The following is an AZPM original production.

From the radio studios of AZPM, welcome to the latest edition of The Press Room.

I'm Steve Goldstein.

Coming up, after the longest wait in history, Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn into office as a member of Congress.

Plus, local law enforcement officials are concerned that the Trump administration is deporting immigrant crime victims.

A panel of journalists joins me to discuss those and other stories next on The Press Room.

(upbeat music) And welcome to The Press Room.

I'm Steve Goldstein, the panel of journalists joining me today are Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Sentinel, Rafael Carranza of AZ Luminaria, and Tim Steller of the Arizona Daily Star.

Guys, thanks for being here.

Let's say our top story of the week is that Southern Arizona finally has a new member of Congress.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

That you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same?

That you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

And that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.

I do.

Congratulations, you're now a member of the 119th Congress.

(audience cheering) All right, Tim.

So what was this wait all about?

Why did we have to wait?

And what's your reaction to CD7 finally having a representative?

Well, it is important to remember that they had waited a long time before this.

So Raul Grijalva died in March, and then there was this long delay to get to the election, first a primary then.

So anyway, they had been waiting a long time before we even got to the delay after the election, which was another 50 days, is that the right?

So Mike Johnson didn't want to, the Speaker of the House didn't want to swear Adelita Grijalva in, and then the government shut down, so he kind of leaned on that as an excuse as well until finally this whole thing ended.

Jim, you were on this show, I can't remember how long ago it was now, but at least five weeks ago, and you had just watched the CBS morning news when Mike Johnson had said, "Oh yes, Adelita Grijalva will be a member of Congress in the next few days."

And then we had to wait another month, what's?

Adelita was under the impression that day that she was going to be a member of Congress in the next few days, and then the rug got pulled out from underneath her.

I think it's, the biggest deal about this, because they weren't voting on anything, is the lack of constituent services for the people in CD7, especially during the shutdown when things were really going haywire.

So she's got, she knew who she was gonna hire for her staff, and I don't know where that is in the process 24 hours after her swearing in, but it has definitely been, the thing that is amazing to me about all of this is, the way it has made Adelita Grijalva a national figure as a newly-elected Congressperson, which is, it usually takes some time to get your name out into the spotlight like this, and she has achieved it because of Mike Johnson's hesitation, and also the focus it brought to the Epstein Files, because the whole time, you had people out there saying, "Oh, the reason she won't do this, or he won't do this, is because he doesn't want her to be that 20... 218th signature on the discharge petition to force a vote on that legislation."

So that just made that story bubble up, and bubble up, and bubble up as well.

So it seemed like, to some degree, a self-own by the speaker to put this on the back burner the way he did.

Rafael, we won't know the answer to this, but Jim mentions the Epstein Files, and mentions that Mike Johnson, for whatever reason, maybe because of the shutdown, didn't wanna move forward with this, but what does this reflect ultimately about, could this mean more influence for Adelita Grijalva?

The fact that she has become kind of a superstar when she was coming from a district that was gerrymandered in such a way, and with her succeeding her father, it was likely she was gonna win, so people usually don't pay attention to races like this, but now they will.

Yeah, and I think that's been evident by all of the interviews that she had done leading up to her final swearing in, and I think that that obviously elevates her profile in a pretty significant way, I think at the national level that I think we've seen, especially in a lot of these, when we're talking about House races are constantly in re-election mode, because it's every two years, and so I feel like that's certainly gonna be a significant factor for her, even though she just won the election, but she's finishing up a term, and then will be up again pretty soon, so I think that will probably be a big factor for her, but I think that the spotlight that she has received in recent weeks, I think it will be pretty indicative in addition to this Epstein vote, what are some of the other key things that she highlights or that she brings to the forefront and use that attention that she's received now to propel that forward.

I wanna get to more of that too, but let me follow up you on this too.

Her first statement, her first speech as a member of Congress, I don't know that she said anything too enlightening, but a lot of people comment on the fact that she spoke in English and Spanish to really represent her constituents.

How significant do you think that is?

I think it's significant in the historical sense and the fact that she is the first Latina member of Congress from Arizona, and I think that it's notable particularly given where things are nationwide when it comes to immigration and this crackdown, now essentially ICE can use someone who's speaking Spanish as a basis to detain them, and so the fact that she did that on the House floor, I think was pretty significant in elevating that and saying, hey, this is something that, a part of the culture here in Southern Arizona, and it just elevating it at the nationwide, saying there's a role and a presence for us here too.

Yeah, Tim, what do you think about that?

Yeah, I mean, one thing that was notable about it was that she didn't translate her words.

She said two or three sentences, I can't remember even what they were, there was a historic occurrence, she made reference to that, but yeah, so it was speaking directly to people who couldn't understand Spanish, so what.

The other thing that jumped out at me though, I mean, obviously it was a strong, I don't know if you'd call it angry, but it was definitely a strong speech and critical of the House Speaker.

She said his delay was an abuse of power, she said it more or less right to his face, although I think he was behind her, and the other thing that really struck me that she said was she called on the House and the Congress in general to restore their role as a co-equal branch of government and hold the administration to account, which is not, I don't know, not something I hear a lot of people say these days, and it is absolutely a characteristic of this time that the administration has all the power and Congress is just bowing to them.

Yeah, Jim, what do you think about that overall?

I think it was remarkable to see her come out of the gate so strongly.

Looking at her win, I don't think she has much to worry about in her next election cycle.

She pulled 69% of the vote, which is a larger percentage of the vote than her father ever received in that district, and she pulled more than 60% in the Democratic primary, which is where anybody would be vulnerable in this district given its Democratic lean, and she had no problem powering past four other candidates in that race either.

So Mike Johnson said he likes her after speaking with her for probably two minutes after he was criticized for all this time.

What do you think her, and we have no idea what the future holds for any of us, but does she strike you as someone who could be a star in the party, especially if the Democrats regained the majority of the House at some point in the near future?

Yeah, impossible to say how any of this is gonna unfold, but I do think she'll be there for as long as she wants to be there.

Okay, Rafael, do you think she has the potential to be a superstar?

I mean, I think there's always the potential.

I think what I'm really gonna be paying attention to is which committees she's assigned to, because I think that her father, I think, was such a titan when it came in the environmental area, and so I'm interested to see if she's gonna follow along in those footsteps, if that's where she's gonna try to carve out a separate identity, focusing on maybe prioritizing other issues, maybe still paying attention to some of the ones that her father did as part of her legacy, but really, this could be an opportunity for her to kind of strike out on her own and try to carve her own path.

Yeah, something that pairs up well with now Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva is, the fact that this federal shutdown, Tim, is finally over.

You wrote a column sort of going back and forth as to certain things as to whether it was worth the time.

You were criticizing Democrats as a whole saying they quote, "Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

What about how Senators Kelly and Gallego handled this, and what about how Representative Ciscomani handled all this?

Is this going to be, I hesitate to say forgotten, but our attention spans are very short.

Will this have lasting impact going into an election year?

I think a lot of that depends on how they handle the key issue that the Democrats held up as a reason for basically shutting down the government, which was the extension of these Affordable Care Act tax credits.

If they're able to kind of, well, it could play out many different ways.

If the Republicans do not allow for any extension, then the Democrats will use that against them.

If they're able to work out some sort of deal, then Democrats can claim credit for that.

So they do have kind of wiggle room either way themselves.

And Gallego and Kelly, they voted no on this deal.

Kelly, I think, was closer to voting yes.

He was part of the group that was negotiating.

Gallego, not so much.

Ciscomani, on the other hand, as I wrote, he kind of came out swinging in a more partisan fashion than he usually does in this.

There were a variety of little spats that occur between him and Gallego and him calling out the senators.

And so he kind of found his footing, that's my argument at least, as a more partisan player in this.

So Jim, obviously, Tim mentions the point about the healthcare subsidies, major important.

I mean, this is why Democrats held up, we presume.

But something that really, I wonder if finally, we're wondering what was gonna bend Republicans or bend Donald Trump.

Was it that Democrats did well in some of those elections in New Jersey, Virginia, for example?

But what about the SNAP benefits?

Because that was really a situation where it felt like Democrats in particular, not to say Rep.

Ciscomani didn't hear from constituents, probably Democrats might have been impacted by that more traditionally in the sense that, trying to help low-income folks, do you think that was in some ways the straw that broke the camel's back?

All these food banks, all these people not getting their SNAP benefits, et cetera.

I think it was that and the air travel, where the two big issues that finally made Democrats decide it was time to stop, a handful of Democrats in the side of the room, decide it was time to reopen the government.

I think that Juan Ciscomani, what he does on these healthcare credits will be very interesting to watch because he has co-sponsored legislation to extend them for a year.

What happens after that?

We don't know, I've reached out to Congressman Ciscomani's office and asked, what is his, because he says, "Hey, we need to lower healthcare costs in general."

I said, "What are your ideas for policy on that?"

Of course, we didn't hear back from Congressman Ciscomani about that question.

But I think that it was definitely a situation where the pain that was starting to be inflicted in terms of hunger and the frustrations at the airports were definitely what made Democrats decide, "Hey, we gotta get this back in business."

So, Raf, ultimately then, does that make sense then?

Will constituents, and this is all a political game, we don't know the answers to it, but when you look at it, is that something that constituents might say, "Well, I'm thankful for the certain Democrats "that decided to bend to do this."

Or will it feel like, "Well, no, "'cause this means Trump still has power."

How important do you think constituents think about costs every day, how their families are affected?

So I'm wondering which way this could go, because it does feel like, in addition to air travel, SNAP benefits were really at the core of this.

Yeah, and I think that certainly having a resolution towards that, I think, probably become as a relief to the people who are dependent on that.

But I think, as you mentioned, because they're thinking about the costs in new ways that these changes impact the entire lives, I wonder whether that relief might maybe short-lived, or perhaps maybe offset by the pains of the health care premiums, and those conversations, whether those will then suck up the oxygen now, moving forward, because once we have that resolution, I feel like there's less of an incentive to talk about it.

And I think once people see that benefit resuming, there's the resolution right there.

And so I think that that almost clears the path, or clears the way for the next grievance.

And I think that when it comes to health care, that also has pretty deep impacts, and a lot of personal stories and resonance there, too, that could bubble up to the forefront.

Well, so finally on this for you two, January, this will probably pop up again.

Well, hopefully in the meantime, they resolve it.

I mean, the health care issue is massive.

It's a massive cost, and I think everyone sees the danger.

The likelihood, I would guess, is that they'll come to some compromise, probably to extend it by a year, maybe two years.

But a lot of this has to do with next year's election.

Do they want to commit beyond next year's election, or do they just want to get to next year's election?

And I can't imagine them with the premiums coming in as high as they are not doing something about it.

If they don't, somebody's gonna get hurt over that politically.

Yeah, just-- Let me say, I can totally imagine them not doing something about that.

But also, they have to do something by December 15th, which is the cutoff for people to buy insurance policies.

And if they can't afford them by December 15th, they're not gonna buy it.

But I presume the insurance companies are gonna say, "We need it way before December 15th."

To understand how to develop these rates.

So yeah, we are well beyond the breaking point on this issue.

Yeah.

Rafael, let's go to a story that I actually read about in the Sentinel, which was that Tucson Police Chief Chad Kasmar spoke earlier, as co-chair of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, and said the group's concerned about immigrant crime victims being deported.

And I suppose this is obvious, and this was in the piece as well, but any of us who've talked with law enforcement who are not necessarily on the Trumpian side of things will say, "Well, one of the ways we solve crimes is for people of all communities to feel comfortable coming to us and reporting this."

So this was really a chilling thing to me to hear that victims of crime, or potential victims of crime were being deported.

What do you make of where all this situation is right now?

Yeah, and I'll say that it's not exclusive to that group.

I think that that has been the case that we have seen as the Trump administration kind of ramps up these crackdown efforts that they're moving pretty swiftly, even people who have pending asylum claims or other forms of relief.

If there isn't a resolution yet, or they're moving to kind of close out cases and then deport them pretty summarily.

And so I think that that kind of fits into kind of this larger trend that we're seeing.

But it definitely has been playing out, and I think will continue playing out, particularly as these crackdown efforts and these numbers sort of continue ratcheting up.

But it is, I think, pretty notable that it kind of gets to this argument, I guess, particularly a lot of police here in Arizona have kind of used as to why they don't want to get involved in immigration enforcement, is that they want the people, all the community members to feel comfortable calling, or being able to report crimes that happen, particularly in immigrant communities, and build some of those relationships.

And I think that what we have seen now kind of has been, there's been additional challenges in that, even if police are not involved in immigration enforcement, simply because of all the videos that we've seen that have spread out, and the fact that all these agents are masked, and it's really hard to tell whether they are federal agents, whether there's any sort of additional assistance from local police or whatnot, it's really hard to kind of get a definitive yes or no on that.

And I think because that is the perception, I think that that also kind of bleeds into what communities absorb and what they feel and kind of act on as well.

I don't know if the average viewer or listener is gonna have sympathy for local law enforcement, but what sort of position does that put someone, especially who wants to do the job with a conscience, and actually do it well, and yet have to deal with these changes in federal policy?

How does that, is this all gonna be an even bigger mess and chaotic than people are seeing now?

I think that it's definitely an unresolved question at this point.

I think mostly because there's a lot of kind of act now and then sorted out later.

And so I think that those, I think a lot of those answers will definitely come as kind of more scrutiny continues, and it looks like there will be, maybe perhaps even more scrutiny moving forward.

We've seen the judges, federal judges, kind of more willing to engage or at least get involved in how some of these arrests are happening.

But at the local level, there's been a very big effort by the Trump administration to recruit local police.

And I think here in Arizona, it's only been a handful of agencies that have kind of taken up that offer, but the majority of them I think are kind of staying, shying away from this program.

And I think that they do that because they want their priorities to be more kind of focused on local enforcement and using their resources to enforce local laws as opposed to having them be pulled away and involved in these immigration crackdowns.

I think even Republican leaders here in Arizona are kind of taking that stance where they're deciding to kind of put a break on it for now.

So what are your thoughts about how this affects the community at large?

The idea of local law enforcement trying to engage with the community and then the feds saying.

Well, I mean, this is just another message to people who are not citizens.

Not people who are here illegally necessarily, but anyone who is not a citizen or who has a non-citizen in their family or in their neighborhood that those people are not protected, you are not protected, you are vulnerable, a vulnerable target because you're vulnerable to, I mean, people who have different work permits, different green cards, anybody who's not a citizen is vulnerable to deportation.

I mean, my colleague Emily Bregel wrote a couple of stories about a Laotian immigrant who became a doctor of physical therapy here in Tucson.

He had a criminal conviction from when he was 18 for selling LSD.

And so, you know, they need to make their numbers.

The Trump administration is clear with their agencies that they want numbers.

This guy has been serving Tucson for, I think, 20 years as a physical therapist, a highly trained one, and he is now back in Laos.

He's out of his detention, he was deported to Laos.

So there's really no reason for anyone to think that they're going to be spared because they have some kind of paperwork or what have you, and they're vulnerable.

Jim, you have any thoughts, on this?

Well, I think it gets back to the low-hanging fruit that we've talked about on this program before where they were just going, they like, the Trump administrat oh, we're going after the worst of the worst.

This guy that Tim's describing is not among the worst of the worst.

And it's just, I think, a tragic situation in our country where people do have to live in fear.

Yeah, a rough briefing.

I think one final thing I want to say about that is that, you know, to Jim's point, I think that a lot of these individuals who do have pending, you know, whether it's a U visa or asylum claim, these are individuals, you know, if they have like a work permit, you know, they've given their personal information to the federal government.

And I think that that is kind of, you know, to just talk about low-hanging fruit, that also makes them low-hanging fruit in that sense because the federal government knows where they are, they know where they're located because they've been, you know, they have these pending, you know, claims and trying to do it quote unquote, the right way.

And so I think that that also kind of, I think, is worth noting, you know, particularly with people who have, you know, who are trying to kind of get some other form of relief, and then they get caught up in all of this, and that is that, you know, they voluntarily submitted their information because they're trying to, you know, get a certain benefit.

Yeah, Jim, let's change topics, just take a few minutes on this.

We're gonna preview what's probably the biggest news story of next week, at least at this point, although news can happen anytime.

And that's this joint meeting between the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson City Council.

They've been fighting about all sorts of stuff: Safety, Project Blue.

Let's talk about the significance of this joint meeting, especially considering how the groups seem to be, to some degree, at each other's throats, especially Supervisor Scott and Mayor Romero.

It's coming up on next week, as you said, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors are sitting down together to discuss, really, the toughest issues in our community right now, which are homelessness, mental illness, fentanyl, and housing affordability.

And you go through all of those, and none of them have easy, simple solutions.

The city and the county have both been doing a lot of it, but Mayor Romero has been critical of the county when she's talking about these issues, saying the county's not doing enough.

And I think the county chairman, Rex Scott, took some offense at that and said, "Well, look, we're doing a lot on our end.

You don't need to bash us for us to find solutions," he said.

And I think there's still some sore feelings over Project Blue, because Mayor Romero was very involved in advancing the Project Blue behind the scenes.

And then when it came up at the City Council meeting, she said, well, the county is to blame for this situation, because they should have stopped this thing, despite her own support for it.

And to her credit, she actually made the Project Blue deal that fell apart better in terms of using reclaimed water and cleaning wells and things like that before she decided it wasn't worth the political cost of continuing with it.

So I think this is, at this point, I think they are saying that these hurt feelings have been worked out this week.

They're gonna sit down, they're gonna have a productive conversation.

It's taking place in a very small meeting room over at the RTA, the Regional Transportation Headquarters.

Not a lot of bubble room there?

Not a lot of room for an audience to come in and watch the entire thing.

But I am deeply curious to see what will come out of this joint collaboration.

So Tim, your thoughts on this.

Kumbaya or no?

Well, it's been building for a while.

It's kind of funny, especially because they've kind of worked things out.

There's been tensions between the city and county forever in the Tucson area.

And so just to recap, I think it, I mean, of course, this has been going on as Jim references, but what really started it was when the mayor released her Safe City Initiative, which was October 12th.

A lot of fanfare, a big full page ad in the paper.

And it called out the county.

It was a little bit harsh, you know?

So they, then Rex Scott spoke back.

The thing I found particularly interesting was Andres Cano, this Pima County supervisor who has been a ally of the mayor in that group.

He also spoke out strongly against what the mayor had said, demanding respect, basically.

And I think that sent a message to her that you've gone too far, you know?

And so that then, you know, she sent a somewhat conciliatory message.

And then today, just before we got together, they put out a joint statement saying, we're all gonna work hard and try to solve these things.

That is lovely.

So Jim, we have just about 90 seconds on this.

I wanna give you and Tim a chance to quickly, you wrote a really interesting piece this week about someone who actually used to sit in a chair similar to this, Bill Buckmaster, who at 77 years old and in this business for more than 50 years is hanging it up.

Just remind folks of who he is.

Give us 30 seconds.

Bill was the host of Arizona Illustrated, the five night a week program here on the, this Channel Six and moved on to doing an independent radio show about 15 years ago.

And he, you know, that kind of launch activity is amazing.

His ability to talk to people across a wide spectrum, his balance in those conversations with people is remarkable and we certainly should congratulate a long run of having conversations about this community.

Yeah, Tim, give us another 30, 45 seconds on your thoughts about his legacy, what it was like to be on with him.

Yeah, oh, I mean, you know, I've been on, you know, occasionally for a long time as Jim has, I'm sure.

And, you know, he basically, his studio was a spot that people stopped, you know, the Congress, members of Congress would stop in once every quarter, the police chief, the mayor, you know, it's just a, we're losing kind of a touchstone, you know, a place where people will, you know, you didn't have to listen to it, but you could know it was gonna be there five days a week at noon, which is a lot, you know, for somebody 77 years old to come as prepared as he did every week and then produce a show with interesting and important people.

Well, Jim, as someone who lived in Phoenix most of my life, but still knows who Bill Buckmaster is.

Thanks for that article, I thought it was especially fascinating and history is always fun too.

Guys, thanks for the great conversation.

Rafael Carranza of AZ Luminaria, Tim Steller of The Arizona Daily Star, Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Sentinel, thank you all for being here.

And thank you all for watching this edition of The Press Room, we're back with a new episode next week.

Enjoy the rest of your evening, I'm Steve Goldstein.