs than they were before, without the use of antibiotics.

David: That’s Denmark?

Avinash: Yes.

David: There’s something rotten in America. Avinash Kar is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Avinash: Thank you very much, David.

Listen to original broadcast

What do you think? Please join the conversation below.

Read More »

Bobby Shriver’s Oil Investments

February 4, 2014 - Full Interviews With Our Guests, Journalists, The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

Bobby Shriver is the brother of our state’s former First Lady, Maria Shriver. He’s the son of Sargent Shriver, who started the Peace Corps, and the nephew of President Kennedy. Bobby Shriver is a graduate of Yale Law School, and has also served as mayor of Santa Monica. He is now running for a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors as an environmentalist promising to ‘…clean up Santa Monica Bay and the beaches, and to create and maintain our parks.’ 

Hunter Schwarz writes for BuzzFeed, and has been looking into Bobby Shriver’s investments. 

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Hunter, you write in BuzzFeed, ‘He purchased $1.1 million in oil and gas stocks in 2010,’ companies that do offshore drilling?

Hunter: Yeah, that’s correct.

David: What companies?

Hunter: Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco Logistics Partners, TransOcean. TransOcean is the offshore drilling company that was behind the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back.

Bobby Shriver's father, R. Sargent Shriver, was the first director of the Peace Corps and was Senator George McGovern's running mate in 1972.

Bobby Shriver’s father, R. Sargent Shriver, was the first director of the Peace Corps and was Senator George McGovern’s running mate in 1972.

David: When you say he’s bought oil companies, a lot of people his age buy mutual funds that are a basket of stocks, and they end up unwittingly owning stocks in oil companies. But you’re saying that he went out and purposely purchased stock in TransOcean, which helped contribute to the BP oil spill?

Hunter: Bobby Shriver said himself that the only stocks that he specifically picked were Berkshire Hathaway, Harley Davidson and Starbucks. That’s what the campaign is saying, that these were oil drilling stocks that other people picked for him.

David: Well, he did work as a venture capitalist at one time in his life.

Hunter: He told the Los Angeles Times that when he had people pick stocks for him, he had one thing that he wouldn’t let them do, and that was buy stocks from companies in South Africa during apartheid. That was the only prohibition he’s ever placed on any purchase of stock.

David: What is the Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership?

Hunter: The Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership had 143 oil and gas lease sites in Texas and Oklahoma.

David: This is a company that is drilling for oil in Texas and Oklahoma?

Hunter: Yeah, mm hmm.

David: He receives royalties from these drilling sites?

Hunter: In 2011, he made between $10,000 and $100,000 from Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership.

David: Okay. That’s not a lot of money for a Kennedy, is it?

Hunter: No. But he has a lot more that is invested in his stock portfolio. It’s a minor thing, but it is there on his public records about his economic interests.

David: Have you looked at his entire investment portfolio?

Hunter: I’ve looked at everything that he’s filed for the past several years.

Bobby Shriver's sister Maria, JFK's niece, married a Republican weightlifter and California governor

Bobby Shriver’s sister Maria, JFK’s niece, married a Republican weightlifter.

David: Do you know what his net worth is?

Hunter: No, I do not.

David: Does he have to reveal what his net worth is?

Hunter: I’m not sure. The thing with these public records is they’re not too specific, like, it says that he owns stock in Exxon Mobil, but when it says how much he actually owns, it just says $10,000 to $100,000. So that gives you this huge range, and that’s about as specific as it gets.

David: Right.

Hunter: There’s only a few public records that give us a glimpse into his finances.

David: These are not oil stocks that he inherited. What are the other stocks that he’s purchased?

Hunter: El Paso Pipeline, Enbridge Energy Partners, Energy Transfer Partners, Enterprise Product, OEG Resources, NuStar Energy, Plains All American Pipeline, Southwestern Energy.

David: These are the stocks that he purchased for $1.1 million in 2010. Correct?

Hunter: To $1.1 million, that’s the maximum it could be.

David: I’m sorry, when you say it’s the maximum it could be, what do you mean by that?

Hunter: With the very big range that he could have purchased, he doesn’t have to say exactly how much he got. And so, if you add up all the stocks that he purchased and the maximum amount that he listed he could have purchased it for, it totals to $1.1 million.

David: And if you were to give him the benefit of the doubt, what would the low end of that total purchase be?

Hunter: Just over $100,000.

David: In 2010?

Hunter: Mm-hmm. Correct.

David: It’s fair to say then that in 2010, he could have purchased anywhere between $100,000 to $1.1 million of stock in 11 oil/gas companies, correct?

Hunter: Correct.

David: And it wouldn’t be lower than $100,000?

Hunter: No.

David: So that’s just for 2010, alone. Caroline Kennedy (his first cousin), our ambassador to Japan, is also part of the Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership?

Hunter: Mm-hmm.

David: But this week she spoke out against the dolphin hunt going on in Japan.

Hunter: Yeah.

Bobby Shriver is running for a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Bobby Shriver is running for a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

David: What is Bobby Shriver’s record on the environment? Even though he owns stock in these companies, could he still be an environmentalist?

Hunter: From 2001 to 2008, he was Chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Commission. While he was mayor of Santa Monica, he pushed for Measure V. Measure V was passed in 2006, and it raised property taxes for urban runoff, water quality and treatments. He does have a record of supporting environmental issues.

David: Well, Hunter Schwarz writes for BuzzFeed, and he’s been looking into Bobby Shriver’s investments. Thank you for doing that.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? Can a politician own stock in oil companies and still protect our environment? Leave a comment down below.

Read More »

Rolling Stone’s David Wild On Pete Seeger

February 3, 2014 - Full Interviews With Our Guests, Journalists, The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

For more decades than he’s willing to admit, David Wild has been a contributing editor to Rolling Stone Magazine. David Wild has interviewed everyone in music, from Bob Dylan to the Backstreet Boys, as well as Pete Seeger. He talked to us from Los Angeles.

Listen to the original broadcast

Feldman: David, you’re from Tenafly, New Jersey. I’m from Englewood, New Jersey. We’re about the same age, and we were both introduced to Pete Seeger through Clearwater. What was Clearwater?

David Wild: Clearwater was a sloop. It was a ship brought to educate, especially kids like us who grew up on the Hudson River, about the environment, about ecology, about the importance of preserving bodies of water. It helped raise up another generation of kids who might keep the world going a few more years.

David Wild suggests a good introduction to Pete Seeger would be listening to The Weavers at Carnegie Hall.

David Wild suggests a good introduction to Pete Seeger would be listening to The Weavers at Carnegie Hall.

Feldman: When you were growing up in Tenafly and I was growing up in Englewood, we were right near the Hudson River. Were we allowed to swim in the Hudson River when we were growing up?

David Wild: No, that was the era of major rivers catching fire, from pollutants. Thanks to people like Pete Seeger, Don McLean, another folk singer who seemed to take it on, progress was made.  And you and I were lucky enough to get a little education early on from people like Pete Seeger about the global consequences of pollution.

Feldman: What kind of influence did Pete Seeger have on musicians like Bruce Springsteen, Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine, and, of course, the Backstreet Boys?

David Wild: Fundamentally, he was one of the defining and enduring figures who taught generations of musicians that being a musician, despite what your record company insisted, you had responsibilities besides just getting a hit. He inspired generations of artists to use the power of music to do some good. Pete Seeger set the tone for a world in which George Harrison would try to help with Bangladesh all the way to  “We Are the World” and on through guys like Tom Morello or Bruce Springsteen who are probably the most effective musical figures out there right now galvanizing the political power of music to help everyone.

Feldman: Any other musicians you can think of?

David Wild: He would be the pivotal figure. You know, along with Woody Guthrie, Odetta, he’s part of that line. But he was also, I think for Bob Dylan, a sort of complex figure because ironically, to Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger was on the right of what he was doing. Pete Seeger stood for traditional acoustic folk, and Bob Dylan, by going electric, upset the lefties and put them in the position of being the conservatives.

Musically Seeger was to the right of Dylan, politically to the left, says Wild.

Musically Seeger was to the right of Dylan, politically to the left, says Wild.

Feldman: But politically, Pete Seeger always remained to the left of Bob Dylan. Wouldn’t you say Bob Dylan has been more cryptic about his politics?

David Wild: Oh yeah. Bob Dylan lost all interest in being a strictly political figure, partly because the Beatles and Bob Dylan were cross-pollinating, and all of a sudden, this world of possibilities musically opened up to Dylan. And he didn’t really continue in the Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger tradition of just being a spokesman. Increasingly, when Bob Dylan got famous, he was put off, if not repulsed by the idea of being a spokesman. Whereas someone like Pete Seeger, his whole life he wanted to use his voice to change things. To change things for the better, as he saw them politically.

Bruce Springsteen and Tom Morello are direct descendants of Seeger's folk tradition.

Bruce Springsteen and Tom Morello are direct descendants of Seeger’s folk tradition.

Feldman: Young people listening, or people who accidentally hit the KPFK button, stuck in traffic, and don’t know who Pete Seeger is, what would be some Pete Seeger essentials?

David Wild: Knowing the world of Columbia records there may even be a release called The Essential Pete Seeger. But I would say Weavers at Carnegie Hall, and I think anything live, because I think it was about the connection with the audience. And not just the connection emotionally, which all artists have, it was literally a connection that tried to communicate and pass something on, which is the heart of the folk tradition. I would always go for a live recording. I would also push people towards the Springsteen tribute. Pete Seeger, when I spoke to him, told me that because of his lefty politics – this is actually a quote. I was looking up the transcript I had done. He said, “Because of my lefty politics, I was pretty much left alone my whole life. And then the Bruce Springsteen tribute came along and it blew my cover.” Because Pete Seeger was very comfortable in this world, but he also made a lot of rich and powerful people uncomfortable with his music.

Feldman: Was Bruce Springsteen from New Jersey?

David Wild: I hear he might be from somewhere in that Garden State.

Feldman:  Ah, okay. When did you interview Pete Seeger?

David Wild: I interviewed Pete Seeger about two years ago, talking about his essential folk recordings, his favorites. He was at home and my memory is that he was in a hammock, and still he burned with so much fire and passion it was inspiring. I mean, the guy never lost that fire. He’s to be praised and honored for that.

Feldman: David Wild is a contributing editor to Rolling Stone Magazine, and he’s from New Jersey. Thank you, David.

David Wild: Thank you David, talk to you soon.

Listen to the original broadcast

Read More »

Obama Separates Mothers From Their Children

January 31, 2014 - The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

After four years in office President Obama deported more than 1.5 million immigrants, according to ICE. At this pace he will have deported more immigrants than any other president in American history, often separating mothers from their children.

We should also point out he is doing this when the great migration of undocumented workers into this country is declining due to increased job opportunities south of the border and fewer jobs here in the United States.

Our guest is Michael Kaufman, who is an attorney with the ACLU and he joins us from Los Angeles.

Listen to the original broadcast

David: In the American criminal justice system due process includes the right to a lawyer, and if we can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to us for free. Does that guarantee apply to America’s immigration court?

President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.

President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.

Michael Kaufman: Unfortunately, it does not. Immigration proceedings are considered similar in nature and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in your criminal proceedings does not apply as a rule in that context. And what that means is that the vast majority of people who face deportation charges go without a lawyer and are forced to face the immigration courts and a trained DHS, Department of Homeland Security prosecutor on their own.

Now immigration law is incredibly complicated. It’s been referred to as second only in complexity to the tax code, and we expect many immigrants who may have limited English ability, limited familiarity with the American legal system to fend for themselves in this incredibly complex area of the law. What I see time and time again in my work, is a lawyer can make all the difference between some being able to successfully argue that they shouldn’t be deported and those that can not.

Having that trained and skilled advocate on your side can help make a case to a judge that either the government was wrong, that you’re not deportable, or that you should be eligible for certain forms of relief because of the equities in your case.

And so we here at the ACLU have been working to try to ensure that more people have access to lawyers in immigration courts, because the consequences are so drastic. In some cases deportation is a far more severe penalty than anything you would face in criminal court.

David: They’re often separating mothers from children.

Michael: Certainly. Families get torn apart every single day. We see hundreds of families that are torn apart because of the enormous pace at which the Obama Administration is deporting individuals. People that have lived in the United State for their entire lives and may have committed no offenses or may have committed something very minor, but otherwise been a contributing member to their families, to their communities, to their society here in the United States, and yet we tear them out from their roots here in the United States and deport them for such minor offenses.

Undocumented workers are often detained and deported without being able to see their children.

Undocumented workers are often detained and deported without being able to see their children.

David: The ACLU here in California was instrumental in winning Rodriguez and has it resulted in the Obama Administration showing more compassion for immigrants.

Michael: Rodriguez is a class action that we brought here in southern California. Where we are trying to establish the right to every immigrant to have a bond hearing when their detention becomes prolonged, while their case is processed through the immigration courts. The government currently takes the position that certain categories of people can be detained mandatorily without any access to a bond hearing without the opportunity to simply ask a judge to be released while their case is in process.

So we brought this lawsuit asking for that most basic of due process guarantees, the opportunity to go before a judge and ask, just simply ask for the opportunity to be released. And we met with some success in the case. The district court has ordered the government to provide bond hearings to everyone in our class that they’ve been detained six months at a time. That rule is now being implemented across the Ninth Circuit, which covers pretty much the entire western United States.

Now what we’re seeing is people now finally have the opportunity to ask a judge for release, to be reunited with their families and their loved ones while their cases get processed, while they have to wait through the enormous backlogs at the immigration courts and in the appeals courts. It enables them, really, to be able to fight their case.

David: And what’s the Obama Administration’s stance on this ruling?

Michael: Unfortunately they’re currently appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We’ve asked the Obama Administration to take another look at this. The district court decision has been in force for over a year now, and the sky has not fallen.

It's a little known fact but ICE detention facilities are often populated by children.

It’s a little known fact but ICE detention facilities are often populated by children.

All that’s happening is that the government’s own immigration judges are looking at people individually and deciding whether they’re dangerous or flight risks, whether they’re fit to be released in society. They’re releasing some people. They’re not releasing others, and the system is working really well.

And so we have asked the Obama Administration to take a second look at this, see that the system is working well, and not only to stop their appeal in this case and allow Rodriguez to continue in place. But to look at implementing it nationwide because what we’ve seen in California is that this works. Bond hearings are time tested and the immigration judges know how to make these types of assessments about who is too risky to be released and who should have the opportunity to be with their families while their cases are working their way through the immigration courts.

David: Michael Kaufman is an attorney with the ACLU. Thank you for your work.

 

Listen to the original broadcast

Should ICE be in the business of separating mothers from their children? I’d like to hear your thoughts. Please join the conversation below.

Read More »

Deporting Justin Bieber

January 30, 2014 - David Feldman Show, The News From Around The World, Top Stories, Transcripts

Miami police arrested Justin Bieber on January 24, 2014  for drunk driving, resisting arrest, and not having a valid driver’s license.  Meanwhile 100,000 Americans have signed a petition asking President Obama to deport the Canadian citizen. For more on this we are joined by Michael Kaufman who’s an attorney with the ACLU, and he talks to us from Los Angeles.

Listen to the original broadcast

David Feldman: Michael, if you live long enough, eventually you’ll get to see Florida police actually do something right. Is Justin Bieber an American citizen?

Michael Kaufman: Justin Bieber was born in Canada. He’s a Canadian citizen and he’s here in the United States on a temporary visa.

Justin Bieber is not an American citizen.

Justin Bieber is not an American citizen.

David: Michael, in 2011 the Obama administration deported 33,927 immigrants convicted of driving under the influence. Now Justin Bieber is not a citizen. What normally happens to a non-citizen after he’s been arrested for drunk driving, and in Bieber’s case, resisting arrest and not having a valid driver’s license?

Michael: For somebody picked up on driving without a license, if you’re in the country unlawfully, when you’re booked into custody at a local police station, your fingerprints are run against the ICE database, and they may automatically request that the police department hold you so you can be transferred to ICE and put into deportation proceedings. This is part of a new program that’s been implemented under President Obama known as ‘Secure Communities’. And that’s had extraordinary draconian consequences.

It means anyone picked up for even minor violations, some of them as minor as driving without a license or even driving with a broken taillight, if they’re picked up and booked into custody, they potentially risk being deported from their home here in the United States and from their families.

Now that did not happen in Justin Bieber’s case. I’m not sure why. It may be because ICE doesn’t believe he is currently deportable based on the charges that were brought against him. But if he were, like those thousands of people that you mentioned, he would be put into ICE custody. He may be put in detention.

More than 100,000 Americans have signed a petition asking President Obama to deport Bieber.

More than 100,000 Americans have signed a petition asking President Obama to deport Bieber.

We have a sprawling network of immigration jails and prisons across the United States that hold, on any given day, about 34,000 people while their cases are being processed through the immigration courts and federal courts. And you can potentially remain in detention for months and years while your case winds through that complicated process.

David: Justin Bieber’s in this country legally.

Michael: That’s correct.

David: And when the Obama administration deports 33,927 immigrants in 2011 for driving under the influence, is it safe to assume most of them are in the country illegally?

Michael: As a general matter, driving under the influence is not a deportable offense. So if you are here lawfully, you can only be deported if you’re convicted of certain enumerated offenses. So DUI generally does not qualify as one of those, so it may be the case in those statistics that you reported that those were individuals that were in the country without legal status at that time.

However, there are certain circumstance, if you’re convicted of certain forms of aggravated driving under the influence, where that may qualify as what’s known as a crime of moral turpitude, which in certain circumstances can constitute a deportable offense.

Also there are many other minor offenses that Justin Bieber here could be charged with that would undoubtedly risk his deportation. So virtually any type of controlled substance violation.

David: And I did notice that they arrested the black rapper at his home for possession of cocaine, but they didn’t arrest Justin Bieber even though the black rapper was in his house at the time with the cocaine.

Michael: That’s right. That’s right. And that kind of charge, if he was charged with possession of cocaine, that would almost certainly render him deportable, and it would also subject him to what’s known as mandatory detention.

The government takes the position that if you’re convicted of any type of controlled substance violation, even something as simple as possession, and it’s your first time offense, they’re going to hold you in detention for the entire period of time it takes to process your case through the immigration courts. And that can be years in some cases. Simply because of that one violation that you have. They won’t allow you to ask for bond and they won’t allow you to be released under any circumstances.

President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.

President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.

David: I guess the elephant in the room is he’s an English-speaking white Canadian.

Michael: Absolutely. I mean, I think this is an important moment for us to reflect on what would happen to the thousands of other people who get picked up on minor charges, turned over to the police, and referred to the immigration system every single day. People who have been accused of far lesser crimes or maybe none at all, those people, because they do not have a raving fan base, access to high-priced attorneys, they routinely are processed through the immigration system, don’t know how to fight for their rights, and may end up getting deported and torn away from their families.

Justin Bieber of course is going to have excellent attorneys. They’ll know how to fight in the criminal process for charges that will not result in his deportation. Not everyone is so lucky. In fact, the vast majority of people don’t have access to attorneys to help them through that process, and get deported simply because they’re not like Justin Bieber. They don’t have access to attorneys. They don’t have money to afford one. And they see deportation as a result.

David: According to the ACLU, 84% of people held in America’s immigration detention system don’t have lawyers. Michael Kaufman is an attorney with the ACLU. Thank you for joining us, and thank you for your work.

Listen to the original broadcast

Should Bieber be deported? I want to know what you think. Please join the conversation below.

Read More »