tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 29, 2016 11:39pm-12:01am EDT
demographic called the baby boom. what does that have to do with economic prosperity? well, you know what? when you start having kids, you start having to buy all kinds of things that you don't usually use as an adult. okay? i mean, all of a sudden the size of your family has increased so you've got to buy baby clothes. you've got to buy a bigger car. you've got to have a bigger house. you've got to have this and that. it's going to drive the american economy. the american consumer drives the american economy. these are very prosperous times for us as a people and us as a nation. and the prosperity benefits the republican party. my favorite word? and you knew it was coming. not everybody in america is happy. not everybody's content.
you see, not everybody in america is white. and the civil rights movement, the most important domestic movement of the second half of the 20th century, that's the topic for the next lecture. and the baby boomers of the 1950s, those folks grow up to be the flower children of the 1960s. [ inaudible ] >> yes, i'll share some stories. not everybody's happy, and not everybody's content in the 1950s. but those are all lectures for another day. questions that you have? >> who were some of the names on the hollywood blacklist? >> you know, probably one of the most famous names of writers
that would be on that list would be ring lardner, but there's a list of -- it's not just screenwriters, but it was directors and producers. you know, all of this was sort of hush-hush. these folks sort of went underground and wrote. to keep their jobs, they wrote with assumed names because no one would hire them. it's a great story about survival. yes, ma'am. >> didn't the soviets use women in their standing army? >> they did. in order to try to acquire that many personnel, they are forcing, would probably be the best way to put it, not only men into service, but women into military service as well. you don't really have any options. >> could you go over why the
united states ignored ho chi minh even though he was trying to beat them up, you know. >> yeah, we're going to get to ho chi minh. i've got an entire lecture on vietnam. i just needed to introduce him today to put it into context of the cold war. you need to understand that vietnam is a part of the cold war, and i just wanted to bring him to attention, your attention today, and two lectures from now we're going to talk about the u.s. involvement in vietnam. so hang on to that, and i'll get to it later. >> do we still use atomic bombs and stuff like that today? >> i hope not. no, actually what we're doing now is destroying them. >> why? >> we really don't need the thousands that we have. i mean -- >> how do you destroy a bomb? >> yeah, that's a great question. >> in the ocean? >> that's above my pay grade. i would think the answer is very carefully.
all right. i hope you have a wonderful break, and i will see you again afterwards. we'll talk about civil rights movement and vietnam when we return. >> quiz? will there be an announced quiz next week? >> you know what? i think we will have a quiz next time we gather together. how's that? all right. see you.
american history tv airs on c-span3 every weekend, telling the american story through events, interviews, and visits to historic locations. this month, "american history tv" is in primetime to introduce you to programs you could see every weekend on c-span3. our features include lectures in history, visits to college classrooms across the country to hear lectures by top history professors. "american artifacts" takes a look at the treasures at u.s. historic sights, museums and archives. reel america, revealing the 20th century through archival films and news reels. the civil war where you hear about the people who shape the civil war and reconstruction and the u.s. presidency focuses on u.s. presidents and first ladies to learn about their politics, policies and legacies. all this month in primetime and every weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3.
all this week in "american history tv" prime time will feature programs from our lectures in history series in which we take you into college classrooms across the country. begin at 8:00 eastern with a and race and sex education in the mid 20th century. that's tuesday night on american history tv here on c-span 3. on lectures in history, duke university professor gun ter peck teaches a class on america's immigration policy toward refugees during the cold war. he describes how people fleeing communist countries such as cuba were given easier access to the u.s.
city also talks about how race played a role in creating, "taz such as limiting immigrants from asian countries. his class is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> so welcome to class, folks. we have some visitors. welcome to duke university. my name is gunther peck. i teach immigration in the department of history. this is a cross listed course called "immigrant dreams, american realities." and we are wrestling with the wonderful complexity of visions of america that immigrants bring to our national story. so you're welcome to participate in discussions if we get there. just raise your hand and i'll pull you in. i know you've done the readings. so no worries. okay. okay. so today's lecture is called "linking nation and humanity,
u.s. refugee policy, 1945 to 1990." and we're going to focus in on this important subset of immigration law, immigration policy history today that we have touched on but we haven't really focused yet squarely in the class. so i want you to fit it into where we were at the end of last class, which was the lecture on the passage of immigration reform in 1965 and that key idea is that the cold war was shaping domestic policy history and very clearly apparent in the ways in which the immigration reform act was passed. as a kind you have part of a broader campaign in fighting a cold war. that is especially true with u.s. refugee policy which is a perfect intersection of u.s. foreign policy and immigration policy. so before we begin though, what we have here are a couple of
images of the present. i want to just have a brief discussion before we dive into the past about u.s. refugees and their significance to the contemporary moment we live in. and they are frequently invoked, and maybe we could just describe, i'm curious as to how you would describe why refugees matter today. and what we have here, this is an image of the refugees that are being led into detention of under age minors who were picked up at the u.s. mexican border last summer when the refugee was burning quite vividly in the nation's newspapers. here is another image of refugees under age unaccompanied minors also heading north. this is on not public transportation but on a
especially chartered train that most of the people here had paid traffickers to get across the border. and that is what we're looking at. i'm just curious if we could summarize or give a few ideas why refugees matter in the contemporary. it's a simple question. but actually it does have a lot at stake. so why do politicians talk about refugees right now? what are the stakes of refugees today? kate. >> "americans at the gate," we kind of talked about how the refugees and the issue of whether to allow them in or not kind of changed the human rights question in the '70s. i think it's remained that since then probably. so it's really a question of how
the u.s. embodies our democracy by thinking and enacting into policy the belief that all people deserve to be free from violence of their daily life. >> great comment. so that there's a humanitarian set of stakes that the refugee is someone who deserves by virtue of their suffering acceptance into the nation. you alluded to the stakes though. so why should the united states care about those particular refugees? that's obviously one set of stakes. that's not the only way refugees are being discussed today. so what else -- what are some other ways? we're going to come to this question. why do they matter for the nation? yeah, haley. >> a selfish reason. but the image of the nation as a whole. [ inaudible ] and that matters.
>> yeah, by comparison to germany right now, the united states quite unkind, uncharitable. germany has taken in 1.1 million syrian refugees last year alone. we're debating whether to take zero or 10,000. there's the debate. emma. >> i think overall politicians [ inaudible ] >> yes. >> right. >> so it's become a security issue. refugees equal an anxiety about national security clearly. mara. >> also refugee law and policy sits at the intersection between domestic policy and foreign policy. so you're saying something both to the american people about what it means to be american that we are accepting of people in difficult situations around
the world and you're also saying something at the international stage about what america is willing to do in order to help the people around the world and which causes they're willing to and which issues they view as issues that would constitute refugee status. >> right. nicely put. you summarized the complex domestic and international stakes in individual refugees. right, exactly. elizabeth. >> again, i don't necessary agree with this point but i think in political rhetoric now, refugees are kind of seen as dependents that will be coming into this country as dependents. it also becomes an economic issue that is being mentioned on both sides of the spectrum worrying about if we take x amount of refugees how will that impact our economy and what will we have to do as u.s. citizens to support them. >> right. good. anxiety about their public dependence or a security threat. >> to kind of build on mara's point about international relations, in the future, you
can go back and say, well, we accepted so many refugees from this region and use it as almost political capital for future negotiations. >> great term. political capital. yeah. so yeah diane. >> this isn't an opinion that i personally hold. but i've always seen the u.s.' role in accepting refugees as a form of justice for what happened in the middle east specifically. so a lot of iraqis being displaced because of the war, you know, who should be most responsible for accepting the refugees. it should be the countries that were directly involved in that war and that caused that war. and iraq obviously now does not take back their own citizens because it's almost a failed state. >> so this is an argument. i love how your comments are actually arguments. and that's great because you're highlighting the stakes of why refugees matter. and one of the arguments you're
making is that refugees matter because we have humanitarian obligations to the nations that we have been part of u.s. foreign policy. so iraqis clearly if they're suffering after the u.s. invasion, the belief is has as buildings to help them out. so there's no consensus what the stakes are with refugees. i think you've covered most of the key sense of stakes. i would frame it, there's a kind of set of stakes that are the debate works today, there's a convergence on the left and the right here which is that on the one hand, the national stakes in refugees might be humanitarian, but that we have interests in human rights that really transcend the stakes. the refugees' interests, we in effect owe them that if it's an iraqi refugee, lets say. and then those who are critical of refugee policy view them as
being threats to the nation either economically or political threats that they are somehow literal security threats as terrorists or potential terrorists or as people who threaten our standard of living, way of life, what have. the argument has been polarized between humanitarian interests on the one side and national security interests on the other. that is the contemporary framing of the refugee issue and why they matter. so what i think is interesting about that story is that those are not new but it is also true that the history of u.s. refugee policy is a story in which i would say that framing of national interests on the one hand and humanitarian on the other are merged. or rather they overlap in some really extraordinary ways. so the only way to explain, i'm going to suggest this as an argument in the lecture, the only way to explain why is it
that the united states after the -- from 1945 to the near past is the most generous refugee nation in human history it accepts over half of the world's refugees. the reason for that is not necessarily because the united states is the most humanitarian of nations. but it's because of the important national stakes in refugees. and that's important to understand why that's the case, why refugees had national significance and why the whole policy debate was around trying to define, understand why they mattered to the nation. not so much to a notion of human rights that are universal but to specific national interests. i will come back to the debate that we could have on the basis of your insights at the end of the class but i wanted to frame that as a point of departure. so national interests in short have really shaped the whole
formation of u.s. refugee policy because it is foreign policy but also because the nation understood that its. >> military strategic interests were being advanced by refugees and the way you described it as foreign policy symbols. i should say as an side that the interests of refugees themselves as historic agents, we left out. they're largely symbolic in the way we've described them. they are two voices. why those voices matter are important and we'll come back to them at the end of the lecture. what we're going to do today is go through some of the case studies about nation and humanity. in a weird way, it's a nice way of encapsulating a history of u.s. nationalism changing ideas of what an american is as well as a very specific policy story and we can see here, yeah, this is the overall -- it gives us
the overview of what i'm going to cover today in slightly more condensed version than the outlines have you in front of you. today's goal is also an explicit about what i would call as a profound history deficit in the contemporary discussion. you described the significance, as well. but it is if you read the newspapers it's as if there is no history to u.s. refugee policy, as if this is the first generation right now to be worried that refugees could be threatening our american security. or that they are going to weaken our standard of living or conversely that our very best most idealistic identity is at stake with refugees. that conversation is not new. it's been going on for a long time. that's reassuring on the one hand but we haven't really paid attention to that conversation either. so today's lecture is seeking to kind of redress that and i'd like to have time to discuss what we can use this history for.
if we were to make an intervention in the contemporary discussion beyond this classroom. okay. who is a refugee? we're going to go through these. the question we're asking how have national interests shaped the history of u.s. refugee policy. i'm going to begin back in time a little before '65 to the jewish refugee question and also to consider the definitions of refugees so that the book nicely points out for you "americans at the gate" by carl bon tempo. i hope you have bought this book. it's a really good book to read. we have a fascinating story that the category of refugee itself changes quite a lot over time. the 1980 law, we don't have a refugee law until 1980. even though the united states has accepted a great number of refugees before that moment in time. and in fact, the law is catching