>> President Trump was arraigned on federal charges today and we have full coverage tomorrow.

Tonight, we focused on New York's immigration process.

We speak with a congresswoman to talk about the depth of the problem and possible solutions and the nearly billion-dollar push to transform Governors Island into a first of its kind hub for climate solutions.

♪ >> This is MetroFocus with Rafael.

Mann, Jack Ford, and Jenna Flanagan.

MetroFocus is made possible by Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III.

The Peter G Peterson and Joanne Ganz Cooney fund.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg and Jody and John Arnhold.

Dr. Robert see in Tina Sohn condition.

Estate of Roland Karlen and Diana T bachelor's.

Welcome to MetroFocus.

The micro crisis in New York is showing no signs of letting up.

Within 72,000 migrants have reportedly arrived since last spring with over 45,000 currently in the city's care.

In response, Mayor Adams has carried out a number of controversial measures, perhaps the most controversial, this decision to challenge New York's right to shelter law which essentially compels the city to provide shelter for all those legitimately experience and homelessness in New York.

The situation around the country here at a particular at the southern border has become one of the biggest political issues as we approach the 2024 election.

One of the most outspoken critics of this crisis is among elected officials, specifically the 11th congressional district can -- Congress on.

She joins us now with the steps that she believes need to be taken.

Congresswoman, thank you for joining us.

As I said in the introduction, with 72,000 asylum-seekers have arrived in New York since last spring and over 45,000 are currently in the city.

Those are the numbers.

But how do the numbers reflect the reality experienced in Staten Island and the parts of South Brooklyn that you represent?

>> As you know, New York City has always been a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants around the world and we have been a very generous nation over the course of our history.

The issue with this particular crisis is that the president on his first day changed a lot of the policies which have allowed this mass migration.

When you look at the court data, 60% over the first year of the Biden presidency, 60% of those who claim asylum were denied.

There are a lot of people taking advantage of our generosity to try to into the country, living asylum and they don't -- they are not eligible.

What happens now is we are seeing this court system in New York City backed up significantly.

The last I checked, it was a decade to wait for an actual appointment.

Those people who are true asylum-seekers, those who have followed our nation's policies and laws, and have been waiting in the queue are seeing further delays.

I represent a diverse district, I have immigrants from all over the world, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, South America, Central America.

But the issue that I hear from my constituents, including those who are immigrants themselves is that it is unfair what is happening right now when they came to this country, they never asked for anyone to pay for anything, they just work hard, multiple jobs, like my own parents did, to sacrifice without any assistance for the -- from the government.

The system is complete the broken and the mayor exacerbated the problem by misinterpreting the right to shelter law which was a 1939 court decree intended for homeless New Yorkers, homeless citizens.

Misinterpreting saying that citizens of other countries are eligible which has created a problem for the city, a real burden for the taxpayers.

>> Mayor Adams also said recently that the city is a victim of its own success because quote, we have managed the crisis so well people will have the belief that it can't be so bad.

Is he right in the sense that most New Yorkers don't see this as a crisis?

>> Not those that I represent in Staten Island and southern Brooklyn.

They see it as a tremendous crisis.

We know taxpayers are paying upwards of $5 billion to house these individuals currently here.

When you are talking about top -- tough economic times, people having difficulty paying their rent, their mortgage, keeping up with property tax which has gone up every single year because the tax levy has increased by the city, to tell them now that they have to pay for the shelter of these individuals to the extent the mayor even wants to pay their rent for an entire year or perhaps longer, how is that fair to hard-working New Yorkers who get up every day and pay taxes and they are struggling on their own that they will pay the for these individuals.

The mayor has done this and we want to see what the court says is challenging the right to shelter law, not just the law itself but the clarification that the law applies to citizens , homeless New Yorkers, not citizens of other countries.

Despite his interpretation, all 6 million migrants came to New York City, New York taxpayers would be responsible for housing appeared that interpretation is lopsided.

>> That is his interpretation.

And you say the law was never intended to be that.

However, Robert Hayes, the housing advocate, who is chiefly responsible over 40 years ago to have this law passed recently said no, no.

It's true, it does apply to these foreigners, document it or undocumented, and he is fighting against the mayor's challenge to the law.

How do you respond to that?

>> I think there are those left-wing groups that will continue to try to push, but the reality is, think about it from my perspective here that if everybody on the planet came to New York City and said they needed housing, would New York City have to provide it?

That is incredibly impossible.

We have our own housing crisis in affordability and available Hoopty.

What I would also suggest -- availability.

What I would suggest and the mayor has started to some extent, I think he should sue rather than simply challenge the Biden administration, he has pushed back and told them to do a decompression plan.

I say just to secure the box -- Borders, reimpose the policies that were under the Trump Administration, remain in Mexico and catch and release and make sure people to apply for asylum as they are supposed to.

>> The mayor recently floated the idea of housing asylum-seekers in private homes for a fee that the city would pay.

Some have dismissed this idea, outright, some have mocked it, what is your take?

>> It is a terrible idea, a slap in the face to the text tape -- taxpayer.

New Yorkers are already struggling and now you're going to tell them that they need to pay to provide free rent to individuals who just entered our country last week.

How is that fair to hard-working New Yorkers?

I understand that we are compassionate city, but where's the compassion for the taxpayer.

>> Anspach -- talking about his proposal to pay homeowners voluntarily to partake if they wish.

>> Is paid by so many, they paid by the taxpayer.

They're not taking them in for free.

There, Sabine Lisicki at 100 to five dollars a night which turns out to be between 45 and $50,000 annually.

Per individual.

That is a tremendous burden on the taxpayer and again, when we are talking about cutting city services across the board, talking about increasing property taxes, talking about things that citizens are going to suffer as a result, this is not the right approach.

>> But the reality is that they are paying hotels, a lot more money than that.

But that aside, this proposal struck me particularly, like your mother, a Cuban exile came in in the early 60's.

And the way they came was through Jamaica, and they spent a month in the home of it to make a family.

Thousands of Cubans got out of Cuba as a result.

More importantly for me is a little kid was how wonderful, how warm, how humane it was to spend those 30 days with that family.

I'm just wondering if just on that level of the idea has merit.

>> If people want to volunteer to open up their homes it's one thing.

My mother, when she came, she had her family sponsor and again, there wasto the taxpayer.

I think that most immigrants who have come here came on their own and they never asked for anything but the opportunity.

And they worked, sometimes mobile jobs as my father did to make ends meet to be able to support themselves.

The idea is that we are a welcoming mission but when it comes to saying that we are now going to house and we provide all the services that citizens do not even get for free, that is when it becomes a problem.

The problem could be resolved.

You don't need to be doing this.

We could be looking at the federal government for the solution and I have said repeatedly there are a number of things that could address this crisis.

We passed the border security bill to stem the flow.

But we also want to look at increasing basis.

Our bill did that for a certain industry.

We could look at an increased and the number of employer-sponsored pieces, family sponsor pieces, student pieces when people come here to get educated, why are they being set -- sent back to their country, we should appreciate their intelligence and talent at put it to work here.

There is that aspect of it.

But we also need to add judges and asylum officers to differentiate between legitimate seekers and those who are not.

There has to be a distinction because the majority of the people coming are not the gym at when you look at the core data over the last couple of years, -- >> Quickly, what is a legitimate asylum-seekers?

>> By the criteria, they are fleeing religious or physical education.

We see individuals from 100 different countries coming to the border claiming asylum.

That's number one.

Number two, they should be applying for the next safe country.

If you come from 100 different countries the United States is not the next safe countries.

That is why the Trump era policies put some type of order to that process where they would have to apply and remain in Jamaica or elsewhere until their court date came.

>> Under those definitions, most of the Cubans would not fit.

We were not under direct persecution, my parents left because they did not want to live without freedom, and they were afraid they might -- that my father, my brother and I would be indoctrinated but there was no chance of being arrested or killed.

And in New York City, many of the asylum-seekers were Venezuelans, a country which resembles a lot what Cuba did in the 60's.

Unless you are very strict in the definition some of these people really do, many of them, especially the ones coming to New York City do fit the description, no?

>> The people fleeing Cuba and Venezuela are legitimate asylum-seekers under the definition as they have historically been.

Let's be clear also, look at what they are escaping.

They are skipping socialism.

Communism.

-- escaping socialism.

Common is in.

Some of my colleagues love to support certain college cash policies.

These immigrants are flanked terrible policies put in place by Socialists and Communists.

I would say that all hundred nations that the individuals are coming from, some would not qualify.

But the point is that we need asylum officers and judges to hear these cases more quickly to Jeffrey and shared -- to differentiate who is abusing the system.

We should be hearing these cases with infrastructure at the border which is what I have been saying.

What is frustrating to me is that the house passed a bill which streamlined asylum that actually increase the number of visas and protecting children who are being trafficked, children coming over by themselves.

And also implemented border security, yet we have seen zero action from the Senate.

I would urge Chuck Schumer to at least take away bill, if you don't like our bill, that pass your own.

>> The bill that you passed, the border act of 2023?

Border security act of 2023.

That includes the going back to the remain in Mexico policy which means that people, asylum-seekers must remain in Mexico until their court date is established.

Secondly, it calls for restarting the border wall.

These are two things that are kind of like poison pills.

The Senate is controlled by the Democrats, it's unlikely that they will pass it.

But if for some reason they do the president has already said that he would veto it.

So, why pursue something that is almost certainly not going to be able to happen?

>> This is the solution from the house.

This is what we would like to see done.

It's not just the border security that you mention, but what customs officers said they needed to get done -- the job done.

We are giving them that what they made.

The government would be wise to listen to the people who are on the ground doing the job and giving them what they need.

In addition, it does address some visas, some asylum streamlining.

But if the Senate does not like our bill and does not want to take up our bill then they should take up their own.

Past what they think it is -- think is ideal and rickets the differences.

That is the only way we can move forward in a bipartisan manner.

I would love the president just to undo his executive orders which created this problem.

Quite quickly, he created it and he can undo it by just changing the policies which she has in place.

Aside from that we need to see bipartisan action to avert this crisis just like we saw with the debt limit.

>> We will have to end it there.

Thank you so much for talking about this very important topic with this.

>> Good evening and welcome to MetroFocus, I Jack Ford.

After a series of bold proposals, we finally have a winner.

Eric Adams revealed that the 172 acre site will become home to the New York climate exchange, a $700 million campus dedicated to finding solutions to the global climate crisis.

The city selected a consortium and -- anchored by Stony Brook University to transform it into a hub for students, researchers and New Yorkers in need of new job training.

The University President helped lead the Stony Brook's -- schools successful bid.

And where joint by a fellow professor who focuses on better understanding the impacts of climate change.

She has been involved in this entire project.

This is part of our pearl and promise initiative.

I'd like you to explain for us why and how this entire project came about.

>> This project came about in many ways because of the ambition of the city of New York.

Trying to figure out how might we approach climate change in a different way.

And they begin a process that we entered about two years ago and we did so, be because we certainly see climate change as the biggest challenge that our generation and the generations that will follow behind us face.

And we thought we had ideas of ways to bring bold and innovative solutions to this challenge.

I would say that the most important of those is that we were going to work in a different model and work through partnerships.

Bringing together a wide range of higher educational institutions, University of Washington, Georgia Tech, paste and Pratt, CUNY, and NYU, Oxford, RIT, Duke and major corporate partners, IBM, Moody's, BCG, together with dozens of New York City-based community and environmental action groups.

And the idea was that what we need to do is to figure out how to talk across sectors, work together, designing from the beginning, real-world solutions that can be limited.

>> The big lead you brag a little bit about your University, it being the anchor.

How did that come about?

>> It came about because we are of New York, we are deleting public institutions in the New York City area, we are of and for New Yorkers and we have long been leading in many of the areas which are so important to solving this problem.

Whether that be about coastal resiliency, clean water, climate change, the impacts of weather changes in green energy and battery technology and wind energy.

These are things that we have been working on for many years.

And so we immediately saw an opportunity for us to try to have an impact right here in our backyard in New York.

>> Professor Reed I mentioned in the introduction the various components here.

Some have to do with students and others have to do with research and practical applications, job training.

I was struck by one oh.

This would be in essence a living laboratory.

What does that mean?

>> Inmates that the technologies that we will develop to make this laboratory work, both for research and educational needs is going to be on demonstration and also a testing ground.

As we use the technologies to make this campus carbon neutral and not using excess water or waste, that could be a model for the city and also an opportunity for our students and faculty and staff from this partnership as well as community groups to learn from that laboratory.

To help inform the future research which happens in there and also how do we help translate that back out all around kind of New York City.

In essence, it is really this opportunity to learn from the building itself, how we can help to meet our climate goals in New York and New York City.

>> Will would you say to students about the opportunities this will provide for them as part of the educational and community experience?

>> I will start with our undergraduates at Stony Brook and their partners, this is an opportunity whether you are an English major or premed major or a fireball -- biology major or engineering.

Spend a semester living on Governors Island contributed to the sustainability in that living laboratory we talked about.

And bring that knowledge about climate solutions, environmental justice and impacts in ways we can cultivate solutions, bringing that back to your studies on campus.

So when it helps to your career and create this career that is about living in a world that is greener that it is now and allowing us to meet our climate goals.

>> President McGinnis, let's go back to.

In addition to these exciting concepts, the physical structure of the project is fairly breathtaking.

Give us a quick sense of what it will look like and why it is so significant.

>> I think that is a really important part of our living laboratory.

The buildings have been designed by our architectural partners SOM wishes speak to the place, the undulating curves of the island, they speak to the undulating water which surrounds the island, but the technology that is employed in the buildings themselves is remarkable.

Some of the first use in the city of massive timber on a commercial scale, the employment of totally green energy, geothermal and solar to supply all of the needs of the campus, and in fact producing more that we can give back to the city, circular water systems, so that we are very efficient and -- in our use of water and the idea is that not only our students, faculty and staff who are residents getting to experience this, but so do the hundreds of thousands of visitors who will come to the island every year.

That is an important piece of the living laboratory.

>> Professor, back to you.

One of the other aspects we talk about is the ability to provide green job training.

Talk about that.

>> This is one of the funds that -- ones that I am also excited about.

There is an opportunity here that among group -- Freudian groups there is a need to help prepare workers, building trades for example, for the change that we are already beginning to see, the change in needs and energy efficiency in buildings.

As the change rapidly occurs over the next decade plus, there is a real need to kind of provide that information, provide that kind of, you know, constant update to the technology as it changes.

What we were trying to do at the New York climate change is not reinvent the wheel.

We are trying to empathize those existing groups and help provide access to training locations, to help provide access to experts, to help inform and make sure trainings are up-to-date and especially as laws as we all know and regulations are constantly changing.

And to make sure that a lot of those needed training programs have a home-based where we are thinking about changing something and we need to figure out how to make midtown Manhattan more energy-efficient, one place you can go to have this conversation would be the climate exchange.

>> Metta President, back to you.

A lot of people are asking where the money is coming from, is that taxpayer dollars, what is the answer?

>> The majority of this money is going to come from philanthropic support.

The city made a commitment in providing a small parcel of land on Governors Island to the New York climate exchange and a little bit of support for the construction costs, but the vast majority of this will be raised philanthropically.

We have a gift from the Simons foundation of $100 million and an additional $50 million which has already been committed by Bloomberg philanthropy.

We are enormously appreciative of our philanthropic partners and we are really excited now that this is public to continue to talk with others who believe in this collaborative cross sector approach to coming together to work together on our solutions for climate change.

>> I suspect people are saying what an exciting prospect this is, having this up and running.

What is the timeframe we are talking about before this is going to be in place?

>> Like with all projects of this scope is going to be a few years until there is going to be that physical presence that we can all take advantage of.

A couple more years, probably details related to design, we hope to break ground in 2025, and then we have an anticipated opening of the facility in 2028.

>> MetroFocus is made possible by Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III.

Filomen M. D'Agostino Foundation.

The Peter G. Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney Fund.

Bernard and Denise Schwartz.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John Arnhold.

Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn foundation.

The Ambrose Monell Foundation.

Estate of Roland Karlen.

The JPB Foundation.

Estate of Worthington Mayo Smith.