>> a look now at immigration policy and refugees in the united states. speakers include cia analyst and a syrian activist and prison or an arab spring, muslim adviser to the trump presidential campaign and the american civil liberties union's human rights director. the hour-long panel discussion was part of a series of public policy conversations at the new york public library. >> afternoon, everybody. welcome to the new york public library. my name is simon long start and i am the executive director of long waits the carnegie council on ethics affairs and the globalization of international affairs program will premiere this afternoon to the session. we have been incredibly complex conversation before and we are

now moving to some challenge territory when they'll be taking you through. before that, let me mention something i start with about the choice of the day. and there were a few chuckles. april fools' day, why would she do it? and we see throughout medieval history. it's not just between powerful, but conventional ideas and assumptions on which we want to challenge today in an open and respectful way. you notice here there are two empty chairs. these chairs along to you and the audience says at least

temporarily belong to you. this process invites you to join the table at some point if you want to make a comment, but not in a permanent seat which they hold at a point we not chaired and they do. it is proud of what being discussed in this vision. there are other people who like chance. they continue to do so. someone will tap you on the shoulder. i'm not going to go through a whole lot of biographies. you know a bit about the program and can read more. i'd like to introduce and have you welcomed the panel as a whole. so i will move around in the order which are sitting. simon mustapha, frederick moore

who will be sharing this. cheryl eisenstadt and also a natural manner. would you please join me in welcoming them. [applause] >> ray. thank you, simon and of course thanks to the ethics center for being on this important discussion today one of the most polarizing and important issues and politics in america today and that is immigration. the title of this session is called the problem of strangers, which is quite an evocative title. she pointed out it is quite interesting that everyone on this panel is sort of a stranger in one way or another to their respective communities. jamail jamil dakwar is an --

yael is a strong progressive formerly worked in a notoriously communist institutions such as exxonmobil and the cia. and days a muslim who has worked with the trump campaign. myself, i am make gay conservative, constitutional conservative, so messed up head trimmed stepchild on the right, although unappreciated one. i want to start off today talk about illegal immigration. there is something about we don't know for sure, but we estimate 11 million undocumented workers country. undocumented workers are our friends, neighbors and the money spent my 20s working in restaurants and bars and factories and the cleaning lady in college. there's no anti-immigration.

you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't acknowledge the richness that immigrants bring to our culture, innovation to our economy. but what we talk about here is very different. the things they like to address and we are talking from border in latin america is how this affects our workers, how this affects wages, how this affects the labor market. who is most negatively affected by this and who benefits from this? let's start within days. we have this week jeff sessions, attorney general made the announcement on monday saying the sanctuary cities in new york in century city will lose millions of dollars in federal money from the department of justice same as cities and states refuse immigration laws, our nation is less safe, failure to deport aliens who commit criminal defense is -- offense has put it at risk.

in new york we have the first-ever meeting, a conference for politicians and advocates from sanctuary cities who came together to discuss ways to protect illegal immigrant or if you're on the right who came together to strategize federal law. a speaker at the conference says enforcing immigration laws in the way the doj hoping is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. is this racist? trump is one on this issue, that this was a tough issue. is this racist? what is going on? >> this is an issue of what you are going to do to augment the questionable labor supply. we have this whole gray area of labor right now in america do

you talk about cleaning ladies and a lot of these other things. i live in harlem and one of the challenges we have this are people who have come here for a better way of life for illegal pathway to citizenship will put it back. but other folks like we have an issue where i collect baby handoff, where someone will fly with the u.s. passport, handoff, someone else brings the baby back and you have another illegal worker coming into the country. these folks are just looking for a cash uplift. there has to be some sort of balancing between the two. secondarily in terms of sanctuary cities problem, we've done a percentage of illegal immigrants tied to gangs like ms or team that have committed heinous acts against american citizens. murder of teenagers, you know, domestic assault, violent crime,

robbery. there has to be some check and balance process to this. the way the trump administration is looking to engage this is a little bit kind of the way that started to engage in verse which is a little wonky, a little cumbersome. i think the policy will find its way through. >> primus with sessions mentioned and this is something that keeps coming up with this issue. what is yours wants to that? >> i'm happy to. first of all, the issue is really about what this country is about. i think you started with no one against immigration. it's not about reject an immigration hearing it is bad. the question is whether this country is truthful to expounding to the way the country started. over the years it's never been

remained immigrants and refugees who have ships can turn around, not tempting people during world war ii. jewish refugees. people know those stories. the chinese exclusion not in the turn of the 20th century. overall this is a country that was built on immigrants, immigration and most open people who are facing and also for opportunities. i think the way that is being addressed, particularly during the political campaign and i'm not fighting with one side or another. i really think that as an observer, particularly someone who's not voted yet as i'm still a green card holders will be a decision, the changes that will impact my eligibility to become a citizen. what is interesting is that it

was more about fearmonger. it's about driven by those people who are coming to take our jobs or those refugees and if you look at the facts in really bad is the challenge today to the fact end as we are told by even the national security expert that the ending people from those six or seven countries now has no basis with regard to making this country more secure. in terms of jobs -- in terms of safety, if you go to el paso, i was an ambassador in texas twice. first time in 2006. a few years after immigrated to this country and i was doing human rights work there. right on the u.s.-mexico border in the tree and it's right on the border. if you are thinking by making the border were militarized, thick enough people from the

courthouse like the domestic -- the victim of domestic violence who was picked up, and immigrant picked up from the courthouse in el paso and by i.c.e. agents and taken to custody. if you think that will make things better, i think we have two really be clear about how to approach the issue without making people more polarized. i think this approach of saying i.c.e. agents will go and turned 12 million people, undocumented people into deportation is just going to make this country much worse off. at not just about the labor force or the money. it's about how people feel in this country, how they relate to each other. i'm not, we all know our friends, communities are all part of this nation. particularly, look at the dreamers.

how can you think about taking people who were born here or brad here when they were very young and say no, we are going to deport all of those. >> the cramping is interesting because this is the right gross out. they have a legal immigrant a young girl. i always look at this as a safeway -- it is sort of the small exception to validate the larger world, work is going to be criminal, the majority of the people who come here illegally are peaceful workers. i think the argument might be more effective if they focus on the economy and jobs and i wonder why they don't. does anybody have any ideas on those? ..

the idea that we should be expecting, we were founded on the country refugees and immigrants and that's where my ideology is. my pragmatic side says i want o base everything in fact. when you have a policy that every major national and not everybody the vast majority of national regulators over the past decade chimed in about every reason why banning people from these particular countries is actually not going to help our national security, it's going to harm it, then you have to ask why are you, what is the basis and i'm what you are doing. doing. i want to give one other example. the balance between security and

humanitarian efforts and between privacy and security to all of these things will be excessively complicated. but the example up the laptop ban that just happened. as soon as i heard that one, i knew based on my past work experience that is so targeted and so focused, i have to assume that was based on intelligence that was collected and found on an analysis of the fact that an actual threat to us, and had we mitigate that. >> can you talk about that briefly? >> a ban on bringing laptops from particular countries. to bring that back to the point i see something like that and i think that's going to make a lot of people angry. but at the end of the day that is something, there's no doubt that was based on actual intelligence that said there is a threat, there are people who are creating bombs they know to put in laptops. it's totally separate from when you have a president say with no

actual reasoning or backing to it, i'm banning all immigrants from these particular countries because the exporters of terrorism, despite every national security leader from the past giving a litany of reasons why that will actually harmless more than help us. that's when i said that's where your ideology and your fear mongering and your rhetoric took over instead of actual policy based on what is actually helpful for this country. >> most people don't know obama banned all immigrants from iraq in 2011 for six months. >> what happened is a different situation. i'm glad you brought that up. that again was a response to an actual incident. you had to gentleman in bowling green from iraq who had, they were found potentially sending money back to al qaeda, they were potentially al qaeda supporters. so he looked at a very specific threat and said were going to put a pause on you refugees from iraq until we sort this out.

which by the way actually refugees did continue to come in during that time. but again that's my point. that was something done in response to something very specific, whether i agree or disagree, at least there was a reasoning behind it. as opposed to i don't like the seven countries, i'm putting an all-out ban without explaining what my intelligence behind it was. it's not the same situation. >> did you want to jump in? >> i look at it and i have my own personal issues with the ban because one, it spoke to green n card holders and folks have already been vetted. that was problematic. on the opposite side we've got varying protocols how we look at people. with the protocols that have been updated since the '60s. you've got six of those countries that a functioning government right now. he's also got the fact i can go overseas and by a syrian

passport for 2000 euros and pretend i'm an asylum seeker. you top that off with the joint terrorism task force looking at stuff that's going on in the middle of the united states and running into isis recruiters who are trying to build cells. the problem is part and parcel of the evaluation process, was they want to look at how we can potentially stop this. a lot of echoes back to we need to be sharing that information across different aspects of the secret apparatus. i also think it was basically a four-month embargo, after which they're going to go read by weight, look at additional refugee -- and the trunk perspective even from the campaign even when i was working there, has been how do we make syria safe for syrians in syria?

how do we build safe zone policies? how do we do things in tandem with the governments around syria that are now encroached inside of the multitude layer of different conflicts going on to figure out a way forward that is not going to necessarily lead to just continue refugee onslaught. that's why think they started with this. what was the implementation? it was a little flawed. >> this is something, as anyone talks about policy and philosophies, motivation and rhetoric, you are someone who has lived this. what are you thinking when you are hearing this? >> we talk about immigrants we talk about our concerns are economic and national skewed. these two -- national security. the administration, mobilize people against immigration and refugees. when we talk about national security, when you mentioned may

be to fax that may be the people who fit the specific immigration background have committed crimes in the united states was -- if you want to talk about numbers, this is what the judge in maryland was talking about. he was like give me a reasonin, give me fax that would let me say okay, these orders are legit. statistically speaking, immigrants have not committed more terrorist attacks, more than citizen. we suffer in the united states from domestic terrorism. it's something when you ask me how do you feel like the trump administration based on rhetoric on fear? the second thing i a fortunate people here are not, misinformed by the geographic location of the united states plays into that. you're very distant from what is happening overseas for the same overseas, you are for them the strangers on whatever the

mainstream about you, this is what we believe. the same for you here. i'm here to say no this is not what's going on overseas. there is some truth to it but this is not it. when we talk about well, these specific seven countries and when we led the muslim ban, not refugee bank, muslim ban. there's a problem labeling it muslim ban. the other point when you say we are not, these people have no functioning government. so if we let say syria has a functioning government and this is a bait we can argue but if the u.s. still an economy without ask my own covet if i security and the u.s., what my own government say. they would say no. i am guessing that execs and government. so going to the assad regime asking them was she good citizen

in syria? we are playing, we are fleeing different reasons but we are fleeing physical chemist. this is not a good ideology are good methodology to think of vetting refugees. i'm not sure if your cells, you are an immigrant -- >> no, i was born here. >> but your parents were immigrants. >> they respond to buy steel company. that was my point, there should be a test for immigration. >> yes. we know that security screening crowded refugee to come to the united states of america. >> i'm very familiar with it. >> do you know it takes the average, 18-24 months everything a person chasing her ancestors to come to the united states of america? do you know that my 16 year old sister who is been try to come to the united states to be with me and my mom has been asked or individual times the resettlement process for nine hours, 15 and c16 old dumb night hours every single time. what are you trying to find?

i don't know. anyway after two years and a half of being under security screening, the extreme vetting process, i know tha that they kw how hurry the process is extreme and unfortunately, you're not experienced this. this is a lot, and at the end of the day, just two weeks ago my family after going through extreme vetting, i think my mom and sister were rejected. their case on the same claims i gave my case to and i was given asylum in the treaty. this is a discriminatory order. this is discriminatory action. i really wish you say this is only my case because a lot of other cases. one of them, and major lives in istanbul and is a syrian refugee. he has two boys, one is 12 and the other sugar. the 12-year-old boy is very sick.

he has specific disease that there was no medicine for it in turkey. the man has been -- has been waiting and waiting. the main reason for a sticking to be -- the medicine is here. his son died waiting to be resettled here. died in hospital waiting waiting to be resettled here. why? can you answer me why and what justification? you explained yesterday that actually may be determined administration, it's a political decision, something he can pay for. he knew he would be stuck eventually but had to do. this is political reasoning behind it. it does not justify what's happening. the u.s. should be asking, to be the leaders of the world, to be the role models on democracy and human rights. this is exactly against everything you claim you are

about, america. this is against it. if we want to talk one last minute, one last point about the american war on terrorism. this is exactly such orders exactly provoke people, extremist group such as isis and others to recruit people. imagine someone in syria and iss been waiting for five years and living and horrible circumstances because the most dangerous place on earth now, having waiting to come here and then just an order comes up and says no, you're not coming. this is just, like giving him a pathway to go and be recruited by extremist group. you are contributing to the process of actually creating more terrorists. i already have been trying to find a reasoning. i have been trying to find a good point. in of these orders or the reason administration policies on immigration and i've not found it. you say when you interview,

that's hard-core, hard-core republicans and donald trump, their policy on muslims, on immigration, demonizes you said this work, demonizes muscles and helps isis. i do not understand how could you set? >> that was an interview before the election about a year ago where i said that, talking about banning muslims altogether demonizes muslims and leads to ice it. so let's be very specific about what you're talking about. >> and others -- >> secondary. >> only fuel isis and other extremist groups. >> correct. when that message was put out in 2016. let's talk about now, okay? right now, you are spinning my words. so let's talk about right now. right now we have is an executive order that is a test. and the problem that we have

looked at not just from a terror perspective, but from a data sharing perspective is that the systems are broken inside of the united states. they wanted a form of time. to assess of this. that's what they started to look at. i can't change the fact that there is a waiting process that people die in this process because that process has been there for years and years and years. that process is been there since the '60s. i can't change that process. what i can speak to is that there is an intent right now to least try and fix the data sharing in between different government organizations so that this can start to move forward, so that we can actually have better anti-terror insights. there's always going to be trade-offs if you're talking about national security and the ability to increase the population of the country by immigration. but there's also challenges. like i said before, my family couldn't come here until my dad

was physically sponsored by a steel company and they put up a bond equivalent to his salary for my family to come here. then my father had to send for a the outset, sorry for a wife visa to bring his wife, my mother, over. we went through that process. that process is of the same for every immigrant that is coming from our part of the world. what's going on right now is challenging. but the problem i see is just continuing to say, we are going to demonize this and protest this, and not try to figure out how we can engage to make this better. >> can i bring into points on that? because i have been through engagement through this administration. i have just seen a crackdown. but as someone who actually, i was embedded on the joint turgeon task force so i have first-hand experience in what this all means.

and yes, you are right, the data sharing is not perfect but it has improved every since september 11. every year it has gotten them become better and better. the idea that we can just shut down immigration from certain or refugees are immigrants from certain regions because we are broken is absolutely a falsehood. our system is never going to be perfect but it is not like it just stops and never continued to prepare another argument is it's interesting to this idea we are conditioned and emigration on these countries because it makes our border safer to do so, but at the same time we are -- i didn't think you did, but they do. but at the same time we're going to cut usaid and state department funding, agencies whs responsible it is to try to make these countries from which refugees are coming both safer and more stable, and the same agencies who are supposed to support refugee camps in other

countries, in turkey. we're going to cut that funding, do less to help secure countries overseas while also not allowing people to come here. there's a real cognitive dissonance there. if the argument is where making this pause because, for national giddy reasons, there was a letter from how many three and 4-star generals signed onto the to the letter saying cutting usaid funding is absolutely antithetical to protecting our national security fax i can't buy one argument while at the same time we are doing this other thing that is hurting as globally. >> i'm not saying policy is perfect. i'm not saying that at all. it's a decision that the administration made. but this also and administration of us look at anything and say listen, we have too much government. they came in with the promise of cutting government. that's exactly what they are doing. what do you think would've happened if ross perot had become president? it would be very similar what

you're looking at right now. you're looking at government cuts, changes in policy. you are looking at the fact maybe america should be partnering with other countries in terms of global policing and global leadership. it's really expensive. >> which we do but then we will absolutely anchor the artist that we have worked so hard to have them cooperate with us on counterterrorism issues, including some from the countries where think we do want anything to do with you right now. >> i think there's a foolish notion that there's a cutting government spending. spending on military forces and expanding military defense budgets, that should be okay, while other programs that are essential for people who are here in the united states, that's not essential. number two, i think the idea that the system is not working, you can make that argument every single area. the system is not working. but you have to back it up in

fact, and in good analysis and consent analysis we did not see that coming. particularly in the area of so-called extreme vetting. there's been extreme dating comity. you are very compelling examples of how peoples we tend to go through, rigorous screening process and they go through. people are stand and refugee camps waiting for that moment to be able to go through. the people who openly get to the united states go and check the people who come. the most vulnerable of the volvo refugees, the selection process is so rigid that it's really hard. and besides that i think the fact we should all keep in mind is how many refugees who came to this country as refugees committed acts of terrorism? can you enter the equation? do you know what the answer is in the last 20, 30 years? it's at zero. >> is not zero. >> because of -- >> it's one.

>> causing serious harm. and that you cannot make the argument seriously, the all of a sudden now refugees are becoming the most, and the board threat to the united states. >> we never said that. >> it seems to skip a generation and receives all over europe and we saw this in orlando. in somalia. minneapolis has a second-largest which is on the travel ban list, as a second-largest population of somalis in the world outside of somalia. there's something like 50 young men who are children of refugees have been, they then getting it wrong, identified as security threats. >> but the issue with that is to me that's less about 90 refugees in this country and more about what we do once the communities are here. it's debatable whether that number is there or not it depends on how you define it. we did have one somalia in minnesota who stabbed people. it depends on how you want to find that but there's no comparison to the amount of

white americans, homegrown extremists have committed acts that it actually resulted in murders and killings. to me that is an argument that is again just based in fear mongering and in supporting this case. i'm glad you brought up the small in situation. >> boston also. >> yes, but we know that there's a list of countries that were banned and, of course, iraq made the big is because it turned out some military advisor who would help our own military ended up getting caught in that. the somalia situation, no one seems to care about that. thousand oaks somalis caught up in this. you have 300,000 somalis languishing in the biggest refugee camp in a world in tenure. kenya is threatening to shut this refugee camp again. somalis who spent years being invitevetted to come join the fs in minnesota. yes, we have had some children

of refugees who have been radicalized, and we can discuss ad nauseam what we are possibly not done so great in integrating some of these communities. but to just, this somali community has been cut off. they can go back at to help them because they know they might not have built to come back. >> but the minority, a very tiny, marginal, small number of immigrants or sons of immigrant refugees who came to the country. you have to put it in perspective and that's why when, even when president donald trump during the campaign wrote all the people who were victims of crimes, heinous crimes some of them, people who were murdered immigrants who committed crimes, that's true and that's a grave suffering for the families and that is an issue that should be addressed. but to single out to say that these are, these are the same people. so we have to protect our nation

and those families of everybody who is out there since a message that is demonizing, scapegoating immigrants, and turning the people are watching your not necessarily experts on the fact, well, i should really care about that, about the other person who is coming as an immigrant refugee or whatever. and that i think what is making things worse in this country. i think president trump is turning this country, people against each other. that in and of itself is -- >> i think people against each other as the turn of the election but i don't think president trump at two much to do with that. >> i think if you take the first actions in office, all the executive orders a place with an immigration enforcement, whether it's on the travel ban, the muslim and refugee van, whether it's any of the areas that clearly they are not supported by the facts, they are supported

by political fear mongering, maybe this, maybe this is respond to political campaign promises. but ultimately he is now going to be responsible for what will happen at this point. we are seeing that. people com, not just people in s country, but nations around the world are going to resist this because they see this is not -- >> hold on. is her soma and audience wants to come up and join the conversation? is someone waiting? >> i just want to add first of all the policy has been not just knock down in a wide but it's not going to be policy anymore. that's tabled. i will add but it's probably the point that they're getting at. there were political promises made and these promises are now settled. there's a lot more -- >> promises that are unconstitutional cannot really be -- >> again, i agree. the portions that were unconstitutional were ruled unconstitutional.

>> that would be ruled by the court. [talking over each other] >> that's what america works. >> i will be brief because i know we want to get to the audience. the intent of the travel ban was in the beginning, was, and that is what is going to be determining the legal challenges, which is what has been the intent? the intent has been discriminatory. it violates the establishment clause because it -- >> it's already tabled. let's hear from our audience. who would like to speak first? >> during the kelly administration where ray kelly was commissioner of the police department, he stopped 16 terrorist attacks, islamic terrorist attacks, in new york. it didn't get a lot of publicity except for the one at the new york train station where there was an intent to use sarin gas.

so my point is that a lot of these terrorist attacks that were stopped doesn't come to the attention, and there were also 400 active cases that the fbi is pursuing around the united states of terrorist attacks. they don't get the attention. it's only when something happens that this comes to attention. so your point was that when you get into the specifics, you would agree that not bring a laptop because there were specific intelligence, but you don't hear about the other specifics. i'm trying to present that. also, i wanted your opinion about, i casually come into the united states illegally time and time again committed felonies, time and time again was let go in a sanctuary city until he

killed somebody. >> i'm just going to address the first point. the second point i mean. that one is awful. the first point, you're right. as someone who worked in these agencies in my life, was never able to talk about successes, you only know about failures of course. but the point is they are were successes and that is why we have our law enforcement and our intelligence community, they are doing the job they are supposed to do. bubut i also make an entire immigration population feel that they can't actually cooperate with the police or the fbi anymore because they are too scared to do so is going to harm our ability to stop these exact attacks you talking about. again, i know this is excessively complicated. although obviously i identify as a liberal, i recognize that we can't just say it's either this or it's that. it's extremely complicated, but

to make our entire immigrant community too fearful to cooperate with the police or cooperate with the fbi is going to harm our ability to stop these kinds of attacks in the future. i would just come that would be the one point i would want to bring up. >> i had two questions. first, thoughts on, i was there during the pan-arab spring in egypt and also introduce i know what you've been through. two questions. one is mostly for, my question to you is, dj, the scientist for the country, currently you can argue that data fragmentation, collecting data from all different parts of the country, but if you look at assad you consider smaller, more agile. but why don't we throw more money at things like technological resources to

actually versus more money putting towards money in the mr? >> there's two sides to that. one is, euphoric with alphabet soup. for those of you don't know what alphabet soup is, this is all of the different organizations that a three letter organizations across the government. in between these organizations there are chinese walls or firewalls in terms of the data that can be shared. there's also, the organizations of the government are here, but look at it like a layer of cake. there's a second layer and that's federal policing. there's a third layer and that's state policing. there's a bottom layer and that's local policing. the biggest problem we have right now is outside of things like cop link, you can't share data effectively up and down and you can share data side to side. that's the largest problem we have in america today in terms of a large threat of terrorism and even the largest threat of

large-scale crime from ms-13 and some of these other groups. to the issue of military spending, this is an obama problem and let me explain that. we had 150,000 troops in afghanistan when obama started the troop drawdown. so now what do we have? we went from having a base of operations where we could surgically drop a half of the time, a battalion here or there, to smaller groups, 3000 special forces, seal team six, another group here. we are intrinsically intertwined in so many conflicts right now, it's insane. we are up to about nine global conflicts, two of which we have russia on the opposite side of, troops in somalia, may be pulling troops out of south sudan, troops in syria, troops in iraq. we've also got a multitude of

additional concert conflicts cop with the south china seas here what are we going to do with that sort of stuff? a challenge on the military side, i'm happy kellogg and mathis is in part a place because matus is like the marcus aurelius overtime in terms of military. but we have to look at this in a way, when we got his very small groups that we have to support across a massive distributed area, just to put this in a cost perspective. to keep one soldier in the theater on a yearly basis its $1 million. to put, because how much do you think gas costs when you get the gas over there? has might be six bucks in europe but by the time you get a gallon of gas to ge afghanistan its $1a gallon. this stuff is all expected to keep an operating. having to move and switch off our humvees in africa, this stuff is expensive.

so the longer term i think it is the stakeout how we balance of those local conflicts and then pull back in a way where we can allow for democracy to be created by groups in those countries. in terms of the big data science portion, this will be a longer-term challenge. i think i applaud dj for some of stuff he is done but i really kind of think that until we can get some policies and practices in place to take unclassified data and have that shared with some of the classified data in collaboration across will almost like a vitae collaboration from the alphabet soup agencies down to local and a two state and federal, we'll still have these problems. >> i want to comment. this military power, i'm not speaking here as aclu because we don't weigh in on whether i war is just, fair, right, wrong, if

it's constitutional. i just want to say that one thing that is really concerning now that we're seeing is that rather than looking at ways that are not necessarily engaging military all over the world but look at soft powers and book of the ways engaging the world, we see this administration is signaling no. we will pull out of the u.n. i was a u.n. human rights council just last month, and i was in d.c. for commissioned by the united states has two different approaches. one, they would insure to specifically address the issues of the travel ban, immigration so on. and in geneva they were saying we are going to revisit our engagement. i think that approach of confusing approach, not saying aniston what's at stake, simile with nato and of and rationalizations, there is a serious concern, that administration is going to

expand the notion of we can do it by using force. the fact that there's now some reports in the "new york times" saying that this administration may loosen up the rules of engagement with regard to the use of force in places like somalia or yemen where most civilians will be harmed, will be killed. and that as a result more people will join forces that are going to be like isis and others. >> this might be a whole nother conversation. >> i'd like to get to the question here. >> thank you all for being here. a lot of the talk these days about immigration has boiled down to the sort of idea that donald trump has revived america first, which is ripped off from the anti-somatic slogan during world war ii. >> that's not accurate. >> keep america first, that we should take care of our own

before we take care of others. i've been grappling with this idea a lot because i'm from california. we have a lot of illegal immigrants in our community. and also like, i see these refugees who want to come over. i was asking myself, who is an american? what is the definition? because when i see these refugees who come over, i don't see a stranger. i see someone that will be one of us. so i'd like each of you to answer, if you can, what makes someone an american? >> we were having this conversation last night. [applause] >> we were talking last night about how the reasons why america doesn't have the same problems with radicalization as your and what was the quote you said to me? >> i said because people cannot -- [inaudible] >> this is a country more so based on ideas. i think we were saying, it's

easier for people to select and become americans because what our nation based on ideas rather than land or -- >> exactly. i've been here for four years, and if it wasn't for -- let me state, i would not of been your speaking with you. and if it wasn't for the americans who opened their doors for me and let me stay with them as a stranger, if you want to use the terminology, then i i would not be. if i was not given the opportunity to continue my education, i would have been and able to speak this english wiki even. how i feel about americans, i feel american innocence. home is here. i contribute to the community. i worry about domestic issues and i try to be part of it, not only of international issues. actually america has become my second homeland, if you want to call it. so this is the feeling we extend a lot of us as refugees and

maybe first-generation immigrants. you're a muslim, the son of immigrants and you because you were given the opportunity. your parents were given the opportunity to be here and you are a muslim. so we are a given opportunity. once given opportunity, that we become very, we blend of the contribute to the community, different point of course but we contribute to the community. >> anybody else? >> if anyone could give another quick answer. >> can i add to that? i would say that the greatest thing about being american is that this is universally the coolest melting pot in the entire globe. i grew up in pittsburgh. i became a new yorker about 15 years ago, and in my little community i was the town muslim. because when i was growing up, we didn't have, we really didn't

have muslims there. and late 60s there were about 100,000 muslims in the u.s. i was born in the late '70s. i went away for two years because we just, there was no muslim school. there wasn't a population. my mom was like, close enough. [laughing] and you get a hat, right? i was like, you had me at hat. but that's what makes america great, the fact that it can be kebabs and cannot pay and -- it can be all these different things together that is just an interesting tapestry of life. you grew up learning so much about so many different cultures and helping enable in being part of the community and kind of giving back. i do a tremendous amount of

interfaith work, and it's being able to do all these different stories together as one collective. >> everyone in this room would agree with that. >> let me get my two cents in. by way of looking at america, it's a place where it's opening up, that you can be your own person, bring ideas and it's open to correcting wrongs. that is i think fundamentally important. it's never always been perfect. i think there's never like the perfect union. particularly looking at the people who were here before the new settlers came in, immigrants. the first nations, the native americans, indigenous peoples. if we look at them and try to see other united states can be better, i think that will help much, much more making this conversation better. i was at standing rock in january when the standing order

came down from the white house to adapt the dakota access pipeline. and i learned in just one week so much about the history of the united states and what the united states can do better in terms of making this place better for everybody by learning from the mistakes and the wrongs of the past. we should not repeat some of those mistakes. what's happening with refugees, with immigrants and the ban is repeating those terrible mistakes. >> we have a five minute warning and what you're from both of our guests. we have a tight schedule. >> so basically you have all been talking about how policy is created, presented. but this also means that this gets into the media and wording is important. you have the case of a van that is a muslim ban, and i gets to the committee and everybody receives it, this is a muslim ban. in the case of the latino

community you receive always this very dispassionate title given by the newspapers. and when you see, for example, the case of a white american that has been killed in a shooting or that has somehow reacted violently, you do not get the same titles. how do you seek to actually create a sense of community in people, if even the of the newspapers single each group out? >> this is something i think a lot about with all your is a white working-class. that enraged me more than anything. if you've ever been to factor in ohio, it's all people, all colors. this is the same line that you're talking about. there is this sort of racial division especially in the media putting people into groups.

that's just my two cents. does anybody else have something to say? >> a whole panel on fake news later on. no, but actually agree with you. i agree with you. >> open borders and world peace and all that, but considering how much the u.s. has bombed and abated and manipulate the middle east since 1945 and provided weaponry for israel to do the same thing, how is it that almost all middle easterners suddenly hate the u.s. and at some point their family, their extended family has been killed by an american bomb or bullet. to me it's almost, how could you expect anybody to come and not have some death in the family caused by the u.s. and, therefore, want to inflict terrorism? >> this ithis is a legitimate p. i would say how could we not expect by not idealizing the

this is the same problem in u.s., when you come and tell me like 60 people or wherever, refugees were terrorist in the u.s., it's immigrants and refugees are just human beings like any other human beings. we should stop idealizing the population because when we idealize we can afford and to such claims. how many americans are losers? how many americans are this terrorist attack? how many americans are successful business man or woman? how they are great entrepreneu entrepreneurs? we cannot idealize the whole population. if we wanted to oversee what you guys, the american does to us, basically we would send people oversee saying that everyone, especially those in iraq or syria who were on the ground, they would generalize the americans and safe all of them are killers and murderers. and we want to go any one of them we see. tell me, how is this different? so the idea is we should stop

idealizing population stop humanizing population, right? >> i want to see very quickly, it's exactly as long as we continue to stand up as the american people and defend our values. that is hopefully the aspiration that people cling to when they see the united states. i will not in any way say that there are not legitimate concern for many american military interventions around the world, but i would hope that the reason why people do still want to come it is because of what we represent. and that is why i will speak out and will march and i will say this is not the america i believe it or stand for. and i hope you can see what so many americans and to do believe that's why people still come here. we are still the land of opportunity. i don't know if that will last forever, but hopefully for a while still. >> there's argue types in the media that just about media to

demonize latinos, muslims, certain segments of the population, blacks over and over and over again because that's what sells newspapers. that's click abate. the reason that 30% of latinos and 23 23% of american muslims voted for trump is that we've had 60 years of the same aggressive foreign policies that is only focused on, its focus on hated me, focused on one thing. it's just focus on hegemony. if you look at what donald trump has said and what donald trump is tied to do by putting -- with alex sensible leadership coming to bear. we can argue about some of the others. but we have sensible leadership coming to bear in terms of figuring out how we disentangle ourselves from the mirrored of conflict we're in and how we do something that leaves a positive footprint of americans moving forward.

that's what we voted in. that's what most of america, that's what half of america -- [talking over each other] spirit it was only the majority in new york and los angeles. >> the challenge that we have two look at is what is the new legacy were going to keep? you are here, right? you are going to be additional folks who are coming from different parts of the world. we need a universal standard for immigration. i think if we can move towards this new population, maybe we're going to get somewhere. >> i appreciate that, your candid assessment. it is a screwup, but there are consequences for that. there's a sense of really dangerous messages and impacts real life. i don't think we have to take a letter. one thing i want to go back, you were racing -- one thing just to

say, i think trump offers a silver lining, an opportunity to think about all these things we are taking for granted, the taboos, tickling area of foreign policy. how does u.s. relate to these countries in the middle east? the fact were supporting not only israel with th billions of dollars but also egypt and bahrain and now we're making things easier for people rights to be violated in those countries with no accountability. i think that is a very clear and honest conversation and attorney. what the united states government is doing on behalf of of the people here, overseas and how does that impact the ability of the united states to be part of the world that is not based on hegemony, not based on only using military force but rather promoting some of those values that our values of justice and great equality and freedom. and if we follow through on that i think will be different had a cup station we will have in this country. >> that's an optimistic note of which to end.

[applause] >> you know, folks, this conversation could go on and on. it's an important one, but that time, it will be a half hour break and if you are inclined to discuss global security, which i think we'll pick up some of his issues that were just touch up towards the end. thanks to this gentleman to question. please come back at 3:30 for the continuation of this form. but before you can would you please not only thank the people from the audience who contributed but also our panel? [applause] and are excellent share, chadwick more. thank you so much spirit jen silverberg will discuss his visit with president donald trump and security challenges facing the organization. he will be speaking at george washington university. c-span but live coverage start at 11:30 a.m. eastern.