♪ anchor: you are watching al jazeera. the u.s. and nato say that after 20 years, they ending their military campaign in afghanistan. joe biden announced all troops will be withdrawn by september the 11th. >> we cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan, helping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal, and expecting a different result. we have service members doing their duty whose parents served in the same army.

we have service members who were not yet born when our nation was attacked on 9/11. the board was never meant to be a multigenerational war. we were attacked, we went to war with clear goals. we achieve those objectives. anchor: the taliban has repeated warnings will not engage in talks until after all foreign troops have been withdrawn. >> therewith for of the foreign troops is something we have fought for for the last 20 years. this was always our objective. at the end of the day, the withdrawal must take place. changing the date is disappointing and unfortunate because we had an agreement with the united states that was supported by the united nations as well as the neighboring and regional countries. this was not an agreement in the open. we are asking for all of the foreign troops to withdraw on the date that we all agreed

upon. if not, we will face more problems. anchor: demonstrators have been gathering in minnesota for another night of protests after the shooting of daunte wright. a female police officer has been charged with manslaughter. also in minnesota, the defense continued to make its case in the trial of derek chauvin. the retired pathologist has testified george floyd died because of multiple factors. those are the headlines. you can follow on al jazeera.com. next is the bottom line. do stay with us. ♪

steve: i have a question. the only difference between joe biden and donald trump, let's get to the bottom line. for a nation of immigrants, it is a bit ironic that nothing divides america more than immigration. the debate on whether to allow more immigrants into the country can help a party win or lose, election. donald trump use the general anger of american workers to attack workers -- and demand a wall be built between the united states and mexico. that did not go very far, but it helped him win. last year, joe biden ran anymore immigrant friendly, platform but after a search of people wanting to cross that southern border, we saw the same problems. thousands of children locked up without their parents. about 100,000 arrest at the border in february. the administration says it wants total reform of policy, but what

does that mean, and can it achieve that? to find out where talking with a guest whose family came from peru when she was just a child. now, she is fighting for immigrants as copresident of community change, a national organization. professor francisco gonzalez, teaches about the politics of economics at johns hopkins university. thank you both for joining us. as we have been watching things unfold at the border, but also watching the politics of the immigration debate play out in washington, d.c., i'm interested in what you would like to see in terms of rhetoric from president biden becoming real action on reforming immigration. what would be the key pieces that would help you have confidence that this administration is going to be different than those that come before it? >> such a good question, because

i think rhetoric is just the beginning of shifting a story and telling a story about who we are and what we stand for as a country, and what are the kind of policies we are going to advance. here, the administration has an opportunity to deliver. they have looked at latino voters and immigrant voters, 10 being democrats, for decades. and promised to deliver on a path to citizenship. we are looking for and would be a definitional moment for this administration, and define early success and commitment on immigration, would be for the administration and congressional democrats to legalize millions of people, starting with the dream and promise act, as well as the modernization act. and in this critical moment to take on legalization for essential workers. that being the shift and measure of success in the coming months. steve: that would be a more

pragmatic track. dr. gonzalez, i would like to ask you the same thing. when you look at the things that are driving the search at the border -- the surge the border. how'd you make a pragmatic first step? that i guess would make the politics less toxic. >> thank you, steve. one of the key thing for me watching in washington, d.c., i am based here 16 years. i have seen what a political football immigration policy is. in the run-up elections, both camps, republicans and democrats, will kick off that goal to energize the basis. it is and will remain a very contentious issue. it very clearly has struck the hearts and minds of many people.

how many among the undocumented communities became essential workers during the covid-19 pandemic crisis. latinos, has babos -- hispanics, are unrepresented. we are essential in farming, and transportation of basic goods and services. that narrative continues to be known by people who follow policy, people who follow politics. i believe that it is very important to remind people that even president trump, who clearly did not like people like me, mexicanos, ended up in 2020 having to say that there were

many people among the hispanic community who have become essential service workers. without them, the country would not have been able to continue operating in basic things like food production, food delivery, health care work. imagine doing all of the work regarding cleaning up, and cleaning up is done by hispanics. that is something that the american public should know. it is not as heroic as having fought in the second world war, and beating the germans and japan, but this is something that i hope will help to change the profile, the perception about hispanics, as people who are really contributing, existential to the well-being of the united states. >> the question that you are

asking is what needs to happen to change the politics? i have to reject that a little bit or amend it because i think the politics are overwhelmingly in support of action and path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in this country. that has been consistently true for a decade. it really is a matter of political will and political courage. here, i would say that particular as it relates to the situation at the border, too many reporters and media pundits in particular have accepted republican talking points. it's a disservice to the public. net the end of the day, the cost is human lives. i -- my topline message for biden and democrats, is that they rant against the most anti-immigrant candidate of our lifetimes.

candidate biden has the most progressive immigration platform in the history of presidential politics? he is now the president. he won. and not only to the politics of immigration when, but the immigration -- organization on the ground helps to deliver the selection. democrats need to act like the one. -- act like they wom. steve: i was at a chamber of commerce meeting in 2016. jeb bush was running for the republican slot. he said, i am a dreamer. he aligned himself with dreamers. houthi and castro on the democrat side was there. john mccain express that support. i have heard many republicans talk about just as you did, farmers, essential workers.

i have also seen something just released in the washington post, a s of latino women supporturge for the trump ticket. client interested that there is a bipartisan groundswell of support at some level for this. i am just wondering, what has happened to that dimension, and do you think we have the right circumstances now to seal real steps forward by the biden team, in partnership with some of these republicans that have previously expressed support? >> i do, and we are going to give it a go. republicans in congress are going to have to answer that question. what is happening in the republican party, i think, is that being anti-immigrant is now how they win elections. you have lost senators like john

mccain and jeff flake, who used to drive this agenda for the republican party. marco rubio has totally changed his position on immigration, and is inconsistent with where he was in 2013 when we last went through a comprehensive round for immigration reform in the senate. i think that the opportunity lies here. let me be clear about one thing, which is that democrats have a number of other tools at their disposal, if republicans do not want to engage in bipartisan negotiation and conversation, and real engagement to get this done. democrats are not off the hook this year. they can no longer go into 2022, next year,nk and tell voters tht they promised and they are going to promise again and they are going to deliver in the next term. that is no longer a credible

argument. let's try for bipartisanship, let's try and work on something with republicans in the next couple of months. and if we can't get to an agreement with the other side, it is incumbent, critical for democrats to use every tool at their disposal. one of the tools they have is the budget reconciliation process to try and get as many people as possible. steve: i am interested in the other dimension, which is what is driving that surge of border traffic, of refugees, those seeking asylum. the biden administration, jake sullivan have talked of -- directly about our need to invest in central america to stabilize those populations. tell us about how that is part of this conversation. >> there had been many surveys. there is a salient one, making

it through, resilience. these have been pulling exercises -- pulling exercises -- polling exercises again three countries of immigration. the topics that people report can be concentrated, aggregated into three or four main issues. some of them are strictly related to underdevelopment. what we would see in sub-sahara africa, in parts of south asia, southeast asia. big families, very scarce resources. high rates of teenage pregnancy. moms that need to find a way

forward for their youngsters without any support. others have to do with starting again. cca lot of people trying to leae central america becau they, and people they know, people from the nuclear or extended family, are part and parcel with high rates of lawlessness, gang activity, crime and violence. human trafficking, extortion, you name it. more recently, experts have been putting more emphasis, and this is borne out by the surveys. people from the countryside, peasants, indigenous people, signed your -- lower yields,

higher frequency extreme weather events, as erasing their livelihoods. a majority of the migrants are really against the wall for a variety of reasons. the thing that connects them with the united states, is that a majority of them either have a family member, people from wide networks, with whom there is a connection, and as you move along -- i have seen it with countless families. people start comparing, how is my cousin in michigan or north carolina doing compared to their cousins back here in san pedro. as you can imagine, the difference is incredible. people, obviously, i willing to risk their lives for themselves and the future generations. you cannot blame them for that. steve: as u look at the

politics of this moment, and as i said, i know there are different tracks. it seems to be typical to proceed, even with the bits of legislation that are being broken down, which may find enough support on dreamers, etc.. that border story is still important. what vice president harris has been assigned to do is important. how do you think that fits into the story, from your perspective? >> i don't think that it is that the politics are hard. i keep going back to, it really is a matter of focus and delivery. on the border, it is important to say first and foremost, the border is secure. the cyclical increase of migrations, family and children, have become the norm for decades. because too many politicians have been more interested in playing politics to score points on border security than actually

addressing the underlying conditions contributing to it. the biden administration needs to step up to meet this moment, swiftly, expand the capacity to process families and children arriving at the border. what americans want is an orderly and fair and functional system. that is going to take time but it is entirely possible. i think we are moving along three key rounds to get this done. one, people who are legally trying to come to the u.s. for humanitarian relief or search of a better life, should be able to apply closer to their home countries, as opposed to just at the border through the asylum system. two, the administration needs to provide aid to the northern triangle, and that will improve conditions in that region. it will reduce the factors driving people away of homes to begin with. the third is that the u.s. has a

role in leveraging its regional partnerships, to expand refugee protections, and overall resettlement across the hemisphere. that will also improve conditions for people migrating. there is no fast way, there is no quick track to get this done. especially coming out of the trump years, when they really decimated, and really destroyed our asylum system. that has to move on its track. that work is going to be ongoing. we have seen vice president harris say she is going to lead those talks in central america with our partners in those regions. the u.s. congress and president biden need to deliver. the longer that you keep these issues alive and unresolved, the longer you are not delivering on your commitments and promise to legalize people, to deliver a path to citizenship, and to get people out of this limbo status. steve: before you go, i want to

ask you one quick question. in your experience with community change in the role you play out there, these battles are either one where one side is trying to vanquish the other, or you are trying to find commentary. i'm interested in your messaging, how you approach this issue of immigration, thinking about the legislative track. happy found republican allies either behind the scenes or overtly that are willing to come along with you? he >> right now? steve: in anytime. what would be models of seducing the other side to move along with what you see as a more sensible immigration policy. >> in general, i think that when you lead into the stories, you lean into the people, the conversation changes. because you are talking about real people. i grew up as an undocumented person in this country, my

sister is a daca recipient. i don't talk about the 600,000 young people who have daca. i think about my sister and what it means for her every day, to live with that sign of -- kind of uncertainty. i know our congress can deliver in this moment. it is a question for republicans. is it all rhetoric, is it just keep to their political relevance and existence, or are they willing to deal? are they willing to say, we will recognize we have a role to govern here, that is why we come to washington, d.c.. that is why america sends us here. or will they continue to deflect, make some show, or will they actually do their job? i am not holding their breath, but i am working with a coalition that is engaging republicans, and the rest of the democratic caucus steve:.

we will continue our conversation with professor gonzales. the copresident for community change, thank you for your thoughts. professor gonzales, i would like to get back to the root causes and what the president is for the united states -- what the precedent is for the united states. a colleague used to tell me that we try hard to get ernest, direct, sensible foreign policy. when you compare that to look at china, russia, europe, asia, latin america comes out to be this orphan. the one dealt with last. i guess my question is given the legacy of american foreign policy in the region that has not put latin america first and foremost, and you have talked about root causes, how do we square that and bring it around, given we have really never been that good at latin american

foreign policy? >> very good point. in foreign policy circles, amongst scholars of international relations, international politics, one says latin america is traditionally perceived as the backyard of the united states. that is not the only reason why the u.s. considers it secondary importance. the key issue is, we do not have nukes. if any of the countries in the region had nukes, our status and policymaking circles in washington would go up. i do not know if i would subscribe to counseling any leaders to start developing nukes, but your point is well taken. latin america is and has been an area where the u.s. tends to enact policies in a reactive

way. it tends to react to developments in the region, and this is a region which you start with is categorized by incredible socioeconomic inequality. the case of central america in particular is very telling. here, we have some of the most unequal societies in the hemisphere. the u.s. is part and parcel of the problem. since the latter part of the 19th century, whoever was in power, progressives, republicans, progressives, all of the time, u.s. policy was geared to support and keeping place the very small economic political elites. these are oligarchic societies, ruled by a handful of families. this handful have managed to reproduce themselves in time, and continue to be -- in

honduras they say it is seven or eight. there is no real number. we know it is very few. one of the few key things is u.s. policy came to power through their collaboration with u.s. business interests. interests regarding the banana trade, the coffee trade, big plantation agriculture. this is a problem that has very deep roots. it is structural. you are not going to see this oligarchy, these few families in an enlightened matter giving up our, or wanting to share power. they are not going to do that. they continue to be among the most reactionary in latin america. they are not the only ones. some among the poorest countries are among the worst.

i wish i could say this is about engagement, and if the u.s. puts together a program of 10 or 15 -- $10 billion or $15 billion, we could start addressing root causes. i wish we could say that is good. it is necessary, it is nowhere sufficient. what you have is much more often than not great leakage, leakage meaning whatever foreign aid comes in, whatever investment comes in, is going to be monopolized by this very thin crust of elite families. you don't have states with strong redistribute of capacity. you don't have infrastructure, public goods that can allow people to connect with one another to find jobs, and to try and better themselves through education. all of that is very weak. the u.s. cannot just put it out

there and create it. steve: on that note, francisco gonzalez. thank you so much for being with us today. what is the bottom line? for years, americans heard from donald trump and politicians like him that immigrants are a threat. they are taking your jobs. they are criminals. guess what, that is what many of them believe. the question is, beau biden do what he said he would do, giving undocumented immigrants a real path to citizenship, and figuring out a way to help more folks into america. can he do that when he faces opposition not only from the republican party, but members of his own democratic party? the statue of liberty says give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. if the united states is to restore its global leadership, biden is going to have to find a way to win this one. that is the bottom line.

♪ h h h h h h)p)p,x,x

- hey, i'm valer june. coming up on reel south. [ueat music] gazett - [valie] for cades, thisoc nspaper has pt folksn charleon, we virginiinformed. - ric] we ke our wch dog roleeally seousl - [robit's been said over e yes that it's thnews pap at appalhia desees. [valer] but ke so many wspapers, itoo is onhe brinof survival. - [eri peoplhave alrey jumpedhip. we'vlost thr four reporters. - alie] watc "stained orage on reesoh. [narrator] major funding for reel south