n from immigrat to cyber security. ormer homeland security chief, janet napolitano talks with us about how to keep america safe. also, physicians at the order. a court ruling on asylum seekers deals another blow to the trump' administratios immigration policies. > and valerie jarrett. former senior adviser to president obamaurhares her y from segregated chicago to the white house. hello and welcome to kqed newsroom. we begin with homeland security. janet napolitano headed the departlant of ho security under president obama from 2009 two 2013. when she took over, the agency was less than a decade old but responsible for a vast range of rity challenges, including immigration, terrorism, cyber

security and natural disaster response. in her new book, "how safe are we," she surveys the security threats and rising threats. tee argues the most urgent threats are clim change and cyber security. joining me is former secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano. she currently heads the university of california system. nice to have you back on our program. >> thank you. >> i have to ask you about the chaotic week we he seen at the department of homeland security. secretary kirstjen elsen resigned under pressure and one day later the director of the secret service was gon what do you make of these developments? >> i think they're very worrisome. there are lots of other acancies in the leadership ranks of the department right now, and this is a department which has massive responsibilisees for the urity of the country. so this kind of leadership instability i think should worry

us all. >> ake issue is immigration. border officials say they're seeing nearly 0,000 migrants a month at the border, and that surge isn't slowing down. is there something to be sai for president trump's need for a hard line approaay when he that's exactly what we need right now? >> well, he's been pursuing a hard line approach for two years no and it's not working. and it doesn't work for a number of reasons. but the issues at the borderow ne to be dealt with differently. they need to be dealt with by a real strategy. not rhetoric. and what it requires isin pu more man power at the border, putting more man power at the ports ry e putting more immigration judges rightbo at t er so that asylum claims can be processed fairly and expeditiously. >> what about his calls for constructing a border wall?

>> no. a wall is a symbol. it's not a strategy. and the notion that we're going to construct a wall across 1,940 miles of border, it's -- it's expensive. id it won't work. and that's theportant thing. what will work is adding manpower, adding more technology, sustaining air cover across the border. that's a real strategy. under the obama administration, we drove migration across the southwest border to 40-year lows and did it by having a multiprong strategy. not a wall. >> speaking of technology, which you jt brought up, your book is a report card of sorts on how the nation is doing on security. and in it you say one of the areas where we' performing very poorly is cyber security. covering everying from voting systems to companies that have information on our banking data, our medical records. ng right ld we be d now in the area of cyber security and technology that

will help us protect the nation better? >> so cyber security is enormously complex. there areso many players. first of all, you've got the federal government and lots of agencies in the federal government touch on cyber. you've got state and localities. you've got the private sector that plays a very important role. and you have our internationall s and others, because as we know, cyber doesn't respect national borders. one ongthe t i recommend in the book is that we have presidentially established commission that brings together the stakeholders. and i outline ten specific questions that such a commission should address. but we desperately need mo eadership in this area than we have seen to date. >> and you say th other biggest national security threat we're facing is climate change. you write, quote, the magnitude

is universal. the threat is -- the threat likelihood is 100%.t we have a situation now where we have a president who doesn't agr with tha and who has vowed to pull out of the paris climate accord. so given the current political situation, how do we go about t mitigati threat of climate change? >> well, i think we should address it in two ways. number one, the united states needs to play its part in reducing the rate of climate change that already is occurring. that's why we should stay in the paris accords. t number two, we need to focus dy adaptation to the climate change that alreas occurred. and this gets down into some very pragmatic, wheaty subjects. where do we build our roads? w do we construct our bridges? what kinds of building materials do we use? how do we encourage the development of fire-wise communities in areas that are near these drought -- you know,

forests impacted by drought? you know, that whole question of adaptation is a function of reallyemlooking at the pro that are now and understanding that climate is actually a security risk, because it impacts the safety of americans. >> and those are things that cities and states can independent of the government. >> absolutely. bed ought to be doing. and need t doing it very intentionally. understanding that, youknow, the sea levels are rising. i think of this every time i take offla from the o airport and you look out, you know, where the wateis next to the runway. but, you know, sea levels are rising on both coasts. see the increasing frequency and intensity weather events. landfall hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires out west. we had a disastrous season last year in california. we need to do much moreby way of adaptation. >> yeah. let's switch gears and about the college admissions

scandal. both ucla and ucle berkey have been implicated. and last month you ordered an int what are you finding so far? have you found any other uc campuses that are guilty of similar activities? >> so f,st of a i was so angry when that case camen, do because, you know, we really try to do admisuons and a very square corner so students are admitted on their mers, not because of some undue influence. so ouread of our audit office is conducting anstination. we're currently mapping what each of the campuses does by way of anything approaching special admissions, for example, poor threats or musicians or theater ar majors. and once we have that mapped where we identify areas of particular wrisk,'ll drill down even more thoroughly on those.

>> will tre beany penalties for the students who are involved? >> you know, that will involve looking at the factsea of individual student's case. did the student know, should the student have kno that they were getting in based on an unfair and so those students will be looked at individndlly. >> what are you doing now to tighten uc's own rocedures to help prevent fraudulent admissions? >> so first of all, we ha to identify, you know, where are the possible ris in the system. and that's what our investigation is aimed at identifying now. so just to b clear, students are evaluated based on 14 criteria. then we have some categories. we have something calleda issions by exception. this is for students who are not otherwise egible for the universby. they coulhomeschooled. they could be from some rural

high schools that don't offer the requisite classes. >> but you'll take those things into account. >> we can take those things into account. it's a very, very small number of our admitees. but we want to look at that. and then there's a whole catory of special admissions. these are students who are eligible for the b university, they get in because of a special talent. athletics, music, i already mentioned those kinds of things. that's a systemthat we also want to make sure is very tight. >> all right. janet napolitano, head of the u system, anur new book out is call "how safe are we?" thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. moving on nowto a deeper focus on immigration, today the trump administratiln said it seek an emergency court order to keep sending migrants back toex mo while their asylum claims are decided. earlier this week, a federal indge san francisco had temporarily halted that program. on wednesday, president trump traveled to texas, where a

fund-raiser, and claims that border crossings threaten the security of americans. meanwhile, hundreds of migrants are showing up daily at the border, draining resources to detain them and processing their asylum claims. joining me now with a closer look at the immigration landscape are jian aguilar, immigration and border security reporter with the "texas he joins us via skype from el paso, texas. and a law professor from santa clara university. nice to have both of you here. >> thank you for having me. >> julian, let's begin with you. youe there on the border. what have you seen there? is the tide of asylum seekers truly at crisis proportions as president says it is. >> the word crisis has been thrown around a lot and i think even now democrats are starting to adopt that term although ty ply to humanitarian crisis where supporters say it's a security and humanitarn crisis. which enables them to push this soritof hard line sec stance. but the numbers are definitely increasing. we w evast week, a week

and a half ago, where border patrol was putting asylum seekers underneath the bridge. this is outside. they had a military-style tent and folks sleeping outside. and they said that was because it was full. i talked to directors, nonprofit organizations, nongovernmentalt organis that say they're scrambling to find shelters for these folks. so ey're worried people will end up on the streets, you know, at the bus station, with no placeto go. so -- >> professor, theis trump admation is now asking for an emergency court order so it can continue to keep its policy of sending migrants back too mexile they wait for their asylum cases to be decided. so what is going to happen with the migrants now, given that there was another federal court order decision earlier this week that said the trump administration couldot send them back to mexico? >> that's right. so on monday, a federal courtju e said the trump policy, ich is known colloquially as the not mexico policy, wouldn't

legal so tst trump admition is asking a higher court to review it and is also asking that higher crt to set aside the first court's ruling. but until that hher court makes that decision, the lower court ruling stays in effect, which means the policy cannot be enforced. all right. so still some uncertainty there. the trump administration, meanwhile, wants to tighten the rules around who can receive asylum and in the past attorney general jeff sessions suggested people should rarely be granted asylum based on domestic violence or gang violence claims. where does the current attorney general, william bar, stand ont t? >> it's hard to know, with jeff sessions, the attorney general, he took a case to himself.ra it's a very step for an attorney general to do. and in that case, he made a anket ruling, essentially, that he thought that underneath the asylum standards, people fleeing from domestic or gang violence would not be able to make those claims. that -- his attempt to change the policy in that regard was overturned by a court, by a federal cour

with regards to william barr, it's not clear yet. when he was attorney general under george h.sh, we're in a different time from the news coming out more recently, he's trying to implement policies to streamline e appeals process to make it quicker. to not allow i think the process rights that asylum seekers might have. and so while hemay not be implementing the same exact tlicy of sessions, it's clear also he is willi take the hard line immigration stance. >> and so how much ofhis situation we're currently seeing at the border, how much of that is beyond the nts. govern control, and how much of it is self-inflicted due to strict detention policies that h pe bee in place? >> right. i think one of the misconceptions that the federal governmentdes laboring at least the trump administration, is that migration and migration control at the bord is something that the united states can unilaterally stop. the fact is, you have central american countries, especially

the northern triangle countries, el salvador, guatemala, honduras, at this point on the verge of being failed state corrupt governments, extreme violence. people are running from extreme desperation. they need to travel 2,000o mile justet to the border, some with families. under those conditions, the number of people and families coming is unlikely to be stopped by an enforcement-only policy. >> so detention is not a deterrent. if they' willing to riskath to make these dangerous journeys. >> that's exactly right. i mean, people make these journeys knowing there is a risk of death. knowing that if they're going to cross illegally, that is six,ve days in the dead of heat, in the desert, where people die and routinely die ing that. and yet they're willing to do it. and so what has been provenever ast three, four years, if not even beyond that, is things like detention. family separation. family detention. thse things -- enforcement-only policy is not going to deter asylum see ors.

>> so tginal court order stays in place. but julian, what does this mean then for the asylum w seekers >>ve already been sent back to mexico? from what i understand speaking to some of the attorneys with the aclu who argued this case before the judge in california, those folks ke going to be st in mexico until their court dates. for example, i spoke to aamily ast week whose court date is april 25th. they are stuck until that. once understanding is they appear before the judge, they cannot be resent back to mexico. so they have to wait it out. unfortunately, me court dates are earlier than others. >> julian, the president has purged top leadership athe partment of homeland security and senti sendng mixed signals about whether he'll revive the family separation pavgram. do youany indication aat this point as to who is leading immigration policy at the house? >> well, the president took offense to the notion he was cleaning house and id it's all up to him. but we have seen him replace

high-ranking officiaat, for example, a former secretary nielsen who apparently was not as tough he wanted her to be on immigration. so i think that's -- caused a lot of conrn for the immigrant rights community that the person who put in place family separations wasn't quote, unquote, tough enough for the president. so, you know, the president changes what he says from one day to the next so it could change by thisime next week. >> and roughly three quarters of he immigrants being detained are held in for-profit facilities, in part because the government doesn't have enougho room them in government-run facilities. and last october, governmentec inrs released a scathing report about the conditions and the treatment ofta ees at one of those facilities. what lgal rights do these migrants have at the facilities, at the for-profit facilities? and how do they comparese to t at government-run facilities? >> right. see n, certainly what we now is a great incentive for the government to accomplish detention through the use of for-profit detention companies

of the private companies. part of the reason the government likes that is because then, one, they n't have the responsibility of doing it, and it gives them legal barriers to certain typ of suits people might bring. so with regard to the conditions in these place, right now we're arting to see some suits starting to make their way through state ourts, some federal courts, about the conditions of confinement, which, as you said, government reports have already shown that there have been -- the conditions there violate some basic ideas of hd people sho be held. but that is part of the problem with the private detention center. one, it's a big driver of our immigration enforcementem. and two, the conditions there are hard to monitor, hard t bring to account through litigation. >> but it also creates an incentive to keep people in detention if these are privately run, for-profit centers. >> that'sexactly right. i mean, if one wants to think about it, this is the private immigration detention industrial complex. and you can already see the

effects of it. there is currently a congressional mandate that congress is goingto payor roughly 35,000 immigration beds a night. people are trying to push that to 50,000. you can bet that the major lobbyists for that are going to be from the private detention companies. >> julian, you've interviewed asylum seers at the border. there have been many shifting policies from thetrtrump adminiion on immigration. what are you hearing from them about their reaction to those policy changes and does that affect their decision on whether to cross t border? >> well, the decision is ultimately made up by the fact they can't live in those countries. of folks saying, look, i've got to get out of central america, it's too dangerous. but whatsort of makes me feel better about it or makes tmem feel the s right is the fact the smugglers know to tell them all these policies are on hold. the wall is comi up, so the time to get out thereof and sees lum in the united states is now. >> julian aguilar, thank you

very much. and also thanks to professor deep gulasecuruon with santa clara university. now to the life journey of former president obama's longest serving adviser. vaerie jarrett stayed for both terms and was a long-time fmily confidante. before entering public service, she worked as a corporate lawyer while raising herter as a single mother. since tn she has become one of the most influential african-american women of the 21st ntury. advocating for gender equality, civil rights and criminal justice reform. in her new book, "finding my voice," jarrett sheds light on key moments of the obama presidency while also revealing intimate details of her own life. valerie jarrett is now senior adviser to theama foundation, and she joins me now. so nice to have you here. >> thank you. thank you. it's such a pleasure for me to be with you today. >> you had su an interesting childhood. your father was a pathologist and moved the family to iran in

the 1950s because there were more opportunities at that time in iran than in america for black doctors. you were born in iran. how has that experience of i ving overseas helped shape you? >>ink it shaped me in several ways. first of all, i grew up in a dhospital compo with physicians' children from all over the world. so british, french, from the united states, you name it. iranianhysicians. and we children all played together. and found ways of relating to one another, even though we came from different countrs and spoke even different languages. and so that's one thing. the other thing i think spending ime outside of the united states gives you a better appreciation for all we have going us here. and it was everything from clean toer and food and not having worry about certain diseases to our civil liberties. and the final thing i learned is that the united states is the greatest country on earth. it's not the only country on earth. and we can learn a great dea beyond our shores and i think the early years gave me a perspective on the world. and how we fit into the broader

context. >> andpresident obama also spent time growing up overseas. he came back to america. did that create a significant bond for the two of youwhen y first met him in? >> it did. in fact, the first it time the three of us had dinner, michelle robinson, barack obama and myself, they weren even married. we bondedfe around the experiences of he and i and the three lessons i just explained were similar to what he felt growing up in his formative years in indonesia. >> in your book, you talk about the racism and sexism you recountered in chicago where you practiced law bef becoming a power player in city politics. how did those experiences affect the way you approach your role once you g to the white house? >> i think my early life, my professional life, where i had a rinse of feeling like an other and not neces welcome and not connecting with the people made me m ae deliberaut bringing people in.

and making them feel included. and listening topethele around me. particularly with those who had different life experiences. t enriched my decisionmakin and made them feel as though they were part of a team. and the other thing i realized at my big law firm, it wasn't for me and i was miserable and i talk openly in my book about my marriage and it wasn't fulfilling. and i felt like a failure as opposed to it just didn't work nkout. and i t had to find that inner strength to be resilient and get back uee on my and i look at my daughter every day and i would say, go do something that's going to make her proud of you and step up to the plate and beol a person and not look for somebody else to complete you. and so in a sens when things fell apart, that was the best thing that could have happened to me. it forced mef outside my comfort zone. and it made me appreciate the magic of the zigzag. the adventure of the zigzag. >> as opposed to a straight line. ai>> as opposed to the st line i was on. but it was somebody else's straight line. it wasn't my straight line. and ito listenedhe quiet voice, the one inside of you. and that's what motivated me to

join local gov'snment. >> lalk a little bit about the current administration. it's ruled bk from key legislative achievements during the obama years. what are your thoughts on that? things like the affordable care act, for example. >> well, i'm veryha concerned the thought of repealing the affordable care act would leave 20 million ams without health insurance. some who have it for the first time. one in two americans who have a preexisting conditiuld now be vulnerable to losing their health insurance or seeing their emiums jacked up. women who now have access to preventive care without a-p . young people who can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26. senior citizens who were before fhe affordable care act cutting their drugs in hto make them stretch. so i really worry about what message are we sending to the people o our country that we would strip such an important benefit away from them? and i would like to ask you about the presidential race, as wel. joe biden was vice president under obama and you got to know him very well during e eight years you were there.

he's now a case ofpp iopriate contact with women. what are your thoughts about the allegations against him? right when e had it he said it's a new day, times have changed and it's important r men to listen. nd it isn't just what your intent is. it's how is it affecting the pson to whom it wa directed. so i found that encouraging. i worked with him for eight years, day in and day ou he was a very important counselor to president obama, advised him on all matters, foreign and domestic so he was an integral part of our team. i think he and all of the other men out there need to appreciate the fact that times have changed. and having him speak out to that sends a message to other men as well. >> and some people, though, have suggested that, youknow, times are just different now. and that just doesn't fly any more. and he sort of stopped short of completely apologizing. is you think his alleged behavior shouldalify him from running for president? >> i think one of the great things about america is anyone canan run. it's up to the american people to decide what's disqualifying and what's not. and the fact that we have --

this is ear in fact, he hasn't even jumped in the campaign yet. means we have time to get to know all of the candidates. i think in the democratic field, we have anembarrassment of riches. there are so many outstanding candidates who are running and thoseho are consideri running. and i think he and everyone else, if he decides to run, gets to mariah carke their case dire the people. we get to decide. if you were a senior adviser to the 2020 presidential candidates now, what would you tell them? >> a few things. i've had the privilege of eaking with some of them running. and my message has been the same. it's been be authentic, be optimistic about our country, explain why the american people should trust yur vision your ability to execute your vision. don't beat up the others in the primary so much that we go io the general election in a wounded state. the long view is winning the presency, not just the primary. and finally, i say that there is a difference between crypaigning, where you to grow your base and go after those folks and speak to them

and have bold ideas and governing. where you have to be the president for all of america. and you have to make sure that you are willing to compromise and that you don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. >> and as i was reading your book, it resonated with me personally. se i lked about this, bec grew up somewhere else too in vietnam, came here as a refugee. i'm also a single mother. you were a single mother for a very lon time. more broadly, though, for the broad ayoience, whatu hope readers will take away from reading your book? >> i hope that they will realize the importance of every voice. i hope they'll learn to listen to their own voices and they will feel a sen of empowerment to use their voices to be a force for good for others. i think we're all inextricably linked and i believe we hav responsibility in our community towards one another. and that i hope going forward what continues is what i have seen all over the country, just amazinglyrdinary people doing incredible things. and that comes from the sense oe cone that i can make a

difference. >> it is a very optimistic book. >> thank you. ngratulations. >> thank you verydi much. >> "f my voice." always nice to have you here. hope to have you back. >> love being with you. o and that will it for us. as always, to find more of our coverage, you can go to kqed.org/newsroom. thank you for joining us.

captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, april 14: the democratic presidential racs wi secretary of state mike pompeo rounds out his latin america tour with a visit to the colombia/venezuela border. and in our signature segment: peru, once a refuge for venezuelan refugees, changes its policy. next on pbs newshour weekend. >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: bernard and irene schwartz. esue and edgar waim iii. seton melvin. the cheryl and philip lstein family. dr. p. roy vagelos and diana t. vagelos. the j.p.b. foundation. rosalind p. walter. barbara hope zuckerberg. corporfu