and advocacy. And I just want to say that Stephen and others at UCI are organizing what he's doing in an excellent and thoughtful program this weekend. So many other panels have reflected and suggested towards things dealing with advocacy on behalf of immigrants. And we're really honored to have a number of leaders from the immigrants rights movement here in the audience, a number of users, at the forefront of creating new claims. My head is still spinning a bit, Trump. It doesn't, that my mission he made that we start incorporating these proportionality due process change into our groups before the immigration court. And so I look forward to more thinking around that. And as we've heard from others, and here on the news virtually every other day, the public rhetoric surrounding immigration often centers around the quote unquote, rule of law. And this rule of law rhetoric tends to be deployed through the lens of enforcement, i.e. the stress application of the civil and criminal statute that's presented in the presence or unauthorized entry demand some kind of, demand removal because those who are here without papers are violating the law. So hence the rule of law is rectified by the removal. But by contrast to this enforcement-oriented narrative of the rule of law, in many ways the story of the immigrants rights movement and advocacy within immigrant communities shows the law in a different way. The law instead of being a strict statutory section dealing with unauthorized entry is more fluid, dynamic, and depends on the claims that are created by non-citizens and their advocates. These claims may involve application of the employment laws, the due process laws as a constitution, the supremacy clause. They may involve making statutory amendments as we've seen in the case of the DREAM Act. And in many ways, immigrants rights advocacy is also multifaceted and involves a range of strategies, individual and class action litigation, organizing, legislative change, community education, and national marches, a variety of actors may be involved. So at times as we hear more from Shannon Cleason about we look to the cooperation and collaboration of government agency and officials when individual citizens seek to enforce, say the labor and employment laws, law school clinics are often involved in creating these claims. In Ingrid E. Pleas Paper, we'll focus on some of that. And at the same time that law schools are creating these claims, they're also creating training in generations of effective advocates. In the case of the DREAM Act, which Julianne and Bill King will present on, we see personal individualized risk-taking by students willing to literally put their futures on the line in declaring their undocumented status as they seek to call for congressional change. So those are some of the themes that are invoked by this panel, which I'm just truly excited to be a part of and introducing this afternoon. We're gonna first start with seeing really what the world-wide debut of a father-daughter pair of William King and his daughter Julianne. They're going to present first on the DREAM Act the evolution of the movement. Building as a respective leader, both in the immigrants' rights movement and in the legal academy, including in clinical legal education, he's the author of numerous books, articles, and practice-oriented publications on immigration policy and race relations. His most recent book is entitled Ethical Borders, NAMDA, Globalization, and Mexican Migration. He's also the founder of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national nonprofit that many of us immigration lawyers have looked to, or guided and relied on. This is an organization that has been instrumental in providing training to lawyers across the country, as well as advocacy on behalf of non-citizens, and he is currently a professor at USS Law School. His daughter Julianne is a blogger and blogger for Color Lines, which is an online community devoted to anti-immigration justice. She covers immigration, education, and criminal justice issues very occasionally fashion and pop culture processes and you never know what happens as well. She actually studied social ecology here at UCI, so I think it's very good to look back at your online, and she's been with Color Lines since 2007. We'll next hear from Professor Ingrid Begley, who will speak on street vending resistance of immigrants' rights, and she'll be speaking more about her experiences working with the UCLA criminal defense clinic, representing a collective of immigrant workers harmed by local laws targeting food trucks in Los Angeles, and some of her work will also touch on the implications of that work for various areas, including law and organizing, race, clinical education, and the rise of the right in public discourse. Professor Ingrid Begley is an acting professor of law at UCLA Law School, where she teaches evidence and also runs the criminal defense clinic. Her research focuses on the intersection between immigration and criminal justice, and prior to joining the faculty of UCLA has an extensive background as a public interest lawyer. She's worked for organizations such as the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, also known as CHIRLA, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, and is also served as a federal public defender in Los Angeles. And then finally we'll hear from Professor Shannon Bleson, who will discuss her work focusing on the response of government agencies that hear employment claims from immigrants with a focus on case studies done in the Houston, Texas and San Jose, California area. Professor Bleson is an assistant professor in the Latin American and Latino studies department at UC Santa Cruz, and her research interests include immigration, social stratification, labor and social policy, and law and society. So we're going to have Julian start himself in sharing her thoughts on the dream act. Thank you. Hi everyone, good afternoon. It is true, this is the first time I've done, and I've spoken together. We usually try to get together lots of space now. But it really means I'm trying to crawl out from under the large shadow of my career cap. So it's here, I'm a reporter for Colorline, and in this last year I covered what became known as the dream movement very closely, and that's what I'm going to do. So 2010 was really the year of the dream act. It was the year that immigrant youth pushed the bill, rather improbably, to the forefront of the immigrant race movement. And at key moments, even to the forefront of Congress's legislative agenda. It was the year that the budding youth led national movements started to test its considerable muscle in earnest and saw just how much power it really had. And it was the year that bold public actions were taught by ever more fearless tactics with startling regularity. So for one, it was the year that it became something of a rite of passage for undocumented youth to get arrested for civil disobedience. How many were trying to fight for this bill? And their civil disobedience was who the dangerous gamble every time, because every arrest put undocumented immigrant activists at risk for deportation. So the first major sit-in happened on May 18 in Senator John McCain's Tucson, Arizona, offices. For undocumented youth, Tanya Mazzuera, Beth Mateo, Yahaira Carillo, and Mohamed Abdelahi, and one other legal resident, Raul Alkraz, who is an ally, sat in McCain's offices waiting for some sort of response. They said, we want a commitment. We want a statement. We want something. They were wearing what has become their trademark mortar boards and graduation gowns. And they waited him out. And then they stayed the entire day. They never got a response. At the end of the day, they were arrested and charged with misdemeanor by a criminal trespass. And their actions triggered deportation proceedings, which for various reasons, federal government has not moved much on. So Mohamed told me at the time, we were asking McCain to come back around again for the Dream Act to support the right to undocumented youth. He said, the calculated risk is that I could have technically been detained driving or doing anything. But ICE and immigration organizations can't think they can hold our status over our heads. We're taking ownership of the same fears that are going to exist, no matter what. So that was one of the first, or that was, I think, the first sit-in of the year led by undocumented immigrant youth. Earlier in the year, on March 10, eight undocumented youth justice lead in Chicago marched alongside 300 supporters from Chicago's Union Park to the downtown Department of Homeland Security offices. They set up a stage, and one by one each of them came forward and told their stories in front of the enforcement agency that's responsible for deporting them and their family. I spoke to Rayna Wences, who's an undocumented immigrant who came out that day. She said, we were claiming our space, saying that we are undocumented and we're not afraid. She said something that a lot of Dreamers have since told me, that even though these public actions are meant to send a public message of defiance, they've actually been really liberating for Dreamers themselves. She said to me, there was something very powerful about actually coming out and saying it in front of the immigration offices that was so powerful. This idea that young people would go to DHS headquarters and say, we are the ones you're looking for. We are the ones whose families you're tearing apart.  That's truly remarkable, I thought. And the Chicago youth were joined by undocumented immigrant allies and supporters all across the country. They called March 10 the national coming out on the shadows day. They're going to be reprised again this year in March too, who coordinated a series of similar actions. So all along at the same time, Dreamers as undocumented immigrant activists are often called, they were keeping them public campaigns too to save one at a time their fellow activists who were facing deportation themselves. What would happen is if they got news of someone's impending removal, they would figure out the person's story. They would get photos. They would put together a Facebook page, send out an alert to sympathetic bloggers if trying to resolve things quietly hadn't done anything. And they would shame public officials into stopping removal proceedings. And it has worked almost every time. In a very wonderful way, coming out has actually been one of the safest things that undocumented youth especially can do for themselves. It doesn't always, it works very different for their parents. It works very different for people who don't maybe have similarly sympathetic narratives behind them. But especially for undocumented youth, coming out and saying, I'm undocumented and I am American and your neighbor, your friend, your classmate has been a very smart strategy. So since that first sit-in back in May in McKayden offices, Dreamers have since shut down Wilshire, as they wanted a response from Feinstein to keep moving on the bill. They've also targeted other Democratic congressional allies. They've done sit-ins in Harry Reid's offices. They have publicized phone calls that are generally kept private. They publicized phone calls, one in particular with Congressman Luis Gutierrez from Chicago in which he chastised immigrant youth for their very confrontational tactics. And Dreamers said, look, you can't hold this, hold us back. It was that marked, that phone call which was recorded during a sit-in in Harry Reid's offices really marked a turning point in the movement. There were four months behind the scenes intro movement conversations about the strategy behind whether or not they should push for the Dream Act on its own or try to keep it with some broader comprehensive immigration reform strategy. And Dreamers said, look, it's not gonna happen this year. We need to move something. And they decided to move the Dream Act on its own and really wanted the support of national groups and congressional allies which they weren't getting. And so they outed people. And that was very controversial. But that wasn't all they did. There were hunger strikes that were happening across the country. The longest one that I know of lasted 30 days. A Texas streamer named Lucy Martinez ended her hunger strike after 30 days, the day after the house passed the Dream Act, a very historic vote. By the end of it, she was being pushed down the halls of Congress in a wheelchair while she made her office visits. It was that kind of a commitment from young people who were defending not just the policy but their lives that really started to anchor what we saw this past year. And so at the end of the year, so what did all of this activism get them? The year came and went and the Dream Act didn't pass. And in fact, in the last weeks before the House and Senate votes, there were huge compromises made to the bill that significantly narrowed who would be eligible to benefit from it. And those compromises mean that any future fight on the Dream Act will likely start from that ever narrowed space. But I would argue that the answer is they accomplished a lot. This was the year that we saw a real cultural shift in the movement. Young people started taking the lead. They were wrestling the bill away from, the bill and the movement away from an older generation of immigration rights advocates who were very committed to this comprehensive, more comprehensive strategy. It was the year that the phrase undocumented and unafraid became the unofficial tagline of the Dream Movement. It was the year that the movement became narrative driven and driven by those very people who were using their life experiences to anchor what they were pushing for. I spoke with Tanya Unzuela. She was one of the people who did, who took part in this in the McCann's office. And she was also the original rooster child for the Dream Act. When it was me who called the Dream Act, it was called the CARE Act in 2001. She just graduated from high school in Chicago. And a high school counselor told her she should go back to Mexico and ask them if they would give her a visa so she could be an international student and come back to school here. Of course, she couldn't get back into the country and Mexico denied her international student visa. And that was also the same year that Dick Durbin discovered undocumented youth. And she became the face of the CARE Act at the time. 10 years later, she's still waiting for this bill. And the movement has changed in many ways. And she told me that she felt initially, she felt initially disconnected from a lot of the fights that were happening in 2001 and 2006. But she thinks that this year what really changed and what made the Dream Act movement so moving and so captivating for so many people was the fact that it's easier to fight for a person than it is to fight for an idea or a policy. And that's why so many young people put themselves out there. And that's why so many people, and that's why they won so much culturally, if not legislatively. You still have four minutes. I'm done. I'm done. I'm done. She gave me more minutes and I was gonna give her 15 and I wouldn't take five, so I'm gonna have 15 minutes. You know, before I start, the title actually in your booklet has one subtitle, it's got the Dream Act and it has the evolution of a movement. There's actually a second subtitle, the second of our actual paper when we write it. And it's the Dream Act, the evolution of a movement and lessons for rebellious advocates. So I'm doing the rebellious advocate part and the lessons. When I look at things, I honestly look at things clearly, as clearly as I can, through the lens of race and I just as a human being. And when I look at things, I look at those things through the lens of class just as a human being. And there's just no doubt about it, I always look at things through the lens of race and class. When I'm a lawyer and I'm concerned about lawyering and movements and policy and advocacy, I look at anything dealing with those issues through the lens of what Jerry Lopez and I call rebellious lawyering or Lucy White and Asconi Piumelli would call collaborative lawyering. And so for those of you who are unfamiliar with those concepts, here it is in 30 seconds, okay? The standard lawyer, the conventional lawyer, interviews people and clients and gathers information and says, well, here's what I think should be done. The client-centered lawyer of the binder in price mode would interview the clients and say, well, here's what's happening, here's the law, you're the client, it's your decision. Tell me what route you want to take. And the rebellious lawyer does all that, informs the client and sits down and says, let's think about what the solutions are and let's think about how we can do this together and what part of this might we be able to collaborate on and which parts of these do you think you can do, which parts do you think I can do and which parts do we need allies to work with. So that sense of collaboration includes openness and willingness to be ready and prepared to be educated by our clients and to be inspired by our clients and frankly, especially with respect to the Dream Act students, to challenge us to take on very difficult, very, very difficult cases and issues and policies that might have insurmountable odds. It is clients like the Dream Act students that challenge us to do that and invite us to view their passion, their own strategic thinking, certainly their stories and to determine what role we can play as lawyers. So part of what we are trying to do is to try to find out when the so-called Dream Act movement started and it's kind of interesting what we have found out and because some of us in the room probably felt that it started after Durban introduced Bill and then the dreamers sort of caught on and started organizing over. It was actually a little bit more contrived, directed than that and part of it had to do actually with, well, first of all, who even drafted that bill, right? Dream Act students didn't draft that bill and in fact, Durban wasn't the first person that that bill was pitched to. And in fact, what really became the Dream Act was drafted by a couple of people one of whom is in the room, Josh Bernstein and Lytton Joaquin from NILC. They drafted it and it was Berman. There's some dispute over whether or not Berman came out with the idea or if you guys came out with the idea then. But however, Berman played a huge role in coming up with the idea of, well, why just focus on tuition? Let's legalize these folks. And then later on, they went on to Durban. I work for Berman and can I just add a little bit of history? The secretary of the army came to me before the Dream Act was drafted late 90s, 1999. I said, I need a bill to legalize these fabulous people that I want in the army. And that was the initial, well, 99 I wanna say. Lytton, do you accept that? No, no, no, I'm not saying. So that was just a germ of an idea. And then it went and I give full credit to Josh and NILC. Well, we gotta interview you because that's certainly, the military division certainly was not in the original Dream Act. So it's kind of ironic that that military input now has come full circle and you've got the military division in the Dream Act. So the idea, and Josh is very gracious. He actually goes back further. Do you think there is a condition between the tuition cases and Latisha A, which was filed in 1984, which challenged the state universities on behalf of undocumented college students to lead to what eventually became AB 540. And I actually was an expert witness in the Latisha A case, that's how old I am. And also the, and Robert Rubin, who helped to litigate that case, he actually traced the Latisha A back even further because in 1901, Robert Rubin and I brought a lawsuit on behalf of refugees in California who were denied in state tuition benefits, lawful refugees, it was Southeast Asians versus the University of California. And that case led to a case on behalf of asylum applicants and then that case led to the Latisha A case. So, you know, those of us who claim to be on the front lines of immigrant communities and advocates and pushing for policy change. Yeah, I mean, sometimes we get lucky and we can help play a role, but there is this tension between collaboration that leads to organizing among the clients. Tension with that and the idea of legal services attorneys and progressive advocates having a self-determined political vision without input for the community and using the community as a tool and those advocates. And that's a tension that we have to be aware of and that's partly what I wanna write about because I think that this is an example where there was a real collaboration and I don't think these students, you would ever claim that they're being used. And now I think that they're actually whipping back at those of us who are the advocates. Thanks. I just wanna start out by thanking Stephen Lee and the UCI School of Law for putting together this wonderful conference and for inviting me to participate, participating on this panel in particular on claims making and advocacy in the context of this concept of persistent puzzles and immigration law has really provided me with the unique opportunity to think of some of the puzzles that have been coming up in my own work, teaching a criminal defense clinic at UCLA. So that's what I'm gonna talk about today. First, just sort of for the backdrop for this project, I would start out by mentioning that criminal defense work is something that we don't necessarily think of as being something that would fit into an immigration symposium such as this. But I think with the increasing backdrop of immigration enforcement as we've been learning on the different panels, particularly yesterday, we're seeing the connection between immigration law and criminal law increasingly. This is both in the criminal context of actual criminal prosecutions of immigrants for immigrant violations of the immigration law, but also increasingly we're seeing sort of backdoor or indirect forms of enforcement. And by this I mean the use of denials of welfare benefits or access to education. And increasingly increasing regulation, especially the local level of workplaces that are dominated by immigrants. And it's this type of indirect enforcement of immigration that the project that I'm talking about today focuses on, in particular the work of my clinical students to challenge a Los Angeles ordinance that severely limited the amount of time that mobilcatoring vendors could remain parked in order to sell food on the streets. So first I'll just tell you, for those of you who aren't from Los Angeles or aren't from a city that has imposed these duration restrictions, there should have been a lot of them passed around the country, the ordinance in question was passed a few years ago. It really started to become enforced really vigorously in 2008. The ordinance essentially limited the amount of time that mobilcatoring vendors, in other words, those who use mobile vehicles, actually cars or carts or vans to sell food, prepare food on the streets, could remain parked to conduct those sales. So 30 minutes in residential areas and 60 minutes in commercial areas. The ordinance once started to become enforced vigorously essentially was a denial of the right to engage in mobilcatoring vendors because as we learned through the clinics project to actually park your vehicle, heat up your food, wait for customers to respond and to actually make sales, takes longer than 30 minutes or 60 minutes. So it essentially rendered this type of business inoperable, vendors were receiving thousands of dollars in fines, it was really a sort of a quasi-criminal sanction because of the severity of the fines and their businesses were being threatened and they themselves were threatened with bankruptcy. So how did our clinic get involved in this project? We were contacted at the very beginning of the semester by a grassroots organization that had just been formed a prior year, La Asociación de Luncheros, which essentially is a group of mobilcatoring vendors that was formed in East Los Angeles and South Los Angeles, it started very informally with a group of vendors meeting once a week at a local restaurant to really discuss the kind of hostility that they were facing through the enforcement of this ordinance. And gradually it started to become more formalized, they worked with the UCLA Downtown Labor Center and with the National, with Endelon, the National Day Labor Organizing Network to really start to learn some sophisticated organizing techniques that have been learned, particularly in the context of organizing day laborers who share a lot of similar adversity with local regulation being used to regulate how they look for work and whether they can look for work on the streets. So the group invited our class during the very first week of the semester to meet with them and they told us about how this ordinance was affecting them and really asked us to come to them with legal advice. So the students started doing legal research about this ordinance, why it would have been passed, what could be potential legal avenues and non-legal avenues to challenge the ordinance. So what we learned was that there's a lot of regulation at the local level of mobilitatoring vendors and a street vending in general. Most street vending is in fact illegal and punishable by misdemeanor, misdemeanor is misdemeanor in Los Angeles. Mobilitatoring vendor vending is legal but is highly regulated. And the most important regulation is that of the state of California which allows mobilitatoring vendors to in fact sell their wares and requires them to only do that if they are parked at the street rather than actually driving. And this law actually prohibits localities from further regulating the parking of these vehicles. The only way that a municipality can further engaging that type of regulation is if it relates to the public safety. So this of course provokes the question as to what is the rationale for this type of legislation at the local level which I think ties in with a lot of the things that you've been hearing about the regulation of immigration, the three main themes that came out of the student's research were crime, competition and race. So I wanna talk briefly about each of those. So this idea of crime motivating this type of regulation is really this concept that comes from broken windows policing. This idea that by policing public order sort of low value public order offenses that we're going to stop serious crime really starts in the streets with this concept that's been articulated very prominently by cities such as Santa Ana and Los Angeles County actually in litigation in briefs have explained this theory essentially that people park their taco trucks. People go to those taco trucks to buy food. They litter on the streets. They stand on the grass, the grass dies. The general sense of the community deteriorates and then that would then attract crime. People can hide behind these trucks they can buy. And then the actual streets become violent. It's been connected by a number of judges but cities are making that. There's some cutting edge work being done by Jesus Camerceo who's a graduate student at UCLA. He's actually gone out and interviewed law enforcement officers who were enforcing this ordinance in Los Angeles. And they have to explain to him that this is a form of stopping crime that crime starts with taco trucks. This idea that the vendors are perhaps selling drugs along with the tacos and the gang members are able to engage in gang activities because people are congregating in the streets. The second idea is this idea of competition and I'd say that this is the most frequently articulated public rationale. Indeed, when the students won the Constitutional Challenge at the end of the semester immediately the next day in the paper LA Councilman Dennis Zein was quoted saying to the LA Times we need to get together and pass another ordinance because as he said these guys go and park near restaurants and that hurts restaurants' businesses. So this concept is that people will go to taco trucks because the food is good, the food costs less and in the process these taco trucks are taking the parking spots of would-be restaurant goers and really damaging the brick and mortar restaurants. So the third motivator is that of race. And this is something that was raised in the very first meeting that we had with the vendors. The students asked, you know, isn't this all about race? And I think the students immediately saw the parallel between what was happening in Los Angeles and what happened a century ago and in the case that they all read in the first year of law school, Yikwell, the Hopkins. You know, isn't this a modern day version of the Yikwell case? Isn't this just like the Wanderers in San Francisco? Here we have a race-neutral ordinance that's being enforced, the students believed in a racialized way. Indeed, disenfranchising Latino vendors who were selling primarily their food in East Los Angeles and South Los Angeles. It was their suspicion that this was not happening in areas of Los Angeles where, in white areas of Los Angeles, for example in the West side of Los Angeles. So just to give you a sense of the quick version of events in terms of the litigation, the students went back and met with the full membership of the association and really presented what the options were as the students saw it. One option would be to use this legal research to engage in political activism with the city to educate people as to what's been happening and really try to change the law. Another approach would be a full-on facial challenge to this law, indeed bringing a suit against the city, trying to join the enforcement of the law. A third approach would be representing individual vendors in the administrative parking procedure to try to challenge the fees that were being imposed on them through these violations. Ultimately, the association members decided that we should take the administrative challenge approach and interestingly they took a very narrow approach. They decided that we would represent one vendor, not a member of the core leadership, not someone who was engaging in the political advocacy, but rather one vendor who they believe sort of represented the organization's membership. He operated his vehicle in East Los Angeles. He operated in the same fixed location for the past 12 years. He sold a traditional family recipe of carne asada and he had received more than $6,000 in tickets in only a one-year period. So the students represented him in challenging a whole slew of his tickets through two separate administrative channels. In front of one administrative law judge, they won on the facial challenging tickets. The tickets were facially invalid. Something we had feared would happen if we had a sympathetic judge. He had gone to UCLA Law School and listened quite vigorously to the students' arguments, but that was the much easier ground on which to decide on the constitutional challenge. The other judge was quite hostile to the students' arguments and found against them about the facial challenge and the constitutional challenge, giving them the opportunity to appeal to the final arbiter of parking, which is the Los Angeles Superior Court, essentially. We call it the Supreme Court of Parking. And the Los Angeles commissioner indeed found that the law was preemptive because none of these three rationales of crime competition of, well, we didn't end up raising the issue of race and I'll talk about that in a moment, but these rationales of crime and competition, which are the city's main rationales that they would put forward, have nothing to do with public safety and therefore this is something that falls within the regulation power of the state, not the locality. So I'm talking about this project because I think it raises some greater themes in claim-making and advocacy and I wanna just briefly touch on four separate themes. So what is the role of clinics and advocacy projects? And I know that Bill has just touched on this briefly. There's been, you know, in my colleagues such as David Binder, Paul Bergman, some of the founders of clinical legal education have really focused on this concept that clinics should play an important role in teaching legal skills, legal skills being mainly defined as sort of trial skills and client counseling skills, interviewing skills and should do that in a way that gives students an opportunity to repeat these skills so that they can actually be transferred into practice. And UCLA has done this through a borrowing model and through using a lot of simulation to promote the transfer of skills. Now, other scholars like Jennifer, who's on the panel with us here today has written a wonderful article talking about the value of broader advocacy projects that perhaps today, effective public interest lawyers really need to master a broader range of skills like community education, legislative advocacy, community mobilization and we should be incorporating into clinics the ability to expose students to these other broader types of skills. And I suggest that this type of project that the clinic engaged in, I think is one that kind of bridges between these two models and that students can learn the same sorts of skills that will transfer into a litigation practice which is very important in the criminal context but can also be exposed to some of these very important ways in which the litigation can transfer into broader mobilization and in which these broader skills are actually necessary in order to engage in the work. And I'd also say that I think that one area where we're not seeing any of these advocacy projects engaged in is in the criminal law and in the clinics in particular. And I think that that's an area where it is desperately needed. I think today, really effective criminal lawyers, both prosecutors and defense attorneys are ones that are criminally or community oriented. So community prosecutors, community public defender offices are those that can see the opportunity to connect the individual legal case with broader mobilization and I think that's something important for clinics to engage in. So the second observation that I wanna make is one where Jennifer Gordon has made incredible inroads and discusses and this is just one example but if this relationship between organizing and the law and I think that one thing that was really interesting that happened in this particular project was the relatively minimal role that the law has played in the broader advocacy campaign and work of the mobilization of this group. To be sure that this legal victory was incredibly significant in the life of Francisco Gonzales, our client and in those members who were able to overturn those tickets. But the city maintains incredible power to change those laws and a going forward basis. So I think two things were really important in sort of minimizing the role of the law and that was really giving the power of this legal victory back to the association's members. And that was done, the students at the end of the semester after winning this case conducted a training for the members and that training really served two goals. One was for them to be able to use that decision in a process of lay lawyering, going back and challenging other tickets using that decision. And the other was by providing a series of talking points for the membership to use with different stakeholders which ultimately they met with the city attorney's office they met with the LAPD and it ultimately resulted in the stop enforcement order being issued by the LAPD. And that's something that has been very powerful and allowed them to go back to work. The third observation is that of race and claim making. I think we can talk about this more broadly in the discussion. But the race claim, which the students very much wanted to bring they really saw this as race discrimination and went out to try to climb the types of marginal types of facts that Yiguo was able to bring in terms of how many wanderers, how many were Chinese-owned, how many of those were able to receive variances. But the students were able to get that kind of exacting data to support a race-based claim. And ultimately the race-based claim was left out of the litigation. Because really much more needs to be learned about the catering truck industry and how these tickets are being rolled out needs to be documented. And I think there's different ways in which the association has aggressive race issues. A lot of it is through their companion and their question that they've employed really trying to educate stakeholders as to who they are, really trying to combat some of these stereotypes as of these trucks being unsanitary and causing crime. I think this is here where Letty Volf's work comes in. One of the things that constantly came up was this resistance between then trying to demystify these stereotypes. But not at the same time recreating these same arguments of race, crime, and competition. Because we would continually hear the critiques of the so-called pre-anathas or the pirates who are the street vendors who sell the hot dogs of the little hearts and aren't regulated, tend to be undocumented. And there is a real tendency, a temptation, to distance the legalized mobile catering vendors from those who are illegal, both literally and in terms of how they are regulated by the city. And I would always joke, well, that's gonna be a future project if you keep those arguments up. But I think that is a tension in trying to demystify stereotypes through the work of the association on an ongoing basis. And then just lastly, the last point that I wanna bring up is this role of the right and immigrant rights. We've seen a real change in public interest law over especially the past decade. I think Ann Souther's work has been very fundamental in this way of really documenting that public interest law is no longer just progressive lawyers lawyering on behalf of specific types of causes. Instead, those causes have really expanded. And we have a very sophisticated group of conservative lawyers who are advocating on behalf of issues. And we've seen that, especially in the immigrant rights arena recently. So we've seen conservative groups who are litigating against California in-state tuition for undocumented students, litigating the Hazelton law, and really playing a powerful role in how immigration is being shaped. So one thing that emerged in the context of this street funding project is that the Institute for Justice, which defines itself as our nation's only libertarian law firm, which is quite a powerful nonprofit organization, has a multi-million dollar budget, has multiple offices around the country, found out about the clinic's case, came down to Los Angeles, interviewed Francisco Gonzales, our client, ultimately put together a Lausse brochure, featured this case, and featured beyond just the mobile catering vendors, featured more broadly street-bending. And it really sees, has now developed this to be one of their very primary issues that they are focusing on. They've just launched in January of this year a project which they call the National Street Bending Initiative. And its goal is to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living. Their focus is in what they call arbitrary government regulation, which serves to deny individuals of the right to earn a living, of the right to be business owners, set their own hours, and sell their own wares. And so the plight of street vendors, immigrant street vendors, has very much been something that they've taken under their umbrella. And they've presented these issues, they've just filed a major lawsuit in Texas and federal court, and they're bringing these challenges under the due process clause, and really trying to expand both the federal and state privileges and immunities clause that Tripe claimed on behalf of street vendors. So I just want to conclude by suggesting, as one of the earlier panels suggested earlier, and Captain Fisk's comments touched on this in the area of immigrants and work, what sort of potential is there across political lines to advance immigrant rights? Perhaps these sorts of libertarian alliances could not only broaden the type of legal arguments and claims that are being made on behalf of immigrants, but perhaps these could be used strategically in certain contexts to advance immigrant rights. And of course we can criticize the potential pitfalls of this and where these political alliances might break down, but I think it's something that's important to explore. Thank you, everybody, who's been very generous with their time in trans-organizing this. And also thank Julianne, because by my image, I think other than Susan Croutine, who was a moderator earlier, I think we are the only non-lawyers who are speaking. So my apologies to all of you for whatever first-year law student who takes them out to make. Okay, today, just to give you a little bit of background of who I am, I am a social demographer working in the Latin American Latino Studies Department who hangs out with lawyers, so take from that what you will. And so today I'm going to be talking a little bit about one particular aspect of my research that I haven't really taken to task as methodically as I'm going to today, and so I really look forward to your feedback in terms of the direction that I've been taking this. A lot of my work has focused on the not-profit organizations, labor unions, other forms of institutions who are advocating around undocumented work and interviews with workers and so, but today I want to talk a bit about the interviews that I did with labor standards enforcement agents themselves, and to try to get us to start thinking about how their perspective in this process of claims-making, so in this case I'm going to be looking at this from kind of the bureaucratic point of view, what this can tell us about the many fascinating questions that we've been putting out there. And so I want to start off by kind of presenting, again, this puzzle that we are all fairly familiar with, and for those of you who have read the work about NAC and many others that see me here today, we have this tension between this dual stance that liberal democracies have taken towards their non-members. On the one hand, they are compelled to defend the borders of their national sovereignty, and on the other hand, they're kind of compelled to fulfill the tenets of liberal democracy, and so what that means at the end of the day is the provision of rights to non-members. And so I'm going to be taking up the case specifically of the arena of labor, which we did earlier, and kind of trying to understand what do we get out of this puzzle of hiding undocumented workers who are restricted from legally residing or working here, but are also afforded a wide range of rights under the law, which I will stop here and agree are highly contested, but which I think with some consensus, many of those rights are still in place. And so, from the perspective of a labor standard enforcement agency themselves, they have a mandate to protect all workers while at the same time kind of tiptoeing around the boundaries of immigration law, and as I will explain, very begrudgingly, so. And so, from the point of view of sociologists, and I think all my social scientists, not that Leo, you're here, I don't know since you're here, but all my sociologists went home, but I'm going to say that the growing, if you think back to the political scientists here, the growing discussion around citizenship and political membership, and if we think back to Marshall and how he thought about provision of rights, his prerequisite for that was political membership, and so, several decades out, we kind of realized that political membership is no longer a prerequisite for provision of rights. And so, in the sociological literature, particularly not just the social sociological and social science literature, in some lawyers' months then, we've developed this concept of bureaucratic incorporation, and sociologists and other immigration scholars kind of looked at different axes of incorporation, and bureaucratic incorporation presents a puzzle to us because in the absence of political membership, and in the absence of statutory provisions for these rights, oftentimes we have found that bureaucrats on the ground are still engaging in efforts to exercise their discretion in a way that provides rights for these non-members. And so, bureaucrats, to kind of sum up this area of thought, which I will, again, be clear, is not my original conception. It's been thought about and written about by several folks out there, most recently Helen Merrow, Michael Jones Korea, who's in Ithaca, Paul Lewis, and Karthik Ramakrishnan, who was here yesterday, the idea that immigrants are receiving policy responsiveness at a faster rate than through bureaucratic organizations. So in the absence of legalization, or comprehensive immigration reform, it's somewhat puzzling to see the areas where rights are still being enforced, either because the law gives them room to do so, or because bureaucrats themselves are kind of finding ways to utilize the law. And so my goal is to kind of examine how we understand how and why labor standards enforcement bureaucrats serve this vulnerable population and this case in documents to workers. Here we have a situation where there are formal rights in place, but there's also this overarching context which we've been talking about for the last couple of days that is hostile to these workers and the site of enforcement for those prohibitions is also the workplace. Existing literature tells us that one of the things that propels the provision of these rights to the process of bureaucratic incorporation is this overarching professional ethos, or this, as Jennifer and Juliette at an early point referred to as kind of the mission of these agencies. And so in cases where those rights aren't well defined, you can see that bureaucrats would be compelled to serve these groups in the case of, for example, undocumented students, folks who show up at the ER, who are injured, or maybe even a community service officer or a police officer who is dedicated community policing, how they think about serving this population is usually framed around kind of doing the right thing or how they envision that individual as it relates to the broader mission or professional ethos. And what I'm gonna argue today is that in the case of Labor Standards Enforcement Agency, this particular argument about doing the right thing or somehow the determination of the moral worth of the particular claimant in case this agreed worker actually has little to do with how they're thinking about these rights. And I won't really go into this, but there's been a distinction in the literature made between how service-oriented bureaucracies might be looking at this differently than regulatory bureaucracies. And I'm gonna argue that in the case of Labor Standards Enforcement, really you have a mixture of the two where they are servicing a claimant which Jennifer mentioned earlier, but regulating an employer or the labor context. So my questions began to summarize are how are they within these important agencies implementing these contested rights for undocumented workers? I'm not gonna go too much into the actual outreach strategies that are happening on the ground, but really I'm interested in kind of the narrative of the bureaucrats at the front lines themselves are talking about. And how can we relate this question of bureaucratic incorporation to broader questions in law society and work around legal mobilization? Okay, so how do these bureaucrats understand and view this population who in many cases they're dedicating significant resources to access? And where are the implications to get back around to some of the questions posed earlier for the basis of non-citizen rights? And I'm gonna propose that these like signed enforcement agencies are engaging in what I call the status-blind approach that allows them to help these agreed workers help some engaging claims-making by homogenizing them to the rest of the workforce and declaring the protection as integral to their broader mission and only until you get to the phase of remedies are this issue of status become important to them. Okay, so in this case, service to these workers, in other words, processing their claims or accepting the validity of claims has nothing to do with immigration status. They don't wanna really examine that, but this population is acknowledged as central to their overarching mission. So just kinda walk through what I hope to accomplish today. I wanna kinda contrast the political theory of non-members and describe the data that I used for the NASA story briefly. I've come to learn we don't do methods sections when we talk to reporters. I'll tell you a little bit about what I've done. And contrast the framing from my reading of the judicial arguments in cases, Hoffman and their actor contrast the framing of the lawyers in those cases had to adopt to what these bureaucrats on the ground have used. And my question is, what happens when the policies towards immigrants in this arena of work become hotly contested in the public and judicial sphere? And so I'm gonna be using this very much as a case for how we can maybe start to think about this in other areas. So this is my quick method section. This just kinda gives you an overview. I won't really go into the comparative basis for my discussion, only to say that my case studies from the Roger Project, they're looking at two very different climates for both labor and immigration if either of you spent time in either of these spare cities. They have a lot in common demographically and economically, but there's also a lot in terms of how the tenor of the local debate over both immigration and labor. And I was really interested to see what was common and was different on a number of different outcomes, but particularly for today's purposes, how bureaucrats on the ground are dealing with the issue of undocumented work. And just to kind of summarize, my findings highlight that they're surprisingly, at least to me, consistent patterns regarding the bureaucratic behavior towards undocumented workers in these two different places who have very different contexts but also different state policies towards workers. I won't go into it as much today, but I have done interviews with advocates on the ground as well as workers. And so part of my puzzle is trying to kind of integrate these different perspectives and the different stories that they tell into how we understand this intersection of immigration and labor and how this relates to claims making. So as I was reading through our lineup, I kind of was staring at this slide just laughing. And I was like, oh, she's still there yet. You're here, Katherine Fisk, Jennifer Gordon. Go talk to them. They will give you the post-hopping plastic legal analysis. But, and so I'm not gonna go that much into what the framework is for these workers, but there's some kind of these key standpoints keep in the law in terms of how protections for undocumented workers have evolved over time going back to the Texas Provideral, other than Hoffman, and now beyond kind of looking at what has happened with the agri-processor cases. And so I put these up there just as a point of reference that your experts in the room are amongst you. But what you basically have is that post-Hoffman, you have a situation where you have minimum rights, right-room remedies that have been left in place, but these kind of fundamental rights that I'm not gonna address, including the right to work, the reinstatement in back pay provisions and front pay provisions, and the reasons for unemployment insurance. Certainly those are still very much a point of contest for undocumented workers who under ERCA have no rights to be employed. I mean, there's also some complications for the right to organize and how unions are dealing with this issue. But I just wanted to kind of put out here to remind us how the bureaucrats on the ground responded quite quickly to the Hoffman case. The EEOC and the Department of Labor issued a fact sheet and public statements regarding their continued commitment to protecting undocumented workers from discrimination, wage and hour protections, and even the California Labor Code was amended to incorporate them. So it's really this area where I'm really interested while still acknowledging the various struggles that remain. And I just wanted to point out a couple of the visuals where they're, just to kind of demonstrate the outreach and the actually dedication of resources either in terms of time, material, collaborations that are happening. I won't be talking about this too much today, but there are certainly different strategies on the ground in terms of how collaborations are being forged. The collaborations being forged in San Jose look very different from what they look like in Houston. So the community partners and the ways of accessing these populations are different, but the underlying narrative are similar in that regard when I focus on today. And so the continued outreach to these workers certainly recognizes the barriers that they face in terms of planes making. There are efforts to build trust and access to those communities, but there's a package in this status-planned frame. You will not find, with very few exceptions, material from these literature enforcement agencies that address head-on the issue of undocumented status. I think to a large part they rely on their community collaborators, whether it be through local governments, community partners, unions, non-profit organizations, immigrant rights organizations, or foreign consulates to do a lot of that work. For obvious reasons in terms of implications that we have politically. So just some examples. A lot of it is Spanish language material that has been put out there. This is from the Wichita Art Division. This is an EEOC comic book that came out of this Respiranta Project, which was focused on sexual harassment. This is from OSHA, a collaboration along with the Wichita Art Division through the Mexican Consulate. OSHA also has a hilarious video clip with El Rey Mysterio, which is a six-time Wichita Libre wrestling champion who talks about the rights for all workers. And the DWC here in California also hosts a series of workshops for Spanish language workers, which I've attended on several occasions. So my question though, however, is how do the bureaucrats themselves understand and rationalize these efforts, particularly in the state of California in an era of furlough Fridays and limited resources. And so I wanted to kind of examine how they talked about this population. And as I mentioned, to them this isn't rely on any sort of extraordinary discretion as we see in other areas of the migrant rights and education and health, and in some cases even in policing. But rather undocumented workers are seen as a means to the greater goal of raising the workplace standards for all workers. I think one of the phrases Jennifer used earlier is to protect anyone you had to protect off, right? And so on the one hand, my findings challenge these assumptions about the negative assumptions about the effect of bureaucratic discretion. And I also want to validate and collaborate with this literature on the existence of bureaucratic incorporation. But I want to kind of examine what are the implications for this status-blind approach. And I'll kind of run through this quickly. Just to remind us of what the judicial logic, at least in my reading, this is the dissenting opinion from Breyer. He says very clearly that the denial of these rights or many worker rights lowers the cost of the employer of an initial labor law violations and increases the employer's incentive to find and hire illegal alien employees. And so the need to kind of harmonize worker rights with immigration policies and not command to IRCA is at the heart of a lot of the arguments early on in this process. And so to what extent enforcing labor rights can deter illegal immigration is a very prominent logic that is often used. But from the point of view of these bureaucrats themselves, it was really about patrolling bureaucratic boundaries. This is not my job. So this is just some excerpts, the EOC Director in Houston. The issue of immigration status explained to me lies before the employer and we're not only interested in looking at employment policies and practices of companies that might be exploiting immigrants, but not because they happen to be immigrants. The DLSC investigators, both in San Jose, also went on to describe how this is far outside of jurisdiction. I reiterated that they do not share information with the INS and would not ask about legal status. And I really had to press them to kind of talk about to what extent this comes into play, even in remedies that are fairly precluded by Hoffman. Many of them cited juggling resources, the inability to sufficiently investigate and practically enforce the claims before them, and just the fact that they didn't know they had the resources to carry out the mission of ICE or the need or desire to be given that amount of their mission to get to the discussion we were having earlier about the role that the DOL could play with E-Verified. And so they rejected the fact that any activity that could be construed as immigration enforcement. And so the problem from their perspective was how the role of undocumented immigrant claiming, how this would deter the claimants, the types of claims that they would get. And for them, kind of, even the process of verifying social security numbers, the I-9 process, et cetera, lay before the employer and was really the purview of federal immigration law. And as this DLSC investigators says, that we don't enforce federal laws whether they did or didn't use false papers, we don't care. And in fact, I heard very similar refrains from NLRB, Rearcats themselves, who acknowledged the impact that Hoffman had, but also said, we give full due process to each party and have to allow responses to allegations and pursue independent witnesses getting this hold, which feels, and he says, if the law was violated, we review the evidence and we will try to reinstate the individual or make the remedy whole. And really, immigration status was an afterthought for them. So again, this trope of needing to protect one in terms of protecting all. This is framed in terms of particular industries that might be vulnerable, right, in the case of restaurants, garments, agriculture, right? So the idea that we needed to reach out to illegal workers and that in doing so, it wasn't the undocumented worker himself, himself that we were interested, but rather the injury of the violation that was at the heart of that. And so the professional ethos argument certainly does matter, but the goal was rather, the bigger goal was to regulate employees and uphold integrity of their mission. And so the target for protection was not necessarily the worker, but rather their labor function and invocations this had for the regulatory teeth that these agencies had, okay? And so I want to kind of just put out there as a point of discussion as we leave today, thinking about how, given the current policy context that we have, how do we kind of deal with these two issues? On the one hand, the satisfying approach that is focused on the labor function of workers, you have individuals that are committed to serving this workforce unwaveringly, I think, in most cases, there are rogue individuals, but even a very conservative DOL director who I talked to in the case, and kind of gritted his teeth as he heard I was going to work with him, I haven't heard anything like that. I'm not a person, maybe you'll be my reporter in terms of security. He even went on to say that his goal was to protect these workers because in order to do so, he had to, in order to carry out any of his missions he had to do so. And, but this is nothing about the rights to employment or to membership. And so I just kind of want to end with thinking about two problems that I think this poses for long society scholars. One is that we not equate the provision of rights to the actual process of legal mobilization. And so the assumption on the part of these bureaucrats that legal status is not an issue ignores the structural inequality that these were not only legal workers but other similarly socially low wage workers face in the process of claims making. And so rights not equally legal mobilization or we can't assume that they're going to go through these different stages that's fell sooner and laid off for us. But then also we don't, as sociologists and social scientists who are in the room who are very excited about the process of bureaucratic incorporation, don't want to equate that as with the meaningful incorporation of U.S. membership in society. So rights do not equal membership. And so I just want to end by thinking about what role labor citizenship as some of you have written about and the right to earn, how that is fundamental in some ways to how we think about membership in the society going back to Judith Schlar. But how, and how this membership via labor impacts on one of the one hand the pragmatic political pathos that advocates are using through on the front lines and out there really arguing for reform, but how this narrowing of the framing of the issue, what this does for folks who don't have an economic function to serve. And so just to let you know where I'm headed with this, I'm now trying to mirror this with the claims themselves and I'll be engaging in a survey of worker claims themselves in the Bay Area. And so I kind of look forward to your thoughts on how I can merge these two perspectives as well as other stakeholders in the process and think about what perspective, given the constraints in the existing policies, how we can think through the process of policy implementation and what this means at the end of the day for membership and kind of see what happens. So thanks very much. I look to think all the panelists for the excellent comment and I'm just gonna throw out one question and then open it up to the audience for comments and questions. The more pessimistic side of me is thinking about the recent elections and the change in the balance in Congress, thinking about the comment that I think it was Jennifer Gordon-Purds from Maxine Waters in the recent congressional testimony about the rights of immigrant workers and the recent debates even around the 14th Amendment and for a right citizenship. So for each of you, I'd just like to ask kind of what now, what do you expect from the future in each of the respective areas that you've spoken about? On one hand, with the DREAM Act, we've seen the courageous acts of students coming out and declaring their undocumented status and yet at the same time, now that they have come out, they have, some might say essentially put themselves truly at the risk of deportation and the provisions of the INA still stand, the course of power of the state still exists. So while the agency has, it seems, exercised prosecutorial discretion in some cases of the DREAMers, what might we expect or what are the students talking about? And I guess also similarly, in the case of the street vending, Ingrid, you mentioned that after the students won their victory in court, there was another suggestion from a local politician to introduce a new kind of effort. And also even in San Jose and Houston, Shannon, I was struck by, I think it was just one line in your paper where in one of the interviews, an agency official has said, well, we're status-blind, but at the same time, if we were subpoenaed, we're not gonna fight that, we'll give over the information about any of the claimants if ICE comes knocking. So I'll just throw that one question out as we go from there. So all that is true, the young people that I've spoken with, still, they can't work in their Christmas, a lot of the things that have made their lives difficult are still in place. But the young folks that I've talked to have talked about a shift that their activism is moving more to the state and local level. The national coordination that we saw, especially in 2009 and 2010, is pivoting a bit to address some of the more local and state fights that everyone is taking up these days. And there are still in-state tuition battles happening. There are states like Oregon, Colorado, there's a third, I can't think of right now, that are proposing in-state tuition bills, and then the ongoing need to defend in-state tuition bills everywhere. But materially, and in lots of other practical ways, life hasn't changed, and it's still very difficult. One of the activities I spoke with couldn't talk to me until 10 p.m. every night because she works at a deli, and then she does her activism every after hours of the time. So the fight is becoming more local and safe. Yeah, and even on the scholarship front, many of you know, the mayoral election in Chicago, there's discussion of providing scholarship funds for undocumented students. And the furt action effort on the part of Durban is being taken seriously. It's been taken seriously for at least a year within the USCIS, and they were talking about it before Durban was talking about it, and now they apparently are taking it up again internally, but the policy folks are trying to calculate what it would mean politically. You know, in Northern California, there's a group of philanthropists that have been meeting on a regular basis, who are trying to figure out how to hire undocumented students, and they've retained council, and they're gonna pour a lot of money into this and come up with a structure. And, there's a nationally known journalist who is about to come out that he's undocumented and he's doing a documentary on the Dream Act movement and within that documentary, he's going to talk about his own circumstances, and that film's gonna be at Sundance next year. You know, I can just respond to get you more of the day of the latest happening on the Swiss Street Vending in Los Angeles. Working on this project has allowed me to sort of reconnect with the issues. I went to a meeting of this association just a few months ago to ask for permission to write this paper about the case and really found out a lot more about what's going on with the group right now. There are efforts in Los Angeles to pass additional restrictions. I think one of the positive things that's happened from the organizing work of the association has been that they've really earned a seat at the table with all of the different stakeholders. So they've been engaged in political negotiations with city councilmen. They've also been engaged with the police department and the city attorney, and they've actually been engaged in trying to write additional legislation that wouldn't prohibit their vending. And we could criticize sort of this approach. One of the things that's emerged is a new regulation to actually grade taco trucks like brick and mortar restaurants, ABCs. There's gonna be additional inspections, additional city oversight and regulation, but this has really gone into part of the educational campaign and themes that the association has taken on being sort of demystified that these are actually legalized businesses that comply with rules and that serve safe and healthy food. So they've been able to sort of move the debate more towards ensuring that the food itself is safe and healthy and that the trucks are following sort of best practices in that area as opposed to an outright ban of their selling. So I think that's been one development. Another very interesting development has been after the association members won this victory for what they call traditional trucks. There's been a real emergence of what they call the Twitter trucks. So this has been sort of the upscale, high-scale or May trucks, which tend to sell food on the west side of Los Angeles. And there has been increasing tension. When I was at this meeting in December, they were literally referring to themselves as the traditional trucks and these other trucks as the Twitter trucks. And so I think there has been a real oppositional force between sort of the views of these two groups in terms of what sorts of protocols are best for the organizing movement. It's the view of the association and the traditional trucks that there are certain guidelines that should be followed in terms of where they park, where they sell their food, how they position themselves in the brick and mortar restaurants that will reduce the efforts of the city to continue to try to engage in outright bans. But at the same time, the work of the Twitter trucks, they formed an association as well and they've been quite successful in using the decision at the city level to get cities to overturn durational bans throughout the greater Los Angeles area. So I think, to get back to your question about what now, I think of it both in terms of short term and long term goals or questions. And so from the academic perspective, I think for me, it's important for us to think about how we're defining incorporation or parity and how that relates to deeper questions of structural inequality. And so the question of kind of the fact that beer cats are and willing to serve this population, the fact that there are still rights in place, does that mean that they are now incorporated in a certain way? And from the social movement perspective, the question is, how will we construct our goals, both short term and long term? What do we constitute as a victory? How are you gonna frame our demands? And so there's so many, I think there's different levels of victory. On the one hand, you have a need to try to improve claims making and for many it's enforcement. Kim Bobo's book, which many of you may be familiar with is kind of a very clear attack on what is wrong with the leadership enforcement apparatus, much aside for immigration is much only a part of that. But then there's several groups that are even so excluded from that process who work for small businesses, day laborers and pen contractors. And so, and then we have an ongoing new group of migrants and so I think that conceptually it's an issue of thinking about both short term and long terms and as sociologists need to be very clear about what is the outcome and how I'm operationalizing it. Incorporation doesn't mean membership. And but also how that relates to these broader questions. That's a big, long, complicated question. But yeah, I think it's just clarity in terms of what short term versus long term goals are so we don't feel like we're stepping on each other's toes through this process. We can critique the long term goal without sticking to some short term goals. Okay, I see a lot of kinds of deep head flags. My attention earlier, so we'll start with him and then we'll see who knows. Maybe we'll just collect all the questions at once and then give people an opportunity to respond if that's okay. We'll go around the room as deep as we can start and we'll sort of go back around. First of all, thank you to all of you. It was very interesting. My question is really for Ingrid but maybe other people can think about it as well. First of all, I want to passionately thank you from the bottom of my stomach for the type of work you're doing as a former Angelino and person who spent a lot of time in the East Side of Los Angeles. I think it's something that's close to my heart. But the question actually has to do with your comments about raising the race claim. And it's what I in my common law class would call the Yikwo Facts or the Gomelian Facts, right? But I'm curious, in retrospect, now that you had the publicity afterwards and the ability to build coalition and really publicize the effort and get a lot of people who you didn't think would be on board necessarily at the beginning on board. Thinking back, if you had the Yikwo Facts, do you still think you would have pressed that race claim or what do you think about it in retrospect in terms of this idea of building coalition? What a fantastic conversation. I really learned a lot and congratulated so all the people, the stuff you're working on. My question is for Shannon and it picks up on just one of the really neat aspects of your work, which is the ways in which the bureaucrats get socialized into viewing the undocumented as part of their particular jurisdiction in a sense. And I wanted to just hear a little bit more of your reflection on what you can pick up in your data collection in respect of why they've reached this conclusion. Just given the degree of diversity and the bureaucracies involved in the ideologies of the people who are in these positions, just how is it that they've converged? Is it a functional story about the particular role these agencies are playing in society? Is it something about the interest group conflicts? Is it something that just comes deeper just from the way they look at their job and their mission? And so Stephen and Jennifer and then one, two, three. So my question is for Bill and Julia and I, I'm at the very beginning of thinking about dreamers in the pre-matte movement and so far as I can tell, there are two claims-making frameworks that are played. One is a sort of civil disobedience framework, which in the American context has traditionally been a race-based claim. No one, and unjust laws, no one at all, as you explained by Dr. Kane in that context. And then the other one is one drawn from the LGBT rights and queer studies context where the individuals are coming out. And the two are interesting in that, and it's a lot of traction that they're bringing, but there's also some ways in which the fit isn't perfect. So for example, again, at least in the American context, civil disobedience has to do with race or immutable trade, whereas here for undocumented, the status that can be cured by the law. And then also in the LGBT context, it's behavior that could be hidden or covered or closeted. But the claim is that, well, even though it could, it shouldn't be. But I think that that claim is much more subject to contestation in the context of undocumented immigration. So I would just love to hear your thoughts on first whether or not this shift, embracing one thing with the versus another is a conscious decision made by activists and whether you see these two claims really working together and how they might interact. So this is for Shannon and thinking about, also the question Tina just asked about what's the socialization process. I actually would have thought of Hoffman almost the opposite way that you approach it, that is that I would say based on my experience, 10 years before Hoffman trying to get state and local departments of labor to respond to wage claims that they were far worse than you described here. And it would be my instinct that Hoffman is one of the reasons that they're better. That is Hoffman was the occasion, as you say, for those, for example, wage an hour to come out and very clearly define to the public but also to its own employees that the remedy of back pay in the context of wage an hour is still available. That's not the same back pay as for the NLRB. And that we will serve all undocumented clients. All of a sudden that was stated publicly as a mission and part of the debate. And that plus pressure from advocates, right, which also led to that, seems to me made Hoffman a sort of moment of agency definition that the agency had never had. They were still supposed to be taking these claims, but we had to fight for them to take them. And so it's a guess, but that is one guess about another way to look at Hoffman in the different context. Okay, briefly, I know there were one, two, three hands up. I was going to ask you to a question about the lessons that could be learned from the use of social media and the recent disturbances in the Middle East, reliance on non-violence. The author who writes on non-violence in the West King Sharp as to civil disobedience and ways to overturn unreasonable laws. Do you comment on the use of social media by the dreamers? Have they used it enough? Have they not? Leo, shout out anthropology. Despite being a liminal person here, I've lived a lot the last two days and we really enjoyed it. My question is for Bill and Julian and you don't may not know this, but I was the social scientist who testified in the DCA and Robert Rubin asked me to speak. And then, as now, I realized that the 1.5 generation, those who came young, those who made it to college are really a small percentage of that group. And yet, I guess my question is, thinking about the lefty-bolts piece, why is it the young people I talk to who came young are sort of repudiated and seen as the immoral other against which the college students and those who we get to graduate with the armed services are seen as the other. And they're really immoral ones. If we can give legalization to the college students, but not each other people who are working hard, they're going to other kinds of training, they're working in different kinds of factories, they're being very productive, but they're not college students. At what point, I was really saddened to see it get narrow. So, the V-MAC, these dear viewers too, why is the V-MAC so narrowly constructed to construct that it's repudiated? Is there at any point in the future now that the V-MAC can be opened up for all these other deserving young people as well? And is it just waiting for general immigration to be formed? Because the V-MAC to the 1.5 should definitely be for all of you, it's not really, not just, I mean, it's such a class-biased interpretation to me that it's truly too bad. I was really saddened to see it get so narrow. And the last question. I'll be really brief. I wonder if the issue of individual tax payer identification numbers by the IRS could be another example of bureaucratic incorporation because it's, they've issued so many of the medians at this point, a lot of people have been paying, filing and paying taxes, and it gives them an opportunity to build a synthetic narrative on both the individual and collective national level. Okay, Stephen, can we give each person two minutes and go six minutes over time? Thank you, Derek. We will start at the end in two minutes. Okay, so the question about social media, especially in the dreamers case, it was crucial, I think that a lot of the activism and organizing was made possible by things like GChat, by things like Facebook, by things like Twitter in several cases, especially in campaigns to stop the deportation of young people. They could activate their networks very, very quickly over Facebook and over Twitter to say, these are the numbers you need to call by tomorrow because, and this is the, these are the important numbers, this is their story, Twitter was fantastic for that and so was Facebook, and then especially in just the lobbying as the votes got near as the house was in a post, got closer, they were able to ask people to call, they set goals for themselves. So, and then the entire immigrant rights movement was on the same page and people were setting numbers for 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 70,000 calls by one of the last days. And I have so much to say about the narratives that have been imposed and also carried forth by dreamers. It's a difficult narrative that has been imposed on young people, but also, and that I think people are conscious of. Yeah, you know, at one point when the military part wasn't in there, it was a public service part, right? And that got deemed in place there. I don't know what to say, I think it's a reflection of just how all the bills have progressively gotten more reactionary from the how difficult it would be in 2007 to qualify for a legalization under that bill. They just got progressively worse and worse and worse and I'm too critical, I think, of our friends in the beltway for compromising all that. And this is what happened with Dream Act was another example that, and Harry Reid was compromising without, maybe you didn't feel necessary, consulting with the Dream Act students in December, because he's just a career thing and a third year old thing. I'm disappointed about that. Steven, I didn't think more about your question because maybe I'm not understanding it, but this would be as, as you know, I mean, it's not always been limited to race, I mean, the Vietnam War, you know, that kind of stuff then. And I remember people with death penalty, nuclear stuff, but your LGBT, you know, coming out with, and that's really a hard one because that's, then that's a good one to think about because, man, it really puts the students at risk. I mean, but it may put an LGBT person at risk, too, for coming out. And so, but you know, there's just two of, multitude of strategies for the students. They have study ends. They have blood drives to show their contributions. They have faith and, you know, prayers with multidynamic denominational, they just have so many terrific strategies that we learn from. Well, thank you for the question. I think that's the issue of whether you raise, race formally in litigation, I think is an important one and something that we're seeing, for example, in the context of Arizona where we see the federal government's challenge not raising any race-based claims, rather just bringing, you know, the claim of preemption, which really takes race completely out of the equation, similar thing in terms of the litigation that we brought forward. To directly answer your question, I would love to see race litigated in the context of the enforcement of these types of regulations. I've been talking with Abel Helenswelle at UCLA to try to encourage him to conduct some surveys of street vendors similar to the research that he's done on day laborers. I think something like that would be foundational in terms of being able to really understand who this population is to be able to make race claims in the future. And I would just also say, though, that raising a race claim is particularly difficult when you're working in the context of community mobilization because of the need to respond to that group's organizing aims, its vision of what the problem is.  Because the organizing group did not, at least at that time, define this as a group about race. And it's messy. I mean, you have Gloria Molina being one of the leaders of passing this type of legislation at the counting level. You have, you know, Mexican-American and brick and mortar restaurants who are some of the leading opposition forces. You have Mexican-Americans buying the food and it's unknown sort of where they're being enforced. So I think also, not only do you need the ability to prove these race claims, but also in the context of a broader mobilization, you need the group that's mobilizing to stand behind this identity of it being a race-based form of discrimination. And I really do stand between you and drinks. So, Jennifer, I'll say that it's a fantastic question of policy implementation, and one that really requires me to go back and look at the fact sheets and the MOUs and the public statements, but also to talk to folks who have been in the movement for a long time like yourself. I think I would just say that the beer cuts that I spoke to about, I would say the majority of them were veterans of the bureaucracy, and hindsight's always 20-20. So, you know, where you're doing these kind of oral history discussions with beer cuts, and they may remember their activity through risk-hire glasses. But I think it also poses a mess while I'm drum in terms of thinking about the specific case selection that I have here, because it very well may be that in traditional receiving states or destinations for immigrants like Houston and San Jose, that the story of continuity might make sense, whereas in what I've just seen her call for the newer destinations, places like Long Island or other places, in fact, it was a big break. And so I look forward to your suggestions on that. Thank you. Great, thank you everybody. Thank you.