Biden's Border Fixes; George Santos Under Fire

for this new parole program. Before his trip to Mexico, President Biden announced a series of new measures that he says will curb the influx of migrants at the southern border. There will be new requirements for those seeking asylum. One measure will expand a parole program to migrants seeking asylum from nations like Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The process requires migrants to be sponsored while also going through a vetting

and background check process. Another plan is to impose a new regulation, a version of the Trump era policy often call the Transit Ban. Joining me is integration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. Let me start with Biden's visit to Mexico. What is he hoping to accomplish?

What can he accomplish well. The key thing for President Biden to accomplish in Mexico is to get Mexico's blessing to accept as many people as possible that the United States wants to exclude from the four countries which are Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti under Title forty two, given that there's this new carrot and six approach where individuals from those countries are going to be asked to apply for a legal entrance into the United States, such that if they try

to enter illegally, they will be pushed into Mexico. Right now, Mexico doesn't accept people who are not from the Northern Triangle or from Mexico proper, and so the idea would be for Mexico to accept these people, knowing that at the end of the rainbow or at the end of the day, them accepting them in the short term for now will be the consequence that's necessary to sort of dismissed this long term problem because hopefully more people will

use the legal pathway as opposed to be illegal pathway. Let's go back a step to that Title forty two expansion. So the Buiding administration is fighting to end Title forty two in the courts, but it's expanding a policy that depends on expanding the use of Title forty two or to rapidly expel asylum seekers from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Correct. There's a bit of an incongruency there in that the Biden administration is saying, look, and the long term, we

would like to end Title forty two. But while our hand is quote unquote being forced, although I would argue they've made the litigation decisions that have forced their own hand.

But nevertheless, while their hand is being quote unquote force, they will take advantage of Title forty two and use it to the maximum extent possible to create a consequent delivery carrots and six system where we tell the largest group of people at the border that aren't from the Northern triangle in Mexico, which is against Cubans, Paitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaragua's people fleeing from political oppression, that those individuals need to enter through the legal parole pathways that are

being created and not enter illegally in between the ports of entry, because all that's going to do is lead to you being excluded under Title forty two when you had this perfectly legal pathway to it. There is. The program has been in effect for Venezuelans, and that's been working well. The first group that got this program under

the Biden administration were Ukrainian. So Ukrainians. Actually we're appearing thousands and thousands of Ukrainians on the southern border after Russia attacked Ukraine and they were trying to get in through the southern border same way as everybody else. And the Biden administration said, this is unstendable. We can't do this. Let's create a program that allows Ukrainians to enter legally to be paroled into the United States and hopefully they'll

stop using the illegal pathway up the border. And lo and behold, that's what happened. You don't see any Ukrainians on the southern border now. They entered through the legal pathway. So then the Biden administration said, well, let's see what happens if we extend it to a few thousand, twenty something thousands Venezuelan individuals. Will this work? And you've seen Venezuelans used this pathway, So now the idea is, well, maybe for thirty thousand people a month. We can create

new pathways for Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Nicaragua. Now is that going to be enough? Now, that's not gonna be anywhere near enough. But I mean it is still, you know, amateur mathematics, here three hundred and sixty thousand people a year that will be paroled into the country. And I don't know how much more reasonable it is. Might it take more people than that? So the idea is, hey, wait, use this pathway, and if you use this pathway, you're

gonna get in legally. So don't do it illegally because all of what's can happen in PYT two. So the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice also released a plan to impose a new regulation, and it's a version of the Trump era policy, which was often called the Transit Band, although Secretary Majorkists denies that is not a fac simile or an identical copy. It is a resemblance in the

sense of what it's going toward. Is this idea that there will no longer be an acceptance of people going in between the ports of injury on the southern border and applying for asylum. If you want to do that, you will be banned from getting asylum. And that's a serious thing because if you can't get asylums, that means

you can't get a passive citizenship. You can't apply for your spouse and your children and your family members to enter the United States once you get American citizenship down the line, and so all you'd be able to get is this thing called withholding of removal, which is basically a temporary stay on your deportation, and that's if you

win your case that you're going to be persecuted abroad. Now, the difference is that if you can show that you would be persecuted in Mexico where you're waiting, you'll be able to come in. And their ideas, look, that's more compassionists and Trump wouldn't really care for that approach, which is he did really phenomenally did, but didn't really allow people to show that they'd be persecuted waiting in Mexico.

But nevertheless, it is the same to the extent of what it's doing is it's saying, look, there's no applying for asylum in between the ports of entry. They're going to the ports event three, or there's applying for asylum at a country that you're passing that has a credible asylum system. And if you don't do either of those things, don't think you're going to cross the border in the United States and get asylum. And so that's getting a lot of criticism from advocates and and some of the

more liberal members of Congress. But I do think when coupled with this parole program where if you enter legally and you get paroles, you can apply for asylum once you've entered legally, the idea is hopefully this character and sixth approach will channel some large amount of people through this program rather than through the in between the parts of entry on the southern border. So now are there

also plans to expand Title eight border processing? Well, so what I think is gonna happen is when Title forty two goes away, if and when whenever that may be, what's gonna happen is you're gonna have a lot more people persecuted who are single adults who are coming coming in between the ports of entry, and you're gonna have a lot more people put into removal proceedings under side of a expedited removal proceedings and try to really focus on getting people out as part of those expedited removal

proceedings mean being a little upper not saying that they have a credible fear that allows them to wait inside the United States. But you can only do so much there. And then again, the other thing that is focused on is okay, and this is starting now with this new CDD one app that they're developing is finally they're doing what we do with visas all over the world, which is, here's gonna be a one app that CDP will have where you book an appointment and try to make your

initial asylum showing out a port of entry. And the good news about that is CDP totally controls how many people they can see, so they'll know we're gonna have a thousand of people here, five people here, seven people there. And it's not a surprise that you can plan your day and have the resources you need for each day, as opposed to when people come in between the ports of entry, you have no idea who's coming and how

many people are coming and where they're coming. So that's the virtual platform that's going to be sort of a one stop shop migrants correct to find information that's what CVP is trying to do is to basically do the parole process for the thirty thou people a month, but for the for the additional people above the thirty thousand, to schedule appointments for people to make their initial asylum claim at a port of entry instead of in between the port of entry. But a lot of people may

not have access to the internet. Well, this is gonna be an interesting question about what the n g O s are going to be doing on the northern border. Will they be able to help people, you know, for better or for work the smuggling networks that do everything else for people to come up obviously, will they have access to the apps? And will they be able tell people Okay, in addition to whatever assistance we've given you to get you to the north part of Mexico, the

southern border here is now your app appointments. And so just know that you have an appointment on Mark first at twelve thirty pm. Okay, So now the person knows they don't really need to do much more than that, other than to show up with their appointment. It's not unreasonable to think that the nd O s will be able to do it, but quite frankly as sophisticated as

some of these smuggling networks are. Where they know on a daily basis, where the CDP resources are, where the ports are, which one is the best one to go to, where is that? Where are they acting nights, assword people, et cetera. That they would be able to use an app if not so unrealistic. So there are things that the Biden administration could have done years ago. They always say, we need Congress to have a comprehensive plan, we need more money, But there are things they could have done.

Why did he wait two years to take that photo up trip I as it is to the border and do this. I think there is a sort of reticent to engage on immigration because there's a calibration problem currently that exists in the Democratic Party about how liberal the Democratic Party has to be on immigration. And I think you're seeing this with the changing demographics of the Latino votes and how in some states you have many more Latinos voting for Republicans than you used to have in

the past. And the idea is, I think people in the Democratic Party want compassion, but they don't want open borders with large I don't think that's a position that's the majority of Democrats polls, and I think the Democratic leaders who thought that there was a lot more sympathy for open borders in the base and that there actually is, is maybe recalibrating that understanding a little bit and saying, look, as long as we have a compassionate policy and a

fair policy, we also need a policy that doesn't permit just since really unchecked immigration through the southern border of the United States. Not having said that, Congress does have a role to play is the long term in building worker programs. The biggest problem in like immigration practice every single day is that you have employers wanting workers and realizing and learning for the first time, oh, there's no actual way to apply for a worker who's not doing

a job that requires a college degree. So if you want a plumber, or you want a construction person, or you want waiters for your seasonal restaurant or whatever, there's basically nothing available. There's no way to get these workers.

And so if you could create a program, and that's what the Immigration Build did that pass the sentence but didn't pass the House, where you would have large amounts of these visas available during time periods like this where unemployment is law but has very few visas available during time periods where unemployment and by you can actually have people all go through these eagle famiels. You wouldn't have anybody having to claim a sylum. Most people claim a

flound because they have no alternative. There's no other way to do this. But people wouldn't want to claim asylum, and they could just access these worker programs. You'd have people do these jobs and when these jobs are finished, then they can return home with a lot of savings for them and their family and return whenever they want to when the times are high again. And so that's the idea of how you build these programs in those situations.

But we don't have a program like that that exists, and so this is what creates all of this illegality on the southern border. So now let's move on to Ron de Santis. First, he was flying Texas migrants to Cape Cod. Now he's going to court to make his point. Trial opened in federal court in Pensacola, where he's claiming that the Biden administration allowed thousands of migrants into the US each month by ignoring policies to detain them. Is this a serious case? This lawsuit was bye, but it's

not a new lawsuit. It's just at the trial is happening this week. I mean it's a serious case to the extent that the a judge has denied emotions to this miss twice already, and it's saying, look, we're gonna go to trial on an Administrative Procedure Act claim that the Biden administration has to be detaining people as the Southern borders. That it's not true what they're saying, that we don't have an alternative but to release people into the United States. Now, I think the problem is people

don't realize how complicated this mosaic is. No person is treated the same as another person. And what do I mean by that? If you're under the age of eighteen, the law is extremely clear that you can't be detained or removed or anything else. You have to be let in the country. If you appear as either an unaccompanied minor or even if you come as a family and the family has mom, dad and a bunch of kids under a team, the bunch of kids under a team

cannot be detained, can't be the ordered or anything. They have to be letting the country and allowed to make any immigration claims that they're allowed to make. That's by sages. Then the question is, well, what do you do with family because the kids have to be allowed to come in? Do you separate the parents from the children. That's what the Trump administrates and tried, and we know what the

consequences of that were. And so I don't think the court is gonna order the Biden administrations to separate the parents from the children. I just don't think that's gonna happen. So we're back now to again single adults. So when the adults come alone with no children, you know, the most common thing is families and children when you add those up together, but there's still a number of people come just as adults, not accompanied by any children. Do

you have to detain all of those people? And what the record is probably gonna show him these cases is most of those people currently are being detained or put in expedited removal or put through Title forty two. And so if you're just talking about the few people that make it through the tracts because they have some medicals or something else, are you really gonna force the Biden administration's hands to say no, no, no, every single person

you have to detain. I mean, that's where this judge is gonna I think have a hard time craft they have decisions because in the end, the issue with the children makes this so complicated that people don't realize that that's why most people are getting through when they enter the United States. And so what chance do you think this suit has in Florida? I think, you know, given who the judges here, and that the judges is sort

of sympathetic to these claims and has been. I do think that some version of a decision will be issued requiring the Biden administration to detain more people on the southern border than they're currently detaining. But I do think very quickly the judge, either on his own account, will realize the problem that's happening with families and with unaccompanied children, or that sort of buzz all will be lead to reversal in the eleventh Circuit, especially because there's a lot

of dicta in the remain in Mexico decisions. Let's talk about the Biden administration's ability to allow people to enter in the United States, that the choices aren't just to remain in Mexico or the tension that there is a third choice and that the Biden administration has that third choice to allow people to enter into the United States and wait here while their claims are pending. So now one question on on the Supreme Court case, um, the Court's going to take that decide that case here the

arguments in February or March. Is the answer in that case going to be Title forty two is legal or not legal? Or is it going to be? Well, the Republican States can sue or can't sue? Right, That's the problem is the only thing the Court can do is at the end of the day allowed a state to intervene in the appeal of the case that's currently in the DC Circuit where there is a challenge to the ability of the Biden administration to use Title forty two.

That's it. But what will happen is if the States are successful the Supreme Court, all they will be doing is allowing the state to try to get a second chance at getting This decision repeals that bans the administration from using Title forty two. And then at the same time there's a case coming up through the Fifth Circuit on bad So eventually, what will happen is it will end at the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Biden administration can get rid

of Title forty two. And again, I just don't see how a Supreme Court can say that a public health determination that's the Biden administration or any administration wants to get rid of based on the fact that the public health emergency is over, as to be kept into place once the public health emergency is over. It does seem

very strange to me. But I just don't know if the idea is just to keep this Title forty two in effect for as long as possible and that sort of everybody is in on the joke, as that's all we're trying to accomplish here. Thanks so much for your insights, Leon. As always, that's immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

at Hollandon Knight. George Santos has been a member of Congress for less than a week, but the freshman Republican has already been engulfed in controversy and investigations, and now he's officially facing a Congressional ethics complaint filed on Tuesday by two New York Democrats. Congressman Dan Goldman and Richie Torres. Mr. Santos is conduct both as it relates to his outright lies about his biography, about his employment, UM, about his

his entire person as being his religion. Um. All of that is reflects on every one of us in Congress. Even more egregious than his line is his possible love breaking. A million dollar question has where did all the money come from? Santos has admitted misrepresenting significant details about his religion, education, and career, including that he graduated from college and worked for Goldman, Sachs and City Group, but he says Santos

will be facing more than his colleagues. Federal and local prosecutors are already investigating him, and a complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission joining me his elections law expert Richard Brafalt, a professor at Columbia Law School. Santos has acknowledged line to reporters about his educational and professional history, though he calls it embellishing his resume. But is there any law, rule or regulation that makes such

misstatements illegal? It just seems like it's not something that he can really be held accountable for, except by voters. No. No, there's certainly no federal law prohibiting lying by a candidate during an election. Hardly any states have anything like that. There even some questions about whether it would be constitutional to punish somebody for lying, as opposed to say something like defamation, as he obviously lies about somebody in a way that stains them, that might be the basis of

at least civil action. Uh No, there's generally no restriction onlining other than lying on a federal form or lying through the federal government in the course of a federal inquiry. And that's really where the extent that there's going to be a legal problem for Mr Santos. It's going to be questions about whether he lied in his financial disclosure

forms and is can't take finance reporting. Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York are reportedly looking into Santos's finances and how he was able to lend his campaign seven hundred thousand dollars when as late as he was declaring a salary of only fifty five thousand dollars.

That's right, and in the context of his campaign, he claims to have loaned his campaign more than seven hundred thousand dollars in two and yet, as you point out, in he basically said he had an income of fifty five dollars and little there no assets. So a good part of the financing of his campaign came from this loan based on resources he claims to develop from this LLC devolder. But the year before he was basically declaring very little income. So the issue that complaint isn't fired

with the FTC. And what I imagine the prosecutors are looking into is was this money really being funneled to him by other donors? Was he, in in fact a so called straw donor, claiming to be donating his own

money but actually donating other people's money. Yeah, So let's talk about the complaint filed with the FEC by the Campaign Legal Center, which, as you say, accused his business of being a front for illegal straw donors and accused him of illegally using campaign funds for personal expenses like travel,

luxury hotels, and expensive meals. That seems like it might be an easy thing to prove or disprove, right, they went through his financial the report here, you're you're required to file reports with the FEC about your campaign, both your contributions and your expenditures. And they went through his expenditure lists and found things that look like they might

have been paying for rent on a home. They've been looking for kinds of meals that looked like they might have been personal meals than campaign meals, because you know they were part of his travels. So it is illegal to use campaign money for what's called personal use. That would include things like paying for rent on your own personal residents, are paying for personal travel, personal meals not

connected to the campaign. They contended, based on the reported information and his financial disclosure forms, likely that he was using some campaign funds for personal use. If that's true, that would be illegal. They said that dozens of his campaign expanditures were recorded as costing a hundred dollars and ninety nine cents, so a penny below the threshold under federal Again, if your expenses there are or more, you're

supposed to itemize what you were spending them on. Anything under that you can just put onto a broader category without you know, providing any details. And I think they pointed out that something like more than half of his his expenditures something around numbers around forty either were a hundred nine hundred, which they just seems to just wildly implausible.

And then they actually looked at some of the expenses and then kind of compared them to we're online to public information about what the vendor was charging, and it seemed to be either more or less but not that amount. So they looked at like what a cost the park to FK airport or using the clear system for kind of expedited treat and you know, and going through airport security, and they actually say clear charges of a hundred and eighty nine, but they put down a hundred ninety nine there.

I mean again, they're basically saying that, you know, if you look at all of it, there's a huge number of which seems to evidence in intent to basically to file a false report. So the Campaign Legal Center filed the complaint asking the FEC to investigate. Will the FEC investigate,

And it's really up to them. They have to look at the complaints see whether on its face it it makes a plausible allegation of both facts and a violation and law, and then they have to make a decision whether they want to undertake a formal investigation that requires a vote of the Commission. Then they do the investigation, and then if they conclude that kind of the fact support the allegations that the Campaign Legal Centers making, they

can then bring a case against him. As a civil case, they can impost fines and and enjoin them from doing these things. Again, the FEC doesn't have a criminal enforcement power, but they could refer that if they think that there's a criminal matter there, they can refer to the Department of Justice, so they can bring a civil case. They can seek actually they can be securely hety finds that

they can seek, but its essentially civil penalties. And as far as the criminal case, you know, the Eastern District. Let's say that the federal prosecutors find what the Campaign Legal Center alleged in it's complained to the FEC accusing his business of being a front for illegal straw donors as you mentioned, and accusing him of illegally using campaign funds for personal expenses. What kind of charges could prosecutors bring. Well again, I mean just I'll just focus on the

campaign financial ones. I don't know that there's any tax problems or anything with his LLC or anything involving the LLC itself. These campaign financial violations would become criminal if they are what's called knowing and willful. If he knew and intentionally violated the law, if he was part of a scheme to take money from unknown donors and pretended was his. And it gets more serious of some of

that money came from corporations possible. We don't know. If some of that money came from foreigners, that's illegal, and maybe you know, given his ties to Brazil or elsewhere, it's conceivable that some of the money came from foreign sources. That's illegal. And it's also quite conceivable that some of the donations were above the statutory limit. There's a limit of twenty nine or a dollars per election that anyone

donor can give one candidate. It's quite possible, again the stall we don't know any of this, but it's possible that some of those donations were well above the donor nation limits. So it's not just the parent misreporting of the his expenditures and being a straw donor. That that's pretty serious in itself, and criminal cases have been based

on that. But it's possible that the reason he's the straw donor is that's it's disguising all sorts of illegal contributions, as I say, by corporations, by foreigners, or by people who gave way too much money. So if this was all intentional, knowing and WillFull is the legal language that

could be the basis officity is criminal case. Two congressmen from New York are filing an official complaint asking the House Committee on Ethics to investigate him and whether he broke the law when he filed his required financial disclosures late and without key details about his finances. Is that separate from the federal Election Commission exactly? That's a separate issue.

The House of Representatives has rules requiring people to file financial disposure forms, including I think candidates, because obviously he's misreporting or misreporting this while he was a candidate. But the House also has these filing requirements. They obviously only have jurisdiction against somebody a person is actually member of the House, but he now is, so they there is a House Ethics Committee, and they can look into these things,

and they can recommend sanctions. I mean, their sanctions would be along the lines of reprimand or more serious. But really I mean they're largely you know, verbal like refermence and but in the most egregious cases, they could ultimately recommend expulsion. I mean, that's a pretty serious thing that very rarely happens. And it's unlikely that he would be expelled unless there actually is a federal criminal case brought against him and and he's convicted, but that would be

the ultimate thing. More more likely they're gonna do something like if they were to find a violation, would be some nature of a revermand. But they don't even have to investigate. If they don't want to write in the House, they don't have to, and of course they can take their time there. Uh there. It's just being reconstituted based on the actions of the House yesterday, which imposed term limits on on members of the Ethics Committee, which meant that at this moment, I think all but one of

the Democrats actually have to get off the committee. So I wouldn't expect every rapid action from the House Ethics Committee, but it's possible that they too will get involved in this. Well. House majority leaders Steve Scalie told reporters yesterday that the Santos issue is being handled internally. We're going to have to sit down and talk to him about it, Well, that sounds more like, you know, go a visit with the principle, or maybe you know, the parents sitting down

with a teenager who borrowed the car. But the House can vote to expel a member. It requires a two thirds vote, and and it really only it is constitutionally possible they need they would need a two thirds vote. It really only happens in the most egregious cases, and it's hard to imagine it happening here unless he's actually convicted of a federal crime. In some ways, the damage

has been done. Um, the fact that I mean, I mean, if he's violently they can't pay finance law, then when then those are serious issues and that needs to be resolved. But in terms of the line to the public, line to the voters, that's all out there now. Um. And you know, if he runs again, certainly that's going to be part of his record. Any final thoughts about this and all the investigations going on, what helps the support the idea that he might have committed can't pay finance violations.

That's build the case that he might very well be a straw donor and that he may very well have filed false um expendature reports is all the other lies that he's already admitted to. You know, the fact that he's kind of comes into this as uh an acknowledged embellisher and acknowledge liar about his resume, about his ancestry, about his education kind of um at least provide some context for the claim that he also lied on his campaign finance report. Thanks so much, rich I always appreciate

your analysis. That's elections law expert Richard Brafalt, a professor at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news, Honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg