♪ ♪ ♪ >> welcome to "amanpour on pbs." tonight, are women's rights at risk as president trump prepares to name his choice to cement conservative control of the supreme court. my conversation with the prominent conservative mona charon whose controversial new book "sex matters" looks at the cost of modern feminism. also ahead, truth and myth. professor alexander betts on the times immigration and what nations must do to ensure sustainable migration. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to the program,

everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in london. the pendulum of justice is about to swing even further to the right, possibly for decades to come in the highest court in america. president trump reportedly has narrowed down his supreme court short list to a top three and says he'll soon announce his nominee. with a conservative voice on the supreme court and another one, some fear and some hope that roe versus wade landmark ruling on a woman's right to choose could be overturned in the not too distant future. to discuss this, i am joined by a reagan conservative columnist mona charan, and her new book calls for a sexual counter revolution because she thinks feminism has gone too far, seeing off the nuclear family, for instance. she became very well known this year for daring to call out her own party and president on the issue of values and morals at cpac, the conservative political

action conference, and i spoke to her from washington. mona charan, welcome to the prime minister. >> thank you. so as a real conservative, i want to ask you what you are hoping for and what you expect in terms of naming the next supreme court justice? >> i'm hoping for someone who will not be a lawmaker. the supreme court has taken on far too many law-making roles and that properly belongs to congress and the president, and so i'd like to see a return to the more traditional and modest role to the court where it doesn't make policy, but it simply rules on constitutionality and fairness. >> so, of course, there are a lot of decisions that could fall into that, a lot of cases and particularly when it comes to anthony kennedy. he was always called a swing vote, but he was very reliably conservative and he was the one that put over the top citizens

united and you know the whole idea of money and politics. we have the idea of gay marriage that he sided with and also, of course, roe versus wade. it seems that most conservatives and most people around the united states are concerned about roe versus wade. so i'd like to just play you a couple of sound bites both from the vice president mike pence and from then-candidate donald trump on the issue of abortion and women's rights in the area. >> we appoint strict constructionists as donald trump intends to do. i believe we will see roe versus wade consigned to the ash heap of history. >> do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle? >> the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. >> for the woman? >> yes. there has to be some form. >> those are two different issue, but first and foremost, do you believe and do you hope that the next supreme court does what mike pence says, consign

roe versus wade to the dust bin of history? >> well, i do think that it was a very poor decision. one of the worst to come out of the supreme court comparable to dread scott. i do hope to see it overturned, but please understand what that means. it does not mean a uniform outlawing of abortion around the country or anything like it. it just returns the decisions to 50 state legislators and governors who will make different rules in different states and that's the federal system and i would like to see it argued out by the people and their elected representatives instead of by nine unelected lawyers. >> do you worry that if this goes back to states that something, like, i don't know, 20 states would immediately overturn it, ban it and make it illegal which means that those women in those states would have to cross state lines, that it would disproportionately affect

poor, maybe minority women and it's yet another element of discrimination against some of the most vulnerable? >> well, we look at this very differently. i see the most vulnerable as the unborn children. they really have no voice and they really have no opportunity to say, look, i really would prefer to be born and adopted than aborted and if you took a poll of the unborn, i think they would probably be 100% in favor of being born. so i look at it from the point of view of those disadvantaged people and it's hard to be more disadvantaged than a baby in the womb. >> regarding other social and cultural issues, you're a big probonence of marriage and we'll get to your book in a second and it has been said that in these troubled times the gay population have also been big supporters and big proponents of

marriage and they're upholding this institution in american life. so anthony kennedy cast the deciding vote that allowed gay marriage to stand. is that something that you would like to see stand or do you think in a new conservative court that will be overturned, as well? >> i'm very skeptical that that would happen, but i would say, look, my attitude is we are conducting a huge social experiment. i hope that marriage does for lesbians and gays what it has done for heterosexuals, that is make them happier, healthier, wealthier and more stable, but it's too soon to tell and the jury is out, and i do think that when it comes to raising children there are special challenges for same-sex couples that we ought not to sugar coat and we ought to be very open about, that they're, you know,

you need role models of the other sex in order for kids to develop to their full potential. >> what do you make of the current president of the united states, a republican who calls himself a conservative, having this power to nominate potentially two, maybe more supreme court justices in his time because i know that you -- you know, you're not a pro-trumper. >> no, but i am pro-constitution, and our constitution gave that power to the president with the advice and consent of the senate. the courts and the president both have way too much power and that can be fixed by congress reasserting its privileges, but the president does have the right to nominate. the senate should vigorously advise and consent and that's our system, and as a conservative, i revere tradition and the constitution. >> at cpac you made a very conscious, bold decision to

speak out about what you considered were the betrayals of moral values, of conservatism by the current president and you were speaking out against what could be termed the hypocrisy of your own party in this regard. let me just play the sound bite of what propelled you to viral stratospheric fame and that was what you said to the conservative audience at cpac not long ago. >> i am disappointed in people on our side. >> okay. for being hypocrites about sexual harassers and abusers of women who are in our party who are sitting in the white house, who brag about their extra marital affairs, who brag about mistreating women. this is a party that was ready to endorse the republican party, endorse roy moore for the senate in the state of alabama even though he was a credibly accused

child molester. you cannot claim that you stand for women and put up with that. >> so that was brave. i mean, it's really difficult to find people who will challenge their own tribe in this way and you did it, and you got some boos. take me back to that moment and tell me how it felt and what was going on inside. i mean, were you scared? were you nervous before you did this? >> well, of course, i was nervous, but i felt very strongly that this is something that had to be said, and i felt honestly that i was speaking for many, many conservatives who -- and moderate liberals, too, who feel the same way, and that they deplore the direction that the republican party is trending. what pushed me over the edge in terms of fury at the cpac organizers was their invitation to marion le pen, niece of

marine le pen and apologized for her nazi-sympathizing grandfather. i also mentioned the hypocrisy about sexual conduct. look, part of being a conservative is upholding family values, but really meaning it and unfortunately, we've seen hypocrisy on both sides about this. liberals were quick to defend bill clinton even though they have been extremely vocal about sexual harassment before, for example, with anita hill, and then they gave him a pass and then the republicans now are giving trump and roy moore a pass for similar or even worse behavior and so -- look, if we don't call out our own sides we will never get past this poisonous partisanship. it really does require people to say -- you know, it's easy to point the finger on the other side, and it's hard to point the finger at the other side so i felt like speaking for others

who wanted to say these things. >> mona charan, you have written a book "sex parties" and you took a look at feminism and how you think feminism has failed not just women, but also american families and the like. tell me where, exactly, you stand because clearly you're not saying that you don't think women should be equal under the law, under employment, under all those issues. >> of course, and i applaud the greater range of choices that women have about how they will conduct their lives. there's no longer really a stigma about women who don't want to have children and families, and i think that's good. of course, the gains in the workplace, also wonderful. women's talents are appreciated more than they once were. at the same time the feminists made some crucial errors and one of them was by devaluing the importance of family life and family relationships, and we are

facing a real crisis -- it's an overused word, but of connection. there are so many people in american society who remain single, who have trouble finding spouses, having children without marriage has now become the norm for high school graduates and high school -- especially for high school dropouts. we've created a bit of a caste system in our society where the people who most need the security and support of an intact family and a strong marriage are the ones who are least likely to have it and they are really struggling and the women's movement has played a role in diminishing the importance of marriage. they thought marriage and argued and i quote them in matter a lot that it was designed by men to keep them down and i point out looking at the social science

data that we've accumulated over the last 50 years that women are now less secure, less happy, less fulfilled and have less rounded lives than they did, and so we need to look carefully about what the decline of families has done especially for women at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. >> so what would you say then as a final thought on the women who in the 2016 elections, republican women who put trump over the top, knowing the moral terpitude that you identify and knowing all about it and going out to the voting booth and voting? >> right. >> well, that was probably the worst choice in american history. hillary clinton was also very morally compromised and the voters had 25 years of evidence that there was corruption and that she backed policies that

they did not like. they were ready for a change. that's often the case after a two terms with the president and one party so those are all the reasons. whether people will vote to re-elect trump, that's an open question and we will see. >> mona charan, you said -- what did you just say? >> i said i hope not. >> mona charan, auth aor of "se matters," thank you very much indeed. >> my pleasure. so immigration, of course, is gripping america and much of the democratic world right now. this independence day to protest migrant family separations, one woman planted herself atop the mother of all refugees, lady liberty herself. here in europe illegal border crossings to the eu have plummeted and mediterranean crossings have plummeted, too, but that has not stopped the toxic political fear and loathing around migration and

even german chancellor angela merkel long seen as the refugees' biggest champion has been along her border. what is the solution? the migration center has helped launch a sustainable migration framework for government and, he said, while it is a difficult task there is a win-win way to resolve this issue for both the desperately needy and for advanced economy in desperate need of workers, but it does require the political will. >> alexander betts, welcome back to the program. >> thank you. >> the last time we spoke was about a year ago and yet another sort of crisis and spike in this refugee and migrant situation. back then you told me and you'd written a book that this is an issue that is fixable, and yet, we've seen since friday more than 200 refugees, migrants, more than a thousand this year

alone. babies again washing up on shores and why isn't it fixed yet? >> it's a horrific tragedy. this is not a crisis of numbers. it's a crisis of politics. the numbers of asylum seekers coming to europe from africa and elsewhere is actually going down. in 2015 it was 1.3 million, and 2016, 1.2 million and last year it's 650,000 and yet public perception is otherwise and the reason for that is what's going on amongst the electorate in the democracies of europe where migration is becoming the scapegoat issue, and what's driving that is that publics are concerned. they want rules-based approaches to immigration. >> which is logical. >> it is. to be able to know who are refugees and who are economic migrants and to separate the two and politicians are failing to come up with a plan to address that very real concern. >> are they deliberately conflating for their own

political reasons for asylum seekers and refugees? >> absolutely. it's such a muddle. politicians are trying to say your lives are being affected by migrants when actually it's a scapegoat for underlying trends and across europe we see the disappearance of jobs where people feel disenfranchised and they feel that with austerity programs across europe their lives are being affected and the options is this is because of immigration when it's deeper trends that are going on and we are failing to come up with narratives on the liberal side of politics when it's the pop lives saying it's the migrants and even as the numbers of asylum seekers come down. >> let's begin with the numbers because it's an issue of fear versus reality and the figures as you've alluded to according to the eu as of last month the number of illegal border crossings into the eu is down by 95% from its peak which is back in october 2015.

according to the u.n. refugee agency, 42,000 migrants have crossed the mediterranean to europe this year compared to more than a million at peak levels in 2015. we've addressed why. now let's look at what's happening so you've got the most welcoming person in europe, angela merkel who opened her doors to these people in 2015 forced now by some of the politics you're talking about to do this thing which i want to get your view on, but to agree to set up control points and camp on her southern border. how dramatic is that or is that something she should do? >> it's a complete u-turn. august, 2015, we will cope. merkel told her public, we are a big country. we can cope with a large number of syrian refugees. >> but they did cope, right? they coped very briefly and simple society had done an awful

lot, but politically we had far right politician being elected for the first time in more than 70 years in germany and that shocked merkel's super to its core. >> we see in her coalition towards the right. >> forcing merkel's right in order to save her life, and that reflects the sustainability of the open door policy because even as numbers go down we see a backlash because people are concerned and what many people want, the middle and the moderate middle is to beab ableo distinguish who are refugees in need of protection and people taking advantage of the system and the challenge is it's very hard for europe to have asylum and for those of other countries to distinguish. this is a refugee, this is someone that is coming for the aspirational migration and then it requires how to equitably

distribute refugees across europe and no agreement on that and what to do with those who are screened out and return levels so the public is losing trust and some of that is a justifiable loss of trust and some of it is an unnecessary failure. >> you talk about absolute necessity to determine between refugees and asylum seekers and also the csu politician and the deputy leader and the ally of angela merkel. this is what he told me about this. >> if someone is an illegal migrant, he has to be rejected. he has to go back home. if he is a refugee from syria, then he can be accepted and i am sure that the people in europe, when they can guarantee a state that those who are arriving here are real refugees and asylum seekers and they're fleeing from syria, then a lot of people in the european, and the majority of people are willing to help

those people. here is what is at stake in the european union. it's fs it's not about the numbers. it's about the criteria. >> he's reinforcing what you're saying and the question is what next? you talked about how european countries are not stepping up to take their share in an equitable way and this is something merkel has tried to do for years and years, trying to get the eu it deal with it, but it hasn't. so what is the answer? how does one get them to do it? >> we've seen last week in brussels, europe and the european union trying to come up with a practical deal that can work. and they've agreed on very little and how they distinguish refugees from other migrants. >> as you study it yourself and you've written books about all of this, do you have a solution? how does one do this? >> we've got to allow people who have a genuine need to claim refuge, to claim at different stages and claim near to home and claim in transit countries and not close detention centers

like they're often being proposed in libya. they're a disaster from the humanitarian and open spaces and where a claim can be lost in transit and people don't have to resort to embarking on very dangerous journeys and lose their lives in the mediterranean. when they get to europe we've got to have a sincere commitment by politicians to work together. yes, it makes sense and it's to assess a claim, but not for them to take responsibility for all of the refugees and you come to the territories and there we have to have a commitment to reallocate across europe, but we don't have to do that on an arbitrary basis. we ask refugees, where in europe do you want to go, what kinds of refugees do you want? what skill sets do you want and preference match? >> really remarkable. that is a remarkable solution and that way it works with voter preference across the european union. it can be sold to the european

union, but equally we've got to manage those who fall outside the system and say for those who can be returned humanely, justly in a way that respects their human rights, we have to follow through on that, but then be creative to those that are not recognized by refugees. can we poll other countries who have a need for low skilled areas of labor migration and say we can give you an opportunity in a third country. so i think out of that there is a vision, but it requires politicians to listen, politicians with a commitment and articulate their electorate a vision rather than following and exploiting the topic opportunistically. >> obviously, one devil's advocate question is that you might find a lot of countries saying we want white, highly skilled workers and all of the majority of the people coming over are not that. >> yeah. it's a complete paradox here. many governments need low-skilled and high-skilled labor.

in this country, the united kingdom, for instance, we see the prospect of brexit there will be less migration for the rest of europe and the retail sector and the construction sector and the hospitality sector. they need workers and now refugees with the real need to be here on humanitarian grounds can be an asset and they can be economic contributors. they don't have to be a burden. we have gaps in our labor market. in the longer run, there are concerns about what automation will do and there are concerns about europe and north america about whether those jobs will still be there, but certainly, there are gaps in the labor market and there are ways in which preferences can be matched. >> i don't know if you studied the united states and this is a major issue under the u.s. border right now under the trump administration and there is a whole load of demagoguery about it and toxic politics about it. is there a similar solution for the united states? in other words, matching refugees and migrants with economic needs from central and latin america, mexico into the

united states. >> what's been happening on the u.s.-mexican border with the minors is shocking, tragic and absolutely unnecessary. it shows as in europe that the toxic narratives around migration often have an electoral payoff. they offer something that politicians cannot benefit from and do benefit from. we've seen examples with the u.s. and labor migration, and they've seen schemes like circular migration and benefit migrants and for instance with haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake and the u.s. with the states with the agricultural need took haitian employers to come for a period, six months, a year and they went back to haiti and the studies that have been done show that the u.s. economy benefited, haitian migrants benefitted and haitian, and the haiti economy also benefitted and those schemes can be available in a way for sustainable migration that risks political backlash. if you're fleeing cartel

violence, if you can't find safety, and across the border, you are a refugee and the u.s. hasn't grappled with that and they see the southern border as a labor migration and an aspirational migration and part of it is a refugee challenge. part of it is people fleeing violence. people fleeing a desperate lack of rights and the u.s. needs to confront that reality of all civilized countries should do to recognize who is making a choice and who has no choice, but have a human rights-based claim to cross that border. >> very important food for thought. alexander betts, thank you so much. >> and that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour on pbs" and join us again tomorrow night.

katty: you are watching "beyond 100 days" on pbs. british authorities struggle to reassure the public after two more people are poisoned by a nerve agent. christian: they can't explain how traces of novichok are still being found in amesbury. katty: the u.k. is pointing the finger at russia, but moscow still says it has nothing to do with any of this. the prime minister is pushing back on suggestions that her new customs proposal would prevent britain from making a trade deal with america after brexit. christian: president trump is brimming with optimism when it comes to north korea. now it is the turn of mike pompeo to turn the promises into a