>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Lou: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, HANGING IN THE BALANCE.

NEW MEXICANS WAIT TO SEE IF THE STATE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR A CASE ACCUSING THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE OF VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE.

>> WE ARE JUST REMINDING THE CITY THAT THE NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AS WELL.

>> Lou: AND AN AUTHOR'S NEW BOOK EXPLORES HOW 20TH CENTURY FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS IMMIGRANT ANCESTORS TO BENEFIT FROM STOLEN INDIGENOUS LANDS.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK, I AM SENIOR PRODUCER LOU DIVIZIO.

WE ARE STEPPING ASIDE FROM OUR USUAL ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS TODAY FOR A DEEPER DIVE ON THREE TOPICS.

THIS APRIL, GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM SIGNED HOUSE BILL 15 INTO LAW.

IT ALLOWS IMMIGRANTS IN NEW MEXICO BETWEEN THE AGES OF 19 AND 21 TO APPLY FOR GREEN CARDS.

THIS SPECIAL STATUS ALSO PROVIDES OTHER BENEFITS TO YOUNG PEOPLE IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE IN STATE COURT THEY HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, ABUSED OR NEGLECTED BY ONE OR BOTH OF THEIR PARENTS.

IN THE SECOND HALF OF TODAY'S SHOW, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER JEFF PROCTOR SITS DOWN WITH TWO ATTORNEYS WHO HELPED GET HOUSE BILL 15 PASSED.

THEN LATER IN THE SHOW, OUR LAND LAURA PASKUS SPEAKS WITH AUTHOR REBECCA CLARREN ABOUT HER NEW BOOK.

ABOUT A CENTURY AGO CLARREN'S ANCESTORS FLED ANTI-SEMITISM IN RUSSIA TO LIVE IN AMERICA.

WHEN THEY GOT HERE, HER RELATIVES PURCHASED LAND THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD STOLEN FROM THE LAKOTA PEOPLE.

IN JUST UNDER 20 MINUTES CLARREN EXPLAINS HOW SHE EXPLORED ACTS OF RECONCILIATION AND REPATRIATION IN THE WRITING OF HER BOOK, THE COST OF FREE LAND, JEWS, LAKOTA AND AN AMERICAN INHERITANCE.

NOW, AS WE RECORD THIS TODAY, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE.

LATE LAST WEEK, THE CITY ASKED THE JUSTICES TO REVERSE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE'S INJUNCTION BARRING THE CITY FROM REMOVING HOMELESS PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC SPACES OR TAKING THEIR PROPERTY.

THE REQUEST COMES AFTER CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS FILED A LAWSUIT LAST YEAR ACCUSING THE CITY OF VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE LIVING AT CORONADO PARK AND ELSEWHERE BY DESTROYING THEIR BELONGINGS AND SHUFFLING THEM FROM PLACE TO PLACE AROUND THE CITY WITHOUT NOTICE.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, I INTERVIEWED TWO ATTORNEYS WHO FILED THE LAWSUIT ABOUT THE CASE AND WHAT STEPS THE CITY COULD TAKE TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS.

ADAM FLORES, MARTHA MULVANY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME HERE ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Flores: THANKS FOR HAVING US.

>> Mulvany: YES, THANK YOU.

>> LOU: NOW YOUR LAW FIRM SUED THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL UNHOUSED CLIENTS OVER POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT CREATED CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR THEM AND FRANKLY FOR ALL UNHOUSED PEOPLE IN THE CITY.

MARTHA, WHAT WERE THOSE CONDITIONS AND WHAT WERE YOUR CLIENTS AND OTHERS LIKE THEM FACING IN ALBUQUERQUE.

>> Mulvany: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS ENSURING THAT THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE RESPECTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERYBODY IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FORCED BY THEIR ECONOMIC AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TO LIVE OUTSIDE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INDOOR PLACE TO LIVE.

AND WE FILED THIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE WHAT WE LEARNED IS THAT WHAT THE CITY WAS DOING IS THAT IT WAS CRIMINALIZING THE PRESENCE OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE ANYWHERE WITH THEIR BELONGINGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE CITY KNEW THAT THOSE PEOPLE HAD NO PLACE TO BE INDOORS.

AND IN ADDITION THE CITY WAS SEIZING AND DESTROYING THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THAT INCLUDED PROPERTY THAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR A PERSON'S SURVIVAL.

IT INCLUDED CLOTHING, FOOD, MEDICINE, TENTS, BLANKETS.

THE KIND OF PROPERTY THAT WE ALL NEED IN ORDER TO LIVE.

THE BROADER CONTEXT IS THAT THERE IS A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN THE CITY SO THERE JUST AREN'T ENOUGH HOMES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THE CITY.

AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, THERE ARE NECESSARILY GOING TO BE SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO LIVE OUTSIDE, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE CITY'S CHOSEN METHOD TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS IS THE MOST COSTLY AND LEAST EFFECTIVE METHOD WHICH IS CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT.

SO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ON THE GROUND IS POLICE AND SANITATION WORKERS WILL JUST DESCEND ON SOMEBODY CAMPING OUTSIDE AND ORDER THE PERSON TO MOVE.

AND SO PEOPLE ARE JUST BEING SHUFFLED AROUND THE CITY.

THEIR BELONGINGS ARE BEING DESTROYED IN THE PROCESS AND THE PROCESS JUST REPEATS OVER AND OVER, AIMLESSLY WITHOUT ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING.

SO, WE BROUGHT THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE THE CITY CAN MAKE FOOLISH DECISIONS, IT CAN WASTE PUBLIC FUNDS BUT WHAT IT CAN'T DO IS VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

SO, WE ARE JUST REMINDING THE CITY THAT NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AS WELL.

>> Lou: SURE.

NOW, THOSE POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT BOTH OF YOU JUST MENTIONED, ARE THOSE STILL IN PLACE RIGHT NOW?

>> Mulvany: THEY ARE.

THE CITY IS CONTINUING TO ENGAGE IN THESE PRACTICES.

WE OBTAINED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT BUT IT DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL NOVEMBER 1.

AND SO WE HAVE HEARD THAT THE CITY IS CONTINUING TO HARASS AND CITE PEOPLE FOR THEIR PRESENCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TAKING AND DESTROYING BELONGINGS.

>> Lou: YOUR CLIENTS WON A VICTORY IN JUDGE ALLISON'S COURTROOM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WE'LL GET TO SOME OF THOSE DETAILS IN A BIT.

YOU BOTH MENTIONED SOME ALREADY, BUT EVERY LAWSUIT HAS TO HAVE A LEGAL BASIS.

ADAM, YOU MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUR CASE, WHAT SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE VIOLATING WHAT SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

>> Flores: SO THE CORE OF THE CASE IS THE NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTION'S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE, AND THE IDEA THERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT GOES BACK TO THE HOUSING SHORTAGE.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE FORCED TO LIVE OUTDOORS.

THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO INDOOR SPACE, SO WHEN THE CITY COMES AND RESPONDS TO THAT BY ENACTING A WEB OF ORDINANCES THAT MAKES IT A CRIME TO OCCUPY EVERY SQUARE INCH OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED, YOU CAN'T BLOCK A SIDEWALK, YOU CAN'T STAY IN AN ALLEY, YOU CAN'T STAY IN A PUBLIC PARK, YOU CAN'T OCCUPY A PUBLIC LOT, YOU CAN'T ERECT A TENT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, THE RESULT OF THAT IS A PERSON'S PRESENCE ANYWHERE BECOMES A CRIME.

SO ONE OF OUR MAIN PLAINTIFFS IS SONIA GARCIA.

SHE RECENTLY WAS FORTUNATE TO GET A HOTEL VOUCHER, SHE WAS OFF THE STREET FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

ONCE THAT EXPIRES, SHE IS BACK OUTSIDE, LIVING OUTSIDE, SHELTERING OUTSIDE AGAIN.

I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS RIGHT NOW BUT I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU THAT SHE IS VIOLATING SOME CITY ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE SHE HAS TO BE.

SO, THAT RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS FOR THE CITY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CRIMINALIZE A PERSON'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THE SECOND SET OF CLAIMS WHICH MARTHA MENTIONED EARLIER ARE RELATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

THESE ARE REAL BASIC, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OUR PROPERTY INTERESTS, SO, I CAN EXPECT THAT I CAN WALK DOWN THE STREET AND POLICE AREN'T GOING TO SEIZE MY GLASSES AND THROW THEM IN THE TRASH TRUCK OR YOUR PEN OR YOUR PHONE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IT IS A PROCESS THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE UNHOUSED.

THE CITY, I THINK, THINKS THAT THEIR BELONGINGS ARE TRASH.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY ARE, BLANKETS, TENTS, MEDICATION, DOCUMENTS THEY NEED TO ACCESS SERVICES, THEY ARE ALL SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION ON THE SPOT.

SO, ORDINARILY THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE FROM THAT.

YOU NEED TO GET A HEARING BEFORE YOUR PROPERTY CAN BE SEIZED.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO RETRIEVE YOUR BELONGINGS AFTER SEIZURE OR A POST DEPRIVATION HEARING AFTER YOUR PROPERTY IS SEIZED.

THE CITY PRACTICE IS NOT TO APPLY ANY OF THOSE PROTECTIONS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

>> Lou: NOW MUCH OF THE FOCUS SURROUNDING THIS CASE HAS BEEN ON THE CITY'S DECISION TO CLEAR THE ENCAMPMENT AT CORONADO PARK.

KEEPING IN MIND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS THAT ADAM JUST MENTIONED, MARTHA, WHAT HAPPENED AT CORONADO AND WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID THE CITY DO THERE.

>> Mulvany: WHAT HAPPENED AT CORONADO PARK WAS THAT FOR A LONG TIME THE CITY SORT OF PASSIVELY PERMITTED PEOPLE TO STAY AT CORONADO PARK.

AND THEN AT SOME POINT, FOR REASONS THAT AREN'T CLEAR, DECIDED THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO DO THAT ANYMORE.

ALTHOUGH PEOPLE HAD DEVELOPED AN EXPECTATION THEY COULD STAY AT CORONADO PARK SAFELY, THE CITY CLOSED IT WITHOUT INFORMING PEOPLE THAT IT WAS GOING TO DO THAT.

INSTEAD THE CITY HAD HAD A PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING CLEANINGS EVERY TWO WEEKS.

SO IT THE BEHAVED AS IF IT WAS GOING TO CONDUCT AN ORDINARY CLEANING BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE CITY CAME AND STARTED JUST SEIZING AND DESTROYING PEOPLE'S BELONGINGS AND EVEN WHEN PEOPLE GOT OUT OF THE PARK AND WERE TRYING TO LEAVE WITH THEIR BELONGING, THE CITY SEIZED AND DESTROYED THEIR PROPERTY THAT WAS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK.

AND THEN THE CITY CLOSED THE PARK, FENCED IT OFF AND FLOODED IT.

AND, OF COURSE, THE CITY IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO BE, BUT IF IT CHOOSES NOT TO PROVIDE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO BE, THEN IT CANNOT ENFORCE THE CRIMINAL LAW AGAINST THEM.

>> Lou: SOMETHING THAT YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES, ADAM, IS SOMETHING THAT I DEFINITELY WANT TO TALK ABOUT, THE CORE CONTENTION THAT THE CITY'S MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR UNHOUSED PEOPLE TO BE ANYWHERE AND THAT CITY OFFICIALS HAVE CRIMINALIZED THE STATE OF EXISTENCE AS YOU SAID.

AS JUDGE ALLISON PUT IN HIS ORDER GRANTING THE INJUNCTION, EVERYONE HAS TO BE SOME PLACE.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT JUST FROM A BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE?

>> Flores: IT REALLY IS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, THE LEGAL STANDARD GETS A LITTLE MURKY BUT THE BASIC RIGHT IS YOU HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE AND IF BECAUSE OF MACROECONOMIC TRENDS YOU'RE PRICED OUT OF THE HOUSING MARKET AND OUT OF RENTAL MARKETS YOU NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO INDOOR SPACE.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACE OR ELSE YOU CANNOT BE ANYWHERE.

SO, IT REALLY IS CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE'S EXISTENCE.

>> Lou: OF COURSE THERE ARE CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF HOMELESSNESS ON THE BROADER COMMUNITY.

WHAT CONVERSATION WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE, ADAM, WITH FOLKS WHO WOULD CONTEND YOUR LAWSUIT MIGHT MAKE THIS LONGSTANDING ISSUE EVEN WORSE.

>> Flores: I PUSH BACK AGAINST THE NOTION THAT THE LAWSUIT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM OR IN ANY WAY CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROBLEM OR THE COURT'S ORDER IS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROBLEM.

THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT THE CITY CREATED.

THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT THE CITY CAN SOLVE AND IF THIS LAWSUIT WENT AWAY TOMORROW, YOU KNOW, THIS LAWSUIT WHICH IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS WENT AWAY TOMORROW, THAT WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE HOUSING CRISIS.

IT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE THE HOUSING CRISIS AND WOULDN'T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO SLEEP OUTSIDE BY ONE PERSON.

>> Lou: MARTHA, WHY ISN'T THE CITY'S PUBLIC INTEREST IN MAINTAINING SAFE AND CLEAN PUBLIC SPACES ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY SOME OF THOSE PRACTICES, THE SEIZURES, THE REMOVALS THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER?

>> Mulvany: THE CITY TRIED TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT IT HAS A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN SAFETY AND CLEANLINESS RELATED TO UNHOUSED PEOPLE, BUT WHAT THE CITY IS REALLY TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A HOMELESSNESS EXEMPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS CREATE TRASH, SOME HUMAN BEINGS, AMONG EVERY POPULATION, COMMIT CRIMES AND THE CITY HAS CONSTITUTIONAL WAYS TO MANAGE THESE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO TRASH.

THE CITY IS HAS DEVELOPED A COMPREHENSIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WORKS EFFECTIVELY FOR PEOPLE WITH HOMES.

AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DO THAT WITH RESPECT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES TO LIVE OUTDOORS IS A FAILURE OF THE MUNICIPAL WASTE POLICY.

IT IS NOT SOME INHERENT CONDITION OF HOMELESSNESS.

AND SIMILARLY WITH RESPECT TO CRIME, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN HOES COMMIT CRIMES AND WHEN THEY DO, THE CITY DOESN'T CLEAR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS OR SEIZE EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY.

WHAT IT DOES IS WHAT IT CONSTITUTIONALLY IS PERMITTED TO DO, WHICH IS DEVELOP PROBABLE CAUSE AS TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS REGARDING SPECIFIC OFFENSES AND PROSECUTING THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

THE CITY CAN TAKE THOSE SAME ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO UNHOUSED PEOPLE.

>> Lou: NOW THE MAYOR TOLD ME IN MAY THAT THIS LITIGATION WAS COMING TO A CLOSE.

CLEARLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

WHAT HAS THE CITY'S RESPONSE BEEN LIKE IN COURT, ADAM?

>> Flores: I ACTUALLY SAW THAT INTERVIEW IN MAY AND I THINK THE MAYOR DOESN'T TAKE US SERIOUSLY AND DOESN'T TAKE THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY WHICH IS CONCERNING FOR EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THE CITY.

THIS IS NOT, AS I MENTIONED, WHEN THE LAWSUIT ENDS.

IF THIS LAWSUIT GOES AWAY, THAT IS NOT GOING TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS, IT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.

>> Lou: GIVEN THEIR POSTURE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS FOR THE PROSPECT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE CHANGES?

>> Flores: I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO DO, I HOPE THE CITY LOOKS FOR SOLUTIONS, PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LOOKS FOR OTHER IDEAS OTHER THAN CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO DO.

>> Mulvany: I WANTED TO ADD, NOTHING ABOUT OUR LAWSUIT REQUIRES THE CITY TO TAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO SOLVE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.

BUT HAVING PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE IN TENTS IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY.

IT IS NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO LIVE OUTDOORS, IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE BUSINESSES, RESIDENTS, TOURISTS WHO WOULD LIKE ACCESS TO THOSE PUBLIC SPACES AND IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY THAT HAS TO BE HANDLING UNHAPPY CONSTITUENTS.

THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF HOMELESSNESS IS HOUSING.

AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS SHOULD BE FOR JUST THAT, FOR HOUSING EMERGENCIES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PERSON HAS TO LEAVE HER HOME BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR IF A PERSON LOSES HIS EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF ILLNESS AND IS EVICTED.

WE NEED EMERGENCY SHELTERS FOR HOUSING EMERGENCIES AND IN THE MEANTIME IF THE CITY DOESN'T WANT UNHOUSED PEOPLE JUST LIVING ALL OVER THE CITY, THE CITY WOULD DO WELL TO CREATE SPACES WHERE UNHOUSED PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO LIVE OUTDOORS CAN BE AND PROVIDE SERVICES.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS NEED ACCESS TO TOILETS, SHOWERS, LAUNDRY SERVICES AND THOSE KIND OF SERVICES WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR HOUSED PEOPLE AND UNHOUSED PEOPLE TO LIVE MORE COMFORTABLY IN THE SPACES THAT WE SHARE.

>> Lou: A LOT OF OUR VIEWERS WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH BIG COURT CASE THAT RESULTED IN CONSENT DECREES, REFORMS IN CONDITIONS IN JAILS, PRISONS, POLICE REFORMS.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN THIS CASE AND IS LONG-TERM COURT OVERSIGHT POSSIBLE IN THE CONTEXT OF UNHOUSED PEOPLE?

>> Flores: IT IS POSSIBLE.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHICH MEANS THAT THIS ORDER APPLIES UNTIL THE LAWSUIT IS RESOLVED ON THE MERITS.

SO THERE IS A TRIAL SCHEDULED IN SUMMER AND IN THEORY THE CASE COULD BE RESOLVED AT THAT TIME AND THEN AN ONGOING CONSENT DECREE IS A POSSIBILITY, MONITORING OF SOME SORT IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT AT THE END OF THIS, IF WE PREVAIL THERE WILL BE SOME ORDER THAT ENSURES THAT THE CITY HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT INTERACTS WITH PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

>> Lou: WE HAVE SEEN PROBLEMS PERSIST IN THOSE CASES THAT HAVE HAD CONSENT DECREES ISSUED.

IS THERE A REASON TO BELIEVE A CONSENT DECREE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE?

>> Flores: YEAH, I GUESS I AM NOT -- IF THERE IS A CONSENT DECREE IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE WE WOULD BE MONITORING AND ENFORCING THE CONSENT DECREE, SO JUST THE ATTORNEYS AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE CASE WOULD MAKE SURE THE CONSENT DECREE IS EFFECTIVE.

>> Lou: ONE TAKE AWAY WE HAD WHILE READING JUDGE ALLISON'S ORDER IS THAT THE CITY MUST DO SOMETHING NOW.

AND THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ISSUE, IN PARTICULAR.

I AM NOT GOING TO ASK EITHER OF YOU TO OFFER A ROAD MAP OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB, MARTHA, THAT IS THE CITY'S JOB BUT WHAT WILL THIS REQUIRE IN TERMS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT?

>> Mulvany: I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS A BASIC OBLIGATION TO ALL OF ITS CONSTITUENTS.

THAT INCLUDES HOUSED PEOPLE AND UNHOUSED PEOPLE ALIKE.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN A CITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO LIVE OUTDOORS.

IT IS IN EVERYBODY'S INTEREST FOR THE CITY TO RESOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS AND TO CREATE EMERGENCY SHELTERS THAT ARE ONLY FOR EMERGENCIES AND IN THE MEANTIME TO CREATE SPACES WHERE UNHOUSED PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO LIVE OUTDOORS CAN BE AND PROVIDE SERVICES.

>> Lou: MARTHA, ADAM THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES LIKE BANKING.

YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DRIVER'S LICENSES.

IT IS A LOT EASIER EVEN THOUGH NEW MEXICO HAS A LOT OF IMMIGRANT POLICIES, YOU KNOW, IT IS A DIFFERENT WORLD AND SECURITY AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN LIVING IN FEAR YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEPARATED FROM YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND THE PLACE THAT YOU CALL HOME, HAVING THAT SENSE OF SECURITY, THAT THEY CAN'T REMOVE YOU, BECAUSE OF SIJ'S HUGE WHEN IT COMES TO MENTAL HEALTH OF THE YOUTH AND THE FAMILIES.

>> Lou: THAT INTERVIEW WITH EXECUTIVE PRODUCER JEFF PROCTOR IS COMING UP IN A LITTLE OVER 15 MINUTES.

RIGHT NOW, WE LOOK INSIDE A NEW BOOK FROM AUTHOR REBECCA CLARREN, CALLED THE COST OF FREE LAND, JEWS, LAKOTA AND AN AMERICAN INHERITANCE.

IT WAS PUBLISHED LAST WEEK.

CLARREN'S BOOK OFFERS AN INTIMATE LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE HOMESTEAD ACT THROUGH THE LENS OF HER JEWISH FAMILY WHO RECEIVED AND BENEFITED FROM LAND THEY BOUGHT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFTER FLEEING ANTI-SEMITISM AND IMMIGRATING FROM RUSSIA ABOUT 100 YEARS AGO.

OUR LAND SENIOR PRODUCER LAURA PASKUS SPOKE WITH CLARREN ABOUT THOSE STORIES SHE UNEARTHED AND ABOUT HOW THE HOMESTEAD ACT ENABLED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS INCLUDING CLARREN'S FAMILY TO BUILD WEALTH OFF OF LAND TAKEN FROM THE INDIGENOUS INCLUDING THE LAKOTA TRIBE.

>> Laura: REBECCA CLARREN, I AM SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE TODAY.

>> Clarren: IT'S AMAZING TO BE HERE.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> Laura: YOUR NEW BOOK THE COST OF FREE LAND INTERWEAVES THE HISTORY OF YOUR ANCESTORS, JEWISH IMMIGRANTS WHO WERE FLEEING ANTI-SEMITISM IN RUSSIA AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY AND THE HISTORY OF THE LAKOTA PEOPLE, WHOSE LANDS WERE TAKEN AWAY BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU BUT I WANTED TO START WITH WHAT DID THIS PROJECT START AS AND WHERE DID IT TAKE YOU?

>>Clarren: IN A WAY THIS PROJECT STARTED IN THE EARLY DAYS OF MY JOURNALISM CAREER, WHICH WAS 23 YEARS AGO, 22 YEARS AGO.

I WAS A STAFFER AT HIGH COUNTRY NEWS.

I WAS A YOUNG STAFFER THERE AND IT WAS MY FIRST REPORTING ASSIGNMENT WHERE I GOT TO LEAVE THE OFFICE AND NOT JUST REPORT OVER THE PHONE AND I WENT UP TO THE PINE -- IT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MY VERY FIRST, BUT IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I WAS ON THE ROAD.

AND I WENT UP TO THE PINE RIDGE RESERVATION.

I GOT TO DRIVE THE COMPANY CAR.

WE DIDN'T HAVE CELL PHONES BACK THEN.

WE HAD LIKE BURNER PHONES WITH US LIKE WE WERE DRUG DEALERS.

AND I WAS -- THE BOOK OPENS WITH THIS BUT I WAS IN THE CAR WITH A LAKOTA MAN WHO IS A BUFFALO RANCHER AND TRYING TO MAKE FRIENDS WITH HIM AND I WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING.

I TRIED TO BE PALS BY TELLING HIM, OH, MY FAMILY USED TO BE RANCHERS IN SOUTH DAKOTA.

WE WERE HOMESTEADERS, THINKING THIS WOULD MAKE HIM LIKE ME.

BUT HE WAS POLITE AND A BIT COLD AND IT TOOK ME AN EMBARRASSING LONG TIME TO REALIZE WHAT IMMEDIATELY WHAT THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT TO HIM.

WHICH MEANT, WELL, YOUR FAMILY GOT LAND THAT WAS TAKEN INCREDIBLY UNFAIRLY FROM MY ANCESTORS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, BREAKING TREATIES THAT WERE SIGNED BETWEEN MY NATION AND THE UNITED STATES.

AND SO THAT IS WHERE THIS, IN A WAY, THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF THIS STORY AND I HAVE WRITTEN -- I SPENT MY WHOLE CAREER WRITING ABOUT THE AMERICAN WEST, BASICALLY, MOST FOR NATIONAL MAGAZINES.

I DID WRITE A ONE-OFF NOVEL A FEW YEARS AGO BUT THAT ALSO WAS CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE AND PLACES THAT ARE THE AMERICAN WEST.

AND A FEW YEARS AGO I WROTE -- I WAS HIRED BY AN INVESTIGATIVE NONPROFIT TO WRITE A SERIES OF STORIES ABOUT NATIVE NATIONS AND NATIVE CITIZENS AND IT WAS REALLY WHEN I WAS ABLE TO REALLY LIKE JUST WRITE ONLY ABOUT NATIVE COMMUNITIES INTENSELY FOR A FEW YEARS THAT I REALIZED, OH, I AM SO UNCOMFORTABLE PRETENDING, AS A JOURNALIST, THAT I AM AN UNBIASED OBSERVER TO THIS HISTORY AND LEGACY OF THESE FEDERAL POLICIES THAT ARE NOW PLAYING OUT ACROSS INDIAN COUNTRY IN AMERICA.

BECAUSE I HAVE CLEARLY BENEFITED AS A DESCENDENT OF HOMESTEADERS FROM POLICIES THAT CAUSED GREAT HARM TO NATIVE PEOPLE.

>> Laura: AS THE GREAT GRANDDAUGHTER OF HOMESTEADERS YOU WRITE ABOUT HOW THE LAND WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LAKOTA.

HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T JUST MURDER PEOPLE, STEAL AND ABUSE CHILDREN, BREAK TREATIES, AND SO MUCH MORE, THEY ALSO SWINDLED INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR LAND AND OUT OF THE PAYMENTS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HELD IN TRUST.

AND YET WHITE HOMESTEADERS INCLUDING YOUR FAMILY WERE ABLE TO LEVERAGE LAND INTO CAPITAL AND WEALTH.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTINUE RECKONING WITH THIS 100 YEARS LATER?

>> Clarren: I LOVE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE TO ME IT IS AT THE HEART OF THIS BOOK TO SAY THIS ISN'T HISTORY.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

AND THAT WE HAVE MOVED ON FROM.

I THINK A LOT OF THE WAYS, AT LEAST THE WAY I WAS BROUGHT UP, I HAD AN EXCELLENT EDUCATION, AND YET THE WAY I LEARNED THIS HISTORY WAS VERY MUCH THIS HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO.

AND I FEEL VERY MUCH, ESPECIALLY AFTER LEARNING FROM LAKOTA ELDERS AND STUDYING WITH JEWISH LEADERS THAT, SO, THERE IS SORT OF THIS CULTURAL, A DIFFERENT CULTURAL IDEA OF TIME, BUT ALSO IT IS JUST WHAT IS SO TRUE, IS THAT THE PAST, I THINK, FAULKNER SAID IT, THE PAST ISN'T PASSED.

IT IS STILL HAPPENING.

AND IN A WAY, AND I WRITE THIS IN THE BOOK, I FEEL LIKE THE PAST IS LOOPED TO THIS CONTEMPORARY MOMENT LIKE THREADS THROUGH A SEAM.

TO ME THAT WAS WHAT WAS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS HISTORY, THAT IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

AND I USED THE WAY THAT MY FAMILY WAS ABLE TO MONETIZE OUR LAND TO DEMONSTRATE IN REALLY STARK ECONOMIC TERMS, THIS IS WHAT THIS LAND IN SOME WAYS HAS DONE FOR ME AND WHAT IT HADN'T DONE FOR LAKOTA PEOPLE BECAUSE, TO EXPLAIN, I PULLED EVERY SINGLE DEED ON THE LANDS MY FAMILY HAD.

THERE WERE SIX -- MY GREAT GRANDPARENTS WERE HOMESTEADERS.

MY GREAT, GREAT GRANDPARENTS WERE HOMESTEADERS AND FIVE OF MY AUNTS AND UNCLES AND THEIR HUSBANDS AND WIVES WERE ALSO HOMESTEADERS.

AND THEY OVER AND OVER AGAIN WOULD TAKE OUT A MORTGAGE ON THE LAND.

YOU SEE -- AND I WAS ABLE BECAUSE OF LIKE ORIGINAL FAMILY DOCUMENTS, LETTERS, JOURNALS, NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS THAT I FOUND FROM OLD PAPERS AND THEN THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEEDS OFFICE, THESE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, I COULD SEE THIS TIMELINE THAT THEY WOULD TAKE OUT A MORTGAGE ON VALUE OF THEIR LAND AND THEN THEY WOULD MOVE.

OR THEY WOULD START A NEW BUSINESS THAT WAS NOT CONTINGENT ON WEATHER.

MY FAMILY GOT INTO THE SALOON BUSINESS.

IT WAS MORE STEADY IN NORTH DAKOTA THAN FARMING AND RANCHING.

SO YOU JUST SEE THESE LITTLE BITS OF MONEY, RELATIVELY LITTLE BITS OF MONEY, OVER TIME IS REALLY WHAT BUILDS THE PATHWAY FOR THEM TO BECOME MIDDLE CLASS AND BEYOND.

AT THE SAME TIME THAT THAT IS HAPPENING, THE LAKOTA, AS YOU SAID, ARE NOT ALLOWED, MOST OF THEM, TO MANAGE THEIR OWN MONEY.

THEIR MONEY IS HELD IN TRUST BY THESE RESERVATION SORT OF FEDERAL APPOINTED MAYOR'S OF THE RESERVATION AND THEY WERE CALLED SUPERINTENDENTS OR INDIAN AGENTS.

AND OFTEN THEY WEREN'T RECEIVING THEIR MONEY FOR A LONG TIME.

THERE IS DOCUMENTS OF PEOPLE DYING OF STARVATION WHILE THEY ARE WAITING TO GET THEIR MONEY AND PAYMENTS OFF THE VALUE OF THEIR LAND THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSEDLY KEEPING IN TRUST FOR THEM AND KEEPING TRACK OF.

AND SO YOU SEE THE DISPARITY.

THIS IS NOT WHERE MY OWN PERSONAL FAMILY, THEN, COMPLETELY CROSS-SECTS WITH COLLECTIVE HISTORY AND COLLECTIVE EFFORT.

SOCIOLOGISTS AT THIS POINT TODAY HAVE CONNECTED A PERSON'S ABILITY TO OWN A SECOND HOME, TO PAY FOR COLLEGE, TO HAVE WEALTH, TO THE HOMESTEAD ACT.

THE HOMESTEAD ACT, LEGAL SCHOLARS HAVE CALLED THIS A MASSIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WHITE PEOPLE, THE HOMESTEAD ACT WAS.

AND THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE 25% OF AMERICANS LIVING TODAY, ADULT AMERICANS, DESCEND FROM HOMESTEADERS.

>> Laura: THE SECOND CHAPTER OF YOUR BOOK IS TITLED THE HOLOCAUST AT HOME AND THE USE OF THAT WORD IS CLEARLY DELIBERATE COMING FROM A JEWISH WRITER.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR US TO USE THAT WORD?

>> Clarren: SO, WHEN I WAS A KID I WAS OBSESSED WITH THE HOLOCAUST AND NOW I HAVE A KID WHO IS OBSESSED WITH THE HOLOCAUST AND IT IS TOTALLY UNNERVING.

BUT I WAS ALWAYS LIKE I WANTED TO READ EVERYTHING I COULD GET MY HANDS ON.

I THOUGHT I KNEW A LOT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST AND YET IT WASN'T UNTIL A LAKOTA ELDER BECOMES REALLY CENTRAL TO THE PROJECT AND TO ME PERSONALLY, DOUG WHITE BULL, TOLD ME, YOU KNOW, YOUR FAMILY, THE JEWS, THEY SURVIVED A HOLOCAUST.

IT WAS HORRIBLE BUT WE HAD A HOLOCAUST HERE AND IT LASTED FOR 400 YEARS.

AND NO ONE EVER TALKS ABOUT IT.

YET, WHEN YOU'RE IN LAKOTA COUNTRY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST THAT HAPPENED TO THEM ALL THE TIME.

AND I LEARNED THROUGH DOUG TELLING ME ABOUT IT AND THEN GOING OFF AND STUDYING AND READING BOOKS BY MANY SCHOLARS THAT HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS, THAT, IN FACT, HITLER AND HIS LEGAL TEAM BASED MANY OF THEIR POLICIES ON HOW TO RESTRICT RIGHTS FROM JEWISH PEOPLE BASED ON THE WAY AMERICA WAS TAKING RIGHTS FROM NATIVE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.

THAT BLEW MY MIND.

AND THE FACT THAT AGAIN IT IS ONE OF THESE POINTS WHERE YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND -- I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD AMERICAN HISTORY AND MORE GLOBAL HISTORY AND SUDDENLY EVERYTHING I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD WAS REALLY SHAKEN WHEN SEEING IT FROM THIS NATIVE PERSPECTIVE.

SO, YEAH, I USE THAT WORD VERY INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT MANY LAKOTA ELDERS WHO I SPOKE WITH TALK ABOUT IT AND I THINK IT IS REASONABLE.

CHILDREN WERE MURDERED.

PEOPLE WERE STARVED INTENTIONALLY TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND THEY WERE RESTRICTED ON TO RESERVATIONS WHICH HITLER HIMSELF USED AS A PREMISE FOR CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

SO, YOU ALSO WRITE IN YOUR BOOK THAT AMERICA HAS FAILED TO UNDERGO ANY PROCESS OF NATIONAL TRUTH TELLING, REPARATION OR RECONCILIATION LET ALONE ANY REAL PUBLIC AMENDMENTS.

THAT CLEARLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

BUT, AS YOU FOUND AND AS YOU WRITE, THERE ARE ALSO WAYS FOR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES TO BE MAKING REPARATIONS AND RECONCILIATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE DOING BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY WORK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING WITH RABBI BENJAMIN BARNETT.

>> Clarren: EARLY IN THIS PROCESS, AN INDIGENOUS JUDGE, JUDGE ABBY ABINANTI, WHO IS A JUSTICE OF THE YUROK NATION AN INDIGENOUS AND SHE ALSO A FORMER CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

SHE IS A TOTAL BAD ASS.

AND SHE IS LIKE IN HER MID 70'S, BEEN DOING THIS WORK HER WHOLE YEAR.

SHE WAS THE FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN, I THINK, FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN TO PASS THE BAR IN CALIFORNIA.

SHE RUNS HER COURTROOM FOR THE YUROK NATION WITH AN EYE TOWARD HOW DID WE DO JUSTICE BEFORE CULTURAL INTERRUPTION?

IT IS ALL ABOUT, SHE SAYS, AND WHAT SHE TAUGHT ME IS JUSTICE WORKS BEST WHEN IT IS EMBEDDED IN YOUR OWN CULTURE.

SO, EARLY ON WHEN I WAS -- BEFORE THIS WAS EVEN IN THE BOOK, WHEN I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT, SHE SAID TO ME, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THIS HISTORY AND YOU WANT TO GRAPPLE WITH HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS HISTORY, YOU NEED TO STUDY THE JEWS.

WHAT DO THE JEWS SAY ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND TO A HARM, MAYBE ONE YOU DIDN'T DIRECTLY CAUSE BUT ONE YOU HAVE BENEFITED FROM.

THAT -- I HAD A THOUGHT IN THIS BUT I BELONG TO A SYNAGOGUE.

I LIGHT CANDLES EVERY WEEK WITH MY FAMILY TO DO SHABBAT BUT I HAD NEVER DONE TOUR STUDY.

I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO DO THAT AND LUCKILY I DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT ALONE.

RABBI HERE IN TOWN, RABBI BARNETT, WHO CARES DEEPLY ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE, MY SYNAGOGUE IS A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE, SAID LET'S DO THIS LEARNING TOGETHER.

THIS LEARNING WILL BENEFIT OUR OR WHOLE COMMUNITY.

AND SO WE SPENT SEVERAL YEARS STUDYING ANCIENT JEWISH TEXTS AND CONTEMPORARY RABBIS WHO ARE WRITING INSPIRED BY ANCIENT TEXTS TO CONSIDER WHAT ONE RABBI, IN PARTICULAR, SAID IS THE SORT OF FOUNDATIONAL SINS OF OUR COUNTRY, WHICH IS WE BUILT OUR COUNTRY WHICH IS THE STEALING OF NATIVE LANDS AND STEALING OF ENSLAVED PEOPLES BODIES.

AND SO I AM ANSWERING THIS IN A VERY LONG ROUNDABOUT WAY BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WHAT MY FAMILY IS DOING TO RESPOND TO THE REALITY OF OUR HISTORY IN AMERICA IS GROUNDED DEEPLY IN THIS JEWISH LEARNING THAT WE DID.

AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, I HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH LAKOTA ELDERS WHO -- AND ASKING THEM, WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE?

WHAT WOULD WORK FOR YOU?

AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME.

IT WASN'T UNTIL A COUPLE OF YEARS INTO MY RELATIONSHIP WITH WHITE BULL WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION A COUPLE TIMES THAT HE ACTUALLY FINALLY RESPONDED.

HE IS -- WHITE BULL WAS A VETERAN TEACHER, AND HE, LIKE A TEACHER, HE NEVER REALLY SAYS, THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.

HE SORT OF JUST LEADS YOU TO MAKE CONNECTIONS ON YOUR OWN.

HE SAID TO ME, WELL, HE REMINDED ME, AGAIN, OF SOMETHING HE TOLD ME ABOUT BEFORE WHICH IS THERE IS A NATIVE LED EFFORT TO BUY UP, WHEN PRIVATE LAND COMES UP FOR SALE IN THE BLACK HILLS OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THERE IS A NATIVE EFFORT TO BUY PRIVATE LAND AND HELD IN TRUST FOR ALL LAKOTA PEOPLE TO USE FOR CEREMONY AND OTHER PURPOSES.

AND EVEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, THERE IS NO DEBATE.

SUPREME COURT IN 1980 MADE VERY CLEAR, OH, WE STOLE THIS LAND.

WE UNFAIRLY STOLE THIS LAND FROM LAKOTA AND THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY SITTING IN A BANK ACCOUNT THAT THE UNITED STATES SAID, HERE, WE ARE GOING TO PAY YOU BACK BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THIS LAND FROM YOU AND THE LAKOTA DON'T WANT IT, BECAUSE THEY WANT THE LAND INSTEAD.

SO, THIS IS A LONG WAY OF EXPLAINING THAT WHAT MY FAMILY HAS DONE IS I HAVE STARTED A FUND CALLED A RECOVERY FUND WITH THE INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION FUND WHICH IS A NONPROFIT THAT IS NATIVE LED THAT HAS BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR 30 YEARS.

WE ARE NOT INVENTING ANYTHING HERE.

I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

I THINK THAT AS DESCENDENTS OF THE SETTLERS YOU DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE, OH, I HAVE GOT THE SOLUTION.

I AM JUST FOLLOWING THE GUIDANCE OF SOMETHING THAT NATIVE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING AND SO WE HAVE CREATED A FUND AND I HAVE SET AS OUR FUND RAISING GOAL 1.1 MILLION DOLLARS.

1.1 MILLION-DOLLAR IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER.

IT IS THE NUMBER WHEN ADJUST FOR INFLATION.

WHEN I CALLED ALL THOSE MORTGAGES THAT MY FAMILY RECEIVED FROM 1908 TO 1960'S, I THINK IS MAYBE THE LAST MORTGAGE WE GOT, I MADE A SPREADSHEET.

I ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION.

I HAD MATH NERDS CHECK MY MATH.

AND 1.1 MILLION IS THE AMOUNT THAT WE RECEIVED OFF THAT FREE LAND.

OF COURSE, WE HAD TO PAY THAT MONEY BACK, AND, OF COURSE, MY FAMILY WORKED SO HARD AND REALLY STRUGGLED ON THAT LAND BUT TO ME THAT MONEY, IT IS WHAT WE OWE.

IT IS OUR PIECE OF THIS.

>> LAURA: THANK YOU REBECCA.

I LOVED YOUR BOOK.

I LEARNED SO MUCH AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHERE THIS BOOK OUT TO AND I AM SURE TONS OF PEOPLE WILL READ IT BUT I HOPE TO SEE IT IN CLASSROOMS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT THANKS FOR JOINING ME.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> Clarren: THANK YOU, GREAT TO BE HERE.

>> Lou: TO HEAR MORE FROM CLARREN ABOUT HER WRITING PROCESS AND HOW TO DO SOME OF THAT SAME RESEARCH YOURSELF, VISIT THE OUR LAND CHANNEL ON YOUTUBE.

A NEW LAW IS EXPANDING THE RIGHT FOR YOUNG IMMIGRANTS TO ACCESS GREEN CARDS, WORK PERMITS AND OTHER BENEFITS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, ABUSED OR NEGLECTED.

GOVERNOR MITCHELL LUJAN GRISHAM, SIGNED OFF ON THE LAW THIS SPRING AFTER YEARS OF ADVOCACY WORK OF THE NEW MEXICO IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER AND OTHER GROUPS.

STATE LAW NOW REFLECTS FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW, ALLOWING PEOPLE 21 & UNDER TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.

THE CUTOFF IN NEW MEXICO HAD BEEN 18 YEARS OLD WITH FEW EXEMPTIONS.

THIS WEEK, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER JEFF PROCTOR SPEAKS WITH AN ATTORNEY FROM THE IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER AND POLICY DIRECTOR FROM BOLD FUTURES NM ABOUT THE PROCESS GETTING THE LAW PASSED AND HOW THIS BILL COULD IMPACT THE LIVES OF THOSE 19 TO 21 YEAR OLDS.

>> Jeff: JESSICA, HAZMIN, THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Jessica: THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> Jeff: SO WE JUST HEARD THE TWO OF YOU WERE SORT OF TIP OF THE SPHERE IN GETTING HOUSE BILL 15 THROUGH THE NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE EARLIER THIS YEAR.

AND WE'LL GET TO THAT EXPERIENCE IN A MOMENT BUT LET'S START WITH THE LENS WIDE OPEN.

THE BILL EXPANDED ACCESS TO WHAT IS CALLED SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS OR SIJS.

JESSICA, START WITH YOU, WHAT DOES THAT DESIGNATION MEAN LEGALLY IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT AND WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF WHO IS QUALIFIED.

>> Jessica: SO, SPECIAL JUVENILE STATUS OR SJIS, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IS A SPECIAL FORM OF HUMANITARIAN RELIEF DESIGNATED BY FEDERAL CONGRESS SINCE 1990 FOR IMMIGRANT YOUTH WHO ARE ABUSED, ABANDONED OR NEGLECTED BY ONE OR BOTH PARENTS AND UNIFICATION WITH THE PARENTS ISN'T VIABLE.

SO, UNDER THIS PROPER, UNIQUE INTERJECTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW WHERE THEY AUTHORIZED THE STATE TO ISSUE THOSE FINDINGS OF ABUSE, ABANDONMENT AND NEGLECT, WE GO THROUGH THE STATE COURT PROCESS FIRST, OBTAIN AN ORDER, WITH ALL THOSE REQUISITE FINDINGS.

ONCE WE OBTAIN THAT ORDER THEN WE PROCEED WITH THE IMMIGRATION PHASE OF THE CASE TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS FOR SPECIFIC SPECIAL JUVENILE STATUS AND THAT WILL ULTIMATELY GIVE THEM PROTECTION TO REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY BEING IN A MORE STABLE ENVIRONMENT HERE IN NEW MEXICO.

AND THEN IT ULTIMATELY INCLUDES A PATHWAY TO PERMANENT STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP.

AND SO IT IS A VERY SPECIAL, UNIQUE FORM OF RELIEF THAT WE ARE PROUD TO WORK WITH IMMIGRANT YOUTH ACROSS THE STATE IN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW ABOUT IT, ARE EDUCATED ABOUT IT AND SEE IF WE CAN ASSIST THEM IN MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENS FOR THEM.

>> Jeff: SO IN THE END IT IS A STATE COURT JUDGE WHO MAKES THAT DECISION.

>> Jessica: IT IS A STATE COURT JUDGE MAKES THE DETERMINATION OF ABUSE, ABANDONMENT AND NEGLECT.

BUT IT IS ONLY WITHIN THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AGENCY TO ALLOW -- TO GIVE THE GRANT OF THE STATUS SO THAT IS A SEPARATE PROCESS.

>> Jeff: GOT YOU.

JAZMIN, THOSE THREE WORDS THAT JESSICA JUST MENTIONED, ABUSE, ABANDONMENT AND NEGLECT, DO THOSE HAVE SPECIAL MEANING IN THIS CONTEXT?

IS THERE A PARTICULAR SET OF CRITERIA THAT GOES INTO MAKING THAT FINDING OR ARE THEY AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS WHAT WE THINK THEY ARE?

>> Jazmin: INTERESTING YOU SHOULD BRING THAT UP.

THE BILL ACTUALLY ADDRESSED ABANDONMENT AND HOW WE WANTED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S DECISION IN EXPANDING WHAT WAS CONSIDERED ABANDONMENT.

WITHIN THE FAMILY LAW CONTEXT, WITHIN CHILD WELFARE, THERE IS DISCREET DEFINITIONS THAT JUDGES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND STATE AGENCIES FOLLOW WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABUSE, ABANDONMENT OR NEGLECT.

AND I THINK ONE THING WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING IS WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE GOAL SHOULD ALWAYS BE FAMILY REUNIFICATION.

SO, WE'LL SEE AN INTERESTING LANDSCAPE WHERE, IN THESE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS YOU HAVE A TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE WHERE REUNIFICATION ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS VIABLE AND SO FROM THAT YOU CAN OBTAIN THAT TYPE OF STATUS.

>> Jeff: LET'S STAY WITH YOU FOR A MINUTE.

I WOULD LIKE FOR BOTH OF YOU TO RESPOND TO THIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES WITHOUT, IN SOME INSTANCES, OF COURSE, NAMING NAMES, BUT WHAT DOORS DOES SIJS OPEN THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CLOSED?

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF OBTAINING THAT STATUS?

>> Jazmin: OH, MY GOODNESS, SO, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT BRINGS, RIGHT.

I CAN SPEAK PERSONALLY TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO SIJS.

I WAS 19 WHEN I LEARNED THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE IN MY PARTICULAR FAMILY SITUATION.

I GREW UP WITH A SINGLE MOTHER AND MY FATHER WAS ABSENT AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THERE WOULD EVER BE REUNIFICATION BECAUSE MY FATHER JUST WASN'T IN THE PICTURE.

BUT HAD I GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A WORK PERMIT.

I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EVENTUALLY OBTAIN A GREEN CARD AND PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP, BUT EVEN FROM THE POINT OF SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION AND RECEIVING A LETTER FROM THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT IS PROCESSING THAT APPLICATION FOR SJIS, THAT MEANS YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTHCARE, LIKE MEDICAID.

YOUR ELIGIBLE TO BETTER NAVIGATE EDUCATION, WHICH WAS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT FOR ME AS AN UNDOCUMENTED PERSON TRYING TO GET MY LAW LICENSE STILL UNDOCUMENTED.

YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES LIKE BANKING.

YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DRIVER'S LICENSES.

IT IS A LOT EASIER, EVEN THOUGH NEW MEXICO HAS A LOT OF IMMIGRANT FAMILY POLICIES, SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS A DIFFERENT WORLD AND SECURITY AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN LIVING IN FEAR THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE SEPARATED FROM YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS AND THE PLACE THAT YOU CALL HOME, HAVING THAT SENSE OF SECURITY THAT THEY CAN'T REMOVE YOU, BECAUSE OF SIJS IS, I THINK, HUGE WHEN IT COMES TO MENTAL HEALTH OF THE YOUTH AND THE FAMILY.

>> Jeff: JESSICA, PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 15, WHO WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS STATUS?

>> JESSICA: THERE WAS A LIMITATION AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

UNDER STATE LAW WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO OBTAIN COURT ORDERS UP TO THE AGE OF 18 BASED ON THE LIMITATIONS OF COURT JURISDICTION.

HOWEVER, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE FEDERAL REGULATION ALLOWED FOR IMMIGRANT YOUTH TO OBTAIN UP TO AGE 21 AS LONG AS THE STATE LAW REFLECTED THAT.

SO IT SEEMED LIKE AN EASY FIX, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO GET IT PASSED BUT THAT IS WHAT CHANGED.

WE ARE NOW ABLE TO EXPAND THAT ELIGIBILITY UP TO AGE 21.

AND, IT ALSO WITHIN THAT LAW AS WELL WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO EXPAND WHAT ABANDONMENT MEANS.

AND SO A LOT OF THE YOUTH WE WOULD WORK WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL COMMUNITIES, WE WOULD TALK TO THEM AND REALIZE THAT THEY MET ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEIR 18TH BIRTHDAY WAS THE WEEK BEFORE SO THEY WERE AGED OUT OF THE SYSTEM.

THERE WERE CASES WHERE IMMIGRANT YOUTH WERE LIKE IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN MAKE AN EXEMPTION FOR US AND THERE WAS ONLY RARE EXCEPTIONS WHERE WE COULD HELP PEOPLE STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL AGE OF 18.

BUT AT LEAST NOW WE ARE ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM, BEYOND THE AGE OF 18 AND GIVE THEM AT LEAST A THREE-YEAR CUSHION SO WE CAN APPLY FOR THIS FORM OF RELIEF.

>> Jeff: THIS IS NOT A MYSTERY.

YOU KNEW FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THE WAY TO FIX THIS WAS TO MAKE STATE LAW MATCH FEDERAL LAW.

WHEN DID THE WORK BEGIN?

WHEN DID THE CONVERSATION BEGIN IN TRYING TO GET STATE LAW TO REFLECT FEDERAL LAW.

>> Jessica: YEAH, SO, EVEN BEFORE I BECAME AN ATTORNEY AT NEW MEXICO IMMIGRANT FAMILY LAW CENTER THE OFFICE HAD BEEN WORKING FOR TWO YEARS WITH DIFFERENT LAW STUDENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SEE HOW WE COULD CHANGE THE POLICY TO REFLECT THE FEDERAL LAW, BUT, AGAIN, WE ARE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS.

CAPACITY TO DO THAT WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT CASES GOING BEFORE US, WHEN I CAME ONBOARD, YOU KNOW, MY SUPERVISOR, MONICA MILLER, WHO HAS TAKEN A LEADERSHIP IN A LOT OF THAT ROBUST BILL DRAFT, SHE TURNED TO ME AND SHE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS.

AND IT WAS ALWAYS MY DREAM TO BECOME A MOVEMENT LAWYER.

SO, I SAID, ABSOLUTELY, LET'S WORK WITH COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WITH MENTORSHIP FROM JAZMIN AS WELL, WE WORKED WITH COMMUNITIES AND WE DEVELOPED NOTES AND FIGURED OUT THAT BASED ON WHAT COMMUNITIES DIRECTION WAS, THAT THERE WERE A LOT MORE GAPS TO BE FILLED BEYOND THAT AGING GAP, BUT THERE WAS ACTUALLY GAPS IN HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ABANDONMENT.

AND ALSO THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE SO THAT WE DON'T RUN AGAINST THE CLOCK AGAIN WHEN WE PASS THE LAW.

SO, IT WAS A LONG PROCESS, BUT EVENTUALLY, THROUGH THAT LISTENING SESSION, I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE DEVELOPED THE STRENGTH OF THAT BILL.

AND THAT IS WHAT CREATED THE MOVEMENT AND THE SPARK FOR WHY THE LAW ACTUALLY PASSED.

>> Jeff: SO ONCE YOU HAD DONE THAT WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, THE LISTENING SESSIONS, YOU HAD IDENTIFIED A BILL SPONSOR.

NOW IT IS ACTUALLY TIME TO TAKE WHAT YOU GATHERED FROM COMMUNITY AND GO IN FRONT OF THESE SOCRATIC WONDERS THAT IS THE NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERIENCE WAS LIKE ONCE YOU GOT TO SANTA FE?

WHAT WAS THE EXPERIENCE LIKE DURING COMMITTEE HEARINGS, FLOOR DEBATES.

PUT US IN THE ROOM.

HOW DID THAT WORK?

>> Jazmin: YEAH, THAT IS A -- LIKE PEOPLE SAY, ADVOCACY IS A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE IN FOR ANYONE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EVERYONE IN OUR STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY KNOW WE ARE THE ONLY LEGISLATURE WHERE OUR ELECTEDS ARE NOT PAID FOR THEIR TIME.

SO THAT IS A CHALLENGE IN AND OF ITSELF.

IT IS A CHALLENGE THAT THESE ARE SYSTEMS NOT NECESSARILY MADE FOR PEOPLE LIKE US, PEOPLE OF COLOR, YOUTH, IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE CRIMINALIZED BY VARIOUS SYSTEMS AND AFRAID TO NAVIGATE THESE SPACES.

AND THEY HAVE PEOPLE LIKE US WHO ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY.

EVEN THOUGH WE ARE LAWYERS, AND HAVE THESE FANCY TITLES, PEOPLE LOOK AT US AND THEY OFTEN HEAR COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO BE SEEN IN THOSE SPACES.

IT IS ALSO CHALLENGING FOR US AS LEADERS TO WALK INTO THE SPACES AND NOT BE AFFORDED THE RESPECT THAT ANYONE SHOULD HAVE WALKING INTO THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

SO, IT WAS CHALLENGING BUT I THINK THE BEAUTIFUL PART WAS THAT MOVEMENT BUILDING THAT JESSICA TALKED ABOUT.

WHEN WE SHOWED UP AT THE ROUNDHOUSE, WE DIDN'T SHOW UP ALONE.

IT WASN'T JUST BOLD FUTURES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORTED THIS.

IT WAS A COMMUNITY.

WE SHOWED UP TOGETHER IN STRENGTH AND NUMBERS.

AND IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT I THINK OUR LEGISLATIVE OFFICIALS REALLY LOOK TO IS WHO AM I SERVING IN OUR DAY IN THE HOUSE.

AND OUR COMMUNITY SHOWED UP AND ANY TIME THAT WE WERE PREPARING FOR COMMITTEE, THERE WERE CALLS, THERE WAS FOLLOW-UP, THEY WOULD SHOW UP TO THE ROUNDHOUSE.

EVEN AFTER BEING ON SESSION FLOOR WHERE THERE WAS A HOUSE OR SENATE PEOPLE WERE THERE AND ONCE IT WAS PASSED, THERE WAS THIS HUGE SENSE OF RELIEF, LIKE PEOPLE WERE RUNNING THROUGH THE HALLS, ACROSS THE HALL FROM ONE TEAM TO THE OTHER.

SPEAKER MARTINEZ AND HIS OFFICE RAN TO THE SENATE CHAMBER AND WE ARE ALL CRYING AND HUGGING BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BEAUTY OF BEING THERE TOGETHER IN COMMUNITY, THE WHOLE MOVEMENT.

>> Jeff: THE BILL PASSED BY REALLY WIDE MARGINS, RIGHT, IT PASSED, I THINK, 64 TO NOTHING IN THE HOUSE, 33 TO SIX, SIX REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST ON THE SENATE SIDE.

I AM NOT SUPER INTERESTED IN THE MARGINS REALLY BUT I WANT YOU TO TALK ACTUALLY SOME MORE ABOUT HOW COMMUNITY OVERCOMES RESISTANCE?

HOW DID THAT WORK IN THIS CONTEXT.

>> Jessica: I THINK JAZMIN REALLY HIT THE POINT.

WE BUILT POWER IN COMMUNITY.

IT IS ABOUT BUILDING POWER WITH THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN POWER OF THE LAW.

AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY USING ALL OF OUR POSITIVITY, CHANNELING ALL OF OUR OWN, YOU KNOW, STRENGTH, HOPE, FAITH, ALL OF IT, YOU NAME IT.

THERE WAS ONE PARTICULAR CLIENT THAT WAS IN LISTENING SESSION THAT SAID, IF THERE IS ONLY 1% CHANCE OF HOPE I HAVE 99% OF FAITH AND WE WOULD READ THAT TO EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THERE WERE MOMENTS WHERE WE WERE FACING RACISM, MICRO AGGRESSIONS, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE SPACES.

AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE BUILDING ALLIES WITH SO MANY LEADERS THAT WE HAVE ELECTED AND THAT WE WERE PROUD TO SAY THEY STOOD BY US FOR SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A SENSE OF URGENCY.

LIKE PEOPLE COULD BE REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT THIS FORM OF RELIEF, PEOPLE NEED STABILITY AND THESE ARE CHILDREN, ULTIMATELY.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS CONTENTIOUS AS IT WAS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU KNOW, WHEN WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS A MOVEMENT BUILDING, THAT ALL OF US WERE COLLECTIVELY COMING TOGETHER, YOU SAW THAT EVERY SINGLE HAND THAT TOUCHED THAT BILL MADE SURE THAT BILL MADE IT THROUGH.

AND WE ALL WORKED UNTIL THE VERY END AND WE PASSED WITHIN 45 MINUTES OF THE SESSION CLOSING, AND YOU SEE ON CAMERA FROM THAT PUBLIC RECORD, YOU'LL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, I AM LITERALLY IN TEARS ONCE THE BILL IS PASSED.

I AM EMBRACING WITH SOME OF OUR SENATE SPONSORS AS WELL AS ONE OF OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES THAT WAS SEATED NEXT TO ME.

AND AS I WALKED ACROSS THERE WAS PEOPLE COMING, LIKE SHE SAID, RUNNING ACROSS TO GIVE EACH OTHER HUGS AND IMPACTED YOUTH WHO WERE CALLING, IMPACTED YOUTH WHO WERE HUGGING IN THE HALLWAYS, LEGISLATIVE AIDS RUNNING AND JUST CHEERING AND, LIKE, WE LEFT NO STONE UNTURNED.

WE DID WHAT WE CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS A BILL THE FIRST TIME WITH NOT EVEN DOING INTERIM SESSION.

SO THERE WAS A MOVEMENT.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WE WERE HEARING FROM SOME OF OUR ATTORNEYS WHO WERE IN OUR TEAM THAT DID A LOT OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES, THAT THEY WERE THERE WITH THEIR CHILDREN, WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, 10, 15, 12, AND THEIR CHILDREN WATCHED THE PROCESS AND THEY THEMSELVES WERE MOVED THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN IN OUR STATE AND THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM HAD THE PRIVILEGES THAT SOME OF THE IMMIGRANT CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE AND THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE AT THE LAST MINUTE AND IT WAS ABLE TO HAPPEN WITH LEADERSHIP AND PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY COMING TOGETHER TO BUILD A MOVEMENT.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL ABOUT IT.

>> Jeff: DID YOU ALL KNOW THE GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO SIGN IT OR WAS IT PINS AND NEEDLES FOR A COUPLE WEEKS?

>> Jazmin: YOU KNOW, LAST SESSION WAS HEAVILY ON CHILD WELFARE SO THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE BILL WAS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD HOUSE BILL 15.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY SENATE BILL 229 AND SPEAKER MARTINEZ SUPPORTED IT AND HIS OFFICE IN CREATING AN EMERGENCY BILL.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MORE POINTEDLY, ONE THING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN POLICY ADVOCACY, ESPECIALLY IN THE LEGISLATURE, WILL TELL YOU, IT IS NOT OVER UNTIL IT IS OVER.

EVEN A BILL PASSES, EVEN IF YOU GOTTEN INDICATION THAT IT WILL MAKE IT THROUGH, IT IS NOT THROUGH UNTIL IT IS SIGNED.

WE CELEBRATED.

WE WERE HAPPY.

WE SLEPT A LITTLE AND THEN THE FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, WEEK AND THE WEEK AFTER, IT WAS STILL HEAVY MOBILIZING, ENSURING THAT IT WOULD GET SIGNED AND ONCE IT DID, I KID YOU NOT, THE INK HADN'T DRIED, THEY SENT US A PICTURE ON OUR PHONE AND CASES STARTED GETTING ASSIGNED LEFT AND RIGHT, BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL IT WAS SIGNED AND NEWS WAS SHARED AND WE WERE CALLING OTHER AGENCIES LIKE SANTA FE PROJECT THAT TOOK THE FIRST CASE, THAT WE KNEW, THE BILL WAS PASSED, WE CAN START ASSIGNING THESE CASES NOW.

>> Jeff: THAT IS A GREAT TRANSITION.

I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU BOTH TO WEIGH IN ON MY LAST QUESTION WHICH IS, NOW THAT HOUSE BILL 15 IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, WHAT IS THE WORK AHEAD AND HOW IS IT GOING SO FAR?

>> Jessica: THE WORK AHEAD IS WE ARE IN THE FULL THICK OF IMPLEMENTATION, WORKING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS AND JUDGES DOING TRAININGS ABOUT THIS FORM OF RELIEF, IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE EDUCATING ABOUT THE LAW ITSELF AND HOW IT IS APPLIED.

AS WELL AS WORKING WITH COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STATE TO SEE IF WE COULD REACH MORE IMPACTED YOUTH AND EDUCATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN QUALIFY FOR THIS FORM OF RELIEF SO WE CAN REACH MORE PEOPLE THROUGH REFERRALS.

AS WELL AS WORKING WITH OTHER COALITION PARTNERS, NMLPSSVP AND OTHER PRIVATE ATTORNEYS THAT WORK ON THESE CASES, TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ADDRESSING ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT TEMPLATES AND ALSO TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE OF DOING CONTINUED LEARNING EDUCATION CLASSES SO THAT OTHER ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE THAT THIS IS A NEW LAW.

AND SO WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY TRYING TO RUN AGAINST THE CLOCK HERE AND TRYING TO GET AS MANY YOUTH BEFORE THEY AGE OUT INTO 21 NOW.

AND JUST ALSO REALLY TRYING TO DO THE EDUCATION PIECE AND DOING TOWN HALLS WITH COMMUNITIES SO THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF ANYONE WORKS WITH COMMUNITY, PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY, CONTACT OUR OFFICE, OR ANY OF THE OTHER OFFICES SO THAT YOU CAN GET A CONSULTATION.

THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

>>Jeff: IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT, YOU'RE TAKING CASES, RIGHT?

>> Jessica: RIGHT.

WHAT IS POWERFUL, WITH THIS FORM OF RELIEF, WE ARE ABLE TO ASSIST WITH DEFENSE OF THE REMOVAL CASE AND IF THEY QUALIFY FOR THIS FORM OF RELIEF, THIS PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY AND THERE IS ACTUALLY STABILITY AND ACTUALLY BENEFITS FOR OVERALL WELLBEING BEYOND JUST THE GENERATIONAL IMPACTS OF ACCESS TO PERMIT STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP.

ONE THING THAT WE WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY THAT IF THERE IS ONE WAY WE COULD JUST PINPOINT WHAT HB 15 REALLY WAS, IN THE WORDS OF CLAIRE DUDLEY CHAVEZ FROM THE SPEAKERS OFFICE, SHE SAID IT WAS A LITTLE BILL THAT COULD.

IT TRULY WAS BECAUSE WE SAW HOW IT WENT THROUGH SO MANY OBSTACLES BUT THROUGH COMMUNITY POWER, IT WAS ABLE TO PASS.

>> Jeff: THAT IS A GREAT PLACE TO END THE CONVERSATION, THOUGH I KNOW WE COULD GO ON AND ON.

JESSICA, JAZMIN THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING DOWN.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> Lou: THANK YOU TO JEFF AND TO ALL OUR GUESTS WHO MADE TIME TO JOIN THE SHOW THIS WEEK.

WE END TONIGHT WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE REDISTRICTING LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO IS APPEALING THE DECISION FROM A STATE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WHO RULED THAT THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE'S CONGRESSIONAL BOUNDARIES DO NOT VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS DESPITE THE JUDGE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE REDISTRICTING DILUTED REPUBLICAN VOTING POWER.

AT PARTICULAR ISSUE IN THE LAWSUIT IS CD-2, A SWING DISTRICT THAT, IN PART, SKIRTS U.S. MEXICO BORDER.

IN 2022, DEMOCRAT VASQUEZ NARROWLY DEFEATED FIRST TERM REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT HERRELL BY LESS THAN A PERCENTAGE POINT.

JUDGE FRED VAN SOELEN RULED THAT WHILE THE PLAN FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WATERED DOWN THE GOP'S CHANCES, THEY DID NOT EGREGIOUSLY GERRYMANDER.

HE SAYS THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE REDRAWN DISTRICTS UNFAIRLY SECURE LONG-TERM POWER FOR DEMOCRATS.

THIS RULING IS SURE TO MAKE A SPLASH ON THE NATIONAL STAGE.

AS REPUBLICANS AIM TO MAINTAIN THEIR SLIM MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE AFTER THE UPCOMING 2424 ELECTIONS.

CD2 HAS SEEN SOME OF THE TIGHTEST RACES IN THE COUNTRY DURING THE LAST FEW ELECTION CYCLES.

RIGHT NOW DEMOCRATS HOLD ALL STATE-WIDE ELECTED OFFICES IN NEW MEXICO AND ALL THREE CONGRESSIONAL SEATS.

THE NEXT STOP FOR THE GOP'S CASE IS THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDING BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU