In the Middle with Joey Bloch: Vinnie Kearney Talks ICE and Assembly Campaign

[Music] Welcome to In the Middle, I'm Joey Blocka. Happy Valentine's Day to you. I hope you're getting to spend the day with loved ones or at the very least getting to spend some quality time with some very good friends here on the day of love. Really, there's obviously Christmas and all that, but this is really one day dedicated to love out of the year. So in times like this, let's let's enjoy love here and a lot to get to here on in the middle. So let's get right in the middle of it. Governor Cheryl has signed an executive or barring federal agents from conducting immigration enforcement operations on state land. That includes state parking lots as well as parkways. It comes as state officials are investigating an ice involved shooting in rock spary. Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport says nobody was hurt, but I firearm was discharged. A DHS spokesperson says ice agents were executing a removal order when a man attempted to evade a rest and rammed a law enforcement vehicle. DHS says this prompted an ice agent to shoot out the tires of his vehicles. This comes as state lawmakers are now considering legislation to address this recent uptick in ice operations in New Jersey as well as specifically going after the conduct in which these agents conduct themselves in procedures and mechanisms and everything around that. Joining me now is New Jersey 21st Legislative District Democratic Assemblyman, Vinnie Karney. Vinnie, thanks for coming on. Governor Cheryl says she is in favor of codifying the immigrant trust directive into state law. This comes as former Governor Murphy pocket vetoed the bill citing concerns about it facing a court challenge. The directive prevents state and local police from cooperating with federal law enforcement officers on immigration related matters. As someone who has been in the law enforcement community yourself, do you support making the immigrant trust directive law? So I would need to see the newest version of this bill. I know it was reintroduced and it's going to have to proceed for the whole committee process again. I support the concepts, but as always the devil's in the details. What I will say is the existing directive from the attorney general has the force of law anyway. When our attorney general issues a directive law enforcement, we are bound to follow it. And you actually described it in a very interesting way because it's not that we can't cooperate with federal enforcement for immigration. It's just that they have to have a judicial warrant. So some of the processes that ice and its predecessors used. I've been in the business long enough where it used to be I.N.S. They have an administrative removal process and then they have warrants and criminal removal processes. What the directive stops us from participating in is civil enforcement. So it always comes up this way and it's like, look, if you have a warrant signed by a judge, any pop in New Jersey is going to help you execute that warrant and enforce it. So I understand why people are looking to codify this because ultimately the attorney general can change a directive with the stroke of their pen. So I think it's perhaps just a little bit more of a comfort level for folks that if it's in a statute, it's a little harder to undo. But I don't think it would functionally change anything that law enforcement is doing on the street of New Jersey. You bring up the warrant system. An internal memo does reportedly say that ice agents can use administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants, which as you point out, a judicial warrant, you got to go get it from a judge while administrative warrant is kind of just this internal policy of, okay, we suspect there might be some people here that we want to go pick up. We're just going to go in there and get them. And the critique that people have of this directive is I know you support it is the fact that they say at handcuffs law enforcement. And at the reason why you see these federal immigration officers using these tactics is because local police and state police are not cooperating with them. What do you say to those people who are concerned about what this directive has done and what it would do if it was codify into law? Well, again, if they codify what the attorney general is already doing, it's not going to change anything that you're seeing on the street level. And like ultimately, you already kind of, you answered your own question. You said there's an administrative process and they're saying that we have a memo that means we can do what we want. Like there's whole amendments in the bill of rights that say that you can't do that. And everybody who's a law enforcement officer, whether it's state, county, local, federal, you all swear a note to the Constitution. So like the process they're describing would be like, say you're my sergeant at work, right? And I go to you and I say, hey, serge, I think this guy's a bad guy. I want to go get him and you say, okay, and you sign basically a note for me. Like if there was probable cause and the person had committed a crime, why couldn't you go and swear out of Warren? It's just, it's honestly trying to take shortcuts kind of through the Constitution. It doesn't have to go that way. And in a lot of cases, they could get a judicial warrant and they've just elected not to. They're using the easy button. But there's a constitution for a reason. So, you know, shifting it from my, wearing my cop hat to being a legislator like, yeah, we have an interest in ensuring that the laws are followed or what are any of us doing. So just to clarify here that you are in fact open to supporting this type of bill, you just want to see what the details are. I want to see what the details are. Governor Murphy had some specific comments on why the pocket vetoed it, where it seemed as if there was one or two things that, and I didn't follow the progression of this bill through the lame duck. It's, as you know, the lame duck gets very busy and there are a hundred things going on at once. If it came out of a committee or with an amendment on it, that tweaked something that made it where the governor felt it was subject to challenge. Like the actual immigrant trust directive that is was put in place by AG Grewall has withstood multiple federal court challenges. So if you go too far off that script, you're kind of opening the state back up to the litigation, right? So if that was Governor Murphy's concern, which is what I understand that it was, I want to see how this bill comes out of its committees. And there's a good chance it may land on one of the committees that I'm on. I got a state and local government. So I have a feeling it would come past there at some point. So I'll be able to really dig into it. If it's just a codification of what we're already doing, I don't see any problem with it. It wouldn't really change anything that's going on on the street level. That directive has been in existence since what 2018, 2019. Our cops are used to it. Another immigration related bill that former governor Murphy vetoed would have limited the collection of certain data like citizenship status and place of birth. Murphy said he rejected it due to a drafting oversight not found until after the bill was on his desk. There's been calls for the state legislature to take up this bill again as well and pass it in this session. Would you vote in favor of that bill? In general, yes. Again, I'm always going to tell you devils in the details. I my own personal story about how I ended up interested in government had to do with legislation that changed like one line and administrative code somewhere. So the words really do mean something when you put them into legislation. So the governor kind of was cryptic with that one where he didn't really call out specifically what his concerns were. I hope they were communicated in writing somewhere back to to the you know assembly leadership or the sponsors or whoever he's going to communicate that too. So we don't end up with the same problem. But in general, yes, I would support that type of legislation. Just we have to be really careful especially like privacy is almost it's gone the way of the dodo bird right. And in a lot of cases, we all put our stuff out there for ourselves like everyone uses social media right. I think the bill as it was written is probably okay outside of whatever error the governor pointed out. I would expect to support that when it comes to the floor. There's also more legislation that has been drafted in the process of making it through the state legislature in regards to law enforcement. Specifically, state lawmakers are now considering a ban on law enforcement from wearing masks in New Jersey. That includes ICE agents. It includes a fine of up to $1,000 and possible jail time of up to six months if someone is found violating this. This comes after a judge blocked a similar law from going into effect in California. I know you want to see all the details and find facts here, but based on the concept described here, would you vote for a piece of legislation that would require law enforcement not to wear masks? >> I already can't wear a mask as a law enforcement officer in New Jersey. There's very specific circumstances where something like that would be authorized, like leaving aside the whole COVID era when we were all wearing the face masks to prevent the spread of the disease. Aside from that period, I've never worn a mask and I've been in law enforcement quite a while. I work in a county sheriff's office. We have guys that go out and enforce bench warrants looking for the worst of the worst, people that have done homicides and all manner of hurt that crimes. As even a court officer, I could very well be standing next to somebody in an open court who isn't handcuffed because they're in front of a jury. They, my face is shown, my name is stitched on my shirt. The whole concept of this where they're claiming they're trying to protect officer safety is ridiculous. What you get is when you have this anonymous law enforcement presence, like one of the reasons why we're effective at what we do at my level, local and county, is we're all from these communities. We all live in or near them. Most of us have to live if you're local. You have to live in the town when you got hired and then sometimes you can move sometimes you can't. It depends on the agency. Policing is by consent in America. Part of that consent is knowing who I'm dealing with so that they can be held accountable if they do something wrong. We're missing entire steps of this when you're bringing in people from outside the community. They're not even really identifying their agency in some cases. Anything a bunch of guys running around wearing the word police on their vest. What does that mean? You could order that online. You can clearly tell who our guys are on my job. And everywhere else that I've worked, whether it's state troopers, whether it's sheriff's guys, whether it's local police. Up until this whole surge of enforcement, you can clearly tell who ICE was and who they were. And look, we have working relationships with the field offices in our area. We coordinate all that stuff. We have in my sheriff's office, we have people seconded it out to Homeland Security and the marshals and everything else. But we're going out again, going out for the worst of the worst. And we don't feel the urge to hide our faces. So I do think it lends itself to this air of no accountability. And it undermines everyone's confidence in law enforcement in general. So what I don't want to see is a situation where we're all being painted with the same brush. Because that's how we get cops hurt. So I mean, if anything, if us doing a law at our level kind of helps ratchet that temperature down a little bit and it gets masks off and people feel that they could be held accountable, that's a big part of why cops have numbers on their badges and why we wear our names on our shirts. Right. And to me, it comes back to the very simple concept is we police by consent. So you would be in support of some form of legislation that would ban these in particular ICE agents from wearing masks when conducting operations in New Jersey. I mean, to me, it's not something that you're targeting to one agency. It is a statement of values and a statement of what I say policing by consent. We're not going to be an occupying occupying force. We are part of the community. And if we go out there and we do our jobs with respect and we do our jobs the right way, for the most part, most honest law-abiding people will not obstruct us. And that's been my experience with over 20 years in law enforcement. People believe in your mission, even the guys you arrest, they get it. They know what game they played, but it doesn't excuse you treating people without respect, using more force than you need to, for example. If you do stuff like that, you will get yourself and your partner's hurt over a 25-year career. Governor Cheryl says the state is launching a portal to upload images of ICE operations taking place in New Jersey. This comes as ICE agents have detained several people in Jersey City, Hoboken, and New Brunswick. One agent told a Jersey City Councilman on video ICE doesn't need a warrant and there's nothing that can be done to get in the way of them doing their job. Does the state need a website for New Jersey's to upload images of ICE agents? So I always think anything that provides more documentation, more evidence. Look, nine times out of ten, in my experience, it's served to exonerate officers from claims of misconduct. That's specific incident in Jersey City is interesting because like many things that lack context, right? Based on where that interaction took place, no, that agent doesn't need a warrant. He was in a public place. And here's the thing, professionalism. Is that the way to talk to anybody? Whether or not it's a Councilman or an elected official, whatever, you don't talk to people like that. I don't need a warrant, bro. No, you explain what you're doing if people ask you questions. That's part of being professional and adhering to that higher standard that we attach to people that we entrust with the ability to enforce the law. And enforcing the law means that you can deprive somebody of their liberty, of their property, or even ultimately their life. Like that's a serious level of responsibility. We're supposed to be accountable and transparent. And that's the way that's the way local law enforcement and state police and everyone else in New Jersey has been acting for quite some time. These are not new concepts to us. Over 20 years as a sworn officer, these were things that were taught to me in a police academy all those years ago. It hasn't really changed. The change is the tactics that are being deployed as part of this process. Which again, if you're trying to do shock and awe, like, I don't know that that's effective. I actually think they've gone the other way with it where there's so much attention to what they're doing. So much disruption. Like if they really were trying to get the worst of the worst, well, you've just now everyone in the neighborhood is tipping them off that you're there. Like, that's an own goal. So you believe having a portal like this, that would help, you know, maybe bring down tension or it would just be good to have some sense of accountability. Yeah, I mean, it's sort of a couple of purposes, right? So it gives that feeling for the bystander of there's something for me to do. And maybe it keeps them out of further trouble. And look, just a bystander, if you're legally standing where you're standing and you're in public, like, you, some of the things that I've seen where they're like, snatch and phones and do one all this other stuff, like, you can't do things like that. Like, you have the right to stand there and record somebody of public official making public money doing the public's work, right? But you can't use that to interfere just like as a member of the press, you can't interfere in an investigation or on a scene, right? You would, I would say, if I'm on a crime scene, I'm going to say, you know, Joey, go stand over there. Like not unreasonably six blocks away, just stay out of my way. And most reporters have that given tape and we don't have problems like that. So I think a part of that is if we're going to do a portal like that, there should definitely be some instructions that go along with it, just making sure people don't inadvertently cross the line into obstructing what, you know, whether they're feds or whether they're local law enforcement, like, don't obstruct us from doing our jobs. And the bottom line is like the incident you mentioned in Jersey City, like, yeah, like there was nothing that the guy from ice or whatever agency he was with was correct. I don't need a warrant and there's nothing you can do about this because everybody was standing in a public place. Things can change depending on where you are and if you have legal right to be there or not. But I mean, I don't have a problem with the concept. I just would worry about people taking it like that one step too far. Like what we don't want to create as much as we're complaining about the masks and not having identification on some of the federal agents. like we don't want to create our own group of vigilantes either. So I think that if it's done properly, it has a way to lower the temperature. And it also provides some documentation for, you know, there's been some issues with, let's just say, characterly, ice is losing people sometimes. Like they say they took somebody, they arrested them, and then you can't find out whether they're being held, or if they've been moved, are they in Delaney Hall? Did they send them to Texas? So having some of this bystander video, I mean, I think the bystander video for a couple of those miniapolis incidents was outstanding in showing what actually occurred, you know, because even police body cameras are not going to capture everything. That's going to get you, you know, from the officer's angle in that one moment of time. So I think to me, the more video, the better, and if we're going to have a, a coral where folks can submit that stuff, and it can all get like collated as to dates and times and locations. I mean, look, you're talking to a guy who ran for my council on, I want a live stream government because I want all the meetings to be put out in real time, because I used to watch people playing that they said things they didn't say in vice versa. And that was just, you know, our council doing an ordinance about like, whatever. Recycling, right? Like, this is next level stuff we're talking about here. We're talking about constitutional rights of, of, you know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, right? So definitely a more video, the better. We're speaking with New Jersey 21st Legislative District Democratic Assemblyman, Vinnie Karney. I want to switch gears here and talk about last year, in the general election, there are some people that were kind of surprised about what took place there. You have flipped a seat held by Republicans for decades as part of a blue wave that hit the state, leading to the election of Governor Cheryl. Several other Democrats have tried to flip it over the years, but we're unsuccessful. What was the, the magic juice for you and you're running me to ultimately be able to flip this blue? So I think you had three, three factors all combining. So I've been volunteering on these District 21 legislative races since back in 2017. And like, I've seen a lot of strong candidates come up one or two points shy every time. But I also think what you have is the Republican party has also moved. I think the Republican party has very definitively moved right. And like the state senator in my district, them now working with is John Brandnick. He couldn't crack 10% in a statewide primary for governor, because he wasn't extreme enough for the base of that party. That's kind of wild, if you think about it. In this neck of the world, John Brandnick is kind of a name brand. He's been at it for a while. He's widely respected and entrant, and he's a guy that can get some stuff done, right? Why wouldn't you want that guy running for governor? But voters in that party wanted a different way. And I think kind of you're seeing the same thing. The folks that were there, one of them had been there, I think 16 or 18 years, but the deceit hadn't been won by a Democrat since Watergate. So it's actually, I'll give you a little bit of political trivia, not that I could do it as well as some others in the game. But the last person who won a seat was actually the mayor of Garwood at the time. In 1973, I was a mayor as a councilman, but yeah, it was the mayor of Garwood. And him and his running mate won it for one term and then immediately lost them in the next election. That was like a Watergate wave election, right? I think you had some aspects of that here, but I don't want to undersell the work that went in from either myself or my running mate, going out there a year in advance and laying some of the groundwork and having these conversations and just the frustration that I heard on front porches and meet and greets all throughout the campaign was about not just affordability, like everybody would bring up a version of that, whether they're talking about funding for their school district or their property taxes or is anybody going to fix my trains? Like it all comes down to an aspect of affordability, which was Mikey Sherrill's primary message in her campaign, bringing down costs, making your life better. The other piece of that is serving the district in being president. And I've heard some theories from other folks about what motivated the folks that pulled a lever for Mayor Andrew versus the incumbents that were already there. What I really think it was is that we were again looked at as the change agent. Like let's send these guys down and see what they can do for us, see what they bring back to us and see if they're more present in these communities. I mean, I don't know that I ever saw my opponents in Garwood, other than you know, during the election for a phone call. Like and I've gotten that already as I've shown up in some of these towns for events, whether it's their reorganization meeting or you know, wow, we've never gotten assembly person here before. So being present in your district and being accessible to people and making sure that they can get service when they call your office, I think that's a big part of what helped get us over the line is just that promise to be more accountable, more responsive and more accessible to people. New Jersey 21st Legislative District Democratic Assemblyman Vinnie Corny. Thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for the chat. I appreciate it and I love the insightful questions. That about wraps things up for me this week. Thank you so much for joining me as always. The stay in touch with what's going on with the show. All you have to do is follow me on social media, which you can do on X at block underscore Joey. Again, my last name is Bell B L O C H on the score Joey. You can also check me on Instagram at Joey dot block dot 39 again. That is at Joey dot block dot 39. Thank you for listening. It has been a pleasure. We'll be back again next week with more in the middle right here on Fox Sports New Jersey.