James Pittman: Welcome to Immigration Uncover, the docketwise video podcast, where we dive deep into the dynamic world of immigration law. I'm James Pittman, cofounder of docketwise. I have with me Rosanna Berardi. She is a longtime immigration attorney, founder of Berardi Immigration Law. Welcome, Rosanna.

James Pittman: Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. You're thrilled to be here. Yep. Today, we're gonna talk about section 287 g, and this has to do with federal, state, local partnerships, for immigration enforcement, the, some of the criticism, some of the concerns, the parameters, and what ICE tries to do when it enlists local law enforcement to carry out its immigration functions. Rosanna, tell us about your background in immigration.

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. So I like to think about my career as a calling. I could never have expected when I applied to a summer job here in Buffalo, New York as a junior in college in 1993 that it would lead to an entire career in immigration law. So luckily for me, I live in a border town, Buffalo, New York, and I spent 5 years with the legacy INS agency, which is now Customs and Border Protection, but did all kinds of jobs for them. I was a co op student. My summer job was to hand write I 94 cards for buses of tourists. So, you know, a tour bus would come out with a 100 people from Japan, and I would write all of their I ninety four cards. You have to remember this is 1993.

James Pittman: Yeah.

Rosanna Berardi: They didn't computerize them. They didn't charge a fee. So my hand hurt a lot, but that was my intro to immigration. And I ultimate ultimately became an immigration officer. I attended federal law enforcement training academy. I learned to shoot a gun, handcuff people. And, while I was there, I thought, I'm not sure I'm law enforcement material, and at the same time, I was applying to law school. So ultimately decided to keep the career part time, but, go to law school full time. And when I graduated, I was a trial attorney, in the New York City jurisdiction, which was in immigration court. I was in immigration court every day. There was about 40 immigration immigration judges at the time, and I was speaking on behalf of the government, to remove unlawful individuals from the United States. So, my federal training at the beginning of my career is really pivotal and set a really good foundation for government mentality, how things work. I I know a lot of the same people still here in the Buffalo area. We present our cases at the border, you know, several times a week, and we have a great reputation. So it's really been a win win for me, on a professional level.

James Pittman: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I've I've had colleagues who have gone on both sides of the fence. I mean, you you know, you'd call it going over to the dark side when they leave private practice and go and start working for the government. They call that going to the dark side.

James Pittman: It's, you know, kind of a joke. But, I mean, the reality is, you know, you your reality is you carry out your your ethical duties as an attorney no matter what side you're working on. That's that's that's the beauty of our system, is that all sides in a controversy, you know, get due process and get, rep competent representation. Okay. So we're gonna talk about 287 g. And the title of today's episode is the cost of collaboration breaking down section 287 g. So, Rosanna, you've written about this section of the law. Let's explain the basics of of 287 g of the Immigration Nationality Act. How does it allow ICE to delegate authority to local law enforcement?

Rosanna Berardi: So, basically, 287 g allows, has allowed the federal government to deputize, if you will, state and local law enforcement officers. So what that means really is, the local police or the state troopers here in New York State, some of them have been trained at the very facility I went to, Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy in Georgia, to really understand, apply, and enforce the immigration law. So I think of 287 g as an extension of ICE and ICE's duties throughout the United States. So rather than have, you know, triple the federal employees, 287 g basically says, okay, local law enforcement. You're now allowed to, apply and enforce US immigration law.

James Pittman: Okay. And how does this function in practice? So what are some of the responsibilities that ICE delegates to local law enforcement?

Rosanna Berardi: So, local law enforcement is able to ask about someone's immigration status if they get pulled over for speeding. We've seen it in our practice where, you know, a foreign nationals driving and and their taillight is out and they get pulled over, the officer can ask about their immigration status, which is why we always recommend carry proof of your status with you when you're driving. If you're engaged in a bar fight or what have you, it's basically allowing the local and the state law enforcement authorities to ask about your immigration status. They can also run a background check to see if there's any outstanding warrants. It it really it really allows the the state and local officers to act like ICE agents when they're investigating or pursuing low level crimes or high level crimes. So, we've had our share in our practice of people getting pulled over for speeding or the errant taillight being out, and have been asked about immigration status. Some have been taken into custody. It's not a big part of what we do, but that has happened. And as a practical matter,

James Pittman: I mean, we hear most of the controversial aspects of this discussed when we get to local law enforcement because that's where and we're gonna talk about this, where issues of community trust, get implicated, and municipalities, localities are concerned that involving their police officers with immigration will result in mistrust in the community. But we're as I said, we'll get to that. But as a practical matter, is it is there much effort by ICE to recruit state troopers or state law enforcement as well?

Rosanna Berardi: I can't speak to that specifically, but I know it's certainly, it's more financially, palatable to have the state and local authorities, you know, help out with with immigration status than, you know, tripling or doubling the staff of ICE. So I think there there might be some cost effect cost effective measures at play.

James Pittman: Okay. So how does ICE go about training and certifying the local law enforcement under this program?

Rosanna Berardi: So when you're an ICE officer or any type of officer under DHS, you're required to go through an extensive training program. They have federal law enforcement training centers. They call them FLTC. They have them in Georgia. They have them in South Carolina. They have them in Arizona. And for example, a regular or if you will, a full time ICE or a full time CBP officer would have to attend a very extensive training session for 4 months at, one of these training centers. Now when I did this a 1000000 years ago, it was it was truncated because I was a part time employee. But at the training centers, you learn things about the immigration law, law enforcement techniques, you learn how to read people. It it's actually really, really fascinating.

Rosanna Berardi: But under 287 g, when there's a partnership with ICE and, let's say, the Buffalo Police Pittman, because I'm living in Buffalo, New York right now, the officers will be sent to the federal law enforcement training center for a truncated period of time. Now they're not going for the full, you know, 16 weeks that the government employees would, but they're set down there, to to get, if you call, a quick and dirty understanding of the immigration law, how it works, how it applies, what to look for. So they're getting kind of the 101 quick and dirty. This is how it all works. They're all trained. Like anything with government, they're background checked. And then once they attend that and complete it, they're certified to go out into their community and ask immigration questions.

James Pittman: Mhmm. So I I've seen this, I mean, way back when when I was in practice, before I got about I remember seeing this materialize in several ways. So there are, you know, situations where noncitizens get arrested for for, you know, for any re whatever the reason is. And while they're in local police custody, you know, local police may notify ICE that they have a noncitizen, you know, in their control. And, then ICE can make a decision whether or not to, you know, to ask for a detainer. So I've I've seen that scenario. I mean, is are these different are there different levels or different sort of ways that 287 g is is sort of, practiced? I mean, you know, certainly, there's when ICE, you know, finds out that it it that local law enforcement has a noncitizen and ICE makes a decision to go after them, they lodge a detainer, and then that person transferred to ICE custody. So that is that part of 287 g? And the other aspect is what you've been talking about what you've been talking about is, the local law enforcement actually asking questions in other context to ascertain whether someone is unlawfully present in the United States.

James Pittman: So can you talk a little bit about the different ways that this plays out?

Rosanna Berardi: Yes. So so 287 g really plays out with respect to the officer's ability to ask the questions. So before this this, rule and regulation, the only person in the United States that could ask about someone's nationality or where you were born were were immigration officers. 287 g allowed the immigration officer questioning to extend to state and local authority. So, for example, if somebody's speeding, the officer can say, oh, are you a citizen of the United States? They say, no. I'm from Guatemala. Officer, just as I got pulled over, will take their identification, run it through their system, and lo and behold, there could be an outstanding warrant or a pending criminal charge. You know, the low level offenses, traffic violations, we don't see ICE getting involved with, detainers or anything of that nature. They're really looking for the bad actors that have either engaged in high level criminal activity, burglary, robbery, rape, you know, felony theft, that kind of thing, or they're looking for people that have, like, outstanding warrants for criminality. So 287 g is not the foundation for what I view as the immigration removal system. Meaning, if a foreign national is arrested for a crime, persecuted, prosecuted under the state law, serves their time in the local jail, and then is turned over to ICE. That's really not 287 g. Okay? So that's the that's a different provision of the immigration law, which then says, okay.

Rosanna Berardi: Government, the foreign national has completed his or her time under the state law. Now what are we going to do on the immigration side? Are they going to remain in the US, or are they going to be removed? And that's it's the issue that I have with the threat of a sweeping deportation and getting rid of, quote, unquote, criminals. Because in our system let's take my example of somebody getting pulled over for a police stop or traffic stop, and that person has an outstanding warrant. Well, if you watch TV today, it makes it sound like we're gonna put that person on a plane, and away here she goes. Well, that's not how it works. We have a body of law that says that person's entitled to, you know, criminal defense hearing. You know, any type of criminality benefits under the United States constitution has to go through the criminal system, then the immigration system, and then perhaps if they don't have a valid defense, they can be removed. So I'm spending a lot of time in my interviews and in media talking about the foundation of our system because this concept of just getting rid of everybody is not possible, and we should be thankful that it's not in our democracy with our constitution.

James Pittman: Right. Okay. So now, let's talk about some of the justifications of this section of the law that it's, you know, the people who wanna who wanna continue to use it give, and they often argue that, this section would enhance public safety. So in your view, does cooperation between local enforcement and ICE improve the ability of local law enforcement to address criminal activity?

Rosanna Berardi: Well, look. I get I think what it does is it it gives communities a reinforcement on the immigration side. You know, an issue that I take a lot with the media is they spend a lot of time talking about, you know, foreign nationals who are bad actors, who've, you know, engaged in criminal activity and committing James. And, you know, somebody in the media said to me today, well, they're all, you know, they're all criminals. And just like our population here in the United States of 330,000,000 people, there are some people that are criminals, but not everyone is a criminal. Same is true for foreign nationals. So I think with respect to communities, public safety, yeah, it's another layer of law enforcement because we have laws. We have US immigration laws. States? Why are we picking and choosing? We're going to enforce the States? Why are we picking and choosing? We're going to enforce the drug laws, but not the immigration laws. So I think from a public safety perspective, I think it's another layer. Do I think it it moves the needle on on getting criminal aliens a little bit, but I don't know those statistics. So let's talk

James Pittman: a little bit about why, this could help ICE to address its limited resources. So ICE wants to use local enforcement as a false a force multiplier force multiplier. And, you you mentioned that, you know, these, you know, plans to deport 13,000,000 people. It's just it is completely impractical, and and anyone who has a passing acquaintance with the immigration system and the removal, system and immigration courts knows that that's extremely unpractic impractical given just the the numbers the realities of the numbers of personnel and the resources that it takes to actually, you know, put people through the system, give them their day in immigration court, and carry out a removal. It's just it's not happening unless, you know, the number of personnel was, let's say, quadrupled or quintupled or something like that. So let's talk about why people wanna use this section, and, you know, how that helps ICE.

Rosanna Berardi: Well, I think that, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, I think when you hear politicians talk, you're hearing sentiments, that are popular with voters or constituents. And, you know, what really changed for this election cycle versus in 2016 is that over 50% of Americans were not happy with current immigration policies. And I think we hear a lot of this rhetoric, because of that. Right? It's the it's the politician's attempt to say, hey. We're going to fix this. So why do they wanna do this through 287 g? It's an extension of immigration and customs enforcement. Look. We're a huge country. Right? We have 330,000,000 people. We are a huge nation. I'm sure you've dealt with the government agencies in many, many levels for many years in your life. It is a huge albatross to work through a system and be able to find people and get them to come to court and report on time.

Rosanna Berardi: So 287 g was created to say, hey. Look, state and local authorities, you're there anyway. You're paroling the streets of Buffalo, New York anyway. Give us a hand on the ice and the immigration enforcement. So we have multiple layers of immigration, if you will, in our huge country with a lot of moving parts. So, you know, I I I think that that was the intent here, was to say, how do we solve this problem? We have more, unlawful foreign nationals in the US than we do ICE officers, and 287 g was the solution to that.

James Pittman: Alright. Let's contrast a little bit between, the Trump Trump administration 1, from 2016 to 2020, and what we can expect with Trump 2 point o. I mean, certainly, during the first Trump administration, there was a push to use 287 g agreements and then enlist local law enforcement. How far did it go? Do you think it went as far as they planned? Do you think they got stopped by, you know, anything? And how do you think that's gonna be different this time around?

Rosanna Berardi: Well, I think we're gonna see them come out guns blazing this time because the polls want that. You know, the the voters want that. Not everybody, but the majority of Americans want to fix immigration. Now does it mean, you know, to deputize every local law enforcement officer? I'm not really sure, but at least they're planning, I think, to give the appearance that, look. We're taking this very seriously, and we're gonna clean this up. Because at the end of the day, when you talk about criminality, most people are not in favor of having criminals in their neighborhoods. So, you know, in 2016, we saw some of this, but the border was different in 2016, and I I firmly believe the immigration crisis, if you will. I think it's been in crisis for 27 years, which is the length of my career. But, you know, the the number of people crossing into the United States exploded, in the last 4 years, and I think there's been a lot of rhetoric. So in 2016, we saw some of this. I'm expecting in January for them to come out guns blazing with a lot of talk. But as the legal eagle that, you know, we both are, I think there's gonna be tons of talk, and it's gonna be right into court and deemed unconstitutional. So I think there's gonna be the appearance of fixing it, and they might, you know, go a lot deeper with this 287 g and use state and local authorities. But, you know, there are there are boundaries and parameters on all of this, and I think most of it will wind up in litigation.

James Pittman: And to be clear, I mean, people I I you know, I I believe, really, with the American electorate that, people are against chaos. They're against they're against disorder. I know it's more than much, much, much more than they are against immigrants.

Rosanna Berardi: I agree.

James Pittman: And I think that, you know, that's what they they want this situation cleaned up. It's not to say that they want, you know, performative displays of cruelty against immigrants. And I actually think, you know, if if things go this is just speaking generally. If things go too far like they did with the family separation policy, the optics of it gets so bad, and the public sentiment starts to to swing the other way. So I just wanna I just wanna put that out there. And, but, so yeah. But you mentioned it'll end up in litigation. So there is so let's talk about that for a minute. So without getting, like, super, super deep, what are some of the constitutional arguments that you would expect to be made to try to limit the use of 287 j? Would they be based on federalism? Would they be based on due process? Something else?

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. So, I mean, you know, the way to always predict the future is to look at the past. In the past, Trump administration, they wanted to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, that wouldn't comply with, you know, immigration requests, and courts held that that was unconstitutional saying, absolutely not. You can't be punitive, in your measures. Going forward with respect to litigation, if they are attempting to remove criminals, without their due process under the law afforded to them under the US constitution for a right to a hearing, a right to a fair trial, I think that will immediately be deemed unconstitutional.

James Pittman: And this is a a little bit of a this is a a different issue, actually, but it implicates some you know, states and localities like Texas, have, you know, in some James, attempted to pass state laws. And in the case of Texas, there was actually a provision in there which would allow local law enforcement to actually remove people or transport them to the border and, you know, ask them to leave. It was it wasn't really clear how how this was intended to be, you know, actually executed. But under 287 g, are there any circumstances under which anyone other than ICE can actually carry out a removal?

Rosanna Berardi: No. Not lawfully.

James Pittman: Mhmm.

Rosanna Berardi: So so when I hear of states like Texas or Arizona or Florida trying to pass their own state laws, I feel like that's a kid saying to a parent, hello? We need can you help me, please, please, please? But the parent just ignores the kid. Right? And and what we have here is states saying, okay, federal government. Okay, congress. You've done nothing. We're having some major issues in our states, so we're gonna take this and run with it. Well, again, nice sound bite, nice appearance of we're trying to do something. But, ultimately, we are dealing with the United States Immigration and Nationality Act that is codified as a federal rule and regulation, and the states cannot supersede that with their own interpretation. So if I was a congress member, I think, I would be saying, oh, why are all these states trying to pass their own immigration laws? Anybody knows that, the federal government trumps the state government. What are they doing? Well, for me, it's a cry for help. It is a an attempt to say somebody needs to fix this. We're going to try. But at the end of the day, it begins and ends with 1 agency and one agency only, and that is the agencies under Department of Homeland Security, whether that's ICE or CBP. No one else can carry out the federal immigration law. Yes. 287 g allows state and local authorities to ask those questions and, you know, report violations to the immigration service, but they aren't the ones that are the final decision makers here.

James Pittman: Okay. Well, let's get into some of the criticisms because there are a lot and the concerns. So a lot of people argue that, this program, 287 g, creates opportunities for racial profiling and discrimination. How valid in your experience are these concerns, and have you seen any examples? So look.

James Pittman: I worked at

Rosanna Berardi: the US Canadian border for 5 years. Right? And there there's always talk of racial profiling. I can tell you, and that was a long time ago, government spends a lot of time in training on racial profiling, how to avoid those situations, how to make a fair assessment. The spirit is there. I believe it to still be there, and I don't know of any situation personally that I've come across in my 25 plus years of practice where this has occurred. Does it? I'm sure it does. I'm not certain that, officers and local and state authorities and municipalities are looking specifically for foreign nationals. So I don't have any real examples, and I I my understanding is there is a very strong attempt to avoid doing that.

James Pittman: You know, beyond that, there's a lot of concern about the effects that these partnerships between ICE and local law enforcement have. The effect that they have on the trust of that immigrant communities have in the police. So what about that concern? That would seem to me to be I I believe that's a valid concern.

Rosanna Berardi: I do. I I agree with you. I believe that's a valid concern as well. However, let's zoom out here. Why are we picking and choosing which laws are okay to break and which ones aren't? That is a major issue that I see in in the thought process of, well, you know, the immigrant community doesn't trust the police, and, you know, people are here unlawfully. Like, is that really the role of law enforcement in the United States is to protect lawbreakers? We don't do that in any other way other than immigration. And and I have a real issue with that. As somebody that represents 100 of maybe not thousands, multiple thousands of law abiding legal immigrants, why are we spending all this time and energy trying to hide people who've done it the incorrect way, if you will? So, yeah, is there a breakdown of trust? Perhaps. Do I think that there's a problem with that? I personally don't. I know that's a controversial statement, but I I have a real issue in a democracy that picks and chooses what they what and what they don't want to deem as criminal or unlawful. If you don't want these issues to be violations, then change the law. Do not take it upon yourself in a community to guide and guard certain individuals.

James Pittman: Alright. Well, do you think that there's do you think that putting these agreements in place could possibly lead to over policing of immigrant communities? I mean, once, you know, once certain police officers have this little tool now that they can use of asking people about their immigration status, do you think that incentivizes themselves to go ahead and do that perhaps to an excessive degree?

Rosanna Berardi: Well, I mean, 287 g is nothing new. Right? It's been around for a long time. Could they extend it? Probably. Will they? Maybe a little. Is it going to be a police state in communities? No. We are a huge nation. I've said that, like, 4 times right now. And just the logistics and the cost of all of this is something that no one's talking about. So I think they might turn it up a notch, but I don't think we're gonna have police states in communities, where, you know, everybody is scared and and on guard.

James Pittman: Well, let me ask you to opine for a minute if you will, and if you feel free if you don't want to. But, do you think that immigration advocates or just the Democrats or immigration advocates in, you know, have gone too far with sanctuary cities or too far with concerns about the trust and local law enforcement?

Rosanna Berardi: So I'm the daughter of an immigrant that came to the United States lawfully. I'm the wife of an immigrant who came to the United States when he was 4 years old and waited his parents waited 10 years for their visa number to be selected. I also spent 5 years of my career on the border enforcing the immigration law. My position is this. My position is we are a nation of rules and laws, and the concept of sanctuary cities just, in my opinion, is is inappropriate in a country that is regulated, by so many rules and laws. And to have government actors and agencies say, we don't like this. We're not gonna cooperate is a very, very dangerous slippery slope to go down. Now I am more law enforcement oriented because of my background and my family and representing 1,000 and 1,000 of people who have spent years upon years and 1,000 of dollars waiting their turn respectfully. I have a real issue with the sanctuary city saying we're not gonna cooperate. If we don't like these laws, there's only one place to go, and that's to your congressional office and get those laws changed.

Rosanna Berardi: But to do an about face of we're not, we are not cooperating with the federal government, I have a real issue with that.

James Pittman: So is this contradictory to what you were saying a few minutes ago where you said that you thought that the federal government's withholding of funding from states or municipalities for their law enforcement, if those local entities did not cooperate with 287 g. You thought that that might that would be unconstitutional. Is isn't that contradicting what you're saying now against Well, it was held unconstitutional. Okay.

Rosanna Berardi: So that was already decided. That was not my personal opinion or in agreement, but that was a a strategy by the federal government saying, how dare you say you're not going to help and cooperate. We're gonna withhold federal funding. I don't know the specifics of that case and the basis for, the decision, but it was rendered unconstitutional. So, again, these are all these are symptoms of a very, very tired and worn out body of law. These are symptoms.

James Pittman: Yeah. It reflects, it reflects, you know, highly imperfect attempts to to deal with deal with the problem, for sure, you know, these kind of patchwork solutions. Okay. So let's talk about, do you think though that, 287 g places unnecessary burdens on local law enforcement? I mean, do you is that a is that a valid concern that the local police should just be focusing totally on criminal enforcement? They shouldn't even have to get involved with, you know, the immigration issue?

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. I can see. I mean, I think it's very challenging to be a law enforcement officer any day of the week. I can see that this adds another layer of responsibility. But then again, you know, it's it's the job that people have signed up for in terms of law enforcement in general. So I don't know the specifics. Does this take, you know, an hour of additional time a day? I don't know that, but I have a lot of empathy for people in law enforcement. I've done it myself. It's an incredibly difficult job to deal with the public on a daily basis, and and this could place an additional burden.

James Pittman: Now can you think of any potential challenges, legal challenges, or liabilities that the local law enforcement is incurring when they choose to partner with ICE. So when they get involved in ascertaining people's immigration status and then, you know, or serving ICE's documents and and and so forth, are they opening themselves up to certain areas of liability, and have you seen that play out?

Rosanna Berardi: I've not seen that play out. My understanding is they are very, they're very trained very much educated and trained on the process, on the rules of law. And oftentimes, I know they reach out to ICE and say, hey. Here here's what we have. Is this correct? Am I thinking about this correctly? There's there's a lot of communication. I saw it when I worked at the border. Lots and lots of communication. Nobody wants to make the wrong decision. Right? And, I even know when I was, an attorney for the government back in the day, There was a role called duty attorney where we would we would answer questions from people out in the field or, you know, when I worked at the border. You know, there were people's positions were to answer calls from local law enforcement to say, hey. Is am I doing this correctly? Because it's it's complicated.

Rosanna Berardi: It's a complicated body of law. So I I don't know of any personal examples commonplace right now, but I have seen it in the past.

James Pittman: Can you think of any other back on the issue of states and localities not complying with ICE, I mean, can you is there any other issue that you can think of where state or local law enforcement decline to assist federal law enforcement?

Rosanna Berardi: I mean, we have we have the sanctuary cities, and I don't know if you saw the news yesterday or the day before. But, in a very bizarre twist of events, New York City mayor Eric Adams met with the, the soon to be border czar of Homeland Security yesterday and said, we're ready to cooperate, which if you unwind that tape to about a year ago, mayor Adams was like, nope. Come on in. We are a sanctuary city. We will take anybody. We're not going there. The same thing happened in the county that I'm in, in Erie County. When migrants were placed in in our communities, the Erie County executive said, anybody that is opposed to this is a racist. We don't do this in Erie County. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Rosanna Berardi: Well, guess what? A month ago, he said, these people need to go. They're too expensive and are committing crimes, and we're gonna cooperate to the fullest extent with the federal authorities. So, I mean, when you've got talking heads in government flipping like that, that is all constituent unhappiness. And like you said, no one likes chaos. Right? This is crazy. No one likes tax money misappropriately spent, which I can go all day on that one. But we're seeing a big shift. And I think when we see big big, cities like New York, say, okay. We're willing to cooperate. I think we're I think that is going to be the foundation of what we're going to see going forward, under this Trump 2 point o administration. So in comparison to how Trump won used 287 j, did when Biden got in

James Pittman: in 2020, did he did he do anything different? Did they did you detect that they were making less use of it? Did they pretty much continue? Was there a noticeable difference between Trump on and Biden on this on on 287 g?

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. I mean, they put it this way. The Biden administration did not abandon 287 g. Okay? They were a little bit more quiet about it. They were still using it to partner with local law enforcement. It was still happening. They were using it as a tool to help them, carry out ICE's duties. Did they talk about it a lot? No. Will Trump talk about it a lot in 2025? Absolutely. I think, you know, he's gonna come out, like I said, guns a blazing, saying, hey. We're gonna do this. This is how.

Rosanna Berardi: So it remains to be seen, but I think I don't think the Biden administration did not completely abandon it, but they weren't super aggressive about it either. They utilized it for a purpose and didn't do much to really, you know, one way or the other, move the needle on it. But I'm expecting I could be completely wrong, but I'm expecting we're gonna hear a lot about this, next month.

James Pittman: Yeah. I agree. And, I mean, a certain amount of it, you know, I I think that a certain amount of it's gonna be performative. I mean, the the ambitions stated, right, for the new administration are huge. They're vast. They far outstrip the resources to actually carry them out. So I think there's gonna be a lot of sound and fury at the beginning and maybe not deportation of 1,000,000, but maybe 100 of 1,000. No doubt there's gonna be a lot of people inadvertently caught up in the dragnet. But I think there's there's gonna be a performative aspect to it where they're, they're gonna make a big show of enforcing enforcing things heavy early on. And then either that's as far as it will go or I mean, this is again, we're both we're both guessing. Right? We're both predicting. But, you know, either either, you you know, it will be much less than, you know, what's stated, or, you know, or some of it'll just be performative and it'll taper off or, you know, they'll start to run up against the practical obstacles. That would be my first guess. Unless I unless, you know, really, they're ready to dramatically scale up, the amount of resources devoted to this task. But right now, I don't think the the resources are there, nor I think once it really gets going, and some of the some some things the optics of some situations that are gonna materialize with with very, you know, heavy handed enforcement, I think that, you know, is gonna force them to kind of scale back their ambitions. Would you agree? Or

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. I definitely agree with your sentiment on on all accounts. I think I've watched the government try and do lots of things with immigration in terms of filings, and it's a disaster. I mean, it's a big agency, big system. I think, like you said, a lot of this you know, I think it's gonna be hot air, and I don't think there's money for it. I don't think there's somebody that is able to logistically identify. I mean, look. If there's if there are 4 nationals that have final removal orders and they've exhausted, you know, their appeals to the BIA and they're ready to go, yeah, those folks, they can pretty easily find them and get them on planes. But just remember, to get somebody on a plane, they need a passport, and they need their home country agreeing to take them back, which a lot of people, not a lot, but there are a fair number of people that don't have don't come from countries that will do that. So, you know, there there are ways of enforcing the law, but it's not what it sounds like. When I hear all of this stuff on both sides, I'm like, that's just factually impossible, what you're trying to do.

James Pittman: Agreed. I mean, if they focus, like, if they just focus on people who I mean, there's already how how many people that have existing removal orders that are still walking around? The figure from years ago that I saw was 300,000. I'm sure it's more than that. It's probably probably closer to a1000000 now. But, at several 100000 at least. I mean, if they just focused on those people and they just filtered filtered out within those of ones that, you know, were within the the group that they wanna target, which are criminal risks to national security or criminal, you know, convictions and just focus in on that subgroup of people who already have removal orders, who are already within that group, and just focus on finding them, you know, then that's, I think, a more a more doable goal. They're still gonna have some of the issues that you talked about with their home countries. What are some of the countries that are most difficult to remove? I mean, there are some that I can think of, but, not necessarily ones that I would imagine there are a lot of, you know, criminal violators walking around. But what are some of the problem countries where you think there's significant number of people with removal orders who can't be removed too?

Rosanna Berardi: I I don't know them off the top of my head, but they are usually countries that do not have a strong government infrastructure and have government bodies that take forever to issue travel documents. So I haven't been in that world in a long time, but I do know that that is true, and I do know that that has been an issue for ICE. So, you know, when I was an immigration prosecutor in court, like, part of the reason the job is frustrating is that we'd go through an entire removal proceeding, and the judge would say, okay. Here's your final order of removal. You don't have any defense to remain in the United States and would say, okay. Here's your final removal. Have a nice day. And off that person goes into New York City. Right? And it was sort of like, this is kind of a joke. You know? Like, it like, how is this happening? Now, obviously, if if people are incarcerated and completely Totally different story. You know, that that's a different conversation. But I'm sure there's a lot of people walking around with final removal orders. And those individuals, they've had their day in court. They've had the opportunity to appeal. That's low hanging fruit. I'm not saying I'm a absolute 100% proponent of it, but the government's dumb if they can't pull that part off because that's low hanging fruit. They should know where people are.

Rosanna Berardi: They've been through every every layer of, you know, due process, if you will, and that would give the appearance that they're doing something. Who knows?

James Pittman: Well, I'm sure we're gonna have the opportunity for a lot more conversations as we as we're beginning next month when we see all

Rosanna Berardi: the

James Pittman: things out because, I mean, we, you know, we could probably have an episode a day talking about everything that's going on in a particular day.

Rosanna Berardi: Yeah. I would I would think so. I think I'm gonna have a lot of media in the next month, which I love talking about these issues. It it's my professional wish for some part of the law to be made better. Well, that's

James Pittman: what you you said. You said rather than, you know, renovate the whole house, let's fix a window. So let's talk about what are some of the windows and specifically with regard to 287 g, do you have any ideas what would be a better way? How could it be reformed? Should it be limited, abolished altogether? What do you think?

Rosanna Berardi: So on my wish list, I would love a guest worker program. I would love that there's a program that would, fill the needs in agriculture, in manufacturing, where people have temporary work permits to come in, do the jobs, go back home. Now whether that's a that's a permanent or temporary work permit, that's for someone else to decide. I would love DACA recipients for the love of God, please close the loop and give DACA recipients their green cards. We have a case right now of a DACA recipient that's been here since she was literally a year old. And and the the whole DACA saga between the courts and the administrations, I think it's an embarrassment to the United States. I think that we should allow people that have only lived here through no fault of their own to remain here. Again, controversial. A lot of people don't

James Pittman: like that, but that's on my wish list as well. Yeah. I think the DACA and the Dreamer situation is kind of the preeminent example of the brokenness of the system. Absolutely. Because that's something where you can't I mean, if you're if you're looking to punish people and you're looking to lay blame, you really can't in their case because they had no, you know, choice in the situation. And the removal in many instances would be impose extreme hardship, which many people would find objectionable.

Rosanna Berardi: Absolutely.

James Pittman: But, yeah, we can't get it we can't get it done. We can't get it done. We can't get it done because of political messaging, because of optic, because of inertia, because of habitual partisanship, because of vested interest, and we just can't get it done. So for me, the dreamer situation and the precarious position of DACA recipients is the the the best or maybe the worst example of the brokenness of the system. Again and

Rosanna Berardi: I think that's low hanging fruit. Right? I just think that that needs to be settled. I cannot imagine living that way through all these administrations. I cannot imagine being caught up in this disaster of bureaucracy and politicking. So that is very high on my wish list. My final well, not my final line, but one of my other favorite items on my wish list is, physician immigration reform. We have a huge need. Go into any hospital of America. It's a disaster right now. We have a huge, huge

James Pittman: primary care.

Rosanna Berardi: Yep. For more physicians in the United States. We are not graduating enough of our own, if you will. We have a huge physician immigration practice at our firm. If the average person knew what somebody had to go through to get there, they would be sick to their stomach. And I am all for America first. I understand the arguments behind it. But when there are documented shortages in certain areas that are harming the American public, I e primary care, that, in my opinion, is the very best use of of foreign labor. And, in my opinion, having this very large physician immigration practice, these are folks that we should be rolling out the red carpet to who are gonna be tax payers. They're gonna buy homes. They're gonna support public school. They're gonna better their communities by providing health care services that we are grossly grossly, and inadequately, you know, not filling. No. And it's not something that,

James Pittman: you know, is easy for the United States to fix overnight. I mean, increasing the number of doctors is a pretty big undertaking. I mean, you've only got so many slots in medical schools. You've only got so many residency slots. You know, the the costs involved in becoming a a physician are very high. You know, it it's it's it's and and when people get all through that process, you know, a lot of them wanna go into, you know, the higher earning sub specialties and sub specialties. So increasing the number of primary care doctors is not an easy it's not an easy thing to do in the current climate. So, but yeah. I mean, I'd love to have you back another time and just talk specifically about physician immigration. That'd be a great great time. To. Yeah. But about 287 g, though, did you do you have any ideas about how that can be improved, or should what is your opinion on that? Should it be limited? Should they be using it at all?

Rosanna Berardi: Well, I think I like to kind of be the middle of the road person on on issues like this. It's there. I think if it's if it's used to the best of its ability without, you know, making communities police states. You know, I I I do think that it in my mind, states should respect federal federal rules, federal regulations. So I am a compliance person. What that looks like, I I don't think I'm qualified to really say. But, theoretically, I think that if the federal government, you know, reasonably utilizes 287 g, it helps them, saves taxpayers money in terms of not having additional, you know, federal employees. But, you know, practically, I'm not sure how that all hangs together.

James Pittman: Okay. Well, we'll we'll we're gonna see how it evolves, and we'll continue the conversation because it's gonna be a huge topic. And, you know, with today's episode, just wanted to lay the groundwork because this, you know, state and local cooperation with ICE is wanna be one of the big big issues, and we're gonna be following it here on Immigration Uncovered. So, you know, we'll have you back. We'll talk about that on other topics. But, we're at the end of the hour, and I wanna thank Rosanna Berardi, and she is the founder of Berardi Immigration Law and a former, border inspector and, INS trial attorney. Rosanna, thanks so much for joining us, giving us your thoughts on 287 g and other contemporary immigration issues.

Rosanna Berardi: My pleasure. This is a great podcast. I think I think we need to educate people more as immigration practitioners. The soundbites do not do our system justice. And although we would love the law changed, I think, you do a great job explaining it, and I'm thrilled to be a part of it for today.

James Pittman: Thank thank you very much.

‍