The following is an AZPM original production.

[ Music ] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of The Press Room from the Radio Studios of AZPM.

I'm your host, Steve Goldstein.

A lot of things to discuss today including the latest with the Donald Trump immigration policies.

And Governor Hobbs gets to name her first justice to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Great journalists joining me today including Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Sentinel, Danyelle Khmara of AZPM, Caitlin Schmidt of the Tucson Spotlight, and Sarah Lapidus of Report for America and the Arizona Republic.

So Danyelle, as I mentioned, a lot to discuss about the Trump Administration immigration policies.

Let's start off with TUSD Superintendent Trujillo responding to the Trump Administration orders as it relates to schools, as it relates to how the situation's kids may be put into.

What did you take out of what the superintendent had to say?

What's the most important part there?

Yeah, so basically just to catch anybody up, the President issued an executive order that would allow immigration enforcement to happen in sensitive places.

So schools, hospitals, and-- Places of worship, yeah.

Yeah, and basically prior to this, that was-- those were spaces where immigration enforcement wouldn't happen.

So, you know, Gabriel Trujillo with TUSD said that there definitely is a concern among some of his families.

And basically he is talking to the community to try and reassure people that their policy hasn't changed.

So in other words, they will not be allowing law enforcement of any kind to come into schools to detain students unless they have a judicial warrant.

So they did a training to teach their principals, to teach some of their staff, sort of what to look for, just to make sure that people understand what a judicial warrant looks like.

That said, you know, he said that there may be instances where law enforcement do have the proper documentation.

And in cases like that, he would like it for them to-- the law enforcement to wait in an office or a separate area, so as to not have an arrest happen in an actual school room, which he said could be traumatizing for the children.

That said, he also said that local immigration enforcement has said that-- and when I say local, I just mean in this region-- has said that schools are not a focus yet.

And that was something that Gabriel Trujillo stressed in this press conference, yet.

We don't really know what the future holds, but for right now they've said that they are not focusing on schools.

And Caitlin, it's one of those things that Danyelle talked about, saying that, yes, schools are not typically these places.

And also the superintendent is saying-- basically is asking law enforcement if they end up on campus to go and be quiet.

But they don't have to do these things, right?

They can carry it however they want, depending on the individual law enforcement officer.

So these things could end up being very, very stressful for kids, for teachers for everybody.

Absolutely.

And we've seen-- I mean, we've seen what happens when law enforcement officers have discretion with all sorts of things.

Drug diversion policies, I mean, so yeah, we could see this happen.

I think it depends on that particular law enforcement officer on that particular day and perhaps who his supervisor is.

So yeah, we hope that it doesn't come to that, certainly.

Jim, in a big way, this really seems like-- I'm not going to say solution in search of a problem, because we know immigration policy in the country is-- and no one thinks it's great, regardless of what side you're on.

But what about the fact that schools are no longer going to be a safe place?

How much can that complicate everything for anyone involved with trying to focus on the number one part of schools, which is teaching kids and helping them feel comfortable going out in the world?

Well, I think, you know, we've had a reason that Democratic and Republican administrations have not pursued immigration enforcement in schools or hospitals or places of worship, because especially with schools, you want kids to be having an education.

You don't want them staying home.

It benefits all of us if kids get an education and they're not causing trouble on the streets.

I think this shift will, you know, we'll see exactly whether they move forward with this.

Right now, I think the immigration enforcement is mostly focused on kind of low-hanging fruit, people who have warrants out there that they can pursue.

But if you look, ABC News had a real interesting survey of surveys, and they broke it down.

And there, you know, if you ask people, do you want to deport everyone in the country illegally, there's a slight majority, depending on the survey, that is in favor of that.

But if you start breaking it down and saying, do you want them to go into churches, do you want them to go into schools, do you want them to go to a hospital, support drops very, very low.

I mean, there's 55 to 80 percent of the people opposed to those kinds of enforcement.

So there's also, you know, a public relations component to all of this.

And if they start going into schools, if they start going into hospitals, and the stories start getting told, you may not see the kind of enthusiasm for this that the question sometimes suggests.

Well, Caitlin, that begs the question.

We talk about politics a lot on this show, but voters were focused on certain things.

And as Jim said, you know, if you get really down to brass tax, do they really want these things?

It would be interesting to talk to people who voted for President Trump who did want certain immigration enforcement, like let's get the people who have actually committed crimes in the country.

So this is a dynamic to watch, even though we're just what, less than two weeks into this right now, this administration.

Yes, and absolutely.

But we're already seeing it play out.

My colleague Susan Barnett had interviewed a couple before the inauguration who were very active with Derechos Humanos and several different humanitarian groups as well.

And when she talked to them just a few days ago, one hasn't left her house since January 20th.

The other one who is leaving her house, you know, she's not going to the same places that they used to.

They used to do all their grocery shopping at El Super.

She's not going to El Super anymore because that doesn't feel like a safe place.

So and these women have both lived here since they were two and three years old.

They work as caregivers.

I mean, they have been really helpful members of our community.

So these impacts are being felt already, unfortunately.

And I think telling those kinds of stories maybe is our best hope of reaching people that just wanted everybody out, period.

No exception.

Yeah.

Danyelle, this might be the type of story you're going to have to be telling a lot of as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I would imagine that I am especially covering immigration, covering the border.

But yeah, just in line with what Caitlin was saying, you know, I asked Trujillo, the other day, is he seeing any incidents of kids staying home, not going to school?

Just because they're afraid of what might happen.

And, you know, he said it's hard to say at this point because, you know, truancy can happen for different reasons.

But it's definitely something that people are concerned could be an issue.

Do you have anything to add on that?

And also, I think parents concerned about, you know, picking up their kids at school or dropping their kids off at school is probably going to factor into that as well.

It's going to cause a different kind of chaos.

And we saw chaos with the pandemic, kids at home and that affected learning.

And now we're probably going to see more of that, at least among a certain sect of people who are here legally or if they're children.

It just it complicates matters in a very striking and for many of us, a really sad way.

Sarah, let's talk about Pima County a little bit specifically, though, how sheriffs are relating to having to deal with this kind of thing.

I understand you talked to some rural county sheriffs or because we want to talk about Pima County specifically, but rural county sheriffs having to deal with these things, too.

And one might stereotype, oh, rural county sheriffs might think, great, let's do more enforcement.

But what were they telling you?

Yeah, well, the sheriff in Santa Cruz County, he's more in line with what the Pima County sheriff has said, where he doesn't want to help with immigration, the immigration goals.

I think recently, in the last couple of days, he pulled out of Operation Stone Garden, which gives federal funding for these kinds of for the law enforcement to help with these kinds of goals.

So he really wants to be a sheriff.

So Sheriff Hathaway, he really wants to be a sheriff for everybody.

He said that more than half of the county is Latino and then has different varying statuses of immigration.

And he doesn't want to see a Gestapo type environment where he has to check everybody's passports and papers and everything like that.

So he's been pretty very vocal about how against, you know, carrying out immigration goals, unlike the Cochise County sheriff, which recently set up a border operations center.

They work very closely with Border Patrol and the Cochise County sheriff Mark Dannels, he said that he sees himself as a door to help close the flow.

He's very, you know, he's we already work hand in hand with Border Patrol.

It won't change much.

And Caitlin wouldn't be in addition to the press room if they didn't ask you about Sheriff Nanos relating to this.

That's right.

Yes.

Did he have anything new to say or just we've talked about in the past that he just he doesn't want to be involved in this.

Yeah, he does not want to be involved in this.

He was very clear about this leading up to the election.

He made it more about staffing, but he came out pretty quickly into this after the Laken Riley Act came up saying that he has no interest in participating in immigration reform.

And if he did, he would run for higher office.

But, you know, we've been he has and other Pima County sheriffs have been taking steps for years to distance themselves from this kind of thing.

We even saw Republican Sheriff Mark Napier was the one that asked ICE to leave the jail and remove their office space.

So this has kind of been happening for a while.

Laken Riley Act will get more to that in just a couple of minutes.

But Jim, let's talk about the Pima County Attorney advising county officials on asking for warrants and ID for federal agents and immigration enforcement.

And I'm going to read what we share with Pima County employees.

Thanks for some great reporting out there.

I want to be as helpful and cooperative as I can with any lawful orders.

My instructions require me to quickly get a copy of your warrant and a paperwork you have.

So as your full credentials, including name, agency and badge number, I will share this information with my point of contact at Main County, who will click the consult with attorneys in order to comply with your request as soon as possible.

So it almost sounds like someone who's like working at Dillard's or working at Macy's at night or something like that.

How significant is this that Laura Conover came out and is giving some sort of standard for Pima County employees to follow?

Well, I think both Sheriff Nanos, County Attorney Conover, you know, the TPD Chief Magnus following the direction of the Tucson City Council are all, as we talked about, trying to step away from being in the role of assisting the federal government in these kinds of raids.

Again, we don't know if they're going to happen, but, you know, the county runs or supports daycare programs, you know, and after school programs and neighborhood centers and things like that where you could conceivably have people who are undocumented hanging out.

And so the idea is to, you know, to give the employees their pretty specific instructions of how to handle the arrival of somebody like that.

And it's not as though President Trump won by a landslide.

We know that's not the case, but there is a very different dynamic to Tucson, Pima County, as it relates to the Trump administration.

They're in very different wavelengths.

Is that going to make things difficult for Pima County when you have Sheriff Nanos, County Attorney Conover saying these things?

Could this end up leading to trouble whether appropriate or not?

Well, I think the trouble we may see is, oh, well, if you're not cooperating, you're not getting this federal grant.

We're going to take away your funding for this, that or the other.

You know, that that's where I think we're going to because we've already seen these executive orders last week.

The Office of Management and Budget memo this week, an effort to stop the flow of federal dollars into communities across the country.

And it sounds like they're reviewing these things.

And maybe part of their review is like who's going to cooperate with us.

And, you know, it's a pretty nice city you got here.

governor Romero would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

And, you know, I think we could that that's where I think a lot of the hammer may fall.

Yeah.

Danyelle, what strikes you about that?

You know, I mean, I think what the county is doing is really in line with what TUSD said, which is that you need a judicial warrant if you're going to come into these public spaces and detain people.

And I think that's going to be a change.

But I think it's just making sure that everybody is in line.

Everybody understands that this is the law.

This is the line that is drawn.

And these are the protocols that will be followed.

And, yeah, I mean, honestly, when I saw this reporting, I just thought, well, this is very in line with what TUSD was just saying.

It does feel consistent, Caitlin.

But again, as I asked Jim, does that potentially cause trouble for Pima County, for Tucson to be against the grain is what the Trump administration wants, we've seen this aggressiveness we've seen becomes even more aggressive.

I mean, absolutely.

And quite honestly, I think we're already in his crosshairs, right?

He has a great memory and he has plenty of people that work for him.

And we had many top county and city officials campaigning very actively for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

And I don't I don't think he didn't notice that.

I don't think we're at the top of his list of priorities.

And I mean, even beyond that, I don't think a lot of what we've been trying to do over the years are priorities of his anyways.

I mean, the city has been really active in environmental initiatives.

I don't they don't seem to care much about that anymore, especially environmenta justice.

So I mean, I think we're already in those crosshairs and anything we do probably just puts us in a more precarious position.

OK, Danyelle, Caitlin did mention Laken Riley.

So can we get some background on that?

First, we know President Trump signed it into law.

Yeah.

Tell us a little bit about who Laken Riley is and why this became such a cause celeb for mostly on the right.

Oh, there's some on the left, which we'll talk about in a moment.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So basically, Laken Riley was a young woman who was killed by an undocumented migrant and he had previously been arrested for, I believe, shoplifting and had been released.

And so the Laken Riley Bill sort of came out of this idea that, you know, if this man had been behind bars, that he wouldn't have been able to commit this horrendous crime and, you know, take this woman's life.

So we saw a lot of support from Democrats in Arizona.

Both of our senators supported it.

And the bill eventually did pass with Democratic support, even though there were plenty of Democrats who were still against it.

And basically, the question that I have been trying to answer, because what the bill will do is it allows federal immigration enforcement officers to detain people for minor crimes.

Such as shoplifting and other minor crimes in line with that.

The problem is, is that those crimes are typically handled by local law enforcement, not immigration enforcement.

So the question that I was trying to get answered was who's going to pay for this?

Who's going to pay for this?

Are local law enforcement going to be required to do this?

And, you know, we were talking about Nanos earlier and I talked to him about this and he said, well, it's not going to cost my department anything because I'm not going to do it.

And so he said, you know, if I if we arrest somebody for shoplifting and it warrants a citation and then we let them go, that's what we're going to do.

We're not going to hold them for a few hours or several days until immigration enforcement can get here.

So the law itself did not come along with any funding and it's not clear yet how it is going to be implemented.

Yeah.

Caitlin, any concerns on top of the other concerns we already discussed?

I mean, we've we've already had for years issues with how local law enforcement handles ICE detainers for serious crimes and what's going to happen with them.

And my understanding was the defendant in this case was actually released before ICE could pick him up on a pre-existing detainer.

So, I mean, there are still holes in this system.

If they don't pick them up soon enough, they probably will be released.

And again, who's going to pay for this?

I don't think anyone, any local law enforcement agency is going to offer to spend more money that they don't have to be an arm of the federal government.

So it'll be interesting to see how it plays out across the country, but particularly here.

Yeah.

Sarah, how does this fit into the reporting you've done on the folks you've spoken to?

Well, Sheriff Hathaway in Santa Cruz County said the same thing.

He can't afford to keep people in there without more funding.

And he just doesn't have the funding.

He doesn't have funding to train his officers on immigration issues.

So same with, you know, he just there's not there's no money for it.

Jim, as Danyelle mentioned, the politics of this is interesting in the sense that a guy who just became a senator, he has six years and some people might say if he were in the last year of his term, just to be cynical political observers.

Oh, you know, I understand why he might support this, but just a month into being a senator and Senator Kelly as well.

Did anything strike in particular about that, the fact that here are two prominent Democratic senators in a purplish state signing on to this?

Was this where they trying to send a message to say, yes, we are progressive in certain ways, but in other ways we realize that what we've been told by people around the state, they want immigration enforcement.

I think they are obviously making a play to appear more moderate on immigration because they recognize the frustration in the country.

I think the critics of this bill are saying, look, this is even if somebody is arrested and not convicted, they could be falsely arrested and then find themselves deported.

But again, we don't know how that mechanism is going to play out and will play out differently in different communities, just as I think SB 1070 had some similar requirements.

And that played out differently from county to county.

And we're still watching Prop 314.

We don't know when that's going to go into effect.

The law in Texas, of course, determines that.

I said before we before we leave the Laken Riley Act, Danyelle, it just it just struck me that this was one of those things that almost and this is me expressing it almost became one of those Fox News kinds of things.

And then more reputable politicians, elected officials climbed on, not asking to make a prediction, but does this indicate a direction we may see from the country because of the Trump administration, at least over the next few months, the idea, this passion for this sort of enforcement?

Yeah, I mean, I think that we've already seen that.

I think that that had a lot to do with, you know, why Trump won the popular majority and also like we were talking about Prop 314, which is a state bill that would allow local law enforcement to arrest people for immigration related reasons, as we said, it's on hold.

But that passed in every county in the state, including Pima County.

So, you know, I think that it is indicative of the way that the country is going, at least the way the country is right now.

And, you know, bringing back to the beginning of the conversation, we will see if there is continued support for sort of these much stricter immigration enforcement than what we've seen in the past.

If and when people start going into schools, into churches, into hospitals and arresting people for immigration related reasons.

Yeah, I think it's worth mentioning that the number of people crossing the border has dropped precipitously in the last six months.

I mean, there's not the kind of flow of asylum seekers that we saw during much of the Biden administration.

What do you think they kind of shut that pipeline down with predictions that November and December were going to be crazy because people wanted to get in the last couple months, the Biden administration.

Caitlin, before we move off this topic, so 314 also had those elements in it, though, about keeping opioids out, keeping fentanyl out.

So that's one of those things that I'm actually intrigued to watch that if the Trump administration actually starts moving toward that, as opposed to deporting folks actually being, you know, really having more enforcement, not just sending 1500 troops or whatever, really saying, no, no, this is something that we know Americans do not want drugs, at least many Americans don't want the drugs here.

So that's the enforcement part of it.

So that's interesting to me.

I mean, I think that was the bigger voter draw to 314.

Most of the people that we talked to, that was the concern.

Fentanyl coming across the borders, killing people.

It wasn't people living here illegally.

It was the flow of drugs.

So, you know, I think if that's where the policy ends up playing out, great.

But it doesn't look like that's going to be the focus already, given what we're seeing, you know, come down on other levels.

Especially if you're pulling DEA agents away from DEA enforcement and putting them on the job of rounding up people who are working as dishwashers and have some kind of minor crime in their background.

But it's also worth mentioning that most of the fentanyl entering the country, according to law enforcement sources, is coming across, being driven across the border at ports of entry.

I just want to spend a couple of minutes on this next one because it was it was big news in the world of politics.

Governor Hobbs got to name her first judge to the Supreme Court.

It'll be Justice Maria Elena Cruz.

Caitlin, I think stand out about her for you.

I mean, she's the first Hispanic first African American judge on the Arizona Supreme Court.

Governor Hobbs made sure in her statement to say that she believes she'll be an excellent supporter of the Arizona promise.

So, you know, we can see why she was a fan.

But, you know, in the past, Jim, this might have been one of those things that could have an impact.

And yet when Governor Ducey was on was in the governor's office, we saw an expansion of the court.

So we're going to end up with six folks who at least lean right.

And one person who's a Democrat.

So I suppose politically it's not that significant.

But is there anything that potentially Governor Hobbs could could play with this even in the reelection to say, hey, listen, I've I've appointed someone who's unique, who really represents Arizona.

You know, for folks on the left, that's probably a selling point for folks on the right.

They're probably going to say, oh, this is a D.E.I.

hire.

You know, it's almost inevitable at this point because of the tribalist nature of politics.

But it, you know, I think you're right that the court will still lean fairly conservative.

Yeah, it's not quite like the U.S. Supreme Court.

We don't really have factions because we basically have six Republicans and now and now one Democrat.

Sarah, I'm putting in the spotlight now because I think all of us at this table have had a chance to interview Mayor Romero.

But you did a huge profile in the Arizona Republic, A.Z.

Central.

I don't I'm not going to leave an open-ended question to you, but you really got in depth on a lot of things there.

What did you think of her as someone just to sit down with for half an hour?

Did you feel like she was acting as a politician?

Do you feel like she was engaged with you?

What really stood out to you about the conversation?

She was very personable and she told some really hard stories for her.

At one point, she even teared up because there was a story that she hated talking about.

And but she wanted, you know, she wanted to she wanted people to get to know her and talking about, you know, her life.

Working in the fields with her parents in Yuma and in California really brought out that human side of our mayor.

I think what's interesting, too, is that obviously the Republic is a statewide paper.

And yet a lot of folks who read it are in Maricopa County or Phoenix may not know her as well as people in southern Arizona.

Was that part of the reporting you were trying to do with the story to really for people who may not know anything about Mayor Romero here?

Here all of it is.

Definitely.

And it was it was to kind of have the introduce her to the state in a way, because she's been in a lot of national news.

She spoke a lot.

She spoke at the DNC.

Biden chose her for an inauguration to travel to Mexico.

And her name was in the running or on the list to replace Mark Kelly if he had been chosen to be VP to Kamala Harris.

So it was a way to kind of learn about her before maybe she shifts to other things.

Did it feel like she is someone who has really been influenced by where she was raised, how she was raised?

Does she carry that with her as a politician?

That's what everyone told me.

They say that informs her policy and her lens through which she views everything.

It's her community.

I mean, that's why she's been so successful is how good she is at getting all these different groups together to fight behind important issues.

Yeah.

And she's facing a big issue with Prop 414 coming up, which is seeing some opposition there.

Does she have a lot of political capital to use on that?

I mean, is she how popular is she?

Obviously, she's been reluctant.

But I mean, I think she's pretty popular.

And I feel like I got to know a different side of her during the campaign season as well.

I mean, she was at all of the events.

But during one of these smaller, smaller pop ups at a library on the south side, she told a really personal story about her father and got choked up.

And I think it was that smaller, more intimate crowd that felt like home to her, that felt friendly, that gave her that confidence to tell that story.

But I've never seen her crack like that before.

She's always very, very poised.

So I think this administration, these policies, what we're seeing happen in this country are really striking a nerve with her.

And, you know, I don't think she will be our mayor for much longer, but who knows?

Danyelle, how much do you think she really represents what Tucson stands for?

I mean, I think that she really represents a large and important faction of Tucson.

I know that, you know, a lot of people have been saying that they and this was also in Sarah's article that they find her to be not accessible enough.

Some people are angry about that.

You know, I agree with everything people are saying that basically that she's a very genuine politician.

She does seem to really sort of speak from the heart.

But, you know, I remember when I would cover topics years ago when she was on the city council and she would take my calls.

And, you know, it's from what I've heard.

I don't I haven't been calling her lately, but from what I've heard, she doesn't take people's calls as easily.

So I think that is one criticism.

And maybe there is a faction that feels like she's not listening to them.

OK. Yeah.

And so your profile is azcentral.com.

So if people around the state want to see that Sarah Lapidus profile of Regina Romero, I want to thank our panelists for being here, including Sarah Lapidus, Report for America and the Arizona Republic, Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Sentinel, Caitlin Schmidt of the Tucson Spotlight and Danyelle Khmara of AZPM.

Thank you all for being here and thank you all for watching and listening to The Press Eoom.

We'll be back next week.

I'm Steve Goldstein.