peck teaches a class on america's refugee policy during the cold war. fleeingibes how people communist countries like cuba were given easier access to the united states. he also talks about how race played a role in quotas. his class is about an hour and 10 minutes. class.eck: welcome to we have some visitors. welcome to duke university. my name is gunther peck. i teach history. this is a cross-listed course called it later dreams -- called immigrant dreams and american realities. we are wrestling with the wonderful complexity of visions of america that immigrants bring to our national story. to participate

in the discussions. just raise your hand and i will pull you in. lecture is called "linking nation and humanity: u.s. refugee policy 1945-1980." this importantn thatt of immigration law we have touched on, but not really focused yet squarely in the class. i want you to fit it into where we were at the end of last class, which was the lecture on passage of immigration reform in 1965, and that key idea is that the cold war was shaping --estic policy history very history, and very clearly apparent in the ways the immigration reform act was part of a broader

campaign in inciting a cold war. that is especially true with u.s. refugee policy, a perfect intersection of u.s. foreign policy and immigration policy. before we begin, we have a couple of images of the presidents, and i wanted to have a brief discussion before we dive into that, about u.s. refugees and their significance to the contemporary moment we live in. they are frequently invoked. --be we could just describe i'm curious as to how you would describe why refugees matter today. what we have here is an image of refugees that are being led into the attention off of underage picked up at the u.s.-mexican border last summer when the refugee issue was vividly in the

nation's newspapers. here is another image of a , unaccompanied minors heading north. this is not on public transportation, but on a specially chartered train that most of the people here had paid traffickers to get across the border, and that is what we are looking at. begin -- i want to hear from you, and instead of me telling you why refugees matter, they do, i just am curious if we can get a few ideas of why refugees matter. it's a simple lesson, but it does have a lot of steaks. -- stakes. why do politicians talk about refugees right now? akes of refugees today? issue of whether to

allow them in or not has changed to a human rights question. of howally a question the u.s. embodies our democracy by thinking and enacting linked to all people being equal. great comments. there is a humanitarian set of states. a refugee is someone who deserves, by virtue of their theering, acceptance into nation. you alluded to the steaks, though. why should the united states care about those refugees? that is obviously one set of st akes. that is obviously not the way refugees are being discussed. what are some of the other ways. why do they matter for the nation?

i think the public image -- [inaudible] there are countries that look a lot better than us, and that matters. prof. peck: in comparison to germany right now, the united states looks quite uncharitable. in 1.1 millionen syrian refugees last year alone, and we are debating whether to take zero or 10,000. caller: -- [inaudible] caller: it has become a security issue. refugees the old anxiety -- equal anxiety about national security. student: also, the intersection

between domestic policy and foreign policy. something goes to the american people about what it means to be american, that we are accepting of people in difficult situations around the world, and numeral so saying something at the international stage about what america is willing to do in order to help people around the world, and which causes they are willing to help, from where they are willing to accept people, and which issues they view as issues that would constitute refugee status. summarized the complex domestic and international stakes in individual refugees area -- refugees. elizabeth? student: i don't necessarily agree it with this, but refugees are coming into this country as dependents, so it becomes an economic issue that will be mentioned on both sides, worrying about how it will impact our economy, and what we

will have to do as u.s. citizens to support them. aboutpeck: an anxiety their public dependents, or a security threat, yeah. with the point about international issues, in the future, you can go back and say we have accepted some way refugees in this region, and it is a path for future -- it is political capital for future negotiations. prof. peck: great term, political capital. an opinion i is personally hold, but i have acceptingn the u.s. refugees as a form of justice for what happened in the middle .ast specifically, refugees should be the country directly involved in that war. country directly

involved in that war. your peck: i love how comments are actually arguments, and that's great, because you are highlighting the stakes of why refugees matter, and one of the arguments that you are making is that refugees matter because we have civilian thatations to the nations have been part of u.s. foreign policy. if they arely, suffering after the u.s. invasion of the united states, the belief is that we have an obligation to help them. what is no consensus about the stakes are with refugees. i think we have covered most of the key stakes. -- there is a set of stakes the way the debate works today, and there is kind of beta versions on the left and right, which is, on the one hand, the stakes on refugees might be humanitarian, but we have interest in human rights that transcend the state.

we infugees' interest, effect oh than that, if it is an iraqi refugee, let's say. and those who are critical of refugee policy view them as a threat to a nation, either economic or political, that they are somehow literal security threats, terrorists, or potential terrorists, or as people who will threaten our standard or living, what have you. the arguments have been polarized between humanitarian interest on the one side and national security interests on the other. that is the contemporary framing of the refugee issue and why they matter. what is interesting about that story is that those are not true, but this refugee policy is the framing of national interest

and humanitarianism, and they are merged. the only way to explain why it is that the united states, after from 1945 to the near past, is the most generous refugee nation in history? accepts over half of the world's refugees? the reason for that is not necessarily because the united states is the most humanitarian nation, but it is because of the important national stakes in refugees. that is important to understand, why that is the case. why refugees have national significance, and why the whole policy debate was around trying define and understand why they matter to the nation. not so much to a notion of human rights that are universal, but to specific national interest. i want to come back to the

debate that we could have on the basis of your insights at the end of the class, but i wanted to print that as a point of departure. national interests have shaped the whole permission of u.s. policy not only because it is foreign policy, but because the nation understood that particular strategic interests were being advanced by individual refugees, and the way you described them as foreign policy symbols, i should say of refugeeserest themselves as historical agents we left out. they are largely symbolic, the way we describe them. they are actual voices. why those voices matter a really important, and we will come back to that at the end. what we will do today is go through the case studies about nation and humanity, and in a weird way it is encapsulating history of u.s. nationalism, changing ideas of what an

american is as well as a very specific policy story. , if it gives us the overview of what i am going to cover day -- cover today, a slightly more dense version of the outlines of front view. today's goal is also an explicit call aut what i would profound history deficit in the contemporary discussion. described the significance as well, but it is as if you read the newspaper and there is no history to u.s. refugee policy. the firstf there is generation to be worried that refugees could be threatening our american security, or that they are going to weaken our standard of living, or conversely, that our best, most idealistic identity is at stake with red -- with refugees. .hat comment is not new it is as old as u.s. refugee policy. that is reassuring on the one

hand, but we have not really paid attention to that conversation either. today's lecture is looking to address that. i would like to have time to discuss what we can use this history for. if we were to make an intervention in the contemporary discussion. beyond the classroom. who is a refugee? we are going to go through these. the question we are asking is how have national interest shaped the history of the u.s. refugee policy. the 41965 tok to the jewish refugee question, and also to consider the definition of refugees. , i book points out nicely hope you have bought it, a good book to read -- we had a fascinating story that the category of a refugee changes over time. the 1980 refugee law.

we don't have a refugee law until 1980, even though the united states has accepted a great number of refugees before that moment in time. to the is catching up interesting set of political practices by the state department and other actors. of identitylaw defines it as follows. a refugee is a person who is fearful of being secluded for reasons -- being persecuted for reasons of race, nationality, or political opinion. they are existing outside the country of his or her nationality, and they are unable to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country. areffect, refugees absentss actors who are the protection of a government, and they are being persecuted by their home states of the following reasons. it is a very broad definition. in 1980 when the united states adopts this, they are adopting

an international united nations definition of what a refugee is. for the first time. what is interesting about this story is that, in some respects, of a refugee's generosity is one that occurs without this universalized definition. it occurs or more specific national reasons. before 1980, before the u.s. adopted this standard, there are several definitions that emerge, and i want to cover the weekly. -- cover them quickly. they are very specific and not universalized. in 1926, the league of nations did not really to find a refugee, but they described refugees in the uluru fashion, as a -- in the following fashion, as a person of russian origin who had lost the protection of government. to specificsigned political calamity in the 1920's in the wake of the armenian genocide and different factors

involved in that. there was not a universalized definition of refugee in the league of nations, or even .efore world war ii in the wake of world war ii, we begin to see a more universalized language of human rights emerging that begins to shapethe definition -- the definition of the united nations advocates. for the united states, they do not sign on to the definition of the kind of universal definition of a refugee. is theey get in 1948 place persons -- displaced persons who have been deported orause of forced labor racial, religious, or political reasons. we get some of the human rights language, but it is a specific political story that defines you a refugee is. postwarost of the

period, the definition of a refugee is very specific, and it is a story about the cold war. who is a refugee? it is an anti-communist to cannot return to his or her homeland. inadequateeem like definitions. in many respects, they are. they are filled with certain contradictions. what is interesting for us right now is that they are very historical narratives that are about u.s. foreign policy and other national interests that are shaping the understanding of why a person became a refugee. the history of u.s. refugee policy takes this into account, and it is a story that is filled with irony. i will go through some of these moving forward. but back up in time to 1949, when the word "refugee" begins

to percolate quite specifically around the history of the emerging story that is unfolding germany,lf hitler in and the persecution that juice are experiencing -- jews are experiencing. if you do a keyword search, you will find that emerging. this is the boat, the uss st. louis that carried over 900 jewish refugees that got out of europe in 19 39 and were sailing for a safe harbor in the new world. they came initially to new york, were turned away, and then tried to find a harbor in havana, cuba , and ultimately were denied there, they go back to new york again, hoping for a political will room that would allow them. hadi are to this, sbr seeking to get more jewish

fdrgees -- to add to this, had been seeking to get more jewish refugees. unfortunately, this exceeded the quota, these good folks exceeded the quota, and fdr did not imagine that, as president, he could find a way to bring them into the nation. here are some images of these folks. lots of women and children. they had means. they were better off than many. one of my teachers in graduate school managed to get out a few naeks before this from vien and had to lie about her identity.

she was the founder of women's history at the university of wisconsin, an amazing story that she had to lie to authorities to get in. said that she was already married, that she was an unaccompanied woman, never would have gotten in. they would have thought she was a white slaves, and she knew that. she managed to get in. ande good folks did not, the united states turned them away. they sailed back in 1939 as war was breaking out. in 1940 or so, on board well of the death camps. and the story of this at the wound to the united states. this was perceived at the moment as a calamity, as a mistake by many, and yet there was a tremendous amount of resistance to accepting jewish people into the united states. something that often gets forgotten after the holocaust.

and the story of the holocaust as it unfolds over time will the one that will shape u.s. refugee policy in important ways. for now, what i would like you fdro is just highlight that had the time -- at the time had felt ambivalent, but saw himself as bound by the law of the national origins act. he did not take any executive action. wewill come back to what -- will come back to what role the president or the congress or judicial actors had in shaping refugee policy. as american soldiers uncovered the atrocities of the holocaust in april of 1945, they were key actors in shaping the knowledge of refugees, and are actually important to public opinion chambers. it is u.s. members of the fifth infantry who come to the kingpin

of germany's work camps, where most people worked to death and were sent out to auschwitz and other places to be executed, and they find thousands of bodies that had recently perished. that u.s. troops tell a really powerful. they affected u.s. soldiers and shaped their perspectives. that slowly percolated back and shaped the desire to make the united states a nation that could have prevented these wrongs from occurring. that said, and here is the difficult part of the story -- most americans remained deeply anti-semitic well after the postwar period. into the 1940's, into the 1950's. there is kind of a resistance to learning a different lesson from the holocaust.

it does not change hearts and minds right away. we will come back to that. that some of these pivottudies give it -- the nation's interest against that of humanity. lost,ty and jewish people but the national interest was seen as more important in 1939, and that persistence is white powerful through the immediate postwar period. 1940's.to the late as the cold war is the getting -- is beginning to shape up, as the extraordinary challenge of reconstructing europe -- and there are millions of refugees in europe, several million germans displaced as well as so the refugee crisis in europe is profound. and there is an anxiety that

western europe will become the mid to late 1940's. and the united states is actively pursuing ways of preventing an expansion of the soviet union's bloc in eastern europe into the western areas. it is that context in which refugees become extremely important. they are viewed as potential protectors of communism, also as agents that would be unstable in europe. in 1940 in this context eight that truman pushes for a displaced persons act, not refugees exactly, but that's what he called them. they are offered visas to the united states, some 200,000 people. it is initially put forward by a group of more liberal inclusion this --clusion

inclusionists. one of the interesting themes in u.s. refugee policy history is who is the state? who is actually and limiting law ? -- implementing the law? who gets to decide how people come in? it is designed to aid victims of nazi is a man fascism. azism na and fascism. and yet of the 200,000, only people aref the jewish, a fairly small percentage. quite extraordinary are the number of people who are actually ask nazis who come into the country under the displaced persons act. -nazis, but nazi

sympathizers coming along with the victims of world war ii. this outrage is some of the refugee advocates. so how does that occur? in part because of foreign-policy considerations, nation versus humanity. some of the people who were administering this loss saw in assetsazis potential for u.s. foreign policy. the author describes this. he writes, "this was not or the fault of lakhs screening procedures come about rather the work of american intelligence agencies agencies."the importance of fighting a cold war meant -- they can speak the native-language. they would be useful in fighting communism.

this may seem like a corruption of the true humanitarian intent , butd this refugee act keep in mind it is in a foreign-policy context. this act was passed as part of the u.s. marshall plan, seeking to rebuild europe from war and to prevent the expansion of communism. , the acthat framing would not have occurred in the first place area -- first place. another reason that there was very few jewish people who got in was because of who was implementing the law. i will ring and a character that is important, senator pat mccarran, one of the artist u.s.ictionist in the political history, and he played a key role in shaping the displaced persons act. ofwas in dialogue with a lot people who believed that this

potential inclusion of refugees would the a way of getting around the national origins act, and were skeptical of the fact that it could open up the united states to lock the people from southern and eastern europe who had been excluded. here is a democrat of west virginia in 1948. we could solve this whole displaced persons problem, he stated, if we can simply work out a bill that could keep out those jews. the desire to maintain a refugee policy that excludes juic, that forefront ofe public discussion. pat mccarran uses the displaced persons law to create an elaborate set of screening procedures. among them, asking your political history, who do you support, what work have you done, what work could you do. they are actually looking to

recruit people. in the process, a good number of ex-nns and i nazis -- and azis come in. so, the idea that u.s. nations would be a refugee nation is not really gaining a law attraction at this point. it is still refugees are deemed strategic value of foreign-policy considerations, but not necessarily ones that would open the. -- open the borders. we can see the restrictionist energy really clearly in the mccarran walter act of 1952 . this was passed at the peak of the cold war. anxiety believed in the communist expansion was generating. to have stronger

force in order, and if americans are how does that apply to the national origins quota. harder to actch for southern easterners, europeans or choose to come into the united states. at the end of the prohibition on asian immigration, but only gave a very nominal number two chinese or japanese immigrants. now 100 canerwards, come in. they get up to the minimal level of, let's say, greeks and others. there are some modest changes, but they really reinvigorate -- reiterate what was existing. it expanded the power of the state to deport immigrants,

refugees, especially as communist or sympathizers. this applies retroactively. ,fter the karen walters past mexican and mexican americans americans are deported at much more efficient and large numbers. it is part of the authority that leads to operation went back on back on the u.s. and mexican border. it expands and foreign policy ofms, this significant immigrants. every immigrant is a security threat, and it is the state to decide the restriction of administering the slot. this law. that the2, the notion foreign policy would be liberalizing, it is quite the opposite. , soanxiety is on the border

far aliens is driving a more .estrictionist policy it changes in a shocking way. gets,s where the story perhaps, surprising or unpredictable. it begins with harry truman and also dwight d. eisenhower. both republicans and democrats see in anti-communism. there is an opportunity to expand refugees and their tonificance in the u.s. fight a global war against communism. truman himself critiques the karen walter and beatles the act initiatives -- initially. in 1952, at the end of his second term, but he goes down fighting, truman does. he says the idea behind the discriminatory policy was to put that americans with english or irish names make that are

americansitizens then with a tying, greek or polish names. it was utterly unworthy of our tradition and iron pills -- all men are created equal. the humanitarian creed inscribed that the belief in the brotherhood of man. it gives a pluralistic understanding of the nation, and uses that to fight the restrictions of the law. a argument did not do much in 1952, it persuaded to a few people. what empowers truman and what empowers other aboutents is the argument refugees being extraordinarily useful to fighting the cold war. they are in the nation's interests. the ways inthis in which they redefine refugees as fundamentally, not just political refugees, but as

anti-communist who are our allies and prototypical americans as they fight communist oppression abroad. we have an obligation to let them in because they are anti-communist. one can see a transformation of american identity along next to the refugee. truman does this in part, in a refugee relief program, he proposes in 1952 that it does not become law until 1953. ,et's send some 200,000 people and it is still a little football over who will control it and how it will be administered. thoseks to bring in prototypical americans who are fighting against americans enemies.- america's it brings in people from east germany, from the eastern european countries that are

under soviet domination. interesting here, manual sellers, the author of the law describes the refugees that he saw coming out of east germany. they would make great citizens if we let them into the country because they understand the meaning of liberty, how liberty has been denied to them. i find them to be too happy to come here to america, and the appreciate freedom of spree -- speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. interesting of him to say that in 1953, the very moment when mccarthy is in this compromising position of freedom of the press. there is this interesting story in which people are fighting about the stakes of american democracy, and americanism by using refugees to do that battle. what then happens, it is put in a modest proposal that does not take off, it is bottled up by restrictionist under the karen.

a new foreign policy reps -- opportunity i should say. that is in 1956 with the revolution in hungary that the undemocratic .oviet puppet state there is a democratic socialist the that comes to power. very briefly before soviet takes, and dramatically crushes the domestic story. this is the picture of budapest and the people in soviet tanks in the background. produces, not surprisingly, an extraordinarily number of refugees. they crossed the hungarian border into austria. in december of 1956, there are about 130,000 who are in austria. there are at least that many muslim refugees coming north into austria and they are being

bottled back. today, europe is a wash in refugees, the same story is going on in 1956. the u.s. responses is quite different spirit what happens in december 56? richard nixon goes and visits capria, pa -- inspects the and is equally moved about moving -- bringing in hungarians into the united states. here is how the story gets interesting again. how does he do that? the refugee relief program is cumbersome and takes a long time to get people process. quick, usefulre and sherman for foreign policy. what do they do? politicallittle-known bureaucratic rule in the mccarran walter's act. allows the attorney general

to bring in someone from the country as a parolee. to recognize that they are breaking the law and to parole them. they are a parolee and they can come in and stay in the united states without legal standing, legally, thats, is to say there citizenship status is not decided yet, but they are brought in and they will be safe. this is the power that richard president -- as president enjoyed the eisenhower does to bring in the refugees. it is without authorization and without any real debate. 38,000 hungarians come to the united states in 1957, the spring of 1957. 32,000 of them are parolees. the significance of this is and will benefit every single benefit -- president for the next half-century. instrumentsees as

as u.s. foreign-policy and to change the relationship. put this into contemporary perspective, the complaints about president obama using executive authority, using his constitutional role is an old complaint that congress has made about political leaders. in fact, it goes right back to the heart of the policy. the refugee policy is an active thehe executive branch of act of congress. it is a good instrument and allows them to respond quickly to the hungarian crisis here with immigrants crossing into austria, that is the border right behind you with the machine gun posts. many of them are orphans like these three kids. my babysitter was a hungarian refugee, in 1966 and was a wonderful musician. we loved her dearly, but anyhow, it it gets closer to a personal

story. effort by the state, by the state department after hungarian refugees come in. they recognize that there is a political popularity. they seek to justify it and the state department and executive branch create a public relations campaign to persuade america proudhese refugees are americans. their anti-communism makes them good americans. they hire in ad firm, it goes around and talks about hungarians as this seek to improve -- and really place of their credentials as anti-communist who risk their lives against the communists -- regime and our americans in the making. one ad executive for the state department said to

like magazine. " you should be helping the american people realize that hungary refugees are not coming from a cultural vacuum, just because they do not know much english. " you should see them as good american consumers. there is this interesting spread in life magazine, as well as in look magazine that shows i'm gary adapting and loving americans. after arriving in the united states, this refugee family was formed into ecstatic minnesotans. they still do not speaking bush, but they seem to like their kitchen and their sink. there is this fusing of american culture, withmer also this political understanding of anti-communism that is at the heart of the story.

this is a pattern that is areging, refugees understood as prototypical he american and is expanding the numbers quite are medically. this is the same story moving forward in the cuban revolution that occurs in 1959. once again, a revolution involving, well, it is l castro who is not anti-american, but over the course of the an ardent does become critic of the united states and in braces soviet aid and is deemed a communist. those who are being persecuted by castro and his regime is anti-communist. this occurs not without controversy, but the cuban story exemplifies this kind of liberalizing story within u.s. refugee policy. if united states is an extraordinary generous nation with refugees, it is because it's anti-communist campaign.

it is because of the cold war. this is no accident, it is really the reason the united states opens its stores -- doors. over a half of a million cuban refugees arrive. to set foot on florida or on american soil, it makes them refugees who have protected legal status. unlike any other group in the western hemisphere. the reason is because castro was in power. it is an explicit part of u.s. foreign policy. the cubans are important for a couple of regions -- reasons. refugee policy is a version of an exceptional cuban policy. programsesettlement are put into place to help cubans, but then become used for all refugees. finding them jobs, housing, trading and bureaucracy to help aid in their settlement

-- resettlement. in 1950 six, the cuban status adjustment act has passed, which has a remarkable political story. and giveszes citizenship to cuban refugees, and also allows them to become dual citizens. citizens in the united states in 1966. the first ones were cuban. why is that? because they are passionate cold war years. they are fighting castro, and if they want to go back and fight castro, we want to support them. they should not give up their cuban citizenship. they can become americans. we want them to be able to achieve that foreign-policy objective, which is to overthrow castro. this kind of exception for cuban refugees becomes a kind of law for a larger community of americans after 1957. the supreme court case does well. they can become citizens largely in the wake of the cuban story.

, its an interesting story is only understandable as a product of u.s. foreign-policy objectives. it is extraordinarily generous for cubans. it is leading to changes in the status of refugees across the spectrum as well. all of these examples i am giving you, really quickly, there is a clear theme. isis that the united states fighting a cold war with refugees, and its generosity towards refugees is because of those foreign-policy objectives. unchallenged.y it does not lead to a convergence of foreign-policy and domestic definitions. it does not change u.s. immigration dramatically. there was very little for refugees, it does not make them

central to the story. one might expect that it would have, that you would have had a lot of refugees being brought in because it is a cold war piece of legislation, but in effect, they do not need to because the law is aimed at helping those countries that have been -- been fighting the cold war. of then beneficiaries format of 1965 are southern and eastern europeans. greece, hungary, the same nations that have been fighting the cold war are beneficiaries of that reform, which performs those quotas. -- reforms those quotas. any questions before we look at this? >> after the hungarian revolution, because nixon went hishe refugee camps, where intentions coming from a humanitarian place?

were his intentions very much focused in the foreign-policy? i do not have a good answer. i do not know his intentions. if you do look later in nixon's -- nixon do not think was an extraordinarily pragmatic politician. what is clear is that he saw the political opportunity and he seized it. powerwas, we can expand at the executive branch through refugees. it was his insight that if we use this little-known provision here, per rolling immigrants to refugees, we can get more in. that was good for foreign-policy interests, which is what he was engaged with. it also expanded the power of the president. that is very consistent with the

later nixon who was the so called imperial president. whether it was general humanitarian interest, probably not. what is interesting is that the anti-communism was not framed as a humanitarian story. it was to some degree, but mostly they were proto-american prayer we have an obligation to accept them because they are american, not because we are humanitarian. that is in some way the troubling takeaway. of wheren the context humanitarian understand and of the refugee -- understandings of anywayugee defines those that is not actually the way people understood it for much of the cold war. main framing was that they were proto-american. this answer the question? [indiscernible]

affected --really in the end. the consequence of the 65 law has a lot to do with refugee law. as well as the ways in which family communication was at the heart of the 65 reform. a quick answer is, how did the 65 law, which in some ways supported the admission of people who were already here ramifications would do that. how did it bring in so many asian immigrants? it did because it when you brought in lots of refugees from cambodia, what did they start to do, they started to fend for their families. you bring in lots of refugees and you actually expand the family's story. that twining of immigration policy is one of the main generators of the transformation

in the expansion of asian immigration post 1965. china is a communist country right? was the moment because of cold --.policies why not more chinese refugees at the moment that china becomes communist in 1950? there are very few chinese refugees who come in. what do you think? >> i believe the chinese government had very strong restrictions on the mobility of their people. >> wherewith they have fled to?

hungary and's fled into austria and it is easier to get them out, that is part of the story, but there are u.s. allies in asia. they go to taiwan, but why did companiesid not more and chinese -- taiwanese and chinese come to the united states? x -- historically immigration sentiment. >> the mccarran walter act has very strict national protocol. refugees are a way around it. it is largely in the foreign-policy latitude. the united states, before getting involved, if it wants to him -- avoid a military conflict whenchina in the 50's -- you accept the country's refugees it is like a

foreign-policy statement. it will become important later. i guess one sees the wake of the bednam story, much of the there are many chinese refugees that come out of that context as well. that would be a great research paper, i know it is too late to come up with more topics. i like it. to make sure that they were anti-communist and would fight communist. or was it because they were trying to flee inherently anti-communism? inthere was a flee procedure these programs. many people fleeing the hunt during revolution where anti-communist. it is a different kind of communism. it was a different kind of democratic socialism that had overthrown the communist government. there were screening procedures. one famous guy who was found out

.s a guy named samuel gumbel's he had worked with the hunt gary and secret police and had been a main agent of the communists -- andin suppressing comes out as a refugee. he is turned in by his fellow refugees. they say that is the guy who put my parents in jail. the screening procedures capture those people, but it is not that effective. the fact is, you are accepting andle from communist asian the benefit of the doubt is that you are fleeing communist. you are fleeing castro, if you were anti-communist, even if you will doyou were -- you throw america. of currentinds me debates about refugees from the middle east. it is interesting that when

people were fleeing communism, it was almost assumed that they could be an ally in fighting communism, the people who were fleeing. they would be anti-communist and it would be a tool to undermine seeking them. modern debate about accepting refugees from the middle east, flees the refugee more as an a threat of coming from that, rather as a agent who could fight whatever regime they are fleeing. >> that is a really good observation. in fact, the only thing that has really changed radically, two things have changed. i am jumping ahead. two things i have really changed in refugee discussion. the first is that the definition of refugee shift to the humanitarian vision, which is the 1980 refugee act. it seeks to have a more, less form policy driven understanding what a refugee is.

as cold war liberalism itself is kind of dismantled, those who support refugee admission no longer make argument about the national interest. it is the restriction us who are making the arguments about national interest today. they are not new, they have been making the argument since 1939. it is the same argument. refugees are threatening our country. they are a threat to our national security, keep them out. what is not happening is the argument you are making, which i think i am hearing. we have a national interest in accepting more syrian refugees. if we will fight isis, we need to do that. we have a national interest, they can speak arabic, that is an important. they are refugees of isis, let's say. it argument is, you see occasionally, not very often and you do not see it as a policy.

that is a good question, why is that the case? why think that is not the case? do you think the fear of a national security danger was at that time, but it was overpowered by the police. [indiscernible] was the feared not there -- year there?re? -- fear not motivated by a profound existential anxiety by communism both abroad and at home. what is remarkable is that refugees did not set in that anxiety. they were seen as allies, as

assets in redressing those anxieties. if we get the good hungarians, if we get the good greeks who were victims of the civil war there, if we get the good cubans, if you will. good means the patriotic americans already information, then they will be allies in fighting this war. what the cold war was about was a way of redefining and understanding american rights, very much as anti-communist. that was the essential blue to to the wholeglue discussion. which brings back civil rights. rates to civil rights activist. i guess the question is why not in the present/ ? >> i think there is a fear now refugeese will be bad posing as good refugees as they are to get in. it is that fear that you would get that refugees there and be

overpowered. fearere is definitely that . they would find individual refugees who were actually bad or bad apples. they would bring it up and try to reduce the number of refugees. i suppose what is really different about the war on terror is that the consequences of one bad refugee is fully armed and detonates herself, or himself and is quite different from one person who would be .deologically a communist what was the threat of an individual communist in the 1950 -- in 1955? probably not much. actually, we know. the communists in north carolina, who were they? yes, the union workers. those were dangerous people. thely dangerous, that's why repressed so hard.

that is interesting to make those connections. i think the similarities of differences are quite different. we will not have time to get through everything. we will keep going and continued to lecture. i want to make sure to get to the end. what we do not get through is fine, we have time in this lecture to keep moving forward. i would say, one of the most interesting moments to focus in on. in the wake of the vietnam war and the loss -- united states lost there, the influx and importation of lots of vietnamese and cambodian refugees has a different logic. because theyicans are anti-communist, yes that is true, but they are not serving the same political interest. we have already lost the war. in some ways, the rationale for accepting all of them, to fight the communist power over there, coto have a covert --

hert of people who are fighting because we are basically losing the war. sameis going on at the time that the emerging language of human rights is gaining faction. this was a war against the citizens, it was deemed understood to be a very unfair, inhumane war. that produces a different kind of language. ofjustifies the significance vietnamese refugees in very different terms. thatrgument is useful in fighting a cold war. we have an obligation because we lost the war to aid our allies. of stakes are still a set cold war foreign policy stakes, but we will protect our own. we have allies and other places of the world. if we abandon our allies in vietnam, we are basically cutting lose our allies

elsewhere. that is the arguments used to bring in hundreds of thousands of vietnamese. --have to protect those in who are our allies in that fight. it begins to change how we imagine -- americans imagine the significance in the foreign policy stakes of refugees. to 1980 refugee act seeks bring forward, i am skipping ahead, it cements that image i are ready describe to you in the refugees as human rights survivors. with this in effect, a woman named liz holtman stimulates this. you -- if you are going to be a refugee, you have to be pro-american, and you have to renounce any political persecution, or violated any of their essential human rights.

the nation is reimagined in the late 70's as a human rights nation. under jimmy carter, under several other actors. that is really what you see enacted in the 1980 law. but itange is profound, plays out any dramatic fashion in the summer of 1980. hunter and refugees coming, here is the reaction that is being generated to vietnamese refugees. the growing hostility towards refugees in the 1970's is racialized because they are coming from asia. --t anti-asian some sentiment is not going away. i cannot advance the slide, that is ok. summer of 1980, you have a dramatic pairing of two refugee crisis at the same time.

both coming to the same shore in and these are refugees from vietnam and laos who are waiting to be brought to you -- to the united states. this is a boat of cubans coming out of cuba in 1979. what is interesting here is that castro is exploiting the opportunity to get rid of the jails. he has a lot of people he does not want to take care of. he pushes the humanitarian of the united states. these cubans who are in the , there isl strategy castro saying we do not want them, we do not need them. here are haitians coming in. that image is striking. these are haitians sitting out of the coast of florida. just look at that image. man!

ofy have a different kind perception when they get to the united states. many of them are basically rounded up. the first immigration detention centers are largely created in florida to house haitian perspective refugees and to process them. it is to decide whether they should be allowed into the country. the human rights regime and language that emerges after the refugee act has sought to change -- its. refugee laws should not matter if you are a u.s. a u.s. ally or enemy. your refugee status should be universal. that was not the case. this was put to the test at this moment in time. haitians had a much harder time to get into the country as citizens. they have been denied citizenship and refugee status throughout the 1970's and cubans were being let in.

the differences were about race and about the cold war. had theitians misfortune to fleeing a u.s. ally, a u.s. dictator and that meant that they were not good anti-communist. if anything, they were critics of u.s. foreign policy as they were understood. the u.s. refugee act seeks to change that, but does not change it overnight. you have the persistence of cold war policy playing itself out in the 1980's, after this act is made law. one of the best examples are refugees of the el salvador civil war. they are fleeing -- many of these refugees are fleeing u.s. right-wing actors, and come to the united states and are not allowed to become refugees. they seek instead to be under asylum law and become refugees after the fact. a have a very hard time.

most of them are denied admission, or denied refugee or asylum status. in the fiveyou minutes we have left comment a story of one of those good people. i think it illustrates the tension in enduring u.s. refugee law. between refugee status as a human -- humanitarian status, the refugee act of 1980, and national foreign policy interest. this is a story of a fellow name miguel. he is a dear friend of mine. he is the best citizen in north carolina. i have never met any citizen better than him. . will describe he fled el salvador in 1983. he was forced to fight at the age of 12 for the marxist guerrillas. his parents were killed.

he came into the united states at age 14. made his way to north carolina, he worked all kinds of jobs. he describes his first weeks in america as the most beautiful days of his life because he could sleep without bombs blowing up and waking him at refugee of aa horrific civil war. by any definition, he should be a refugee. he applied when he came to north asylum law for refugee status. his case was pending for 17 years. what happened? kind 17 years the ruling -- finally came down. the civil war is over, he no longer had an asylum claim, you will be deported.

in the meantime, he had been a legal resident as an asylum seeker. had also been doing other things. among them, deciding that democracy really was a beautiful thing and he decided to register. there was a voter registration contest in 2008 during the political mobilization. won, he register more than 2000 people by himself. no one could say no to this guy. he was incredibly persuasive. his own personal story, whatever, just people would register. he registered all caps of people. kinds of people. he registered a member of the klan. you can vote.y, if you want to register that as your party, fine.

he met a candidate named barack obama. this ruling came down shortly thereafter and he was put into deportation. and he becamet it , as a result of this, a ferocious critic of the united states. a kind of citizen, he recognized that the best measure is to become a critic. on his car is a picture of barack obama. he left it on his car because he was so kissed off. because hepissed said barack obama deported more people in u.s. history. which is a sense of betrayal. but as someone who understood what democracy is, why it matters, white he passionately

loves the station, i cannot imagine anyone who understands. to me he is, i do not agree with ,im, he is the perfect american the perfect citizen. he understands the stakes of .emocracy, what makes it work he has an investment in everyone of you speaking to have a vote. limbo.till in legal he is not a u.s. citizen, and that is why his name is miguel for the purpose of this discussion. he is likely to get a pass after all, but is -- it is costing a lot of money. that is neither here nor there. i think the story is of the stakes. , and both a person who refugees understand this and what makes america, if you will, a nation of refugees better than many americans.

they have ideas about this place that could be refreshing if people listen. the story of the policy is complicated. we have not wrapped it all up and we will come back to it. it links nations and humane interest at every turn. whether we listen to advocates iguel, but if we did i think the discussion would change radically. we will have more debate about this relationship between humanitarian and nationalism as we move forward. thank you for your questions. join us every saturday evening as we join students in college classrooms du jour lectures on topics ranging from the american revolution to 9/11. lectures in history are also available as podcasts. visit c-span.org/history/podcast , or download them from itunes.

announcer: ucla history professor benjamin matley talks about his book, and american genocide, the united states and the california indian catastrophe. 1846-1873. fall intothat militias were hired by local governments to systematically wipe out native americans in california. causing their population to fall from about 150,000 to 30,000 between 1846 and 1873. the california historical society hosted this 50 minute program. >> that evening everyone and thank you for coming out this evening to delve into what is not necessarily the most relaxing topic, but a topic to which i have devoted the better part of a decade of my life, as i believe in its importance. i would like to think patty