tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN January 29, 2017 10:00am-11:01am PST
this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. we'll start by tackling all aspects of president trump's immigration ban, barring citizens from seven majority muslim nations from coming into the ruunited states. is it legal, is it moral, is it american, and will it work? i will talk to the head of the aclu, then a great panel, and then we will broaden out to examine donald trump's radical shift in american foreign policy. what does it mean when america walks away from the world? first, here's my take. donald trump's executive order suspending the entry of syrian
refugees and anyone from seven muslim countries is filled with requests for reports and information. the department of homeland security, the state department, are asked to provide information on the numbers of foreign terrorists, and then to issue progress reports on the policy with more data within one and three months. so let me save the government some money and offer the data right now. alex of the cato institute, a conservative think tank, has tallied the number of americans killed by citizens of the seven countries banned from 1975 to 2015. they are as follows wrk from iraq, zero. from iran, zero. from syria, zero. from yemen, zero. from libya, zero. from somalia, zero. and from sudan, you guessed it, zero. incidentally, that number from saudi arabia is 2,369, from the
uae 314. from egypt, 162, according to cato. why seven countries are on or off this list is truly myst mysterio mysterious. some newspapers have noted correctly that none of the muslim majority countries the have a trump hotel, building, or office are on the list. more broadly, cato points out that including 9/11, the chance of an american being killed by foreign terrorists on u.s. soil over that 41-year period is 1 in 3.6 million per year. being killed by a refugee, your chances are 1 in 3.64 billion per year. so there's really no rational basis for this policy. what explains it, then? i suppose it's what is explained so much of donald trump's political career. the exploitation of fear. from the birther campaign to the talk of mexican rapists, trump has always trafficked in fearmongering. this time, to stoke those fears
and present himself as the country's protector, he chose to punish ordinary men, women, and children who are fleeing terrorism and violence, who are willing to brave the odds, bear the hardships, and separate from family and home, all to try to come to america. these people are the road kill of trump's posturing. but something else is being destroyed along with it. the image, reputation, and goodwill of the united states as the beacon of the world. as someone noted over the past few days, donald trump seems to want to turn off that lamp on the statue of liberty. and let's get started. let's get straight to the legal challenge to president trump's executive order on immigration. for that, i'm joined by anthony romero, the executive director of the aclu.
his organization has been at the tip of the spear fighting against the president's ban. welcome. >> hi, fareed. how are you? >> so where do we stand on this? this is like a movie, the drama is that you filed -- >> yes. >> you filed, and a court upheld -- a court put a stay order in place on the ban. >> yesterday, the court ruled about 8:00 p.m. in the evening to preserve the status quo. to basically prohibit the government from deporting or putting individuals back on planes from countries from whence they came. it's a preliminary stay. she wants to more fully engage the merits of our injunction. basically, we're arguing that the executive order is unconstitutional. and that it's unlawful. the merit of that will be fully broached in coming weeks. >> parse that out for me. you're saying it's unconstitutional and unlawful why? >> the executive order does a couple things. it is a moratorium on all
refugees. it prohibits the entry of syrian refugees. it bans the entry of individuals from seven countries. that includes even green card holders. that includes individuals who have lawful visas. and then it carves out an exception for minority religions. taken together, the four components of the executive order, we think violate the due process protections of the constitution, the equal protection clauses of the constitution, violates federal statutes, the immigration nationality act, it also violates some of our international treaties and coninvestigationco conventico conventions and violates the first amendment, one of the core principles our constitution. it prohints the government from favoring or discriminating against any one particular religion. here you have mr. trump saying that we're going to exclude individuals from predominantly muslim countries and carves out an exception for minority religions. in the executive order is a smoking gun that violates the first amendment. >> what do you think is likely
to happen here? she is, as you say, she wants to hear the full argument. then she will rule. if she rules in your favor, what recourse does the trump administration have? >> they can, of course, appeal it. ultimately, this will be a case brooched before the supreme court. what it underscores is the fact that our court service of check and balance on the executive. and this effort is not just unconstitutional and un-american and wrong headed. we think it's also something that will go down in history as one of the worst moments for american foreign policy and american immigration policy. our nation is a nation of immigrants. we welcomed refugees to our shores. refugees in particular among the most vulnerable individuals. the idea wewould try to shut them out because of the fearmongering, the xenophobe yeah that president trump is now engaged in, we found troubling. >> you mentioned it violated international treaties. it violates the geneva convention. i thought we had entered a new
world when we got a report that the chancellor of germany had to teach the president of the united states the geneva convention and the fact that the geneva convention to which we're a sigatory requires you take in some refugees. >> it's great she's teaching him, but she may not have the best pupil. who will be taught by our courts, our judges. it's remarkable within 24 hours of issuing the executive order, he's been rebuked by a federal judge. and has stayed the implementation of this executive order nationwide. so clearly, it will lay out for the trump administration the need for them to be much more thoughtful. this executive order, in addition to being unconstitutional, the way in which they went about it, fareed, was just -- was just amateur night at the apollo. they had not fully briefed their own customs and border patrol agents. they had not briefed the embassies. they had not briefed business leaders. you had literally individuals who got on airplanes thinking they had a valid visa to enter
the u.s., and they were turned away alt the airports. so it was the messiness in which they did this, i think, will also play out over time. >> fascinating. stay with us, anthony romero. when we come back, i will bring out the rest of my panel to further discuss donald trump's immigration ban. we'll be back. (vo) maybe it was here, when you hit 300,000 miles. or here, when you walked away without a scratch. maybe it was all the times it got you safely out there. or all the times it got you out of there. maybe it was the day your baby came home. or maybe the day you realized your baby was not a baby anymore. every subaru is built to earn your trust.
and the wolf huffed like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! (child giggles) symbicort. breathe better starting within 5 minutes. get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more.
the reaction was fast and often furious to president trump's travel and immigration ban. americans stormed the country's major airports to protest. taxi drivers went on strike, and across the world, governments reacted. german chancellor angela merkel said in a statement this morning that she deeply regrets trump's executive order. canada's prime minister justin trudeau tweeted, to those
pleaing purse kiegz, terror, and war, canadians will welcome you regardless of your faith. diversity is our strengt strength, #welcome to canada. meanwhile, many of the countries on the ban list considered fighting back against trump by instituted their own ban against u.s. citizens. to consider all of these considerations, let me bring in a terrific panel. david millband is the president and ceo of the international rescue committee. johnther turley is a constitutional law scholar who works at the george washington law school. rula jebreal joins us from rome. she's a foreign policy analyst and has worked in the middle east, in italy, and in the united states. and of course, anthony romero, executive director of the acl ur, is back with us. david millband, you have dealt with policy at the highest levels. you were foreign minister, you were in the british cabinet.
how does the implementation, the execution of this policy look to you, and where do you think the trump administration goes from here? >> well, hasty process always produces harmful policy. you're seeing that in this case. the confusion of the immigration issue affecting 100 google employees, affecting british mps, green card holders is confused with the policy on refugees. 60,000 refugees, we think, around the world have passed the extensive vetting system that exists for anyone wanting to enter the u.s. as a refugee. the toughest way to get to the u.s. as a refugee. they're left in limbo. they will be knocking on doors of embassies around the world and saying where do i stand? >> the toughest way to get into the u.s. is to apply to be a refugee because it's a two-year process. >> intensive interviews and study. 12 to 15 government departments scrutinize every aspect of your background. biometric testing is included.
it's very tough to get here as a refugee, that's why the security record of refugees in this country is so strong and so safe. they have become productive and patriotic not just residents but citizens. in the context of a 25 million global refugee crisis, the u.s. resettlement contribution was smalled, 100,000 proposed under the obama administration. president trump tried to take it down to 50,000 people. there are already 60,000 in the pipeline who have been in the process and are now left in limbo. that's what happens when a policy is turned from a campaign slogan into an executive order without the kind of interagency discussion and process expert input that is so important. >> what would you do? >> i think the obvious thing to do is allow the existing system to remain in place while the reviews take place. remember, the only people celebrating today are extremists around the world who want to tell muslims around the world that america is shutting their doors to them. the only people celebrating this
propaganda gift are isis and al qaeda who for whom this plays into their core narrative of a clash of civilizations. >> jonathan turley, take us through the next stage of anthony romero's legal struggle. anthony, i assume you're going to keep going. it will get to the supreme court. the court is 4-4 right now. is it possible that you would be able to get a real decision out of a 4-4 court? >> well, i think so. and i'm not sure jonathan thinks. but -- >> jonathan, what do you think? >> i have a great deal of respect for anthony romero and the aclu, who are all exceptional lawyers. on this one, it pains me to say i would have to bet against them. i don't think that the stay was necessarily a rebuke of the administration. she essentially froze the action of the parties in this case because she believed there would be irreparable damage unless she did so. she had a chance to look at the merits. the law does favor president trump in this regard.
i don't like this order. i think it's a terrible mistake. but that doesn't go into the legal analysis. the court has been extremely deferential to presidents. on the border. in fact, president obama just last year was telling the court that courts shouldn't be second guessing the decisions based on national security or immigration from the president. in 1882, you had the really infamous chinese exclusion act, which was upheld. then you have things like section 1182 of the federal law that gives sweeping authority to the president to withhold either individual aliens or groups of aliens. all of that works to the advantage of president trump. what is not going to happen, i don't think, is that i do not believe a federal court will view this as a muslim ban. i don't think the court can. regardless of what the court may think of president trump's motivations, the fact that other muslim countries are not included is going to move that off the table. and what's going to be left is
whether the president has this type of authority. historically, courts have said that he does. >> anthony, let me ask you this. david bier of the cato institute, makes the good point that whether or not it's constitutional, the current law of the land is in1965 act, which congress passed, which specifically says you cannot exclude people on the basis of national origin. >> exactly. and with all due respect, jonathan, i think this is a case of first impression. i think the courts, while they do grant great deference to the executive branch, it's also true there are moments in which the executive branch goes a step too far. and frankly, this is a muslim ban. when he's targeted seven countries in particular, and the most damning language in the executive order is the carve-out, the exception for minority religions. and the statements of president trump contemporaneously to the executive order saying he wants to favor christians. we say bring it on. we think we have a very good chance of standing this up in
court. i think ultimately the merits will be decided by the federal court system. even the supreme court that has been predominantly conservative, has served as an important rebuke to the bush administration. so we think this will be a time when the courts play an essential bulwark in the checks and balances system. >> part of the -- >> go ahead, jonathan, quickly. >> part of the problem is that, you know, president obama requires secondary reviews of mujoerd muslim nations. pr presidents have done this for long time. jimmy carter used his power to essentially deport thousands of iranian students. so this is going to be a long road to hoe for the aclu. >> we're going to have to leave it all. when we come there, i will ask rula jubraille, who i believe is on a visa, whether heshe's goin to get back in the united states and what she thinks on all this, when we come back. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette
and her new mobile wedding business. at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and ta-da, paid twice as fast! see how at quickbooks-dot-com. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪
and italy and now in the united states. what do you make of this and, by the way, what happens to you? you're in rome. are you going to come back? >> well, if they will allow me. if they will not deport me. obviously i'm a european muslim. if there would be a religious test, probably you and i, fareed, will be on that list. be careful if you leave, actually. it's not only ordinary muslim. i heard the conversation before. i want to tell jonathan, any law that is divorce from justice, it's not law. it's an instrument of tyranny. this is sanctions, government sanctions, religious persecution and it will not keep america safe. it's not about national security. this is about white supremacists. it's clear. in the executive order that the president signed, he mentioned 9/11 three times. however, none of the countries that were on that list had citizens who were involved in 9/11.
there were saudis and rock a ird others. it's not really about national security. he's using immigrant, refugees as a human shield to advance his, i would say, clash of civilization, white supremacists agenda. when he talks about voter fraud, he's talking about people like you, fareed, and other brown people who arrived to this country legally and have an american citizen and voted. this is a guy that called president obama non-american or he wasn't born there. this is the same agenda. while he's doing this, it's using refugees and whatever he's using as a distraction. yesterday he approved, he forced an important general john dunport to resign and replaced him with a white supremacist guy called stephen bannon who actually told all of us journalists to shut up. i would challenge anybody that would tell me this is about national security. there's not one serious analyst that can prove that. >> can i respond?
>> rula, let me just ask you, though, what is the reaction in italy? i understand that's how you feel, and you express it passionately. what are you hearing in italy about this? >> not only in italy, all over europe. look, the fact, the most baffling thing and the most painful thing, as you mention i was born in israel and he mentioned and he signed that order on the holocaust memorial day. we have americans have a shameful history of rejecting and sending back jewish refugees and immigrants who came to escape world war ii. they were sent back on the same basis that we have a muslim ban now and they were killed during the holocaust in auschwitz and elsewhere. we are acting more or less the same, i would say, oppressive
mind set, inhumane, unconstitutional, and i would say un-american. i covered the middle east for a long time. i was a reporter everywhere. visiting beirut. i worked in egypt, iraq. every war torn country. when i heard that one of the guys that was stopped yesterday at jfk was a guy that helped american troops. he was an interpreter, the message we're sending by sending back these people who helped america win the war on terror who actually stood up and stands up every day, fight isis and al qaeda, we are actually handing a victory to all these extremist groups because most muslims, and that's why we have less foreign fighters in america than in europe, most muslims in america, all of them, i would say, feel that they are first and foremost american. this executive order would have not prevented 9/11, orlando, san bernardino or even paris attacks. paris attacks and many european
attacks happen because european citizens carried them not refugees or immigrants. >> david milibrand, when you were foreign minister, you visited iraq. one of the things i'm struck by here is if our goal is to defeat isis, if the trump administration's goal is to defeat isis, the country that is fighting isis most fiercely is iraq, and the iraqi government. yet iraq is on this list. it makes me think it's sort of weird that iraqi soldiers who are fighting isis, risking their lives in service of an american foreign policy objective, couldn't even come and visit this country to go to disn disneyland. >> there's many perversities in this executive order. my organization isn't just international humanitarian. we also resettle people in the u.s. a quarter of the people we're due to resettle are those on special immigrant visas because they have helped american forces. especially in iraq, but also in afghanistan. today, outside of mosul there are american forces supporting the iraqi troops and planning
the retake of mosul from isis. we're there on the ground looking after civilians. there's tight intertwining parts of this coalition. that involves civilians as well. they're going to be asking fundamental questions of the people they're working with. am i safe working with you? will i be able to get refuge afterwards? even the man yesterday who anthony's organization tried to help, ten years working for the u.s., two assassination attempts on him and his family. these people are literally risking their lives and being told we're not going to be welcome here. that's a terrible message. >> okay. jonathan, you wanted to say something about this issue. i want people to understand, you're saying that the president has legal authority. you're not approving of his actions. >> right. first of all, putting the passions aside, the way -- there's plenty of reasons to object to this order on policy humanitarian grounds. it's not necessary to pretend it's something it's not or suggest our host or the earlier speaker would not be allowed in the country.
i see no evidence to suggest that would be true. if you want to oppose this, you need to oppose this for what it is. what it is is not currently a muslim ban. that's not going to happen in a federal court. that's not how the court will frame it. i don't see how a court can do that. in terms of tyranny, we don't have a single branch government here. we have three branches. they are all heard on these subjects. tyranny is when the democratic process does not have an effect. i don't believe that 47% of the united states are white supremacists. i think if we're going to reach any type of resolution, we have got to stop calling each other names and to pretend that we're worse than we are. there are people on the other side who support this that are not white supremacists. in my view, they're wrong to support it, but the way to convince them is not to suggest that they're all white supremacists or that this is a muslim ban. it is not.
now, i agree -- >> it is a muslim ban, sir. it's baffling that you're trying to normalize it or even defend it or justify it. you're betraying american values. this is outrageous. it's not about passion. it's about fact. read the executive order. it talks clearly about muslims and about -- >> you're making my point. >> if you're shia, if you're a shia, you're not allowed, even if you're raped, tortured by isis. i'm not making your point. lead my lips and try to hear what i'm saying. you are trying to justify something that not only courts in the past actually repealed but they're not considered actually americans. if you understand what america stands for, you're telling that interpreter that he does not belong there because of his religion. read the executive order very well and then try to explain to your part of the aisle or your
political group that when you have michael flynn, general flynn, who says that islam is a political ideology, a sick ideology, when you have bannon saying what he's saying, you're really trying to tell me and the audience that this is not about political religious persecution? give me a break. >> all right. i want to get anthony, you think it is a muslim ban. >> it will be broached. we'll see. we promise president trump we'll see him in court. and the judge will decide. i think you're wrong. we'll see at the end of the day. >> in any event, david, you think the important thing to remember is you got to win this not just legally but politically. >> let me make the broader point. because yes, this is a nation of laws, but it's also a nation of policy. and frankly, we have a policy that is untenable. you can see that at airports. you will see that at embassies. i think the question for americans is not just about them, the refugees, it's about us. who are we as americans and the western world? what are we willing to stand
for? that's why this issue goes to the core of the issue of identity, not just law. it's important to do the right thing in this area and also the smart thing given the geopolitics. >> how would you try to win the political argument? >> by saying it's not just right to help refugees. it's also practical. there is a vetting system that does work. refugee resettlement in america is a success story. immigration to america is a success story. and finally, it's smart to be a country that welcomes people of different faiths because that's the way we win the big arguments over the next decades about what kind of world we want to live in. >> do you think, anthony, the broader political issue, i idealogical issue, do they play? when the supreme court hears this, do you think they will think about this question is this a betrayal of american ideals rather than the liberalism of the law? >> there were over 500 people who amassed at the courthouse in last night in less than a half hour. our judges live in our communities.
they drink coffee at starbucks. they talk to their neighbors. they're very much influenced by the people power and the context around them. ultimately, the massive outpouring of support for immigrants and refugees at airpo airports, at the courthouse, all across the country unorganized, spontaneously, sets the ground work for other action. >> all right. we're going to have to leave it there. absolutely fascinating conversation. it will be fascinating next few weeks and months. next on gps, remember donald trump has been president for just nine days. but he's already radically changed america's relations with much of the world. we'll take a look at those broader changes when we come back. watch the weak side! ah, the time honored tradition of yelling out your own plays and opinions. want some? i'm on a cleanse. it's four days of vegetables and raw food-- 54 is the mic! sure, no one on the team can hear her but does that stop her? check out of it! not one bit. and much like coach hindsight over here,
courtyard is all about the game. eight men in the box! is that a good thing? not if we run the ball it's not! it's a performance machine. of engineering... with this degree of intelligence... it's a supercomputer. with this grade of protection... it's a fortress. and with this standard of luxury... it's an oasis. the 2017 e-class. it's everything you need it to be... and more. lease the e300 for $549 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.
fawaz gerges, a professor at the london school of economists a columnist for "the washington post," and conrad black is in toronto. he was a financer and media mogul. he's now a columnist and commentator. jorge, let me begin with you. mexico and the united states had historically very bad relations. the united states militarily intervened many times. mexico had a very anti-american attitude and kind of fiery revolutionary spirit. all that changed over the last 20 years and in fact this was one of the great success stories of american foreign policy. a mexico that's pro-american, become a valuable ally. is all that likely to change? what is the mood in mexico today after the events of the last couple of days? >> well, for those of us who believe that this change in mexican attitude and american
attitude also from the late '80s onward was a positive thing. what's happened the last few days is really terrifying because where this could lead us is to a revival or a rebirth of this anti-american sentiment in mexico, which was not unjustified. it was not something that came from nothing. it came from real historical facts. but now with what trump has been doing, i'm afraid that this sentiment will overtake any government, whether it's president pena nieto's government today or the next one in 2018. it's very difficult to continue to be friends with the united states when the president of the united states pretty much humiliates you in public on twitter. >> do you think mexico will retaliate? after all, mexico is, most people probably don't realize this, mexico is i think the second largest market for american exports.
>> well, mexico has a lot of negotiating chips in this matter. it also has measures we would take in other areas. for example, the drugs that come through mexico from south america or the drugs that are produced here in mexico all go to the united states. this is not our problem. we have been cooperating with the united states for many years on these issues because they've asked us to and because we have a friendly, trustful relationship. if that relationship disappears, the reasons for cooperation also disappear. >> conrad black, let me ask you about the retalyashz that donald trump has threatened, which is a 20% tariff. i was always taught by conservative commentators that tariffs, taxes are eventually passed on to the consumer. this could not be a tax that would be paid by mexico. it would be paid by companies
mexican or american, that are selling mexican goods in the united states, but they will past that cost on to the consumer. in other words, the american consumer would pay for this, for trump's foreign policy. am i missing something? >> well, i think we'd want to know more about -- you really need to be trade wonk to judge these things. you need more detail. in principle, i agree with what you just said. it was always clear during the campaign that mr. trump in saying he would build the wall and he intended that mexico would pay for it, that he expected to extract that payment by reducing the trade imbalance between the two countries. there are less ham handed ways of doing that than straight imposition of increased tariff like this. i assume and i hope and i share the wishes that mr. castaneda expressed that relations can be
put back together. >> conrad, do you celebrate this talk of tariffs and potential trade wars? it's happening with mexico and china. i'm wondering, you have historically been a free trader. you supported brian mulroney when he negotiated nafta. are you comfortable with this new world we're going into? >> i don't think we're going into such a world. i think your president has stated clearly he's in favor of trade. he's not particularly a protectionist but has reservations about some trade agreements he feels are one sided or incompetently negotiated from the american side. >> anne applebaum, let me ask you, we have to do a tour here, but theresa may and donald trump, are they idealogical soul mates? she says she wants a global britain. trump, of course, attacks globalism every chance he gets. >> i think in your exchange with
conrad black, you hinted at one of the really profound problems we have here, which is theresa may's idea of global britain, which is something she has come to over a number of months, looking for a new role of britain outside of the european union, clashes fundamentally with everything trump has said since he's taken office. in his speech, he was pretty clear in his speech at the inauguration, he was clear about his protectionism. he said hire american and buy american. that doesn't sound like somebody in favor of free trade of any kind, when it's free trade or foreign trade or anything involving foreign countries. she's come to the united states with a message she would like to nevertheless sell, which is that britain and the u.s. should nevertheless go ahead and promote free trade and promote an idea of a rules-based global order. trump has said clearly he doesn't believe in any of that anymore and he's willing to throw much of it overboard. and for theresa may, as for the rest of europe, this is a
fundamental stumbling block. that's how the system, the system of rules based international world order, that's made them prosperous. that made them safe, and they would like to continue it. this seems to be in direct conflict with what trump says he wants. >> when we come back, i will ask fawaz gerges what he makes of the ban on many muslim majority countries and the policy of extreme vetting. when we come back.
"how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business. ththen out of nowhere...crying. third time that day. i wasn't even sad. first the stroke, now this. so we asked my doctor. he told us about pseudobulbar affect, or pba. it's frequent, uncontrollable crying or laughing that doesn't match how you feel. it can happen with certain neurologic conditions like stroke, dementia, or ms. he prescribed nuedexta, the only fda-approved treatment for pba. tell your doctor about medicines you take. some can't be taken with nuedexta. nuedexta is not for people with certain heart conditions.
serious side effects may occur. life-threatening allergic reactions to quinidine can happen. tell your doctor right away if you have bleeding or bruising. stop nuedexta if muscle twitching, confusion, fever, or shivering occurs with antidepressants. side effects may include diarrhea, dizziness, cough, vomiting, weakness, or ankle swelling. nuedexta made a difference by reducing my pba episodes. ask about nuedexta and go to nuedexta.com seconds can mean the difference between life and death. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live.
government and the american occupation. but it does not include saudi arabia, of course, where the majority of the hijackers from the terrorists from 9/11 originated. what do you make of it? and what do you think the effect will be in the muslim middle east? >> well, i mean, it's very toxic, fareed. its very poisonous. i mean, if trump does act on his promises, in preventing muslims from as you said several countries from entering the united states. delivering syria on a silver platter to putin. this would inflame anti-american sentiments throughout the world, not just in the muslim world. anger u.s. allies and of course trigger a pilgrim to russia and would unleash tremendous anti-american storms in the
middle east. >> conrad, let me ask you about this issue. i am fixated on iraq war one. the united states went into iraq. got tens of thousands of people to work and ally with the united states. i remember talking to you on previous occasions about how you felt that was dishonorable for the united states to have not done more for the south vietn vietnamese who are allies and we abandoned them. wouldn't that situation be comparable? thousands of iraqis who have worked for the americans and supported the american occupation and you're now saying to them you will be rewarded by having a blanket ban that you couldn't even come and visit this country that you worked for and supported at great personal peril? >> yes. i think that the american attitude to reception of refugees as a concept has been ungeneralo ungenerous and unsuitable.
i can't blame this administration or the previous one to the extent they wish to take the reasonable precautions they can to prevent the admission into the country of those who will be destructive of it what's submitted. you have to handle this with more diplomacy than it has been in the first week of this administration. i think if the senate gets on with confirming nominees to the senior post and the administration it will smooth out a good deal from what we've seen this week. it's been a bumpy week. things will get better. >> you wanted to say something? >> i doubt it very much. i fear that things are going to get much worse. remember, donald trump traffics is narrative. islam hates us all. he lumps radical islam with islam and muslims.
i fear myself that if, again, donald trump keeps acting the way he does, that this really the trump administration might speed up the end of america's moment in the middle east and unleash also, this violates american values. you talk about american values. lumping all refugees with terrorists. imagine just the idea itself. so it does not look good. i also fear that there are many contradictions and big holes in trump's pronouncements on the middle east and the muslim world. he wants to defeat isis yet he lumps islam and muslims 1.3 billion muslims with radical islamism. how do you bridge this particular conceptual divide? it looks very bad from where i am sitting here in europe and the middle east as well. >> the trump/putin connection. you spend a lot of time in eastern europe. you have a house in poland.
how do poles, for example, how much are they worried that in hoping for some kind of deal between trump and putin poland and its security and ukraine and its security will be sacrificed? >> i think there is a palpable fear of exactly what you've just described and the expression that people are using is will there be a new yelta? will putin convince trump to divide the world. perhaps europe and the middle east as well into spheres of influence that allow him to impose his political system on one part of it and keep the rest for whatever remains of democracy or of western civilization. there's talk of that in russia. it's bleeded over and seeped over into ukraine. people are hearing it. they're very worried about it. this is a part of the world also
you mention allies. poland, the baltic states, much of central europe, even georgia. these are countries that contributed soldiers and troops to u.s. missions in the past that feel very much themselves to be part of nato and supporters of nato and supporters of american foreign policy for 25 years. they've supported both democratic and american presidents. and they will feel incredibly betrayed and left alone if they're cut out of some new division or some new redrawing of borders in europe. >> i'm going to have to leave it at that. we'll have many opportunities, i think, to discuss this new foreign policy going forward. we will be back. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light.
thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, everyone. thank you so much for joining me this sunday. i'm fredricka whitfield. we begin with this breaking news. two republican leaders coming out staunchly opposing the president's executive order on immigration. just moments ago senators john mccain and lindsey graham releasing this statement saying it is "clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that president trump's executive order was not properly vetted. we are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the departments of state, defense, justice and homeland security. ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a