On the 33rd episode of Immigration Today! Angeline Chen interviews Professor Bill Ong Hing. Bill Ong Hing is Professor of Law and Migration Studies at the University of San Francisco, and Professor of Law and Asian American Studies Emeritus, at UC Davis. Previously on the law faculties at Stanford University and Golden Gate University, he founded the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco and directs their Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic. Professor Hing teaches Immigration Law & Policy, Migration Studies, Rebellious Lawyering, and Evidence. He is the author of 6 books and was co-counsel in the US Supreme Court asylum precedent-setting case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987). Throughout his career, Professor Bill Ong Hing pursued social justice through a combination of community work, litigation, and scholarship. Most recently, he has published his book Humanizing Immigration which argues that immigrant and refugee rights are part of the fight for racial justice and offers a humanitarian approach to reform and abolition.
Professor Hing was passionate about teaching from the moment he stepped foot into law school. He spent his first five years as an attorney representing Spanish speaking and Chinese clients in their deportation needs and visa work. He would also offer evening teaching classes at University of San Francisco and eventually began teaching full time at different campuses. In all if his teaching positions, he remains heavily involved with legal clinic work. Professor Bill Hing has over 50 years of experience in the immigration world and is a strong believer that the conversation around immigration needs to be revisited through a more humanitarian lens. In his most recent book, he offers criticism about the immigration court system and the judges that make decisions in cases, cites to examples of racial injustices in immigration law and ultimately advocates for major reform to the broken immigration system in this country.
Humanizing Immigration was just released on October 24th! You can purchase a copy on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, Walmart and many other outlets. You can connect with Professor Bill Hing via the University of San Francisco website here.
Immigration Today! is always releasing new content. Please subscribe to our immigration newsletter to stay up to date with any new episodes.
DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this Podcast or on this Website shall constitute financial, investment, legal and/or other professional advice and that no professional relationship of any kind is created between you and podcast host, the guests or Clark Hill PLC. You are urged to speak with your financial, investment, or legal advisors before making any investment or legal decisions.
On the 33rd episode of Immigration Today! Angeline Chen interviews Professor Bill Ong Hing. Bill Ong Hing is Professor of Law and Migration Studies at the University of San Francisco, and Professor of Law and Asian American Studies Emeritus, at UC Davis. Previously on the law faculties at Stanford University and Golden Gate University, he founded the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco and directs their Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic. Professor Hing teaches Immigration Law & Policy, Migration Studies, Rebellious Lawyering, and Evidence. He is the author of 6 books and was co-counsel in the US Supreme Court asylum precedent-setting case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987). Throughout his career, Professor Bill Ong Hing pursued social justice through a combination of community work, litigation, and scholarship. Most recently, he has published his book Humanizing Immigration which argues that immigrant and refugee rights are part of the fight for racial justice and offers a humanitarian approach to reform and abolition.
Professor Hing was passionate about teaching from the moment he stepped foot into law school. He spent his first five years as an attorney representing Spanish speaking and Chinese clients in their deportation needs and visa work. He would also offer evening teaching classes at University of San Francisco and eventually began teaching full time at different campuses. In all if his teaching positions, he remains heavily involved with legal clinic work. Professor Bill Hing has over 50 years of experience in the immigration world and is a strong believer that the conversation around immigration needs to be revisited through a more humanitarian lens. In his most recent book, he offers criticism about the immigration court system and the judges that make decisions in cases, cites to examples of racial injustices in immigration law and ultimately advocates for major reform to the broken immigration system in this country.
Humanizing Immigration was just released on October 24th! You can purchase a copy on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, Walmart and many other outlets. You can connect with Professor Bill Hing via the University of San Francisco website here.
Immigration Today! is always releasing new content. Please subscribe to our immigration newsletter to stay up to date with any new episodes.
DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this Podcast or on this Website shall constitute financial, investment, legal and/or other professional advice and that no professional relationship of any kind is created between you and podcast host, the guests or Clark Hill PLC. You are urged to speak with your financial, investment, or legal advisors before making any investment or legal decisions.
Today we have Bill Ong Hing. He is a professor of law and migration studies at the University of San Francisco and professor of law and Asian American studies emeritus at UC Davis. Previously on the law faculties at Stanford University and Golden Gate University. He founded the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco and directs their Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic. Professor Hing teaches Immigration Law and Policy, Migration Studies, Rebellious Lawyering, and Evidence. He is the author of six books. And was co-counsel in the US Supreme Court asylum precedent set a precedent setting case I n S versus Cardoza Fonseca in 1987. Throughout his career, professor Bill ING pursued social justice through a combination of community work, litigation, and scholarship. Most recently, he has published his book, Humanizing Immigration, which argues that immigrant and refugee rights are part of the fight for racial justice and offers a humanitarian approach to reform and abolition. Professor Hing, welcome to the podcast. Thank you very much for having me. Thank you. Thank you so much for all your work. Can we get started? Can I ask you some questions and get started? Absolutely. All right. Thank you. So I'd like to go back usually when I'm, uh, talking to individuals like yourselves and, and kind of figure out like. You know, why did you become a professor? Like, where did that come from? Well, that's a good question. Not many people ask me that. When I, I'll be honest with you, when I first walked in to a law school class, and it happened to have been at University of San Francisco, I enjoyed the way Law was taught and it was a lot of back and forth, give and take, and I was fascinated by that method of teaching. And I thought, you know what, I'd actually kind of like to do that. And so, um, I was attracted to teaching law. From the very first time I sat in a law, law class. Well, that's great. That's a great experience. It wasn't as pleasant for me. Um, in high school, but was there a specific style that you liked or, you know, in general, like what? I really like the give and take of questions and answers. I don't like hiding the ball. Don't get me wrong. But, but I, I, I'm fascinated by. Teachers and I aspire to be the type of teacher that really wonder about the policies that underline the laws and I don't like just teaching the law. I like talking about what is driving the policy makers who have made decisions behind the laws or the judges that have interpreted the law. Thank you. The laws and so, um, I don't always have the answers. And so I'm very interested in knowing what the students think might be going through the minds of policymakers and judges and how they might look at it differently or with a different kind of view. And, um, and so I really love that kind of back and forth and. I, I hope the students learn from me because I learn a lot from them. Yeah, you know, that's a great approach because in the end, you know, as we get older and older, we're also more further removed from what the youth is going through. When you're in law school, you're like, Oh, I know what's happening. But the older we get, the harder it is to know what, what are they thinking, what, you know, and, and practically speaking, what is happening in their world and their perspective. So that's a great. Yeah, no, I'll be honest with you. The question that I hate the most is, are you thinking of retirement? Oh, no, because, uh, the truth is that I get so much energy from my students and, um. And I learned everything from social media issues to what's happening in music and restaurants and, uh, just society that, uh, I, it gives me a lot of energy and I can't see myself doing anything else. Yeah, yeah, totally. Don't worry. I won't ask you that. And then what drew you to immigration law? Well, there's actually, uh, not a romantic notion, although I could make one up and say, you know, my immigrant, my parents were immigrants and they were both housed at Angel Island, detained at Angel Island, um, when they came to the United States. Uh, you know, that could be the impetus, but the truth is that I was, um, I was very interested in practicing, uh, legal services law, community law, when I graduated, and I had volunteered at a legal aid office in San Francisco, Chinatown during law school, and I was really very interested in low income housing and tenant advocacy, because that's what I did as a law student, but when I graduated, there was only one opening, and At that law office and it was the immigration job and and that attorney was moving on into private practice and and they offered me the job, even though I didn't have any immigration experience and I kind of came to love it. And it's been very rewarding. But that's the honest answer to what how I fell into immigration law. It was a job that was available. Yeah, you know, but it's also related, right? It's not independent from what you were interested in to a lot. And that is why your book as well, just in terms of racial justice, discrimination, you know, any qualities all related to immigration. So at least you're doing something wasn't completely opposite. Yeah, and I, you know, San Francisco Chinatown back then in the 70s, uh, when I got out of law school, it was vibrant, it still is, and very complex and nuanced, and the community based organizations are vital to the community, and it's constantly newcomers. Coming in and moving out into different parts of San Francisco. Uh, but we were right in the heart of Chinatown and, and you're right. It was all related. All their, all their legal problems were related because there were immigrants at core who had tenant problems or consumer problems or public, uh, uh, public welfare issues. And so, but you're right at core, they were all non citizens. Yeah. Yeah. So then you were practicing for, for a little bit doing that and then, uh, and then what happened? Well, I did that for about five years. And during that time from 1974 to 1979, um, they discovered that I also speak a little bit of Spanish. So I speak a little bit of Cantonese and Spanish. I grew up in Arizona and predominantly in Mexican American town. And, um, and, and so because of that, I began representing Spanish speaking clients, primarily Mexicans in the, uh, in what was called a mission district of San Francisco. And, and so, uh, an immigration lawyer back then I was the only legal services, immigration attorney in Northern California at that time. Wow. I represented people that were being deported, uh, who are from, uh, the Spanish speaking. Part of time, primarily, uh, that was my primarily deportation caseload was Mexicans that were being deported. And then I would do the visa work primarily for Chinese that were trying to be reunited with their relatives from mainland, but also from Hong Kong and, uh, but there was a mixture also, obviously, there was some visa work for Mexicans and there were deportation cases. For the Chinese, principally Chinese gang members, and so I got thrown into that very quickly. And, um, but I always remember that I wanted to teach and so I was offered evening teaching jobs at University of San Francisco and also an old school back then that's called New College of the Law. And so I began teaching part time, um, um, within a year of graduating from law school. And then in 1979, I was offered a full time teaching job at Golden Gate University, um, where I started the very first law school immigration clinic in the country. And that was, that was at Golden Gate. Oh, my goodness. That's amazing. Well, looking back on it, it was it's not amazing to me. It's just it was a need. And the students were quite interested in immigration. Immigration was not taught. In many law schools at that time. And, uh, it was taught at Berkeley, uh, by somebody who became a good friend of mine, he was a practitioner. Um, and I, I, I taught the second law school class on immigration in the, in Northern California at USF. And then I taught her at New College. Um, and then I brought it to, to Golden Gate. That's really impressive. Um, and I, I love your perspective because. You've practiced immigration law for years before teaching and having that, that experience is so helpful. You know, I remember my law school experiences where. It just seemed some of the teachers, the professors to me did not practice, I don't even know if they did practice law because the way they would talk, it didn't seem like they did and they were just publishing, um, it's talking about the case law, but there was no, like, real life experiences that I can relate to. And so I think having you, you know, teach immigration with. With the perspective of having that experience being on the ground and also with, you know, different types of people, um, is, is so helpful. Do you find that that was really important for, for you to have like that experience? Yeah, I, I don't, um, I, I, I agree with you 100 percent that it helps teaching law if you've had experience and not all law professors have had. Practical experience. Um, but I, I have the ability to bring that to the classroom and every school that I've taught at I've been involved in clinical programs, Golden Gate, and I was hired at Stanford specifically to start an immigration clinic in 1985. And so I ran an immigration clinic there. And then I was there for 12 years and Davis. Hired me to continue their clinical program, which included an immigration clinic. And so again, I, I, I bring those experiences to the classroom because the students want to hear that and they, they want to do that. And, and so, um, it's definitely, um, helpful to me in the classroom. And that's what I ended up writing about mostly is my experiences is. And what I, what I've seen and the injustices and so pretty much everything that I've written, even that's classified as, as a law scholarship, it's usually informed by my experiences. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. And and then with these clinics, like, what are they? What are you? They the students doing in these clinics? We give the most recent one you can get. Well, they they they're in deportation proceedings representing clients. Um, our clients at the University of San Francisco clinic are primarily. from Central America. I started that clinic in response to the surge of unaccompanied minors and, uh, and also many women fleeing domestic violence from Central America. And so the students interview the clients, they prepare the clients for their deportation care cases, the students. Do the direct examination of the clients, but it's, as you know, the law school clinics, you have to be under the supervision of a faculty member. And so, so I have a secret weapon and a very, very, uh, able woman, Jacqueline Brown, who's probably the best asylum lawyer that I've ever met. And so she supervises all the students who go to court. Um, and I, I help a little bit with that, but I've been able to turn most of that over to somebody. So, um, part of my secret to my success, part of the secret to my success in the clinical world is hiring good people and leaving them alone. And then. Then I get all the credit that they, for all the great work that they do. Yeah, no, Jacqueline Brown sounds amazing. I'd love to interview her one day. You know, asylum, deportation, it is, it is hard, and it is hard. You know, I used to do more of that work, um, back in the. Early 2000s. And it was, you know, very emotionally, uh, draining. It was to, to do it all the time was, was difficult for me. Do you find any of that? Like, how do you, how do you deal with any of that? If, if you absolutely, we have to make sure that we take care of ourselves because this is trauma informed lawyering, because you're absolutely right. Our clients, the children, and the adults have gone through hell, the violence that they've experienced the worst things you can imagine have happened to our clients. Um, and I, the tension. is something that stays with me in particular. I mean, as a matter of fact, next week, uh, the clinic, we're volunteering for a week at the detention centers in Arizona. But I, I, I write about a particular experience that I have had in the book in interviewing Several dozen Children that were detained who are separated from their families, uh, at a border patrol station in Texas right before the pandemic. Um, and it was during the Trump administration, and, uh, he had stopped separating Children from their parents. By then it was the summer of 2019. But he continued separating Children if they came with not their parent, if they came with their aunt or uncle or grandparent, and there was a group of us that interviewed over 200 Children. I interviewed about 20. Um, and it still haunts me and I'm not saying that to be dramatic. I think about them all the time because they, many were sick. They had the flu. Then it was before COVID, uh, they were lonely, they were sad, uh, they were traumatized that they were malnourished. And, um, and I kept in contact with them and tried to contact their relatives for them and thank goodness the ones that I interviewed, they all landed safely in terms of they were reunited with family members in the United States, but that's not true of all of them. And the youngest person that we interviewed that had been separated. You're going to say this is impossible, but the youngest person we interviewed was two years old. That was separate. I believe it. It's just, uh, you come out of that saying, how can the United States do this? And, um, but it's true. And this continues, even under the Biden administration. Yes. This kind of separation still continues. Yes. Yes, it is so sad. They're still reunite. I mean, from the zero tolerance policy that Trump created, they're still trying to reunite those families. People are still being separated. Um, It is almost unfathomable that we do this, you know, that the country does this, I feel like in the future, we're going to look back and say, wow, that was kind of like the way we looked at internment camps or other types of horrible things that we've done, like, how could we have done this? Um, it's so real. It's, it's, it's, it's so hard. To interview them individually. I can't even do that. Like, if you asked me to do that, I would, I would just be like a mess. Like, I can't, you know, when zero tolerance policy happened, my son was 4 and I was just like, I can't even imagine him being separated from us. Um, and, and so I've started to do a lot of, um, work at the border as well at that time, but it just, it. It hasn't been much that much better. Um, yeah, good for you. Oh, thank you. But I mean, good for you. Thank you. I mean, I can't believe you all interviewed 200. That's, that's amazing that you had access to them and able to do that. Um, let's go into your book a little bit. Um, let in. Why did you write this book humanizing immigration? Why'd you write this? Well, I've been doing this work for almost 50 years now. I started, uh, around 1974, and, uh, it's been frustrating. The, uh, from the detention of children that I've seen, but also the deportation of people that I just don't think it's right to deport certain people. Um, you know, for example, I write about... A gentleman who came to me very late. He had already lost his appeals and I was trying to get prosecutorial discretion. Let the government stay argue that they should let him stay here anyway under a policy that Obama had instituted. And it is a man had lived here for 25 years and had. Two citizen Children, one who was going to graduate from Berkeley and another who was 14 years old, who was young and in high school. He never had any criminal problems. He was a soccer coach. He had a second part time job and That's it. I mean, the truth is he's not special in the sense that there are many, many people like him, um, who are just here to put food on their table. It's true. He's undocumented. It's true. He came without papers and he was working at at the Hilton Hotel and he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and they arrested him and but they wouldn't let him stay here under prosecutorial discretion. And it's, you know, I. Went to his house the night that he reported for deportation and said goodbye to him. Um, and it's been more than 10 years now. And so he actually can now immigrate, but he's had to be separated. There's a 10 year bar. He had to be separated for 10 years. And and so. Um, and I'm still in touch with that daughter. She actually became a law student of mine, and now she's, she's practicing employment law. She's not practicing immigration law, but she's practicing law. She's like, it's too hard. Yeah, but I'll be honest with you. I, I also think that there are certain people that have been convicted of crimes. That should not have been deported and I startle people when I say that, and, um, I, I had, uh, friendly conversations with Senator Feinstein. I mean, that's 1 of my recollections of her was that she just wouldn't go there. And when I had private conversations with her to provide relief for people who entered as refugees and immigrants. And then after a year, they make one stupid mistake, um, and it might be classified as an aggravated felony, and they don't have a chance. It's zero tolerance. And they get deported. And so I've represented Cambodians who came as refugees, and then they get deported. And I contrast that with a law that existed prior to 1996. Prior to 1996. I actually could apply for a waiver for somebody who was a lawful immigrant or a refugee, and they made one bad mistake, and as I alluded to earlier, I had represented some Chinese gang members, um, and the, the vast, out of, I probably represented 50, 60 people like that prior to 1996, and one person recidivated, Of all those that I got, that I got waivers for, and one of them, I keep in touch with him, you know, he had more than one conviction, he had state and criminal convictions, his name is John, and I see him often, he became a mechanic for, he went to a mechanic training program after I got his release, and, and he became a mechanic for the Muni, The public transportation system in San Francisco, and he retired a couple of years ago. He has two adult daughters, um, who didn't know anything about his background. I still don't think they do. His wife knows about, but, you know, I can give you 3, 4 other dozens of people or the same thing. They all became productive and they just need that 2nd chance. That's missing from our law that that kind of showing some heart and understanding that people can rehabilitate themselves. Yeah, no, I completely agree with you and a lot of crimes that people are convicted for drug crimes. Um, and, and they're, they get deported, they deport veterans. U. S. government supports veterans as well. So we're, I mean, it's for very minor crimes and it's, it really is unbelievable. But yes, I completely agree with you. And I, I do feel that people need to open their eyes a little bit more. Um, to, to that. So, so why did it take you this long to actually publish this, this specific book? Well, I, um, as you noted at the beginning, I've written many books and it's about different. Policies, um, like I've written about NAFTA and how that affects Mexican migration, and I've written about, uh, uh, how we represent unaccompanied minors and what special, uh, talents you need to do that kind of thing, uh, but I've never, I, I, I felt, those are all very academic, Thank you. In flavor, and in an academic book, because all those books were public by academic press, Stanford Press, Cambridge Press, NYU Press, but this is published by a private publisher, Beacon Press, and they invited me to be more personal. And so I felt the license to actually express frustration. For example, express frustration at some immigration judges. That I think are, you know, they're just so heartless. Believe it or not, there's some immigration judges who grant asylum at the rate of one and two percent. Right. And, you know, you can, it's public information. You can go online. There's a website where you can look at the names of the judges. And you kind of wonder, where do they come up with these people? And they often, not all immigration judges are like that. Don't get me wrong. Sure. But, um, around the country, the, the, the, the approval rate for asylum is actually way below 30%. And, and I, that's part of my frustration too is that we don't view asylum from a humanitarian lens, and that instead, some of the judges view it as if, oh, we got to protect ourselves. Some reason they think they're protecting the country. From people who are making false claims. Of persecution, but they and so they go out of their way to find discrepancies and say that they're not credible, but that is not what the intent is of asylum in my view. And, um, and so I'm, I'm urging judges. To and, and, um, and Congress to take a look at the approach that we should take to asylum. Um, so I was, as you in my introduction, you noted, I was in this case. It was cited in the 1980s, and in that case. That included Scalia in the majority. Okay. Um, they agreed that for asylum and they say this justice. Steven says this in the decision that a 10 percent chance of persecution is enough to satisfy well founded for your persecution. But judges just don't look at it that way. And so I am urging that we look at asylum in the same way we look at criminal law, that in criminal law, if there's a reasonable doubt you find the person not guilty, well, kind of conversely, in asylum, you should give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, unless there's a reasonable doubt Thank you. That the person won't get persecuted. In other words, so I would look at it. That's the way I think it's intended to be viewed and that's the way the it's it's applied in other nations of the world. It's applied that way in the UK and in Canada and in most of Europe and the United States is behind when it comes to that. This is such helpful information. I'm learning so much from you. I've practiced almost 20 years immigration law. I'm learning so much from you in these 30 minutes. Um, I'm going to use that case for our, uh, for our asylum cases. Okay, I want to use that for sure. That's going down. Yes. No, I, I think, um, you're totally right. And this is why the racism, discrimination, prejudices, biases are related to immigration, because that's where these individual, I believe, Some of these individuals, these judges have those biases, it'd be very different if it was maybe someone from the UK, you know, someone, someone was white, um, going through and being deported in the same way with the same issues, uh, uh. You know, I think there are people who are racist making decisions. Yeah, I mean, I, I think that's right. There's so much evidence of that and the way they treat, mistreat people in the classroom too. I mean, in the book, I talk about a couple incidents. It didn't hurt. It didn't occur to me, but they were reported to me by friends and they were news reports. There was a judge that got tired of a two year old or three year old in the courtroom making noise and he, on the record, he wagged his finger. At the kid and said, if you don't be quiet, I'm going to bring my dog from the back room and sick my dog on you. I mean, Oh, my God there. Uh, and that was on the record in a case. Um, and you know, there are other examples of that were in San Francisco. We got rid of a judge. His name was Ford. Um, for his, uh, there was a petition that immigration lawyers all signed and he was investigated. That he was just completely rude to all the clients and Spanish, especially the Spanish speaking clients, and he just. He just treated them like crap, and with no respect. And we complained, and he finally was forced to resign. I argue that we need a new system of immigration judges, too. That it really should be elevated to the level of federal court position. Because right now they're appointed by the Attorney General. I know all appointments are political, even federal judges, but over time, you will attract better competent people, I think. And, uh, and so, uh, I just think the current system is too politicized. Absolutely. Absolutely. Uh, what, who should be reading your book? Well, I really want. The public to read it because I want them to maybe they won't ever feel as passionate as I do about it, but I want them to know why I feel passionately about this. And it's because of the injustices that I've seen and the kinds of things that I write about. In the book, because I hope that that influences their views toward non citizens and their views towards the types of political leaders that we need to elect. And yes, I would like politicians to read this too, because I'll be honest with you, something like the Dream Act. For young undocumented folks that came here as little kids, um, that were undocumented because they overstayed their visas or they came without inspection. The DREAM Act has been pending since 2001. Okay. I know. Awful. And it's never passed. It came close in 2010. That's a no brainer. That those individuals should be granted legalization. Um, and honestly, I think their parents should be granted legalization too, because they're very much like that 25 year old person. I mean, that Mexican who had lived here for 25 years without any blemish. They're very much like him. They're just people that are working. And, um, I want. I want the public and policymakers to think of their own heritage. And, um, now it's true. I mean, the heritage may not be the same for African Americans or for Native Americans. Okay, put them aside for a moment, but everyone at the rest of us. Our parents, grandparents, they came. This is sounds like so much of a cliche, but it's true. They really all came for the same reason for a better life or for safety. And if we would just wrap our heads around that. I think we would be more forgiving about the border, we would be more forgiving about the fact that there's severe backlogs in the family immigration system that, you know, we should provide more visas for people. And so, um, that's what my hope is, and that's what I want people to bring away from the book. That's great. That's great. Yeah. I mean, I feel, I feel that when people are just watching the news or not getting the whole story, it's also immigration is very complex. It's difficult for people to generally, you know, to talk in detail about it without really being in it. They can base it on their own experiences, but if they don't have an experience and they're just watching it on the news, you know, how, how can they be really helpful? Um, I, I do the same thing with, you know, this podcast, for example, I wanted, I wanted it to be more for the public, for the people who are interested, but not necessarily lawyers wanting to know how to file an I 601A, like, you know, you know, this is not kind of the instructional, uh, podcast really about getting to know the people behind. The issue talking about the issue in, in, you know, lay person's ways, right? Like using regular, um, you know, uh, non legal jargon, uh, for the most part. And I, and I'm hoping to educate and inform people who are interested, but don't have a lot of, you know, background in it to, to learn. So I think hopefully a lot of our viewers will also read. Your book because it's it's so it's so timely. Um, I when I, I, I do sometimes I'm interviewed for certain things that I do at the, at the border and I'm always talking about, it's really about our humanity, saving our humanity, these people, you know, to, to leave everything, you know, and to bring everything in one backpack or suitcase and travel with little children, um, or by yourself, not, you. But, you know, knowing where you're going, just trying to get to the U. S. It's so hard to do. It's not like, oh, let's just leave everything we know and go and just walk and take buses and trust other people around that. It's very, very difficult to do that. And then coming here and then having to deal with, you know, racist policies and, um, and. And judges, I don't support them and a government that doesn't support them. I mean, the trauma that they're continuously going through. And then if they're detained, I mean, all of that. And it's, it's, it's so sad. Um, I really, I really hope, uh, You have a lot of success in this book and, and how do people get it? So how do people find more about you and how do people get it? Thank you for all that you do. I, I'm going to start listening more to your podcast. The book is humanizing immigration and it's published by beacon press and it's available through all the outlets, uh, either from the beacon press website, or of course on, on Amazon and, uh, and, and other websites. And. Yeah, no, I'm on the website of the University of San Francisco School of Law, so people can find my contact information on there as well. Great, great. Well, Professor Hing, uh, you have inspired me to do even more. Um, thank you so much, uh, for your time and, and, uh, and I wish I could be in your class. So thank you so much and hopefully I can see you again. Take care. Have a beautiful day. Thank you.