Here & Now

Here & Now for Jan. 27, 2017

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here and Now,” a first look at President Trump’s immigration agenda. Later a look ahead to Governor Walker’s welfare plan that ties work to FoodShare benefits. It’s “Here and Now” for January 27.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

In a flurry of executive orders this week, President Trump acted on his campaign promise to take on immigration policy, including his battle cry to build the wall.

Donald Trump:

We have to build the wall. We have to stop drugs from pouring in. We have to stop people from just pouring into our country. We have no idea where they’re from. And I campaigned on the wall and it’s very important. But that wall will cost us nothing.

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at President Trump’s executive order to build a wall along the border with Mexico and his call beefing up border patrol and immigration officers to deport undocumented immigrants and strip so-called sanctuary cities of federal grant funding. In the midst of this, Milwaukee County is considering reaffirming a resolution there that protects immigrants in a “safe county,” urging the sheriff to not deputize local law enforcement as immigration agents. Reaction and response now from Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Executive Director of Voces de La Frontera, an immigration rights organization in Milwaukee. Thanks for being here.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

Thank you for the invitation.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your reaction to President Trump’s executive order to build the wall and beef up immigration enforcement?

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

It’s not surprising, but I appreciate the opportunity to be on this show because I think people really need to be informed about the reality of the consequences. As you mentioned, the 25th, the day the executive orders were signed, there was the Milwaukee County resolution, a public hearing that really affirms antidiscrimination policies and affirms the culture and policies that value our diversity that strengthens — calls for strengthening immigrant protections and for other groups as well. And I think it’s very timely because one of the things that was being said is, “Oh, this isn’t going to happen.” And the reality is on that same day those executive orders included some of those pieces that we speak to. One of those pieces, of course, is the fact that he’s threatening, bullying local government by saying, “Oh, we’re going to pull federal funding if you don’t — refuse to be an arm of immigration.” If local law enforcement and local jails don’t function as an arm of immigration. So he’s promoting 287G, which means that local law enforcement would be turned into immigration agents. And he basically stripped all of the enforcement priorities that were won under the previous administration by the immigrant rights movement, which has broad support, which included that only people who have been — where there’s a judge’s federal warrant for probable cause. So you’ve been convicted of a serious crime, would you be transferred over to immigration from a county jail. All of those things have been stripped, and basically if you are undocumented, you are now a target for deportation. So the county ordinance was really affirming that we do not want to enter into any of these kind of agreements and we believe that these kind of enforcement priorities are important because you should not — we should not be breaking up families. We should not be racially profiling people and driving without a license, taking away people’s constitutional rights to a fair trial, should not be a part and parcel of any kind of community.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let me just jump in and read for our viewers what Sheriff David Clarke has to say about this. He says, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office will continue to do everything we can that is codified in both state and federal statutes and in the overarching concept of the rule of law in our nation to assist in addressing the reality that there have been terrible crimes of violence perpetrated in our country by illegal aliens and that the federal government is right and just to seek their deportation. The agents of ICE, just like any of their law enforcement brethren, will continue to enjoy full access to the needed county facilities to perform their lawful duties. So that flies in the face of what you would be seeking in Milwaukee County.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

He’s a total hypocrite. Right now, Voces de La Frontera has a lawsuit, because one of the things that the immigrant rights movement won in November of 2014, after hundreds of local and state governments created these enforcement priorities. So only after you’ve been convicted and there’s a judge’s warrant, will a county jail turn you over to immigration, otherwise they’re not interested in this, like broad blanket approach, which has included even U.S. citizens being handed over to immigration. And people who for a minor infraction such as driving without a license, you know, or now it could be a speeding ticket or something that happened ten years ago would be handed over. So what he has — just to clarify what the lawsuit is about, we do not know if Sheriff Clarke is complying with these federal enforcement priorities because he has refused to let the Wisconsin people know if he’s actually complying. There are also four people dead in the county jail and he’s refused to take responsibility.

Frederica Freyberg:

We just have about 30 seconds left, so I wanted to ask you, Speaker Paul Ryan is saying that “dreamers,” the undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children here will not have the rug pulled out from under them. Does that give you some comfort, those words?

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Because those “dreamers” came here at a young age. They love their parents. They love their uncles and their aunts. They love their brothers and their sisters. And we have a broken immigration system that has trapped millions of families in a mixed immigration status who every day live under threat of deportation. You bet those kids who were crying after the election, elementary school children because they feared their parents, they were going to come home and their parents were going to be gone. You bet this is not a consolation. We need federal immigration reform that is just. And that’s the best thing that Congressman Ryan can do if he is sincere about helping these families who contribute economically and in so many ways to our churches and our schools and deserve equality. And we deserve policies at a local, state and federal level that affirm civil rights and constitutional rights protections. And that’s what we’re being threatened with at the federal level.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

I encourage people to pass similar ordinances and to get involved to make sure that we hold the line on what our values are.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, thank you very much.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

President Trump released another executive order this week aimed at immigration. This one indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees from entering the United States and suspends immigration for at least 30 days from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, while authorities work to toughen screening procedures. All of this happening as a Syrian refugee living and working in Middleton waits for word on his application for asylum that he filed nearly three years ago. We visited him last winter when he was certain he’d be granted that asylum any day. He says the waiting has been excruciating and new executive actions around Syrian refugees add little comfort.

Mousa Aldashash:

It was I think the first six months was the hardest thing. Especially every day when you go outside to open the mailbox, you know.

Frederica Freyberg:

Mousa Aldashash had his interview for asylum with an immigration officer in Chicago in May of 2014.

Mousa Aldashash:

And the worst part was like when the officer told me it was going to take the decision three weeks. So, you know, every day, every single day after those three weeks was like every time I go to open the mailbox, you know, putting my hand in my heart. It was very tough.

Frederica Freyberg:

He says at first he thought just telling the officer he fled from Syria would be all the words needed to explain why he sought asylum.

Mousa Aldashash:

People killed. Cities destroyed.

Frederica Freyberg:

Aldashash and his family escaped the death and destruction in the spring of 2013, driving seven days and switching cars three times through danger zones to reach the Turkish border and then on to a flight to Chicago. He described the harrowing escape to us when we first met.

Mousa Aldashash:

I took my wife and my daughter from house.

Frederica Freyberg:

And you said that you had to take a really circuitous route to —

Mousa Aldashash:

To avoid ISIS, avoid Assad regime.

Frederica Freyberg:

Aldashash said he studied business in college and worked for a global construction company in his home country. But he says he knew he had to get out to save his family when bombs destroyed their home. Aldashash escaped with his wife, baby daughter, his parents and a nephew. His brother had resettled in Middleton years earlier and so the family moved to be near him. Since Mousa and his wife Khlood arrived, they had another baby, a little boy. His parents were granted asylum based on his application, but why the wait for him?

Mousa Aldashash:

It's just going to take time of checking the background. But for me, the problem is — like I don’t know how these things work. I’m not worried about…

Frederica Freyberg:

His lawyer says while her client has nothing to hide, because of the destruction of the country, the U.S. government has a terribly difficult time, she says, obtaining the information they need to assess the security risks or absence thereof in the backgrounds of refugees coming from Syria. So the wait could be based on careful vetting, with calls for even more scrutiny. In a letter congratulating Donald Trump on his election, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker specifically asked the new president for more input in the refugee resettlement process for refugees from countries with terrorist ties, saying, quote, we would like our state to have a broader role in determining how many refugees and from which countries until we are comfortable with the vetting process that is being utilized to screen these individuals.

Scott Walker:

I think really for us we want to make sure Homeland Security has an aggressive and appropriate vetting process. That we have an idea who’s coming in, where they’re coming from, how long they’re anticipating being here.

Frederica Freyberg:

Aldashash and his family hope to stay permanently. They currently have temporary protected status, meaning Syria is designated as too dangerous for deporting people. Aldashash in no way expects that. He has never even considered that he won’t be granted asylum.

Mousa Aldashash:

Oh, my god. I never — I never thought about that. You just say the words, like, you know.

Frederica Freyberg:

He has work papers and is employed. He is mastering English and soon his daughter will be in school. They have lived in Middleton for nearly four years.

Mousa Aldashash:

I just start to build my life. I start to live like normal, you know, everything’s going on, even if I’m still like — I want to feel like everything, I'm related to this land.

Frederica Freyberg:

He says as he rebuilds his life in this new land, he doesn’t often allow himself to look back, because he says, in his home country there’s nothing left but the pain. Senator Tammy Baldwin's office made an inquiry with immigration officials on behalf of Mousa Aldashash because of his concern over the delay. The Chicago asylum office responded that it is actively processing the case, but has to perform additional review resulting in the longer processing time. For more on people from Syria, the current vetting process and refugees from other countries, we sat down with Scott Gordon, journalist with WisContext who had some reporting on that topic this week. We started by asking about current numbers of Syrian refugees in the U.S. and Wisconsin. What do we know about the current numbers of Syrians coming into the United States as refugees?

Scott Gordon:

Well, in 2016 the U.S. actually surpassed that goal of 10,000 by quite a bit. More than 15,000 refugees from Syria were admitted into the United States. In Wisconsin, so far it’s only been about 130, 135 people. So not a lot resettled here yet, though that obviously could well change in the future.

Frederica Freyberg:

More Syrian refugees continue to be resettled in Wisconsin, I mean, as we speak.

Scott Gordon:

Yes. The last time I pulled up the State Department numbers on that, in January, it was about 11 more people had entered the state from Syria.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, we know that President Trump and Governor Walker voiced strong concerns about the vetting process. What can you tell us about that vetting process?

Scott Gordon:

It is a long and extensive vetting process. How it starts is someone applies to the UN’s refugee agency. There’s some screening that goes on there. The UN says that only about 1% of the world’s refugee population even makes it past that first step. And then on the American side, the State Department and various federal intelligence agencies and other agencies, you know, put the refugees through a pretty extensive screening process.

Frederica Freyberg:

In fact, would it be described as quite a stringent process?

Scott Gordon:

Yes. And there are extra screening steps for people from Syria specifically.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, though, you’re kind of digging deep into another area in this reporting and that has to do with a larger number of refugees coming in from a country in Southeast Asia. Tell us about that.

Scott Gordon:

That would be Burma, and the crisis in Burma has been going on a lot longer than the crisis in Syria. And there are a lot of parallels there where you essentially have a government relentlessly attacking its own people. You know, in Burma there’s been strife among different ethnic groups and religious groups for centuries. It’s essentially a country with a lot of — with multiple civil wars and multiple campaigns by the state that essentially amount to genocide or something very close.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how many refugees are there from Burma in the United States?

Scott Gordon:

More than 166,000. So they’re one of the top five largest refugee groups in the country.

Frederica Freyberg:

And in Wisconsin?

Scott Gordon:

In Wisconsin, a little over 5,000. So they’re currently a much bigger refugee group here than Syrians.

Frederica Freyberg:

And where are they mostly settled here?

Scott Gordon:

Mostly Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Madison and a smaller number in Sheboygan and Eau Claire. There’s also some parallels with the Syrians in that one of the groups coming out of Burma, the Rohingya, are mostly a Muslim group and I spoke with someone from the State Crime Initiative at Queen Mary University in London who is concerned about how anti-Muslim rhetoric from Donald Trump and from other figures in the United States will affect them.

Frederica Freyberg:

The term “alternative facts” has become part of the political lexicon this week, compliments of Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway. We take a closer look now at the ongoing tug-of-war over the truth between the White House press corps and President Trump. Here to help is UW-Madison School of Journalism Professor Michael Wagner. Thanks for being here.

Michael Wagner:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

What was your reaction when you heard Kellyanne Conway describe as alternate facts the crowd numbers that Donald Trump was talking about at his inauguration?

Michael Wagner:

Well I thought that was a pretty ridiculous thing to say. It is completely clear to anybody with eyes that one crowd was larger than the other. Is it important that more people went to Barack Obama's first inaugural than Donald Trump’s? No, it isn’t. But is it important that people who work for the president of the United States and the president himself can say, “This group was larger than that group” and be honest about it? Yes. That’s important to be able to do. It’s the kind of thing that when she said that I think it decreased the amount of trust that the news media and the public had in the information the White House is putting out.

Frederica Freyberg:

When is an alternative fact a lie?

Michael Wagner:

When it’s not a fact. You can have alternative facts. You can say, well, if we’re looking at education numbers and say we might look at test scores as one fact and we might look at graduation rates as another fact. And they might lead us to different conclusions. But here the way she was using alternative fact was to say what we’re going to do is we’re going to cut off part of the photograph and keep evidence away from you that reveals the truth. That is not a fact. That’s a lie.

Frederica Freyberg:

So there’s a big difference between that and cherry-picking, which politicians do all the time to make their case.

Michael Wagner:

Sure. Politicians will regularly pick the best numbers available to make their policies or performance in office look good. This is a different kind of thing.

Frederica Freyberg:

So if this is to persist, what is the responsibility on the part of the press corps or all journalists in covering this administration?

Michael Wagner:

I would say relentless aggressive truth-telling, as specific as possible. And so one thing that a lot of reporting about say the size of the inaugural crowd has done has tried to point out, so we have the photographs, which tell a clear story, but there are other ways to look at the number of viewers of the inaugural in terms of who watched on television, who streamed it on the internet and reporters have done a good job of telling those stories as well. But I think what’s really important here is for journalists to be relentless and aggressive in pursuing the verifiable truth. On some of these scores they’ve done a good job in the early weeks. At other times the administration gets away with things that they shouldn’t.

Frederica Freyberg:

Because one of your concerns, if they will talk about alternative facts that have to do with this thing that was demonstrably false and kind of small as in crowd numbers, what are your concerns about using this kind of method on the part of Kellyanne Conway or others on larger issues?

Michael Wagner:

Well, the first concern is what else are you going to be willing to lie about and are those going to be more important things, more consequential things for the country. The other thing is that it really diminishes our trust in our government. It also diminishes trust in the news media because the administration is attacking the news media relentlessly. One of President Trump’s advisors, Steve Bannon said that the news media are the opposition party, which is a remarkable and incorrect thing to say about the role of the news media in a democracy. So one worry is about diminished trust in our institutions. If we can’t trust what facts are, if we can’t agree on what the truth is and what the truth isn’t, it becomes very difficult to successfully live in a republican democracy.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, another thing that Donald Trump has pushed is this idea that up to five million people committed voter fraud in this past election and, you know, people have said this is false. It isn’t the same as those photographs, but experts and even other members of his party say that this is false. But do you think that he’s using that kind of falsehood to push policy? It’s like a different thing than his, quote, obsession with crowds and ratings?

Michael Wagner:

I think it’s partially to push policy, especially related to some of his ideas about immigration, whether it’s building a wall between the United States and Mexico or preventing refugees from countries that are in difficult shape from entering the United States. So there’s some policy about it. But it’s also — one thing that he does to divert attention from other things. If there’s negative news, we usually get a really amazing statement that ends up not passing the truth test from the president. We got it on the campaign trail and we’re getting it now that he’s in the White House.

Frederica Freyberg:

So we have to watch closely.

Michael Wagner:

We certainly do.

Frederica Freyberg:

Michael Wagner, thanks very much.

Michael Wagner:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

As we pivot from federal to state politics this story broke today. A federal panel that last November called Wisconsin’s Assembly boundaries “an unconstitutional gerrymander” this morning ordered state Republican law makers to redraw and approve district maps by November first 2017. The state is expected to request the U.S. Supreme Court to take that case. For tonight’s look ahead, Governor Scott Walker’s welfare plan that he’ll detail in his next state budget early next month. He calls it “Wisconsin Works for Everyone,” taking off of former Governor Tommy Thompson’s “Wisconsin Works” program of the 1990s, which mandated work or employment training in return for a benefit check and child care. The new plan would require parents who receive FoodShare or food stamp benefits to work 80 hours a month. Governor Thompson toured the state with Scott Walker this week to announce the plan. Tommy Thompson joins us next week to discuss it. Tonight we’re joined by Milwaukee Democratic State Senator LaTonya Johnson who opposes the plan. Thanks very much for being here.

LaTonya Johnson:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your opposition to requiring parents of school-aged children receiving FoodShare to work 80 hours a month?

LaTonya Johnson:

My objection to this is the sanctions. There is no way to impose a sanction or a decrease in benefits to the parents and not have that affect the family. And my biggest concern are those children. A sanction to the parents seems like it’s going to be a small deal, but it’s not. My concern is what does that look like for those children who are already living in poverty who have no control over who they’re born to or if their parents are going to get it right and be able to maintain the requirements that are required?

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, I understand that the maximum benefit of FoodShare for a family of four would be like $650. Any ideas on how that sanction would work? Let’s say it’s a family of four and they are receiving $650.

LaTonya Johnson:

From my understanding, if a parent is — if a family is receiving $650, say that that cut to benefits is a $150 cut. That means those benefits are decreased by $150. That is that parents — that family’s allotment for that month. And so there’s no way to isolate that parent who doesn’t participate in this welfare to work program from the benefits of the children. It decreases the entire allotment for the family.

Frederica Freyberg:

The 2013 law that required adults with no children to work in return for FoodShare resulted in 21,000 finding work and 64,000 losing their benefits. Would you expect to see a similar pattern with any new such requirement?

LaTonya Johnson:

Well, the part that concerns to me about those able-bodied individuals who didn’t have children is that 21,000 individuals found work. But there’s no distinction in how many of those individuals actually have real jobs and how many of those individuals were actually working for their benefit. Because that 21,000 number includes both parties. So it includes those who are required to work for their food stamp benefits. So the only payment that they’re getting is their food stamps, plus those individuals who found jobs. And for those 64,000 individuals who are no longer on the program, there’s no follow-through to find out where those individuals are, if they were able to find work or if they’re just living in poverty unable to feed themselves.

Frederica Freyberg:

The governor says that there are 7300 FoodShare households reporting no income and, again, recipients can either work or enroll in job training. Why isn’t that beneficial to unemployed recipients?

LaTonya Johnson:

We all want individuals to work and to find a job and to become economically self-sufficient. So requiring those individuals to work is not the issue. The issue is imposing sanction on those families that would result in those children sinking further into poverty. And that’s the concern. We want to make sure that those children do not lose meals because their parents are not participating in the program.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Very briefly, with less than 30 seconds left, another prong of the governor’s plan would require people receiving housing vouchers to work, and he believes these changes prevent people from settling into assistance. What do you think about that part of the plan?

LaTonya Johnson:

I think that that part of the plan, the housing authority has a wait list for low-income families who are eligible who can’t get on the system. I think what we see is a war on those individuals that are living in poverty. That somehow living in poverty in this state is your fault. So we’re taking a by any means necessary approach to punish those individuals who are low income rather than finding solutions that will work for everybody and will lead those families to economic self-sufficiency.

Frederica Freyberg:

Senator LaTonya Johnson, thanks very much for joining us.

LaTonya Johnson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now for a quick look at other news of the week, including ballooning costs for highway construction in Wisconsin. A new state audit shows 16 major projects will cost $3 billion more than original estimates due to inflation, inflation not accounted for. The report also downgraded the percentage of state highways in good condition from 53% to 41%. And that’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.