>> COMING UP NEXT, THREE DEADLY ICE ENCOUNTERS IN ONE WEEK.

ALSO TONIGHT, EVERY AMERICAN CHILD GETS A THOUSAND DOLLARS.

AND CAN JOURNALISTS REPORT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

INSIGHTS FROM THE "IVORY TOWER" PROFESSORS.

♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

I'M NINA MOORE OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT ARE LUKE PERRY OF UTICA UNIVERSITY BOB SPITZER OF SUNY CORTLAND WHO'S RETURNING TO "IVORY TOWER" ON ZOOM TONIGHT INTRODUCING OUR NEWEST COLLEAGUE NORRELL EDWARDS OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE.

WELCOME, NORRELL.

AND ANIRBAN ACHARYA OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE.

This week brought three deadly ICE encounters in 10 days, all during traffic stops.

THE FATALITIES WERE TROUBLING ENOUGH THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED THE USE OF TRAFFIC STOPS AS AN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT TOOL.

BUT LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER THAT SUSPENSION PRESIDENT TRUMP REVERSED AND ICE TRAFFIC STOPS HAVE RESUMED.

Luke, how about your thinking the likelihood of this sort of thing happening again?

>> It can certainly happen again and it's very concerning.

I think what we have here is a situation where the nature of immigration enforcement has changed.

Rather than going to businesses or hotspots where undocumented workers might be, they're using vehicles and individual pursuits more often.

And we have seen people getting shot in broad daylight in vehicles which is a horrible situation.

So I think the president certainly doesn't want to back down.

He doesn't want to look weak to his base.

He is viewing this as a law enforcement issue, but from my perspective it has to do with businesses.

If we wanted to stop undocumented people from coming into the United States tomorrow, we could largely do that by issuing a $500,000 fine to every business for every undocumented worker.

It would be more peaceful.

It would be more efficient but of course the Trump Administration doesn't want to do that to businesses.

>> And arguably less deadly.

Anirban, what about that?

What about relying on employers to ensure that immigration laws are abided by?

>> Many cases we also saw that when the employers went through the e-verify system which should give you an idea about who you can hire or not hire, that system somehow failed because in cases where even employers use that system, ice agents came in and this happened like in a candy shop somewhere in Upstate.

So I'm not sure.

But I agree with Luke that, you know, employers should be on hold with this.

But you know what bothers he is this kind of large kind of Army of people who are beholden to a president.

It seems that they're above the law.

It seems that they can not be prosecuted.

And as the reporting we see, we see that in many cases they are lying in many cases about what happened the public trust have eroded so much that I don't think many neighborhoods in the United States ICE is trusted.

They don't want these people there and this is due to killings and shootings and so forth.

But in terms of businesses there has been cases where businesses have hire, through a particular system in place only to find out that that-- >> There was a problem with the system.

Bob, I want to turn to you about your thoughts about either the traffic stops or best way to enforce immigration laws.

>> Well, I think this kind of misses the big question where we have to ask the question first, what is going on?

Why are they doing these things and relying on traffic stops?

The analysis is correct.

Immigrants are coming here because there is work here and because the economic sis-- system needs these workers.

Look around.

Gardeners, farmers, construction and all sorts of trades where immigrants, whether legal or undocumented, are finding work.

But when you look at the actual numbers, I think it tells an essential part of the story.

Those who are captured by ICE, among them, 65% had no criminal record.

93% have no violent criminal record.

And underscoring this is the fact that the agents have been given a quota of arresting 2,000 people a day.

Now that is an arbitrary number.

And they're frantic to round up that number because there is financial incentive for the agents to meet this arbitrary quota and that's partly what is driving this problem in addition to the fact that the agents are poorly trained, poorly supervised.

At the undocumented people include all sorts of people who have legal reasons to be here.

>> Yeah, and in some cases people who are targeted mistakenly.

One of the reforms that has been put in place since the resumption of these traffic stops is to include more training, right?

But also to require that there is a body camera on at least one person on the team.

Norell with respect to the traffic stops, where do you come down in all of this?

>> I think we see that one armed police killings that body worn cameras did not alleviate that problem.

And I think it's useful to think about the kind of dovetailing in history of sort of like mass deportation parallelled with mass incarceration.

And so deportation, I think is inherently like a carceral and mass incarceration project in many ways.

Right around the 80s and 70s when you had the Haitian boat crisis, you see the increase in looking to create detention centers and something we have to take into consideration.

>> You mention the Haitian boat crisis.

I remember during the Clinton years when that flaired up and so, Luke, the Clinton administration was productive with quotes around it in securing removals.

Some 10 million.

The bush 2 administration saw like eight million, the Obama add administration 5 million.

How was it that they were to accomplish that or managed to accomplish that?

Do you think it was the reliance on the employer system that you talked about?

>> I think it was a different political time.

You think of the 1990s, Republicans won the house for the first time in 40 years, the Clinton administration was incentivized to work with them.

The difference at the current moment we were talking about cars.

They are deadly vehicles and so one of the issues if there is heavy focus on using automobiles to try to cap tier undocumented people, any slight turn with that vehicle, you know,.

>> Is deadly.

>> ICE is going to react and then there is like Anirban said, the dispute as to what really happened.

It's not a good situation.

>> Not a good way to do it.

Bob, I want to come back to you and ask this last question.

How should immigration enforcement be carried out?

The border tsar said part of the reason the traffic stops are needed is because blue cities and states will not turn over the immigrants unauthorized immigrants who are either jailed or are in court proceedings.

So that, they argue, has been a huge deficit.

What is best tactic if it's not these traffic stops?

>> Well, they need to dial down the emphasis on violent and adhere to legal standards about appropriate stops and arrests.

They need to make an entreé to local officials and, indeed, to turn the focus on what the Trump Administration said they were going to focus on, which is violent people.

And again that's a very small percentage of immigrants in the country.

But as we know from Steven Miller, President Trump's de facto Chief of Staff, his goal is not particularly to focus that.

It's to get people out.

Period.

Especially people, frankly who are brown and black.

>> Well, we can be sure, bob, that this issue will continue to be a hot button issue.

We are going to move on now.

The new Trump investment accounts are supposed to be pathway to wealth for every eligible American child.

THEY REPRESENT THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS CREATED INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS WITH ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN STARTUP FUNDS.

PRIVATE INVESTORS ARE ALSO CHIPPING IN BILLIONS OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

THAT INCLUDES THE MICRON CORPORATION WHICH IS ADDING Another $250 to Trump accounts in Central New York.

Bob, this sounds very promising, right?

What do you think about it?

>> There's a germ of a good idea here, but I think there are a number of problems and limitations that critics have already pointed out.

Now I don't know a lot about the economics of this, but essentially it's a stock index fund like an I.R.A.

and there are two elements to this.

The official announcement from the Trump Administration was that these Trump accounts would, for people who apply, for children born between 2025 and 2028.

If you apply, the federal government will kick in a thousand dollars for each child and let that money grow until they turn 18.

Now that amount of money is not a life changing chunk of money for these children.

It's a good thing.

But in addition, families can supplement this money by contributing up to $5,000 a year of their own money.

Who has $5,000 a year lying around to put in these accounts?

And the answer is people with greater means but it's people who have lesser means that are in greater need of these sorts of programs.

Even Trump's own council of economic advisers said if you begin with a thousand dollars when the child is born, you are going to grow it to maybe $5800 by the time the child reaches the age of 18, which again is fine, but it's not exactly life changing money.

And the bottom line criticism is that if anything, it will exacerbate inequality.

In my view, the government should make the program automatic.

When a child is born, automatically set up the account so people don't have to apply and that means a lot more people would at least have a hand in this money as they grow.

>> Anirban, it is necessary to sign up to find out where to sign up.

And one of the other things I would add to what you said, bob, is that employers can contribute up to $2500 but again you have to be employed.

So what about bob's thought of making the enrollment automatic.

>> That would be a good thing.

This is a move toward the right direction.

And, yeah, I mean, you know, as bob pointed out, if you understand putting one thousand dollars, it $5800 but if a person is rich, they can put in $5,000 each year and that becomes $303,000 when the kid turns 18.

There are some incentives of 18 where it seems, according to some reporting that those who are paying in less or less advantaged people, would have a lesser tax advantage than who are putting in a lot more so in other words, richer parents would have a bigger tax subsidy with it.

If you compare it with the 529 plan, it's a different plan where you can put unlimited amount of money for your kid.

Some people might prefer the 529, some people might prefer this one.

This is a move towards the right direction but it would have been better if the government gave some more money towards the lower end of the income spectrum than just equally to everyone.

>> Step in the right direction?

I just don't get it?

What is the problem we are trying to solve here?

Auto if it's child poverty go to universal basic income for parents and eradicate child poverty through economic redistribution.

It seems to me Trump wants to give money that can be invested through his buddies to people and put his name on it because people like money.

It is amazing to me.

COVID I started getting checks in the mail because I had kids I'm all for taking care of kids, but let's do it more systematically in a way that makes sense rather than borrowing $300 billion we don't have that in increase debt and payments on that.

>> This is deficit spending to the tune that you mentioned.

And interestingly enough, norell, it ends in 2028 unless it's reupped by Congress.

Where do you come down?

>> I think I many always kind of suspicious, right?

I mean this is an administration that has either tried to or successfully gutted library funding STEM funding, research funding, medicaid, but they wanted to give these investment funded fields a little bit-- I'm suspicious.

And also ultimately what are these funds investing?

Are we trusting government to invest what exactly?

What are they investing in and how does that make you complicit?

I myself have thought about signing up.

But ultimately I feel a little bit concerned and skeptical.

>> Bob, I want to come back to you with this question.

So let's say it's not a whole lot of money, and it is deficit spending.

Isn't the plus side of this that we are involving more Americans in the Wall Street game that we are opening up a pathway to a place where lots of low income folks have not had access?

Or awareness for that matter?

>> Well, it is what you say, it is a pathway and that's a good thing but let's remember we are talking about the stock market.

So there are no guarantees.

Presumably these investments are pretty safe, fairly well insulated from the UPS and downs of the market.

But it's not exactly protected in the way Social Security is,for example.

And again, who will take advantage of this kind-- of this big program?

The answer is people who have more means.

If at least it were made in such a way that every child born had one of these accounts set up but Luke makes really the critical point when he says, when he asked the broader question, what is the the broader problem you are trying to solve and if it is income inequality there are more efficient ways to do it and arguably less expensive ways to do it as well.

>> Coming at it from the other end of it, Anirban, couldn't one argue that fact that you have so many private investors who are excited about this.

This was generated by folks in the private industry, isn't that a good thing that you've got the Micron Corporation who is coming into this area and saying we want in.

We want to invest in the people who are here.

Some six and a half billion from the Dell corporation.

250 given to everybody in Texas who is eligible.

Isn't that a positive thing?

Not just in terms of how much money but in terms of simply engaging the private industry in the issue of inequality?

>> I would say in this case yes and no.

Look, if we want to have a sustained program that lifts people out of poverty, I agree with Luke.

This largess of the noblesse oblige this is philanthropy, I don't think any systematic way to pull people out of poverty can simply depend upon people's philanthropy.

But yes corporations are buying in.

We will see for how long and what happens to that.

You know, I'm skeptical whenever rich people kind of give or do philanthropic work because I don't think that's how the society should be built.

>> I like when rich people give away money, especially if I'm on the receiving end.

>> Also this is money given away that can't be accessed for 18 years or more, right?

Ultimately there are people who are frustrated about not being able to find work that can employ them and employ them to have a quality of life now.

I mean 18 years from now is a while, right?

>> It's a long term investment, correct.

Now to our third topic.

The Department of Justice is subpoenaing "New York Times" journalists over their reporting on Air Force one security glitches.

You might remember the president recently flew to the NATO summit in turkey on a brand new air force, but returned on an older aircraft.

The "New York Times" ran a story on the security problems that prompted the switch.

Anirban, do you see problems with journalists reporting this kind of information?

Talking about Syracuse University concerns on the president's aircraft.

>> I don't see any issues.

Investigative journalism has been there for a very long time and journalists should do whatever is within their abilities without doing something illegal to bring out the story.

Right but problem here is more structural.

There are shield laws state by state which shields particular journalism from, you know, showing their sources but at the federal level there is no shield law.

In the '72 Bransburg case of the Supreme Court, clearly held that yes, First Amendment right journalists do have but they do not have the right to divulge resource can be subpoenaed and if they're subpoenaed they have to attempt to answer the questions.

Now should we have a federal shield law?

I think we should but again, remember if you go back to history, Judith Miller with the Vally James Plame affair and James Rison, which again President Obama kept saying that and he said no, I'm going to prison.

I'm not going to give up my sources.

It is not Trump for the first time.

Other presidents have done it including Obama and George W. bush and Judith Miller spent 85 days in prison until Scott Libby gave her the waiver to say yes, it was Scott Libby who was the person who was the source.

So yes, lack of federal shield law is an issue.

>> Well certainly "The New York Times" is fighting back its motion to quash the subpoena.

Luke where are you?

>> I think this is a difficult issue.

I'm pretty torn on it in the sense that I think Trump's embarrassed by the whole jet fee as so of fiasco that he took one plane and another plane back.

Should never have accepted that.

Doesn't help the situation.

If you are or dealing with national security information having friends and close family who have worked in national security, they don't talk about anything.

You can't talk about anything.

You are putting people's lives at risk so I'm sympathetic to that.

At the same time as Anirban pointed out, I'm sympathetic to journalists who have sources and trying to report in the public good so I think that national security is a separate category.

I understand why the Trump Administration is trying to stop leaks particularly in regards to national security.

I wish they went about it in a different way but I understand what they're doing.

>> This issue is fairly innocuous, right?

Or could be.

We are talking about an aircraft as opposed to other things like the Ed Snowden leaks.

Bob, what are your thoughts?

>> First point, the national government wildly overuses the secrecy principle to keep information from the public.

That has been true for decades.

National security is a legitimate concern but it is rare, indeed, when reporters divulge information that actually compromises national security.

As a matter of fact I'm not sure you can find any examples of that actually happening exempt in instances where government officials inadvertently reveal information to the public that turns out to have been sensitive; for example, back in 1969, Richard Nixon was in the a press conference and inadvertently revealed the secret that we would be able to read North Korean radars and their top secret information and as soon as he said those words, North Korea scrambled and changed its codes.

It was Nixon's fault not the press' fault.

The Pentagon papers shows clearly that the effort to prevent these papers from being published had nothing to do with national security because what was in the anticipated papers, the study of the Vietnam war conducted by the Defense Department had essentially nothing in it that hadn't already been made public one way or another over the years.

And so, frankly, I have no particular sympathy for national security claims because presidents make those claims all the time.

And in the case of President Trump, he uses it way, way too much and by trying to subpoena and compel testimony not just from reporters of "The New York Times" but "the Wall Street Journal" and "the Washington Post," as far as I'm concerned this is about punishing the papers for printing stuff that President Trump doesn't like, which has essentially nothing to do with national security.

>> Bob, that could be in this instance, but do you worry that we don't have a clear line between what is threatening to national security and what isn't.

But also who should make that call?

>> You are right.

It's a tough call.

And the reason there is no clear direct line just because a document is top secret, let's say stamped on it doesn't mean it's revelation would necessarily harm national security.

So the standard, you are right, is difficult to identify but we know that the-- two things: The government overuses that to a huge degree but secondly the reporters themselves historically are willing to self-censure when government officials say no, please don't print this.

>> I have to cut you off because Wu just ran out of time.

Great conversation.

My it's nice to have you back, bob.

Now it's time to go to our grade books.

Tonight we are going to start with fs and in particular Luke.

>> My f goes to the blood shortage in Central New York.

The Red Cross declared a State of Emergency recently.

Donations have dropped since may and we are down 25% in June.

Meanwhile we are using more blood per week than usual.

If you are able to donate, now is a good time to consider it.

>> And bob?

>> Yes, I'm giving an f to the political managers of President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency.

After an E.P.A.

official proposed requiring a fish farm to monitor the consumption of microplastics in the fish that we eat, which is linked to an array of health problems.

Top officials ordered the requirement to be withdrawn.

When the E.P.A.

agent Kip Tyler wrote a memo defending the proposed rule, he was fired.

The firing was apparently consistent with the Trump Administration's new make America sick again agenda.

>> Norell.

>> You know, I'm going to give an f to Canada today for these forest fires.

They're not perhaps entirely their fault but have you seen the apocalyptic sky?

>> Google's rampant infringement of copyright racks while training their Gemini llm.

There are a number of publishers who are suing Google for that.

>> Quickly our As.

>> To the Utica boiler maker the city held it's 49th annual road race last weekend, a great event for the city and goal indicate student won the men's 5K.

>> Retrospective to the Williamsburg Virginia 250 commemoration held in lovely Williamsburg Virginia two weekends go on the Fourth of July.

Here in Williamsburg the event featured interpreters celebrities and fireworks in a non-political event that attracted 70,000 people and was broadcast on PBS stations nationwide, including WCNY.

>> And norrell.

>> An a to the WCNY book crawl.

I love to see everyone getting out and supporting our local interest bookstores.

>> Anirban.

>> New York City for adopting a rule that bans companies from using deceptive subscriptions that trap customers into paying for gym memberships and streaming services that and other recording charges.

This rule will start October 1 is promising hefty fines and aggressive enforcement for violators, companies that do not provide a simple way to cancel would now by $525 per user.

And this is how democracy should look.

>> Going back to your f, to the Canadian wildfires and the smoke, when you look out of your window, you don't see it, right?

But when you step out, least yesterday, I thought it looked clear and I stepped out and it was not.

>> Yeah it's a little bit hazy and traveling down.

>> Well, that's all we have for you tonight in the studio, please tell us what you think.

Write to the email address on your screen.

If you want to watch the show again or if you want to share on it your social media, go to WCNY.org.

I'm Nina Moore.

For I'm mean they mean they for all of us at "Ivory Tower," have