[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Thanks to Brigid Bergin and Tiffany Hansen for filling in when I was out sick the last three shows last week. It's funny. These days, you get a cough, a sore throat, some common respiratory symptoms. You take a COVID test a couple of times, like I did, and it comes up negative. You think, "Great, I don't have COVID," but then you remember, "Oh, but I'm still sick." [chuckles] Then you're not so happy, and you muddle along until you get better.

Better now, so thanks to Brigid and Tiffany. Actually, so you don't think I've relapsed tomorrow, Brigid will be filling in tomorrow, too, as I take the day off in observance of Rosh Hashanah, as I do. I'm glad I'm here today because it's a landmark day for one of our signature recurring series. Today, we begin our election series, 30 Issues in 30 Days, beginning right now. For the next 30 straight shows, we will explore an issue a day as part of our show in the New York City mayoral or a New Jersey governor's race.

Some days both, including today, with analysis and opposing points of view to help you, the voters, make your choices. Some of the segments, as we mentioned this summer in previewing it, we'll experiment with an "always, sometimes, never" approach, such as one I've mentioned we'll be doing on the touchy question is anti-Zionism, always, sometimes, or never anti-Semitism? That'll be one day next month.

This week on 30 Issues in 30 Days, we'll have a pro-and-con debate on freezing the rent in New York City's rent-stabilized apartments and the role of rent regulations in housing affordability overall. That'll be on Friday. We'll have a comparison of Mikie Sherrill and Jack Ciattarelli's positions on affordable housing policy in New Jersey and their positions on energy costs and climate policies in a separate segment. Also, a voter's guide to the housing-related ballot questions for New York City voters. There are several, and the candidates for mayor have different positions on them. That'll be tomorrow.

We begin right now with 30 Issues in 30 Days. Issue number one, should New York and New Jersey be a sanctuary city and a sanctuary state? Sanctuary state and city policies restrict to varying degrees how much local governments, including law enforcement, can cooperate with federal immigration agents. Many of you know at least that much. It's a big hot-button issue nationally this year, as you know, with the Trump administration's deportation policies. The candidates in New York and New Jersey have a range of views with different positions on how it all affects public safety.

Both sides argue, their way is more protective. The sides disagree on what their positions mean for due process under the law and the US Constitution. Now, this was an issue in last night's televised New Jersey gubernatorial debate, as some of you probably saw. We'll play a clip of Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill from the debate during this segment. In New York, the current sanctuary city law being debated was enacted under Mayor Bill de Blasio, who, here's a clip, described and defended it earlier this year on NewsNation.

Bill de Blasio: The NYPD, for decades, believed it was wrong to ask documentation status because you would break the bond with the community. People would stop reporting crimes, stop coming forward as witnesses if they thought they were going to be deported, and the vast majority of undocumented people actually are fully law-abiding. Our laws say if someone commits a serious or violent crime, get them out of here. Have to have due process.

Brian Lehrer: "Have to have due process," former Mayor Bill de Blasio on NewsNation. We'll hear clips of how some of the candidates for mayor this year disagree with that position as we go, as we launch our 30 Issues in 30 Days election series with issue number one, should New York or New Jersey be a sanctuary city or a sanctuary state? We'll do this as an exchange of views between two advocates on different sides of the issue, and we'll fold in your calls and texts as we go.

Amy Torres is executive director of the pro-immigrant New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice. She previously worked in policy advocacy for immigrants rights in New York City. She's got New York and Jersey experience with a focus, her bio page says, on Asian American and Pacific Islander empowerment. She is second generation from a family that came from the Philippines. Daniel Di Martino, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute conservative think tank and a PhD candidate in economics at Columbia. His research focuses on immigration.

He is a member of the New Jersey State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights. He emigrated to the United States from Venezuela in 2016. He has written for media outlets, including National Review, USA Today, the New York Post, and Fox News. On Fox, he published a piece this year called Sanctuary City Democrats Must Choose Between Americans and Illegal Immigrants. Amy Torres, Daniel Di Martino, thanks for engaging, and welcome to WNYC for our 30 Issues in 30 Days segment on being a sanctuary city or sanctuary state. Hello.

Daniel Di Martino: Thank you for having me.

Amy Torres: Thank you so much, Brian. Good morning.

Brian Lehrer: I want to give you each a few minutes at the start, because we have plenty of time, to lay out your own descriptions of what sanctuary city laws are generally and what their actual effects are, good, bad, or mixed. Then we'll start to get specific about New York and New Jersey sanctuary policies and the candidates' competing views. Amy Torres, since you advocate, more or less, for the policies as they are, Daniel wants to lessen them, why don't you go first and give us your basic take? You heard the beginning of a description by former Mayor de Blasio in the clip. Maybe you want to pick it up from there.

Amy Torres: Sure, so I think one of the best ways to understand the way that federal immigration enforcement works is by maybe taking a proximal example to another federal agency. Let's take, by comparison, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. Both of these federal agencies wear two kinds of hats. One for civil or administrative enforcement, and the other for criminal enforcement.

The hat that they put on depends on the type of violation that occurs. If I make a mistake on my taxes or if I file them late, those are not criminal violations. I might face some consequences like fines, penalties, and interest, but I won't face any consequences that are carceral. However, if there are more serious things that demonstrate larger schemes or intent that are not accidental like document fraud, falsifying records, intentionally evading taxes by hiding income, that is a felony where the IRS would wear its criminal enforcement hat.

I think in the time since ICE has been a federal agency, we have more often seen it as a criminal enforcement agency when, really, it's, by and large, a civil and administrative one. If someone oversees a visa, that's not a crime. It's a civil violation. If they're working without authorization, that's also an administrative violation. Over time, we've seen more and more of what were once civil and administrative violations becoming criminalized and becoming conflated with serious crimes like human trafficking, federal document fraud, alien smuggling, right? These are much, much more serious than working without authorization.

I think what we see with ICE, as opposed to the IRS, is that they're far more often wearing the criminal enforcement hat even when there's no crime taking place. Sanctuary cities and sanctuary state policies are really acknowledging that there are major problems with the federal immigration system. It's been decades since we have had a coherent and comprehensive immigration system.

We see cities, municipalities, and states taking this eye towards saying, "Look, the federal government has not had it figured out on immigration. The federal government must be extraordinarily clear in what our responsibilities are to cooperate before we will begin working with them." Essentially, what it's saying is that we can't have federal agencies conflate things without demonstrating that there's a constitutional need for cooperation.

That's why, even though we have sanctuary policies, and in places like New York City or in places like the four cities in New Jersey that have also been sued by the Justice Department, Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, these cities are not refusing to cooperate. What they're saying is, "Show us the paperwork that we are required to cooperate." Essentially, sanctuary policies are glorified know-your-rights programs. If ICE officers say, "Show me these papers," you have a right to say, "Show me yours first."

Brian Lehrer: Thank you. Daniel Di Martino now. Go ahead and take a few minutes, as we gave Amy, to give us your view of what sanctuary city laws are generally and what their actual effects are, good or bad or mixed.

Daniel Di Martino: Amy did not define what the sanctuary city policy is, as it is legally stated in the state of New Jersey and in New York City and in New York as a whole. What it actually does is it prohibits law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers for somebody who is arrested of a crime, for example. It also prohibits them from asking immigration status, all of that. The important part, I think, that people who are hearing us should understand is that if somebody is arrested for murder in the state of New Jersey, for rape, for robbery, for drunk driving, police will not honor ICE detainers beyond a certain amount of hours.

It will release the criminal instead of allowing them to be deported. This has allowed many repeat criminals to go free in the state. This is not about protecting even regular immigrants who are undocumented. For example, Raul Luna Perez is a man who, in the state of New Jersey, has been arrested multiple times for drunk driving until he killed someone. After he killed this woman and her daughter, he was again released instead of letting ICE go after him. This is the problem with sanctuary cities, that if their advocates were really saying, "We want to protect illegal immigrants who have not committed any other crime other than coming into the country illegally," then that would be fine.

We're not going to have police ask immigration status in traffic stops because of a parking ticket or something like that, or stop you randomly because you look like an illegal immigrant. Of course, that would be all debatable. That would be fine. That's well-meaning. To say that when somebody is arrested for murder, for rape, for drunk driving, for robbery, for shoplifting, that their immigration status should not render them immediately deported, that is the problem I have with sanctuary city policies.

Brian Lehrer: Amy, you want to respond?

Amy Torres: Yes, I think there's a real fundamental piece missing of your definition, Daniel, which is that in the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested, being charged, does not make you a criminal after conviction. That may be the case, but the state of play as it is right now--

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Let's go one at a time in this conversation. We have plenty of time. Amy, go ahead and finish.

Amy Torres: Thank you, Brian. I apologize with being deliberate here, but I really think that the distinctions are important because we see the federal government weaponizing these ideas around criminality and public safety to justify the overreach of some of their agencies. As I was saying, look, in the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, right? Being arrested is not enough to prove conviction.

What we're seeing, the state of play is that there is enormous amounts of racial profiling and mass arrest of people simply for being likely to be associated with public safety threats or national security threats. These people are being detained in immigration jails, not through the criminal legal system. They're being detained in immigration jails and deported before they ever see their day in court.

Brian Lehrer: Now, let's get a response. Daniel, go ahead.

Daniel Di Martino: I just think this is being disingenuous about the issue. The issue at hand is also about people who are convicted. This individual I spoke about was convicted twice before of DUI. I'll ask you this very simple question, Amy. Do you think illegal immigrants who are convicted of DUI or other crimes should be deported after conviction?

Amy Torres: Daniel, in your definition of sanctuary cities, you said this is about criminals, and then you went on to describe people with arrests and charges. That's simply not what's happening.

Daniel Di Martino: Let me ask you about people who are convicted. Do you think people convicted of a crime such as DUI should be deported from the US if they're here illegally?

Amy Torres: I think in the United States, we have a criminal legal system that does enforce laws. [chuckles]

[crosstalk]

Daniel Di Martino: They will go to prison, but do you think they should be deported after they do their prison term?

Amy Torres: No, I don't believe in a system of double punishment. I think that if someone has--

Daniel Di Martino: You don't think that people who commit murder in the United States should be reported?

Amy Torres: If someone has served their debt to society that they should not be subject to double punishment simply because of the status--

Daniel Di Martino: Okay, so just making sure I understand your position, you think that an illegal immigrant who rapes someone after he does his prison time, let's say 10 years, whatever, he should not be deported from the United States because that would be double punishment, you say?

Amy Torres: I don't understand what the administrative enforcement of immigration law has to do with the criminal legal system. I think that's--

Daniel Di Martino: I'm just asking if you could put illegal immigration law at all because what you're saying is that--

Brian Lehrer: Okay, so I think we've clarified. Amy's answer is a no, even after conviction. Daniel, you have a thought about that?

Daniel Di Martino: I think that what she means is that nobody should ever be deported for any reason from the United States because that would be double punishment, even if they're rapists or murderers. That sounds insane to me.

Brian Lehrer: Amy, is that a mischaracterization of your position? By the way, that's not what the sanctuary city laws in New York and New Jersey say. I don't think they go as far as you're apparently going.

[crosstalk]

Daniel Di Martino: They actually do, Brian, because--

Brian Lehrer: All right. Again, one at a time. Daniel, we'll let you make that argument. Amy, just finish your point.

Amy Torres: Daniel, I'd love to respond to you. Brian, you're absolutely right. This is not what the sanctuary policies in New York City nor across the state of New Jersey say. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

Brian Lehrer: You're saying what Daniel asked you, and I want you to answer his question. What he asked you is it sounds, based on your previous answer, like you don't believe in deporting people here illegally under any circumstances. True or false?

Amy Torres: I think that we have enough systems in place to enforce criminal law, right? If it is a criminal law, it should be prosecuted by those bodies. I think it's also an oversimplification, Brian--

Brian Lehrer: Who should be deported if anyone ever, in your opinion?

Amy Torres: Well, the laws in New York City and in New Jersey say in serious enough instances that they allow cooperation with the federal government for the purpose of detention and deportation. I'm not the mayor of New York City, nor am I running for governor of New Jersey, so my personal opinion is--

Brian Lehrer: You would repeat even those.

Amy Torres: If we're here to talk about the issue in the law, Brian, I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that every person who has had contact with the immigration system is a rapist and a murderer. That's an extremely deep oversimplification.

Brian Lehrer: Right. He didn't say every person. Daniel, you're arguing that New York and New Jersey's sanctuary city laws, which, honestly, look different to me on paper than I think what you're going to allege. Go as far as Amy goes. Make your argument.

Daniel Di Martino: Yes. For example, when somebody is released from prison in New York City, the prison is not required to notify ICE and hold them before they release them, so that ICE picks them up and deports them. That is a big problem because most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. If you know somebody has committed a crime, has been sentenced, did his time in prison, and then he's not deported, he's more likely to commit a crime again.

The reality is that if you were in this country illegally and then you committed a crime, you have no business being in the United States. That is not controversial. This is something that well over 80% of Americans agree with, the majority of people in every state agree with, because it's not about protecting people who just came here for a better life and are here illegally. This is important. We're just talking about people who committed a crime and were convicted. Now, regarding the issue of arrest, before people are convicted, I'm telling you that the law as it is right now, even if you're convicted--

Brian Lehrer: Let me jump in. Let me just stay with convicted for a minute. I'm reading from the New Jersey government state website, and there's more here that we'll get into, on what it calls the Immigrant Trust Directive, which is their sanctuary policy. It says, "Nothing in the directive suggested that New Jersey provide sanctuary to individuals who commit crimes in the state." That's the state's own language, so do you accept that?

Amy Torres: Right, and Brian, I think what's important here is that--

Brian Lehrer: Wait, the question is to Daniel. Hang on. The question is to Daniel. Go ahead.

Daniel Di Martino: No, because what the directive actually does is that it prohibits law enforcement from going the extra mile. Meaning if you have somebody who has been convicted of a crime and is going to be released from prison or is after their trial, they will not hold them for ICE. That's the problem. You need to hold them for ICE because ICE is not there. We don't have infinite ICE agents.

Amy Torres: Daniel, it's not the directive that prohibits the Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Jails from doing that. It's the Fourth Amendment and laws against unreasonable search and seizure.

Daniel Di Martino: No, of course not. They are allowed. They are allowed to hold them an extra time because they're here illegally in order for ICE to pick them up. That's how the state of Texas does it. That's how the state of Florida, that's how most Republican states do it.

Amy Torres: I think most places don't want to mimic what the state of Texas does in its immigration policy.

[crosstalk]

Daniel Di Martino: I'm just telling you, it's not unconstitutional because half of the country does it.

Amy Torres: Floating razor wire across rivers. I think when it comes to talking about majority opinion, I think most people don't want--

Brian Lehrer: Right, but you're acknowledging that different states do things differently.

[crosstalk]

Daniel Di Martino: The state of Texas would have been sued.

Brian Lehrer: You know what? [chuckles] Let me jump back in and back up one step on the constitutional or due process issue and bring in what many people have heard about, the Laken Riley Act, named for the 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was murdered last year by an undocumented immigrant. The law in her honor, Laken Riley Act, was passed by Congress and signed by President Trump this year. Relevant to the Jersey race, Mikie Sherrill voted no on the Laken Riley Act as a member of the House. Jack Ciattarelli supports it. Of course, he's not a member of Congress, so he didn't get a vote.

My understanding about the central debate over this law is that it allows the detention for deportation of people merely accused of crimes, not convicted. Amy raised this earlier. Daniel, do you think people should be deported or deportable merely on the accusation of a crime, even a serious crime, rather than convicted when they're convicted, if they're convicted because, obviously, people are innocent until proven guilty?

Daniel Di Martino: Well, I think it's important to say that it's not that you're just accused by someone, is that you're charged by a jury.

Brian Lehrer: Charged.

Daniel Di Martino: To force that.

Brian Lehrer: No, that's my meaning.

Daniel Di Martino: Yes, and I do support that. I think that people who are here already illegally and then are arrested and charged, not just arrested, but also charged with theft, with assault of a police officer, or killing someone, drunk driving, they should be deported from the United States.

Brian Lehrer: You're an immigrant and you're not undocumented, I don't believe. If you were charged with a crime and you didn't do it, and they were able to deport you for it, would that be right?

Daniel Di Martino: Well, I think it would be wrong if I didn't do it.

Amy Torres: Under your definition--

Brian Lehrer: Before your trial. Daniel, go ahead.

Daniel Di Martino: Yes, so number one, the issue here is to hold and detain them without a bond, not that they're deported before trial, actually. They actually go to trial first.

Amy Torres: That's what's happening.

Daniel Di Martino: That's what the law does. The Laken Riley Act is only about holding you so that you're not released on parole, because the problem is that, because of all their policies--

Brian Lehrer: One at a time.

Amy Torres: Charges are dropped or people--

Daniel Di Martino: Can I finish just this one?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, yes, yes. Let Daniel finish. If I mischaracterize, I can stand corrected on whether it's just charged. Go ahead.

Daniel Di Martino: Yes, so the issue today is that many states, especially here in New Jersey and in New York, many criminals are released on parole pending trial. This is for many reasons. Number one, laws since 2020, that have changed and allowed people to be released pretrial that really shouldn't be because there are risks to the community, or because there's lack of--

Amy Torres: These are bail reform arguments. These are not--

Brian Lehrer: One at a time.

Daniel Di Martino: Yes, yes, I'm talking about bail reform. That was a big problem. That allowed many legal immigrants to then get away with murder. What the Laken Riley does is you have to hold them until trial.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. Amy, go ahead.

Amy Torres: I really take issue with, "That allowed many immigrants to commit murder." [chuckles] Violent crimes are, by and large, committed by US-born citizens.

Daniel Di Martino: That's what happened with Laken Riley.

Amy Torres: Yes, and Laken Riley's case is one of countless others in which many other innocent people have been indefinitely detained and deported with permanent consequences even if their charges led to a dismissal, even if their charges were declined to be prosecuted, or even if they led to an acquittal. Sure, we can talk about Laken Riley as one single case. If you look at the statistics, we are applying an extremely heavy hand because of one outlier incident to every person in the United States who could be racially profiled as an immigrant or charged for some sort of criminal crime that they're not even proved guilty of.

Brian Lehrer: Now, I'm going to just say that I think we've established your differences on that. We're going to take a short break, and then we're going to get specifically into some of the statements and positions of the candidates since we're doing this in the context of an election series, both in the New Jersey governor's race and the New York mayoral race. It's issue number one in our 30 Issues in 30 Days election series. Should New York or New Jersey be a sanctuary city or a sanctuary state? Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC in issue number one in our election series, 30 Issues in 30 Days, 30 straight shows that include debates or analysis of issues in the New York City mayoral and New Jersey governor's race. Issue number one, should New York or New Jersey be a sanctuary city or a sanctuary state? It's an exchange of views between Amy Torres, executive director of the pro-immigrant New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, and Daniel Di Martino, fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank.

We'll fold in some of your calls and texts as we go. Questions or brief arguments of your own. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. We've talked so far, in a very spirited debate, about sanctuary city laws generally and the Laken Riley Act at the federal level in particular. Now, let's get more specifically into the sanctuary city debate in the New York City mayoral race per se than the New Jersey governor's race per se.

In the city, Mayor Adams prefers an older, more limited version of sanctuary policy than the one in effect now that he inherited from the Bill de Blasio administration. Zohran Mamdani supports the de Blasio version. A New York Times article on the topic last year said, "Mr. Adams, arguing that the de Blasio era laws were an overreach, has said the city should be able to turn over immigrants who have been accused of crimes even if they have not been convicted," so lining up with one side of what we heard before the break.

It says, "Adams even suggested that constitutional due process rights should not apply to people who entered the country illegally and have committed crimes." Now, here's a clip of Adams on Fox 5's Good Day New York, citing the particular case of a man arrested this summer charged with shooting an off-duty Customs and Border Patrol agent in the face in Washington Heights. The suspect was reportedly in the United States illegally despite having been ordered deported back to the Dominican Republic two years ago. Here's the mayor.

Mayor Eric Adams: If someone commits a violent act like that and these guys were repeated offenders, we should be able to coordinate with the federal authorities to address those situations.

Brian Lehrer: Mayor Adams also said, the 21-year-old suspect had prior arrests for assault and violating an order of protection and was already wanted for a robbery last December and a stabbing in January. Amy, according to the mayor, even in a case like that, the sanctuary city law prevents immigration authorities from getting involved. Is that the law in New York as you understand it? If so, should it be? De Blasio says 170 serious crimes are exempt from sanctuary city protections. One would think shooting someone in the face is on that list, but Mayor Adams in the clip makes it sound like it's not. What's your understanding of the law?

Amy Torres: I think, sadly, Mayor Adams is not known for his precision, right? The truth is, is that the New York City sanctuary laws and the sanctuary laws that are in New Jersey cities and in the Immigrant Trust Directive do provide pretty wide carve-outs that allow local and state PD to work with the federal government. Again, Brian, I think this case that Mayor Adams highlights is really such an outlier. Public safety is not improved by additional coordination with the federal government. If anything, it's eroded.

It prevents immigrant victims of violence from coming forward. It encourages bad-actor landlords to take advantage of their tenants. It allows disreputable employers to get away with dangerous work conditions and wage theft. Even outside of those instances where people are unable to stand up for their rights, people with minor illnesses and injury are often avoiding care at the stage when they're most likely to be able to be healed and recovered, and instead are relying on costly emergency care.

I think another issue that we hear the mayor say often is the budget. The truth is, is that the NYPD makes up an extraordinary part of the New York City budget. If we were to allow the federal government to suddenly deputize them to do the role of federal immigration enforcement, doesn't that mean less resources for everyone else on the ground and much more costly resources for those few that remain?

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, I want to go back in this respect to the de Blasio clip that we played at the beginning. Part of that quote was an argument for why sanctuary city makes the city safer. He says it was wrong to ask documentation status because you would break the bond with the community. People would stop reporting crimes, stop coming forward as witnesses if they thought they're going to be deported. He also said the vast majority of undocumented people are fully law-abiding. What about that public safety concern that people who are undocumented would fear reporting crimes or being witnesses in criminal cases if they think they're at risk of being deported?

Daniel Di Martino: It is the opposite. First, the sanctuary city reform that I support, I don't think they should inquire the status of the victim. The problem is that the city protects the accused, the criminal, not the reporter. Number two. Actually, legal immigrants benefit tremendously from reporting crimes because there is a visa that legalizes their status if they're victims of crime and cooperate with law enforcement. Actually, many immigrants obtain status this way. If anything, they would benefit tremendously from reporting. This is a big myth.

Brian Lehrer: The Adams versus de Blasio version of sanctuary city, it sounds, Daniel, like perhaps you oppose even the pre-de Blasio version, which goes back or various versions go all the way back to Ed Koch. Rudy Giuliani supported a version of sanctuary city when he was mayor. How far would you roll back the previous versions of New York City sanctuary?

Daniel Di Martino: I think that when somebody is arrested for a crime that they clearly committed. For example, somebody is caught in the act, robbing a CVS. For example, somebody is arrested for drunk driving or domestic violence, something that is obvious that was just done. I think that if you are in the country legally, it's a no-brainer to tell ICE and deport them. I also think it's a no-brainer that every time an illegal immigrant who is released from prison is held so that ICE can deport them, and after somebody is convicted, if ICE wants to deport him also, let them do it.

This is not about protecting people who are here just working or stopping them and asking them their immigration status randomly. I'm not supportive of that. I'm supportive of people who are here committing crimes being deported so that they don't keep committing crimes, which is the problem with Jose Ibarra, who killed Laken Riley. It's the problem with Raul Luna-Perez, who killed a mother and a daughter in a drunk driving incident. It's a problem with so many repeat criminals.

Brian Lehrer: Now, let me try to clarify--

Amy Torres: I think, Brian--

Brian Lehrer: I want to continue to try to clarify some of the positions of the candidates. I think we have a sense of Mamdani and Adams. Andrew Cuomo, from what I can find, is actually on the same page as Mamdani on this. I want one of you to correct me if that's wrong. I only find references to him as a candidate defending the idea of sanctuary city from any attempt that President Trump might make to go after it. Do either of you think that's accurate or inaccurate? Not much difference between Cuomo and Mamdani on this. It's only Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa, who we'll get to, are different from them. Amy, go ahead.

Amy Torres: I think candidate Cuomo has been clearer than Adams in what he would defend as the city's sanctuary policies. Again, Brian, to think about how these policies are defined across administration--

Brian Lehrer: I'm sorry. Is it clearer than Adams? Are you characterizing--

Amy Torres: It's his defense of the de Blasio definition of sanctuary policy.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe no daylight between Cuomo and Mamdani on this particular question?

Amy Torres: Well, I think these laws don't stand alone, right? They stand alongside other wraparound services like immigration legal services, making sure that the city has robust language access implementation, so that when people do seek help that they're able to actually get it in a language that they speak and feel assured and confident in coming forward. Brian, before we continue on to what the opposition party may be saying or what other candidates may be saying, I just want to say that even as we're comparing definitions of sanctuary policy across mayoral administrations, we really have to take a look at just how much has changed between federal administrations.

The protection programs that Daniel mentioned, U and T visas, Violence Against Women Act, these were rescinded. U and T visas were ICE policy that was rescinded in January of this year. Policies that once called on agents to avoid detaining and seeking to remove immigrants that had been victims of crime are no longer the law of the land. The truth is, is that people are being actively discouraged from coming forward, and that the Laken Riley Act conflates serious and violent crimes like murder, like assault, as being the same as shoplifting. If I am someone who looks like an immigrant--

Daniel Di Martino: You don't support the--

Brian Lehrer: One at a time. Amy, go ahead.

Amy Torres: If I look like someone who might be an immigrant in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, and if that shopkeeper on the corner were to accuse me based on my profile or based on their personal views of shoplifting, under the Laken Riley Act, I can now be detained and deported.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Very briefly, Daniel, because I don't want to get--

Daniel Di Martino: That is not the case. That is not the case.

Brian Lehrer: Hang on, hang on. I don't want to get bogged down on the Laken Riley Act because we're really doing this in the context of the mayor, but very briefly.

Daniel Di Martino: No, I want. I want to get bogged down on the Laken Riley Act. I think that, first, she's wrong about it. You have to be charged, not accused by a shopkeeper. Second, it's not like America is this rapidly anti-immigrant country, where everybody's going to be accused because of the way they look. Third, we have a problem of shoplifting gangs. I think that you are using this story of racial profiling as an excuse to not tell your real opinion, which is that if somebody is a shoplifter and is here illegally, even if they're convicted, you don't think they should be deported. That's what you think. I don't.

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, do you have anything to add to what we said about Andrew Cuomo before?

Daniel Di Martino: No, I think you described him accurately. I would say that Mamdani does want to go further. He probably will even try to stop federal law enforcement with regards to immigration in the city.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Now, the Curtis Sliwa position, from what I can see, is calling for a citywide referendum on the issue. "Let the voters decide if a sanctuary city policy should remain," Sliwa says that very simply in this clip.

Curtis Sliwa: I will live with the decision that the people of New York City make as to whether we should stay as sanctuary city or not.

Brian Lehrer: Sliwa also said, "Eric Adams twice had the chance to let New Yorkers decide on sanctuary city laws through the ballot, and twice he refused. As mayor, I will convene a charter revision commission and put real issues like sanctuary city laws and whether Rikers should be closed before the people," from Curtis Sliwa. I'm curious if either of you like or don't like that idea of a citywide ballot question on this issue. Daniel, do you?

Daniel Di Martino: I don't think that everything should be up for a referendum. If he wants to do that, that's fine. I just think that the policy is bad and allows criminals to stay here.

Brian Lehrer: Amy?

Amy Torres: I think the willingness to go through a charter referendum commission, we see a lot of people who oppose pro-immigrant policies make arguments about limited resources and the drain on public services. Something like a ballot initiative sounds like something that would be fairly costly, and I don't think gets us any closer to the solutions that we're all talking about.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to take another break, and then we're going to play a clip from last night's gubernatorial debate in New Jersey. We will hear both Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill and Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli on this question of sanctuary state, and continue with our two guests. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. It's our election series, 30 Issues in 30 Days. Issue number one, should New York or New Jersey be a sanctuary city or sanctuary state? An exchange of views between Amy Torres, executive director of the pro-immigrant New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, and Daniel Di Martino, fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank.

Let's go on to New Jersey. In particular, the Jersey debate focuses largely on what's known as the Immigrant Trust Directive, which is often seen as a sanctuary state policy by another name. We'll compare the two candidates, Sherrill and Ciattarelli, on this. They had a televised debate last night, and this came up. We'll play an exchange in just a second. First, since not everyone knows this term, Immigrant Trust Directive, let me read a little more from the state's website on that.

I mentioned one little provision earlier, and then we'll invite our guests to react to the clip that we'll also play. This is from the state's own website. It says how the Immigrant Trust Directive changes law enforcement practices. One of the ways is New Jersey's police officers cannot stop, question, arrest, search, or detain any individual based solely on actual or suspected immigration status.

The police officers cannot ask the immigration status of any individual, unless doing so is necessary to the ongoing investigation of a serious offense and relevant to the offense under investigation. The officers cannot participate in ICE's civil immigration enforcement operations. Also, New Jersey's correctional officers cannot allow ICE to interview individuals detained on criminal charges, unless the detainee is advised of his or her right to a lawyer and signs a written consent form.

Then the state website lists some ways under this section, how the Immigrant Trust Directive doesn't change law enforcement practices. For example, it says nothing in the directive suggested that New Jersey provide sanctuary to individuals who commit crimes in the state. I assume that means convicted. Nothing in the directive limited the ability of law enforcement officers to enforce state criminal law.

Nothing in the directive stopped officers from assisting federal immigration authorities in response to exigent circumstances, whatever exigent circumstances means. With that as background, and there's more on that webpage, but I read some relevant sections of the New Jersey state website on the Immigrant Trust Directives. In last night's debate, the candidates were asked if they support the Immigrant Trust Directive. Here's one minute of their exchange, beginning with Mikie Sherrill.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Now, my opponent supports policies where people who are here legally can be detained, rolling back rights for American citizens, separating children and parents. I'm going to make sure people here in this state are safe and follow the law.

Moderator: Congresswoman, can you clarify? Is that a yes or a no on would you continue the Immigrant Trust Directive?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: What I'm going to do is make sure we're following the law and the Constitution, so that'll include due process rights and the Constitution.

[applause]

Moderator: Jack Ciattarelli?

Jack Ciattarelli: I don't think she answered your question. Executive order number one on day one, we're getting rid of the Immigrant Trust Directive here in New Jersey.

[applause]

Jack Ciattarelli: I said this back in 2021. I'll say it here again. I've said it every single day I'm out on the campaign trail. I believe the Immigrant Trust Directive, us having sanctuary cities, us being a sanctuary state, only encourages illegal immigration and restricts our local law enforcement in a number of different ways.

Brian Lehrer: All right, so that debate last night before an audience of 1,600 people at Rider University and hosted by the New Jersey Globe, and you heard some of that exchange there. Politico describes the exchange this morning as, "Sherrill refused to say whether she would keep in place the Immigrant Trust Directive. Ciattarelli says that was a layup for Ciattarelli, who wants to get rid of it. Sherrill, even when pressed for a yes-or-no answer, wouldn't budge."

Amy, you can go first on this. How do you understand Mikie Sherrill's position? You work with a New Jersey immigration advocacy group. Politico is describing her position as unclear or not saying whether or not she would repeal the Immigrant Trust Directive. Ciattarelli would. How do you understand Mikie Sherrill's position?

Amy Torres: I'm not sure that I fully understand based on her delivery last night, but I hear elements there that hearken back to why laws like the Immigrant Trust Directive are so important, allowing for due process. The federal government cannot just commandeer states and deputize their state and local law enforcement. The anti-commandeering doctrine says that the federal government can't force us to carry out federal programs.

By saying following due process, following the law, it's all of these things that we've been talking about this morning, about making sure that people are innocent until proven guilty, that they're going through the full process that they deserve, that we're not sidestepping the criminal legal system just to accelerate the number of detentions and deportations. I think Jack Ciattarelli has been enormously clear and has said time and again what his plans for the Immigrant Trust Directive are. I'm hoping that within the days that we have before the election that we get more clarity from Sherrill as a candidate to really understand what's at stake.

I think this is something that a candidate for New Jersey governor should be so comfortable articulating. When people talk about immigration states, they often think, "Oh, that's an Arizona issue, or Texas, or Florida, or California." New Jersey is actually second in the nation for a proportion to immigrants to total population. Nearly one in four New Jerseyans is an immigrant. Over 40% of our kids come from immigrant households. I really think voters are hungry for and expecting clear answers on something that's affecting nearly a quarter of the state.

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, you want to take a shot at that? Specifically, Sherrill versus Ciattarelli?

Daniel Di Martino: Well, I think it's important to understand that Amy has talked a lot about enforcing the law and following due process. The federal immigration law is also a law. If people have a final order of removal, that should be honored. I think that we need to be interested in enforcing that. There's over 1.6 million people in the United States that have already had due process and have a final order of removal.

Many of them commit crimes and then are arrested. The New Jersey immigrant directive does not allow for somebody who has been arrested, who has been even convicted of a minor crime, who has an order of removal to be held so that they can be deported by ICE. I think that they should be. I am totally supportive of repealing the directive. The directive actually limits local law enforcement because it's not that without it, the local police would be forced to hold immigrants or do anything like that.

They would simply have the flexibility to do so if they believe it's in the public interest. It's different from, for example, what Texas or Florida have done, which is actually requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the federal government. What the Immigrant Trust Directive in New Jersey does is prohibit law enforcement at the local level from cooperating with the federal government.

Amy Torres: Brian, that's just simply inaccurate in terms of both what the directive does and what federal policy is. We're both seeing federal officers sidestep their own policies to expedite detentions and deportations. The directive itself does not say that it would prevent those things from happening. This is about allowing--

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: One at a time. Amy, finish. Go ahead.

Amy Torres: This is about allowing states and localities to rebuke the federal government, and that they are asking for additional information before they are required to cooperate. This is not about giving individual officers the discretion to enforce federal immigration law. Think about how much has changed since January. Are we expecting every state and local police officer to be an expert on federal immigration policy? That seems ridiculous. When we look at cities across the nation, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, our cities have been militarized. Imagine if both the military, state, and local law enforcement are being used to enact the federal government--

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, briefly, and then we'll take a couple of phone calls.

[crosstalk]

Daniel Di Martino: I will read paragraph B, "Limitations on assisting federal immigration authorities in enforcing federal civil immigration law. No state, county, or local law enforcement agency or officials shall provide the following types of assistance to federal immigration authorities when the sole purpose of that assistance is to enforce federal immigration law. For example, participating in civil immigration enforcement operations, providing access-"

Amy Torres: Civil.

Daniel Di Martino: "-to any state, county, or local law enforcement equipment, office space, database, providing notice of a detained individual's upcoming release from custody."

Amy Torres: Providing notice of their rights?

Brian Lehrer: One at a time. Daniel, go ahead.

Daniel Di Martino: When somebody is going to be released from prison, they prohibit local law enforcement in New Jersey from telling ICE so that they can be deported. That is what the directive does.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get a couple of phone calls in here. We're going to start on the New Jersey side with Maria in Oakland. You're on WNYC. Hello, Maria.

Maria: Hi, can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, we can hear you.

Maria: Great. Yes, I'm calling in because I'm a community organizer with Make the Road New Jersey. In the state, we're seeing ICE raids and arrests. It's really creating fear. Parents are scared to send their kids to school. They're scared to go to court to report domestic violence cases, to fight evictions, or even to take their kids to the medical clinic. I've spoken with families who skip doctor's visits as well, and they're terrified because their information could end up in ICE's hands. What makes it worse is that ICE is about to get the new database from the tech giant Palantir. That's going to let them track, detain, and deport people in real time, and pulling data from license plates, IRS records, and other information. That's why I believe--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead. You can finish.

Maria: Yes, the only thing I wanted to say is that New Jersey needs to pass the Immigrant Trust Act. This will ensure that over a million immigrants-- Yes?

Brian Lehrer: If I understand Daniel's position correctly, he wants those kinds of routine contacts with state functions that you were describing still protected, just not people who are accused of serious crimes or convictions.

Daniel Di Martino: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: Maria, your response to that?

Maria: I think it's very important to pass the Immigrant Trust Act because this is going to allow millions of immigrants in our state--

Daniel Di Martino: This is just a community activist that wants to get their point--

Brian Lehrer: Hang on. One at a time. Daniel, one at a time. Let the caller finish. Maria, go ahead.

Maria: Yes, this is just ensuring that families live without fear and make sure that they can still access the basic services they need. Just like in New Jersey, New York is also moving forward to pass the similar legislation, the New York for All Act. That's why it's important to bring this up.

Daniel Di Martino: Can I ask Maria a question, Brian?

Brian Lehrer: Please.

Daniel Di Martino: Maria, do you think somebody who has been convicted of murder should be deported from the United States if they're here illegally?

Maria: I think they need to be charged, and they need to--

Daniel Di Martino: I said "convicted." I said "convicted." Do you think somebody who has been convicted of murder should be deported from the United States?

Maria: Well, I want to make sure that-- there's many people who are wrongly convicted.

Daniel Di Martino: Oh, I see, so you don't. Again, so this is just another far-left activist who does not believe in any immigration enforcement, even for killers.

Brian Lehrer: Maria, you get a response to that.

Amy Torres: We're talking about the issue of the policies that are on the books today, right?

Maria: Yes.

Amy Torres: The policies as they're written are exactly that. Look, I think it's really dangerous to assume that every individual police officer has the very best intent and is using the most neutral lens when they're charging or maybe profiling folks. It was just a couple of short years ago that there was a New Jersey state--

Daniel Di Martino: Well, this does not charge people.

Amy Torres: Just a moment, Daniel. It was just a few short years ago that a New Jersey state trooper, Jason Dare, he had been a state trooper for nearly two decades. He was fired following evidence that he had Nazi tattoos on his neck. He had a pit bull tattoo that matched the affiliation with a Pennsylvania skinhead gang. Are we supposed to assume that people like Jason Dare, who's been in the State Department for decades, are--

Daniel Di Martino: Again, the people would not charge people for a crime to not convict them? That's a jury, and that's the attorney general.

Amy Torres: Do you think that the criminal legal system is completely removed of any racial bias at all?

Daniel Di Martino: Yes, I do, actually.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Well, that would be another whole show. Maria, thank you for your call. We're going to get one more in here on the other side of the Hudson, and I think the other side of the issue. Ali in Hollis, Queens, you're on WNYC. Hello, Ali.

Ali: Yes, good morning. How's everybody? Okay. First and foremost, let me say this. I've been in this country mighty long time before Kennedy was president, okay? I came here legally. I feel, in this time, that has changed. You have more people coming into the country legally and illegally. There should be some kind of differences. If you come into this country illegally and you commit a crime, yes, you should be deported. No question about it.

First of all, you came here illegally. If you're not trying to become legal, then what are you doing? Think about it. If you're in this country and you're trying to do something for yourself and you commit a crime in self-defense, no, I don't think you should be deported. Remember, you was trying to defend yourself from being harmed. If you're here illegally and you're not doing anything to become legal, yes, you should be deported.

Brian Lehrer: Ali, thank you very much. Amy, I guess it goes to an underlying issue here of should the country not be having more control in general over its borders? We're talking about sanctuary city, sanctuary state, not really the border. I think Ali probably taps into what a lot of people on that side of the issue think, which is the whole fact that there are millions of people here, undocumented means that something is out of control. A country has a right to say who immigrates legally, who doesn't, and then have that debate and set those policies.

Amy Torres: Yes, I think the caller and I maybe share more viewpoints in alignment with each other than we do differences. I think the key thing to remember is that it's not that more people are coming here illegally. It's that the federal government has removed pathways that, once were legal and through this hyper-fixation on border enforcement, have placed even more restrictions and even tighter bottlenecks so that ways that were once legal for generations before are actually not even possible today. Is the caller still on the line?

Brian Lehrer: No.

Amy Torres: Okay. I know that they were saying they were here decades before. The honest truth is, is that ways that used to be allowed for people in decades past are simply not around anymore. When people say things like my parents, my grandparents, or even I came here the right way, if you were to try to navigate the same immigration system today, you'd probably find that you would be on a list for detention or deportation.

Brian Lehrer: We will leave it there. Obviously, much that our guests disagree about and many of our callers, and much that we could further, even after spending an hour, dig into the issue of sanctuary city and sanctuary state. We thank our guests, Amy Torres and Daniel Di Martino, for engaging. Thank you very much for giving us this hour. Thank you. Thank you.

Amy Torres: Thank you so much, Brian.

Daniel Di Martino: Thanks, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: That's Amy Torres, executive director of the pro-immigrant New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, and Daniel Di Martino, fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank. That is 30 Issues in 30 Days, our election series. Issue number one, should New York and New Jersey be a sanctuary city and sanctuary state? Tomorrow, what I know is going to be a much mellower segment because it's going to be in an explainer format as our housing reporter, David Brand, explains the three housing-related ballot questions for voters in New York City to help you make up your mind whether you want to vote yes or no on those.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.