Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Alicia Caldwell on the Trump Administrations Travel Ban  CSPAN  March 7, 2017 8:33am-9:05am EST

8:33 am
up that make it to the very top and stay there are not primarily motivated by money. they want to have standing, status, they want to be respected, and they want to have power. q&a, sandraght on navidi discusses her book "superhubs" -- idi: do they hold the system prisoner -- is it their fault or the system's fault, and in the end i come to the conclusion it is the interaction of both. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues.
8:34 am
host: we are joined by alicia caldwell. she is with the associated press. good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. host: we are talking about the new travel ban by the truck administration. what are they trying to achieve that they did not the first time around? guest: goal number run -- number one is kate people -- keep people out of the country, and number two, the legal hurdle. it was put on hold eight days in. one month later we have a new incarnation. host: and the legal hurdles the first time around were what? guest: numerous. the claims hinged unconstitutionality of is this a ban on particular religious minorities, or members of a religion, in this case, islam. the advocates who fought against
8:35 am
this said it was absolutely a muslim man. -- muslim ban. the administration said this is not a muslim ban, but a temporary halt, as they described it, uncertain people coming from the country -- countries and regions that have security issues, that in issues issues --t -- vetting countries that cannot assist the u.s.. host: how does it a compass that? guest: it narrows it dramatically. it takes iraq out of the mix. that was done for several reasons, including pressure from the iraqi government and the u.s. government. everyone has put pressure on noting the iraqis have helped the united states for a number of years. we all remember the iraq war it is still raging in many senses. they took iraq out. they also tailor it to new visas. everyone who had a visa valid or
8:36 am
otherwise, could not come back and green cardholders from those seven countries could not come back in. everyone from syria was indefinitely banned. that is the same this time, but there is no carveout for syrians. there is no extra time or indefinite period for syrians. it treats all six countries the same and the entire refugee system the same. critics say this is the same thing with a different bow on it. host: the newly to this travel ban -- introduced travel ban is the discussion. + host: let's hear from rex tillerson. get his thoughts, and expand if you would like. secretary tillerson: upon the
8:37 am
initial executive order, the state department consular affairs and diplomatic security offices immediately undertook a review in coordination with the department of homeland security to it and if i additional measures that would strengthen our batting of those seeking entry to the united states from seven named countries. those early efforts were concentrated on iraq. ally in themportant fight to defeat isis. with their brave soldiers fighting in" nation with america's men and women in uniform. this intense review identified multiple security measures that the state department and the government of --government of iraq will be in fomenting to achieve our -- implemented to achieve our shared objective of
8:38 am
limiting those with criminal intent from attending and six. appreciationre my for the prime minister of iraq. thing is that welcomes us" operation with countries in every region of the world that share our commitment with national security. host: alicia caldwell. guest: he laid out the government's position. of course, what is missing the reporting we have all done -- there was internal pressure from folks within the administration, congress and so on saying these are individuals that have gone out on the most extraordinary length to help the united states -- limb to help the united states. they have helped as translators and interpreters during the wars, at the height of the wars in particular. those visas were developed to allow those individuals that helped the had estates come to -- united states to come to the
8:39 am
united states because their lives are in danger because of that work. there were pushing pull factors there. there was great really from the iraqis, trepidation from the rest of the region and what folks in the region might be expensing as a result of this order. host: we have calls lined up for you. kelly, rome georgia -- rome, georgia. you are first. caller: thank you. -- thank you for taking my call. i do agree -- i am glad that .rump dropped iraq from the ban especially interpreters and everything -- i think that was a great move. just -- a brief story, if you will allow me. i work at the boys and girls town, andin my local
8:40 am
, in i teach a ballet class allow the muslim girls to wear their hair bosch -- and i'm one of those people as a christian, i wear my cross. myever, i was relieved of position because the muslim fringed upont in their religious liberties and i was relieved because even though i said nothing about their job -- they said me wearing my cross was an infringement. host: kelly, thanks. hert: i am sorry kelly lost job. i don't know any details, so it would be wildly inappropriate to
8:41 am
take any stance on that. host: joe. georgia. democrats line. a question -- how do constitutional rights extend to noncitizens? guest: well, i am not a lawyer, but the argument from the people that are noncitizens, the constitution does not apply. it has been argued for those that had valid visas -- you are infringing on those rights government u.s. authorized those individuals to be here, approve them, went through the process. ultimately, i would suggest you consult an attorney or constitutional scholar, but that is my brief understanding -- that that is the divide. if you are in the united states, the constitution applies to anyone that is in the united states regarding of immigration status or legal status for that matter. generally speaking, there are obviously some differences when
8:42 am
you go from a traditional court to a immigration court, and some nuance there. host: jessica, you are next. riverdale, georgia. independent line. caller: yes. i had a question -- i just wanted to know how did ms. caldwell feel about them saying the associated press are waging a war on president trump? is that true, is that what they are doing? guest: i have not heard that one in particular, to be fair. i'm a journalist. i work for the associated press, a not-for-profit news cooperative. i try to think of our motto -- motto -- we do not have an
8:43 am
editorial board. we do not have the issue that comes with an editorial board for a typical newspaper and so on. i had not heard we were waging any sort of war. my daily existence is finding stories and finding the facts and visiting those facts. host: when it comes to the travel ban, talk of the timelines -- time of its involved and why other time limits in the first place? in by tablets were put the administration, we presume, to allow the government to review the vetting system. it is one hundred 20 days on the refugee vetting system. one of the pinnacle issues during the campaign for now president trump was syrian refugees cannot properly be that it. vetted.--that it --
8:44 am
would send them home, and he cannot actually do that. the have and announced this yesterday -- one of things that will happen if there is no country by country worldwide and look at who is providing proper information in their view and who was not, sort of what they said they did with iraq, saying we need xyz. if you can accomplish xyz, we will move ahead. secretary tillerson said he does not bless -- does not envision new countries coming onto the list, but he did say he anticipate other countries been selected for additional information. i think you said 14 or 15 yesterday. there is been a rumor mill of more countries, possibly fewer companies, and we have not confirmed any of those names so it would not be appropriate, but
8:45 am
there are more countries are looking at certainly. now, what will happen in the 90 days? will be determined to be the extreme vetting the president decided was necessary? we don't know any details what that will include. we have seen snippets. possibly looking at social media, your email, your devices. his explanation was if you are not willing to give me your computer before i give you a visa or approve you for refugee status, maybe you don't get to come here. he laid it out as this is a privilege, we are selecting you. play or don't, and we'll move on to the next person. that was his perspective in the last several weeks. as i said, a changed a little from the expected -- from expecting more countries to go on the list to he expects more countries to be identified for further cooperation efforts. host: i know you're are not a lawyer -- you said that -- but is there a sense this travel ban will survive where the last one
8:46 am
did not when it comes to legal sunni -- scrutiny? guest: it depends on who you ask . opponents a you are targeting a faith. it is a ban on muslims. supporters of said that is not true. it is a security measure, a temporary halt, as the secretary said yesterday, and it is designed to make sure the systems are in place to fully and properly vet. is it perhaps, somewhere in the middle, certainly. and a judge or judges will decide someone. highest-paid original plaintiffs going back to court. massachusetts has sick -- i anticipate original plaintiffs going back to court. massachusetts has said they will go back to court. i assume the attorney general of washington state will do the same. the attorney general was active in talking about this. all indications are the fight is not over, but where the fight leaves is a new question.
8:47 am
remember, that is not like the old one. ene old one, as soon as the p hit the paper, it was in effect, causing chaos at airports, people in route were sent home upon arrival after being detained for up to 24 hours in some cases, possibly longer. i'm not positive on that. this goes into effect on the 16th at midnight, so there is yet another gap of time, and as secretary kelly, i believe, said yesterday, there should be no surprises. he said he was on the phone yesterday with many members of congress. the press were briefed. and it was rolled out in a much more soft way than the original. again, no pomp and circumstance. no public signing from the president. the three cabinet secretaries, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the secretary of homeland security quietly announce this, did not
8:48 am
-- announced this, did not take questions from the press. you can see, undeniably, a different tone at least. host: to that aspect, "usa today" highlights the fact that amongst the order itself, a 19-paragraph section explaining the policy and purpose of the ban. guest: right. it also explains what the administration says the first ban was not, and it went into great detail say specifically original ban was not driven by religious animus, an interesting note. an aggressive defense of the original. also missing was an original reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. originally there was a highlight at the beginning that this is necessary in part because of sematech --september 11. we all, tragically him -- -- we all remember tragically remember what happened. there were some visa holdovers,
8:49 am
which was one of the chief criticisms -- you said this was to present -- prevent this kind of thing, but you are comparing apples to oranges in populations. these are not the right people. these are not the droids you are looking for, to be very geeky about it. host: our next call is from iran on our line for others. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, c-span. can you hear me? host: go ahead. we can hear you. caller: today i am so disappointed -- so disappointed at mr. president. this travel ban, i don't think has anything to do with stopping terrorists from coming into the united states because none of them committed any act of terror on u.s. soil. i am not disappointed because i am no longer able to travel to the net's states, but i'm
8:50 am
worried about the message it sends to extremists, and furthermore, it contradicts the message america and the state department always has for the world, standing by people's rights and defending freedom and democracy all over the world. shows thel ban mission, winnings people's -- winning people's hearts, but this only makes isis happy. guest: he is not alone in his perspective. because i fact check all day, every day, i will fact check the caller -- there have been incidences from these countries that have been advocated in these cases. acently, a somali refugee -- former refugee -- you are only refugee for a year. an individual of somali descent came into the country as a refugee, was responsible for an attempted attack at ohio state university.
8:51 am
so, a number of somali immigrants and former refugees have been advocated, and a number of individuals from these countries, although to be clear, to the government's own internal data, nobody from syria has been advocated in anything, and of the -- i believe -- 82 terror-related cases since 2011, which is when the syrian war started, just over half of the people involved were u.s. citizens born in the united states. so, that leaves just under half foreign-born individuals of various immigration statuses -- be it current refugees or -- my understanding is there was nobody who was a current refugee within that year who was advocated, but, again, it is not fair to say no one from these countries is ever been involved in anything, because there are cases. certainly, thankfully, ohio state was not successful. the individual was killed in the act, and that was one of the things this internal dhs
8:52 am
intelligence analysis that highlighted the 82 cases discussed. it was either arrested or killed in the attempt. it is a little bit, sort of, in the middle, but certainly there has been a couple of cases. host: alicia caldwell from the associated press joining us to talk about the revised travel ban from the trump administration. elizabeth, long island, new york. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am very frustrated because i don't believe that the majority of people out there get it. 9/11.oblem here is people outy of the there picketing and making noise about immigration were not downtown when people were jumping out of the tower windows on fire. they weren't running up the
8:53 am
streets of manhattan screaming and crying. thousands and thousands of people. so, when we go out there and about and we are telling who is now president trump we want to --protected from now on 4 from this -- that is what we need. now, president obama did bring in a lot of refugees. they are here. it is just a matter of time before it happens again, and maybe, just maybe, the new generation out there with their picket signs will have to see a little bit of 9/11 for themselves in order to catch on about what is going on in this country. guest: so, to the best of my knowledge, no one wants to see another 9/11, certainly not within the government or the general populace. again, to be fair, the 9/11 hijackers were not refugees.
8:54 am
these were individuals who had visas. some overstayed. you will forgive me if i don't have the exact details on it. i covered it, but it has been a number of years. not refugees is the answer. when you talk about immigration and terrorism, connections are made, but there are multiple issues with immigration. you have to pick a lane, but to the best of my understanding nobody is championing our next 9/11 within the homeland, and certainly there are people arrested on a routine basis that are not huge fans of the government. i cannot get into everybody's heads. host: one of the people that commented yesterday, house minority leader nancy pelosi said the repackaging has done nothing to change the moral, unconstitutional, -- the immoral, unconstitutional goals of the
8:55 am
host: let's hear from denny's. santa barbara, cap -- denise, santa barbara, california. republicans line. caller: good morning. i want to express my disappointment in the travel ban , but for different reasons. it seems the government and the gop, i was hoping, with take a pause and develop -- would take a pause and develop a copper has an improvement to travel with the limitation of biometrics -- and develop a comprehensive improvement to travel with the implementation of biometrics. we know with many world countries and many other countries there is no verification of the people. my question to you is what has been done to explore the possibility of refugees of having sponsorships -- where
8:56 am
there is a local family that agrees to accept the incoming family and be responsible for , again, fore years accountability reasons and protection reasons, and the --ond question is how will how are we moving ahead on biometrics? as you mentioned, the over-stay issue is a major problem, and as you are aware, one out of 40 people in the united states -- in california was not born in the united states and we're having problems assimilating people here. would you respond? guest: sure. i will start with biometrics. there are biometrics used already, but what i think denise was referring to was the entry/exit system. short version -- they are working on it. they have been working on it for years. system toost-9/11
8:57 am
figure out who enters and who exits. napolitanoary janet said they are close. fast-forward, there was a trial this past summer where customs and border protection would go and take fingerprints from focusing the exit terminals, and when you do arrive, you give your figure prints up. -- iholders, and now i do am a u.s. citizen, so it is different, but those people are arriving are required to give up fingerprints at the airport because they have given them up at the consulate in their home country before getting their visa. there is some tracking. it is not where it needs to be from the perspective of congress and so on. in terms of refugee sponsorship, that is, kind of, an interesting question. there already is refugee sponsorship.
8:58 am
it is not five years the way family sponsorship would be where you take on financial response ability and so on, but by and large refugees arriving in the night states are working with aid agencies, local community's churches, and in some cases, directly with families. relatives in the united states, you might be reunited with that relative. aere is a little bit of sponsorship already built in, not quite the way denise envisions it. in terms of going to that, i have not heard any proposals. to be clear, residents are not dropped off in omaha and said have fun, this is omaha. they are set up with housing, the things you would need, dishes, coats for the winter -- if you are in omaha, i hope they give you a call -- coat. if you're in southern california, maybe shorts and flip-flops. you're not just dropped off and said have fun, good luck.
8:59 am
we should remember in populations in communities where that are people like them everything we arrived or have been here for numbers of years. you end up with people from similar communities, if that makes sense, in broader areas. it depends on the nature of the committee -- who can take folks -- which aid organization has room in their system, capacity, town and so on. democrats live. you are next. agree wanted to say i with the previous caller about sponsorship. i know canada does it, and they are not having problems with terrorism. i know the country is filled with fear especially with from syria who are dealing with the horrible,
9:00 am
horrible war. they need protection, need to come to dance states, united with each other and treated as -- united states, united with each other and treated. instead of protecting the human rights of human beings, the government or trump is just filling us with terror and fear. i think that is just wrong -- plain wrong this -- wrong. this ban is wrong. i do not believe president obama was as strict. that in. .-vetting host: have to leave it there. i apologize.
9:01 am
international lines, which is one reason the government, of concerned. in terms of sponsorship, to be lear again, refugees are not dropped off and we wave goodbye. a number of systems are in historically, what advocates have cited, folks quickly, they get jobs, they learn english and get systems.ds into school you may not know your neighbor was once a refugee. title that lays with you over the course of generations, that may be your history. after a year, you are required
9:02 am
to apply for a green card, not follows the law obviously. there are certainly cases out remainedre people have in sort of the refugee status adjusted. never generally speaking, after a year, you become a greencard 5 years after, you apply for citizenship. any greencard holders have not applied for citizenship, that is a right, as well. host: alicia caldwell talking about the newly released travel ban and details. your time. we will take a break and be joined by brookings institute clinton nd former policy advisor, william galston, ere to talk about trump's legislative agenda and how he's faring and the republican congress. that conversation comes next.
9:03 am
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily n. 1979, c-span was created a public service by television ble companies and brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> this weekend c-span 2 book t.v. is live from the tucson books, with two days of panel discussions and author interviews. saturday coverage begins noon eastern and authors include and his book infame," the story of the japanese interment. an about lgbtq rights. the winner of the national book the with "stamped from beginning," and on sunday starting 1 p.m. eastern, politics and immigration with
9:04 am
nation magazine national affairs john nichols, and ready," andople get "new york times" op ed dowd, and maurine sachs vice man president and her book "my dream, my american true story as undocumented immigrant who became a wall executive," book t.v. live from the tucson festival of ooks saturday at noon and sunday 1 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, william galston brookings institute, governance study senior fellow, agenda of thishe president and role of congress. good morning. guest: good morning, sir. as an agenda, how has this president compared to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on