All right, welcome back, everyone. I want to introduce the next panel which is going to focus on the implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And moderating that panel is eric schwartz, former assistant secretary of state for population frunles and migration under the Obama Administration. He was Senior Adviser for humanitarian affairs during the Clinton Administration on the National Security councils. And most importantly he is on the hias board. He also happens to be the president of Refugees International. And he is seated next to the expresident of Refugees International. So eric. Thanks. Thank you, mark. It is it is a distinct pleasure to be here today. And i want to thank hias and the Carter Center for bringing us all together for this very important event. And needless to say this is a critical time for us to be considering not only the refugee act of 1980 but also the very future of refugee protection in the United States and around the world. At a time when the number of people displaced by conflict, by human rights vials by persecution, is at the highest number in recorded history, governments around the world and in the United States in particular are using nativist rhetoric, designed to appeal to peoples fear. And to encourage hostility toward refugees. And others who are forced to flee. They are closing borders. And making life more difficult for refugees. This panel and this daylong event is timely. And our panel will consider refugee protection issues in the context of implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And we have three highly distinguished panelists. Its an added benefit for me that all are friends of mine with whom i have worked over decades on a variety of projects. Professor david martin, who will be our first presenter is a leading scholar on immigration, constitutional and international law. And he is one of the countrys foremost authorities on Immigration Law and policy. He has helped to shame immigration and refugee policy while serving in several key u. S. Government posts. While at the state department he was deeply involved in legal and policy developments relating to the refugee act of 1980, the focus of todays discussion. He also held senior positions in the departments of justice and homeland security. He played major roles in administrative and statutory developments related to asylum. During the decade of the 1990s. And during the Obama Administration he was deeply engaged in Administration Reforms relating to Immigration Enforcement priorities as well as a range of key immigration issues. Our second speaker, ambassador frank loy has had many krers as a senior diplomat, as a business and nonprofit executive, as an attorney focusing on a range of topics from Environmental Issues to economic affairs, to International Humanitarianism and refugees and beyond. And i wont try to list all of franks jobs. But i will say that from 1980 to 1981 he was director of the state Departments Bureau of Refugee Programs. And with the personal rank of ambassador. And was deeply involved in the issues were considering today. Between 1998 and 2001 he served as the u. S. Undersecretary of state for global affairs, giving him responsibilities that included overseeing the work of the state Departments Bureau of population refugees and migration, the successive bre to the Refugee Programs Bureau that he directed during the Carter Administration. Our final speaker Lionel Rosenblatt who a former dmmt who spent much of his career overseas in the southeast asia. He is lionel is a legendary refugee advocate. When in the midst of the north veet namds takeover of vietnam he was frustrated at the slow pace of u. S. Efforts to rescue vietnamese who had worked with the u. S. Government, he and a colleague made of an unauthorized trip to an unauthorized trip to vietnam to help secure the rescue of some 200 individuals. Lionel served as refugee coordinator at the u. S. Embassy in thailand during the Carter Administration and played a key role in the processing of vietnamese, laotian and cambodian refugees, as well as in protection and assistance efforts of refugees remaining in the region. From 1999 1990 through 2001, he served as president of Refugees International establishing the organization as a critical ally of vulnerable populations around the world, its a high honor for me to serve as the current stewart of an organization that lionel on the map lionels legacy of service and impact is an inspiration to us all at Refugees International. So, the topic today for implementation of the refugee act, could cover a multitude of issues. I saw panelist to consider in no particular order of the following questions work first, what were the expectations around the 1980 refugee act with respect to refugee admissions and asylum . Second, how did reality interfere . Both with respect to the cuban exodus and in other events requiring a response to protection needs that went outside of the contours or at least stretched the contours of the refugee act of 1980. Third, how would you characterize and assess overall implementation of the u. S. Refugee program over the years. Finally, based in your observation to the questions, what lessons can we draw . Each panelist will speak for seven minutes and moved to questions about the audience. Rather than the issues now i will assume the moderators prerogative and ask one or two preliminary questions. With that please join me in welcoming david martin [ applause ] its a pleasure for me to be here with special thanks for putting this together and also a special word of tribute to president carter, i wish you were here. It was his emphasis on human rights policy and the early part of the presidency that inspired me to go to the state department i work in the human rights bureau. I didnt know refugees are part of the package at the time i signed up there was a small refugee office, 1978 in the human rights bureau, but, by the time i arrived the boat flow was enormous and i got pulled into that and it shaved my career. I felt very happy to have the opportunity to work on human rights policy and refugee policy. Let me begin with a few simple achievements of the refugee act and then introduce a few complexities that became apparent with implementation the refugee did except a great deal very solidly because theyre not points of controversy we dont think about the much anymore. This act did accomplish its primary i really want to say that and we need to say that because theres so much cynicism about the effectiveness of Government Action and legislation. This is overall quite a Success Story and we need to say that, to appreciate what im saying i want to emphasize a distinction that often gets lost. The refugee act dealt with refugees into situations that are related different dynamics. One is the overseas Refugee Program for selecting people overseas in refugee camps and bringing them here after processing and, that was the main focus at the time because that was the crying issue, particularly in southeast asia. The second is asylum. And that poses more challenging problems and a lot of settings and didnt receive top billing or major focus but its important to keep them separate but the overlap is important because, in analyzing issues about that, the court failed to do that and in a case that was very important that wound up interpreting the refugee act to set up higher, more demanding standard than what applies when people are applying for asylum. Theyve misquoted legislative history, this one clearly to overseas refugees and was applied to asylum in reaching that decision. I greatly regret that happened. There are four things the refugee act achieved, it set the framework and the procedures for regular and timely decisions on resettlement and mission and, thereby replace conditional entry and parole which, for all the reasons weve been hearing about did not fit very well or presented their own problems it preserved a role for congress the last panel mentioned some things about that, by providing a very structured consultation project with demand for very specific, but it didnt give congress a specific voting role, but thank goodness largely avoids deadlock we didnt receives the Political Climate we have now but im glad we have it that way. That puts the power in the president. Can we do a badly . Yes, we have evidence. Recent evidence and im reminded of a comment that was made by James Buchanan who was wisely regarded as the worst president weve had, until recently, the constitution provides for every accidental contingency in the executive except for a vacancy in the mind of a president. [ laughter ] second, the act provided a durable assistance in grant framework for help and resettle refugees. We placed a lot of special legislation with civic lambs for this group or that group and an Expiration Date that got extended on a more abstract bases that applies broadly. The assistance arrangement recognizes the role of ngos and engages the states. Asylum, the statute provided Clear Authority to offer asylum , both to people already in the United States and people at the border excludable aliens and deportable aliens. This clearly changed over to the use of the un definition of ravaging this made it more clear but has made it more problematic. More importantly with regard to asylum it provided a clear status for silesian refugees. Before that, people got documents of various kinds that made the said parole, if youre not a refugee, if youre not into the Immigration Law business and you look at a car that says someone is here on parole, you think of the criminal justice system. It didnt clarify, the extended voluntary departure with clear statuses and a dreck mechanism, authorization for people to become green card holders after one year. These were significant changes, mostly they are routine now and people dont think about it a lot. Its significant for these reasons and the refugee act was celebrated and popular and that lasted four or five weeks until the muriel boatlift arrived. [ laughter ] this was also mentioned, people were really disillusioned because, wait a minute, i remember seeing editorials and we just passed the new refugee act, why doesnt that solve the problem . It turns out there is no magic bullet to address situations when people come in large numbers without much advance notice. Refugee issues are complicated and the responses are not easy or straightforward. The field is ripe with sudden emergencies that pose big challenges and, the whole business of refugee protection gets deeply involved in entangled with politics, both international and domestic. So that the muriel boatlift cause that problem after a few weeks of not really knowing how to deal with it sending mixed signals about the u. S. Response and it became clear that the boat flow had to be stopped. The decision was made to stop the southbound flow and all the boats were going to be able to come back with the people they had on board. But, finally began to look like a finite problem leading to 125,000 people coming. In the meantime, the challenges of screening and accommodation upon arrival were substantial. A lot of people were housed after preliminary processing at tamiami park and moved to the orange bowl contrived tents, living outside like things we seen. Like weve seen here and on the southwest border. Many people were sent to military bases in arkansas and not had a negative political impact a young progressive arkansas governor was defeated for reelection in 1980, generally attributed to backlash against the refugees, bill clinton ran six times for governor in 15 of the six but the antiimmigrant candidate defeated him one time in 1980 in the wake of the movement. Perhaps, that muriel boatlift had a role in carters loss in the 1980 election. Its not so much the numbers that pose the problem, carters Vietnam Initiative were accepted more readily. Its the perception of loss control that provides redmeat for anti refugee or immigrant candidates and we have to Pay Attention to that. Weve seen that kind of reaction in europe since the large movements of 2015 through 2016, the socalled local million. A backlash that gets rolling in response to perceptions of lost control leads not only to bed refugee policy but, quite dangerously, it also leads to the growing strength of openly authoritarian priorities hungry this really poses the greatest challenge to todays refugee and asylum policy and we are really facing an enormous dilemma it is somewhat hard to be optimistic some figures put it in context, 1950 through 1951 when the Key International refugee instruments were being drafted by the World Population was about 2. 5 million in 1980 when the refugee act was passed was about 4. 5 billion. In 2020 the World Population was expected to be 75 billion triple the level at the time of the 1950 convention. There will be more people will and now, today we get the equivalent of a muriel boatlift total every month along the southwest border with no sign of a significant endpoint the coast guard cant be deployed to deal with this, even if they wanted to. So, i think were at a critical time and i worry that the issue will be crucial in the election. I come to the mexico agreement the recently announced with great weariness i do hope, its not clear right now whether this is the case but i hope there will be something more, something in there that will focus on what mexico says they want major aid and Assistance Program in central america. There are ways they can work, Marshall Plan for the area, critical component to clearly the u. S. Administration has no interest in medicine on in the other direction. But, in addition to that a reduction in flow would ease the sheer logistical challenges to enormous logistical challenges that are not fully appreciated along the southwest order. For governments and ngos have done a heroic job theyve done a heroic job meeting people at the bus station when they get dropped off by dhs to help them move forward. So, maybe, some slowdown would help reduce the effectiveness of antiimmigrant or anti refugee demagoguery and help hold us for a long term and sustainable support for refugee protection. We have a long way to go in a real challenge today. Thank you. [ applause ]. This panel just with the implementation of the act cannot the justification or the origins i think its important to recognize that we can write an act that sounds pretty good on paper but when you try to implement it to you are going to have a hard time. Let me talk a little about the implementation problems we face immediately after the passage of the act. I say, and i want to be clear, president carter and his decision to push for the act and to implement this was a hugely important humanitarian decision and he deserves every bit of the credit that weve heard here today. That said, we have to be realistic and say that this does not solve all the problems and in fact it creates some. Lets talk about some of the ones that we in the state department and bureau of Refugee Programs faced in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the act. The first thing was vietnam and, in vietnam we had a huge moral imperative to act especially to protect vietnamese that had been working with the senate help doesnt had sided with us and or in the kind of difficulty after we pulled out. So, we were using the act to identify vietnamese who were eligible under the terms of the act and, what we found is that we interviewed in the field, people across borders, but what we found was that pretty soon all the stories sounded exactly the same. It was pretty clear that it was a path of responses that went from applicant 122 to 25. So, the actual identification of persons who have a well justified fear by reason of religion and so forth , after a while you realize that its a little hard to tell who has that well justified fear and who does not. We have to recognize that this will be with us as long as we have standards like that are written into the law, and we should. That means that you are going to have to make some very tough decisions and some of those may be negative and with consequences to the individual. But, if you dont do that, you are likely to be overwhelmed with applicants for status under the act that have questionable validity. Thats the first point. The second point weve dealt with and the difficulty of administering the act was the number of applicants and, our ability to bring , to the United States, under the law, a certain number, but what you do with the others . So, we spent a lot of time with countries like hong kong, malaysia, singapore, trying and with some success, but not total success and not success, trying to get the country involved to accept some of the applicants for status that we had interviewed and found credible but we had number problems in the United States that made it hard for us to take all of them into the United States. So, one of the things it seems to be a National Refugee policy on the part of the u. S. Is not gonna cut it. You need to have similar attitudes and policies and other countries, because youre going to need them as places where refugees can go if they cant come to the United States. A second problem and, i dont want to sound negative but my aim here is to identify problems that will have to be resolved and, one of them was involved in cambodia. The regime was so irrational and the cambodian authority was so irrational in who they designated as enemies, that, you couldnt find it identify this person is having a well founded fear of going back by reason of their Group Identity or status or religion, because, that was not the test the test may have been whether you wore glasses or not. So, all of the sudden the standard used was sent to the not applicable. But again, you probably wont have that happen very often but you did have it happen in the case of cambodia and it was quite a difficult problem to resolve. In the case of the mario boatlift, that was of course, more dramatic because it was right on our shores and right in carters office, the decisions had to be made. The only time i ever dealt with the president numerous times doing these days but it was the question of, how do we make these determinations as to whether who these people are and why they should be admitted to the United States . So, the idea is that you do that before they come on shore because the status changes to a totally different status if there an asylum applicant and before. But, you would really like to identify legitimate refugees before they come, so, you can in some way have some control of the flow. But, in order to do that you wouldve had to make these determinations at sea. In fact, president carters first thought was that he would do that, we would have investigations by intercepting bullets , talking to people and finding out but that lasted about 24 to 48 hours and was simply unworkable, partly because of the numbers involved and partly because of the risk involved. So, we drop to that we have the investigations after they arrived. Just a footnote on the governor of arkansas, who lost his election because, in the end, a third issue was where do you put all these people while you make investigations and try to resettle them. And . Later on, when i was undersecretary in the Clinton Administration and in depth with the president on other issues, every time i walked into the office he would say you son of a bandage, you cost to me the election and i said i dont think i did that and i said where do you thing the bumper sticks came from that said no cubans, no clinton. No commies no cubans no clinton . And that was all because of fort chafee, where we placed a lot of them and you have to figure out where to place them. So, that was not that was a very messy situation, as you can imagine. At the very last moment of the Carter Administration, we learned that the cubans for someone interested in talking to us about the possible deal, where, we would send back certain undesirables or people with criminal records or legitimate inmates of mental hospitals close to 3000 or Something Like that. We would try to send them back and, they would send to us, certain undesirables that they called, which were basic we political troublemakers that they wanted to get rid of and they couldve gelled them and many were jailed that many were under house arrest. So, i sought authority to have those conversations you can talk to them, you have to be in the u. S. And you cant use the state department to have the conversations because we dont have that kind of relationship. So, we did have those conversations and we ended up having them in my dining room and they went on for 3 1 2 days and ended Something Like 10 january and, the next day, we met again in the cubans said we sent her back to havana, i think theyd like to make a deal with the new administration. So, that actually did happen, the transfer did happen about a year and a half later. Again, i want to make the only point i want to me is that in the administration these laws are going to have to make compromises and decisions that are a little less than clean and optimum and that is the world in which we live. Two more examples of this. We are running short on time. Am i running over . Yes i cant believe that. [ laughter ] i cant handle any criticism from you on that point. [ laughter ] so that you want eric on your side at all times. But i want to stop and say that i want to be clear to say the aim and the action of the president in putting forth this law and the standard in putting forth a very high level of ambition is absolutely necessary. If you dont have that you have nothing picked up the phone and called i readily but that was the kind of commitment we had and not only was this mrs. Carter early, were going well only the overnight and the challenge for what you and i said we deal with this because the interviewing officer has the right to make these adjudications. They put together country studies and a framework of bringing ins officers back to the state department for briefings but nothing worked. And leading into the reagan years, the attorney general went out there and once again there was no success, why after the attorney generals visit the rejection rates had gone up yet again and we had to go back through the white house to the just this department to correct this matter. That somebody has got to to bring ins back to the reservation indoors is not able to do this on her own. There are a series of concrete cables and they were all put together in my success as a refugee coordinator in bangkok claims he lost 40 pounds and is four months down there trying to watch the process to make sure he got back on track. Among other things, doris had to say we dont think the officer in the case should be the same officer who reject the case, common sense but any trick in the book that they could come up with was applied by ins. To me, this sign of leadership starting with carter through the senior ranks just didnt give up normally he simply had them walk away from the problem and move on but it was trench warfare in a watershed moment that led to not just one decision but a National Security decision hard thing to get to the government incredible rule which i think both would say set a better tone for the way the refugee act was interred to that. Who didnt have a wholesale disregard for the applicant that was seen at that time. One of the last instructions was you will sit down when you interview the applicant, rather than standing above him and glaring at him, which is what officers were doing. Every one of these things had to be corrected and for the record i had no idea where to leave it required to bring these back on board and it was no mean feat to do that. So, i guess maybe running a little out of time even if there were two other remarks. The geneva conference in july 1979, a was accompanied by the foreign minister and we had the new level and said you need to public we think united dates for getting you up to this number and the first question was, will you be taking enough out of thailand and i said yes , will be doing that, it shows you at the foreign minister level how important it was for keeping asylum going. A mere two months before that they had 42,000 refugees down a cliff without those numbers but oddly enough this was the anniversary of what happened. [ applause ]. I will start by asking two questions to each panelist and i ask you. How different are things today . 55 of americans disapprove of hungarians in the 50s coming to the United States, the 65,000 hungarians, 62 of americans didnt want vietnamese to be resettled. 71 of americans didnt want the cubans. So, really, how, what are the principal differences today . Are things so very different . That is my first question. Very aware that the person asking the question often asked spends more time asking than the person answering. But, my second question, had about the predictability of the refugee act with the flexibility that you have to have is a Decision Maker if you want to risk bond to the circumstances . Let me go right across. In terms of flexibility, i know we may not be using the pool aspect of the refugee act but we should use it more or not sure how it might better and gave. And there is a residual ability but it might be a fallback to exert what were able to do in the carter and reagan years. Weve always had the same set of goals and ultimately, theres a letter from dozens of senators saying was to not satisfied with this cambodian issue i remember, this was done by hatfield but he was meeting with the president and i remember him saying why is he giving me a letter on refugees to give to the president whenever i meet with him to open the letter i give it to the president and it finally solved the problem. So, i think we have we need to have that kind of system, if we dont, were doomed but also maybe earl would be helpful in meeting some of the more ambiguous situations. The chinese were all sitting here saying, we had an obligation to the vietnamese in the period between january and april 30, nobody wanted to take these people at all, they were cowards, losers, corrupt, a bunch of us younger officers had to push and push for anybody to take the request to congress for members improved in april and didnt leave too much time but, if the policy is where it wants to be even at a war theres a new book out written about the last six months of vietnam and the efforts to push the administration into acting. What i think is interesting in the geography as part of the answer to your question, if you are talking about the vietnamese , its very distant and theres a sense that there is a possible filter between the decision to leave and the United States desiring to commit them to a status here. But if the notion is that you can walk across than theyve lost control. And, i think the answer is thats not the whole answer but it certainly a big part of the answer, and there is validity to it. At the rate we are going, we will examine the applicants for asylum, three years from now and in the meantime if theyre permitted to stay and outside of the country. I totally agree with that but its a much more challenging overall process, at least when the numbers get high and in ways that are beyond immediate control of the United States. The numbers may have negatively but i dont think this ever led to the level of intensity that we often see when people are coming directly to the United States people think the government doesnt have a handle on it. So, i think that is part of it and thats why asylum is going to be the area of focus and getting some more sense of control is a key for favorable political developments. I think. I also want to respond to the idea about parole because as mentioned in the earlier panels and different views of it for the reviews of that as well but it had been mentioned, there was a grievance from congress that i remember encountering early in my conversations with congressional half and when conditional entry was created the special provision was 17,000 numbers for refugees and parole was said not to be used before for those purposes and then Lyndon Johnson immediately uses that other signing ceremony to bring cubans and they rode it into the statute that parole couldnt be used for refugees except in unusual circumstances affecting the individual so, how do we use for for the muriel boatlift theres a good legal question i came across the desk in my office and the general counsels office the fact is that we were not paroling these people as refugees, it was cuban haitian status pending and frankly what else could you do that 125,000 people come and youre not in any kind of physician to block them they can force boats back and they will come in and be somewhere in some kind of status. I think that was justified, they were being paroled as refugees but for the other long Term Solution for the situation, when didnt have a problem for the cubans in seeing them, the ones welcomed, the ones without a terminal back down, seeing them get to the point because of the special statute, the cuban adjustment act that cubans who had been inspected and paroled could benefit from that couldve been a quick solution, as was mentioned finally the situation with the haitians was very much part of the mix in dealing with the muriel boatlift, the numbers were lower that there had been a lot of litigation sensitivity and advocacy and it was there you can just wave your hand and say all the cubans are my and not have anything to do with the haitians. Thats what led to the push for special legislation, special legislation in principle make sense to address pacific of largescale migration. You cant solve everything in advance were not in a good position, institutionally now to think of special legislation so that would be creative use but, the parole issue has something to do with applying the un definition, not only in asylum where we were bound by treaty to do a it in the overseas program. Theres a lot of overseas talk of this is going to be so much better because were getting rid of the old bias provisions that provide overseas resettlement for people who fled communist countries countries in the general area of the middle east and in a place where its wonderful and the un definition. A few people tried to raise issue but the un might not capture or easily capture everybody we have but that train was leaving the station. So, what can we do now ask theres been many efforts to try to advocate ways to change it i wouldnt go back to pulling refugees but something more, specifically authorizing to adjudicate we have a handle on numbers in the Asylum Program only handled numbers as one sort of application, strict application of the un definition. So, i think, and let me part company a little bit and permit a distinction between refugees and economic migrants of forced migrant, someone who is a victim of horse migration, which is the majority of the more than 70 Million People that the unhcr calls refugees and displaced persons, so nobody can say to someone who has a good reason to leave the country of origin and that they should leave, they are forced out and, that fact and the fact that they are going to be confronted with so many varying situations, to me means that we need flexibility and whether that means legislation or administration and administrative capacity for flexibility. That of course leads aside the politics, but on the politics of this, 71 of americans didnt want to marry leidos to come to the United States, i would venture that is probably a similar percentage in terms of should the Trump Administration continue to return people to mexico or detain migrants or be harsh on migrants, you probably get about maybe, 71 or 65 or over 50 . My point is, i think we are underestimating critical components of lytic leadership on the issues. When all of the republican members are not making a partisan point by making a descriptive point, when all the republican members of the house rode into effectively shut down the Refugee Program that was leadership. It was a certain kind of leadership so, to my mind, im not saying that there are large forces at play but i think that we have to be careful about underestimating the importance of political we standing up for the right to in the mid19th century. Had father cochran with anti semitic rants during the earliest part of the 20th century with tens of millions of followers in United States but so, this notion that we have a tradition of a consensus on behalf of diversity and inclusion. So, we really have to be careful about diminishing reports of lytic leadership on these issues. Do we have time for close . By all means, rebuttal, comment and then we will close okay with deep apologies, its always the last panel that really has to stick this time, none of the earlier ones too but we do, in fact we are less than an hour for this panel so if that is me sounding defensive, so be it. The last question was in reference to the future, we had one with the indochinese we had a asylum situation, with mexico in this case and they will have to do, unfortunately, what has to be done, it has to be done down there and done well, with much more attention from 12 trained interviewers we have to give a government incentive. Were involved with somebody else got to make sure they are protect and care for, but what we have now is trump doing his terrible thing in the democrat thing its terrible whats happening and when i can get anywhere in this situation. Okay. So this thinker and was made between refugees under the definition and migrants. Did you question the reason of that . Not the reason but the accuracy. I would say that you should be very careful in getting rid of the distinction even though the distinction is frequently not as crystalclear as it might be but the reason is numbers i think that you can persuade americans more easily that they ought to have a very welcoming position of these people that are discriminated against under Refugee Status but i dont think you can solve the worlds poverty problem by bringing people to the United States i think, therefore from a political point of view and a practical point of view, i think there is considerable narrative in maintaining that distinction, in order to keep the door open for what we call today, refugees. I dont disagree with your comment with respect to those fleeing poverty. But what im saying is there is a continuum for people who are fleeing all kinds of levels of violence that make their staying in their place of origin completely untenable, and him i not be refugee as a thats a fact and how we deal with the fact has to be the subject of serious consideration, because, that woman who is and Gang Violence in honduras and is at our border, has no business being returned to her country of origin. We have to confront the reality that what we do with the reality is a different question. I mean, i agree with the criticism of the sharp distinction between economic migrants and refugees, it is a spectrum, but the we have to bite the bullet and say we cant say yes to someone who has some level of fear we have to find other kinds of solution including things like alleviating the risk but we cant eliminate the risk. We cant do that through the Asylum Program. Can solve the problem of Central American violence through the Asylum Program but their conclusion is therefore we do nothing by way of relocation through asylum. Im not taking that position. We can do something, but we cant do everything. We have to figure out a way to show people that we are somehow balancing that so that we can keep alive the optimum level of support, even though asylum is inherently and i really factor in the overall immigration system. Thats the challenge now, but i think we have to recognize that we cant solve or address all fears, we are going to have to say, some people have to undertake risk and if our country collapsed and authoritarian is him i would hope some people was dated take on risk there are different situations and circumstances but the realistic situation we are facing is this in the 21st century. We join the issue, its fair to say. So, i think its a really good point of departure for the panel. Please join me in thanking our panelists. [ applause ] all we we are featuring American History tv programs is a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan3 lectures and history american artifacts real america. The civil war. World history. The presidency special event coverage about our nations history enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan3 weeknights this month we feature American History tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend he spent three tonight, the new University Holds a remaking America Political history complex with the discussion on the relation between violence and political change from the time of the American Revolution to present day. Watch American History tv tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. Mac sunday at 9 am eastern time, washington journal in American History tv lives peschel calling program, looking back at woodstock, the 1969 cultural and mutual phenomenon with david farber, the author of the book the age of great dreams, america in the 60s. Joining us to take calls. Drugs matter but who takes the drugs and why the drugs have the effect they did in the sixth and early 70s, is again something we are still wrestling with the scholars to understand. The technology of drugs and we have other people who thought long and hard to its imperative as an understanding of not just this axes of the production of history. What drugs we use have an incredible ability to change the direction of a given society. Calling to talk with david farber about the social movements of the 60s, leading up to woodstock and its legacy, woodstock, 50 years, sunday at 9 am eastern time on sees washington journal. Also live in American History tv on cspan 3. American history tv products are now available at the new c span online store go to cspan store. For to see what is new for American History tv, check out all of the seas and products all of the cspan products. American history tv continues with the lectures and history series. Melissa taught a class on Southeast Asian migration to the United States following the vietnam war. She examined how laws and Public Opinion of changed over the past five decades and emphasize the difference between immigrants and refugees , this is one hour. Today we will talk about topic 18, Southeast Asian refugee migration. If you have been following the news in recent years i imagine that you, like me have found it difficult to ignore the topic of refugees. This is an image of a refugees experience fleeing communist vietnam in 19 75. But, in many ways it reminds us of is