tv [untitled] August 29, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
a very elaborate set of screening procedures. among them asking your political history, you know, who do you support, what work have you done, what work could you do for the united states intelligence agencies. and they're actually looking to recruit people in the process. and a good number of germans and ex-nazis come in, in large measure because of the influence of the restrictionists. so, the idea that the u.s. nation would be a refugee nation is not really gaining a lot of traction at this point. it is still -- refugees are deemed to be of strategic value, of foreign policy considerations, but not necessarily ones that would open the borders. we can see the restrictionist energy really clearly in the mccarron/walter act. i mentioned it in the last lecture, but i'll briefly touch on it. this was passed at the peak of the cold war. mccarron believed in the anxiety of the communist expansion was generating, believed that we had to recommend stronger, less porous border and if they were taking loyalty oaths, so should refugees and immigrants and how does that apply to the quota of
the 1920s? mccarron/walter reiterates it, supports it, bolsters it, makes it much harder, in fact, for southern and eastern europeans, or jews, wherever they're coming from, to come into the united states. and it ended the prohibition on asian immigration but only gave a very nominal number to chinese or japanese immigrants. so it says afterwards, now 100 can come in. so they get up to the minimal level of let's say greeks and others. so there is some modest, i suppose, changes, but they're really in effect reiterating what was existing law. and more importantly, there were -- it expanded the power of the state to deport immigrants, refugees, especially as communists or their sympathizers. and this was applied retroactively.
so, after mccarron/walter is passed, mexican and mexican americans are deported at much more proficient and large numbers. this is part of the authority that leads to what's called "operation wet back" on the u.s./mexican border, in which authorities would come in and round up people as potentially security threats. it expands in foreign policy terms the significance of immigrants. every immigrant is a potential security threat. they all need to take loyalty oaths. and it is the state that largely decides, restrictionists who are administering this law. so, up to 1952, the notion that u.s. foreign policy would be liberalizing refugee law is far-fetched. it's quite the opposite. the anxieties on the border about so-called aliens is really driving a more restrictionist policy in u.s. immigration. so that begins to change in a really striking way.
and this is in some ways where the story gets perhaps surprising or unpredictable. it begins with harry truman and also dwight d. eisenhower, both republicans and democrats see in anti-communism there is an opportunity to actually expand refugees and their significance in the u.s.'s effort to fight a global war against communism. so truman himself critiques mccarron/walter. he vetoes the act and then is overridden by the authorities in 1952 at the end of his second term. but he goes down fighting, truman does. he writes, "the idea behind this discriminatory policy was to put above thee that americans with english or irish names make better american citizens than those with italian, greek or polish names. nationalistic thinking was
unworthy of our traditions and ideals, like the great political doctrine of the declaration of independence that all men are created equal. the humanitarian creed inscribed beneath our statue of liberty, our belief in the brotherhood of man." he gives a kind of pluralistic understanding of the nation and used that to fight the restrictionist law, but that argument didn't do inch 1952. it persuaded too few people. what changes, what empowers truman and what empowers other presidents is the argument about refugees being extraordinarily useful to fighting a cold war, that they are, in fact, in the nation's interests. and you can see this in the ways in which they redefine refugees as fundamentally not just political refugees but as
anti-communists who are our allies, who are kind of prototypical americans as they fight communist oppression abroad and that we have an obligation to let them in because they're anti-communist. and one can see the kind of transformation of american identity along next to what a refugee is. the two are co-defining each other. so, truman does this in part in the refugee relief program. he proposes this in 1952. it doesn't become law until 1953. let's in some 200,000 people. and it's still sort of a political football over who will control it and how it will be administered. it seeks to bring in those sort of, in effect, prototypical americans who are fighting against america's enemies and mostly brings in people from east germany, from the eastern european countries that are now under soviet domination.
interesting here, emanuel sellers, author of the law, describes the refugees that he saw coming out of east germany as, "they would make great citizens if we let them into our country because they understand the meaning of liberty, they understand how they have been downtrodden, how liberty has been denied to them. i find them to be only too happy to come here to america, and they appreciate freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion." interesting of him to be saying that in 1953, the very moment when mccarthy is compromising freedom of expression and freedom of the press. so there's a kind of interesting story in which people were fighting about the stakes of american democracy and americanism are using refugees to do that, to do that battle. so what then happens, it is put
in. it's a modest proposal. it doesn't really take off. it is kind of bottled up by restrictionists under mccarron. and then a new foreign policy erupts -- opportunity, i should say, and that's in 1956 with the revolution in hungary that briefly topples the undemocratic soviet puppet state, and there is a sort of democratic socialist state that comes to power very briefly before soviet tanks come in and dramatically crush this domestic story. and this is a picture of budapest, dead people and soviet tanks in the background. and it produces, not surprisingly, an extraordinary number of refugees who pour across the hungarian border into austria. in december of 1956 there are about 130,000 who are in austria. there is an echo here in the present. there are at least that many muslim refugees coming north into austria and they're being bottlenecked in the contemporary moment. today europe is awash in refugees. the same story is going on in 1956 here. the u.s. response is quite, quite different. so, what happens in december '56?
none other than richard nixon, vice president, an ardent restrictionist, goes and visits austria and inspects the camps and comes home deeply moved about the absolute necessity of bringing in many more hungarians into the united states. and here's how this story gets also in some ways interesting again. how does he do that? well, the refugee relief program is cumbersome. it takes a long time to get people processed and they need a more quick, more useful instrument for foreign policy. so what do they do? they use a l little-known, it's called a codocile, a little known bureaucratic rule in the mccarron/walter act which allows the attorney general to bring someone into the country as a parolee, in effect to recognize that they're breaking the law and to parole them. and they're a parolee and they come in and they can stay in the
united states without legal standing, but nonetheless, legally. that is to say, their citizenship status is not decided yet, but they're brought in and they're going to be safe. and this is the power that richard nixon as vice president and then dwight d. eisenhower uses to bring in most of the hungarian refugees. it's quite apart in any congressional authorization and debate. many come in the spring of '57. 32,000 of them are parolees. the significance of this is quite dramatic and will in effect benefit every single president for the next half century that seek to use refugees to, in effect, as instruments of u.s. foreign policy and to change the relationship between actors. put this into contemporary perspective. the complaints about president
obama using executive authority, usurping his constitutional role is an old complaint that congress has made about political leaders. in fact, it goes right back to the heart of this policy. this refugee policy is largely enacted by the executive branch at the expense of congress, and it's a good instrument. it allows them to respond quickly to the hungarian crisis here, immigrants crossing into austria. that is the border right behind you, that machine gun post. many of them are orphans like these three kids. my babysitter was a hungarian refugee when i was -- she came over in 1956 and was a wonderful musician, and we loved her dearly. but anyhow, so, it gets closer to some of the personal story in our family. so, there is an effort by the state, by the state department after hungary, these refugees
come in. they recognize that there is sort of political unpopularity. they seek to justify it, and the state department's interesting, the executive branch as well create a public relations campaign. they seek to persuade america that these refugees are, in fact, pro to americans, that their anti-communism makes them good americans. and they hire an ad firm that goes around and talks about hungarians as this sort of seek to approve and burnish their ethnicity on one hand, but really play up their credentials as ardent anti-communists who risk their lives against a communist regime, and therefore are ipso facto americans in the formation, in the making. here is what one ad executive
for the state department said to "life" magazine -- "you should be helping the american people realize that hungary has a rich and cultural heritage and past and that these refugees are not dopes coming from a cultural vacuum just because they don't know much english." then he encourages them to show them as what? t only good anti-communists, but as good american consumers. and there is this really interesting spread in "life" magazine as well as in "look" magazine that shows hungarian immigrants quickly adapting and loving america in abundance. here's one phrase from the article. "seven days after arriving in the united states, this weary refugee family was transformed into four ecstatic minnesotans." i love that. well, they still don't speak
english, but they seem to like their kitchen and their sink and what have you. and there's this fusing of american identity, consumer culture, stuff that we had talked about in the past, with also this political understanding of anti-communism that's really at the heart of the story. so, this is a pattern that's emerging. refugees are understood as in effect proto typically american and it's expanding numbers dramatically. this is the same story, then, moving forward in the cuban revolution that occurs in 1959. once again, a revolution involving, well, in this case fidel castro, who is initially not anti-american, but over the
course of the revolution does become an ardent critic of the united states and embraces soviet aid and is deemed a communist. and those who are being persecuted by castro and his regime are anti-communists and are welcomed into the united states as these prototypical americans. this occurs not without controversy, but the cuban story exemplifies this kind of liberalizing story within u.s. refugee policy. if the united states is this extraordinarily generous nation of refugees, it's because of its anti-communist campaigns, it's because of the cold war. this is no accident. it's really the reason the united states opens its doors. over the course of the 1960s, 500,000 cuban refugees arrive, basically to set foot on florida or on american soil makes them a refugee who has got protected legal status and a path to citizenship. unlike any other group in the western hemisphere. and the reason is because castro was in power. so it's an explicit part of u.s. foreign policy. the cubans are important for a couple of reasons, cuban refugees, because refugee policy is largely a kind of version of an exceptional cuban policy. so refugee resettlement programs are put into place to help cubans that then become used for all refugees. they involve finding them jobs, housing, creating a bureaucracy to help aid in their resettlement. in 1966, the cuban status adjustment act is passed, which
has a remarkable political story. it normalizes, it gives citizenship to cuban refugees. it also allows them to become dual citizens, which is -- there is no dual citizens in the united states in 1966. the first ones are cubans. and why is that? because they're passionate cold warriors. they're fighting castro, and if they want to go back and fight castro, we want to support them. they should not give up their cuban citizenship. they can become americans, but we want them to become able -- to, in effect, achieve that foreign policy objective, which was to overthrow castro. and in effect, this kind of exception for cuban refugees becomes then a kind of law for a larger community of americans after 1967 because, actually, there's a supreme court case that says, well, in fact, u.s. citizens can become dual citizens in 1967, largely in the
wake of the cuban story. so cuban exceptionalism, it's an interesting story. it is only understandable as a product of u.s. foreign policy objectives. it is extraordinarily generous to cubans. and is leading to changes in the status of refugees across the spectrum as well. there are -- so, all these examples i'm giving you, just real quickly, there is a clear theme, which is that the united states is fighting a cold war with refugees, and its generosity towards refugees is because of those foreign policy objectives. and that is largely unchallenged. it does not lead to that sort of convergence of foreign policy and domestic definitions. it does not change u.s. immigration law dramatically. the 1965 immigration reform act does very little for refugees. it doesn't make them central to the story. one might expect that it would have, that you would have had a
lot of refugees being brought in because it is a cold war piece of legislation. but in effect, they don't need to because the law is aimed at helping those countries that have been fighting the cold war. it's no accident that the main beneficiaries of the reform act in 1965 are southern and eastern europeans. and why? greece, hungary, those same nations that have been fighting the cold war are the beneficiaries of that reform which repeals those national origins quotas. okay, summarizing a lot. any questions at this moment before we look at this key turn to human rights? yeah. >> after the hungarian revolution. >> yeah. >> because nixon actually went to the refugee camps and had that experience, were his intentions coming from that humanitarian place and did he use the discourse of the cold war to kind of move american public opinion because he knew that would be most effective or were his intentions very much focused in the foreign policy interests?
>> that's a great question. i don't have a good answer. i don't know his intentions. but if you do look later in nixon's career, i don't think -- nixon was an extraordinarily pragmatic politician. and what is clear is that in 1956 he saw the political opportunity and he seized it, which was, we can expand the power of the executive branch through refugees. and it's his insight that if we use this little-known, little provision here, parolee immigrants to refugees, we can get more in. that was good for foreign policy interests, which is what he was engaged with, and it also expanded the power of the president. and in that sense, that's very consistent with the later nixon who was the so-called imperial president. so, whether it was genuine humanitarian interests, probably not, but what's interesting is
that the anti-communism was not framed as a humanitarian story. it was to some degree, but mostly, they were pro to americans. we have an obligation to accept them because they're americans, not because we are humanitarians. that is in some ways a troubling takeaway. we live in the context today where, again, humanitarian understandings of the refugee define those political interests in one way that's not actually the way people understood it for much of the cold war. they were not incompatible, but that was not the framing. the main framing was that they were pro to american. does that answer the question? any other questions? yeah. >> this isn't refugee policy, but when did the influx of east
and south asians primarily start beginning after the 1965 immigration act? because i know that really affected more people coming in. >> i'm about to turn to that very question and the unintended consequences of the '65 law have a lot to do with refugee law as well as the ways that the family reunification, which was at the heart of the '65 reform. one reason that -- the quick answer is how did the '65 law, which in some ways supported the admission of people who were already here, because family reunification would do that. it's kind of like a version of the national origins act. how did it bring in so many asian immigrants? it did, because when you brought in lots of refugees from vietnam, from laos, from
cambodia, what do they start to do? they start to send for their family. and so, when you bring in lots of refugees, you actually expand the family reunification story, and that twining of immigration policy with refugee policy is one of the main generators of the transformation in expansion of asian immigrant post-'65. yeah? >> at this point, china's a communist country, so it would seem like we're fighting -- if the 1965 law was because of like cold war policies that they wouldn't want specifically like china's communists to come in. >> that's a great question, why not more chinese refugees before the '70s when they do come? like why not more chinese refugees at the moment that china becomes communist in 1950? there are very few chinese refugees who come in. what do you think? thoughts. yeah. >> i believe the chinese government simply didn't let them out or, like, had very strong restrictions on like the mobility of their people. >> there is that. where would they have fled to? so, and the hungarians are
flying into austria, into a u.s. ally. it's easier to get them out. that's part of the story, but there are u.s. allies in asia, and there are many refugees who do flee. they go to taiwan, but why not more taiwanese, chinese that come from taiwan into the united states? the answer i already alluded to it. you want to guess? >> i think maybe historically anti-asian sentiment? >> absolutely. anti-asian sentiment has not gone away in 1952 or 1960, so the mccarron/walter act has restrict national quotas still, and refugees are a way around it. they're not counted as that, but it's largely in the foreign policy latitude. the united states before getting
involved militarily, it wants to avoid a military conflict, by and large, with china in the '50s, and so that it's not seeking -- when you accept a country's refugees, you're actually, it's almost like a statement -- it's a foreign policy statement. and so, it will become important later. and i guess maybe one sees the wake of the vietnam story, one can see there are many chinese refugees who come out of that context as well. so it's a good question. i don't have a -- that would be a great research paper. i know it's too late to come up with new topics, but anyway, i like it. maura? >> was there a screening for refugees coming from communist countries to make sure that they were anti-communist and would fight communism? or was it assumed that because they were trying to flee, they were inherently anti-communist. >> so there was a screening procedure in all of these programs. and one of the interesting ironies is that many people fleeing the hungarian revolution were, in fact, communists. it's a different kind of communist. they had supported a different kind of democratic socialism that had overthrown the communist government, and there were screening procedures. one famous guy who found out is a guy named samuel gombos. he's a 37-year-old. he's mentioned in the book. he's a pro-elite. he had worked with the hungarian secret police and had been a
main agent of the communist regime in repressing and suppressing the democratic revolt in hungary. and he comes out as a refugee, but he's turned in by his fellow refugees who say that's the guy who put my parents in jail. so, the screening procedures seeks to capture those people, but it's not necessarily that effective. so you're right. i mean, the fact that you're accepting people from communist nations, but the presumption more often than not, the benefit of the doubt is you're fleeing communists -- this is true for the cubans as well, you're fleeing castro. ipso factor, you're anti-communist, even if you're not, and you're going to be pro-american. >> i don't really think that there's an answer to this, but this reminds me of current debates about refugees from the middle east. and it's interesting that when people were fleeing communism, it was almost assumed that they could be an ally in fighting communism, the people who were fleeing, and they would be anti-communist, and therefore, it's a tool to undermine
communism by taking them, whereas modern debates about accepting refugees from the middle east frames the refugee more as an agent of what they're fleeing and a threat because they come from that, rather than an agent who could help to fight whatever regime they're fleeing. >> that's a really good observation, because in fact, what you see -- the only thing that's really changed radically -- two things have changed -- and i'm jumping ahead in the lecture, which is fine. there are two things that have changed in refugee discussions. first is that the definition of refugee shifts to this humanitarian vision, which is the 1980 refugee act, and seeks to have a more -- a less foreign policy-driven understanding of what and who a refugee is. but even as that is enacted and as cold war liberalism itself is kind of dismantled, those who support refugee admissions no
longer make arguments about the national interests. it's the restrictionists who are making the arguments about national interests today. they are not new. they've been making that argument since 1939. it's the same damn argument. refugees are threatening our country. they are threats to our national security. keep them out. what is not happening is the argument you're making, which i think i'm hearing, which is basically that, actually, we have a national interest in accepting more syrian and iraqi refugees. if we're going to fight isis, we should do that. we have a national interest, why? because they can speak arabic. that would be kind of important. they have an investment in fighting isis because they're refugees of isis, let's say. that argument is -- you see it occasionally. you don't see it very often and you don't see it as a policy. and so, the numbers -- so, that's a good question. why is that the case? why do you think that's not the case? haley? >> but do you think that the
fear of like a national security danger was still present the way it is today at that time? it was just kind of like overpowered by the belief that like these anti-communist refugees would be more helpful, like the chances that you would have more helpful refugees than potential security threats were just overpowered the fear, or was that fear not there the same way that it is today? >> so, i think the fear -- the fear of communism was profound. i mean, the united states -- the only way to understand cold war liberalism was that it was motivated by a profound existential anxiety about communism, both abroad and at home. and so, what's kind of remarkable is that refugees actually didn't threaten that anxiety. they were seen as allies, as assets in redressing those anxieties. if we get the good hungarians,
if we get the good greeks who are victims of the civil war there, if we get the good cubans, if you will, good meaning they're patriotic americans already in formation, then they'll be allies in fighting this war. what the cold war was about was a way of redefining understanding american rights very much as anti-communist. that was sort of the central glue to the whole rights discussion, which brings us back to the discussion we had last class about civil rights, too. without that, civil rights it gave an opportunity for civil rights activists. i guess the question is why not in the present?
yeah. >> they wouldn't actually be like the good cubans, the good hungarians. i think there is a fear now that there will be bad refugees posing as good refugees as like their ticket in, you know? so, is that fear that you would actually get some bad refugees in that pool not there or was it just overpowered? >> there was definitely that fear and restrictions were arguing and they would find individual refugees who were actually, you know, bad actors or bad apples, and they would bring it up and try to reduce the number of refugees. i suppose what's really different about the war on terror is that the consequences of one bad refugee who's fully armed and detonates himself or herself is quite different from one person who would be ideologically a communist in the old -- like what was the threat of an individual communist in, i don't know, durham, north carolina, in 1955? probably not much. well, actually, we know, the communists in durham, north carolina, in the 1940s and early '50s, who were they?
you know? >> the union workers. >> yeah, the union workers who were saying let's dismantle jim crow segregation. those were dangerous people, really dangerous. that's why they were repressed so hard. yeah, so, that's interesting to make those connections. i think the similarities and differences are really quite striking. we're not going to have time to get through everything. i'm going to keep going and we're going to continue this lecture. i want to make sure we get to the end, and so what we don't get through right now is fine. we have time in this lecture to keep moving forward. i would say just one of the most interesting moments to focus in on. as in the wake of the vietnam war and the loss, the united states lost there, the influx and the importation of lots of vietnamese, laosan and cambodian refugees has a different logic. they're americans because they are anti-communist, yes, that's true, but they're not serving the same geopolitical, strategic interests, if you will, because
we've already lost the war. and so, in some ways, the rationale for accepting lots of them is to fight the communist power over there or to have a cohort of people who could infiltrate the communist regime that you're fighting is kind of obsolete because we basically are losing the war. and that's going on at the same time that this emerging language about human rights is gaining traction, largely in reaction to the immoralities of the vietnam war itself, the fact that this was a war against citizens very often. it was deemed, understood to be a very unfair, inhumane war, so that produces a different kind of language that justifies the significance of vietnamese refugees in very different terms. here the argument is less that they're useful in fighting a cold war, and it's more of what you initially suggested, diane. we have an obligation because we lost the war to aid our allies. and so, the stakes are still a cold war set of foreign policy stakes, but we're going to protect our own. we have allies in other places of the world like iran or other countries where revolution is about to explode. and if we abandon our allies in vietnam, we're basically cutting loose our allies elsewhere. so that's the argument that's used to bring in hundreds of thousands of vietnamese. we have to protect those who are u.s. allies in that fight. but it changes, it begins to change how we imagine, americans
imagine the significance and the foreign policy stakes of refugees. the 1980 refugee act seeks to kind of bring forward -- i'm skipping ahead kind of quickly here, but that's what i'll fill in. it cements that image i described to you in the first set of slides of u.s. refugees as human rights survivors, and there's a new litmus test, in effect, passed by a woman named liz holtzman, who stipulates -- and this is in the reading -- that in effect, if you're going to be a refugee, not only do you have to be pro-american and perhaps anti-communist, but you should also renounce any former political persecution. you should renounce torture. you should renounce having persecuted anybody or violated any of their essential human rights. so the nation is reimagined in the late '70s as a human rights nation under jimmy carter, under several other actors. and that's really what you see
enacted in the 1980 law. and that changes profound, but once it sees it sort of playing out in the dramatic fashion in the summer of 1980 right after the law has been passed with more hungarian refugees coming, here's the reaction that is being generated to vietnamese refugees. the growing hostility toward refugees in the 1970s is racialized because they're coming from asia, so that anti-asian sentiment has not gone away. sorry. all righty, next, okay. so, this is what happens in this room. i cannot advance the slide. that's okay. so, in the summer of 1980, you have a kind of dramatic pairing of two refugee crises at the same time, involving haitians and also cubans, both coming to the same shore in florida. and here are, these are refugees from vietnam and laos who are
waiting to be brought to the united states. this is a boat of cubans coming out of cuban in 1979 and 1980, the marilitos so-called boat lift. what's interesting is castro is exploiting the opportunity to get rid of those jailed. he gets rid of a lot of people that he doesn't want to take care of to push the human tearism of the united statehuma states. and these cubans are in the exceptional strategy instant citizens. here's castro saying, we don't want them, we don't need them. here are haitians coming in. god, look at that boat. that's just -- that image is striking! these are haitians setting out
for the coast of florida. just look at that image. man! that is courage. they have a different kind of reception when they get to the united states. many of them are basically rounded up. the first immigration detention centers are largely created in florida to house haitian, prospective refugees and to process them, to decide whether they should be allowed into the country. so, the human rights regime that -- human rights language that converges after the '80 refugee act has sought to change how u.s. refugee law is administered. it doesn't -- it shouldn't matter if you're fleeing a u.s. ally or a u.s. enemy. your refugee status should be universal. in practice, that was not the case. and this is put to the test at this moment in time. haitians had a much harder time getting into the country as citizens. they had been denied citizenship or refugee status throughout the 1970s where cubans had been let in. and the differences are about race. they're also about the cold war. these haitians had the misfortune of fleeing a u.s. ally, a u.s. dictator, and that meant that they were not good anti-communists.
if anything, they were critics of u.s. foreign policy as they were understood. now, the u.s. refugees act seeks to change that. it doesn't change it overnight. and in fact, you have a persistence of cold war policy playing itself out in the 1980s after this act is made law. one of the best examples are refugees of the el salvador civil war. and they're fleeing -- many of these refugees are fleeing u.s.-backed, right-wing actors and come to the united states and are not allowed to become refugees. so they seek instead to be under asylum law to become refugees after the the fact, but they have a very hard time. most of them are denied admission or denied refugee or asylum status. let me give you -- in the five
minutes we have left, i want to give you a story of one of those good people, because i think it illustrates the ongoing and the enduring tension in u.s. refugee law between refugee status as a humanitarian law, the u.s. refugee act 1980, and national foreign policy interests. so, this is the story of a fellow named miguel. his real name i've changed. he is a dear friend of mine. he is, i would argue, the best citizen in north carolina. i've never met any citizen better than him. and by that, i'll describe. he fled el salvador in 1983. he was forced to fight at the age of 12 for the marxist guerrillas. his parents were killed. he came into the united states at the age of 14, made his way to north carolina. he worked all kinds of jobs. he describes his first weeks in america as the most sort of
beautiful days of his life because he could sleep without bombs blowing up, waking him at night. he was a refugee of a horrific civil war, by any definition he would have been, should be a refugee. he applied, finally, when he came to north carolina under asylum law for refugee status. his case was pending for 17 years. what happened? after 17 years, the ruling finally came down. the civil war is over. you no longer have an asylum claim. you're going to be deported. in the meantime, he had been a legal resident as an asylum-seeker.
miguel, however, at this very moment in time had also been doing other things. among them deciding that democracy really was a beautiful thing and he decided to register more voters than any other. there was a voter register contest in 2008. his personal story, just people would register. he registered all kinds of people. communis communists? he registered like i did a member of the clan. what the heck, why not. you want to be a clansman, fine. you can vote. you want to register, you can do that. he then met a candidate named barack obama for having won the contest to register more people, not democrats. but this really came down shortly thereafter and he was
put into deportation. he had to fight it and he became, as a result of this, a ferocious critic of the united states. to me as a kind of citizen who recognizes that the best measure of citizenship is to be a critic. and on his car is a picture of barack obama and he hollowed out the face and left it on there because he was so pissed off because barack obama he argued, deported more immigrants than any president in u.s. history. a sense of betrayal. but as a citizen, as someone who understood what democracy is, why dissent matters, why he passionately loves this nation, i can't imagine no one who understands -- to me he is -- i don't agree with him. he is the perfect american if there is such a thing. the perfect citizen. he understands the stakes of
democracy, what makes it work, has he had an investment in ef one of you speaking and having a vote. and he is still in legal limbo. he's not a u.s. citizen and that's why his name is miguel for the purposes of this discussion. he is likely to get a path to citizenship afterall but it's costing a lot of money. that's neither here nor there. the story is ill stray ty of the stakes. he is both a person -- refugees understand this. they understand america and what makes america, if you will, the nation of refugees better than many americans do. and has an idealism about this place that would be refreshing if people listen to it. the story is complicated. we haven't wrapped it all up. we'll come back to it.
it links nation and human interests at every turn. whether we listen to advocates like miguel is another story, but if we did the discussion would change radically. thanks very much. we'll have more debate about this relationship between humanitarian and national nalism as we move forward. thanks very much. thanks for your questions. telling the american story through events, interviews and visits to historic locations. this month american history tv is in primetime to introduce you to programs you could see every weekend on c-span 3, visit to college classrooms across the country to hear lectures by top history professors, american artifacts take as look at the treasures at museums and archives, reel america, revealing the 20th century through news reels, the civil war where you hear about the
people who shaped the civil war and reconstruction and the presidency focuses on u.s. presidents and first ladies to learn about their politics, policies and legacies. all this month in primetime and every weekend on american history tv on c-span3. before taking its summer break the senate voted for a second time to block funding to combat and prevent the zika virus. >> just last may when your democratic colleagues asked us to act and act with urgency. but today they turned down the very money that they argued for last may. and they decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. instead of protecting them. as i said, they ignored their own calls to get this done quickly. and they've refused the past
urgent measures that would protect our country from a public health crisis. so as i said when i started, mr. president, this was a test today to see whether our democratic colleagues cared more about babies like this or special interest groups and they failed the test. it's simple as that. >> under the bill we got back and the republicans in the senate approved what happened in the house, planned parenthood, an organization where hundred of hundreds or thousands of women go for their care -- now do you think they're going to have a little rush of business now? because women in america today want to make sure that they have the ability to not get pregnant. why? because mosquitos ravage pregnant women. under the logic of my friend, the republican leader, they don't need to go to planned
parenthood. they can go to their boutique doctor some place in las vegas or chicago or lexington, kentucky. they can go to an emergency room and say i'm sorry, i didn't get birth control. will you help me? that isn't what emergency rooms are for. that's what planned parenthood is for. a vast majority of women who need help, that's where they go, planned parenthood. and under the legislation we got back from the house, there's no money to be provided for that. this thursday a preview of four major issues congress will ge bait when they return from recess, zika funding, defense policy, gun violence and the impeachment of the irs commissioner, feature a key floor update. that's thursday, at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.
vice presidential candidate senator tim kaine visited a voter registration drive in tallahassee, florida talking about the importance of historically black colleges and universities and plans he and his running mate hillary clinton outlined to help them. this is an hour anten minutes. >> i want to thank the university president, give dr. mag num a big applause. and a special word of thanks about my wife anne holton. my wife just stepped down as secretary of education in virginia after working her entire career to help young people. why did she step down? because she wanted to do what i'm doing. she wanted to go full time between now and november 8 and make sure we do all we can to
elect hillary clinton as the next president of the united states. so i learned an interesting bit of trivia just on the way down here today. august 26th in this country, august 26th is women's equality day. give it up for women's equality. it's women's equality day because on august 26, 1920 the federal government certified that enough states had ratified the 19th amendment to the constitution giving women the right to vote and 96 years later we're about to make the first woman president of the united states. and that's what's so very exciting for me to be on the ticket. when hillary asked me about a month ago i was so proud to work with somebody. president obama said this about her at the convention, that she would be the most qualified
individual to be a nominee of a major party in the history of this country and i am proud to be a partner with hillary clinton, like a lot of strong men in this country, my political career has been built on a foundation of support from strong women like my wife, campaign managers, cabinet secretaries, the agent heads, voters, donors, volunteers and now i'm a strong man ready play that supportive role to make sure our strong woman hillary clinton is our next president. we all feel the same way? there is a lot at stake in this university. and i think you understand this at famu. this is a wonderful historic black university with a great tradition. we have a few great ones in virginia too. virginia union is two miles from our state, virginia state, norfolk state, your homecoming opponent this year, hampton university in virginia, we're all in the family.
we're all in the family. hbcus play an important role in producing 65% of minority engineers in the country, overwhelming numbers of minority physicians, veterinaries, scientists, hbcus have a role that's ever bit as important today and tomorrow as it was when universities like famu were founded. give it up for famu and all of the hbcus that are such an important part of this country. hillary clinton and i understand the importance of hbcus and that's why we have an initiative as part of our education plan to grow jobs in the 2 1st century to invest $25 billion in hbcus so we can keep training the talent pool for the 21st century. that's together with other investments, pre-k education, career and technical education, debt-free college for americans. that's something we can do.
and these are the issues that are at stake in this election. you know, if i can just say, there are a lot of issues that are at stake in started off and talked about women's equality day, let's just take equality. let's just take the principle that we stated in 1776 would be the north star for our nation, when virginians put that in the declaration of independence, they weren't living that way. nobody was living that way, but still they had a wisdom to tell them to put that out as a north star that would measure our progress as a people. and for 240 years we've been knocking down one barrier after the next, trying to live more like we said we were going to live in 1776. that's something to think about this equality day and something to think about as we approach this election.
i think you know hillary clinton's history. she was a law student at yale that could have done anything, instead she said i want to work with the children's defense fund. she went to south carolina to help investigate racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. went to alabama to investigate disparities in the school system. as a young lawyer ann and i got out of law school, worked with legal aide in richmond, virginia, and i was a civil rights lawyer battling against housing discrimination. at the time we were doing these things, donald trump was starting out, too, and his firm was getting sued for racial discrimination and the issuance of housing. this is a fundamental difference between the two tickets and it's fundamental to the values that we hold as a nation. you've also seen hillary clinton as a first lady of arkansas build up maternal and child health as a first lady of this country, worked so 8 million low-income kids could have health insurance. as a senator, fighting for military families, fighting for
first responders' health after the 9/11 attacks, and as secretary of state, making sure that women and children in the countries around the world have the attention of the u.s. government. hillary clinton has had a career and track record of success and support for equality and the causes that we hold dear. donald trump, let me just be honest, donald trump has a different point of view. you've heard during the skpan he's ridiculed people with disabilities. he's ridiculed people if they were mexican-american origin. he has said anybody that's muslim should be treated as second class religiously. that's not the way we do things in this country. it's not the way we do things. donald trump was a main guy behind a bigoted notion that president obama wasn't even born in this country. and donald trump has continued to push that irresponsible falsehood from all the way up to
now. yesterday hillary clinton gave a speech in reno, nevada, calling out donald trump on a lot of things about this equality idea. calling him out he has supporters like david duke, connected to the ku klux klan, who are going around saying donald trump is their candidate, because donald trump is pushing their values. ku klux klan values, david duke values, donald trump values, are not american values, they are not our values, and we have to do all we can to fight and push back and win and say we are still heading towards that north star that we set out so long ago. so that gets down to the reason for this rally, the reason we're here at fam u., you have a superb reputation of any university of student activism. and of getting people to understand the critical
importance of voting, so we're starting, actually, a national movement with hbcus and other universities as colleges are coming back into session to talk to students about registering and voting, and we want fam u. to lead the way. are you ready to do that? it is a very, very important thing. you know, we've seen in states all over the country significant efforts by governors and legislatures to narrow down the right to vote, to narrow down early voting, to increase i.d. requirements, to basically make it tougher for people to vote. you might have seen just a few weeks ago there was a court decision about the state of north carolina, where a federal court found as a matter of fact that the highest officials in the state had acted, quote, with surgical precision to make it more difficult for african-americans to vote. for anybody who cares about
small democracy, the efforts of state officials to put burdens in the way, reduce participation, and do it in a discriminatory way, has to call us to righteous action, righteous organization, so that we can show those tactics won't succeed. and we can do that here in florida. we can do it in virginia. we can do it all over the country. here's one thing i would ask you to do, i would ask you to do this, if you're talking to friends and family and trying to persuade people about the virtues of the clinton/kaine ticket or persuade people to vote, and doing that is important, because folks don't really pay attention to the tv ads anymore, they don't really believe them, but they still believe the person-to-person, talking to a friend, somebody you go to church with, somebody you're in class with, a family member, even calling as a volunteer talking to someone you don't know, when they hear you're a volunteer, here's what
they think, wow, they didn't have to do this. they are a volunteer, but they are taking their time because it's important to them. maybe it ought to be important to me. when you're doing that to encourage people to vote, if you hear somebody say to you, i don't think my vote matters, then i want to tell you what you say to them, the other side thinks it matters because an awful lot of people are doing an awful lot of work to reduce votes of african-americans, to reduce votes of young folks. if they want to make it harder to vote, then i hope you conclude that your vote is valuable. we have to have voters of all ages and you're in a unique position to be able to do this. let me tell you what the dates are in florida. every state's rules are different and many of you
students are from florida originally, but some of you might not be, so here are the rules. the last day to register to vote in florida is october 11th. that is the last day, so between now and october 11th, register, because i can tell you this, florida will be one of the closest, possibly the closest, battleground state this election, and your vote will really matter. second, register by october 11th, and early voting in florida, in-person early voting starts on saturday, october 29th, and it goes all the way to the following saturday, november 5th. early voting is very important, because some people are working or it's difficult for them to just vote on that one day, tuesday, november 8th. so those are the two dates to remember. register by october 11th, and then be there for early voting october 29th through saturday, november 5th. let me ask one more thing of you, is there anybody who might
be willing to volunteer to help us win this race? just give it a shoutout. yeah, all right. and i know many of you probably already have, but if you have not yet volunteered and you want to, all you have to do is text "together" to 47246. again, that is "together" 47246. if you do that, you will be swept up into the campaign like the last scene of close encounters of the third kind, where everybody gets on the spaceship. we'll sweep you up into the campaign, put you to work, we'll show that florida is hanging tough with hillary clinton. this election is a complicated season and a season of surprises. but we know how to do tough work, and florida has shown in 2008 and 2012 with its historic support for president obama, that you can deliver the goods, save the day, and bring victory
home, and we're asking for that again in 2016. let's make history on november 8th with hillary clinton, and then let's make history every day as we move this nation forward. thanks to you guys so much. thanks, fam u., i'm going to try it again. thanks so much! great to be with you! ♪ ain't no mountain high enough ♪ ♪ ain't no valley low enough ♪ ain't no river wide enough ♪ to keep me from getting to you ♪ all this week in american history tv primetime we'll feature programs from our lecture in history series in which we take you into college classrooms in the country. tonight it's the cold war. we begin at 8:00 eastern with a look at america's cold war refugee policy. at 9:15, human radiation experience, and then at 10:30 eastern, a lecture on the
origins of the cold war. c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on lectures in history, duke university professor gunther peck teaches a class on america's immigration policy towards refugees during the cold war. he describes how people fleeing communist countries such as cuba were given easier access to the u.s. city also talks about how race played a role in creating quotas, such as limiting immigrants from asian countries. his class is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> so welcome to class, folks. we have some visitors. welcome to duke university. my name is gunther peck. i teach immigration in the