later tom discusses his book dodge city and timothy tyson recalls the life and death of emmett till. a 14 -year-old african-american with flinched in mississippi in 1955. book tv all this week in prime time in c-span two. >> now on c-span to a conversation on immigration and refugees. we'll hear from the syrian activist who was imprisoned during the spring. a muslim advisor to the trump campaign and the american civil liberties union rights director. from the new york public library, this is an hour good afternoon everybody. >> welcome here at the new york public library. my name is simon long staff and i'm the executive director of the ethics center who along with the carnegie hall on the

international affairs and the globalization of the international fears program. we welcome you to the session. we've had an incredibly interesting conversation just before about the state of the nation and were now moving into some very challenging territory. before we do that, let me mention something about the choice of the day. today being april 1 when we announce this there were of few tackles. april fools' day, why would you do it? april fools' day is a perfect day for conversation of this kind. as you all know, the role of the fool that we see in place throughout medieval history was to speak truth to power. it's not just about speaking truth to the powerful but that power can reside in conventional

ideas and assumptions, all of which we want to challenge today in an open and respectful way. i'm going to introduce the panel in a second but i want to explain one thing about our process. if you notice here there are two empty chairs. these chairs belong to you. at least they belong to you, in the audience, temporarily. this process invites you to join the table if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment but not a permanent seat which they hold. at a point will invite you and you might want to come up and join the conversation. it said chance in a very democratic way to be a part of what's been discussed in the session. all i ask of you is that you be mindful of the fact that there are other people who would also like that chance. when you had your stay, as requested, don't hang around. it'll be easy to do so but once you're done, otherwise someone

will have to tap you on the shoulder. i'm got going to go through a whole lot of the biographies and you can read more about them in the program but i like to introduce them and welcomed the panel as a whole. i'll mention them all. camille, chadwick moore, dale eisen staff, would you please join with me and welcome them. [applause] thank you simon and for the ethics center for putting on this very important discussion will have today on one of the most polarizing and important issues and politics in america today and that is immigration. the title of this session is the problem of strangers which is quite evocative title. we were speaking on the phone

this week and she pointed out that it's interesting that everyone on this panel is a stranger to their respective community. camille is a palestinian israeli who immigrated to the united states. he is a refugee from syria who is now living here. ya how is a strong progressive working in the notoriously communist, exxon mobil and the cia. oz is a muslim who has worked with the trump campaign. i am a gay conservative, constitutional conservative so i am both a stepchild on the right and also appreciated and loved one but an absolute pariah in the gay community. i want to start off today and talk about that domestic illegal immigration. there's something about -- we don't know for sure but we estimate about 11 million undocumented workers in this

country. most of us here are new yorkers and undocumented workers are our friends, our neighbors, as someone who spent my 20s working in restaurants and bars and in factories and i was a cleaning lady in college, they were also my coworkers. nobody in this country, very few, who are anti- immigration. you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't acknowledge the richness that immigrants bring to our culture, the innovation to our economy but what were talking about here is different. the things we like to address in illegal immigration is mostly southern border and latin america and how this affects our workers. how this affects wagers and labor market. who is the most negatively affected by this ? and who benefits from this? let's start with the news. this week jeff sessions attorney general made an announcement on monday that same tri-cities in

new york is a sanctuary city will lose millions of dollars from the federal because quote cities that refuse to help enforce immigration laws that it is less safe and they put whole communities at risk quote. also an new york we had the whole meeting, a conference for politicians and advocates from century city's who came together to discuss ways to protect illegal immigrants in their community from deportation and to strategize over federal law. a speaker at that conference said quote enforcing immigration laws and the way that the doj is hoping to tantamount to ethnic cleansing quote. is this racist? you worked on the trump campaign? >> yes.

>> trump one on this issue. is this racist ? >> it's not a issue of racism. it's what are you going to do to augment the questionable labor supply ? we have a gray area of labor in america that you talked about cleaning ladies, these other things. i live in harlem and one of the challenges we have is there are there are people who have come here for a better way of life but there are other people we have an issue in east harlem, i call it baby handoffs where someone will fly with a baby who has a us passport down in mexico and hand off they bring the baby back. you have another legal work or coming into the country. these are looking for a cash uplift. there has to be a balance in between the two. secondarily, in in terms of the thing tri-cities problem, we've

got a percentage of illegal immigrants that are time to gangs that have committed heinous acts against american citizens. rape of children and murder of teenagers, domestic assault, violent crime, robbery will there has be a check and balance process to this. the way that the trump administration is looking to engage this is the way that they started to engage in first which is wonky, cumbersome. the policy will find its way through. >> crime is what sessions mentioned and this is something that keeps coming up with this issue. would like to respond to that? >> i'm happy to. first of all, i think the issue is really about what this country is about. the framing as you started with

is no one against immigration, it's not about rejecting immigration as a concept but the question is that. the question is whether this country is truthful to its founding the way was founded. over the years, it's never been perfect in welcoming immigrants and refugees. we had doctor stein where ships were turned around, not accepting people during world war ii, the jewish refugees and the people in the crowd know the stories of the chinese exclusion act in the turn of the 20th century. overall, this was a country that was built on immigrants and immigration. they were open to people that were facing persecution and looking for safe haven and also for opportunity. the way that it's been addressed particularly during the political campaign -- and i'm not siding with one side or the

other but i really think as an observer, someone who had not voted yet, i'm still a green card holder and i'd like to be a citizen in the next year and hopefully this is not going to be changed by what i said. [laughter] but it's interesting more about fear mongering. it's driven by both people who are coming to take our jobs, or refugees -- if you look at the facts and really that's the challenge today, to stick to the facts. facts are what were told by the national security expert is that banning people from those six or seven countries, have no basis with regards to making this country more secure. in terms of jobs, in terms of safety, if you go to el paso, i was in el paso texas twice, first time in 2006 in a few

years after i immigrated to this country. i was doing human rights work there. el paso texas which is right on the mexico united states border and it's the safest community in the united states. if you're thinking that by making the border more enforcement or around the border more militarized, picking out people from the courthouse like the domestic victim of domestic violence was picked up from a courthouse in el paso and by agents take to customs, if you think that will make things better, it, it would be wrong. we have to be clear about how to approach this issue without making people more polarized. this approach, saying agents will go and turn 12 million people, undocumented people into ill eligible and for deportation will just make things for this country more worse off.

it's not just about the label force and the money but how people feel in this country, how they relate to each other. that's the fundamental basis. we all know their neighbors, our friends, our community, are community, are all part of this nation and particularly, look at the dreamers. how can you think about taking people who were born here or brought here when they were young and say now, he will deport all of them. the kind thing is interesting. >> this is what the right throws out every time. an 18 -year-old illegal immigrant raping a young girl and i look at this as if the same way that pro- abortion advocates ring out rape and incest. it's the small exception to validate the larger rule. there will be criminals in any population, we know the vast majority of people who come here illegally are peaceful workers

but the argument on the right would be more effective if they focused on the economy and jobs. i always wonder why they don't? any ideas? >> i will pick up on two of the points you made. my perspective is a bit more of an international one having worked overseas and on national security issues but two of the main points they are that i really appreciated his first and foremost, what is behind some of the rhetoric that were hearing and why, especially with these bands from these countries. i, as a progressive, progressive, will self identify as a liberal on this. my ideal algae is what this country is founded on the idea that we should be expecting is that we were founded on a bunch of immigrants. my pragmatic side says i want to face everything in fact. when you have a policy that every major, the vast majority

leaders over the past two decades timed in about every reason why banning people from these particular countries is actually not going to help our national security, it will harm it, you have to ask then what is the basis behind what you are doing and i just want to give one other example. the balance between security and humanitarian efforts in between private -- all of these things are actually compensated. the laptop band that just happened. as soon as i heard that one, i knew i passed on experience that this targeted and so focused that i have to assume it was based on intelligence that was collected and found on an analysis the fact that an actual threat to us and how do we mitigate it. >> can you explain? >> a ban on bringing laptop computers on airplanes from specific countries.

to bring something back i that will make people angry but at the end of the day that is something there's no doubt in my mind that that was based on actual intelligence that said there's a threat, there is a people that are creating bombs that they know how to put in laptops. it is totally separate from when you have a president say with no actual reasoning or back into it , i'm banning all immigrants from these particularly countries because there are exporters of despite every national security leader from the past giving a litany of reasons why that will actually harm us more than help us. that's when i say your ideology and fear mongering and rhetoric over instead of actual policy based on what is actually helpful for this country most people don't know that obama band immigrants from afghanistan i'm glad you brought that up.

that again, was in response to an actual incident, you had to gentleman in bowling green from iraq and they were found potentially sending money back to al qaeda. they were supporters. he looks at us very specific threat and said we will put a pause on new refugees from iraq until we sort this out. actually refugees did continue to come in during that time but that's my point. it was something that was due in response to a very specific, whether i agree or disagree, at least there was a reasoning behind it. as opposed to i don't like these seven countries and i'm just putting an all-out ban without actually explaining my intelligence was. it's not the same situation. >> oz, did you you want to jump in? i have my own personal issues with the band because one, i spoke to green card holders and that was problematic.

on the opposite side of this, we had varying protocols of how we look at people. we have protocols that haven't been updated since the 60s. you have six of those countries that don't have functioning governments right now. you've also got the back that i can go overseas and by a syrian passport for 2000 euros and pretend i'm in a silent seeker. you top that off with the joint terrorism task force that's looking at stuff 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 it. a lot of that goes back to we need to be sharing better information across different aspects of the security apparatus. i also think it was basically a

four-month embargo, right? after which they would reevaluate and look at additional refugees counts being allowed into the country and the trumpet perspective, even from the campaign when i was working there, has been how do we make serious safe for syrians in syria. how do we build a safe zone policies and how do we do things in tandem with the government's around syria that are now encroached inside the multitude layer of different conflicts that are going on to figure out the way forward that is not going to necessarily lead to continual refugee onslaught. that's where i think they started with this. what was the implementation? it was flawed. >> let's pause and talk about this. as everyone talks about policy and philosophy and motivation and rhetoric, you are someone who has lived with this. what you think when you're hearing this? >> when we talk about refugees

and immigrants we talk about it turns to economy and national security. these elements in the demonstration will motor buys people against immigration. when we talk about national security and when you mention maybe the two facts specific people who come from the immigration background have committed crimes in the united states if you want to talk about numbers this is what the judge in maryland was talking about. give me your reasoning ? give me facts ? that would let me say these orders are legit. specifically speaking, immigrants have not committed more terrorist attacks than citizens. now we suffer in the united states from that terrorism. it's funny when they ask me how do you feel about the trumpet

administration and definitely on fear and the second thing, adversely, people here are misinformed. the geographic location of the united states plays into that. you are distant from what's going on overseas. and the same overseas by the way. you are to them strangers. the same for you here. however, i'm here to actually say no that's not what's going on overseas. there is some truth but this is not it. when we talk about how can we -- this affects seven countries and when we label it not even of muslim band but a band. it's discriminatory orders. when you say they have no sanctioning government, if we let the hysteria if the us let

me come here without my own government secured to be in the nice, they would say no. i wouldn't stand for it. i'm demonstrating that same government. asking the assad regime if i'm a good citizen in syria, will that benefit us? we are fleeing. we are fleeing those exact governments. this is not a good ideology and methodology. you're an immigrant. >> know, i was born here. >> but your parents were immigrants. >> that was my point previously. there should be a test for immigration yes, do you know the screening process to come to the united states ? >> yes, i'm very familiar with it. >> it takes the average of 24 months. tracing your ancestors to come

to the united states. do you know that my 16 -year-old sister has been trying to come to the united states to be with me and my mom has been interviewed several times for nine hours, 15 six years old. after two and a half years of being under this screening, the extreme vetting process. already the process is extreme. you have not experienced this but we are vetted a lot and at the end of the day, just 22 weeks ago, my family after going through extreme vetting for two and half years, my mom and my sister were invented and their case is booked on the same claims. this is a discriminatory order.

of course, i resisted and i i wish to say this was only my experience. there a lot of other cases. a man lives and it's a bowl and he's a syrian refugee. he has two boys and one of them is 12 and younger. the 12 -year-old boy he's actually very sick. he has a specific disease that there is no medicine for it in turkey. he's been trying to get over here for three years. he's been waiting and waiting. he's been the medicine is here, but his son died waiting to get here. he died in the hospital waiting to be accepted here. why? can you answer me why? you explained yesterday that it's a political decision. if he can pay for it, he can do it. he knew he'd be accepted

eventually but he had to do it. this is the political reasoning that it's not justified with what is happening. after the end of the cold war, the leaders, the modeled on democracy and human rights. this is exactly against everything that you are about americans. this is against it. if you want to talk about one last point, the american war on terrorism, this is exactly such orders, exactly provoke extremist groups on his isis and others to recruit people. imagine someone who is in syria and has been waiting for five years and living in horrible circumstances because it's the most dangerous place on earth and have been waiting to come here but in order comes out that says no, you're not coming. this is giving him a pathway to be recruited by an extremist

regroup. your you are creating more terrorist. i have been trying to find a reasoning and a good point behind any of these orders and this administration policy on immigration but i have not found this. you say it when you have an interview on a live opportunity, that's hard-core republicans and donald trump their policy on muslims and immigration demonizes muslims and helps isis. i just do not understand. >> actually, that was an interview before the the campaign and the election. banning muslims altogether demonizes and leads to isis. let's be specific about what you're talking about. secondarily,.

>> isis and other extremist groups. >> yes in 2015. right now, cracked, but your spinning my words. right now, what we have is an executive order that is a test. 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 the united states. they wanted to form eight time. to assess this. that's what they started to look at. i can't change the fact that there is a waiting process and that people die in this process. that process has been there for years and years and years. it has been there since the 60s. i can't change that process but when i can't speak to is that there's an intent right now to at least try and fix the data sharing between different government organizations so that this can start to move forward

and that we can actually have better anti- terror insight. there's always going to be trade-offs if you're talking about national security and the ability to increase the population of a country by immigration. 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 out a bond equivalent to his salary for us, my family to come here. then my father had to send for a fiancé, sorry, wife visa to bring his wife, my mother, my mother, over. we went through that process. that process is the same for every immigrant with come from our part of the world. what's going on right now is challenging. the problem, i see, is continuing to say were going to demonize this and were going to protest this and not try to figure out how we can engage to

make this better. >> can i bring in a few points on that? yes. >> i've just seen a crackdown and if someone who was on the task force in new york and have first-hand experience on what this all means. yes, you are right, the data sharing is not perfect but it has improved every year since september 11. every year it has become better and better. the idea that we can just shut down immigration or refugees or 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 stopped and never continue to improve. another argument i would make is that it's interesting to hear this idea that were going to shut down immigration from these countries because it makes our border safer to do so but at the same time. >> i didn't say that.

>> at the same time were to cut state department funding the very agencies was responsibility it is to make these countries from which refugees are coming both safer and more stable and those same agencies are supposed to representative beauty camps and other countries and borders and were going to cut that funding and were going to do less to help those care countries overseas also why not allowing people to come here, it's a real cognitive dissonance. the argument is were making this pause for national security reasons. there was a letter for how many three and four star general signed on to the letter saying putting you sdi funding is absolutely antithetical to protecting our national security. i can't buy one argument while at the same time were doing this other thing that is hurting us globally i'm not saying policy is perfect.

i'm not saying that at all. the usa decision is about the ministries may. this is also an illustration that is saying we have too much government. they came in with the promise of cutting government. that's exactly what they're doing. what would happen if ross perot had become president ? it be similar to what were looking at now. government cuts, changes in policy, looking at the fact that a maybe america should be partying with other countries in terms of global policing and leadership. it makes it expensive. >> right. which we do but then will absolutely anger those partners that we worked so hard to operate with us on counterterrorism issues. and some from the countries were saying we don't want anything to do with right now. >> there's a false notion that there's a cut in government spending. spending on military forces and expanding military defense budget, that should be okay

while other programs that are essential for people who are here in the united states is not essential? number two, the idea that the system is not workingnt in every single area. the system is not working. you have to back it up in fact, good analysis, sound analysis analysis. we did not see that coming. especially in the area around stream betting. there is extreme betting already. you've heard some compelling examples about the wait time, rigorous screening process, people are stranded in refugee camps waiting for that moment to go through and people, ultimately, get to the united states. zero and check -- they are the most vulnerable of role refugees. besides that, the fact that we should all keep in mind is that how many refugees who came to

this country as refugees committed acts of terrorism. can you answer that? >> i don't know the data. [inaudible] it's causing harm. you cannot make the argument that all of the sudden now refugees are becoming the most number one threat to the united states. >> we never said that it all. >> it skips a generation. we see this all over europe and in orlando and even in somalia. minneapolis has the second largest population of scallions which is on the travel ban outside of falla. there have been 50 young men of children of refugees who has been identified as security threats. >> after the fact, the issue is

that it's not about refugees are in the united states it's about what they're doing once once they're here. the debatable. we did have one somalian in minnesota who stabbed people, depends on how you want to define it. there's no comparison to the amount of white american home grown extremists who have committed acts that have actually resulted in murders and killing. to me, that that is an argument that is based in fear mongering and in supporting this case. i'm glad you brought up the somalia situation. the somalian situation is interesting because were talking about this and we know there's this list of countries that are banned and iraq made the news because it turns out that some military advisor that it helps our military ended up getting caught up in that.

somalia situation no one seems to care about that. thousands of somalia that are caught up with this. you have 300,000 somalians languishing in the biggest refugee camp in the world in kenya. kenya was kenya is threatening to shut the camp down and somalis who have would want to come join their families in minneapolis. yes we've had children of some refugees who have been read allies and we can discuss and not him what we've possibly not done so great about integrating these communities but to just the somalian has been cut off and they can't go back to build because they never will come back to united states. >> they remain the minorities of marginal, small number of immigrants or sons of immigrants refugees who came to the country. you have to put it into perspective. even with president trump during the campaign brought all the people who were victims of

crime, heinous crimes, murdered by immigrants, that's true and that's a grave suffering for the families. that's an issue that should be addressed. but to single out and say these are the same people that we had to protect our nation and those families from everybody who's out there, sent the message that it is demonizing and turning the people who are watching, not necessarily our experts on the fact, into well, well, i should really care about that. that, i think, is what maker things worse in this country. president trump is turning this country and people against each other. that in and of itself. >> people were against each other in the turn of the election. president trump didn't have too much to do with that. >> if you take that first

actions in office, old executive offers whether immigration enforcement, on the travel ban, muslim and refugee band, other areas that are clearly are not supported by the facts. there supported by the political fear mongering, maybe this is political campaign promises but ultimately, he is responsible for what will happen at this point. were seeing that. not just people in this country but nations around the world are going to resist this. they see that. >> let's see if anyone in the audience wants to come up and join the conversation. >> i just wanted to add that first the policy has not been knocked down in hawaii but is not to be policy anymore. i will add that it's the point

they're getting at. there were political promises made and the political process are promises are now settled. >> there unconstitutional and they cannot be. >> again, the portions that were unconstitutional were ruled unconstitutional. >> that was ruled by the court. >> there's a separation of powers and that's why america works. >> i will be brief. but the intent of the travel ban was, in the beginning, and that is going to be determining the legal challenges, this is brought those challenges, it was the intent wasn't not indiscriminate but it violates the establishment clause. [inaudible] let's hear from our audience members. would like to speak? >> during the kelly administration where kelly was

the administrator of the police department he stopped 16 terrorist attacks, islamic terrorist attacks in new york. it didn't get a lot of put the city except for the one with the new york city train station. there was an intent to use gas. my point is that a lot of these terrorist attacks that are stopped don't come to the public attention and they are also 400 active cases at the fbi's facility pursuit around the united states of terrorist attacks. they don't get attention. when something happens, your point was when you came to the specifics you would agree that not bringing a laptop because there were specific intelligence but because you don't hear about the other ones specifics.

i'm trying to present that. also, i wanted your opinion about a guy that had come into the united states, time and time again committed felonies, time and time again is let go in a sanctuary city until he kill somebody. >> i will address the first point. the second point, i agree with with. the first point, you're right, when someone who worked in these agencies and was never able to talk about the successes, you only know about the failures of course. the point is they were successes. that is why we have our law enforcement and our intelligence community. they're doing the job they're supposed to do and by making the entire immigration population feel like they can't actually cooperate with the police or the fbi anymore because they're too

scared to do so is going to harm our ability to stop these attacks that you're talking about. again, i know this is excessively complicated. although, although, obviously, i identify as a liberal and i recognize that we can't just say it's either this or that. it's extremely complicated but to make our entire immigrant community too fearful to actually cooperate with police or cooperate with the fbi is going to harm our ability to stop these kinds of attacks in the future. that would be the one point i bring out. >> let's open it up. >> i had two questions that i want to focus on. i was there in spring in egypt and in turkey so i know what you've been through. it's a hard ordeal. two questions, one, mostly dj patel who is the scientist who left the country, you can

currently argue that collecting data from all different parts of the country but if you look at assad there more agile, why don't we throw more money at things like technological resources to actually in the big date around versus putting more money toward the military budgets. >> there's two sides to that. one, if you worked with alphabet soup you know that this is all the different organizations that are three letter organizations across government. in these different organization there are chinese walls, firewalls, in terms of the data that can be shared. were to say the organizations are here but you look at it like a layer cake. the second layer is federal policing and the third layer is state policing in the bottom layer is local policing. the biggest problem we have

right now is cop link. you can't really share data effectively up and down and you can't share data site site. that's the largest problem that we have in america today in terms of the largest threat of terrorism and the large 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. >>

>> be troops in in somalia may be pulling troops out of south sudan and in syria anorak and we have also got a multitude of additional complex coming up in the south china sea. the challenge on the military side of this because no literally controller terms of the trump non-military but look at this in the way wherein we have these very small groups with enough distributed areas as a cost perspective to keep one soldier in the theater on a yearly basis is $1 million. , as do think gas cost to get over their?

in maybe $6 in europe but by the time you get it to a afghanistan is $150 a gallon. is expensive to operate. so to figure out how we balance the global complex to allow democracy to be created this is a longer-term challenge but i do think until we get policies and practices in place to take the unqualified data with the alphabet soup agencies we

will still have these problems. >> and with this military power we don't weigh in if it is just right or wrong we would address them but one thing that is concerning and to engage militarily all over the world and live in other ways to engage the world. to pull out of the u.n. and to have those two different approaches they did not show up end to specifically address the travel ban and

and in geneva that approach is confusing and similarly with nato there is a serious concern bet they will expand the notion the fact there are reports with the use of force with places like somalia and in yemen and as a result more people will join in the forces. >> and this could be a whole other conversation the lot of talk of immigration boils

down to america first. >> but that is not accurate. >> felicia lead take care of our own people will take care of others. i am from california and i m from i community in icy these refugees so little in is an american? what is the definition because i do not see a stranger i do see somebody who will be one of us. so answer if you can what makes someone in american? >> [applause]

we were talking last night and what was what you said to me? >> that the country is based on ideas it is easier for people to assimilate because we are in nation based on ideas. >> i have been here for years so let me staying here for the americans and stay with the as a stranger bios o goodnight even speak this english with you with all

ms. here and i tried to be part of it so america is my second homeland and also the first generation immigrants because you were given the opportunity to be here so then but we also contribute to the community but the greatest thing about being american the coolest melting

pot in the entire world and in my little community we did not have muslims there. borne in the late '70s because there was no muslim school because of the population. my mom said close enough. [laughter] and but that is what makes america great it can be all

of these different things together with interesting tapestried you grow up learning so much about the differing cultures and to be part of a community i do recommend this amount of work and it is able to tell all the stories. >> my way to look at it is the place where you can be your own person to correct your wrongs it is never been a perfect there's never a perfect union were to look at the people who were here

the first nations or the native americans to see how they can be better that would help make that conversation better was a standing rocking in january. so with the dakota access pipeline i learned so much about the history of the united states to learn from the mistakes of the past and what is happening with the refugees. >> now we have a five minute warning want to hear from our guest. >> you have been talking out policy is created with this

also means it gets into a the media you have the case of the muslim bien or in the case of a the latino community so if you see a for example, the case of a wide american any shooting you do not get the same title half adduce seek to have a sense of community even with the headlines of the newspapers. >> the new here though white

working-class if you've ever been factories to ohio 30 percent of latinos voted for trump so that is just my $0.2. >> we have all whole panel later on fake news. [laughter] >> but i agree. >> considering how much the u.s. has bombed and manipulated since 1945 waiting for israel to do the same thing and now all the middle easterners hate the u.s. and the extended family has been killed so how can

you expect anybody to come here if the death of their family was caused by the u.s.? >> i went say so when you come and tell me with refugees there just human beings to self idealized at population if they did so so, for what? because uh terrorist attack. so do overseas to us

basically we say that for iraq were syria or on the ground that they're all killers and murderers so tell me how this is different. and to demonize that population as long as we stand up with the american people with our values hopefully that is the aspiration people will think of an ac the united states there are legitimate concerns around the world but i would help the reason is to represent i will say this is not the america that

i believe in our understand i do believe that is why people still come here we are the land of opportunity but willfully for a while. >> their archetypes in the media to allow them to demonize latinos over and over again. and that leads directly into this because we have 60 years of the same aggressive foreign policy that only focuses on a johnny - - had jimmy. live will get what donald trump has said we have extensible leadership coming to bear.

and how we disentangle ourselves to alleviate positive of footprint ; was only the majority york and los angeles what is the new legacy we will keep? additional folks we need universal standard for emigration but they are trying so maybe we will get some. >> so i do appreciate that.

>> and trumpet offers them an opportunity to take about the things we are taking for granted. bottles though egypt and in no making it easier with no accountability. so what the united states government is doing on behalf of the people to have that impact the part of the world not based on only

military force with those values of justice equality and freedom. that is a different kind of conversation. [applause] >> this conversation could go on and on. there will be a half-hour break and if you are inclined to discuss several security be will pick upon these issues. but before you go thanks to those in the audience that contributed. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

among the issues awaiting action are federal standing expiring friday april 28 also congress needs to raise the debt ceiling. returning monday april april 24th senators will vote that afternoon on the nomination as agriculture secretary. >> and read congress out of session this week tonight it is booktv in prime time with the undoing project with conservative magazine ought editor from the orthodox church with a benediction

plan timothy tyson recalls the life-and-death of emmett till a 14 year-old m -- african american in 1955.