tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 12, 2015 12:00am-8:02am EST
celebrating women's leaders luncheon. we are pleased to have you here with us today. this is the last event and it is a befitting wendy. this is the 3rd year we have done this hallmark journalist event which exemplifies what the women foreign-policy group stands for. outstanding journalists and other speakers speaking about the issues of the day from the syrian isys to russia to terrorism it is now my great pleasure to welcome back and introduce today's moderator w fpg
quite limited in part because of the political realities in the war wariness of the american population that is still much more wary about going back to work after more than a decade. a president who is much more cautious that a lot of the politicians in washington. so you see it is very methodical with the strategy unfolding and it is weird to see writing this from the pentagon. not able to go out and do what they actually could do because the reality is you don't want to. there are very few people want american ground combat troops on the ground in syria are not even iraq.
a lot of the chatter you here right now is much more about special operators and that sort of thing, it becomes a semantic issue. it is very challenging to figure out how to cover. that is one of the things that we all struggle to find new ways of telling stories. partly because i'm from liberia have a deep interest in the west african story. after the ball epidemic, sierra leone, i wanted to follow up on that this year. i just came back from liberia a couple weeks ago to look at stories. now the country is gone back down to zero cases and how people pickup.
probably one of the most emotional draining stories. in part because the couch occur so much, but it also has been really rewarding to see, so many times the liberian populationlibrary and population has been knocked down by civil war, by coos, by this horrible disease and is a time and time again people getting out and showing this resilience. that's very good to see. happy to talk about anything else. >> thanks. i covered national security mainly through the prism of diplomacy but also from the military and also at the white house.
the course for the other two. one of the things i was asked to talk at the climate conference i was just at the to me it sounds out veryvery interesting to follow up on what you are just setting the stage on comeau we, the american is so our strategic foreign-policy choices and that is really where you can draw the divide. most likely not be reached today, below the deadline, tomorrow,, tomorrow, exactly what is in it where not quite sure. broadly speaking despite the fact when you watch around paris andin the present another heads of state defiantly showed up in the brief capital, despite the recent attacks we will still go through meeting.
the city that was literally been shaken to its core. they were meant to underscore points. i don't know if that is what we reverberated in the press. it was more sort of a while. the risks associated with paris. to borrow some overstated rhetoric but not that overstated when you look at the geographical impact, but broadly speaking what i think is interesting about it, it will not be legally binding, it is a group of promises by states around the world, the benchmarks for themselves, one of the
things from a domestic view that is interesting is the sensitivity and need to work with the private sector. the reliance of the administration that has not had the best relationship with wall street in many ways reliant on those private sector entities stepping up to help greece the reels and get some of the more reluctant countries on board to help take financial risks and basically subsidize some very expensive transitions to green technology down the road for countries that could not afford to go there. too big polluters, china and the us. we helped create the problem you have all the environmentalists saying he did notit did not go far enough, it is not enough, does not do enough. so it is an interesting decision and track for the administration to say as the obama administration says it is a legacy issue and there
is rarely think the us needs to be focused long-term. the president often has a long game. before that ten days i spent in asia with the president looking at the long game, that is not where there head is. that is what we are seeing only like a domestic political polls. certainly when you talk to us allies they are saying we need to talk about the immediate. he also here our european allies saying we need an immediate response because they feel threatened. this interesting position of the existential threat. coming from the state department were i have been covering american diplomacy, itdiplomacy, it has been incredibly rich because we
have had the diplomatic records attempting to do something in the ukraine that has not quite gotten they're yet, but this thing that has been the slow-moving oncoming watching it had down the track threat has been syria. and whether it was giving birth to what the administration likes to call one of the most deepest best funded terrorist groups out there with isys or whether it is the ethnic cleansing happening in parts of iraq and syria, whether it is the car is that you see that has been ongoing in the four and a half years, now you have the administration saying we have to start a diplomatic process. it is a long, long shot. tuesday the moscow.
they will be the ones they continue to watch. at least try to start the diplomatic track. many of the world power to figure out how to stop what continues to feed the terror threat. the diplomatic attempts because they have not yielded any for. it is the only game in town at this point. it is going to be incredibly important to watch. suspect is where everyone will be focused. >> well, foreign-policy
issues. and i'll start with something should paris and to its core. when they deliberately chose targets to represent watch french culture is all about and what people think about, i'm sure everybody who has been on a vacation set out on an outdoor café they had people who were dining outside, attacked a concert all, and for me personally
it was usually impressive to see the response of the city as they came together in a very defiantly what had happened and especially refused to be cowed by it. i got there a couple days after the attacks and maybe there is a little bit of a decrease in the way that people were enjoying the outdoor sites that they normally would have, you saw the city going about its normal life which was impressive. the worst are attacking the west, one of the worst since september 11. this11th. this is who we are and we are not going to change. i do think that the attacks were so significant because they illustrated the sort of operational ability of the islamic state to strike in the heart of the west.
asas you all no a number of the attackers trained in syria, the plot had its roots in syria which is what makes it different. the attacks in paris were a potential turning.for your dealing with the islamic state and i sayi say potential because it remains to be seen how significant the actual concrete response will be in terms of military and diplomatic activity. anglo merkel the potential activity in syria. now we see britain doing airstrikes, friends doing more than it was, but it's a
pretty limited response. germany has not agreed to the airstrikes in syria. many of the countries in europe see the threat as long as they don't think there one of the primary targets i don't think there likely to jump in and a controversiala controversial campaign, especially when no one really thinks that these marginal increases in military activity will make a big difference on the ground without a political deal. so the things that in my mind would show an actual turning point would be european countries committing to send ground troops in this area a special operations forces. some of the gulf countries, some of the rebel groups that are fighting on the ground that we just haven't seen it. so that, i just got back yesterday from san
bernardino. another human tragedy but a very different story. we don't really have a complete picture of who these attackers were or why they chose this target. it is a little bit confusing because it looked like a workplace attacked the shooter working with many county health inspectors, he and his wife going down but they appear to have been motivated in large part by radicalization in their support for violent islamist groups or at least
ideology. so this is the not what federal investigators are trying to unravel, how they were radicalized, do they have any connections with militant groups overseas and it appears they did not. they may have been drawn to each other by this shared radical ideology and it is interesting to think that they met online and were married and he brought her to the united states and now the fbi believes that they both were on that path when they met each other. so it is interesting to think about how people from different parts of the world share something that in the end manifests itself in this way. but the key point about san bernardino is that it underscores the difficulty of protecting and preventing attacks by people in the united states who do not have any significant ties to militant groups overseas. so in contrast to paris for you had several of the attackers were gone to syria and were communicating, so far there is no evidence that they were online chatting or doing anythingare doing
anything that potentially would have raised a flag for the intelligence community, and that is what goes to show the difficulty a us law enforcement intelligence officials face and it raises the question of what we as a country need to be prepared for and what our response should be, the personality of what we think the government should be doing when you have this horrific attack. but it is not so much different than the other mass shootings it happened in the united states with unfortunate regularity at this stage. and finally, pat asked me to speak about libya. i went a couple months couple months ago to report on the islamic state. and i will talk about that. as you all no libya for a year and a half now has had to governments and it is sort of a surreal situation.
to foreign ministries, two professional banks, a number of different militia groups, but neither of the governments have actual control of the territory of libya which has given rise to the hole towhole to do of islamic groups to take over different parts of the country which is seen in the most significant way which is where the islamic state is set up its operation seen by us intelligence officials as the strongest affiliate. theythey have done there what they do elsewhere, beheading people they do the same kind of role. rocca, and it is not
something the local government has been able to deal with or is even trying to deal with. so there is peace process under way for so far has not succeeded, and i just think overall it is sad and disappointing to see what happened in libya. they are about to go bankrupt which is not saying a lot considering the country has major oil reserves. sad to see what happened in libya. there were such high hopes for what libya could be my country was so much going for it. on the doorsteps of europe, major oileurope, major oil producer, small population, relatively highly educated population, homogeneous not with the same kind of religious
differences, other countries in the middle east and north africa and there are various theories about why this is from a european countries and the us did not pay enough attention. various defenses for that. the libyans themselves missed numerous opportunities, and it seems like the window for dealing with this is closing pretty quickly. and you know the one thing i our close with him libya is that while it is not on the same level for european and american policymakers as iraq and syria are right now , that could change very quickly if there is an attack that takes place in the last that points to libya command i do not think that that is unlikely given the proximity, the sort of safe haven that the lawlessness has provided for the islamic states. >> thank you. fantastic questions. first, americans right to be
as fearful as they are, mindful that since september 11e been killed by terrorist attacks and hundreds of thousands of them killed with murder and so forth. >> i think that they are right to be concerned about the threat that some of these groups pose given there stated ambition to attack the west and bring what they brought to washington which was one of the statements that was made. at the same time there may be -- elected officials need to do a better job putting that in the context
various reasons, environmental and health problems to traffic accidents command i think that we tend to focus on those kind of that's because we see the american consciousness has been one of invulnerability for so long, something that really strikes a nerve but is potentially overstated. i think the way that the sort of model that people have in their mind for what a terrorist attack means, september 11, you have a very visceral reaction and certainly those who lived in the pentagon. it rings pentagon. it rings a bell and causes them to be fearful.
screen what is in someone's head. if you are looking at the model, i was looking recently at the story of how she got this reason that is visa that is relatively easy to get, about 35,000 were given out in the same year she came command a lot of the questioning during this face-to-face interview the walking into the us embassy in islamabad. you know how heavily guarded that places.places. she did not walk in the just anyplace. she sat there and got briefed and became well aware of the threat in the region and answered questions that were focused on substantiating her relationship with this man she was to marry. cohort in this masculine rather than focusing on what she was thinking and feeling. you don't ask about someone's religion comeau what their fundamental views are.
now i think it is far more likely looking at the islamic state you can see something happening here but that is far maya -- less likely than the homegrown domestic terrorism. just like the active shooters. >> do you think the administration, you will not answer this one. [laughter] you are a journalist. one year from now as obama leaves office. where will we be?
and they don't have that part of the portfolio. when it comes to balance of power on the ground. with the forces that they stack up of lots of losses and if you believe the russians once in a way to give them confidence. but with the bigger picture from the u.s. point of view is if he can convince the regime that there is a value
of iran to be involved in the negotiations. i don't know. p shows up in new york city on the 18th or maybe he will not even show up. and i will also say, whether or not he resigns for whatever happens to those americans being held in iran that will be a big impact on what the administration achieves with this our reach. nuclear weapons aside but what happens next both americans will be a part of this. from that point of view. >> what is some of the reason why there might not
more willing to fight isis? in this seems the international community is taking the role law to eliminate. >> and they have to walk a fine line. and then that is the big bosses of caution. if there is anybody who is a specialist it is her. >> but it will not intervene militarily but it hasn't had in effect from the of full
levin additional focus to the extent how the attack came together but then those same identities emerge. so to talk to french officials. where did you go? >> but with french law enforcement i did some reporting reconstructing how the attack came together with the hotels where they rented their rooms and we
had others across the city but then the neighborhood imbeciles and for those that knew the attackers those organizations to bring people back from radicalization. >> were you on the e-mail chain? it turns out we have an army of people in europe a law of freelance and other parts of europe and people would put anything they found out on it.
so basically we try to talk to colleagues. like anti-surveillance measures. we take calculated risks. >> there are times reduce say no to things. i remember going into the iraq war to be terrified. with a training on what to do any sound that you hear hit the deck. but at the end of the day you just use your own common sense.
but i had big fights with my family but you will find this is the case with more coverage as well. once you get there you are in the middle you trust yourself you know, you will not do anything. so common sense helps a law. -- all law. >> living in iraq 20 months we had cowards -- guards. but those others they put things in context.
and to see everybody else. >> there was criticism not giving enough attention. is that a fair criticism? >> there is a law of dispute about that. i think it is completely fair. also has a west african some are valued more than others. it is something i carry with me day in and day out and that we have more in common with paris so we will focus
roughly 3.6 degrees fahrenheit but with that greenhouse gas emissions that doesn't appear some like it is stringent going in but that with that self monitoring aspect but it isn't legally binding. the administration isn't asking. so it is a little bit of a leap of faith. that is one of the more tangible things to set up a transition. >> my time is up.
and to have less service to that. >> politics from the criminals and racketeers but it is less obvious to see. looking at america as an idea the american dream, the american founding. i'll look at american politics as the debate. republicans believe and liberty. democrats equality perk republicans equality of rights. democrats equality of outcome is.
a consequence under the equal protection clause. the item that is at issue is a deviation from the eligible voters under any metric. no decision is ever sustained to that magnitude with the one-person one-vote case in the many decisions it has always been about. >> what about the principle is equal representation in now for half a century a population that is the legitimate standard? so the state's overwhelmingly for half a
century so now you say they cannot do that anymore? >> with respect to the phrase equal representation that's originated in westbury. there is a dash tat continues therefore for us to hold within the state's legislatures may draw the line in such a way to give some voters a greater voice to choose a congressman would be unconstitutional every time they use that phrase that i believe is the only one my friends relied on, could be on one side or another. we see that as asking the question but not to answer that burdens reserve the question and confirms he
reserved on it. >> i got burns said it approved a deviation but it took great pains to say you cannot do that in every case burdens seems to be the only case that you have with a tremendous military temporary population. >> is certainly did say you don't have to use the census to draw the district's am protects the eligible voters that supports our position and going back a tradition was a rule. before baker for centuries geography and the court said with jurisdiction but it
does not trump those individual rights to be protected. we don't have to guess about that the standing is predicated on the voter it would be unusual to say my one person has been violated >> the problem is what you are forgetting is dual interest. there is a voting interest but also a representation interest. and that has led us to except the total population case to have some discretion to have the representational tories that had of the deliveries and the burns was
in the '60s with total population as a perfectly legitimate way because the representational issue as well but this state has to be able to say a legislator is protecting citizens are non-citizens. >> just to clarify it is a really representational interest. a nonvoter will have one representative is an access claim. it isn't even an access claim it is diminishing access that is how far from voting the interest on the other side. to have diminishing access
we don't deny that is an interest with county lines and other interest and a 10% for work isn't a situation where we complain about a deviation. it is nearly 50% nonesuch is diminishing access would overcome the individual rights of a voter as an equal vote. >> but it should reapportion those house members to the population as a metric the question raised by your position is why it would be the case that constitution requires it is fundamentally different focusing on taxation issues and was a
real concern. but what in hell than reynolds the compromise does not justify this type of injury. alabama came to the court to say we surrender every county gets one representative natalie on the population basis. >> and the reason was because constitutionally the arizona constitution required the population and that they deviated from their own constitution. >> but we succeeded on the
ground of this whole population. >> but the portion of the of qualified voters no question it was of the tennessee constitution but that fundamental issue debt grey is about election for state wide office there will be one of governor to have the same access but grey establishes the rules to say voters are entitled to equal vote. it doesn't make any sense. they assume that misery
could district at the congressional level for eligible voters. in using the essences. >> did i understand you to save that house apportionment rule is not clear? >> congressional districting interest so the united states has argued interstate congressional districting for that proposition the 1969 it decided that issue. if the only way to make sense of that rule is about eligible voters. they can beat - - bring a claim not only is that our
view but congress view. >> and all the years 19681 dash 1868 and 1920 was wrong for these limits? there were not eligible voters. >> no question that was a problem there was an issue with minorities as well. but the court was doing more than one thing. >> but your interpretation 1868 through 1920 they should not have been counted women for purposes of determining representation. >> for the equal protection clause one person one vote per texas voters the disenfranchisement was an
issue they could have been brought but it was brought -- resolved by the country as well as minority representation but the war in court has the equal weight for voters as a non citizen or any other would not have the ability. >> the when to go back to the question it seems everybody is arguing like this is equal protection and it does do with equal protection and it does in which of the voters but if you step back from the equal protection clause to say there are other parts of the constitution may we is a
republican form of government and to be worried about what type of democracy and they say the republican former government what we actually want is the kind of democracy within they choose to vote or not will receive a proportionate representation in congress if you take that as the constitutional principle that shows an objective of the constitution then you have to retreat from the idea of equal protection clause as interpreted is this case. >> to argue this is a
guaranteed clause claim shows how far the logic past ago to come upon thee aside. it is the basis for curing these cases to turn 180 degrees to turn that abstract guarantee clause claim. >> she did not guarantee that. but it is the same point. >> darr reynolds does speak to this because that was sustained the model that follows the house of representatives and justice beyer even if you are correct with that theory we have alleged in our complaint texas could have done much more with voting equality.
>> but you didn't come in with that. >> so i'll allegation is paragraph 22 is to be taken as true but what we believe is fundamental we want the court or ourselves to read this to the texas legislature to do its job. bistate what it was precluded from taking. >> with that possible possibility has a played into the discussion of all? you are positive you can find eligible voters has been decisively been proven to be inadequate. it only measures cities with populations over 65,000 just
on those grounds alone districts will not be able to rely on that. is applied on many levels. -- flawed so does that have any part of our decision? >> if the court were to hold to a different questions it is our burden to bring in evidence that total population did not protect individual rights but we have alleged that. if we cannot prove that the we have failed but it would be a different question if they said yes it is sufficient to show your rights had been violated but not to drop a new map then the court is an unusual place so that is the argument that you had a violation but no way to
solve that is now we're back to the political question so free go back to the premise if you're looking at the one year data but the states use the five year data that means the population is going down less than 3,000 people just the individual plot group data is what it doesn't have and that is rarely used here. but it is used in section two every day. to bring a successful section with the citizens voting age population to get to the first factor for section two if there is 50. one minority eligible voters you can proceed so this data determines that question if
you can do that and is supported using that data for this purpose then it can bring a deviation of 47% would get the supplemental appendix if you turn to page five and there is a column that list all the numbers for the texas senate district they ask for the numbers to draw the map. if you look at district 1500 and 87,000 people. right next to that is plus or minus that is the margin of error. if you take all those margins of error several under populated districts if
you ran the numbers the deviation for 47% to 45% this is not an issue of the margin of error about data it is used by every demographer at every turn. >> go back to the question the justice brier raised of the guarantee clause because the framers explicitly considered this issue and made a decision. so senator howard talks about these deliberations to say as the most just and satisfactory basis that was originally framed and then
he said numbers not voters members bought property that is the theory of the constitution. that is not the same thing you talk about but the theory to house apportionment. this is such a clear choice that was made about what it meant to have equal representation and had you go from that being mandated to being prohibited is something i still cannot work myself around. >> his position was rejected because that exact argument was brought about by alabama not only model but that was
smeared exactly that is not correct as a legal matter because apportionment was considered they want states to have taxation basis the was an issue with suffrage for sure in the application a complex federalism based sovereignty compromise that does not apply i cannot do any better. >> i hear you does not apply. i can understand i may not agree with the position that says the requirement might not apply you suggest we go beyond that put that states have to do with the exact opposite way. >> we take our cue and all follows from the right to starting with the proposition one person
cannot begin to walla neighbor gets one it is an under the electoral college type of model. the third step you cannot accomplish that discrimination by drawing lines. if you accept that is true. and even if it follows the apportionment model if it's says i don't have a claim because of lead different constitutional provision that is beyond which that projects be argument. congress agreed with our position not only that has been so widely used but in
perkins and later cases to embolden the plurality that section to the same argument can be made it only counts eligible voters. if the court were to proceed in no protection who were not minority status. there is a fundamental disconnect. >> in your view this states would have a choice or the you could use registered voters? >> if this isn't done that it of the distribution of
legislators therefore it can use any metric that distributes legislators. and those that meet the basic qualifications. and then burns doubles down and when we draw lines at the beginning to food and that deciding to choose to vote that data that we rely on is the most accurate measure. and it is important to keep in mind everything that we're asking to be done.
then to put it all into aall ina they used it to comply with section two. all we ask legislation to do >> do they do that purposely? >> under one-person one-vote that deviation. >> day intentionally had deviation? >> we will never know because of the state law. that precluded texas from voter eligibility. it is arbitrary. if they want to make this a representational matter.
today intentionally decided to exclude? >> that deviation that we established for those eligible voters of prime facia evidence that says you can have the beat -- deviations if you have a legitimate reason. why would that great representational need that justice can again talked about not be adequate? >> we do not want to beat the enemy of the good. we're asking for nothing more than the 10 or 20% range. >> now you say tedder 20% but it was 10% with population. >> the court has held that up they suggested 20 as the auteur limit.
>> would of texas says we want children to be represented? what is the deviation? >> we've only looked at eligible voters but they are represented at the polls by their parents if the parents are disenfranchised it is by the state with. >> what about children that our citizens of their parents or not? >> we do not have an article to discriminates against children. >> if it pleases the court the only question that has to resolve the equal
protection clause requires every state the voter population to reapportion the answer is no. id used federal census data to get total population is states have done for decades. as a permissible a portion. >> why don't they use that under section two? >> under the voting rights act? >> that protects the voters in our position i'd like united states only voters are protected. so considering if there is an opportunity to collect a candidate of one's choice. >> it is called the one-person one-vote with.
>> it does but there are multiple legitimate basis on which states can redistrict and if i can back out what we deal with is the general protection clause and the court has noted before that impact is it with that of a constitution but texas the using a total population and no state today use is voter population did not target groups to cancel out the voting power to reduce their ability to elect representatives of their choice. and makes a choice that as the court's case has noted that what it cannot do is
submerge the population in principle. but there is no allegation here of the deviation of total population but could not satisfy the one-person one-vote doctrine unless we are required. >> if it is one person one vote with an equal chance to affect the outcome to be a good enough proxy of the eligible voters. that is what argument. that is close enough.
the representational ecology is the real basis. so which argument are you making? >> the total population but at the same time representational equality is not the basis but it is our position and we could choose a reliable measure of the population without running afoul of the equal protection clause guaranteed >> but to be in great conflict. the cousin of the chances of any of the voters affecting rubio, the election and.
you may have a situation it does not have an equal representation and you cannot just say we serve both. >> to allow the states and what was left to the states. part of flat is recognized and to structure elections and to our intention that is not the legitimate basis upon which to reapportion. one. >> is a permissible bases.
>> with a liberty interest that is a valid interest. one with a 45% deviation and at that point to recognize those are legitimate one to have some consideration to the disparity among voters. >> to double the population there was a 29% deviation of voter population but the court said it will usher but they were sure it was not made out so wild a state can
consider representation and the quality the equal protection clause is general language does not mandate that either must take precedence over the other. so of course, it would be legitimate for the state to look at that data. at the same time we have federal census data but for texas to use that data sets with a total population data. >> butted table on page nine by inspection i don't know. but i thought the major difference between the two is some areas of thekó#w
>> >> they would still be represented but the issue is this the state have to have the same amount of constituents per representative? >> that sounds a lots like 1750 to say don't worry because after all they represent everybody to be represented through somebody else that is tough. >> with a child would still be represented by that member is access1pñ÷
>> they would inevitably have to disregard to keep communities together. that would be the opposite of what the states have in this context to structure their elections. >> that sounds highly probable. further studies? >> i don't believe so. we are not aware of any. also if it is any possible allegation is was possible we would not expect how often this is a problem? and it seems to me it will not make a difference.
i believe the amicus brief suggested alaska or new york city it will absolutely come up. >> it would not be a problem everywhere but that would change the nature of redistricting. >> so with that deviation of the voter population under 10% does that take care of the areas? >> for the reasons i just suggested that would be an onerous burden. could there possibly be a situation out there to get within a 10% deviation in?
may be. i am not aware of any such scenario. that is not a test of discrimination that a summons voting power is being cancelled out. >> your adversary says a c.s. is fine used in section two and five. why would that be inappropriate to in deciding the impact of the voting analysis? >> if that data is under section two of the voting rights act it is liable for apportionment.
for instance that five-year average the smaller you get for district levels depending on a city plan to get with that deviation you could use that data and within a 10% mediation. that is up to the states the illegitimate population bases. section two of the voting rights act it does not protect nonvoters. earlier when we discussed section to and the amicus
brief of 26 says of the american group it is not to blame for the lack of representation and. that they could be packing or cracking claims of communities with those blocks is the incorrect interpretation and that is not contrary than proportional. >> the court has no further questions. >> in queue thank you. >> mr. chief justice
redistricting on population indicates the principal for equal numbers of people we agree texas was not required to redistrict as the undefined measure of population but we disagree court should decide texas is free in the future to redistrict based on voter population of the jews is. there are four reasons why voter population cannot be required. with a very odd interpretation for redistricting would require for congressional redistricting. with the state's redistricting other than the voter population with the 14th amendment other than voter population congress
with the portion an act required districting on the basis of inhabitants they had unanimously restricted on the total population. but they are real. the number of limitations first of all, it is not constitutionally required it would be odd for the court to demand a constitutional standard that does not even have to be collected. it does not measure with the plaintiff suggest is required. it is not a measure of built - - voter eligibility it doesn't include data or felons or overseas voters or mentally ill. with respect to the data picking upon the point of justice sotomayor it does not exist at all level of
singularity to be clear it doesn't exist where districting happens. to come out in april 2021 the five-year average comes out in the saber and dash december data and going forward. >> use one factor if electoral opportunity has been given. with the turn how data of the social economic factor to say thousands of local jurisdictions with the sole measure of redistricting. >> who has standings to bring that claim?
it is noticed that the court never had to resolve it has the exact same rule. and you can always find a voter in the district. >> will you tell me or not. >> me think to have a better understanding but here is why i don't think matters. the agenda is the position with that lens with what is happening as a way to ensure all persons covered by the equal protection clause to still have a voice in representation. >> that was the undocumented
aliens. >>. >> does that include members of all of the group's? >> you don't have to agree with that. it is right he is also viewed it is important the way to think about this was to view it consistent with the way reynolds thought about it. to have half the vote and then of course, we would violate the constitution of course, the effect of state legislative schemes to the equal number of constituents is identical. that is the point we're
making here. why can't you do both? the problem with both it largely eliminates the ability to do with their redistricting factors. you can take no large anglo population by citizenship rates to pair it with the populations to take it from the nikkei's brief. so what you're doing is taking people from parts of manhattan pairing them with the voters in brooklyn. what happens is to do both at the level of 10% to eliminate to take into account political subdivisions, and all of the other things this court has said is critical to redistricting.
with the question if this is a big deal or not to have a large practical effect. >> host: is a big deal that is why we are here. [laughter] but it is in just a gun dash 50 states but local jurisdictions it is used as a measure for redistricting in make history shows it is unjust the situation if there is differences or citizens are non-citizens but they are a critical part but in texas it suggest 9% some counties or 35% and others. in alaska the difference between rural and urban is 271 dash 20 percent children or 37 percent in another this will affect jurisdictions route the
country to be clear they don't have the data at the level that the court will be requiring as a constitutional matter. but in his view it is not clear what westbury holds it is a fundamental misreading. what they said was the net bid to allocate to allocate that is the reason of the great compromise had to be relocated into an redistricting. that was the principal that with the court said it clearly established that fundamental principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people
without economic status. so precisely that same principle that looked at the framing that looked at the drafting of the 14th amendment. >> so voters are irrelevant? >> of course, the question here is when texas has chosen this we think it is but we don't think voters are irrelevant but what reynolds did to use total population to have the voters right when you have twice the inhabitants half of the voice of the representatives.
>> but in the extreme case a rural district where the total population for the district is fairly small with very few other inhabitants so in one district you have to and percent of the population are eligible and in another district 90% that would be okay. >> two points. this court has recognized and we don't dispute estate can and the court approved to more accurately capture what has been happening in hawaii it counts all the navy personnel and the court
said to have to make adjustment. >> thank you. you have four minutes remaining. >> to the question of representation of children that were the principal in a statewide election a state could get five votes to a family of five in one vote to the individual. >> i am thinking i would like to know before this is mandatory, your position i'd like to know more than what i know who these people are better being represented on the theory of the voters period so it is tough. >> is a mix but it is more
fundamental. >> mistaken solve the problem themselves to give them the vote to say we do not want them to vote but to count for redistricting. >> for most states to be disenfranchised prisoners except those that come from that locale so who else will they disenfranchise? >> we're not choosing for the state we don't argue they should get the benefit you cannot disconnect them from voting but the whole thing collapses all other
rights are illusion of the right to vote is taken away they are surprised to learn it has nothing to do with voting all the eligible voters give each person in their own district the state says we know we cannot do that but we will not try that is not a one-person one-vote works taken force themselves to say they're not allowed to but your point to do both they will go back to the drawing board and try they can make the case but we set - - suspect they can do both.
let county lines or anything like that. it is gerrymandering that they want to do we don't know that abstractly but the actual deviations that on page 26 they can see that tv and dash deviation and district eight under issue is underpopulated by 22 percent if arizona had to go back to the drawing board to accommodate both the rigo opportunity in the gerrymandering and the positioning process. it would be solved legislatively section to does not work as justice scalia pointed out there is nothing to measure against with one person one vote it is the baseline how do know
>> they do not peel from the lesser schools for the class is better too fast for them. i am just not impressed by the fact that the university of texas may have fewer. maybe it ought to look happy were if you take those competent blacks admitted to lesser schools it turns out to be less. i don't think it stands to reason it is a good thing for the university of texas to read mitt as many blacks
as possible. >> if you look at the academic performance purse is the top 10% admit since i don't think the solution to the problem is a student body diversity to set up a system that only minorities are going to separate schools but inferior schools but what it shows now is not the time to look at diversity in america.
>> there are certain parts of the day it is the only thing you want to listen to some of the morning commute is when you're on the subway maybe you don't only want music maybe once the weather report may be yet clip of jimmy thousand. there is some other content and that is the hypothesis we are testing if we are interested in experiencing that.
>> banks to my 18 years of the house armed services committee i knew many months ago deal the way to solve the problem was to call for the international coalition to defeat isis and iraq we have to join with the allies in the region to organize the international coalition to deny them the territory they need to survive. those with long experience no the air campaign on its own is simply not enough.
why could she looked to that as an alternative? >> for the last six and a half years u.s. senior hampshire change from the time when you're losing 10,000 jobs now you're gaining 12,000 jobs per year. that is the problem we have had with fiscal responsibility to put in place an economic plan that has balanced the budget.
thank you. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to new america. welcome to you and our viewers on c-span. for those who know, new america is a nonpartisan think tank. this is one of the 1st big events we have had in our new headquarters. and the split side of discussing this idea back in september of of course the political context around the issue was very different. before parisdifferent. before paris on the paris attacks, two people basically posed as syrian refugees mother worst terrorist attack in europe and the west. in fact,west. in fact, since the attacks of 2,004. then we have the san bernardino attack or one of the perpetrators came in on the fiancée visa. thethe house is overwhelmingly passed a measure that basically would pause all syrian refugees in this country. and as a factual matter no
refugee has been involved in any violent jihadist act attack in this country. it is simply a myth, and the last thing you would want to do is a terrorist is come here is a refugee. it would take you for years to get through the process. refugee camp outside of syria and then be selected by the united nations comeau one of 23,000 out of 4 million who would then be referred to the united states and has been two years going through the system in which you would be subjected to a battery of interviews and biometric data collection. basicallybasically that is not the way terrorists try to operate. the betting of allbanning of all muslim immigration. what we hope to do today is to explain the scale of the problem and what to do about it. we understand there is a problem.
what can we actually do? we are going to hear from some of the world's leading experts on the answer to that question. i we will invite people to the stage who don't need a lot of introduction, but i want to mention something, when she left the administration was policy planning director of the state department. one of the 1st to the annoyance of some former colleagues that syria was going to hell in a handbasket and we needed to do something about it including no-fly zones and safe zones for refugees and also actually engage military a. that seemed like an outlandish idea and is now what the united states is doing. i also want to invite to the stage while the longest board members. we started in 99.
almost 200 people, and she was instrumental in the growth. she herself as a refugee from hungry, so she speaks with a great deal of personal experience and has been a leading human rights advocate, the author -- her 9th book is about to come out. so both she will talk 1st and then catty and i will hand over to you. >> thank you, peter. i should add also, my mother and her mother and her brother refugee from belgium to free france to switzerland, then before the last wave of the nazis overrunning the south of france to madrid and finally
by plane to london. it took six months. i am not a refugee, refugee, but i would not be here if my mother and her family had not been received as refugees in world war ii and britain. i am just going to say three things. we will have a rich conversation. the title of this is after paris the refugee crisis. and indeed and most americans minds right now terrorism and refugees are linked. as i will say in a minute, i don't think that's the way we should be thinking about refugee crisis. to the extent there is a link between terrorism and refugees, it is the terrorists taking over large swaths of country and giving rise to refugees rather than refugees giving rise to
terrorists. so the causal direction is not the one that most americans are currently assuming, as peterassuming, as peter just laid out, the bringing in refugees can give rise to terrorists. it is the other way around. it is not only terrorist groups. well before bernardi know, harris, any of this the un issued a report that said that 16 million refugees in the world. just think about that. my family is from belgium. roughly 10,000,000. there are six belgian's worth are six belgians worth of refugees in the world, six. belgium is a pretty decent sized country. there is one france, roughly 60 million people. when we think about the crisis of refugees we have to think that we have 194 nations in the world.
actually, that is 199 or at another power the size of france. that isthat is the scope of the problem, and not one that will be addressed by thinking about letting in 10,000, 20,000, even 50,000. that is my 3rd point command we will talk about this later in the panel discussion. i actually think we have to start thinking about refugees in terms of opportunity rather than in terms of a problem to be solved. i wrote recently for project syndicate, column the talked about the ways in which the national democratic institute is beginning to think about refugee camps not as place of squalor and despair and waiting to return home but as places where you have concentrations of talented people to my entrepreneurial
people, entrepreneurial enough and driven enough to get up and leave for a better place with the family but also places that if you think about it differently you are creating potential cities, creating places where you can educate young people differently, where you can create different habits of political participation. where you can jumpstart entrepreneurs who want a different kind of economy. economy. so thinking about refugee camps more in terms of refugee cities. similarly we have not been nearly creative enough. there is an egyptian billionaire negotiating with the greek government to buy islands to resettle refugees. you might think that's preposterous. there are 1500 greek islands in the mediterranean, and they are for sale to billionaires as resort destinations. there is a website called my island online.online. now, if a billionaire can buy an island for private
vacation why can't we actually be far more creative about places where we can resettle large numbers of people who then can create a place that they want to be, not that they will never want to go home, but when you have 60 million people around the world thinking simply of putting them in camps or resettling tiny numbers is never going to get at the actual problem. with that, i will turn it over. [applause] >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the honor, a subject very close to my heart. i am a refugee and should be very
close to the hearts of all americans because if we are not a nation of refugees i don't know what we are. anne-marie zone saga confirms that, and if i ask for a show of hands as to how many of you are 1st or 2nd generation i assume most would go up. we are betraying our very core values and not stepping up to this enormous humanitarian crisis that is engulfing the world, and it is beyond the humanitarian crisis, crisis of national security. let me explain and backtrack and start by saying i was one of 200,000 hungarians who is processed in a matter of weeks after the soviets crushed hungary's uprising. and i was swept from my country to this country in a matter of weeks and
processed at an army camp on the new jersey turnpike in a single day, and the marine who processed me notice that it was my birthday. don't ask which one because i'm not going to tell you, so that marine gave me a silver dollar. by the end of the day i had six command that was my 1st introduction to the big heartedness of my new country. but that descartes somehow seems to be missing. having made a trip to hungry on behalf of the international rescue committee and the committee to protect journalists in recent months, at the border,border, the train station in budapest, waiting to board trains for germany, like very much like my family, my mother called her sister, and myself and for
suitcases. that was all we had. they took a chance on us. i don't think it is a big chance to allow not 10,000 but several hundred thousand more people who are refugees as a result of a war that we either started or quite frankly have neglected far too long the war in syria. it is not as if we had no responsibility the onto the human responsibility which i i think is what the statue of liberty is about. give me yourgive me your tired, wretched, poor. do we not believe that anymore?
at the moment the country that is being the best international citizen is ironically given its history germany. 800,000 syrian and other refugees have been processed and are now going through germany's doors to a very warm welcome that germany, thegermany, the home of the third reich should be teaching us lessons about how to deal with the humanitarian crisis, there is a bitter irony in that. all of us have a role to play in this. of politicians are letting us down. washington's voice has been very faint in this, and after i made my trips to the hungarian serb border i went to eu headquarters in brussels. of course, i am sorry to say that the eu is a study and dysfunction. when the balkan wars broke out and the then head of the european commission said the hour of europe has dawned,
well, it did not turn out that way and is not turning out that way today. there is simply no coherent european policy toward refugees.refugees. each country for himself which is partly what has set off this panic race for borders before they close because there is no coherent unified policy which is something we the united states know how to do. even if we don't open our gates,, as i hope that with pressure from every single one of you we will, we can collaborate with the eu and partner with them. you can only lead by example. words are not enough. the united states is not in the position to say to any other country in the world, you must do this, you have to let in more refugees because we are not. we are not. i mentioned this
is also an issue of national security. we are all a bit jittery. we came up with the name after paris. but tragically there will be others. that is almost inevitable. but the most powerful counter narrative that we the united states can submit to the world, thank you donald trump and the entire republican field virtually including jeb bush who prefers christian refugees to any others. how little outrage that has provoked. who are we anymore? the counter narrative we need to put out for our own security if for no other
reason is that this is aa nation that welcomes muslims and that these muslims who are escaping the hot have to be decoupled from jihad. since september 11since september 11 the united states has an medical estate hundred thousand refugees from the region. do you know how many have been implicated in terrorist activities? three. three. so it makes absolutely no sense, but demagogues don't need to make sense. they just need to persuade people that fear is more important than humanity or reason and it really is a sorry chapter in our nation's history. we have been here before.
the internment of japanese during world war ii is a stain on our history as, quite frankly, president franklin delano roosevelt and action these of the jewish refugees from hitler. so those are two dark chapters from our histories, and i fear that we are about to repeat a dark chapter, and i do not think that we want to do that. i don't think we want to buy the fearmonger version of events. we need to assert our right as americans and our humanity as citizens of the world and do what our nation is really all about. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. we are going to move to our 1st panel if they could come up.
and we are going to do the order. you have their bios, but let me say a little bit about each. the pres. of the syrian american medical society was does amazing work at great personal risk to my group of syrian american physicians going into syria to provide medical service to syrians, providing medical service to around 1.51.5 million syrians during the course of this incredibly dangerous conflict. great personal risk to do this work. providing medical services to syrian refugees. also frequently in touch with people in the white house. she also is an amazing advocate, runs, runs and
immigration organization that helps syrian immigrants settle in the united states. and immigration lawyer who is also syrian american and came to a conference that i saw her speak at. a brilliant presentation about the necessity of changing the way we are doing business on this issue. himself a syrian asylum seeker who came to this country relatively recently. it was almost impossible to find any reason syrian refugees because we have let and so few people is almost impossible to find one who speaks english. we have a great panel. thank you. >> good morning and thank you for having me. knew america foundation, the 1st speaking panel and a
syrian refugees. and i just want to give her credit to the syrian americans for they have done over the past four years, something that probably not many of us know. we have at least 18 relief organizations founded by the syrian american dies poor up. spend more than $400 million hundred million dollars to stabilize the situation, provide assistance and medical aid and without their contributions we would've seen much more. i leave the heavy lifting to my wife. what we do, the other organizations we try to keep people inside syria before writing them healthcare and education and humanitarian assistance and also provided to people who are refugees in lebanon and jordan and turkey, but suzanne has been
trying to take care of all of them when they come here to the united states is refugees. many other refugees in the camps will take at least 15 to 17 years if the situation stabilizes. we are talking about long term. whether we like it or not we will have to take some refugees. the number is low. more than 60,100,000 syrian refugees. i will start by dispelling some of the methods. first of all, there are no syrian refugees implicated in any terrorist act. the media coverage of the implications is wrong. yesterday there was a guardian report that a 3rd person was actually a french
a french national born in france and not a syrian refugee. to terrorists but they are not syrian refugees. refugees.refugees. i need to make sure that is clear. the 2nd thing, syrians were leaving syria and going to the mediterranean, and the duke island, they are coming from inside syria. not from the neighboring countries. these are not people who have been refugees in turkey or jordan or lebanon for some time. they are leaving syria and of course some of them are leaving because of the isys attacks. the super majority are leaving because of the brutality of the regime and the barrel bombing. and now with the russian bombing of some areas we
have seen an intensifying of this exodus. thirdly, syria is emerging human capitol. lawyers and businessman and people leaving syria. 40 percent of the people leaving syria have college or university degrees. 40 percent of high school graduates, people who are educated, and syria is losing human resources because of this. the super majority are sunni muslims, not christians, not his ed. 85 percent of the people who are reaching greece are sunni muslims, and 6% are christians. this goes against what some of the people in the republican party have been talking. need to accept people.
we need to accept more people who are implicated, the sunni muslims. and i just want to say that we owe it to the syrian dies poor because syrian americans have contributed to the welfare of this country. 1% of all our doctors are syrian origin, 1%. millions of americans every day in every week. hundreds of thousands of lives every week. steve jobs come as you lives every week. steve jobs come as you know, is a friend of syrian immigrants. republican governors. indiana, syrian immigrants. i think we have to say that and anne-marie mentioned that we have to embrace these refugees because they will be the engine of economic recovery and some of these areas. people will contribute. some of them are graphic. i warn you. and this is a drawing of one of the 2nd grade children.
more dangerous. the largest city in syria. the 2nd grade student drawing bombs, helicopters, barrel bombs and amputated children and children who are crying. instead of a children usually do. and many of the syrian children are traumatized because of the situation. we don't have that many mental health specialists addressing the humanitarian situation. the impact of barrel bombs. there is no need for a no-fly zone because there are no more barrel bombs. the russian intervention 3,800-barrel bombs. others in syria only in the last month we have about
1000. it continues to happen causing destruction and is the main driver of the syrian exodus. and this is what you see. children pulled from the rubble and doctors and nurses who are struggling to meet the needs of the overwhelming people coming with trauma. this is a picture that i took myself. trying to survey some of the medical supplies by double barrel bombs. planning to visit the hospital. she call me in the morning and said don't come. and i said no more barrel bombs. after 30 or 40 minutes another one. the afternoon i took this picture. and this is ami'm sorry, very graphic picture, what we see on a daily basis.
children, 20,000 children killed in syria. 20,000. this is one of the children who died everyday because of the barrel bombing. some of the children in the city under siege by the government for the past three years. under siege and bombed every day. this is a picture of the child born only last week. the city of him. able to deliver and the child survived. and this is what we do to try to protect the patient's in syria.
sandbagged in the emergency room and sometimes we have to do hospitals underground. supported, and this is a hospital that is 4 meters underground. most are underground. last year we had 67 targeted by bombs, barrel bombs compared to 30 hospitals one year before. and we try to connect over there by several methods, electronic i see you. icus inside syria to specialists inside the united states. one we had in europe last month. all of us agree targeting a hospital is happening on a daily basis in syria.
the refugee camp. 80 percent or 85 percent are not in. one of the few times. and this is actually a took this picture off one syrian refugee command he had this picture of what to do after you arrived. and i have the whole picture. take a train or walk across the border to macedonia were hungry and how much it will cost you. about 2400 euro. by the way, if you are refugee you have to pay between 1,000 to 4,000 euros and there is a discount. they told me know that it's 800 euros because the risk of dying or drowning is higher. and this is one near the
island, just two weeks before i arrived,, about 300 people. and plenty of them ground. i talk to some of the doctors who resuscitated them and most of them were traumatized because they could not save the children who drowned. a picture i did not take. arriving every day the last few months. and this is what they leave. his life vests do not save them. both size, triple or quadruple the number of refugees. when these boats capsized the children drowned in many
of them have hypothermia. and what happened to the refugees, for one day before they are moved to the capitol of the island and from there to where they are kept in holding before they are transported to macedonia. in these are some of the refugees. 60 percent are from afghanistan. many of them are from iraq and iran. and this is the clinic that we provide healthcare to the refugees. and i want to end with this picture, the person of the year, chancellor merkel and rethink the german government and the leadership for embracing the syrian refugees.
the german economy improved in the last year which is great. these are the people who need to be recognized. you have a position from norway and the physician from palestine because we want to help the situation. i've seen trying to help the refugees from syria and afghanistan the providing very good help for them right now. without their help the situation would have been much worse. thank you for having me. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you. very difficult to follow him
thank you to the new america foundation for your kind invitation. i am proud to be here and do stand in front of you to talk about our small organization and the families that we have helped resettle in chicago. the syrian community network back in 2013 when the national board appointed me to be the refugee coordinator to understand what the process looks like and so we kind of took this on as a project. the community network was born. thank you. our vision is to power syrian refugees in achieving a seamless transition. but we started the organization i kept having flashbacks. my father came in the 1960s to study engineering
and he met my mother command my mother is canadian. i am only half syrian. i am kind of all over the place. iplace. i started having all these thoughts and memories of how difficult it was to come after my father and mother got married. and just to have those stories and remembering the difficulties of assimilating into a new culture and learning a new language. my mother is canadian. you know, a new learning style. where the stories. we always joke that we never got over. so we envision this vision
statement is because we wanted to -- we know syrian seven coming to the united states for about a hundred years. we imagine this to be the refugee wave. our goal is to work with the agencies in chicago on a national level and try to include the families in the larger community so that they don't feel the isolation. we have done programs for them. we do that you drive. we tried to include them in advance. i'm moving through them because i want to make sure i get your my time. we try to connect them to a larger committee and do a cultural understanding of syrian culture a lot of the groups, humanitarian group. and they want to learn about
the cultural and do's and don'ts because there going to be receiving this family the next day at the airport. they want to make sure they are received in a way that is welcoming and to make the family feel secure and safe. so this was a really nice group to be with. so these are some pictures of some of the families we had. right now in chicago we have about 22 families, about a hundred individuals. the children, the people there in chicago our children and the rest are between women and men, but we do have single moms also caring for the children. we try to include them in the community and make sure they are supported. we do volunteer trainings as well.
our volunteers are trained. they can do a great job mentoring the families. with that, the 1st family in january of this year, her father was killed by sniper in syria. one of six children this placed in syria. she sustained injury and to this day has shrapnel in his body. summer camp for girls and in the summer she had the award for most improved english learner. that she 1st came and she did not smile. i tried to joke with her.
to see her smile is really heartwarming. and that should your this picture. the organization asked her to draw a picturea picture of someone who has helped you were impacted you. you know, it's nice to feel that you help someone. >> sorry. >> part of our advocacy, one of the things we would like to focus on all with everything is going on with the rhetoric that has been coming command we can see advocacy plays a key role in getting the stories out. all these organizations and some of our partners and to help bring the stories.
they got a chance to stand in front of the white house increase the numbers of refugees. so it was a sad moment to see them speak and take leadership and experience american civic engagement. we think that was powerful for them. this is many other. inin syria you don't get to stand in front of the white house. it was empowering. and also part of our advocacy, wanted to visit with the refugee families. the syrian community network. came out and met with the refugees and also in chicago
with the governor making the statements the refugees are not welcome in illinois, the city council came up with the resolution to welcome. so the alderman recognized syrian refugees in the city council meeting and the standing ovation and it was really a powerful, symbolic moment because they were feeling very anxious. they were feeling unwanted. with our advocacy also, mayor rahm emmanuelle posted a thanksgiving dinner for the refugees. this is him serving the refugees, one to every person and he served in turkey and stuffing. he and the other alderman as well.
and ed burke serving. it was really a beautiful moment. the refugee family. we had over 90 people in the room. all the children were there. it was very nice. so and also another organization also hosting small dinners for community members and inviting refugees all over the united states. this was a dinner they hosted. this was the director of the chicago chapter. representative jan jankowski. invited the refugees with us andand my colleague also was there and it was -- and their representative was talking about the story of how the st. louis in 1939 came to drop off the refugees. really adamant about welcoming the refugees and
asking them to speak as well. then this is part of the dinner. more advocacy efforts but was civic groups that we help in engaging in getting the refugees to get the word out to speak on their own behalf. again, more pictures of the dinner. these two boys, osama and hiking. on wednesday we were at a dinner, dick durbin and now franken and another syrian refugee was there, violinist , and this picture was blown up in their living room and subject to and said that we afraid of these two boys? little osama who is two years old and i came was nine. it just does not make sense.
i just want to end with a story, one of the refugees, syrian kurdish refugee does not want to be photographed but used to work as a seamstress. we want to get her project going, bring her sewing machine and have her start having our own business at home is her mother is 80 years old. she can't leave her. today what are we going to do, how are we going to help her. i got a call from a call from a woman who lived in evensen i'll do anything. i told her call would you like to market the sewing business? and she said yes. we scrambled to see how we can help people, but there are people reaching out to us and asking for help. the donald trump, and we received, we get hundreds of comments of support and love [applause]
>> thank you. often times we will listen to people talk. are they isys, are they not? it is nice that today you are listening to us. thank you for that opportunity. i am chair of government relations for united for free syria. one of six organizations. our focus is on advocacy in washington dc to try to get what we think is a better policy on syria. so 1stso 1st the syrians wondered why the world that abandon them and then they
wondered why the world hated them. our motto in terms of advocacy work is treat the symptoms, stop the cause. we understand right now there is refugee crisis in europe, there has been one and we are now learning about it here in the us. the rhetoric is about security until he should let internet we should not, and what is missing from the discourse is because of the crisis. one,crisis. one, listening to this you might think there was an earthquake or hurricane when in fact it is an intentional displacement and killing of syrian people by the syrian regime. this is something that we really need to focus on
because congress scrambled quickly to say let's block syrian refugees. where have we been for years saying let us keep them in their homes. yes there is a crisis. it is our responsibility to take in refugees. we have to take our responsibility in that. what we also do is help people stay in their homes and stop having to leave. it was pointed out that most of the refugees going to europe are not the one sitting -- the ones sitting in camp. they basically the one sitting in the camps before the existence. the one showing up in europe , why are we not talking about why they are still fleeing? you 4.1 million refugees and
half the country displaced internally being bombed, attacked by iran and hezbollah. they have all these forces against them, and the main focuses on civilians. what is happening? i am sure many of you know, barrel bombs are a great tool that the regime uses, literally big metal barrels filled with the indian explosives. the advantagesthe advantages they are cheap and easy to make and can be dropped from nonmilitary aircraft. aircraft. get a helicopter with a bunch of girls and drop the. they have no ability to be targeted.
they drop and wherever they land they land. the regime is focusing on civilians. 90%90 percent of those killed by barrel bombs are civilians. as well we knew about the chemical weapons at the regime used in the same barrel bombs the regime is used to drop chlorine bombs. they turned in the serengeti's and replaced it with chlorine which is easier to use and after the un security resolution chlorine bombs can't becan be used. chlorine bombs were again used. surprise. what happens? basically the rebels take over an area and the regime comes in barrel bombs. and that is a good thing to do because it attacks civilians and makes them
feel like those that are defending syria are now somehow the culprit. also maps of basic supplies. supplies. water, electricity, and the target hospitals, regularly targeting hospitals and once they try to surround an area. again, un security council resolution talking illgoing without the permission of the regime. upwards of two to 700,000two to 700,000 people that have been under siege for years now.
seasonal,seasonal, and there is a lot of fun your that happens. and what happens is, systematic use of starvation to force local populations into submission. so lets to the regime, the local cease-fire and they say hand this over your weapons and get out. and get out means civilian population. the is an intentional displacement of syrian population from within syria command i can give you an example of mom's family. they are from the camp which is overwhelmingly palestinian refugees, but an area in damascus that was
under siege for about 18 months. finally when they negotiated a cease-fire there were basically told the door is only open for a little time. either we will shut the door and you will starve or you get out. and my aunts and uncles and all of them ended up fleeing, and many of the invaded lebanon and i have several of my cousins who made it to germany, and they have horrendous murder in this. there are local cease-fire's that cease-fires that are also an intentional way to display syrian populations. this is a form of collective punishment. i don't know if i should talk about international law because there are so many violations, whether recent tour historic of our international law that just keep happening. continue the violation.
there is no solution without a primary focus on civilian protection. civilian protection civilian protection. no-fly zone, save zone, some area were civilians can stay within syria and be protected from the constant aerial bombardment of the regime and russia. there has to be a political transition. with a sod a sod in power it is no -- you cannot claim legitimacy, created the chaos and destruction and death for missing persons and torture and reclaim legitimacy. that is a nonstarter. there has to be a political transition. we feel right now the international community feels that our solution is let's give more money to the
regional countries to keep posting refugees. let's go through these peace talks that really are stalled peace talks. no one knows where they are going, what is going to happen, what it means at the end, and we are also talking about resettling miniscule numbers refugees, not trying to minimize the fact that we need to do this, that won't be a solution unless we focus on civilian protection there will be no solution. i have the coalition for democratic syria has put together a policy paper. the policy director i hear if anyone wants a copy. thank you so much. [applause]
>> hello. i want to thank peter and david a new america for having me. as peter said, i'm syrian. been raised in syria almost all my life. i was fortunate enough to know taylor swift i was 15 years old. backstreet boys also helped. i'll had a normal life, but i was politically involved since 12. my dad was one of the leaders of the nonviolent movement since the 60s so it kind of runs in the blood when the revolution started i was a senior in college. but with everything going on in the middle east there was
no question what to do. because of my good english how is the only english correspondent from that time telling them what is going on comeau why the people are out of the streets risking their lives. which led at some point for me to be detained by the government. i survived the 1st time. it is hard to describe being in a prison. it is something in human, and then the 2nd time came in that barely survived it. then there was the question of whether i should stay or leave. the government did not give me a choice. and days later they tried to arrest me a 3rd time.
i managed to escape. when i escaped they tried to kidnap. at that point i felt like this is not only about myself but about my family. for some time we had an someplace out of the city of damascus and then we decided to leave because the government kept asking about us. so it was only me and my 17 -year-old brother. ..
>> the egyptian government -- residency and even tourist residency. and so i have to leave the country every three months to be legal in egypt and then come back. at that time i moment come and take care of my brother and then later on in january 2013, the government wanted to arrest my other brother.
not a lot and my to the suburbs of damascus. some of that time when i was in lebanon we were only thinking it would be like this year, that we will be back home, that it then it will be different, that everything will change. but politically everything really concerning. and so i was invited by the program. and i was deciding whether i should stay or not.
[inaudible] and everything that was going on in my mind, that is when the revolution started. a couple weeks before we had anything like local activists. and a u.s. think tank. someone actually asked why would we asked people if we know about the bashar al-assad government. and never member that i was the youngest simply because the international community demanded for freedom and democracy to make the reform. and that is why i decided to
bring that. so no one would say that we don't know what has happened. and so two years after it is not happening. i want to go back to my country and wherever you go is like part of the process and the only difference is here i am allowed to work seven months while applying for asylum, but nothing else is different, really. and some people tell me that.
[inaudible] that we have relatives back in syria but the main reason for me to come here is like yes, i do not want to be labeled like that because i hold a passport, this is who i am. and i cannot change that but yeah, i did not want to be labeled as because of this and this is how people think about syrians. remember the officer asked me why did you remember the officee why did you choose to come here
here in this country we are born and living with this fear. do not feel being able to walk around without actually looking back and for us, we started the same thing. we want to have the fancy cars and fancy houses. and to be honest with you if you work hard, it is not that hard to make a living. the social environment was
really supported and you're not able to have what you have here. this is the american dream but at least when i was in lebanon or egypt and in syria you are allowed to work like no one is watching and he will send back not to the refugee camp but they will actually go back with everything that is happening. and this is like coming here and
living all of that. it was hard at the beginning and it felt the same, like thousands of refugees and they continue about their future and they can start a small business or do things for the future and its like you don't even know if you're going to be affected, that you will be able to live your life. but still these things don't really matter because it doesn't matter as much in to let me
speak to you about what i feel. and so a lot of people, someone came to me and kept saying that our american history or government and at the time of speaking to the audience, they are saying you're not even syrian, you are american. and at the time i felt that we don't have that, but actually being an american is being able to live with freedom and to be able to speak and live freely
without interference. that is what being an american is for me. i thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for the presentations. please wait for the microphone and if anyone has a question, please raise your hands. >> thank you very much. i am with the. [inaudible] and the question has to do with the vast needs of millions of others. which one you think is more important and should one wait
for one to happen for the other to be possible? >> i think that there was a study about the syrian refugees in europe and we asked about it and the majority said no. so you have to have this without bashar al-assad being in the picture. of course, as you know the historic background it will take them 15 to 20 years to go back to syria. so you have to do double that with the process with the
neighboring countries, to provide them with health care and with education and so we have many of them in the area that have no education, they are not going to be participants in the economy of their countries. this is a huge problem if we do not address it right now. so getting this under control should be a priority. there is a plan that they have to integrate searing refugees with job immigration and i think that that can go hand-in-hand with the revolution.
>> we are working with health care and trying to provide education to children. unfortunately mental health, the priority is to provide housing and food and education. not a lot and we want to provide mental health to syrian refugees. and that is only one example of the children who are completely traumatized because of the situation and many are traumatized because of what they are seeing and it's something that has to be addressed.
>> we are running a little bit over time and we need to move on. thank you to all of you for this brilliant presentation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the state department, we are going to start with the doctor, who is the deputy assistant secretary in the office of human rights and labor. she has a phd in political science from columbia amongst many other qualifications she has worked through several people including senator frank lautenberg. [inaudible] should also holds a phd focus
years is kind of an unfair task. so i will try to summarize and give you a snapshot of what we are seeing on the ground in syria and to start with the answer to the question that is frequently asked in the past four years of why are they fleeing in response to refugees around us. why are people from all walks of life are leaving their homes and leaving their country and the u.s. government to respond to this humanitarian disaster so i want to convey to you the importance of remembering that this regime continues to bombard the syrian people. she was stripped of the humanitarian access and of
course many violent extremist groups including these areas continue to commit appalling abuses and violations at an ever-increasing rate. and i want to spend a few minutes on detailing and describing the regime and here's why. when asked, syrian refugees will say what they are fleeing because of the regime and its allies and abuses. in particular there is recent survey of 900 syrian refugees and desist all 70% of respondents reported they were fleeing syria due to the regime's assault. 77% said they feared arrest warrant kidnapping by forces and 79% said that it was the bashar al-assad military response to let them to the situation they found themselves in today.
so i want to give you a what and how and when would this continuing human rights violations. they have consistently documented arbitrary arrest, sexual violence, forcible displacement including those involved with seeders of whole communities and they have found that government forces and militias have culminated violations of human rights. machine linked paramilitary groups have engaged in widespread violations including massacres and indiscriminate killings. government affiliated groups has repeatedly attacked civilians.
and there receives ongoing attacks have resulted in an ever larger increasing spread including military homes and businesses. this is something that we are following closely and it has been crippling with a country that was once renowned in the region with doctors and nurses and hospitals. they have reported details that fall with russian airstrikes since october of this year. so how are some of these abuses being committed? we are focusing on bail bonds in particular. hundreds are killed by the regime's attacks including bombs
that destroyed homes and schools they have strongly condemned the intensification with dire effects. no one has called attention to their use of these bonds. but i've been tonds. but i've been talking about this because i want to be clear that human rights violations and abuses are ongoing and they continue to fall. contrary to the claim the regime is continuing the campaign and many have reported that they have used. [inaudible] alms in 2015 alone. they had a statement and they recall the reference resolution of 2139, which included that
they have indiscriminate use of weapons in areas. and finally as he recalled i wanted to underscore its importance. and that includes the types of prisoners that are in jail. the regime continues to improve, many are detained him and many are subjected to torture, inhumane conditions, denial to fair trial and execution. and according to a group that we work with there is a very objective documentation group and according to this group the regime forces have tortured over
11,000 people including 157 children. to this day hundreds of thousands of syrians not a lot so so many people have been asked why they are fleeing in the abuses. but of course other groups and i want to talk a bit about this. because as the human rights go this is one of the classic human rights abuses. but because it charges entire ethnic groups and religious peoples. with persistent violence. and targeting these groups not because of anything they did so because of exactly who they are, it's the men and women that will not accept its work ideology.
no, and they are committing crimes of unknown proportions but of incredible temerity. they know that their conduct is painful so they hide what they do to them. it is the utmost importance to asked the u.s. government that acts not be allowed to seize this narrative and so we are trying to come back with the proposition of this violence. and i will just add that they are providing $5 billion of humanitarian assistance, more than any other donor. so i want to conclude by laying down this marker and the u.s. government is supporting the
documentation efforts record all of the human rights abuses that are continuing. and that is one of the premiere soon institutions are reanalyzing train documenting each case of torture. it gathers information from multiple sources including oral and written reporting and videos and other resources. and they are documenting a wide range of this today. so finally in conclusion, i would urge everyone to keep the human rights conditions at the center of the story. [inaudible] thank you very much.
>> thank you so much for hosting this very important and timely event. i want us to begin by putting the current global refugee migration crisis into perspective. today we say that more people are displaced than any time since world war ii. the overwhelming majority of those people are not crossing international borders in seeking asylum. the majority are displaced in their own countries, for whom there is no u.n. mandated agency to provide them protection and assistance. but there is a refugee migration crisis in europe and the lunch is really borne by the countries who are in these violent conflicts. so in other words, lebanon has
the highest per capita number of syrian refugees accounted for about one in order. kenya is home to one of the world's largest refugee camps hosting while over 200,000, those who have been there since the early '90s, and they now host three generations. his history can offer us lessons on how states and governments work together to address past crises and that we can use to develop new tools, instruments, ways of working to analyze these current issues in a global conference of manner. so the post-world war ii refugee crisis led to an increase in many instruments and this is the cornerstone of the protection regime today.
[inaudible] is also the creation of the 1954 in 1969 conventions on statelessness that would develop to address the phenomenon of those that have no nationality. after that they had over 250,000 european refugees who we had to share the global crisis. many deny of you know at the end of the vietnam war and hundreds of thousands of people across the territorial waters places like malaysia, singapore and the philippines as well as hong kong, facing what seems to be no end in sight to the influx, many began to push back people which resulted in thousands drowning, the ultimate solution was in a conference a plan of action under the leadership of the u.n. refugee agency is.
many agreed to keep engaging in search and rescue operations, but they did so only on the basis that this is a commitment from other states. as the united united states, canada, australia and new zealand and others committed to resettle all of those who are determined to be refugees. and second, alternative and humane solutions in looting alternative legal immigration channels were found for those who are not to be refugees in need of international protection. and there are millions been resettled. throughout the course of that we set up hundreds of thousands with this ad hoc task force and that led to prompting congress to develop the 1980 refugee act which underpins the program today and incorporated the united nations definition of
refugee and basically standardized this, which i know that my colleagues will speak about that in greater debt. so was not perfect. the circumstances do not provide a analogy to this situation, but if nothing else it shows us if you have political leadership as is possible. so where does that leave us today? while, in addition to the ongoing support that we are to be provided, 2016 is going to provide us with unique opportunity to engage in responding ways that hopefully are going to lead to very measurable changes and responses there's an already planned event in which the united states will participate at the highest loss of a level to begin moving toward a more comprehensive global solution. one of the first events that we would participate in is in
february the uk will be hosting a pledging conference and then we will be able to sow the seeds that will include additional financing, resettlement and other tools that will be essential into responding. i will also be an opportunity for us to engage in the diplomatic outreach to encourage new governments to begin to fund these up appeal is and those that contribute additional resources. the secretary-general has announced that he will does a high-level event focused on resettlement and solutions that will be in operation and again, that will be an extremely important moment for us to look at it in a different way with a question about resettlement of syrian refugees in particular with others as well. and maybe will join the u.s. secretary-general for the first
several world humanitarian summit. as has been in the works for two years in the united states is deeply engaged in this effort. and so the goal includes securing additional financing leveraging and development systems to help countries to secure access to jobs and education and others, increasing protection, justice for women and girls and updating the system that is responding to crises and building new partnerships to the society and the private sector. and so they are hoping it will set the stage for reforms and initiatives that we will undertake in the several years following the event. finally, the secretary-general has announced a high-level vm
that is crisis next year during the general assembly will be a critical moment for eyes to galvanize global supported and respond in a way that we would hope would lead to the comprehensive responsibility sharing and sort of measurable outcomes. so 2016 is definitely where you are going to see tremendous u.s. leadership around the refugee question and in general him as the president has said, this crisis has global interest that the man's a global response and i bet you'll really hopefully see some major steps forward on this. i thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much to our host
>> more than three people fled, three homeless people fled, not neighboring countries or to other parts of iraq, especially this area northeast of the country. and honestly sometimes, many times syria is the home to about one fifth of the world's total. the bashar al-assad regime drops bombs on people in hospitals and schools, killing rebels and civilians alike. migrants traveling without documents can be exceptionally vulnerable. and they can be abused, raped, kidnapped, abandoned or crammed into the same truck and wiki
votes. what is the united states about this problem? they are contributing around the world and the bureau of population refugees and migration has provided more than 3 billion in fiscal year 2015 alone. $3 billion. we do this by working with the u.n. and other international organizations in this field. we fund the u.n. refugee agency, the red cross, the international organization for migration and others and that includes the development fun, and the office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs. we also talk about others who have heard about through unicef and other agencies that work in this field.
they deliver food, shelter, medical care and clean water and sanitation. they protect the rights, reunify families, educate children and youth and health people gain the skills that they need to be self-sufficient. we have a refugee resettlement program which identifies some of the most horrible refugees and brings them here to the united states and offers him a fresh. most jobs, enroll their children in school, pay taxes, revitalize communities and after five years they may choose to take the test to become nationalized american citizens. picture they next year they will accept a least 10,000 refugees from syria. critics say that this number is too low. others opposed syrians may seek to enter the united states as
refugees. the u.s. is taken every possible cost and make sure that doesn't happen and they are screening applicants, conducting extensive security check and in person interviews. we are determined to do more to help the world's refugees which is why we will increase the number we had settled here in italy for all global refugees from 7000 over the last years to 85,000 in this figure 2016 and 100,000 in fiscal year 2017. u.s. diplomacy and humanitarian aid are vital. crisis after crisis we have been able to spearhead the international response and use her influence to help keep order as open. this has saved millions of lives. but today, the aid is stretched thin. all of the u.n. organizations
>> we must adapt the changing needs and for humanitarian aid. the majority of the refugees today instead of handouts they may be needed to candidate work permits have a one-size-fits-all approach with the elderly that they ship more hospital wards and hosting the refugees were doing the right thing. and with 2016 to offer an opportunity to call attention what does and does not work with more organizations to and best and practices.
to crack down on human suffering with the alternatives with regular migration. to provide a financial lifeline and to stay engaged with whatever action we can from exploding into violence. and those programs run by the state department to fight corruption to create economic opportunities overseas. would never read do, it matters. thank-you.
>> to the extent with the house on refugees coming into the united states with the bill that was passed that have to certify that they are not terrorists to bring refugees into the country. >> we're waiting to see i could go through the reasons why it was. with the political boat to close the program down.
but as the follow-up but half of the democrats and to sign a letter there would not support this. >> with the visa waiver program and if you visit iraq you wouldn't automatically go through though waiver program with that characterization. that seems like a fairly sensible measure. >> how has the remarks
see what germany has done because excepting close to 1 million refugees. with a country verses the u.s.? >> it is important to draw what is going on in europe with a huge number of people approaching the border and there they are. with the situation that we face in the united states is very much so. but to have that measure process to give us the opportunity to screen them and resettle them.
refugees into their states. legal that may not be tenable but have you talked about the difficulties connected with that? i've understand. that we take these threats were seriously it is our number one duty to protect them. is designed to make sure of the 18th or 24 month process. and i think that it works.
>> explain to the viewers in the audience that process involves what? >> it is so detailed. minnelli a percent of the world of the refugees are resettled. that solution is for people to go home. solyndra war ends they can go home. for those that our vulnerable. with victims of torture with a female headed households that are struggling to survive.
so those that we are aiming at so to give us 75 percent of the cases in with a very small percentage of the refugees. and somehow figure out how they get that small percentage that is referred to us in the first place by mostly women and children. to have extensive biographical checks and includes a lot of information looking for that connection and with the high
and that viciousness with that regime the reason they are fleeing is 2011 or 2012. the degree to which they have militarily supported some of these atrocities but i don't think in hindsight but they have intensified the last couple of years for sure. so they're all are all kinds of factors that have happened. >> you mention these humanitarian service segment
and those events and wonder how civilian protection moby discussed? and that the and a process? >> but at the center of u.s. government policy the opportunity we had is to think about which leaders at the highest level can have those affirmations' around that. and that is out the heart of what they try to address. and with those partnerships and what we have been witnessing.
>> you are representing the u.s. government. thank you for speaking on the record. [applause] >> a very distinguished group although she will have to step up early to catch a train for next appointment. but we will start now. >> this is a final session and we have some of very powerful than personal presentations about the scale and the depth of the humanitarian crisis and the
failure of the world to respond. now having asserted the problem you can move onto possible solutions. to have four wonderful and qualified commentators. to said that the family is waiting for her we don't want her to miss the train. but i would like to welcome the ambassador from the federal republic of germany who has an important role to play with the most responsible civic citizen in the world right now. i don't think that is an exaggeration.
with the refugees as an opportunity. and my son texting me and said why aren't refugees the answer? only those that are not steeped in the cynicism of politics hear you have greece and a country with all sorts of economic problems in the sense of not having the economy throughout europe looked at the rapidly aging population and that the people to
greece or italy or france. and then to build a new clinic. and then the spending with the refugees. to jump-start the economy. ended with the spending it needs to get the economy going. so as those desperate people in terms of the public narrative with the assistance for those ticket directed benefits than the economy as a whole to have a new generation of young people.
that these are desperate people. >> bell loudest voices are the fear mongers. but ambassador, i don't hear enough for me assad is starting with the prime minister. it has spread throughout the continent -- continents because they're bringing with them the threat of isis. how much longer can your country sustain this exemplary role?
so this is one of the most serious challenges with the second world war with the inception. with the first digital movement of people to take in 1 million this year and tell a couple of days ago just to show you the proportion and it revolves around the time span of a year-and-a-half. so we have that on a daily basis. but the challenge is huge.
have seen. >> what does the even stand for? >> but they do not seem to be living up to their original values. >> we will come up with solutions. but we have to pull back to understand but you're a pad is experienced three major crisis financial, the debt crisis and the russian involvement of the ukraine and a cumulative effect has strained relations to the
breaking point with chancellor merkle is now distrusted to do something that we recognize as heroic but when it has been viewed as politically reckless. then i will explain why i think it is the right thing to do. but we have the of politics on the ground. but they could pick that low hanging fruit. with coming to do the crisis that is by far the most dangerous. we are lazy are not lazy.
and everybody with the refugee crisis. with the anti-immigration camps it is rarely easy to try to root tap into that. where are those parties on the rise in sweden? and bin number one but the governing coalition. so the strategic priority to help europe or germany. i can assure you it isn't the russians it has to be our strategic parity.
it is in charge to scratch your head to think why did they elect them that after months but then it switched to greece. that was one bad analysis. that we will have to take people from greece then they came up with the relocation plan that was not politically prepared today there's a total of 130 people out of a commitment of 160,000. >> you have to build the
european response with that european integration you have to support her and in europe it is a global problem. this is a global responsibility and the capacity to do that. >> why does the united states not identified this as the problem that is and it's self-interest to support european germany in a rhetorical way. >> and because of the
humanitarian of the farm policy. with the pillar of the foreign policy with what is deeply exercised. >> is simply has fallen away. as empirical. i think as the three weeks ago but didn't do it again 300 at least so she dash. but it is important to understand that they're different in their political cultures. the american failure and it
is already a failure it is one of the things we talk about is of the united states government with any longer capable of a reaction. and it will start to snow in europe. >> there are many stages. but does that rest with the traditional of the nation states? >> according to the traditional nation state and they should exemplify a zero
or personify. but the boundaries should coincide but they never do. so they develop the problem of minority that europe is doing now. with any conception and now the refugee crisis. if that pressure is put on the theory of the perfect fit and for which european culture is ill-equipped because we know the attitude toward together and it.
so when we fail we are betraying ben nature. >> we're no longer in a position to be because that example is now one we can point to one dash. >> it is a peaceable coexistence and they come from somewhere else should be ended a jab globalization. and that we're no longer interested it is like a dead to nails in the coffin. the each played the part brilliantly.
>> i said i want to do talk about in interpretation but to recognize the reflection point mitt the entire refugee sentiment but she had to stand up work is essentially since the end of the second world war. and she felt she had to take a stand. and now she has to try to get that through europe. and to recognize that
inequality that led to the crisis ended drove people to come to europe as well. >> but her example does not seem to be spreading. and it seems to be gaining traction. so how long can that position be sustained? >> number one we wish there would be dead united states to take more syrian refugees but the most generous donors this is one of the important solutions in the adjacent
country of syria. to help that in turn all displaced persons this is about "the shock doctrine" million. and by far is the most generous donor to cater for the refugees. and of course, that goes to the root cause. and we need a the military contact. and we are grateful to secretary kerry for this initiative to establish a political process.
>> now we will go and let you jump bin. >> i will leave on a more optimistic note. but we will not do that for reasons that we should have but it is a strategic one they will get worse and worse. to stand up for our values. with a strategic calculation it isn't just good works we will now go in because of isis.
but that doesn't matter. the public sees this and because of that we will do whatever it takes. and i predict we will get a political summit. that doesn't solve everything but then allow this summer to take the pressure off. >> but i would say two things what is important is the discussion of the refugee crisis should not be incorporated and that is
of 4 billion italian immigrants who was part of the foundation of the history of this country. but nobody is prepared that there is no security reasons. but this requires leadership >> of those who have been admitted since 9/11 so there is no basis. for those that is not running for office. to voice these things. and the most effective with a counter narrative in the
but if that is your political motivation but we're going down the path to see isis as the main problem but getting into bed with russia right now i don't think you'll have a solution for syria. and it will damage europe. >> for the first time germany is engaged in a war with isis. with public support to
it is about the character of our society. nothing less is being tested either by the refugee crisis or the politicians on the right who are exploiting the refugee crisis. and unless there is some formidable answer to that exploitation at the level of political discussion and political culture a few it will be a debate between energetic populace and lethargic liberals, and that won't have a good outcome. >> aunt they always more energetic? >> they are not hard to rebuke. it is not a highly intelligent doctrine, and it is not that hard to deal
with, but you have to bring some passion to the ideas and debate. >> i want to ask. >> let's get some solutions. >> one of the most troubling aspects, working with my colleagues have focused on migration, even the more liberal ones tend to be fighters and speak out about the security issues where the obviously, you know, concerns. those people are the ones who should be leading the moral argument. and that is an issue that should trouble us. the response from government, civil society and private sector should go to supporting the grassroots that have been backing the message. he is loud, he gets the headlines.headlines. in greece, germany, sweden, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who were there supporting taking
care of housing, feeding, playing music for, teaching refugees. they need to be supported in a massive way. >> how do you propose? i don't think anybody disputes that. how do we do that? since there is such an absence of moral or any other leadership, who can leap to five. >> each one of the groups i was here at the beginning disparate christmas and hanukkah during the holidays and reaching out to refugees. the stories are ones that get passed down through generations. we have a chance right now. act asact as the 1st answer. i also want to say the issue of refugees, the demographic argument, 25% unemployment
for 50%, it has not worked in good times and certainly won't work now, but think about is the next form of nationbuilding. make the case that these of the people who will go back eventually to syria and other countries. we have to educate them. it will -- they will be able to go back and be the engineers and journalists in syria. >> many of them already do believe. >> believe. >> absolutely. >> were talking about a secular bourgeois city.
and we are not talking about people you need to be introduced to these things for the 1st time. >> but the kids can go back or stay here and build their lives here and send remittances back that will help the societies thrive. taking care of refugees, educating the kids in particular, unaccompanied minors will be the key to solving these problems. >> you are kind of advocating that we work around our leaders. >> and through them. >> they held the keys to the kingdom. >> a little bit helpless. in this country right now i speak to democratic friends and their horrified by trump the next thing they say is isn't just give for clinton. well, it is having -- is a curse upon the united states. it is terrible for the country and is not enough to sit there and say great, the democrats get the white house and the senate. let the cancer spread because this is not the sort of thing you can call back. it is not as simple as that. >> as you know from your own history,history, mr. ambassador, once such a viruses released it is very hard to put it back in the
bottle. you mentioned intriguingly the role of the internet in this whole saga and particularly in jihad. why has the other side, our side let's say less adept at putting our message through the same means to the malcontent, most of them homegrown malcontent whether in france, belgium, san bernardino. i fear where the next one, next will take place but inevitably will. >> i referred to the smart phones as part of this migration, recruiting, recruiting tool. i'm what i want to say is now even in the remotest village in afghanistan people can learn how to make their way to germany. we are getting a lot of afghans, by the way, a lot of iraqis
there are people that have lost hope. that they will ever deliver there services are guaranteed a peace. those people, maybe 20 years ago, have instruction make it a more prosperous part of the world. the digital dimension of the migration. of course it also carries opportunities, the age of the internet, as we know, they might connect people in a beneficial way. so a commonality of certain values. can i come back to solutions here? i think, you know, we all
have action on a national level, a lot of homework of the european level, andlevel command we also have to do something on the regional and international level, basically focus our energy to stabilize those countries the iraq, syria, afghanistan, where most of the people come from. that is, of course, done with a big bang. there is no blueprint, no magic wand. along. along leading term effort. but it has to be a focus. >> nationbuilding. >> what you were talking about quite correctly is nationbuilding. but nationbuilding as a consequence of the war in iraq has been delegitimize it as an objective of american foreign-policy. if what you are saying is a
must be re- legitimated and what cannot solve this problem without addressing and social a local roots then in fact what everyone thinks about the war in iraq, it is important to understand nationbuilding may have to be restored. >> but that would take an act of courage. >> a new election at the least. >> so, one of the negative effects, europe and the inaction over the course of the 1st part of the crisis is it left -- let the left -- let the rest of the world off the hook. why should anyone do anything and support? and that is what you were
hearing a lot of. we have to break that cycle. we have canada which is taken 20,000 refugees, a small country has signaled it is willing to take another hundred thousand. they are talking about the equivalent of two2 million. canada can do it. brazil has taken and quite a few. the immediate goal must be to take the pressure off of europe. first, as you said, the support in turkey, lebanon, and lebanon, and jordan. one example of how misguided the european response was. if a year ago europe had given five,five, seven, 8 billion it would have been nothing like what we saw today. those cooling, nono schooling, no access to labor markets. this year alone your planned on spending 40 billion euros. could have spent the money a year ago and instead he spent 40 billion this year alone. >> the save zone.
>> the political damage, forget the financial damage. you can't even quantify that. we have to understand why the mistakes are being made over and over. one of the things is the question of a global system of responsibility sharing. there has to be more than what exists today which is basically a hundred thousand people, the capacity to resettle people when we are talking about a million who have reached germany. wewe have to build that infrastructure, other means. >> we are talking about 11 million refugees. >> 20 million. >> i believe 11 is the figure for the region and you are saying the capacity is at 100,000. >> to take them from they're safely to other countries. you don't have to take 11
million. most people want to stay close to home but in order to do that they have to go to school, have water, housing. lebanon and jordan did not have the resources. >> this goes back to the question of preparedness. like most of foreign-policy everything is crisis management, everything is crisis management. strategy is almost vanished. what we discover was not only were we intellectually unprepared but operationally and prepared. in order to be operationally prepared in may be we have to have a defense budget of a certain kind of various assets, assets, stuff in place in case the weather gets bad. and certainly anyone who has looked at syria in the last four years did not have to be a rocket science to predict the weather was going to get bad but we were not prepared. >> before we all sink in the total despair. >> totally appropriate. >> go ahead and sink in the total despair. i think that ii should open
up for some questions, although -- good. >> what did this safe zones look like if the safe sons were to be graded? how would they work and be enforced and what is the argument against them? >> as far as i can tell there are questions of taking out, people like to say missile-defense systems. it is much harder, but it is impossible for me to believe, impossible for me to believe that we lack the military capabilities to create zones.
we can argue about the size, argue about the location. they have views about where they want them and not want them, but as a matter of principle and as a matter of feasibility if you look at the map or not even talking about large swaths of territory. we're just talking about some safe places. a lot of the people who would have lived there got on the votes. and one of the things we needed to do was to give them reasons not to stay on the boat and even reasons to believe that the solution to their problem may be repatriation. unfortunately given the foreign-policy that the west adopted toward the syrian, it was almost inconceivable to think of repatriation as a solution to this particular crisis. but there was a time, there was a time wherea time where if you protected people and give them a haven that we could have gone a differenta different way which they would have much preferred obviously. >> there you go. >> arguments in favor. >> do we have a microphone
for these two gentlemen? >> jakubowski, unaffiliated private citizen. maybe peter could answer for annemarie, but i was intrigued when she said the political solution that she saw that was going to happen. i'm wondering if the call is for usa sod to go doesn't that mean they would have to submit to sunni domination and isn't that essentially an existential crisis? >> would anybody here like to take that? >> it is conceivable that they themselves would
desert. they believe he did not stand a chance of survival and it is conceivable under certain conditions that coalitions two or three years ago might have been formed. we let this fester so long that it looks increasingly impossible. the russian move which is the most breathtaking thing that has happened in a long time now makes things even more complicated. the fact is that the regime has now and has always enjoyed the support of russia, hezbollah, and iran. they have enjoyed the support of saudi arabia and qatar and insofar as there were or are moderate elements they have enjoyed the support of nobody, nobody. and so we are where we are. which is why i think that a political solution in syria will not be possible unless the battlefield the name exchanges. forgive me, but obama keeps saying there is not a military solution. he is right. the only way to a diplomatic solution is through a change on the battlefield.
in order to enact that you have to provide weapons to people who will do so. the same thing in ukraine. we have argued for giving lethal aid to the ukrainian army it is not because we think they will march in the moscow or that they can defeat the russian army that the military cost of britain's invasions may be raised to a point where a political solution may become possible. that these are the kind of considerations that have not loomed large or at all which is why i think a political solution is necessary. if the security of my own family were at stake, if i were one of those poor people i would not wait for aa political solution to look after my family. there feeling seems to me exactly the right one, exactly the right one. >> i know thisi know this is heresy, but we keep saying there has to be both a military and simultaneously a diplomatic political gain on the ground, but by repeating endlessly that a sod must go we are really
foreclosing a transition. no oneno one is advocating that a sod be the long-term solution. >> russia. >> okay. russia. but no right thinking person. >> no one you would break bread with. >> right. okay. >> i would like to add, when we say we need a political solution, that is a concept that cannot be imposed. we have no blueprint here. no one can read from one day to the other end use of political solution. the effort underway is to start a political process which will be cumbersome and difficult and fraught with setbacks, but the intention is to bring all of the syrian players together with the exception of terrorist groups and back that effort
by the external powers that have an influence. with the process the secretary kerry so courageously initiated has brought about is that there are all of the countries at the same table including russia and including iran, including saudi arabia, including some regional adjacent companies and europeans to devise how they can back and foster the syrian political process. >> but we have got to tell the full -- we have got to have the full picture. iran is not just sitting at the table. they are arming a sod. the battle is going to be fought on behalf of a sod by iraqi shia, lebanese soldiers from hezbollah, and
iranian soldiers under the command of an iranian general covered by russian air power. so we have to be clear. it isclear. it is not just that there is a table in vienna. of these very actors who are sitting there are busy doing the opposite of diplomatic work on the ground. >> if you want to have a litmus test for whether it will work ask yourself whether the refugees -- think about a political solution, whether the refugees will go back to syria. the starting point is that we don't want to let the fighting go on, ten years like a lebanese civil war that lasted 15 years. all syria will be depleted and no one will be there and there will just be victims, so we don't want that. we tried a very complicated thing, the political process. again, here they have a
role.a role. they are part and parcel of syria and they are minority, but they have a place there. so the us odd question is, of course, an an important one. everyone knows there will be no sustainable, peaceful future of syria in the long run with a sod, but it would be wrong to say a sod has to go before we start a political process. >> we have been saying that for four years that a sod has to go before any negotiation, thereby guaranteeing that he will fight to the last syrian to keep himself in office. >> if we -- we don't have to go into this more. if we had three or four years ago denied in control of the skies and destroyed his helicopters, a sod must go
would not have turned into the fantastical proposition. proposition. we are not talking in the case of a sod or isys about military superpowers. this is not what we are talking about. these are objectives that can be accomplished but we must be willing to use the means to accomplish certain ends. we should talk about the refugees. >> leave you with a little bit of hope. >> chris davis retired foreign service officer returning to the context of europe, there is a quid pro quo with turkey in terms of its eventual membership to the european union or closer association with the european union. the implications of that with respect to the issues that the eu are having to face right now. >> do you want to take that on? >> the charts have been seen
and continue to be seen as the key to solving the crisis part of the problem. several thousand people every day. i said earlier,i said earlier, they focused on the wrong problem initially. initially it was libya and it turned out the situation in turkey was more dire. it has been negotiating fiercely in terms of what it wants, solution to the problem was favorable. turkish citizens can travel to the opening up it is not clear what turkey can deliver. and i think that in order for that to be realized, the goal of slowing down there has to be a commitment from europe to take hundreds of thousands of refugees from the region and the europe
and there has to be a commitment for the rest of the world to take several hundred thousand more from the region and then i think that is the key issue. turkey will want to see the funding that it wants, the status that he craves there is now a commitment to biannual. >> both of you, you were correct in pointing out that in each of the recent european crises they use was exposed as being weak command after these crises and when i look now the refugee crisis, what is no longer clear to me, my question to you, why is the eu necessary for the solution of these crises, and why my given all of the threats that the various
europeans are facing and all that must be done for why must, why must the preservation of the eu known large in terms of priority? the things we keep seeing is that in crisis that nationstates tends to bay like themselves. i am not going to get into questions of national character that there pursuing their own interest with their own constituencies with strikes me as one form of normal. so i asked, why should i not give up on the eu? why is it necessary for a solution? >> i have an answer. the eu is one of the most important piece projects in the history of europe. >> over the last centuries we have managed to forge a union out 28 sovereign nations that devolve some of their sovereignty to the union, but it brought piece
to europe we have a transfer union, the eastern european countries are far better off than they used to be. it's not part of the european union, but the danger and the challenges, there is now a tendency for re- nationalization which can be toxic. and there we have to have a coalition of strong leaders in europe and the european union that can contain the tendency to re- nationalize, someone who will be willing also to sacrifice a lot of things and we can preserve this great piece project. >> now, of course, one of the proudest achievements,
border free europe is in jeopardy as one after the other countries are building walls around themselves. so it is -- it really is a perilous moment, and i would like to thank ambassador wittig and you, gregory and people i would like to think knew america for hosting this conference on what is obviously an urgent and troubling moment for all of us and urge all of you to stay engaged. thank you very much. [appla
thank you all so much for joining us for the celebrating women's leaders luncheon. we are pleased to have you here with us today. this is the last event and it is a befitting wendy. this is the 3rd year we have done this hallmark journalist event which exemplifies what the women foreign-policy group stands for.
outstanding journalists and other speakers speaking about the issues of the day from the syrian isys to russia to terrorism it is now my great pleasure to welcome back and introduce today's moderator w fpg board member elizabeth p miller who is the new york times washington bureau chief they previously covered the pentagon and the white house. >> i am delighted to be back. thank you. briefly she including
that can pretty much do anything. it can get very frustrating because you think you have this very strong military. the very ancient threat is quite limited in part because of the political realities in the war wariness of the american population that is still much more wary about going back to work after more than a decade. a president who is much more cautious that a lot of the politicians in washington. so you see it is very methodical with the strategy unfolding and it is weird to see writing this from the pentagon.
not able to go out and do what they actually could do because the reality is you don't want to. there are very few people want american ground combat troops on the ground in syria are not even iraq. a lot of the chatter you here right now is much more about special operators and that sort of thing, it becomes a semantic issue. it is very challenging to figure out how to cover. that is one of the things that we all struggle to find new ways of telling stories. partly because i'm from liberia have a deep interest in the west african story. after the ball epidemic,
sierra leone, i wanted to follow up on that this year. i just came back from liberia a couple weeks ago to look at stories. now the country is gone back down to zero cases and how people pickup. probably one of the most emotional draining stories. in part because the couch occur so much, but it also has been really rewarding to see, so many times the liberian populationlibrary and population has been knocked down by civil war, by coos, by this horrible disease and is a time and time again people getting out and showing this resilience.
that's very good to see. happy to talk about anything else. >> thanks. i covered national security mainly through the prism of diplomacy but also from the military and also at the white house. the course for the other two. one of the things i was asked to talk at the climate conference i was just at the to me it sounds out veryvery interesting to follow up on what you are just setting the stage on comeau we, the american is so our strategic foreign-policy choices and that is really where you can draw the divide. most likely not be reached today, below the deadline,
tomorrow,, tomorrow, exactly what is in it where not quite sure. broadly speaking despite the fact when you watch around paris andin the present another heads of state defiantly showed up in the brief capital, despite the recent attacks we will still go through meeting. the city that was literally been shaken to its core. they were meant to underscore points. i don't know if that is what we reverberated in the press. it was more sort of a while. the risks associated with paris.
to borrow some overstated rhetoric but not that overstated when you look at the geographical impact, but broadly speaking what i think is interesting about it, it will not be legally binding, it is a group of promises by states around the world, the benchmarks for themselves, one of the things from a domestic view that is interesting is the sensitivity and need to work with the private sector. the reliance of the administration that has not had the best relationship with wall street in many ways reliant on those private sector entities stepping up to help greece the reels and get some of the more reluctant countries on board to help take financial risks and basically subsidize some very expensive transitions to green technology down the road for countries that could not afford to go there. too big polluters, china and
the us. we helped create the problem you have all the environmentalists saying he did notit did not go far enough, it is not enough, does not do enough. so it is an interesting decision and track for the administration to say as the obama administration says it is a legacy issue and there is rarely think the us needs to be focused long-term. the president often has a long game. before that ten days i spent in asia with the president looking at the long game, that is not where there head is. that is what we are seeing only like a domestic political polls. certainly when you talk to us allies they are saying we need to talk about the immediate.
he also here our european allies saying we need an immediate response because they feel threatened. this interesting position of the existential threat. coming from the state department were i have been covering american diplomacy, itdiplomacy, it has been incredibly rich because we have had the diplomatic records attempting to do something in the ukraine that has not quite gotten they're yet, but this thing that has been the slow-moving oncoming watching it had down the track threat has been syria. and whether it was giving birth to what the administration likes to call one of the most deepest best funded terrorist groups out there with isys or whether it is the ethnic cleansing happening in parts of iraq
and syria, whether it is the car is that you see that has been ongoing in the four and a half years, now you have the administration saying we have to start a diplomatic process. it is a long, long shot. tuesday the moscow. they will be the ones they continue to watch. at least try to start the diplomatic track. many of the world power to figure out how to stop what continues to feed the terror threat.
the diplomatic attempts because they have not yielded any for. it is the only game in town at this point. it is going to be incredibly important to watch. suspect is where everyone will be focused. >> well, foreign-policy issues. and i'll start with something should paris and to its core. when they deliberately chose targets to represent watch french culture is all about and what people think about,
i'm sure everybody who has been on a vacation set out on an outdoor café they had people who were dining outside, attacked a concert all, and for me personally it was usually impressive to see the response of the city as they came together in a very defiantly what had happened and especially refused to be cowed by it. i got there a couple days after the attacks and maybe there is a little bit of a decrease in the way that people were enjoying the outdoor sites that they normally would have, you saw the city going about its normal life which was
impressive. the worst are attacking the west, one of the worst since september 11. this11th. this is who we are and we are not going to change. i do think that the attacks were so significant because they illustrated the sort of operational ability of the islamic state to strike in the heart of the west. asas you all no a number of the attackers trained in syria, the plot had its roots in syria which is what makes it different. the attacks in paris were a potential turning.for your dealing with the islamic state and i sayi say potential because it remains to be seen how significant the actual concrete response will be in terms of military and diplomatic activity.
anglo merkel the potential activity in syria. now we see britain doing airstrikes, friends doing more than it was, but it's a pretty limited response. germany has not agreed to the airstrikes in syria. many of the countries in europe see the threat as long as they don't think there one of the primary targets i don't think there likely to jump in and a controversiala controversial campaign, especially when no one really thinks that these marginal increases in military activity will make a big difference on the ground without a political deal. so the things that in my mind would show an actual turning point would be
european countries committing to send ground troops in this area a special operations forces. some of the gulf countries, some of the rebel groups that are fighting on the ground that we just haven't seen it. so that, i just got back yesterday from san bernardino. another human tragedy but a very different story. we don't really have a complete picture of who these attackers were or why they chose this target. it is a little bit confusing because it looked like a workplace attacked the shooter working with many county health inspectors, he and his wife going down but they appear
to have been motivated in large part by radicalization in their support for violent islamist groups or at least ideology. so this is the not what federal investigators are trying to unravel, how they were radicalized, do they have any connections with militant groups overseas and it appears they did not. they may have been drawn to each other by this shared radical ideology and it is interesting to think that they met online and were married and he brought her to the united states and now the fbi believes that they both were on that path when they met each other. so it is interesting to think about how people from different parts of the world share something that in the end manifests itself in this way.
but the key point about san bernardino is that it underscores the difficulty of protecting and preventing attacks by people in the united states who do not have any significant ties to militant groups overseas. so in contrast to paris for you had several of the attackers were gone to syria and were communicating, so far there is no evidence that they were online chatting or doing anythingare doing anything that potentially would have raised a flag for the intelligence community, and that is what goes to show the difficulty a us law enforcement intelligence officials face and it raises the question of what we as a country need to be prepared for and what our response should be, the personality of what we think the government should be doing when you have this horrific attack. but it is not so much different than the
other mass shootings it happened in the united states with unfortunate regularity at this stage. and finally, pat asked me to speak about libya. i went a couple months couple months ago to report on the islamic state. and i will talk about that. as you all no libya for a year and a half now has had to governments and it is sort of a surreal situation. to foreign ministries, two professional banks, a number of different militia groups, but neither of the governments have actual control of the territory of libya which has given rise to the hole towhole to do of islamic groups to take over different parts of the country which is seen in the most significant way which is where the islamic state is set up its operation seen
by us intelligence officials as the strongest affiliate. theythey have done there what they do elsewhere, beheading people they do the same kind of role. rocca, and it is not something the local government has been able to deal with or is even trying to deal with. so there is peace process under way for so far has not succeeded, and i just think overall it is sad and disappointing to see what happened in libya. they are about to go bankrupt which is not saying a lot considering the country has major oil reserves. sad to see what happened in libya.
there were such high hopes for what libya could be my country was so much going for it. on the doorsteps of europe, major oileurope, major oil producer, small population, relatively highly educated population, homogeneous not with the same kind of religious differences, other countries in the middle east and north africa and there are various theories about why this is from a european countries and the us did not pay enough attention. various defenses for that. the libyans themselves missed numerous opportunities, and it seems like the window for dealing with this is closing pretty quickly. and you know the one thing i our close with him libya is that while it is not on the same level for european and american policymakers as iraq and syria are right now
, that could change very quickly if there is an attack that takes place in the last that points to libya command i do not think that that is unlikely given the proximity, the sort of safe haven that the lawlessness has provided for the islamic states. >> thank you. fantastic questions. first, americans right to be as fearful as they are, mindful that since september 11e been killed by terrorist attacks and hundreds of thousands of them killed with murder and so forth. >> i think that they are right to be concerned about the threat that some of
these groups pose given there stated ambition to attack the west and bring what they brought to washington which was one of the statements that was made. at the same time there may be -- elected officials need to do a better job putting that in the context various reasons, environmental and health problems to traffic accidents command i think that we tend to focus on those kind of that's because we see the american consciousness has been one of invulnerability for so long, something that really strikes a nerve but is potentially overstated. i think the way that the
sort of model that people have in their mind for what a terrorist attack means, september 11, you have a very visceral reaction and certainly those who lived in the pentagon. it rings pentagon. it rings a bell and causes them to be fearful. perhaps you are not trying to step two level. certainly the arabian peninsula so focused on that , but what we just saw,
this amorphous version is coming out. you should be worried about that. how you possibly screen what is in someone's head. if you are looking at the model, i was looking recently at the story of how she got this reason that is visa that is relatively easy to get, about 35,000 were given out in the same year she came command a lot of the questioning during this face-to-face interview the walking into the us embassy in islamabad. you know how heavily guarded that places.places. she did not walk in the just anyplace. she sat there and got briefed and became well aware of the threat in the region and answered questions that were focused on substantiating her
relationship with this man she was to marry. cohort in this masculine rather than focusing on what she was thinking and feeling. you don't ask about someone's religion comeau what their fundamental views are. you are specifically filling out a form. i mean, i don't know who checks yes. he would never think your going to get into the us. that was it we should be worried. facial recognition, a lot done. how do you ever really get to know what is happening? ..
anything barite it will be hard for anybody to pull off. with the multi place airline that we saw 14 years ago. now i think it is far more likely looking at the islamic state you can see something happening here but that is far maya -- less likely than the homegrown domestic terrorism. just like the active shooters.
>> do you think the administration, you will not answer this one. [laughter] you are a journalist. one year from now as obama leaves office. where will we be? will there be more american troops on the ground? >> there is the continuation of this incremental campaign more combat advisers but it sure looks like that.
>> after jenner 15 years to a large extent that i would take them at their word. you have the iranian regime and they don't have that part of the portfolio. when it comes to balance of power on the ground. with the forces that they stack up of lots of losses and if you believe the russians once in a way to
give them confidence. but with the bigger picture from the u.s. point of view is if he can convince the regime that there is a value of iran to be involved in the negotiations. i don't know. p shows up in new york city on the 18th or maybe he will not even show up. and i will also say, whether or not he resigns for whatever happens to those americans being held in iran that will be a big impact on
what the administration achieves with this our reach. nuclear weapons aside but what happens next both americans will be a part of this. from that point of view. >> what is some of the reason why there might not more willing to fight isis? in this seems the international community is taking the role law to eliminate. >> and they have to walk a fine line.
and then that is the big bosses of caution. if there is anybody who is a specialist it is her. >> but it will not intervene militarily but it hasn't had in effect from the of full ability. but you could have exceptions taking place. but to and they have. >> and with that anti-acis coalition you have our heads taken often nothing they have done the same thing with iran.
when you got there? with the informal bureau. win their raid took place thereof the scene interviewing people all the things that we would do levin additional focus to the extent how the attack came together but then those same identities emerge. so to talk to french officials. where did you go? >> but with french law
enforcement i did some reporting reconstructing how the attack came together with the hotels where they rented their rooms and we had others across the city but then the neighborhood imbeciles and for those that knew the attackers those organizations to bring people back from radicalization. >> were you on the e-mail
with a training on what to do any sound that you hear hit the deck. but at the end of the day you just use your own common sense. but i had big fights with my family but you will find this is the case with more coverage as well. once you get there you are in the middle you trust yourself you know, you will not do anything.
i think it is completely fair. also has a west african some are valued more than others. it is something i carry with me day in and day out and that we have more in common with paris so we will focus on them more. so you can land anywhere but i certainly felt particular the given it happened so close to beirut. and then it went away immediately.
patients's lives which use readers a firsthand account of her experience in patient care and sticky. she is interviewed by the executive director of the american nurses association. >> health care is only going to get more and more complex and we're going to need better and better nurses to meet all those complex and needs so thinking about how to keep us strong and healthy and encouraging that is huge. we give lip service to that but don't emphasize it. >> sunday afternoon at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> politics which i have been part of all my life was not so different from the worlds of petty criminals, robbers and reckitt years but it was disguised and less obvious to see. for 25 years in my career i have looked at america as an idea and
defended american principles, the american dream, the american founding and i have looked at american politics as a d. the. the republicans believe in liberty. the democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of rights, democrats want equality of outcome is. it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american politics is complete and total nonsense. >> reporter: america and american politics in his newest book stealing america:what experience with criminal gangs taught me about obama, hillary and the democratic party. sunday night at 7:30 eastern, former democratic presidential candidate and author talks about his experience running for president. and campaign finance. the central theme of his book republic lost:the corruption of
equality. >> we as citizens are equal participants but we have a system where members of congress than 30 to 70% of their time raising money from a tiny fraction of the 1%. the can't help but be more focused and concerned with the interests of that tiny fraction of the 1% so that is a system where this basic equality is denied. >> watch booktv all weekend every weekend on c-span2. >> all persons having business for the supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> monday iron c-span landmark cases. >> you are under arrest, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent and anything you say it can be used against you in a court of law. you're sure you understand? >> 23 years old in 1963, he was arrested in phoenix on suspicion
of kidnapping and raping a young woman. after two hours of police questioning he confessed finance signed a statement saying his confession had been given voluntarily. at riley was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison but his lawyer argues he was not told of the right to an attorney or the right to remain silent. the case went all the way to the supreme court. follow the case of miranda versus arizona and the evolution of police practices with jeff rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center and the university of utah law school professor specializing in victims' rights and former district court judge, live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. c-span3 and seized a radio. for background on each case order your copy of the land parties is a companion book, available free dollars and 90% plus shipping and c-span.org/landmarkcases.
>> tuesday the supreme court heard oral arguments in evenwel v. abbott, a redistricting case out of texas. the justices will decide whether legislative districts should be drawn up using total population work voter eligible population. and appellates in the case argues the way district are drawn in texas violates the one person one vote principle under the equal protection clause. this is about an hour. >> argument next this morning in case 4940, evenwel v. abbott. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court this appeal presents a fundamental question, that question is whether one person one vote will of ford's eligible voters any reasonable protection. we submit the answer must be yes _'s decision and as a
consequence appellates have stated a claim under the equal protection laws. the district, district 1 industry 4 have deviations' measured by eligible voters approaching 50%. under the metric of eligible voters no decision of this court has ever sustained that magnitude under one person one vote case. beginning with gray and continuing westberry through reynolds and the court's many decisions the issue has always been -- >> what about the many times the court has said that the principle is equal representation of the population and we have said for half a century population is the legitimate standard. we never held to the contrary. so the state's overwhelmingly
for half a century using population as shown in the census, now you are saying they can't do that anymore. >> i will answer in three ways. with respect to the freeze equal representation for equal numbers of people, that sentence of originated in westbury that that is only half of the sentence. it continues therefore for us to hold within the states' legislatures may draw the line of congressional districts in such a a wishy to give some voters' greater voice in choosing congressman than others would be unconstitutional and every time the court uses that phrase which is the only one my friends rely on it is within the same sentence or bracketed on one side or the other by protection of the voters. as to tradition or the word population, asking the question, not answering that, barring 6 lanes the population without distinguishing is reserved on the question, burns reserved on it and here we are today.
>> i thought burns had said it approved the deviation from population but to great pains to say -- in every case, burns seems to be the norm nikkei's you have end a situation of hawaii with a tremendous military. temporary population. >> i reserved is completely to not choose one word or the other. it did say you don't have to use the census to draw districts, that supports our position and to protect eligible voters supports our position and further back to the question about tradition if tradition was a rule baker would have come out the other way. before baker's centuries geography was the basis and the court said in baker as a matter of jurisdiction and equal
protection law that tradition doesn't trump and the individual rights of a voter to be protected and we don't have to guess about that because we know from standing. and all those cases standing was predicated on the right of the voter. it would be unusual if someone who could vote came to this court and said my one person one vote right have been violated. >> the problem, what you are forgetting is the tool interest. there is a voting interest but also representation interest. it is at which has led us to accept total population base because there has to be some discretion to figure out who should be having the representational voice. burns made it clear we were deferring to the state because it had a legitimate reason for
its need. burns was in the 1960s when we picked total population as a perfectly legitimate way because there was a representational issue as well, not just voting, the state has to be able to say as the federal government did the legislature is protecting not just voters, it is protecting its citizens or non-citizens, people who live there. >> if i could clarify, it is not really a representational interest on the other side. a nonvoter, 31 senators from texas, a nonvoter will have one representative under our rules and one representative under there is. and access claim is being made. not really an access but diminishing access claim. and overpopulated with nonvoters with access to our
representative. we don't deny access with county lines. another interest the state could take into consideration. and a deviation on 15% or 10.1% but a deviation of nearly 15%, no interest such as diminishing access, overcoming the individual rights of the voter to an equal vote. >> when we apportion, total population as the metric. the question that has been raised by your position is why is it is the case that the constitution requires something, that prohibits with respect to another. >> of apportionment and districting, apportionment at the time of article i training is on taxation issues with
respect of voter qualifications and a real concern of the great compromise and as a matter of equal protection that the compromise is not justified this kind of injury and we don't have to guess about this either ending reynolds alabama kings of the court, how about a plan that mirrors the house precisely. every county gets one representative on a population basis, for the house of representatives. >> the reason they caved was constitutionally that arizona constitution--the fact that they deviated from the constitution that led them to court so it was not compelled by federal law, mostly a caving compelled by state law. >> it could not be the state law
ground. >> what i am saying is we exceeded on the ground using total population was permissible. >> reynolds fought in that case total population, was permissible. and there was no suggestion that that was an additional problem with the tennessee constitution. the fundamental issue has been individual right, and the best case to show that, an election for statewide officers. there will be one governor, that governor has the same access or not, no districts. the case that establishes this rule, the case that says voters are entitled, on the other side, doesn't make any sense. we also know with respect to congressional districting as late as 1969, in that case, that
district that the congressional level on the basis of eligible voters so i don't think it would be fair to say this issue has somehow been clouded on the use of population or using the census in prior cases. >> the house of apportionment is not clear? >> the congressional districting at the federal level as opposed to the state level. it makes it not for patrick versus chrysler. and they rely solely on the westbury proposition. in 1969 the court flatly rejected westbury as that side of the issue. nothing resolve this question, is completely open and the only way to make sense of the 1-person 1-vote rule is to make about eligible voters. they are the ones who have the standing and bring acclaim, the ones who are injured and not only is that our view but that
was congress's view. >> the fourteenth amendment, 1868, in 1920, it was wrong for the state -- there is an issue in the 60s with minorities as well the reducing franchise. the court in reynolds at the time was doing more than one thing at once. >> in your interpretation of the fourteenth amendment from 1868 to 1920, the states would not have been counting women for purposes of determining representation. >> the equal protection clause the 1-person 1-vote rule protect voters, disenfranchisement of women or minorities is an issue.
those cases could have been brought, that issue was resolved by in this country as with minority representation but reynolds was accomplishing several things stand equal weight for voters has to matter. and the 1-person 1-vote claim. >> back to the question, and equal protection problem. it does deal with equal protection. the instances in which voters and everything else, i don't think the court considers this. but if you step back from the equal protection clause, and equal parts of the constitution, our irrelevant here. it is a republican form of
government. and words about what kind of democracy people wanted, the other parts of the constitution such as those, republican form of government, the kind of democracy where people whether they choose to vote or don't choose to vote, a proportionate representation in congress, if you take that as a constitutional principle that shows an objective of some of the clauses of the constitution then you have to retreat from the idea of the equal protection clause as interpreted -- it argues against it. >> it is on the other side of the guaranteed clause claim
shows how far logic has to go on the other side of the letter. in baker the court rejected the guarantee clause as the basis for hearing these cases. to turn 180 degrees, and -- >> she did in quote the guarantee clause, shouldn't have thrown that in. >> it would have sustained the model of one alabama brought to the court. to follow the house of representatives which takes account of these issues and even if you are correct that doesn't solve the case. we have alleged in our complaint that texas could have done much more to manage both representational equality as it is called and the the quality to get those within 20%. to say that --
>> and happen -- didn't come in with the asset. >> we are still at the motion to dismiss the case so the allegation which is no. 22 has to be taken as true. it is fundamental here as well. we don't want the court to write this map for texas, we want the texas legislature to do its job. by state law texas was precluded from taking it -- >> practical possibility played into this discussion at all? the ec s posited the way eligible voters are, has been decisively improving as being inadequate. it only measures populations or places with populations over 65,000 just on that ground alone there will be districts that
can't rely on it. it is flawed on ma on many leve. -- flawed so does that have any part of our decision? >> if the court were to hold to a different questions it is our burden to bring in evidence that total population did not protect individual rights but we have alleged that. if we cannot prove that the we have failed but it would be a different question if they said yes it is sufficient to show your rights had been violated but not to drop a new map then the court is an unusual place so that is the argument that you had a
violation but no way to solve that is now we're back to the political question so free go back to the premise if you're looking at the one year data but the states use the five year data that means the population is going only group it doesn't have reason to mitchell block group data but that data is really used for districting we are talking about here. moreover we know the data is good because it is used in section 2 every day and not just vague general purposes but under bartlett and strickland, to bring successful section to the claim, you have to show you have a majority of citizens voting age population in your district. the factor for section 2. that means if there is 50.1% minority eligible voters in your district to proceed, 49.9%, this data is used to determine that
question. if you do that in every circuit court in the country, they support using this data. and 47% from 10 to 20, the supplemental appendix, data is there. there is a column that lists all the numbers for every texas senate district. i would point out they asked these numbers to draw this map. if you pull those numbers and look at district 1, 557,000 people. right next to that is plus or minus numbers, 6,784. that is the margin of error, the margin of error for this data. if you to call those margins of error and use them against our positioning at every turn, for underpopulated district over
populated districts down, and the deviation from 47% to 45%. this is not about margin of error of data or the eligibility of data but this data is used for every demographers to join statewide district every turn. >> back to the question, and the fourteenth amendment -- the phrase of the fourteenth amendment explicitly considered this issue. and senator howard introduces the amendment, to draft it. and just and satisfactory basis. what was originally -- on the
original draft. numbers, not property, this is the theory of the constitution. this is the theory of the constitution as to $0.01, and the theory of the constitution as to house of apportionment. back to this question, this is a clear, explicit choice that was made about what it meant to have people representation with respect to that area and how you go from that being mandated to being prohibited in the state context is something i can't work myself around. >> this position was rejected. that was brought forward by alabama presenting a plan that was not only generally modeled
on apportionment, but mirrored it exactly. that is not correct as a legal matter because apportionment is concerned with many of the things they wanted states have taxation bases, an issue with suffrage with voter qualifications. and sovereignty compromise does not apply within a state. >> it does not apply. i can understand, might not agree but understand the position, the requirement might not apply. go beyond that and say not just the requirement not apply, but states have to do it. >> we take our cue on fat from the right that is supposed to be protected. it stars with voting, we start with the proposition that one person can't be given two votes
and a neighbor be given one vote. and under the electorial college model. the third step, you can't accomplish the same voter discrimination by drawing lines. if you accept all that as true, my neighbors given one and i get 5 votes. it is follow the apportionment model, defend on that basis it causes that injury i have a claim. a different constitutional provision, a different right in a different way, and a satisfactory response beyond which reynolds itself rejects the argument. turning back to section 2 for a moment congress agreed with our position. congress relied on reynolds, to and act section 5, not only in the report, widely used in those cases that in the court's
opinions and in later cases the court has held the plurality and justice marshall's dissent said reynolds's about that, section 2, about section 2, section 2 accounts eligible voters, no one argues discriminating as nonvoters taking into consideration, if the court were to proceed with that representation model we would have one rule that the benefit of section 2. no protection for people who are not minority status under one person one vote. there's a fundamental disconnect there. >> in your view states would have a choice between citizen voting age population or registered voters. it is not the method by which you distribute legislators that counts the distribution of
legislators that count. the state can truly use all of the metric that fairly distributes legislators. we think registered voters is not ordinarily going to be the right one. gray says those who hold the one person one vote right meet the basic qualifications of voting so they are registered voters and in burns essentially doubling down on that argument that it depends on political activity. we are trying lines at the beginning of the game we should not make a light depends on entering the fray and choose to vote so we think the data we printed the rely on, the measure of citizen voting age population is ordinarily going to be the fairest and most accurate measure but that is for the legislature to decide when it reviews this information and the texas legislature is important to keep in mind when they drew this matter they did everything we are asking to be done here, took all this data, total census
data, registered voter data, precinct data and put it through a computer and they drew their district and used our data to draw districts in this manner. they used it to comply with section 2 and close their eyes and didn't want to look to see what deviation was cause for one person one vote. all we ask the legislature to do -- >> do you did that? did they do it personally? >> one deviation over 10% just recently -- >> intentionally decided to have deviations greater than 10%. >> we don't know because they were handcrafted by state law. there was attorney-general interpretation that precluded texas from considering the eligibility and it is arbitrary. >> back to my point and that they decided to make this representational matter.
they were -- state and intentionally decide to exclude. >> under one person one vote, deviation exceeding 10% we establish as we argue as a matter of eligible voters -- >> we have plenty of case law that says you can have a deviation greater than 10%. why did, if you have a legitimate reason. why would the great representational need, not be an adequate reason. >> it is a reason to go over it in person. we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. we are asking nothing more than 10% to 20% range. >> you are now saying 10% to 20% is a day instead of 10%. >> the court held up 60.5%, suggesting 20 as the outer limit.
we take our cues from those. >> we want children to be represented. that is all, children. if you take children out of it what is the -- >> we haven't examined it. children are represented at the polls represented by their parents, if parents have been disenfranchised by the state like california and texas and new york. >> how about children who are citizens when their parents are not which is fairly common in many areas. >> if they're eligible voters they move into space as if not counted for section 2 any argument section and to discriminate against children. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, may it please the court, the only question the court has to resolve here is whether the
equal protection clause requires every state to change its current practice and use voter population and reapportionment. the answer is no. texas validly used federal census data to equalize total population states have done for decades. the framers of the equal protection clause accepted total population as a permissible apportionment based on section 2 of the fourteenth amendment. >> why don't they use that intersection 2 then? >> in section 2, of the voting rights act, protects voters. our position, unlike the united states's position is only voters are protected under the voting rights act. so in considering whether there is an opportunity to elect a candidate of one's choice, or leave voters would count for that inquiry. >> it is called the one person one vote, that is designed to
protect voters. >> it does protect voters but there are multiple legitimate bases on which a state can redistrict. alert for a equality, representational equality, if i can back out, what we are dealing with is the general legal protection clause test, which guards against discrimination. in disparate impact. and the claim being alleged is one of vote dilution. texas by easing total population as states have done for decades, no state today uses voter population, did not target groups to cancel out there voting power or reduce their ability to collect representatives of their choice. what texas was doing was making a legitimate chalets' to use representational a quality which as the case noted is a legitimate interest the state can account for which they
cannot do is submerge the population principal leakage as reynolds held, we cannot base apportionment on geography. we have to take account of population and we have done that. there is no allegation here, there are 8.04% deviation of total population, satisfying the one person one vote document unless we are required to use voter population. >> two arguments could support your position. one is it is one person one vote and what counts is giving each person an equal chance of affecting the outcome of the election the total population figures are a good enough proxy for eligible voters, that is one possible argument and that is what the census measures and
close enough. another argument is representational equality is the real basis and that is why you use population. which arguments are you making? >> i don't believe we are making either of those arguments. total population is not permissible because it attracts voter population. at the same time the court doesn't have to reach this question, representational the quality is not the only basis on which a state can redistrict but we could choose a reliable population without running afoul of equal protection clauses guaranteed to -- >> they can be in great conflict, you can have a situation if you want to equalize population you may have a situation where you cause great inequality with chances of voters affecting the outcome of the election. if you choose eligible voters
only you may have a situation where every person within two districts does not have equal representation defining in some way in the legislature. you cannot just say -- >> what this court said is that decision to exclude non voters left to the states and part of what the court doctrine exercised, and the dignity of sovereignty, with the the representation or equality, to reapportion. >> it is a permissible basis.
it is a good government, that these voters are a valid interest. in a case like this where there's 45% deviation or something of that order. and to recognize these interests that are legitimate under the constitution, and give it some consideration of the disparity you have among voters. >> recognizing in new york at least, a 29% deviation voter population. and had it not been made out,
and since they do consider representational equally there is an equal protection clause and that doesn't mandate either must take precedence over the other. to look at fat, we have federal census data, the data set, that enumeration rather than a different data set when it reapportioned and all we have under the census data is total population data. >> justice of the go's question is important, a table on page 9 of the blue brief. just looking at that table by inspection i don't know, whether this is true or false, a major difference between the two here is probably the some areas of the state, a lot of people are working and have children.
can't all be explained on the basis of illegal immigration or something. it can't be given those numbers. if we accept the principle that it is voter equality, we are saying that the family up to a certain age that has tweet children is getting no representation for those other people were human beings, if we accept the office we have to put up with inequality of power over voters, you have to say the one or the other. and what is behind the numbers that are being quoted i am not sure. >> i believe there is that difference between diminishing access to representative said and having representation. united states has said if texas
or another state reapportioned on the basis of voter populations at nonvoters would be invisible to the system. that is not right, they would still be represented. the issue is does a state have to have the same constituents representative and the state can do so. >> found in local law in 1750 or something where the british parliament said don't worry, you are represented by the people in england because they represent every one in the british empire. people represented through somebody else is possible. >> a child in my congressional district which would be represented, the issue is diminishing access to the representative for reapportion equal protection, principle that would elevate that as a rule of
constitutional law that the state of texas discriminated. >> why is one option explicit of the other? can't you have both? population equality? especially when you have indicated a voter base apportionment is valid answers important purposes and here it is substantially disregarded by this huge deviation. why can't you use both? >> there is no they monster if plan in the texas legislature. both of these could have been equalized, there demographer didn't specify the extent of the deviation. end deviations' can be reduced. requiring states within 10% of the deviation, total and voter
population, and redistricting factors keeping communities together and that would be the opposite of what the court said, the leeway to structure their elections as court sovereignty. >> has anything been written on this or studies done on this? >> i don't believe so, we are not aware of anybody. and if they had plausible allegation that this was possible we would have expected to see a demonstrative map. >> any idea how often this -- people have total population, a lot of areas in terms of the
actual numbers. >> california, alaska, new york city, the issue will come up. >> that particular handful -- >> by no means would this be a problem everywhere but if there were a rule that a state had to consider voter population, that would change the outcome of redistricting. >> that deviation allowed the chair, with the deviation, it is under 10%. does that take care of many areas where there is a problem? >> the reason i suggested, i believe that would be changing the nature of redistricting. could there be a situation out there in which a plan might be able to get within an 10%
deviation, in the community, and that would be a test of discrimination. that isn't disparate impact. did determine whether someone's voting power is cancelled out in the political process. >> the ac s, your adversary, it is fine. section 2 and section 5. why would it be inappropriate to use it. deciding the impact -- >> our position in the ac estate is reliable enough to hold under this section right act, it would
be reliable enough, the granularity of the data. and the level is 500 to 600, and the city plan, and couldn't use the data which 10% deviation. and could get within 10% deviation. hand in burns, and the mid gillette population of it. skip if i can briefly address the united states argument on section 2 of the voting rights act we disagree on this point. section 2 of the voting rights act does not protect nonvoters and earlier when we discuss section 2 i would return that site to the court, on page 26.
is cuts against the united states iron section 2, the minority group has lower rates of citizenship and the redistricting plan is not to blame for lack of representation, rather lack of sufficient voters is. the united states's suggestion that there could be hacking for cracking claims of communities that have nothing to do with packing or cracking voting wite blocks is the incorrect interpretation and that is not contrary than proportional. >> the court has no further questions. >> in queue thank you. >> mr. chief justice
redistricting on population indicates the principal for equal numbers of people we agree texas as yet undefined measure of voter population but we disagree that the court should go and to decide this in the future to redistrict on the basis of some measure of voter population. in our view there four reasons voter population cannot be required. first is mentioned by justice can again. it would be an odd interpretation to say the constitution forbids state legislative redistricting. what it requires is congressional districts. second is a long history, state's redistricting on basis other than voter population. the fourteenth amendment, the vast majority of states on voter
population in the wake of the fourteenth amendment, congress and the apportionment acts required districting on the basis of inhabitants and over the last 50 years state had unanimously redistricted on the basis of total population. third are the data problems and they are real. ac s data has a number, first of all, it is not constitutionally required. it would be very odd for the court to demand as a constitutional standpoint dated it does not have to be selected. seconded does not measure what the plaintiffs suggest is required. is not a measure of voter eligibility. it does not include citizen voting age population data, does not include overseas voters, does not include mentally ill. that data doesn't exist. third with respect to the data picking up on sonia sotomayor's point the data does not exist at
a level of granularity, accuracy and timeliness to redistrict. the data does not exist at the census block level where districting happens or is issued on a timely basis, since this data comes out april of 2021. the ac as data, five your average in december as data from 2016 going forward. >> of unused resection 2. >> on section 2, one factor among many to determine whether all like doral opportunity has been given. it is used along with population data, turn out data, whole variety, very different in this court saying every state, thousands of local jurisdictions throughout the country have to use that data as the sole measure of redistricting. on justice kennedy's question -- >> who has standing to bring the rebels claim?
anybody counted in the census? >> that is a question this court noted and reserved and is a question this scourge never resolved in the context of westbury which has the same rule. we think not much turns on it because as a practical measure you get a voter even though we have the voters in the district but let me explain this goes to a number -- >> who has standing or not? >> we think the better understanding is nonvoter standing but here is why i don't think it matters. you can view our position through either a lens through representational ones in which what is happening is it is a way to ensure all persons covered by the equal protection clause, even those who cannot cast the ballot have a voice in representation -- >> everybody accounted the census. >> yes.
>> includes aliens, prisoners, undocumented aliens. >> it is not necessary. >> doesn't include those groups. does it include members of all of those groups? >> i don't think we have to agree with that. at reynolds, also viewed on the brief. is a voter rights, the way to think about this as reynolds did was to view this consistently with the way reynolds fought about it which was twice the representatives, twice the inhabitants have to vote. what reynolds said on plaintiffs' counsel is of course it would violate the constitution to count somebody four or five times but in the next sentence the effects of state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to an equal number of constituents is identical. that is the point we are making,
if i could point up on why -- the reason is agreeing with general colin, the idea of doing both is it largely eliminates the state's flexibility to deal with traditional redistricting package. what you are forced to do is take a large anglo population in one part of the state that has high citizenship and pair it with a situation with populations that have low citizenship rates or to take an example from manhattan has 9% children, brooklyn has 30%. if you do both what you are doing is tearing people from parts of manhattan and pairing them with voters in brooklyn. would ends up happening is that the level of 10% to eliminate state's ability to take into account things like political subdivisions, to take into account, patmos and all the other things this court has said is critical in redistricting.
as to the chief justice's question when did this is a deal or not or whether it would have a large practice, i assume it is a big deal, whether it was a large practical effect, the answer to that is yes. what we are talking about is not just 50 states the thousands of jurisdictions around the country, local jurisdictions none of whom use voter population as a measure of redistricting. this shows it is not just the situation in which things are effective, states are affected where there is citizenship differences between citizens and non-citizens but children are critical part of it, not just 9% in brooklyn or 30% children. in texas the county's raised the brief suggests from 9% in some counties to 30% in other counties. in alaska the difference between rural and urban is 20% in some, thirty-second% in another. this is an issue that will affect state and local
jurisdictions throughout the country and both jurisdictions don't have the data at the level in which this court would be requiring as a constitutional matter. i would like to pick up on one another point which is it is quite unclear what westbury actually holds. we think that is a fundamental misreading, what was barry said, the whole point was the method of portion or allocating representatives to the state had to be the same as the method allocating within districts in the state. that was the reason, the great compromise had to be reflected in to redistricting. that principle in westbury, exactly the principle the court adopted in reynolds, it was westbury that established representative government in this country as one of people
representation for equal numbers of people without regard to race, sex, economic status, it is precisely the same principle from westbury which looked at the framing and the discussion of calculation of representatives which looks at the drafting of the fourteenth amendment and took that history. >> i don't think the argument is relevant. the question here when texas has chosen to use total population is that permissible? they are relevant for the reasons they said. was reynolds did in that line of cases was to use total population, reynolds understood when you have twice the inhabitants and the district, half of the voice of free representatives. >> your time is going to inspire
an extreme case, maybe this would never come up but what if it did? this world district suppose it was the stage where total number of the population is fairly small. the world -- rural district, very few others. you have a neighboring district so in one district you have 10% of the population eligible voters and the other district 90%, the population are eligible voters. >> two points in response. this court has recognized and we don't dispute census data is not the sole data, this court approved it, make adjustments in the census data to more accurately capture actual residence in the state. that is what is happening in hawaii and remember what the state had done and virginia had done was count all but navy
personnel which the census had done and have to make an adjustment. >> thank you, counsel. four minutes remaining. >> to your question about representation of children. if that were the principal, in a statewide election, gets five votes to a family of five and one vote, that would -- >> i am just thinking before knowing whether it is mandatory or not, i would like to know a lot more than i know about who these people are who are being represented or representational theory who are not being represented on the vote, i don't know who they are. >> given the mix of children, all the categories,
disenfranchised, in the course. >> not to the state has chosen to vote. the state can solve this problem themselves and give them the vote. states come here to say we do not want them to vote but account for districting. that should be rejected by this court. >> for most states. except for those who come from that locale. most states disenfranchise -- how -- who else are they going to disenfranchise? >> we choose the state who they are allowed to vote. we are arguing to argue they should get the benefit when they make the choice that is their right to disenfranchise. you cannot disconnect this rule from voting and allow it to
stand up? westbury has the same incentives that's a all other rights are illusory if the right to vote is taken away. the authors of that sentence would be surprised to learn the one person one vote rule has nothing to do with voting, that you could have a system that crowd 31 senate districts all eligible voters, 30 of them into one, give each person their own district, that plan would be sustainable with some evidence of racial and political discrimination. the state for them to say we know we can't do it but we will never try. that is not how one person one vote works. state by state law forced themselves not to try this by saying they were not allowed to. if they were polled by the scourge to your point they could do bose, they would go back to the drawing board and try. if they failed they may win that case. we suspect that have alleged taken to bose and justice kennedy will not be additional
interest or county lines or anything like that. it is political and racial gerrymandering and our rules, especially that will stop. and we don't know that abstractly but from the case. the actual deviations in arizona, a hypothetical place on page 26 on the jurisdictional statement they can see that deviation of 4 present and in district 8 the district mostly at issue is underpopulated by 22%. arizona had to go back to the drawing board and i accommodate maybe both, there would be no opportunity to engage in political and racial gerrymandering that has come to dominate the process. would not involve those issues anymore but legislatively as they should this section 2 does not work without understanding, there is nothing to measure against one person one vote as it protects voters.
for a complete television schedule booktv.org, book tv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. television for serious readers. now we kick off the weekend with simon takes a role of the pacific ocean in the modern world. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> okay, well, good evening, on behalf of the owners and everyone on staff, it's a pleasure to have you here and a pleasure to have simón winchester will talk and read and take questions for aut