When insurance is affordable, it’s surprisingly painless.
>>> YOUR AGENCY WILL BE
SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM THEIR
PARENTS --
PARENTS -- >> NO, WHAT WE’LL BE DOING IS
PROSECUTING PARENTS WHO HAVE
BROKEN THE LAW, JUST AS WE DO
EVERY DAY IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
OF AMERICA. >> I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, BUT IF
THAT PARENT HAS A 4-YEAR-OLD
CHILD, WHAT DO YOU PLAN ON DOING
WITH THAT CHILD?
>> THE CHILD UNDER LAW GOES TO
HHS FOR CARE AND CUSTODY.
>> THEY WILL BE SEPARATED BY
THEIR PARENT.
THEIR PARENT. >> JUST LIKE WE DO IN THE UNITED
STATES EVERY DAY.
>> AND THE QUESTION IS AND THE
REQUEST HAS BEEN TO GIVE US THE
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU ARE
TRAINING AND WHAT THE PROTOCOLS
ARE FOR SEPARATING A CHILD FROM
THEIR PARENT.
THEIR PARENT. >> I’M HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH
THE TRAINING INFORMATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ABOUT A MONTH AFTER THAT
EXCHANGE IN WHICH THEN HHS
SECRETARY KIRSTJEN NIELSEN
CLAIMED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
WAS NOT SEPARATING FAMILIES AT
THE SOUTHERN BORDER AS POLICY,
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT KAMALA
HARRIS BECAME THE FIRST SENATOR
TO CALL FOR NIELSEN TO RESIGN,
CITING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, HER
MISLEADING RECORD ON STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
POLICY ON SEPARATING CHILDREN
FROM THEIR PARENTS AT THE
BORDER.
BORDER. JOINING ME NOW IS 2020
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, SENATOR
KAMALA HARRIS FROM CALIFORNIA.
GOOD TO HAVE YOU.
>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, CHRIS.
>> YOU ASKED FOR THIS BACK IN
MAY, JUNE 2018, AND YOU GOT IT
TODAY.
TODAY. I’M CURIOUS HOW YOU’RE ACTUALLY
FEELING ON THE DAY WHERE SHE
LOST HER JOB?
>> WELL, LISTEN, I CALLED FOR
HER RESIGNATION.
HER RESIGNATION. I STILL BELIEVE THAT SHE SHOULD
NOT BE IN THAT POSITION, AND
OBVIOUSLY SHE’S NOT THERE
ANYMORE, BUT, CHRIS, IT’S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS A POLICY
OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S THAT SHE
IMPLEMENTED AND WAS CLEARLY
PREPARED TO DO SO.
BUT IT IS THE ADMINISTRATION’S
POLICY.
POLICY. AND THERE IS, YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT
ANY ONE PERSON ONLY TO BLAME OR
TO REQUIRE ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT’S THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION
AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
COMPLICIT WITH THE THIS
ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY, WHICH
IS ABOUT SEPARATING CHILDREN AT
THE BORDER, IT’S ABOUT
PERPETUATING UNTRUTHS, LIES,
FRANKLY, ABOUT WHAT IS THE
NATURE OF THE ISSUE, AND IT IS
ABOUT REALLY JUST A POLITICAL
GAME THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS
PLAYING, INCITING FEAR WITHIN
PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY AROUND
WHAT IS OTHERWISE REALLY A
HUMANITARIAN ISSUE.
HUMANITARIAN ISSUE. AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO
ADDRESS IT ON EVERY LEVEL, BUT
THERE ARE -- IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT
WHOEVER WAS OR WILL BE THE NEXT
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY.
HOMELAND SECURITY. THIS IS ABOUT AN ADMINISTRATION
THAT HAS FAILED TO PROJECT THE
MORALS AND THE -- AND THE VALUES
OF OUR COUNTRY, AND INSTEAD IS
ENGAGED IN -- IN POLITICAL
GAMESMANSHIP AROUND AN ISSUE
THAT IS HAVING REAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR VERY VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO
ADDRESS IT, BECAUSE YOU SAID
WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS
IT, BUT JUST AS A SORT OF
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, I MEAN,
NIELSEN, ACCORDING TO REPORTING,
WAS ESSENTIALLY FIRED BECAUSE
SHE WAS NOT WILLING TO FACIALLY
BREAK THE LAW.
THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING HER
TO DO THINGS THAT WOULD BE IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
HE GOT RID OF HER.
THERE IS AN AN DISPAGS THAT THE
PRESIDENT WILL PUSH FOR THAT.
I GUESS THE QUESTION AS A LAWYER
YOURSELF, FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL, PROSECUTOR, WHAT TO DO
IF AND WHEN THE MOMENT COMES
WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO FACIALLY
VIOLATE THE LAW?
>> WELL, THERE NEEDS TO BE
CONSEQUENCE.
CONSEQUENCE. OBVIOUSLY, FIRST OF ALL, THE
COURTS ARE ACTING AND KICKING IN
IN TERMS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE
VARIOUS POLICIES FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION. THERE NEEDS TO BE ALSO SOME
CONSEQUENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
EXERTED BY THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. I AM TRULY HOPING THAT MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL AGREE
THAT WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE
POLICIES COMING THROUGH THAT
DEPARTMENT THAT ARE REALLY
VIOLATING PEOPLE’S HUMAN RIGHTS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
ASYLUM, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
PEOPLE FLEEING MURDERED CAPITALS
OF THE WORLD, AND WE ARE
PREPARED, ACCORDING TO THIS
ADMINISTRATION, TO TURN OUR
BACKS ON THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING
HELP AND REFUGE.
YOU LOOK AT THE LIES THAT ARE
BEING PERPETUATED AND THE
MISDIRECTION OF PRIORITIES.
THIS VISIT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION PAID DOWN TO, CHR
I’VE BEEN THERE, LET ME TELL YOU
SOMETHING, THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT
BUILDING THIS FENCE THAT HE IS
CALLING A WALL, WHICH IS A
VANITY PROJECT.
VANITY PROJECT. WHAT I SAW WERE TUNNELS.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DEAL WITH
THE TUNNELS OR THE FENCE OR THE
WALL OR WHATEVER THEY’RE CALLING
IT?
IT? IT IS A COMPLETE DISTRACTION
FROM WHAT NEEDS TO BE PRODUCTIVE
APPROACH AND GOOD PUBLIC POLICY
AROUND AN ISSUE, INCLUDING THE
FACT THAT PART OF WHAT WE NEED
TO DO IF WE WANT TO FOCUS ON
PREVENTION, IF WE THINK ABOUT IT
SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM, IS THE
HUMANITARIAN AID AND THE AID
THAT WE WERE GIVING THE NORTHERN
TRIANGLE.
TRIANGLE. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS NOW CUT
OFF.
OFF. THAT’S AID THAT HAS MANY
PURPOSES, INCLUDING FOCUSSING ON
THE POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE COUNTRIES,
AID THAT HAS AS A FOCUS AND A
POTENTIAL FOCUS REDUCTION OF
CORRUPTION IN THOSE COUNTRIES.
BUT WE’RE CUTTING THAT OFF AND
REJECTING AND TURNING OUR BACKS
ON PEOPLE WHO ARE FLEEING.
SO THERE’S --
>> SO --
>> SO -- >> IT DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE ANY
LOGIC, IN ADDITION TO BEING A
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS.
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS. >> SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
AID, AND THAT IS 100% TRUE.
WE HAVE REDUCED EVERY YEAR, I
THINK, OF THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, AID TO THOSE
THREE COUNTRIES, EL SALVADOR,
HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE.
IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW
OR PRESIDENT IN THE FUTURE WHEN
SOMETHING LIKE THIS PRESENTED
ITSELF.
ITSELF. THE ADMINISTRATION’S RHETORIC
ASIDE, THE NUMBERS ARE GOING UP
AND THERE IS A GENUINE CAPACITY
ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE COUNTRY
BUREAUCRACY’S ISSUE TO DEAL
HUMANELY WITH FAMILIES AND YOUNG
CHILDREN.
CHILDREN. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
WHAT IS THE -- WHAT IS THE
PROGRAM THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO
SEE PURSUED HERE?
>> WELL, THERE HAS -- IT’S A
MULTIPRONG APPROACH THAT IS
REQUIRED.
REQUIRED. SO IT IS BOTH ABOUT
REINSTITUTING THAT AID SO WE CAN
DEAL WITH THE -- THE LONG-TERM
EFFECTS OF THE CRISIS AND -- AND
HOPEFULLY MITIGATE OR REDUCE
THEM.
THEM. AND -- WHICH IS THE REASON THAT
PEOPLE ARE FLEEING THESE
COUNTRIES THROUGH AID.
WE CAN POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE
REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO FLEE.
THERE IS SHORT-TERM WHAT WE NEED
TO DO, WHICH TO IS TO HAVE A
ROBUST APPROACH TO PROCESSING
ASYLUM CLAIMS, SO THAT WE GIVE
PEOPLE A MEANINGFUL PROCESS BY
WHICH THEY CAN TELL THEIR
STORIES AND DESCRIBE THE HARM
THEY’RE FLEEING.
THEY’RE FLEEING. WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT ALSO THIS
-- THIS POLICY THAT THEY PUT IN
PLACE TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE
SHOULD BE PROCESSED IN MEXICO.
WELL, MANY OF THEM HAVE ALSO
EXPERIENCED HARM THROUGH THE
TRAVELS THROUGH MEXICO, BUT YET
WE’RE TURNING OUR BACK AND
SAYING GO BACK TO MEXICO WHILE
WE’RE PROCESSING YOUR CASES.
THAT’S MISINFORMED AND
MISDIRECTED AS A POLICY.
SO THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT
MUST BE DONE, THAT ARE BOTH
AROUND PREVENTION IN THE LONG
TERM BUT ALSO ADDRESSING THE
CURRENT ISSUE, WHICH IS A
HUMANITARIAN ISSUE, AND REQUIRES
A HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE.
THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’VE SEEN.
WE’VE SEEN AN ADMINISTRATION
THAT IS ENGAGED IN A VERY
PUNITIVE APPROACH TO PEOPLE WHO
ARE VULNERABLE AND ARE SEEKING
HELP FROM US AS A COUNTRY.
THIS IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF WHO WE
ARE OR WHO WE SHOULD BE AS -- AS
A COUNTRY WHO HAS SAID THAT WE
WILL ACCEPT AND RECEIVE THOSE
WHO ARE FLEEING HARM.
>> THE ADMINISTRATION CONTENDS,
AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS
REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THEIR
GOOD FAITH, BUT THEIR CONVENTION
IS NOT THAT IT’S PUNITIVE, BUT
RATHER THAT IT’S DETERRENCE,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE
ATTEMPTING TO SEND A SIGNAL DOWN
THE LINE TO THE NORTHERN
TRIANGLE YOU CANNOT DO THIS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE
LOGIC OF DETERRENCE GENERALLY IN
THIS KIND OF SITUATION?
>> PEOPLE ARE FLEEING HOMICIDES,
MURDERS.
MURDERS. PEOPLE ARE FLEEING CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT PRESENT GREATER HARM TO
THEM THAN WHAT THEY’RE
EXPERIENCING WHEN THEY COME TO
THE BORDER.
THE BORDER. IT’S JUST -- IT ACTUALLY IS JUST
-- IT’S WRONG.
THEY’RE WRONG TO SAY THIS.
IT’S JUST ACTUALLY -- THERE WILL
BE NO DETERRENT EQUAL TO THE
DETERRENT THAT IS TO STAY IN A
COUNTRY WHERE THEY MIGHT BE
KILLED.
KILLED. THAT’S THE BIGGEST DETERRENT ON
THE MAP RIGHT NOW.
AND SO THEY ARE FLEEING THOSE
PLACES HOPING THAT THEY CAN HAVE
A MEANINGFUL PROCESS BY WHICH
THEY CAN RECEIVE SOME KIND OF
REFUGE AND SAFETY, AND WE OUGHT
TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT.