tv Washington Journal Avideh Moussavian Discusses Immigration Actions CSPAN July 8, 2017 8:30am-9:01am EDT
i grew up in cleveland, ohio. i can remember when people in business would take a second shirt to work because by noon the first one was too dirty to where in a business meeting. pittsburgh was like that also. we have a lot to do, but it's important to recognize they are just using free market and common sense. we have made big progress. host: another point of contention is trade. according to the washington post, "one of the most consequential decisions of the young administration, trump could impose the restrictions on imports -- steele steel imports. we will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping this is not actually necessary. commissionn
president said figuratively we are prepared to take up arms if need be. this potential restriction on l imports.orts -- stee guest: the movement in part is by a need to protect our industrial base. i believe there is major study going on in this administration to understand what in time of crisis we can and cannot produce to keep the american economy going and keep america safe. much of what we build in our defense establishment is now dependent upon foreign components. and for whatever reason we cannot access them from a third country, how do we cover that problem? host: betty from virginia beach, virginia. caller: good morning and thank
you for you and thanks for c-span. i just wanted to say i think the meeting was terrible. first of all, i hate trump. second of all, i do not trust him. third of all, issued unless it maybe 15 minutes. he should have told this guy i know he keeps on saying he does not know it was russia that interfered with the election, but he does not believe our own intelligence agencies. he should have one in there and told him knock it off. don't do it anymore. and all that type of thing. and for rex tillerson to come out and give a statement, yes, rex tillerson i understand rose up and spoke out for himself in the white house or had an argument with the son-in-law.
do you really believe rex tillerson is going to come out and say something the president does not want him to say? of course not. host: let's give herman pirchner a chance to comment. guest: i think we have a big problem with russian interference, not only here but in the european countries that have elections coming up. we know they funded the far right party of le pen in france. interfering in various ways and the german elections. that is a problem. if there is any change in a relationship with russia, in my judgment, we will have to see a rollback of what they are doing to interfere in democracies. not just here but throughout the world. i might note they countries have always interfered in the affairs of other countries. what is new is the scope of russian intervention that has
made -- been made possible by modern technologies. it was impossible before technological innovations. host: william from arkansas on the republican line. caller: good morning, herman. i have two points i would like to make. give me one good reason why they would not record that meeting. and the second, i was watching tv last night and watching these people sit down to dinner. two miles away there are 100,000 people marching in the street. it was like deja vu all over again. france in the 1700s. cuba in the 1900s. russia in the 1900s. they had no idea what was going on until the people came marching in the door. what is going on here? point william, your first
-- why wasn't recordings made of the truck meeting? i think it recordings are made then everybody makes say talk and serious discussions cannot be held. i think there is a case to be made for privacy when had the state meet and not just putin an trump, but any heads of state. i think you have to watch the size of the crowds. 100,000 people is a big crowd, but it is not the type of size double topple a country. -- that will topple a country. you look at more serious demonstrations in eastern europe when millions were in the streets. look at the size of the major civil rights demonstrations here in the 1960's. give was a lot more than 100,000 people. et your should ge attention, but it will not pressure they change myself.
host: herman pirchner, president of the american foreign-policy council. afp.org. thank you for joining us this morning. coming up, national immigration law center senior policy attorney discusses the travel ban implementation and legislative actions against sanctuary cities. spotlight, they discussed recent investigations and subsequent article on the of juvenilescing serving in prison. ♪ >> this weekend on american
history tv on c-span3, tonight at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history university of washington professor compares the 1950's be next to the hippies of the 1960's. despairings were veterans of the great depression, world war ii, the holocaust and the atomic age. the hippies were the optimistic children of the baby boom generation and the rising affluence of the postwar consumer boom. >> attended rockies are not real america, oliver north appeared before the house and senate select committee's investigative iran contra affair. nothe american people ought to be lifted believed by the u.s. that question that we intentionally deceived the american people or had that intent to begin with. the effort to conduct these covert operations was made in such a way our adversaries would not have knowledge of it, or we could deny american association
with this government. and that is not wrong. >> sunday at noon, historians, author's, and former presidential candidate ron paul discusses the consequences of america's post-world war ii security state. >> the people who like authoritarianism, to tell people what to do, thing of it is illegal for an individual to go into your house and take what they want. fortunately that moral standard still exists. you can't personally take in her people. it happens, but most people recognize you can't do it. is not illegal for the government to do it. >> for our complete -- go to c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is avideh moussavian, senior policy attorney with the national
immigration law center. she is here to talk about the application of the recent -- recent implementation of the president's travel ban and legislative actions against sanctuary cities. like you so much for joining us here today -- thank you so much for joining us today. or us with the national immigration law center is and its mission. guest: we are a national organization raised in los angeles, but we have an office in washington, d.c. we are committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of low-income an immigrants. policy application to do that. host: let's start with a travel ban. the supreme court ruled part of this travel ban could go into effect while the court which they hear arguments on the full arguments on it in october. according to a government -- oneve, at one point
point of ambiguity in the ruling resulted from its allowances of the six b countriesan if they have a "bona fide relationshipned with a person or entity" in the united states. that includes sudan,'s area, iraq.-- syria, libya, it later expanded to also include fiances. let's talk about how that is playing out so far. guest: sure. it was a surprise the supreme court allowed part of that ban to go forward. obviously it was quite a departure from what the 4th and 9th circuit courts held blocking the ban. the supreme court said we will to gopart of this ban
forward and then we will hear the full case in the fall and october. there was a three-day hold perio d before it went into effect. nefore june 29, the partial ba is in effect. if they are not in the u.s. and seeking a nonimmigrant visa to come here, they have to be able to prove the bona fide relationship. the supreme court elaborated specific examples. if you have a number of employment, if you have an acceptance letter to a university or to speak as a lecturer, they provide a clear examples of what they wanted to not be included in the ban. at the same time they said for the u.s. refugee program there is 120 day ban that goes into effect for all refugees unless they prove a bona fide relationship to a person or entity. that thesurprising was toernment this site is
grossly narrow its interpretation of the supreme said the fact and --t for example people are have a tie to be used resettlement agency for refugees is not categorically considered a bona fide relationship to an entity. that is now playing out in the ninth circuit where they are trying to seek clarification of the supreme court's orders. a bit of a judicial ping-pong or hot potato between a district court.n hawaii and the host: we will get to that case in just a minute. first, a state department official said employees have been trained to implement the order. the department would not cancel previous scheduled visa applications requirements henniker's visa seekers to go into their interviews as planned. the original travel ban, we saw all sorts of chaos happening at
some airports where a lot of people were caught offguard. how is this implementation affecting people that it applies to? how are the people being helped? guest: refugees and muslims, people from those majority thatries, our position is they have been affected by it. there is intent and the collateral consequences of people affected by it. the challenge is that a lot of these decisions around who will be issued a visa over gets processed to come into the country, that happens at u.s. embassies overseas. there is a lot of discretion individual officers have. they are not necessarily uniform training or decision-making that is made. of course, the vagueness of bona fide relationship when you see there is a conflict between how
the supreme court has asked for it to be interpreted versus what the government has said and trying to narrow the scope and say it is far fewer people that perhaps the supreme court intended, that really leads it up to individual discretion of officers overseas and at airports. that raises clear questions as to how it will be applied. we are in the process of trying to gather their stories. refugees who up and waiting and gone through very extensive process of trying to arrive here sometimes for as long as 18 months to 24 months, that was their situation and a great deal of uncertainty. host: we are talking to avideh moussavian of the national immigration law center about recent immigration actions, both the travel ban and limited and some legislation being considered in congress. democrats can call (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001.
independents, (202) 748-8002. we have justin calling from davenport, florida on the republican line. caller: hello. how are you this morning? host: good. . go-ahead. caller: my father came here as whenmigrant in the 1970's there were laws in place pertaining to what kind of public assistance you could and could not receive. and also used to have have a sponsor. why is it we are not still upholding the same standards in our immigration today? guest: sure. we still require for family-based immigration for people to have a relative who sponsors them, or in some cases people get sponsored by an employer. that has not changed. the mba parent or a -- it can be a territory sibling or a child sponsoring you or a spouse.
the core of the family-based immigration is the we have is still in place. with respect to your question about what types of benefits people are eligible for, there are a lot of changes that have been made under president lyndon in 1996 -- president clinton in 1996. it made it extraordinarily difficult for most immigrants, including green card holders to access most federal public benefits. most immigrants who are here are paying, intruding in taxes but don't act as most of the benefits that are otherwise available to u.s. citizens. host: you mentioned the litigation going on surrounding the latest implementation of this travel ban. earlier thisrted week that a federal judge in hawaii tonight a motion filed by the state seeking to limit the scope of president donald trump's so-called travel ban, parts of which were cleared to be of limited by the u.s. supreme court. u.s. district judge derek watson
said thursday that the supreme court is the proper venue to deal with the issue. he denied request without prejudice to its refiling but the supreme court. hawaiitely attorneys for appealed that to the 9th circuit in already ruled that federal appeals court panel late friday declined to absolve itself in the latest dispute over president trump's travel ban, any grandparents and other extended relatives of people in united states cannot the exempted from the president's executive order. what do you expect to happen next while we wait for the supreme or to take of the merits of the case in october? guest: i think the fact the 9th circuit said you can take this back to the district court's and judge watson certainly puts pressure on the district court to take it up. it is within his authority to
provide some interpretation and clarification of that. that is not unusual for unprecedented. i think it was surprising for some people to see the judge did not want to comment on it. the real human toll in the meantime is that the government's much more narrow interpretation of what the supreme court set is now in late -- now in place. you have relatives, grandparents, grandchildren effectively blocked. you have potentially numerous refugees of all faiths from every country, not just those six countries. a stark example are people who are iraqi nationals who provided assistance to u.s. citizens in the military. as a result of that assistance in helping u.s. citizens do their jobs safely, they were subject to prosecution -- persecution. the fact they have a tie to a u.s. resettlement refugee agency is not categorically enough.
the fact they helped u.s. citizens, u.s. military do their jobs safely in iraq is not enough according to the government. you haves get resolved a lot of uncertainty for refugees and nationals from this six countries. host: john from rio rancho, new mexico. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: thank you so much. with all due respect, i wanted to make the statement that -- and have your guess respond, that those of us that a generational americans, we are offended by the ninth circuit court. one is a generational americans, grandfathers and uncles and family that is fought all the way back in everywhere this country has ever had. -- every war this country has ever had. they are white, black, hispanic generational americans that up with you forever. i want to make the connection that christianity is western
culture. you cannot separate western culture from christianity. the ninth circuit court is not the law of the land. that is a deviant court with deviants running it, supported by other deviants that chairman of the night court make some deviant ruling. we don't want any more muslims in our country. if we had it on the ballot, it would overwhelmingly win. we just a want any more muslims in our country -- don't want any more muslims in our country. host: with with avideh moussavian. respond guest: as a child of muslim i obviously have grown up knowing many intergenerational americans who identify the rest a -- numerous faiths. this country was founded on the concept of religious freedom and the idea you should not be subject to discrimination because of your faith and how you pray. i think that is a core american
value and something that is very near and dear to all of us and to the founders of this country. circuit,hat the ninth and specifically the fourth circuit held, because the fourth circuit in particular said we see the discriminatory intent behind this and it is in a tent -- intent to discriminate against people based on their faith, i think that is been very clear from this administration and who they are trying to target. a part of those collateral consequences if people of all faiths, regardless of what they believe, if they are refugees, they are subject to the span -- to this ban. you have people fleeing dangerous conditions and are seeking humanitarian relief. we have always in a country that said we welcome immigrants. we want to provide safety and
sheltered people fleeing persecution. from my perspective, the fourth and ninth circuits were upholding core american values. host: i want to turn to the legal arguments in this case and present the two sides. and the washington post there from professors at the university of chicago law school. "when the spring court considers the travel ban in october, the justices will have ways to avoid with on whether it exceeds its constitutional authority. they could dismiss the case as moot. if the justices decided world on the constitutional question, they will have the opportunity to weigh in on the principle known as the power doctrine against the president and congress extraordinary power to take action when it comes to immigration law. the court should see this opportunity once and for all and read our legal system of this
outdated -- rid our legal system of this outdated doctrine." the heritage foundation has a different view on that. in a usa today piece he writes, "presidential authority to protect the homeland should not be second-guessed by the courts based in some hidden intent designed from tweet and statements made by circuit in the heat up a presidential campaign. the supreme court should hold the president's the authority in a moment his revised executive order on the contrary result of a needlessly imperil our national security and do great damage to the structure of our constitution." talk about how those different views are coming before the court in october. guest: there is a point you made about is a potentially moot. the 90 and 120 days of the partial ban will proceed. that may happen and run its course before the court ever gets a chance to hear the argument. in terms of the power question,
that is the very heavily addressed in the litigation and acknowledging the president -- usually there is great deference given to the president on immigration. it is not unprecedented for the supreme court to say even within the extraordinaryly broad authority, the constitution is the ultimate check on powers. they have decided in the past with respect to the question of genuine definitely attain a noncitizen who sun country cannot or will not issue travel papers for them to be repatriated, the supreme court weighed in on certain situations. something that was a notable quote from the ninth circuit decision was that the administration cannot waive the talismanic incantation to get away with unconstitutional measures. there is still the constitution
in place and i will always be the standard against which even the president's authorities under the power will be measured. host: we are speaking with avideh moussavian, senior policy attorney at the national immigration law center. formally worked on immigration reform advocacy at the state and local enforcement issues at the new york immigration coalition. henry is calling in from mississippi on the democratic line. caller: good morning. as a u.s. citizen, as a veteran, and as a black male, for illegal immigrants to cross the line break the law and we are prosecuted by the law and we have to follow the law, i don't quite understand why we are sweeping this and the rug as though they are not breaking the law. veteran, if -- as a i break the law, i get to jail.
as a black male we have been prosecuted by the law. i don't quite understand. if you as an illegal immigrant come here and want the freedom , we fought for this. this place did not get to be like this by laws and group of people. go home. by these people mistreating you can your own country and get your own country. this is an example on how to make your country like america. guest: thank you. taking it back to the refugee ban, these are people going through all the lawful channels of going to the and askingy overseas for a visa and going to the proper channels for that. similarly for refugees, as far as the conditions, some are
conflicts that implicate a lot of very complicated global dynamics. there are wars in their home countries. they are fleeing some of the most dangerous conditions. we come from a long line of immigrants. many ancestors also flood similar circumstances. it is upholding the same tradition to say people have waited and are just a desperate circumstances, seeking safety, seeking to be reunited with their families. to put a halt on their ability to finally come here after sometimes waiting almost two years and going through every possible hoop and security clearance, that is as un-american a concept as i can think of. host: you talk about the process for the refugee resettlement program, what that takes together that process as
compared to someone seeking visas not for the refugee system. guest: there are uniform they are theat most layered and bureaucratic channel through which a person can come to the united states. there are very high standards in terms of how people are vetted. the time for people to go through various stages of the clearance process in multiple countries, it is a very layered process. it is quite different from someone applying for a nonimmigrant visa to come here for a short period of time. it is because people are coming here seeking permanent residence and fleeing conditions in the country. porousot a loose or process by any means. the fact there is a sort of
suggestion that there are these loopholes or the need to be some kind of cracking down, the reality is part of the ban allowed to go forward is the government can review it vetting process for visas. what the state department does overseas is left to the individual discretion of an officer. the refugee program has been in place for decades. it is a very rigorous process for people and it can take upwards of 24 months for people. that is sometimes a lifetime if you're missing out on the developmental stages of your young child, and now you are told we will make you wait 120 days. when you put a pause in the program, people who have been cleared and approved for travel, that is not something you can just resume in an instant. host: jason from new york on the
independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. basically, i am all for immigrants. our country was founded on it. when we look at the grand scheme of things, my question is what is the harm in waiting for that 90 day window so as a country we can step terrorist, versus you can't say every person is a not, however, if you go and checked and we were to