tv Washington Journal Matt Ford CSPAN March 17, 2018 9:09am-9:40am EDT
friends when they would come visit. he would type volumes and volumes of poetry. this was quite a novelty in 1888, to reprint something that looked like a printed document. >> on american history tv, a visit to old salem, settled in 1766 by german protestants. here about the hidden town of project that explores. watch the cities tour of winston-salem today at noon on c-span2 and sunday on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> washington journal continues. joined by matt ford, a staff writer at the new republic. this is our spotlight on
magazine series, talking about his piece on the need to dismantle the department of homeland security. thank you for joining us. that's quite a proposal. what made you write this piece on dhs and how you came to the conclusion dismantling might be in order. guest: it started as a broader look. we have seen stories about customs enforcement and how they have been carrying out raids and tactics that see americans uncomfortable with. the system that really rose as part of a broader transformation that happened after 9/11 in 2003. we reorganize the federal government. we created this new structure at the department of homeland security would cover everything from counterterrorism to immigration and border security. it does not seem to have succeeded. the name say
department of homeland security is part of the problem and one of the things it needs to be changed. guest: it's the first thing that stands out. names matter. they signal with the agency means. homeland -- phrase security is not familiar in the american lexicon. the idea of a homeland carries a connotation of an f no nationalism. i'm not saying people who use the phrase meaning in that sense. it separates us from our tradition that we are bound by something more than race, religion, or national origin, we have a net -- higher calling. viewersplain for our how the department of homeland
security came about. it is the newest agency within the federal government. explain the history. guest: it's a troubled history. after 9/11 it, congress and policymaking experts had concerns with how we missed so many of the signs. fbi, thereand the were concerns about how to prevent the next attack. while of those concerns as if we had systems in place to do security at the border, security at airports, all of the systems. there was a sense of fear and paranoia about what could happen next. all of these forces combined to push an agency that would combine all of these forces and the government. the secret service comes from the coast guard, immigration and nationalization from the department of justice and bring them into one agency
along with 22 others to carry out all these tasks for national security. host: we are joined by matt ford, staff writer at the new republic. he is here to talk about his this, a recent piece about man playing the department of homeland security. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 784-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. i want to read an excerpt from your piece. the headline of from the washington post today, which talks about ice increasing scrutiny for immigration. the federal agency that runs the immigration system is creating an internal division to more rigorously police its own
workers, and those who are too lenient with applications. i just point that because you talked about the focus on immigration being what prompted this law. i want to read an excerpt from your piece. some of the agencies have turned openly abusive toward foldable members of society, a case for the polishing dhs is never been more urgent. guest: we've had federal agencies that have been mismanaged or listless before. something that's emerged in the is the task that ice is undertaking, that other agencies of taken that have deviated from what we expect from the federal government.
this is a example about ice and how it has become politicized. saysirector of the agency it should be arresting lawmakers and public officials in california for not complying with immigration law, which is a radical departure from how we view the government and is a deep blow to the idea of elected government officials at multiple levels. they've an architect -- targeting immigrants who are not a threat to society. they do not seem to be among the worst of the worst, it's really troubling. they are making sure that agents don't use their discretion for food to deport and who not to deport. dhs was created in the aftermath of 9/11.
national security is important priority for the united states. dhs go tootling it far? when it leave americans vulnerable for the kinds of attacks we've seen carried out and thwarted since then? guest: it's an understandable concern. it's worth pointing out dhs is far from the only agency that tackles terrorism. the primary law enforcement agency as the fbi and they do counterterrorism cases every year. a responsibility and they are engaged to prevent them. not an endhappen is of these operations, the shifting of them. you return power to the fbi and the cia and the justice department, where they belonged all along. that's really where the problems we have seen.
dhs has been duplicating a lot of functions. it's too broad. you have too many functions it fulfill, disaster management, counterterrorism, cyber security. and repeating functions it's too small. it could be performed better. host: we are joined by matt ford from the new republic. we are talking about his recent piece about dismantling homeland security as part of our spotlight on magazine's series. line.is on the republican good morning. caller: good morning. go ahead. glad toi think we are have you here this morning. beginning, from
its inception, a lot of people thought this was a strange force to be created in placed upon the united states. it brings us the department of fatherland security or motherland security. it's redundant. we are to have the department of defense, the department of justice, it seems like another label to establish new bureaucracy. make supposed to government more streamlined. it's more confusing. i wonder if it's even a construct of the united states. i wonder if this is a ploy out by miland being hosted six or the zionist establishment. host: let's give matt a chance
to respond. guest: the idea that the department of homeland security was created accidentally. not by accident, but stumbled into. like the vice president, who is not somebody who is been accused of being reluctant to confront terrorist groups, he was uneasy with the idea of this agency. the bush administration was after into it by pressure the cia and fbi dropped the ball in the investigation. host: dan is on her independent line calling from new york state. caller: hello, mr. ford. i wanted to comment on the idea of it looks like national security is always outward looking at homeland security seems to have been used as or justified by looking inward.
maybe you could comment on the ,ilitarization of the police ice looking for immigrants away from the actual borders and homeland security is a way of taking these functions and looking inward where they never were before. i think that raises a good point about how we view counterterrorism and the role the government should play. we have government departments that focus on internal security. that's the department of justice. it has a very personalized culture. laws likely obeys the probable cause. in some counterterrorism functions, we don't to the government adhering to that fully. host: usa today reports that asylum-seekers have filed suit
against the dhs. they have been held in detention centers. in the latest legal attack against the attempt to limit immigration, homeland security has violated u.s. law by refusing entire groups of asylum-seekers to be released from prisons and detention centers while the applications are decided. there is a supreme court case looking at the tensions. the trump administration has the power to hold people indefinitely. talk about that. guest: the concern is congress passes laws that are so broad they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. in the obama administration they used immigration law to pursue more lenient policy, with daca. that cuts both ways.
with the trump administration, they views that discretion to ramp up enforcement and immigration. for -- one thing to add to that, i'm not saying the government should never deport anybody, but the idea we should have an entire agency devoted to deporting people is something that needs to be looked at again. host: the supreme court case talked about indefinitely detaining people who were subject to deportation, that was supported by both administrations. recentlyere was a case about the naturalizing people who made small errors on their immigration forms. that was defended in court, but the obama administration helped ring it. en -- ian is calling in.
caller: the department of homeland security is necessary. texas just held up the ban on sanctuary cities. and that sheriff was voted out of office, he should've been voted right into jail. daca was unconstitutional. a lawyer ingot california, these people are here illegally. that's called illegal. it's called breaking the law. thank god for texas upholding that. we will see a lot more deportations. mohammed on a flu in on an expired visa.
they come here and they disappear into the woodwork. we need people enforcing who's who. we don't need mayors subverting the lot. guest: there are a few issues there. one that sticks out to me is the notion of how we enforce immigration laws in the interior of the country. people would agree there is a need to keep people of the country who are committing violent crimes. those aren't the people ice is going after. they have gone after immigrants cases,een cards in some people well established and communities who have children here. they send the message countries they haven't been to for 30 years. they may not even speak the language. it raises a lot of moral questions. i think there is a debate to be had on immigration enforcement. to position i come closest
his we should have less of it. host: the washington post had an editorial piece. who knows why homeland security agents in southern california separated a seven-year-old girl from her mother last fall. or she was chicago placed at a facility for unaccompanied minors and capture therefore for months. washas been traumatized and permitted to speak to her mother only recently. timess just a handful of in the intervening four months. dhs has subjected the small girl to trauma. means tounconscionable an end if that is not the reason . what is your reaction to that? guest: i have a hard time seeing a justification for that under
homeland security. what purpose does that solve? what safety does that bring us as a nation, to split the family and traumatize a minor. it brings up questions about what the -- how they are enforcing democratic goals. host: good morning from reno. caller: thank you for all that you do and for mr. ford. i am a retired clinical science teacher. my comment is very quick. time thatfor some homeland security is one step from a federal police force. this country has never in our history believed in having a federal police force. dangers innherent that type of force. inaw homeland security car
reno with the big words police on it in big letters. i thought it was the reno police department. it turned out to be homeland security. my question is, to our citizens understand the dangers of such force? it's ok as long as they enforce the laws the way you like to see them. what happens when they come after others? thank you very much. i think the really important aspect of that is the idea of how we view police powers. under the constitution, the government doesn't have that large of a roll. those are designed to be handled at the state level. are some crimes across state boundaries, they involve interstate comments -- commerce, having a ministry that is the
what the department of homeland security is, does have no precedent. the justice department doesn't approach anything like that. it's mostly lawyers. host: i want to read another excerpt from your piece. it says in its current form, dhs a quarter of a million people. they are helping americans recover from natural disasters, regulating the border, defending cyberattacks. incompetent,either wasteful, redundant, or abusive. what actions do you think congress needs to take? guest: a more broad look at how we should structure this department and its functions.
1990's, a review conducted by the department of defense chaired by senator gary hart and others looked at how the united states should do things post cold war. they propose something similar to what homeland security turned into, take fema and add the coast guard, border patrol, other key government agencies that overlap and function and place them to deal with non-state actors in smaller threats. if congress took another look at that, took a look at the smaller approach to this or whether it should be restructured, that would be a good first step. host: cliff is calling on the independent line from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks for c-span.
the caller from nevada brushed on the tip of the iceberg in my opinion. , thef these institutions department of homeland security, the tsa, and the resulting act,lation, the patriot all of the should be repealed. the invasion of the middle east was based on lies. in the biggest lie of all was 9/11, thank you. one issue that he brings ,p that is worth pointing out the government overreacted to 9/11. i'm not saying 9/11 was not a tragedy, or that it was not worth reacting to. but what we have seen over the last years is the scaling back of a lot of decisions that policymakers made with the patriot act. the patriot act a next want example of how we have paired that with security revisions
over the year. especially with the area -- with the iraq war, we revisited those . this is a good opportunity to do the same thing for homeland security. host: do you think there is much appetite in congress to take any action? to do anything with dhs? or even with the current white house, the current white house chief of staff is the former secretary of dhs, how likely do think action will be? guest: i do not have high hopes for the white house, it has shown that it has been in mashed with enforcing dhs policy is best it can. if you are liberal, you will have concerns about ice and immigration enforcement. if on the other hand your a classicve, you have
example of a wasteful and bloated government bureaucracy. some of whose functions are duplicated and can be taken migrated can -- other agencies. the current homeland security secretary, kristen nielsen, a former deputy of john kelly, what do we know about her? what are her priorities? guest: so far she has been shown to be doing in a job of enforcing trump administration priorities. she is proven his up to be an adept political survivor in an administration that is not full of them. it is worth noting that she is one of the few cabinet sect -- cabinet secretaries who is able to avoid small scandals. on the democratic line,
good morning. caller: i wanted to ask mr. ford , what happened 10 years ago. congress along with the led 12nt, george bush, million people into this country -- let 12 million people into this country. -- the resulting is the daca children. those were the parents of the daca children. now they are here. yes, they have a right to stay. but the thing is, i think too many immigrants are being let into the country. there should be a limit on how many immigrants are let into the country. they are draining the resources. i just want to ask mr. for what
he thinks about that. -- mr. ford what he things about that. speaking irally think immigrants are positive for american society. they have brought a lot of contributions and they help make the country better place. with regard to the department of homeland security i think there is a debate to be had about where those immigration functions should go. or -- with the department of homeland security we have been immigration naturalization service. it has -- the question arises, how do we restructure going forward? howbest people to assess immigrants should come into the country, is probably the department of state. and the best place to enforce that is probably the department of justice. maria, on her democratic line.
independent, but i have some questions and comments. i think this is another effective globe -- affect of globalization -- localization. like secret police. had two wars against great britain, they have a history of going around the world and separating people, causing unrest, then coming in. that is in effect what we have been doing. i think we have to re-examine that. also the other for bidding topic ,s israel, before 9/11 mcgreevy was in charge of the security around the new york city port area. nobody has brought him up for treason are questioned it. we are also giving all of our weapons to israel as soon as we
invent them. we are told we should have daylight between israel and britain, i say it is time for another war of independence and get rid of all foreign agents. host: i want to give matt chance to respond, go ahead. guest: there's a lot there to ponder. important idea is reassessing certain priorities in them post-9/11 moment. al qaeda is a shell of its former self, isis is on the verge of defeat if not fully defeated. that gives us a chance to take stock of where we are as a nation and whether or not be post-9/11 moment has produced the life that we want. we need to reassess the department of homeland security. for, -- matt ford,
thank you so much for joining us. coming up we will be taking your calls. let us know what is on your mind. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ this week in the debut of our series 1968, america and 12 mile. for nine weeks a look back 50 years to that turbulent time marked with war, political assassinations, and the space rates, women's rights, and racial strife. war sunday, the vietnam from major military, political, and dramatic developments through the undoing of lyndon b. johnson's presidency. with former virginia senator jim
fire author of fields of and the memoir i heard my country calling. , author of theus book they marched into sunlight. 1968, american turmoil, live sunday, at a: 30 a.m. eastern on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv. on c-span3. monday on c-span landmark 1869, we will look at the case of plessy versus ferguson, where a man was arrested for taking a seat on a train reserved for whites. this is what established the equalte but equal. -- doctrine. which was not overturn until
brown v. board of education. examine this case and the hide -- and the high course ruling. this will he examined with several evil express her's -- legal experts. you can watch on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the radio app. for background you can order your copy of the landmark cases book. it is available at c-span.org/landmark. cases. >> washington journal continues. host: we are taking your calls the