welcome to amanpour on pbs. tonight, the u.s. supreme court approves the latest version of president trump's controversial travel ban. nina totenberg joins me. reaction from deb holland, campaigning to become the first native american woman in congress. also ahead, the politics of patriotism. sports journalist and author on black athletes in the united states.

good evening, everyone. welcome to the program. 17 months after first signing a travel ban, the u.s. supreme court has now given president trump what he wants, approving his third attempt to restrict travel primarily from muslim majority countries. in a 5-4 decision, the chief justice john roberts wrote that trump's order is, quote, sca squarely within the scope of presidential authority. multiple federal judges and protests challenged trump's original order. the latest version slaps restrictions or inrran, north korea, venezuela, to dilute the muslim flavor of the ban. joining me is nina totenberg. welcome to the program. >> my pleasure. >> you know, what is so

different about this version than the original version that allowed the supreme court or prompted the supreme court to approve it? >> well, this version is, in fact, very different than first version. first of all, the administration, prodded by the courts, finally did undertake a complete administrative review asking the various cabinet departments, state departments, cia, to weigh in and decide which countries, why, how thorough the ban should be. it set up a complete regimen for reviewing it every 180 days. it provides for a system of waivers so that people who have a really good reason for coming to the united states can, in fact, get a visa from these countries. you may recall the earlier version was so chaotic and so unthought out that it actually

included people with green cards who couldn't get back in the country. this is a far cry from the first one. but the decision still gives the president -- this president and any president very broad authority under the statutes and under the constitution to enact this kind of a ban. >> critics and the plaintiffs particularly called this a muslim ban in everything but name. do you agree or -- why do you think north korea and venezuela are on this list? >> i think they did add north korea and venezuela for cosmetic purposes. i do think that if you look -- the court was very clear. even the majority opinion, which gave this enormous deference to the president, spelled out all the anti-muslim things he had said. but it basically concluded that

in fact, the final ban as it now stands meets with all the crossed ts and dotted is and what the statute allows the president to do. and it also specifically found that as enacted, the third version of the ban does not so explicitly ban muslims. and it doesn't deny that the president said what he said. but chief justice roberts writing for the court says, presidents have always given their opinions to the people. usually, they have given nice opinions, opinions of tolerance, of things like that. president washington, the most recent president bush after 9/11, and the implicit suggestion was this was not a nice way to express yourself, but it wasn't enough to

invalidate the ban because of the broad authority vested in the president by the constitution and the statute. >> you have been covering the supreme court and legal affairs for years. do you agree -- are you surprised by the approval? we know it was very close, 5-4 along partisan lines as we have seen over last several years. are you surprised? what did the dissenters say in this case? >> i wasn't particularly surpri because this was the -- it was the suggestion at oral arguments that it was going to be 5-4. there were two justices who dissented orally from the bench. two dissented from the bench this morning making clear their strong disagreement with the opinion. the one justice talked for 20 minutes. it was impassioned dissent that compared this to the supreme court's decision upholding the

japanese internment during world war ii. in response tothat, the chief justice took the opportunity to explicitly overturn that decision saying it was wrongly decided on the day it was decided but the critics of the decision, including the dissenters, basically are saying, there's not that much difference between what happened in the japanese internment and what happened here. >> nina, do you think that this is going to, for instance, close the door to refugees from syria? almost none have come in. a very tiny number in 2018 compared with several thousand in 2017 and many more than that before. >> if there's any wiggle room left in this litigation, it's over the visa waiver process. and if the challengers can show that people are being systematically denied when they have very good reasons to be

granted visas, they may be able to pressure the administration with litigation, through litigation into being a little more loose and a little more generous in granting visas. i would say that at the moment, the administration has won in just about every respect. there's no reason to think that they're going to behave differently in the future. >> nina, thanks so much. of course, all of this emerges in the heated and often ugly atmosphere of the whole zero tolerance program at the u.s./mexico border. deb holland, the democratic candidate for congress is running as a passionate advocate for immigrant and refugee rights. what is most ironic, she's a member of the pueblo tribe, one of the first americans whose ancestors were victims of genocide by european immigrants. now she's on track to make

history as the first native american woman ever elected to congress. deb holland, joining me from albuquerque to discuss it and the issues of the day. deb holland, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> let me ask you about this supreme court decision. it was very narrow along partisan lines, 5-4 majority. do you agree with the decision that the presidential decree is well within presidential authority? >> you know, i don't agree. i am distraught over this decision from the time president trump has taken office, it seems as though his racist attitudes have guided his policies across the board. and i'm disappointed and just distraught over the decision. >> of course, he would say he is not racist and his supporters would say he's not racist.

be that as it may, from your point of view, i want to ask you why you are so pro immigration. of all people, native americans should kind of be anti-immigration given your history. tell me how your family history informs your immigration policy and views. >> it's been, you know, 500 years since europeans came to this country and so that's a long time. it's essentially too late for us to go back. right? my grandparents, who were products of the assimilation era, worked extremely hard to ensure that our family moved into the future, if you will. because they realized that there wasn't any going back. so the best they could do is preserve our culture, our language, our traditions so that we would have that going into the future. my grandparents were very supportive of education and work ethic and all of those things

that helped us to move into the 20th century where we are now. yes, even though i'm a 35th generation new mexican on my grandparents' side, my dad's grandparents immigrated to the united states in 1881 from norway. i realize firsthand how important immigration is to the betterment of our country. immigrants help to build our country as it is today. and i think that the best we can do is to be a welcoming society. and that's exactly how my laguna grandmother was. she welcomed people into our village, into her home. and we need to do that. we need to have good relations with our community in order to be successful. >> let me ask you then about some of the issues president trump raises. he talks about crime. he talks about security on the

border. you are from new mexico. you are hoping to become a congresswoman. new mexico is a border state. he is basically saying democrats are weak on immigration and they want open borders. the last few times the issue came to a vote, democrats voted overwhelmingly for enhanced border security. what is your view on border security? do you think there are legitimate concerns about that? >> there's a difference between protecting our borders and targeting parents, moms and dads who are working to find their kids a better life. there's a difference between working to find criminals and incarcerate them than it is to just take parents off the streets, wait outside their churches and hospitals and courthouses to take them to jail in front of their children. the leap between arresting the

members of the drug cartel and arresting parents of immigrants who are coming out of church on a sunday, that is a vast difference. i don't think one has anything to do with the other, which is why i have stated that we should de-fund ice. ice is not actually protecting our border. it was implemented to fight terrorism. quite frankly, it's not doing that. it's arresting moms and dads off the streets. so if we really are serious about protecting our borders, we should do just that and stop just taking people when they're not committing any crime. >> i want to talk to you about crime. that's another thing as i mentioned the president is saying over and over again, that crime is sort of going up amongst the immigrant community. he basically said, immigrants bring crime and violence. many, many studies show actually the opposite is true. immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people

actually born in the united states. obviously, for you, as a politician, how do you push back against a narrative from the white house that is factually incorrect and untrue? >> you push back any way you can. you definitely push back against the policies that are emanating from the white house right now. not all immigrants are criminals, absolutely. so when we allow that language to be spit out into the air every single day, that is something that needs to stop. we can organize rallies. we can organize people. we can make sure that we're getting the folks out of office who aren't willing to take a human stance on immigration. and i believe that the american people will do just that this time around. >> interestingly, president trump's job approval has dropped

sharply, according to gallop. it was 45 last week to 41 now. i'm wondering whether you think it's because of this zero tolerance policy. given your history, how does it feel to be potentially the first native american woman, if you are lucky, if you win, to become a congresswoman? >> well, of course, i would be very proud. right? native folks have been the most underrepresented group of people in any governmental agency or body throughout history. we have never had a native american woman in congress. so, yes, native women across the country have never seen themselves in congress. i would be proud, of course, to have an opportunity to bring my background, my culture, the way i was raised by my parents, my dad was a 30-year career marine, my mom was a federal employee for 25 years. parents who served our community

selflessly. all of that background comes with me when i get into the halls of congress. i'm not saying that i could represent my tribe or any tribe in this country. but what i can do is speak from that perspective and also bring tribal leaders to the table when there's issues that affect their communities. i think that's very important to help to further the trust responsibility of the united states government toward indian tribes. >> i wonder how seriously you think you are taken as native americans? president trump said several things in the past. he keeps doubling down. for instance, he was just in nevada campaigning against a senate democratic candidate. he said the following. i'm going to play this and get your reaction. >> she's campaigning with elizabeth warren. sometimes referred to affecti

affectionately at pocahontas. they wanted me to apologize. >> how does that affect you? >> it's disgusting, quite frankly. it's terrible that the president of the united states would use a name as a racial slur toward a sitting member of the united states senate. i'm appalled that he incites his followers also to move toward racism in that way. it's terrible. in my culture, we honor our ancestors, folks who have gone before us. we would never, ever use a name in that way without respecting that person. >> on that note, deb holland, thank you for joining us from

new mexico. >> thank you for having me. >> now we turn to yet another did divisive issue, the police shootings, killings s of unarm black men. an officer killed a black man in pittsburgh. antwon rose was shot three times. this prompted nfl players to take a knee as a form of protest. colin kaepernick and others have taken a beating from the president, the public and team owners. the truth is that black activism in sports is not a new phenomenon in the united states. howard bryant has written an important new book about the power and the history of protest on the playing field. he is a senior reporter at espn magazine and the book is called "the heritage, black athletes, a divided america and the politics

of patriotism." he joins me from connecticut. welcome to the program. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> what is it that first made you write this book? what actual incident was it that caused you to take a look at what's going on right now? >> i think it was actually two issues. i think the first thing was what was taking place in ferguson in 2014 when michael brown was killed by police. then the series of incidents that took place after that with eric garner. i began to look at this rise of athletes getting involved when for so many years we didn't hear from them, so many years the player stayed away from political issues. that was also combined with something else. that was the rise of the flags and flyovers and militarism and p patriotism taking place at sporting events. what was interesting was that you had this rise of patriotism

in a place where sports were supposed to bring people together, combined with this rise of athletes getting involved. the collision was taking place in a place where -- in sports where we really weren't expecting that and where sports were supposed to be the place where everybody had -- you had your team, i had my team. but sports is the post divisive place in america culture right now. >> let's go to the colin kaepernick issue. that has been so emblematic. he paid a price. he was turned into public enemy number one. he was hung out to dry. he doesn't have a job. this whole business of taking a knee, i think, people sort of thought that this was sort of an unwarranted first kind of public protest in an arena that should just be about sports and not about politics. you delve right back into the history of this.

>> no question. i think that when you talk about the price that players are paying, you see that there's political capital here. you see what happened with the president today with the travel ban. you see the fact that these players have become part of a political narrative when we talk about the divisiveness in this country where now the president is using these athletes as being unfit to be in the country. he called them sobs for protesting. you have seen him say maybe they don't belong in the united states for their protest against police brutality. what is taking place now in sports is there's political capital to be gained by the political opposition to protest. the players are paying a serious price. we're trying to find out -- we will see what the players are going to do about this. it's interesting. in football, the players are paying a tremendous price. in basketball, you see players like lebron james and dwyane wade and multi-million dollar super athletes using their power

and the president doesn't attack them. their capital is a positive. >> right. lebron james, they read i can't read, referring to eric garner shouting he couldn't breathe in a head lock. why are they not taking the heat from the president? by the way, before i just ask you to respond to that, let's play that sound bite from the president that you referred to about thotprests. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say get that son of a [ bleep ] off the field right now? he is fired. he is fired! >> i mean, it's red meat. again, we'll get to the nfl owners in a second. why do you think the basketball players are allowed to -- can do it without inoccurricurring the

presidential wrath? >> the president is a bully. i think you know lebron james would fight him back. you know that steve kerr a, the fight back. they don't allow themselves to be bullied by anybody. you see that relationship. you see a great relationship between the league and the players and coaches. the difference between the nfl and the nba is that the nba has encouraged its players it use their voice. they don't find themselves at risk of losing their jobs and losing their can a rears reers. they have a national anthem policy. they don't kneel against the flag during the national anthem. they are encouraged to use their voice. you see the power of lebron j z james. he is not going to back down to the president. >> you see the nfl tell the players they must stand or stay in the dressing room. we know that some of the nfl

leaders, owners, have said it's president trump and conversations that influenced their decision on how to handle these protests. >> no question. exactly. that's one of the reasons why when you hear people in the public and why it's so disappointing when you hear people in the public use this as a first amendment issue. it's not a first amendment issue, private owners have a right to do and say what they want, the players have no power. when you have the president, who is a public figure, the government essentially, attacking these athletes and telling them they shouldn't be employ and creating pressure on the owners who do employ them, it does become a first amendment issue. you have the other two branchs of government attacking these players. it's disappointing when you see how easily the public is willing to silence the player. i think what's also interesting about this too is when you look at the combination of not just the flags and flyovers and

police and authoritarian elements that are taking place at the game, the fact that you also have the federal government and you have the pentagon essentially paying for these patriotic displays at the same time when the players are being silent. >> i wonder whether many -- i did not know that. i'm in the news business. i had no idea that they were paying for these patriotic flyovers and visitations from military and others. that was happening right now in the post 9/11 world. i want go back. we have pictures of people like paul robeson, an athlete, muhammad ali. all of them had public moments of protest. of course, the black power salutes at the 1968 olympics. protests there.

kareem abdul-jabbar who didn't even play at the 1968 olympics because of protesting civil rights and the like. people have forgotten this. remind us of the history through some of these black athletes of the past. >> absolutely. you have a break here. if you are of a certain generation, you remember muhammad ali and bill russell and jim brown and john carlos. there's a long history, a heritage of african-american athletes being involved. the argument i make in the book is that black athlete is the most influential, most visible black employee this country has produced. they felt that they had a responsibility to get involved because they were the ones who made it. they were the ones who integrated the country. let's not forget it was in baseball that integrated the country before the military. then from 40 year period after that in the 1970s, '80s, '90s.

michael juror dordan, tiger woo those players did not get involved. not interested in risking political capital and whatever money they had because they didn't want to get involved in these issues. for the player today to get involved, it's a departure from the michael jordan era. it's a reminder to the fans that there's a history that took place long before 9/11. >> really important that you have been bringing this up with your book and talking about this, because again, i think people really do need to know where these athletes stand in the battle for civil rights and human rights. howard bryant, thank you for joining us. that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching amanpour on pbs and join us again tomorrow night. >> you are watching pbs. ♪

christian: you are watching "beyond 100 days" on pbs. the u.s. supreme court has upheld donald trump's travel ban targeting several muslim majority countries. katty: the 5-4 ruling says he has the power, even if people don't like what he does with it. christian: his opponents say the ban might be constitutional, but it doesn't make it right. the president says it is a moment of profound vindication. pres. trump: a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people, and for our constitution. christian: president trump has lashed out at one of his favorite american manufacturers, harley-davidson. if they move production to europe, he says they will be taxed like never before. two