itical capital to twist all those and to get the necessary votes in the house and senate. at the senate. at the same time it was interesting to note that the democrats who generally have been at least publicly in favor of immigration reform decided to let president bush out alone on this issue. in fact rahm emanuel, the mayor of chicago was a big influential guy in the house at that time and he went around to democrats in the house and said don't you dare go for immigration reform now. if you do the party will not give you any money for your campaign. and why do you do that? basically because he wanted to make sure that immigration reform wasn't as if there was a republican in the white house so they were going to wait so

they could immigration reform and also use that to their political advantage. and as you've already heard, when the democrats had both the white house and the majority in the senate and the house we still are advocating for the reform and we were happy for the relief of the dreamers, we were happy because it wasn't what we wanted, we wanted the dream act so we applauded the administrative resolution, not a solution but a band-aid that provided relief for thousands. we supported the latest

administrative action of president obama to provide to the parents of those who have children and are u.s. citizens or residents. that was going to perhaps help out maybe 5 million of the 11 or so million undocumented in the country today. the president announced it and doing so, he angered the republicans and of course they initiated some action in the house to derail it in one way or another before they had a chance to do that some judge in texas ruled it unconstitutional and if it's on hold until this appeal because the higher court and

that will be overturned. unfortunately even if it is a return it's only a temporary fix because it doesn't provide legalization or path to citizenship it just says for x. amount of months you can get the work permit and drivers license and be in that country without legal status. that's not a permanent solution, but we support it and we think that the president did have the authority to do that and it's a temporary stopgap measure. but what we do need and we can't do it without congress, we do need a fixed broken immigration system.

the catholic bishops have the same for the past ten plus years that immigration reform should have three legs. one is the 11 million or so that are here in this country. these people are already part of our society even though they do not enjoy a legal status. they espouse have spouses of american citizens, neighbors. they are already integrated into the fabric of our society. and even the republicans admit they won't deport 11 million people, so we are not going to deport them then we should give them the path to legalization, and that really is not only in their interest, it's on our own

self-interest because by reading 11 million people outside the legal status, we are basically re-creating in our nation a new sanction underclass that's explainable because they don't have legal protection. the last time we did this as a nation, we called it jim crow and we haven't been able to overcome the effects of jim crow even to date. so why would we want to do it again for 11 million people? so that's the first, given the 11 million in the country at apt to citizenship. the other would be family reunification. one of the reasons why we have this trouble at the border of people being smuggled in or who

are still coming in over the southwest texas border is many people are looking for the reunification with their families who are already here. in the 1990s our governments started to increase security on the border and militarizing the border a lot of people use to go back and forth and it's harder to get back and forth so they stayed in the united states. and that created a whole new business across the border. and we have more than one case of women and children dying in

the back of trucks suffocated because they are being brought across the border. right now if you are a legal u.s. resident or citizen and you have a wife or child in mexico you have to wait ten years before that person can get a visa to come to the country and the same is true if you are in the philippines or other countries. when people say why don't you stay in line in many cases there is no line or the line has no end. so, family unification has to be rationalized and the backlogs eliminated so that there isn't an incentive for illegal migration to unite their families. so that's the second. the third leg is a worker

program. we have to ensure our american businesses a supply of the legal workforce. i think most people working in the service industry and an agricultural industry would prefer to have a legal workforce they tend to vote republican but they are in favor of the immigration reform because they have a very narrow profit margin and they get them to the market and can be blown out of the water by some crazy enforcement measures taken by immigration

authorities so they want immigration reform and right now we have a system if you survive a dangerous gauntlet of going across the border you will find a job someplace and immigrants have gone into any one of the 50 states. they've done it without any federal program directing them. if you look around the communities the immigrants are not sleeping under bridges. they are not the ones sleeping under bridges. so you kind of central americans and mexicans working in new york state and milking cows and new hampshire, working on alaska everywhere. why don't we rationalize this and allow these people to work legally? take care of the illegals that are here by providing them a

path to citizenship work out the kinks in the family unification program and ensure the workforce are the industries that require workers on the low end of the economic scale. now back to 1986 when we get immigration reform. it was a tough lift back then and it was interesting because what we are seeing today in the united states of ... anti-immigrant feeling and expressing different areas, we lived here in florida in the early 1980s. it was mostly focused on the haitians in fact we have an indefinite detention policy for everybody. i've got to shut up soon because

my time is up. what was a local problem here has become a national issue. however let's look at south florida. we survived it. our experience of immigration in the 70s and 80s have shown us that we have nothing to fear. immigrants are not problems they are opportunities because they bring possibilities and dreams. and we can see how we should be able to say that our experience show to show to the country that there is no reason to fear immigration that is a positive

for american society. and let me just end with a bit about the cuban adjustment act because a few weeks ago i saw the cuban-american congress people were advocating that now is the time to do away with it. i thought that was a foolish thing because that's what the castro government has been saying for over 20 years, so here we go. politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it, that we have the heart lining cuban-americans basically advocating for the position of the cuban government that has been advocating for two decades to do away with the cuban adjustment act. it should be a template of how we should treat immigrants. because they have been the most successful immigrant group in history. one of the reasons for the

success surely they have their own talents and geniuses etc. but one of the reasons they succeeded was because there was a cuban adjustment act. five years later or six years later they were citizens. so i remember in the 80s there was a lot of comparisons made between the treatment that they were getting in the treatment of haitians. they were not treated worse than the mexicans or other people were being treated. but the issue shouldn't be that we should treat the cubans as bad as we've been treating everybody else. we should treat everybody else as good as we've been treating the cubans because that adjustment act works and if it worked for the cubans it can work for everybody else and with

that. >> my answer is we advocate or clients in the courtroom, we problem solve and negotiate and we advocate. but most who practice in the national organization are a national organization are called the american immigration lawyers association. it's an advocacy group that has over 13,000 members. the mission established is to promote justice and to advocate for fair and reasonable law and policy. certainly in the immigration law, context lawyers are the people with the most intimate knowledge of the law themselves. the process and where the ones that see the day-to-day impact of immigration laws on individuals and families both inside and outside of the united states.

we see when they are separated of sons and daughters and in the mexican context, 21 years if you are filing for a son or daughter who is over 21 years of age. and siblings who are separated for up to 13 years. we have a national day of advocacy. attorneys and representatives from all across the united states convert on dc to lobby that meaningful immigration law not just immigration reform, because why do we do know about command of the numbers varied between ten to 15 million who are undocumented, there are also laws on the books of separated families and i will give you one example. if you are the parent of an american citizen and your son or daughter is over 21 you have to be married and you now have a new family car if you remarried

after the son or daughter was 18, that step child cannot file for their stepparent and also if they file for their siblings the sibling goes into the category that says they have to wait 13 years, so once again we have the separation of families we also have a bad history of limiting immigration and they turn it seems against the next wave of immigrants. they were not always welcome to america but now they are established and they are being resisted and it's up to the lawyers to partner with others such as the churches and ngos to make and help document the contribution that they've made

and continue to make for this great country. and while on the subject it is not uncommon to hear people with the last name rubio and crews who are also anti-immigrant. as lawyers we have to show the american people how we benefit from the reunification which is supposed to be the hallmark of immigration and in today's america how america can benefit from keeping students who are educated in the united states and institutions because they have two residency or entrepreneurship. at the undocumented in this country definitely need a path to the legislation. and it shouldn't take 13 years as it was proposed in the senate bill that passed in 2013. the people need to come out of the shadows and obtain drivers

licenses and make it safer for all the buzz on the street. they need to pay their back taxes and become permanent members of the society to which they contribute on a dalia basis. many are already paying their taxes but even if they are not they are part of the economy that contributes to the way in which we are able to live in this country whether we want to leave it or not. now as lawyers and as an advocate for the client, we have a duty as lawyers to be knowledgeable of existing laws and to find ways to use the laws that exist to help the client. it is complex. it is is second in complexity only to the internal revenue code. and it is not uncommon to have different applications of the law and to receive different answers from the print u.s. agents. you call the 800 number to be you get one answer. call tomorrow ask the same question and you get a different

answer. so the immigration lawyer has the responsibility to talk about what is happening on immigration law. in the criminal law context they are entitled to counsel. and even deep rotation, which is the most severe penalties, the separation of families is not considered a criminal matter. it is considered civil proceedings. so there is no right to have the council appointed to you in the immigration law. you have the right to counsel only if you can't afford it. and we saw last year with all of those children who were coming in many of whom were free from six to 7-years-old sitting at tables such as these in front of immigration judges, not speaking the language and not having any representation. so, ngos and churches try to produce a fee council agrees but raised the availability and because of that, many immigrants

including adults appear without counsel. as lawyers we also have an ethical duty to take on the cases within our competence area and knowing the immigration law and getting the correct advice is between remaining in the united states and being forever separated from your family. we have a response of the tv at the forefront of advocacy as far as i'm concerned because of a knowledge that we possess where we are sometimes accused of not wanting nonlawyers to benefit from the business of immigration and it's mind-boggling to me because even after practicing law for 17 years my colleagues and i still call each other and bounce cases off of each other because the whole study and maintaining is complex and we are very overwhelmed and heavily immigrant in the community in south florida which is so unique

to have so many different countries represented and some pockets of heavy different nations. we are overwhelmed with those that believe they know more about immigration law damn practitioners that are submerging themselves into practice every day. so i do join with my panelists in advocating that we need immigration reform in the united states. not only does president bush expend his political capital by not pushing but president obama also extends his political capital by not moving within the first 100 days as he promised. and as a practitioner that is out there and also an advocate every day i don't see it happening in the next two years

within this congress before the 2016 election. i hope to be proven wrong but i do not see it happening. what has happened in texas is that they joined a lawsuit stop the president's executive action that he signed in november of last year and it's interesting that the judge who issued the injunction against the enactment of the executive action didn't do it on the merit of the executive action but chose to do so on the procedure saying that the president did not follow the procedure of putting it out there for a certain number and it was a procedure or a technicality as a non- lawyer would say that has caused this executive action not to be implemented which was going to have widespread results not just

for the 5 million people who are expected to benefit from that of the third action for parents but also the whole revamp in of immigration, looking at it and the president as the executive of the country has the authority to decide how the department of homeland security is going to implement the wall that are already on the books and there is one right now and this is done every day that a person comes up for deportation and that is deferred and they are allowed to apply for a work permit. so what the president did in that regard is nothing that wasn't being done on a dalia basis but what he was saying is

apply it across the board and invite people to come in, come out of the shadows get this monkey off your back and continue to contribute united states. >> it's wonderful to benefit from youth heard. let me just add a few more elements and remind us of what the imperative is for us today in terms of seeking to achieve immigration reform. first and foremost, the heritage the legacy the value of the country demonstrate this is something we increase in spite of the times when we have been not to welcoming but still it remains in our national interest and remains in our economic interest and remains in terms of world perceived and moral authority that we live up to our values.

no american disagrees with this even those who appear to be two days and high immigrant from anti-immigration reform for you. second we all agree that immigration reform requires that we secure the border and suppliers that all of the people coming 11 million plus people seek to be and have their status adjusted and must learn to speak in addition to generally they do. they must pay their taxes and they do this today through even not just national security but they clearly want to be upstanding citizens of this country. they want to be participatory and want to contribute to the growth of the economy and the children are in school and want to take every opportunity that this country offers and everyone

seeks to live the american dream and i don't think that the reform advocacy corner. the post-9/11 crude of this country and there are some other elements that explain the partisanship the nastiness the gridlock and all of the things that are dysfunctional without congress today and you know i'm going to tell you the truth. there's a black man in the white house, i think that is an element, right? the anti-immigration forces in this country have taken over. in a society in as as many of us and those of us that do not think that or say that because

we do not think that our voices matter and we do not think that we can in fact figure out ways to amplify the voices so collectively we make an impact. and so when you have this in the country at this very minute. for the new group of people that are holding the rest of us hostage and are holding others hostage. they are then participating in this gridlock and resulting and cannot be the laughingstock of the world. where is our moral authority to preach to others, where is our authority for other people and other areas of the world that to do x. y. and z. to live up to the democratic values and ideals and human rights values and ideals and to live up to all of the standards that we are known

to be identified with and here we are trampling on the very same standards where i think a large segment of our immigrants are registered. you heard the archbishops mention the fact that haitian immigrants in this country in this community in particular were treated very badly. i also think that there was probably some unwritten policy that suggested they should be locked up. it was to be discouraged in this country by any means necessary whether that meant indefinite detention or whether that meant send them back. we cannot withstand the public and to the worldwide criticism. there was one sort of policy. it doesn't look good that we would treat one group of immigrants in a certain way and

get treated them under the same circumstances. it's on high seas. they happen to meet a group of the transport mechanisms disintegrating, pick them up. they all arrive here together. guess what happens? we saw and lived through a number of similar experiences. so i leave it to you to make the final judgment. but i want to take this final opportunity to remind you. you know of every advocate and whether or not we are republican or democrat and at the end of the day we all want some of these same things i've mentioned. we need all of you to not grow

the sector of bystanders are the silent majority who say nothing when the voices are so powerful. we need you to urge your elected representatives to act on this. yes, some of us think 2017 as possible, some people say it's not, some people say it is that we recognize our country our economy cannot sustain this. we will not be be old to deport all these people. we know that the business sectors that are important to our economy needed this labor force and workforce and so they are on onboard and what is it that we are waiting for? ..

having their dreams, their aspirations derailed by some individuals who seem to not understand what time it is. so let me just close with reminding all of us something other to say but i'm also careful in the way i say it because i don't want anyone to misquote me. i like to think that the american immigration system is probably the only ponzi scheme that works, right? to the extent that right, you

come to this country as an immigrant. you apply for other relatives who come in and they of light for success of number of relatives are coming and all of us keep growing this economy keep contributing can keep the country moving forward, provide our talent and you all that we can to make the country what is today. is that not a scheme that works? it's in our best interest to get right to get it done and has to get done right away. i'm going to stop right here. >> thank you to all our guest speakers for wonderful presentation. please help me to recognize them. [applause] >> so now we have some time for questions and answers, and i were just like to remind you to please speak brief and use the microphone over you. we might try to group several questions together so we will have more time for responses and so on. so whoever wants to start with the first question please.

also identify yourself if you will. >> my name is alberto i'm a journalist. we have the minority silence, believe me. however, how we can move the heart of this nation to understand this problem? because this is a big problem you know? a very big problem. and, obviously, if we should have the majority of the public opinion, the final going to be different. but right now i think we don't have. how we can change this?

[inaudible] >> majority of people are in favor of an immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system. what happens the is in the house of representatives, the congressmen do not have to respond to the majority opinion in the united states. they only respond to the majority of opinion within their districts. and so the districts have been gerrymandered in certain ways that, you know most congress that are coming from pretty comfortable districts that didn't vote either democratic or vote either republican and therefore, you know, some of the restriction this out at the immigration reform, in their districts the pro-immigration reform people are perhaps the minority while around the country the pro-immigration reform people are the majority. and that's one of the problems

that is keeping it from happening in congress. however, i would like to be an optimist and the lawyers is no immigration reform before 2017. that's probably right but i would hope that maybe some enlightenment might reach congress, republicans in congress. if they think about it they would see it would be to their advantage really to get the immigration issue off the table before the primary season hits us after the summer. because it certainly would help jeb bush if immigration wasn't going to be a hot button issue, if it was resolved by some immigration reform coming from congress now rather than later. and, of course then you could also say on the other side,

well, the democrats, it might be to their advantage not to solve immigration now because they would use it as a wedge issue in the next election. and so what we have to appeal to is both parties, that they don't look for the partisan advantage but look for the common good. the common good would be served by fixing this problem sooner rather than later. because the longer we wait to fix it the longer we are seeing -- i see it in parishes around our diocese and beyond, people suffering, families being broken up, of dreams being a dashed. >> i would like to say that in the work that i did with univision radio, and i'm not with you division of america at this point right now but in the work that i did it was political

show and a talk show and people would call in from all over the country. and there were a lot of those who would call and say i play by the rules and i came your in the right way and i applied and i've been waiting five or six or seven years for my child to be able to come to the country, family reunification. and now i have now i found out if i brought them into legally they would be able to have the benefits that the dreamers have today. so it is not an easy issue. it's a very complicated. part of the struggle that many republicans in congress who are in favor of immigration reform try to find a platform so that there is no preferential treatment for those who are in the pipeline in order to come here is an issue. i think that there is an understanding as well that even the republican congress can pass what they considered immigration reform, it might not meet the

approval of the white house and it could be vetoed. and we live in a time today where politically both sides are saying it's my way or the highway. and that is the unfortunate nature of the process today. >> last year around me i remember i met with -- around me i met with congressman dana speaker of the house, and one of our local congress been and diaz-balart was leading among the republicans in the house a charge to secure a vote on the senate bill that marco rubio got passed in the senate for immigration reform. it wasn't the greatest the around because as you for it required a 13 year wait to get citizenship, but at least it would be you would have legal status and ability to work, et

cetera, et cetera. he was working on that and what blew it out of the water was the crisis on the board with the unaccompanied minors. because that crisis was going on for a while but it hit the media in the summer and that was the time that i was going to be voted on and had basically, you know, the votes that mario was trying to line up to get it through, it all fell apart. not only that crisis but also canters loss in virginia. that loss and the crisis took the wind out of the sails of attempts of republicans in the house to push the immigration forward. but hopefully, you know, we always say let's keep on going. we continue to advocate. >> we will take another question question. >> i'm ana gomez, a student here

at fiu. i just wanted to know how, why is immigration reform so important specifically for non-immigrants? >> immigration reform is important because you, right now there is an estimate between 12-15 million people living undocumented in the united states. after the 9/11 attacks windows persons who took part in the attacks were here primarily on student visas have driver's license, and this is just one issue, the inability of an alien to get a driver's license became impossible increasingly difficult. and so what you have now are people driving on the streets of miami, fort lauderdale, all across this country who have to

have jobs that had to get too. they have their children to have to take the school and have no choice but to get into a car and drive. they have no insurance and they're putting you and i at risk. that's number one. number two these are people who have been here for 10 20 30 years in this country. they own property. they are working in all sorts of different fields. they are doctors. they are nurses. they are bankers. they own businesses. they employ people but they don't have a green card. they don't have residency so they've been cheated into the economy every day. there are also the people who are doing the job as gepsie said that we don't want to do. my husband who is here is an executive housekeeper at a hotel. it is so difficult every time they place an ad for a housekeeper, i made, to get

someone who is an american citizen or a resident or born in america, not within immediate immigrant path to come in and do the work. so there are industries out there who want to have employees to work. as the archbishop said come it's always amazing to me and i say to my office someone will walk in who is an undocumented alien but they're working. they are working. and there are people who are born here and they will come and tell me they can't find a job. so it's important to get these people to come out of the shadow, to pay the taxes, do a background check and the people to remain here and be a part of the fabric of what makes this country great. the president administrative action was not about deporting families. certainly we are not arguing for people with heavy criminal backgrounds to be able to remain in the country. and that's a whole separate

issue but the issue that the president put forward is that he wants to keep families here to keep families together to a joint -- to perpetuate the american dream. because unless you were a member of the seminole tribe, your ancestors came from somewhere else to be here. so now i am a new immigrant because i'm from the caribbean. i'm a new face to america. i may not be from eastern europe or from northern europe but i am an american as well. and so we have to embrace the new americans who are here, who we live amongst down in south florida more than other parts of the country. [inaudible] you get married, you might not he's going to be deported. and that you can't really fix it because he falls under the 10

year ban so he will be deported and he won't be able to apply to come back to the united states for 10 years. that's one reason but yeah that you might be concerned about if you're not an immigrant but, you know so why should i care about the undocumented. it could come to affect you in a very personal way, so it's good to fix it you know, to do right by everybody because they will end up doing right by you. >> the cost of fruits and vegetables in our community would be unbearable. >> is also a nation of national security. when we talk about 9/11 and where we are today, we are talking about issues of great national concerns, and we we're acknowledging that we have approximately 11 million people who live in the shadows to say the least. we stayed in the shadows because we don't have proper documentation or organize documentation but we all know who they are. they go to school with our kids.

sometimes they are neighbors and we are more familiar with who they are than not but in other communities that may not be the case because here we are very open to immigration. south florida is an exception to the road to a great degree but from a perspective on national security why would you not want to have a better sense of who is here, why you were here what are you doing in a healthy sense? i do want that big brother type of government. i don't want a government that also is going to be knocking on doors and asking for papers et cetera. many people here because of governments like that. that's not what this is about at all but we don't have a better sense and a better control of who is coming in and out of the country. and with the issue of family reunification, i would say the issue of family reunification would be diminished if there was

an opportunity for people to work permits to go to come in and out of the country. many do not want to bring their children here if they could avoid it because they think the united states is way too liberal, certainly bystanders of other countries. it isn't enough parental control, right? so the idea of bringing the kids it is kind of frightening. if you look at the new sometimes it is a frightening. >> we have a few more questions. why don't we take all three and then asked the panel to address them. go ahead please. >> good afternoon. i am they represented by the haitian student organization you on campus. my question has to do with cuban adjustment act. has been an attempted government and acts similar to the cuban adjustment act by the haitian community? >> thank you. we will take them to the next question. >> my name is julio. i am an undocumented student.

i come here by way of peru. the reason i'm undocumented, eichinger when i was -- i came here when i was 16. my question has to do with -- [inaudible] the question is a lot of them are getting auto removed because when i go to court. what would it take for the government to realize there is a crisis happening right now? and what if we applied the cuban adjustment act? in the last 10 years we've had the same amount of cubans 40,000 cubans have a ride to miami every year. we call it like an invasion. no different than cubans coming to the united states. >> thank you. we will take a third question. >> good afternoon. i have too many questions in my mind to really pin down one but there is one thing that i've always always wondered.

the vast majority, what exactly is it all these immigrants are running away from? i mean all these countries, and in every country has their spark, their glory but i can't help but notice that unfortunate those in the higher power like a perfect example would be cuba castro, he has really done so so much to just demolish a culture that was once way more presentable. but i just wonder sometimes why won't they depress we can encourage the immigrants that are here with us teach them a way that might able to go back to their countries and try to emigrate establish a new idea for the people, for the government. because i know that in these

countries, they are not really given a chance to learn about the beauty of democracy and such. and they are basically blindfolded throughout in their lifetime. they don't know that there is a better world they could listen to it could be the own world. they just take a stand up and say whoever is up there guiding us for better, i mean investing for a better outcome please prove yourself or else, i'm sorry, you are not being well enough. i mean i live in one nation under god. god wants us all. he loves us all. he wants us to help each other. unfortunately, some of these people in higher power, they will put on a bright sunny faces but, unfortunately, in the background it's a pretty different story. they want to hypnotize the crowd

into thinking listen, you have enough, this is more than enough. and it isn't. we have been given the chance to know that. we learned so so much. and perhaps maybe all i'm trying to say is how may we help immigrants help spread the knowledge, the wealth of what we know here to those who have not been given the chance or the opportunity to learn that it could be a better place for them if they were to take control? i mean, as a majority. >> thank you. thank you for the questions. we let the panel respond. >> we advocate for immigrant rights. we think there is a right to migrate in a sense if you're a human being, as a human being you have the right to live in conditions worthy of human life. no one should be condemned to

live in horrible human conditions. so if you can't find those conditions in your homeland, and that presumes a right to look for them elsewhere. but that right to migrate is also balanced by the right not to migrate. people should not be forced to leave their homelands. and many times are being forced to leave their homelands by political policies, by gang warfare, by extreme poverty. so those are, you know there's push and pull factors about immigration. but part of it also is a new reality that we are living in the world today which is called globalization. our world has shrunk because of technological innovation because of communications innovation. just think, you know products made in china are sold in miami.

so merchandise, products cross borders every day. money crosses borders in an instance through electronic banking. the only you know, and so do people across borders. what we are discussing is the dramatic ways in which many people cross borders. people are crossing borders all the time or a fortunate number of them. with the proper documents, et cetera, et cetera. but there is a number that is left out. refugees are another issue, you know. people forced to leave because of politics or because of economic reasons.

so migration is our is a reality that is part of our globalized world and we're trying to respond to it in a human way. and one way to respond to it is by constructing laws that are just and human that serve the common good. i think immigration reform serves the common good. as far as the cuban adjustment act, i think it's a template that should serve as a model of how we should treat of the groups of immigrants because its work so very well with the cubans. we don't see anything like that happen again. although in the late '80s or early 90s there was something in the nicaraguan community which was a kind of cuban adjustment act for nicaraguans. it helped that population. i remember as soon as possible took office we were pushing for tbs for haitian immigrant.

we were rebuffed. not only refused us a couple of times. but then the earthquake came and because of the earthquake in tps was granted to the haitians here. tbs, temporary protected status or there were hondurans in this country since hurricane mitch on temporary protected status. that's almost 30 years now, isn't it? 20 plus years 20 plus years. salvadorans around washington, d.c., a good number of them have tps ethos of earthquakes or issues in central america. right now the haitians haitians that family members that are approved can come to the united states and our own lives if they are proved within the next two years, they can come here and wait in the united states for

their green card rather than stay in haiti because the situation in haiti is deteriorating. so that the humanitarian gesture. if they don't get -- they don't have a green card ahead of anybody else but they can come to the united states, joined the dems, get a work permit and wait for their green card, some type of something is better than nothing but could've been a lot more generous. so yeah, so the cubans will have the gold standard as far as the adjustment act. again i think it's one way to look at it and say you know, let's treat everybody else as well as we treated the cubans. and i think it would have a positive effect. by don't think that's going to be much of a chance. i say let's work on immigration

reform and get it done for everybody. >> you have to remember the context of the creation of the cuban adjustment act as well. this is the media after jfk's disappointment, people feeling let down the american administration not being fair there to provide support for a number of things sort of collided or converged this sort of compel the congress to create come to pass this law. but in addition to the law there's so much support that is built into the cuban adjustment act in the form of help to such a people reconstruct and rebuild their lives. and i think, correct me if i'm wrong, the only immigrant group in the history of the united states who have benefited from this kind of rich support, not just in terms of the law and the ability to arrive and be eligible for the green card and

five years later citizenship but all the support, support to help you pick up yourself and figure out the way this country works. i don't think that's extended to other groups unless of course they are designated as refugees. right? and then in terms of people leaving their countries to emigrate, no matter where they're going, though matter where they're headed. i want to remind us that no one takes this kind of decision lightly. you're not going on a cruise when you jump into a raft and decide you're going to come to the united states. it's not a cruise. the ship is barely seaworthy call the ship, maybe my vocabulary is escaping me for a minute but the thing they travel in is not see where they come right? generally we don't know the numbers of people who have drowned at sea. we don't know the number of people who have become dinner for the sharks pick and so i

just want to remind us that no one makes this decision lightly. and next time you're on a cruise i invite you to just go up on deck top at night and look at look at what you see out there. you see nothing but pitch blackness. and so that is that's the climate or that's the backdrop of the travel that someone knows when they come to the united states through a makeshift raft or whatever it is a great to try to cross over. that's not a decision people make lightly. >> it's also important to take note that we, sometimes only think of people who are here undocumented as those who came on votes. in actuality, the majority of undocumented people here have actually come on visas and overstate. but even having said that that decision to get on a plane and delete everything you know

there has to be a push as archbishop said, factor causing you to want to leave, and they pull. the pull factor to come to america is everybody wants to live the american dream. or we want to get the education. we want to have the opportunity to be who ever we can be. it's the only country in the world where you can be born in a shelter and know that if you put your mind to it and to work hard every day, you can become the president of this university or you can become the head of the hospital. while there are other countries in the world with opportunity the opportunities that are here, let me qualify that, is more than it is anywhere else. so you find people from all over the world to want to come to america for that opportunity. we happen to live in south florida which is the gateway to latin america and the caribbean

but if you go to other states throughout the mistake of going to find other pockets of immigrants. you are going to find pockets of africans, pockets of indians pockets of russians, yugoslavians and they are all going through the same type of immigration battles that we go through here in south florida but we know the battle of the plight of the haitians and the cubans and the jamaicans because that's majority of who we have here. and why don't people go back to the country? that's kind of a political answer. you posted your political show. is what can be done from the government perspective to help other countries to build their economies so that less people want to commit from an economic perspective? the state department under hillary clinton's leadership saw the importance of what's called the diaspora.

sign a member of the jamaican diaspora because i am no longer living in my country. gepsie is a member of the haitian diaspora but he. the state department under mrs. clinton's leadership has seen the importance of the diaspora and so there has been programs that have been put in place for different members of the diaspora to come together to see how they can benefit their home countries. and as jamaicans can do that i know the haitian community also has a very vibrant diaspora. so that's one way that you can help stop the pull factor. but the push factor rather than by the pull factor is always going to be there where people are always going to want to come to america because it's a shining beacon in the world of everything that you can achieve. and to the young man who missed the daca by 30 days, you certainly would've been you are an example of somebody who

would've benefited from the president's executive action because of executive action changed the date. it moved it up. [inaudible] >> all you came within the timeframe but you came 30 days to old? to old, yes. [inaudible] >> so you are really an example of somebody who needs over all immigration reform in order to change your status. [inaudible] >> to be an unaccompanied minor must be a frightening experience. and i don't know even though you are a young man, you come enter journey, may not have been an easy one. we don't know but i can only imagine that not having that if you don't have family here how difficult it is to be able to

face the trials and tribulations of coming to a different country, which is fort on multiple levels is frightening. part of the a problem of trying to assist with the company to mind, particularly the many who are under the age of 12 -- unaccompanied minors, who propelled him to come. what were they really unaccompanied? do they have parents that are here? many of them are not going to court. it's a very complex system but there's something that i find very interesting, and we danced a little bit over the 2016 presidential election and some things i find absolute gratifying is that two possible republican candidates who come from florida, our caribbean and jeb bush have both talked about understanding of the opportunities here. and if they were in several situations they would do the same thing.

and for the benefit of the families would come over here and break the law. the struggle that somebody has is that there's this misunderstanding of breaking the law, because all laws are -- they are not the being here illegally is that right is a civil, it's a civil offense and it's not a felony. but, unfortunately, there is a huge misunderstanding given that issue. and marco rubio gets heckled a lot. he gets criticized a lot because he was on the forefront of immigration reform on the senate side and then he pushed back because he didn't like the bill at the end of it. so he gets he doesn't get counted as a get the credit for bringing it forward and having it approved and he doesn't get credit and after for trying to walk it back. but i will tell you something about marco rubio. and that was before the

president, six-month before the president did defer action, i called his office and asked if i could take a number of undocumented students to him so that he could get a sense of who they were and speak to him and see if there's something we could do with immigration reform. he accepted and there were maybe eight or nine students who went. some gave their full name to some only get the first and because they were distrustful. senator rubio at that point in time is only in office six months or so. and make a list. he had a very frank conversation with the students of what could be done and what could not be done. he allowed them to speak about what that experience was can what it was about. they asked if we are legalized, if we are not i think they

spoke about legalization but it was really not to fear deportation, what does not imply? do we get an opportunity to have a driver's license? what happened to our parents was a bit concerned because we live with her parents, will they be kept whole? it was a fascinating process and get started what they think is an important conversation, and daddy was a part of that group. and when daddy are you may not know was one of the leaders who really started the dream act from miami-dade college and in the conversation it was obvious that gabby, because of her age was not going to be included in posting proposed at the time and indeed is aged out for docket as well. so you're not alone and missing it because of age but that's not to say you can't contribute and

that you are not an important part of this conversation in the committee. i just wanted you to know that. i find it ironic that we struggle with this conversation today, and atomic if this isn't strange. allowing people to pay for visas to come here. it's called easy five. we've even drop the threshold which i'm not saying having half a million dollars is easy, but if you $500,000 you can get a visa to come to miami and you can promise 10 jobs that you create with this investment. you don't have to prove that they actually per but you can promise 10 jobs. we are selling visas in this country. we have people of value here who deserve the right to not fear -- it's not a right to not fear deportation but he deserves the benefit to be here and to not fear deportation. >> we need immigration reform,

apprehensive immigration reform. we've got to get, we've got them we shouldn't just about one this congress. went to keep asking people in this congress. i think that doctors will on the table, the judge will put on a statement that could be overruled and might take some time for it to be overruled. when it gets overruled then it will be, you know it will be in effect and this time right now for those could be potential beneficiaries of it it's time for them to gather up the documentation. there's going to be a lot of paperwork, read receipts for all these type of things lawyers will be asking. you better save up your money because the u.s. government will charge about 500 bucks to partake in that. and then a lawyer might ask you for a few dollars more too. for those that are potential

beneficiaries of this band-aid, which this is only a band-aid, they should start preparing their documentation and their money to participate in the eventuality of this day being overturned. and in the meantime since that's a temporary solution, we all have to work for comprehensive immigration reform, not only for the beneficiaries of daca but for everybody like our friend here. >> i think with time for a couple more questions. anyone else? please. >> spin i am a professional bar of the english department despite my accent. i have a question. everything you were saying is very pertinent, very interesting and very important in terms of trying to resolve issues.

law is important. [inaudible] but i haven't heard one element which i think might be also significant of major importance, and that is education. you're talking about putting a face to the problem. you have talked about whether, who talks about people? to talk about the law to talk about the different procedures, you talk about a lot of technical things which are very important. i do not deny the significance of it but how about education? is there a role for education to play in advancing the cause that you have so eloquently advocated? thank you. >> education has always been on the forefront of this debate all along. educational institutions have been the primary proponents of the dream act in particular. but to show you how complicated it is, we did not get state

tuition waiver for undocumented students on state tuition. we didn't get our form of dream act until just last year. it was absolutely astounding, a state where immigration, where the hispanic population is so significant. it's been there but for some reason or other it gets educational institutions push for summary different things. at the end of the day i think that end up pulling back on some things because they have come in legislature that the budget interests that they need to push more strongly than other issues. but i would say that education has been at the forefront of this debate, as have been hospitals as well as. >> and the human faces. i see them in my cues every sunday, and you see them in the desk in front of you every day. so that's the human face. so education, like the churches and put a human face on this issue. because really were not talking

about statistics but we are talking about human beings, men women and children whose lives whose futures are affected by a broken system. somebody said, as i like to say immigration law is not criminal law, it's civil law. so been out of status is not a criminal offense but it's a civil offense. so to call undocumented aliens lawbreakers is a bit of a misnomer. in reality they are not breaking the law as much as the law is breaking them. and that's why the law is unjust and that's why the law has to be changed. >> and the fiu, the panel that is being done here today, i'm sure speak for everybody when i say thank you for hosting us and for providing an opportunity for many others to see this

discussion, and this could be just one of many that is held. but certainly there's a certain amount of fear in the community. you talked about some of the students not giving their last name. there is this fear of deportation that is very real. and from time to time washington will send an e-mail. there's a reporter doing a story and they want to see a particular person who fits the demographic, and you can't find anybody because nobody wants to come forward to put a face on it. answer that becomes a little difficult -- [inaudible] >> they would just go, the feds just go, the fed is coming and they which is clear everybody out. and then so that's where the fear. we didn't have this kind of fear 10 years ago. we have this fear now. >> it was always there.

that it was always there. >> is more than a few. it is a reality. in the past six years more people have been deported than in the past 10, 15 years. >> but to address another element of your comment i think in the advocacy community we need to step up. the education i think i'm hearing you speak of through may be creating more opportunities to share their success stories of immigrants to this country on the one hand. and on the other to remind our american brothers and sisters remind our country of our history and heritage as a land of immigrants a land, you know those riches we all enjoy benefits of today. created and built upon continuous by immigrants. so yes, we have a lot more work to do in terms of community

education. >> the whole of humanity. >> absolutely. you're absolutely right about that. just a thought to throw out there. it's going to be interesting also to see if jeb bush were to run for president, he married a mexican. he's not talking, and he did peace corps and that's where he met her in mexico city. so he's not, it's not one of those things, it will be interesting to see how that plays. i was fascinated to see how he presented at cpac as a conservative -- republican party, and 25 or 30 people walked out but the rest stayed. he got a very big applause and he has been a pro-immigration reform. and that to me says something i think we've reached a tipping point and things are beginning to change. in a positive way for the country. but now it needs political will. >> you have every right to think

oh, really? but i would say something to a couple of weeks ago what did john boehner do? he passed the department of homeland security bill, said forget the rule. vote up or down and passed the you know what? the world as we know it continues. and i think that's a lesson that maybe others are going to notice that the bread still continues to be sliced. >> it's interesting to talk about jeb bush gets his name cannot be mentioned on any of the national media circuits in conjunction with his possible run for presidency without talking about it we don't know how his stance on immigration is going to fall out. i would hope that he would step up to the plate and that i think is a problem that people have with politicians in general. and with marco rubio in particular come is because of his wishy-washy i'm on the fence, i'm off the fence nobody

knows where he stands. i introduced the bill but i'm not good to back it but your not coming up with an alternative and now your hands off on immigration, as if all your family came over on the mayflower. so it's a problem and if politicians will stand up for what they believe, i think people will have a lot more respect for them. i certainly would respect jeb bush if he steps up to the plate, i think i'm not going to vote for him but i will certainly respect him for stepping up and taking on immigration and putting where he stands on it. >> me say that making laws are like making sausage. it's a very -- >> it's not pretty. >> i think, you know there's got to be way to get beyond the logjam. i don't think the republican party is completely

restrictionist's past our survey some restrictionist in the party, you know, very strong anti-immigration. there's some on the democratic side as well. but i think we have to appeal to the good angels on everybody's side, and again, remind people that politics is a noble vocation and it's about the common good. one of the areas that touches on the common good of everyone in this country today is our broken immigration system. and it needs to be fixed spent the so thank you for the bullpen and thank you for all being here. [applause] >> and good afternoon. [inaudible conversations] >> some international news to pass along in the wake of yesterday's announcement regarding nuclear negotiations today the iranian resident

tweeted this. if other negotiating parties of those promises, iran will fulfill promises. if you choose a different path other options will be available. and the ap reported the story this way. iran's president rouhani has pledged his nation will abide by its commitment in the nuclear agreement reached the priest and switching but he said iranians do not seek to defeat the 50 see the international community. the iranian president addressed his nation afford it. this week we've been showing to encore presentations of q&a. later today we'll wrap things up with a conversation we had with "new york times" columnist david brooks. you can watch that start at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2. tonight on booktv prime time we will show you some of our recent and depth programs. over on c-span3 is more american history tv.

tonight's topic of washington, d.c. we will look at the founding of the city the history of dupont circle. that starts on eight on c-span3. >> i remember when the institute of medicine first report in 1999 to air is human, reported 100,000 people were dying from preventable causes and the use hospitals every year. i was shocked but a lot of great, smart people jumped in and that's okay they're going to take care of this and i went onto what i did. then a few years ago a new data came out and showed over 200,000 people were getting killed in

our hospitals from preventable causes. that's when i realized maybe it's time i step up and i try to do something about it. i have been fortunate enough to get to know a lot of companies in the medical technology space, a lot of good hospitals and clinicians, a lot of amazing people like you, president clinton. and i felt maybe if we brought everybody together on files to the health care system bring in the hospitals government patient advocates, like a powerful voice because when you think about 200,000 people dying every year it's a number that runs through your head unfortunately. i think stalin said one death is a tragedy, a million is a disappear when you think about that one life how it impacts the family that was left behind. >> that was part of the annual clinton foundation health summit. you could see all of the program

tonight at eight eastern on c-span. c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate for proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like is hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now is a look at religion and public policy throughout american history and today. this is about 90 minutes. >> i am delighted to see so many of you here.

it's a really nice day and gym all come in after lunch and a letter to have you. i'm going to chair his session on religion and policy, and i just stepped down as chair of the history department so i can still be authoritarian and i'm going to try to keep the speakers on time so that there's lots of time for all the questions i'm sure that you have about the fascinating issues they're going to raise today. this session as i said is on religion and policy and if we move a bit more from the theoretical to the practical as well as at the way the role of religion influences and has been influenced by policy decisions that range from teaching about religion in public schools are implementing american foreign policy. it's a great pleasure to introduce the first speaker who is my friend and colleague, professor mark chancey. professor of religious studies at smu. and even though i have known mark for a long time a chance

to serve as moderator gave me a welcomed opportunity to got what he's been doing all these years. professor chancey is a biblical studies scholar and his most significant contributions to the field have changed the way we understood now live at the time of jesus christ and shortly thereafter. his first book, published by cambridge university press and 2002 asserted that the overwhelming majority of taiwanese population were jews and to do the study he looked at the gospels, the rights of the jewish historian, and published archaeological excavation reports. he used the same sources in the second book the greco-roman culture, and the galloping of jesus i was also by cambridge university press in 2005 which challenge the conventional understanding of the culture of

galilee at the time. and he argued that the crucial change in fatalities culture became greco-roman several centuries after the time that we generally understood it to be the case and told after the arrival of a large roman garrison in the second century. his paper today grows out of his more recent and very public involvement in the constitutional and political and academic issues of religion in public school teaching that he's been on the front lines of teaching, a social studies. he has also focused on a biblical studies curricula as they been taught in the past in dallas public schools to address school systems are trying to implement them currently most notably the hobby lobby curriculum that has been proposed for the oklahoma public schools. today, his topic, teaching all

about religion in red state america, is something he has a lot of firsthand knowledge of. our other three panelists our visitors to smu, and i'm delighted to be able to welcome them. i am pleased to introduce our second speaker, professor alison greene. she received her ph.d in history from yale university in 2010. is currently an assistant professor at mississippi state university, and she's also been selected as a fellow in the young scholars in american religion cohort for 2013-15 by the center for religion in american culture at purdue university. professor greene has already identified several significant topics relating to religion and policy as the focus of the research on religion in the 20th century. our first book no depression in heaven, economic crisis and religious realignments in

america's empire, is to be published by oxford university press. she uses the expenses of men and women in the mississippi delta and arkansas as a specific focus to examine broader questions about religious institutions responded to the depression. her study allows her to trace the changing of praise of social and religious institutions by both laypeople and clergy as well as the shift from church faith very to stay provided social services. her second project takes on another historical topic with equally profound contemporary relevance. it's been delayed titled gods god's green earth, religion, race and the environment since the gilded age, which i'm sure you can understand would be extremely controversial. today she's going to address the interaction of church and state in the establishment of welfare

in both the new deal and present. it's also a great pleasure to welcome our third speaker professor jennifer graber is an associate professor in the department of religious studies at the university of texas. our work focuses primarily on the intersections of religion and violence particularly in american prisons and in relation with native americans. her first book, the furnace of affliction, prisons and religion in antebellum america, published by the university of north carolina press in 2011 export the intersection of church and state during the founding of the nation's first prisons. she looked explicitly at evangelical protestant efforts to make religion a central to emerging practices and philosophies about prison disciplines from 1790 through the 1850s. initially, the idea of these

evangelicals about inmates suffering and redemption were accepted but later overtime officials became less receptive, and as you might imagine prisoners opposed some of them. debates about religion in prison has much broader replications for issues of church-state separation. and ultimately professor graber is a position i protestant reformers failed to convert large numbers of inmates or to make prisons reflect their values. instead, they adapted or adopted the secular ideas about american morals and virtues and citizens so they no longer saw inmates the fortunes as a necessary prelude to grace but rather the required punishment for breaking the nation's law. professor graber has another project underway which focuses on religious transformation in indian and other committees in

the area that is now southwest oklahoma. today's paper returns to a particular application of religious, religion and violence in drone war the indie more, protecting and liberating innocent women and children. a change of title or an elaboration of title. ..

and our very own jeffrey engel. professor preston has also focused on religion and american foreign affairs most notably in his book sort of the spirit shield of faith religion and american war on diplomacy which was published in 2012. this book tells the story how america's role in the world has been shaped by their belief that god had a special place for the united states. professor preston explored a wide variety of strains from liberal to conservative, pacifist to militant come internationalists and isolationists looking at american international issues from the colonial war to the

21st century. the style and substance of this important work were recognized when professor preston received the prius in 2134 the best comedian work of literary nonfiction. i think all of us academic writers are jealous of that particular award. today professor preston addresses america's mission in the age of obama. we look forward to all of that. thank you. >> now that kathleen has offered such a great introduction to the session i will begin with a quotation from kathleen bowman. appearing before the texas state board of education about six weeks ago, professor wellman warned of the flaws of the social studies textbook that the state board was reviewing. these books make those is the original founding father.

and they credit him for virtually every distinctive feature of american government she observed. some text were so skewed she lamented that students might even end up quote, believing that moses was the first american and a running his conclusion in wellman's estimation. if moses is startling and prominent in these textbooks it is because the text books were written to cover social studies standards created by the texas board of education in 2009 and 2010. they picked someone who was principles informed of the american founding documents. they portrayed the ten commandments as a direct precursor to the declaration of independence and the constitution. they identified biblical law and

the judeo-christian legal tradition as the starting points for american law and government. this is what texas wants its students to know about moses and the ten commandments. social studies traditionally has a civic function. its purpose is to cultivate the knowledge, skills and virtues necessary for responsible citizenship us what social studies standards say functionally represents the minimal knowledge of religion that the state wants its citizens to have and what the standards say about religion is determined through a political process. now texas is one of the few states to have a board of education elected through

partisan elections so what the standards say is determined by a partisan process. the democrats and republicans by and against each other to shape their content into factions within each party by hand against each other such as tea party republicans and moderate republicans. the board is dominated by republicans in the standard reformed by the republican dominated aboard and to some observers, the current standards reflect and attempt to teach students to check out the religion through the lens colored with particular red state sensibilities. to illustrate what i mean by this i will summarize how the current standards formulated in 2010 treat religion especially religion in america and the so-called world religions. the current standards are then put into historical perspectives by investigating the previous

state educational guidelines have said about religion and social studies. because of the size of the textbook market, publishers have been eager to develop products that appeal to the state specifications and content from texas textbooks have made its way into additions used elsewhere. so, the texas state board of education affects what the students learn across the country. the texas circular standards are known as teks for texas education knowledge and skills. they are a revision of the 1998 teks which themselves often referred to religion that most of the 1998 references were general in nature whereas many of those in the current have very specific agendas behind them. the most obvious example of this

is their portrayal of the bible as the wellspring of american political thought. this is a signature belief of an ideology that i call christian americanism an ideology that believes america's founders intended it to be a christian nation that america has trusted from its heritage and that it is a patriotic and religious duty to return the country to its true christian identity and here i refer you back to the paper this morning on the founders. when the 15 member board created the current teks in 2009 and 2010, seven of the ten republican members including the board chair worked very hard to work out this ideology into the social studies standards and are usually able to pick up the

extra vote to be needed to get an eight person majority. they could get it from the other three republicans are even occasionally one of the democrats. the seven member bloc devoted to this ideology regularly presented a christian american historic as indisputable facts. they they did it in board meetings, public speeches, in the writings the comments to journalists they appointed amateur historians famous for his views as the board experts to told them what students should learn about american history and here again the discussions of david barton and peter marshall and amateur historians who were the boards appointed experts. the transparency on this christian agenda is illustrated by the board member cynthia dunbar at may 21, 2010 board meeting.

i believe no one can read the history of the country without realizing the good work and the spirit of the savior from the beginning have in our guiding geniuses. whether we look at the first in virginia or the charter of new england or the charter of massachusetts bay. the same object at this present of christian land governed by christian principles. iab lead the entire bill of rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had in the bible and their belief in it. i like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the christian religion. in the context of the politics this was a very provocative

prayer. it is ironic is that it was not her own composition in fact she was quoting a prayer by none other than the chief justice earl warren the supreme court justice who presided over the one who issued the decision prohibiting school sponsored bible reading and prayer in public schools. even this hero in the church state separation as i'm really believe deep down that the united states was a christian nation. i would note that the justice offered the prayer not in a governmental function but a private prayer breakfast in contrast to dunbar who offered the state board of education meeting. i i tell this anecdote because it illustrates just how transparent and obvious this political and religious agenda was even asked the time and the bloc was very successful block

was very successful in raising the christianity profile in history and government seeks. they responded to focus schlafly billy graham, they put in a new standard on the meaning and historical significance of the motto in god we trust. they inserted into the standard devoted to the enlightenment references to thomas and john calvin. one of the most contested additions is the creation of a new high school standard requiring that students to examine the reasons the founding fathers protected religious freedom in america and guaranteed its exercise by saying that congress shall make no law in the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. come here and contrast this to the phrase separation of church

and state. the standard of sponsors very clearly intended to their standard to suggest that the founders never envisioned separation of church and state. conservative members also highlighted the religious motives in the earliest english colonists especially puritans and they inserted into the peaks the names of individuals and the founding era who were lauded as paragons of piety so there are tons of names in the standards and you might be worthy of the study for any number of reasons. but the reason that they are there it's because is because they once said something nice about jesus. traditions other than christianity received more than the 2010 peaks than they had in the 1998. still not as much as christianity. christianity and the current standards is the only religious tradition that fatigues

explicitly acknowledge as internally diverse. so the students learn about protestants and catholics and eastern orthodox christians. they receive very little explicit considerations. there are earlier standard for mobile religion they are still there. there is the reflection of these lobbying efforts on the texas seat community. one new standard focuses on the muslim hindu relations in south asia and another standard on jewish christian and muslim contact in europe, asia and north africa. it's also highlighted with references to the holocaust

committed nation of israel jewish holidays, the origins of monotheism and references to america's purported biblical roots. islam is that several of -- subject of several sub referred to as history and some are come to bury and focus. in general, the contemporary p. is about islam associated with terrorism. the most explicit link in the radical islamic fundamentalism. to the growth of al qaeda and two 9/11. one standard attributes the responsibility to, quote, ongoing conflict with israel to the arab rejection. that standard doesn't technically technically refer to islam, but has obvious consensual kinship to those that do. the overall impression is that

the most salient feature of the contemporary islam is as association and terrorism, conflict and hostility towards israel. as an aside i would note the board rejected the notion by two democrats to be added to standard to the teks on quote other acts of terrorism prior to september 11, 2001 not related to islam including the u.s. calvary against indians the texas rangers against mexican americans and for decades, by the ku klux klan and other white supremacist groups right here in our country. for some reason it didn't end that didn't end up in the official state standards. how does the place of religion in the present peaks compared to religion in previous social studies guidelines? to find out why he worked for the 99 years worth of the state educational documents, went back as early as i could go. they were of different genres

and guidelines were sometimes suggestions, sometimes mandatory. they came from different offices and agencies that they contained enough information to allow genital comparisons and it was very interesting. you sometimes hear the idea that religion was once prevalent in the social studies curriculum and that somehow it has been taken out. and i would suggest this is really not the case. historically what has happened is that religion is just addressed almost exclusively in world history classes which are generally western religion classes. very much focused on christian encounters at the other abraham and religion into judaism as a predecessor to christianity from the medieval period onwards and that's it. asian religions typically have barely appeared except in

discussions of the british colonialism. the only real exception to this is the 1957 cold war era social studies that very much in the sizes that religion is at the heart of the american identity. and i think those nostalgic times when textbooks and curricula for the mode of the religion for social studies are remembering the years of the cold war. that's the only time it ever showed up in the texas standards. in 1998, we formulated to standards including general references to religion in the contradictions of the various religious groups for american identity but we had none of the references we find today to the christian roots and non- demonizing islam as the other. at the time of the changing religious ethnic demographics in america at the time of uncertainty regarding conflict around the world when islam seems to be interpreted only as

the other the stakes seem high in deed for those determining what schools will teach about religion and what sense of american identity social studies classes would come come they. thank you. [applause] >> i teach at mississippi state university. my paper is titled of the welfare state but i think i could also call it things texas doesn't want the students to know about history. when barack obama took office in 2009, supporters celebrated his inaugural addresses with echoes of jefferson, lincoln and roosevelt. and i helped especially that he would emulate the latter. franklin roosevelt also ousted republican opponent in the midst of economic crisis the bleak of

the 20th century come in in the face of the worldwide instability. yet in 1933 americans clamor in the federal government to intervene in the suffering they faced. from the left to the right the religious leaders celebrated the handoff of the social welfare from the church to the state and they heralded of the new deal as the realization of their own reform efforts. 76 years later when obama took office the religious organizations instead operate as private administrators of public welfare funds. they were on federal support for international relief and anti-poverty efforts since the 1950s. after bill clinton signed off on the charitable choice provision of 1996 welfare reforms the religious organizations claimed in even more direct role in public welfare. by the time of obama's inauguration, christian organizations simultaneously controlled and denounced federal support for those in need. contemporary arguments about the relative effectiveness of

federal and voluntary agencies tend to build on the contradictory narratives to take the new deal as a turning point. advocates on the one hand of the privatized statist rest the new deal power of the charitable institutions to care for the needy. in 2012, franklin graham had a samaritan's purse that has drawn heavily on federal funds for its international work and voiced a popular expression of this position in an interview with abc. 100 years ago the safety net, the social safety net in the country was provided by the church. they took it away from the church. so, by the narrative this isn't just a public role in the chair that either they also lost the moral authority to cultivate the citizens by tying the prescribed behaviors. on the other hand to defend the welfare state even if they seek

to address it in equities tell a very different story in which the churches play a very little part. scholars of poverty and welfare stressed the much longer history of public aid from the 19th century forward. yet those agencies but on private charity work and on the racialized and gendered notions that some desert help and some did not. the new deal was the safety net that disproportionately benefited white men as it forced women and minorities to submit to the means test when it cover to battle they addressed to the justices not to dismantle and privatize welfare but to structure the more tech bubble model. the divide between the two narratives is clear the advocates of the volunteerism points to the organizations of history and caring for those in need and advocates of the federal safety net points to the necessary long-standing roles of the state and public agencies and individual welfare.

but both can focus almost entirely historically on the urban north and west were both public and private agencies proved the most powerful. so, basically the parties address the very vast historical version of their preferred models. so, what i want to ask today is what about the places where people rely almost entirely on a very limited scope of voluntary church-based aid all the way up to 1933. what kind of help to those agencies offer and who did they offer it to and under what conditions, how did they find that work. how did they navigate the greatest economic crisis since the civil war and its aftermath rate i'm going to use as my example today memphis tennessee in part because that is where i focus my work and also because it is a region that provides a really interesting set of answers to these questions. both of the city and the country

rely almost entirely on voluntary aid until the 1930s. by that time then this was a city of 250,000 people and a majority of them white but 38% african-american. the delta most part were black. the region provides insight into the distinct forms of aid available to black and white southerners in the jim crow order. private charities most of them religious accounted for 76% of the relief expenditures in memphis in 1930 and for nearly 100% of delta. between the civil war and the great depression, the societies and the home mission organizations to build hospital orphanages and settlement houses to reach the needy but they serve only those that they have deemed deserving and appropriately different consumed they are not on the larger protestant community the

catholic and jewish charities serve members of their own communities and sometimes also reach people beyond this community. black churches, women societies and orders provided the only source of support for most established schools, medical facilities and insurance programs in the city and the countryside. yet the name but these organizations sought to alleviate outpace the resources that they put together even before the regression. and then the disaster struck. as the prices for what remained limited to a third of the previous rate since the region that depended almost entirely on cotton. food crops chortled even before the coffin which is a relatively drought resistant crops. the bank failure swept the region and people that managed to put a little money so their savings disappear. the people walking in the red

cross provide emergency aid after a lot of wrangling on the part of the local politicians in mississippi. and so nature of all to the region and talk about women walking miles for food their feet wrapped up begging for medical aid for babies dying of no nutrition. and there are stories that emerge and the reason of children lighting under trees and dying before the aid can come to them. so when people tell you that the depression didn't hurt or that no one was starving in america there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. so the private aid organizations face the three crazies at once. first the people that needed help skyrocketed. second come of the defense that many of the poor deserve their lot fell apart in the face of the widespread crisis and last donations to charities and churches plummeted while the savings that they had vanished and crushed farmers in the middle class.

churches and charities try to help. in december of 1929, the salvation army the largest charity in the city circa 1700 meals. a year later in 1930 the number ballooned to 6500 by april of 1930 they served more than 10,000 which was ten times more than one year previous. the salvation army is also a shelter for men and it drained of a swimming pool to make room to sleep on the pool floor. while the salvation army expanded most other charities and organizations cut back. women's clubs, orders and other religious private organizations suspended the work or disbanded altogether. churches fared worse. many of them struggle to keep their doors open between 1929 and 1932 national income dropped by more than 50%. now, until 1933, church giving also helped study as a

proportion of national income. we are still talking about a 50% loss, which proved crippling at the very moment the church demands on the resources escalated. still more ominously they cut to the benevolent spending first. the president of the convention explained in 1931 br putting off because while we try to settle with our other creditors. now it is a fairly common sentiment. when the money ran out they turned their sending inward, not outward. as they face the suffering before them in their own inability to alleviate even conservative religious leaders joined social workers and hungry americans to call for the federal government to step in. the garage of the position that franklin roosevelt signed in his first 100 days in 1933 included a program that drew the line between federal and private relief.

>> they replaced the reconstruction finance corporation loans to the states relief projects. headed by harry hopkin was the first program to cut federal funds only towards employment relief but also for the suffering to both the state and local level. also the program that was directly engaged in the work conducted by the private aid organizations. only the public agencies could administer the fair funds. now in practice the readers of private and religious agencies often transition to public positions and many private agencies including all in chicago for instance gained public certification. still, the decree established the boundary between the public and private realms both for the subsequent video programs. as significant as the boundary was the larger pool of resources

the federal government could leverage. and you can use this as an example the private giving in 1931 kennedy raised a total of 88 cents per person. 75 cents or 85% of that was private. three years later by 1934 the new deal was in full swing and the recent $7.21 per capita that the private contributions amounted to only 13 cents per capita, 1.6% of the total so that is from 85% to 98% over the course of three years. the swing is easier to track in the city where where there is data but it was more pronounced in the countryside and the dull delta where they scarcely exist at all and it remained commonplace. because it was the only new deal agency to provide direct aid to those approved especially important to religious leaders.

they returned to the state as a local religious groups for material aid and personal guidance. but even the temporary measure intended only to me to meet the immediate physical needs of people devastated by the depression. the program expired in 1935 replaced in part by two programs at the heart of the second feel appeal the works progress administration and the social security act. because the programs created a permanent structures that overlap in september of 1935 as they were enacted the roosevelt administration sent a letter to the clergy asking what they thought particularly these two programs and he received more than 12,000 in two months. 84% were favorable in tone particularly towards the social security act which made provisions to the overly and the disabled. the editor of the wh