Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Holocaust Survivor and Oct. 7th Survivor Zvi Solow; Remembering the Stories of Holocaust Survivors; Interview with Rukhshana Media Founder and Editor-in-Chief Zahra Joya; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer and "Everyone Who is Gone is Here" Author Jonathan Blitzer. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 27, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. On Holocaust Memorial Day, we hear stories of resistance.
First, from double survivor Zvi Solow, who survived both the Holocaust and the October 7th Hamas attack. Then, from our archive, Nobel Laureate Elie
Wiesel on the fight to prevent future atrocities. Plus, my conversation with journalist Zahra Joya on documenting the struggle for women's rights
in Afghanistan. And Hari Sreenivasan speaks to New Yorker staff writer Jonathan Blitzer about week one of Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.
A warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Eighty years ago today, Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz, the largest of the Nazi death camps. Now, it marked the beginning of the end of the
Holocaust, the murder of 6 million Jews alongside members of the LGBTQ community, Roma, and of course, other targeted groups.
Now, in 2007, Christiane visited Auschwitz for a documentary on genocide called Scream Bloody Murder. Here is a reminder of the horrors that
happened there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR (voice-over): When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Lemkin knew that his worst fears were about
to come true. Lemkin fled, leaving his country and his family behind.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I felt I would never see them again. It was like going to their funerals while they were still alive.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Lemkin became one of the lucky few to reach America after a friend helped him find a job at Duke University Law School. But he
remained afraid for his family and his countrymen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had not stopped worrying about the people in Poland. When would the hour of execution come? Would this blind world only then see
it, when it would be too late?
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Soon, the letters from home stopped coming. The Nazis had captured his parents' village. It was a death sentence for 40
members of Lemkin's family. By 1942, America had entered the war and the Germans had accelerated their deadly work.
AMANPOUR: Concentration camps ran day and night like assembly lines. Here at Auschwitz, more than a million people were killed.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Jews arrived packed into trains. The Nazis sorted them on the platform, sent the doomed to the gas chambers, stripped, shaved
and tattooed the rest.
Elie Wiesel was number A7713.
ELIE WIESEL, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR: I was young, frightened.
AMANPOUR (VOICE-OVER): The Nazis killed his mother and his younger sister.
WIESEL: The question of the killers has obsessed me for years and years. How could they kill children? I don't know. How could they?
AMANPOUR (voice-over): As Wiesel suffered in the camps, word of the slaughter reached America. But it seemed of little interest to the press
and the politicians. Raphael Lemkin was outraged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The impression of a tremendous conspiracy of silence poisoned the air. A double murder was taking place. It was the murder of
the truth.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: 80years later on this Holocaust Memorial Day, the number of survivors amongst us dwindles. The far-right is on the rise in Europe, even
in Germany itself, where the AfD Party held a rally this weekend with a video address from billionaire Elon Musk, as a wave of attacks on Jews and
Jewish sites sweeps across the world.
[13:05:00]
Anti-Semitism spiked after the traumatic Hamas attack of October 7, 2023 and the war that followed. This weekend, Israelis welcomed home four more
hostages. Dozens, though, still remain in Gaza, much of which is now reduced to rubble.
Some of those who survived that day in 2023 were themselves survivors of the Holocaust, including our first guest, Zvi Solow, who fled Poland,
Italy, and Greece as the Nazis advanced across Europe. On October 7th, Solow saw neighbors taken hostage as he held the door shut to his safe
room. He spoke with me from Southern Israel.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Zvi Solow, it is a privilege to have you on the program. Welcome.
ZVI SOLOW, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR AND OCT. 7TH SURVIVOR: You're welcome too.
NEWTON: You know, you were a small child in Poland during the Second World War, and your family managed to escape in 1940. You were just six years
old, a little boy. Can you tell us your story? How did you manage to survive?
SOLOW: By luck. My father, before the war, was a prominent lawyer in Warsaw, and he had connections. And when the -- when Warsaw was occupied by
the Nazis, we got, by his connection's permission, official permission, to go to Italy, which then was pro-Nazi, but for some reason was neutral. So,
we simply got on a train and went to Trieste. The Nazis let us out.
And we lived in Trieste for some months. And then. Mussolini joined the war on the wrong side. And then we had to escape. Then we became refugees. And
we escaped to Greece, which Greece was neutral, but was protected by the British. And we stayed in Athens for almost a year.
When Greece was about to be occupied by the Nazi army, we, and everybody else, who could escape East. And we got to what was then British Mandatory
Palestine. That's it.
NEWTON: What personal lessons should we all take from your story of survival?
SOLOW: Well, for one thing, not to be in a position of a small, minor -- helpless minority with fascists. Look, I was a little kid. And most of my
war experience was running away and arriving in some other place and trying to adjust and then moving again and so on. So, that's what comes to mind. I
remember.
NEWTON: A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that half of adults -- I mean, let's think about that, half of adults around the world
still hold anti-Semitic beliefs and actually even deny the historical facts of the Holocaust.
You know, according to the Jewish Agency, 2024 saw a doubling, 100 percent increase in anti-Semitic attacks right around the world. That was compared
to 2023. I mean, we are seeing vandalism, serious attacks on synagogues. Did you ever believe we could come to this point again in history?
SOLOW: Look, I didn't consider it very seriously, but I'm not terribly surprised. Because what we're seeing now events that happened long before
the Nazis came to power in Germany, all over Europe. And so, if, you know, the world got -- sort of got back -- the western world got back to normal
after the Nazi era, they got them back to normal on this issue too, unfortunately.
NEWTON: And what do you mean by back to normal?
SOLOW: So, back to the situation that was then before the Nazis came to power. It all -- it didn't all start from nothing.
NEWTON: So, you believe the roots of anti-Semitism were allowed to thrive again and are to this day?
SOLOW: Oh yes, definitely. I don't know to what extent, but I never believed it simply disappeared.
NEWTON: In fact, Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress said, we thought the virus of anti-Semitism was dead, but it was just in hiding, he
says. You would agree with that?
SOLOW: Yes.
NEWTON: You've been through so much even just in the last year and a half. On October 7th, Hamas killed 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers. There
were so many elderly Holocaust survivors among them who were terrorized on that day.
[13:10:00]
You yourself, you had to barricade yourself in your safe room in Kibbutz Nirim as it came under attack. Can you tell us what happened to you on that
day and did it bring you back to all you suffered in your childhood?
SOLOW: It didn't because I was too busy. I wasn't reminiscing. But what happened is more or less what you said, we were attacked, physically. My --
the area where I lived was attacked. And we barricaded ourselves in our safe room. I held the handle of the door and waited for the army to get us
out. For quite a few hours, until they arrived.
NEWTON: And what was going through your mind as that was happening?
SOLOW: That they should arrive before the terrorists. Now, where the hell are they?
NEWTON: You know, according to the Israeli government there are about 123,000 Holocaust survivors still in Israel, with over 13,000 passing away
in the last year alone. I don't have to remind you, right, the average age of survivors is 87.
Since the war began, though, the government says that it has helped 282 survivors return to their homes, 235 from the south, 47 from the northern
communities. It bears repeating. You were uprooted by war, having to leave the kibbutz you lived in for decades. And again, now, you are displaced.
How difficult has this been for you?
SOLOW: It's difficult. It's not terribly difficult because we're organized, but it's difficult, definitely. In my home, I asked somebody
last week who was in Nirim to have a look at my place. My place is still alright. But some of my -- but the homes for some of my neighbors are not,
and we don't know how long it will last. I have no idea when I'll be able to come back.
NEWTON: You know, you survived the worst of two atrocities. How has your experience as a Holocaust survivor affected the way you feel about the
aftermath of October 7th?
SOLOW: Not much. Not so different as I did before. We always felt that we're on the edge of, we can't say peace, but non-war. And it can explode
anytime -- not anytime, but it can explode, this year, next year, and it did. It wasn't a surprise.
NEWTON: You seem very cleareyed about what the past held and what the future will hold.
SOLOW: No, what the future will hold depends on us too. What we do or we don't do.
NEWTON: What would you say to young people around the world who perhaps it's difficult to really press against them and really implore them to look
at the Holocaust and, you know, the absolute massacre and genocide that occurred? What would you say to young people about whether or not the
Holocaust can happen again?
SOLOW: I'd say that they should learn what happened and if they do, I think they'll come to the same conclusion that something like that, not
necessarily exactly the same, can happen again. And they should be very careful it does not.
NEWTON: And, Svi Solow, we appreciate your time today. Thank you so much.
SOLOW: You're welcome.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now, Christiane has had the privilege of speaking to many Holocaust survivors over the years, some universally recognized all with a
crucial story to tell. Selma van de Perre was one such witness, a resistant spy who survived internment at Ravensbruck, the largest concentration camp
for women.
Now, at 98 years old, Selma spoke to Christiane about her memoir of courage and strength called My Name is Selma.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: I'm going to get to the prison in a moment.
But, first, I'd like to ask you to read on page 76 in your book there, the passage about fear, about how fear was everywhere, but you had to put it to
the back of your mind.
SELMA VAN DE PERRE, WWII RESISTANCE FIGHTER: Well, you forget -- yes, you forget about fear, because I was busy as well. Like, I was now -- when
you're busy, you're able to push the things away you don't need. You can't live in constant fear. Even fear is something to which you become
accustomed. Quite true. And the job -- the resistance job becomes like any other job. Every day, I did things that put my life at risk. I didn't allow
the fear to overwhelm me. The desire to thwart the Nazis and help people in danger was stronger.
AMANPOUR: What was your experience in Ravensbruck?
[13:15:00]
VAN DE PERRE: Well, I've had some very horrible experiences there too, but I survived. I wanted to -- I didn't want the Germans to have the
satisfaction of killing me, of having me dead. So, I did everything to stay alive.
I was quite lucky in a way that I became the secretary of one of the chef's chiefs in Siemens factory. I was -- I had to work in the Siemens factory.
AMANPOUR: The big German industrial --
VAN DE PERRE: Siemen --
AMANPOUR: Yes.
VAN DE PERRE: Yes, which is now famous for all the kitchen stuff.
AMANPOUR: You said that to survive, you had to maintain hope.
VAN DE PERRE: Yes. So, you try to do your best to survive. It was difficult at some times. I was beaten once, unconscious, when I couldn't
get off the loo, because my tummy was always upset, you see, and because the food and the drinks we got was terrible, or hardly anything.
AMANPOUR: When you came out, you realized eventually that your mother had not survived, your father had not, and nor had your younger sister. Two
older brothers had, and they had come here to England. How did you reconcile, how did you process their loss?
VAN DE PERRE: Well, I haven't reconciled with that at all. I think of them every day, every night, small things happen. And when I slice my bread in
the morning for breakfast, and I half my slice of bread, I think of my mother when she butted our bread. I can't help it. It comes into my mind. I
try not to because I think -- I say to myself, it doesn't make any difference. You can't make it undone, but I can't help it. I think of them
every day in that way.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Still thinks of them every day. Now, Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, whom we heard earlier in the program, survived both the Auschwitz
and Buchenwald camps. He's seen here with other liberated slave laborers after the liberation. Weisel dedicated the rest of his life to keeping the
memory of genocide alive 10 years ago today, on the 70th anniversary of the liberation. Christiane spoke with him about his struggle to make sense of
the tragedy of Auschwitz, even so many decades later.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WIESEL: Auschwitz will be remembered in history as a place where human beings have done to other human beings things that have never done, never
should be done in history.
And of course, when I remember it, especially now in January, it was not only Auschwitz itself but the evacuation, the march, that march, I was
there with my father. The last few weeks of his life, we're together there marching and then the first week in Buchenwald world.
But Auschwitz is a symbol of the 20th century with all the great victories that humanity has recorded, the sciences and literature and philosophy. At
the same time, it's also Auschwitz. It's a 20th century phenomenon, 20th century tragedy, 20th century crime. But all of a sudden, in Europe,
civilized Europe, of all places in Germany, which used to be the most cultured, the most elegant nation in the world in literature and philosophy
for so many centuries, there we heard Hitler and his accolades and his spokesman preaching hatred, preaching murder, mass murder.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Wiesel --
WIESEL: But it happened. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you -- as you remember, can I ask you what you remember about being sent to the camp and what you remember about being
there?
WIESEL: Well, being sent, we didn't know that. I lived in Hungary. Hungary, which used to be Romania before, then Hungary, we didn't know
about Auschwitz until we came to Auschwitz, which by the way is to me, to this day, a source of shock and astonishment.
In -- we came there, of course, in 1944. In 1944, we in Hungary didn't know that Auschwitz existed. Had we known, believe me, had Roosevelt, had
Churchill, on the radio stations, turned to Hungarian Jews saying, Hungarian Jews, don't go to the train, because the trains will lead you to
Auschwitz, people -- many of us would not have gone. Many wouldn't have believed, perhaps, but wouldn't have gone.
[13:20:00]
But nobody warned us, and nobody came to our help. It happened late in the war. Germany had already lost the war in 1944, spring 1944. And yet, they
still had enough resources, and of course, the will, the desire, the determination to kill the Jewish people.
To this day, I don't understand it. It wasn't even in their own self- interest, in their own national interest. Why did they do that? To me, it remains a mystery.
AMANPOUR: What gave you the strength, what was life affirming that gave you the strength as a 15-year-old when you were sent there to keep going
and to survive?
WIESEL: Well, in the beginning, of course, because I was together with my father, we were in Birkenau, Auschwitz, Monowitz and then Buchenwald with
my father in the beginning. And as long as he was alive, I wanted to be alive just to keep him and help him, you know, to share a piece of bread
with him. After he died, which was actually in January -- late January 1945, and I was already in Buchenwald, I didn't leave.
I was in a barrack for youngsters in Buchenwald. And believe me, I don't even remember a day of that, because those three months were empty, empty,
empty, just empty of anything. Empty of happiness, empty of joy, empty of hope, empty of life. Well, that was Buchenwald. But in Auschwitz, of
course, that place was a place -- for the first time in history, a place that was created by Germany or the German government, an army, created just
to bring their people who were living and kill them. Just like that, kill them.
I don't understand it to this day. It wasn't even in their national interest. What interest could they have to kill millions of Jews? But it
happened.
AMANPOUR: You know, obviously, with each passing year, the number of Holocaust survivors gets smaller, gets less. And people ask, who's going to
remember and who is going to remind? And I also, you know, have read so many stories of people who say they could never talk about this until they
were later in life. Survivors who wanted to get on with building their own life and building a new life.
What made you talk and write and how long did it take you after liberation to be able to tell about this?
WIESEL: Well, it took me 10 years. I knew I was going to write. I had written before, but I had written about mysticism when I was a youngster. I
was 12, 13, and I found -- I went back to my hometown and found my manuscript that I had written at age 12, 13 on Jewish mysticism, of all
things. And I knew I was going to write.
But I knew one day I would have to write, and I didn't find the words. I was afraid that I will not find them. I'm not even sure, by the way, that I
did find them. Maybe there are no words for what happened. Maybe somehow the Germans, which means the cruel killers have succeeded at least in one
way, that means they deprived us, the victims, of finding the proper language of saying what they have done to us. Because there are no words
for it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: A profound reflection there from the late Nobel laureate and Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel.
Now, next, we turn to the global impact of Donald Trump's return to power. His executive order to suspend America's refugee admissions program takes
effect today, preventing thousands of people hoping to resettle from coming to the United States.
Now, many of those being left in limbo are Afghans who helped America during its war there. It comes as the ruling Taliban, in fact, intensifies
its crackdown on women's rights. Just last week, the International Criminal Court announced it is seeking arrest warrants for Taliban leaders for
gender-based crimes.
For our next guest, this is deeply personal. Zahra Joya was forced to flee her home country when the Taliban regained control in 2021. As the founder
of Rukhshana Media, she seeks to give a voice to the women of Afghanistan. And she joins me now from London where she now lives.
[13:25:00]
A warm welcome to the program. And we want to get right to President Trump's executive order now preventing Afghan refugees from reaching the
U.S. And a reminder that many of those were people who helped the United States. Are they in danger this hour because of that? I mean, have you
heard from people impacted?
ZAHRA JOYA, FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, RUKHSHANA MEDIA: Hi, good evening. Thank you for this question. Unfortunately, it has impact a lot on
the life of people of Afghanistan. When they received this news about the new administration decision, I mean, many of them are in -- living in limbo
in Pakistan and other countries.
Of course, their life of under risk and under the danger of the Taliban because they flee from Afghanistan says the Taliban took power and they are
in a very, very difficult situation at the moment and the third countries, whether we're in Pakistan, in Albania or Iran.
NEWTON: Do they feel the U.S. has abandoned them? Do you hear that from them?
JOYA: Absolutely. Before I came to your program, I received many, many messages, and one of them just called me and say, we need your voice, we
need your support. And they asked if there are any possibility that we can reach out to the new government of the United States to rise our voice, to
share our concern, how it is difficult for us.
And they feel betrayed, of course. And then, it is very, very hard for them to at least, you know, reach and a stage and they flee from Afghanistan. It
was -- I mean, reaching to the United States, it was the only hope left for them. But unfortunate, at the moment, they are all in a very, very dire
situation.
Among the -- those thousands of Afghans are -- most of them are vulnerable people and including the women who stood up the under the Taliban.
NEWTON: I do want to get to the -- to one of the reasons that we're speaking to you as well, is how things have changed for -- I mean, really,
it's extreme, the crackdown that the Taliban has brought to women. In many cases, they have very few rights left, countless new edicts, we can't even
enumerate them all here. But things like banning windows from buildings where women work. They cannot speak, they cannot sing, they shall not be
seen. Can you tell us a little bit now about what women in Afghanistan are telling you?
JOYA: Well, as I mentioned, the situation of women of Afghanistan is very, very dire, and they are deprived from their most basic rights, as you
mentioned, they cannot speak aloud, they cannot see each other from the window, they cannot even get their fresh air. They cannot go to the park.
It is all the freedom of a human being is gone for women of Afghanistan, unfortunately.
Taliban issued more than hundreds decrees to ban women from everywhere. Basically, women on Afghanistan are facing with the dehumanization process
under the Taliban regime.
NEWTON: You grew up under the Taliban's first era. In fact, you pretended to be a boy just to go to school. How does it compare to what you went
through what's happening today?
JOYA: Well, for me, I think it's -- my story is not unique. This cycle of depriving and the cycle of violation against women are going on after, you
know, more than 20 years. So, for me, of course, it was horrible. It was a dark moment. But there was a little bit difference because at that time,
the women of Afghanistan they couldn't stood up against the Taliban. They couldn't rise up their voices. They just did in secret, but they were --
they could for what I did, for example, it was like a completely a secret action to get education.
For -- at the -- I think the second time of the Taliban returned to power is different because, you know, hundreds of women, they rise and add their
voices, they did protest, they asking for equality, for justice, but unfortunately, many, many of them have been arrested.
[13:30:00]
And I mean, for me as a journalist, it's really, really hard to describe what gone -- what women of Afghanistan gone through that.
NEWTON: You know, the International Criminal Court now says it is seeking arrest against senior Taliban leaders for what it says are crimes against
humanity, crimes against women. This is, in its own way, gender-based violence. How much of a difference do you believe those ICC arrest warrants
will make for the Taliban itself?
JOYA: I think this is a very good achievement for women of Afghanistan. But of course, it is not enough. As we compare the situation of the woman
at the moment is heartbroken, is devastating. But again, it gives a little bit attention from the international -- global attention because when
there's news announced by prosecutor of ICC there was lots of attention once again about the situation of women of Afghanistan.
So, I mean, this is a long process. It may take much time to the final court. But I mean, one woman of Afghanistan that are seeking international
solidarity, they are seeking for more ways. You know, we want -- women of Afghanistan are asking for the International Community, particularly the
United Nations to recognize the Taliban as a gender apartheid regime.
And I think, you know, we cannot wait for take -- a particular action because we already lost so much time, you know, a circle of girls. I mean,
the girls of Afghanistan, the generation of one of Afghanistan, they already get out from the circle of education, unfortunately.
NEWTON: Yes, there is -- time is of the essence, as you say, because those women are suffering through that right now. And to that point, your
organization, in fact, is named after a woman who was stoned to death. Can you describe her story to us? It was absolutely a brutal, savage murder.
But how does it also give voice to what women are going through right now today in Afghanistan?
JOYA: Yes, unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Taliban, that's a regime, they -- while -- the voice -- the right of woman many, many years. And
Rukhshana was a young girl, 19 years old from World Province (ph) in central (ph) of Afghanistan. She fled from a fourth marriage basically. But
in 2015, the Taliban arrested her and -- in front of, you know, hundreds of human rights organization, many, many other countries, NATO forces. She is
stoned to death by the Taliban.
So, I, as a journalist, wanted to break the silence. Just wanted to make -- to create this newsroom named Rukhshana for her memorial. And we just --
you know, Rukhshana made -- I can say, as a kind of mirror for women of Afghanistan that they are reflecting themselves on that mirror and they are
seeing themselves on that mirror.
But unfortunately, it's all very, very sad news that we are publishing these stories. But this is the only way that we can do.
NEWTON: You are bringing light, though, to what they're going through each and every day. I will not forget the faces of all those young women and
girls that I met when I was in Afghanistan. But it brings about a point that I really have to ask you, do you feel let down by western allies, the
United States in particular?
JOYA: Well, it's very difficult at the moment -- I mean, during these three years, when the Taliban came -- actually they brought to the power in
Afghanistan. They -- women of Afghanistan feel betrayed and they believe they -- you know, the issue of -- the ensuring of women's rights in
Afghanistan was nothing more than an empty slums, right?
[13:35:00]
So, for me, I am very -- I tried to be optimistic, but it is very, very difficult to be, you know, hopeful for the future of Afghanistan,
particularly for women in the short time, because there is no changes. You know, the situation of the women, they get -- getting worse and worse day
by day. So, this is very hard to say the situation will get changed. Unfortunately, it's not true. It's not the case at the moment.
NEWTON: It unfortunately is a place that you know so well in terms of wanting to be hopeful, but understanding how you need to persevere going
ahead of all that is before you. Zahra Joya, thank you so much for bringing these issues to light for us. Appreciate it.
Now, President Trump's suspension of that refugee program is just -- we're discussing one of several executive actions aimed at overhauling the U.S.
immigration system. On Sunday, in fact, Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported making more than 900 arrests right across the country as a result
of the president's campaign to crackdown on undocumented migrants. He's already proving that he won't back down on his promises after Colombia
announced it has agreed to all of his terms following a dispute over migrant repatriation flights.
Staff writer for The New Yorker, Jonathan Blitzer, joins Hari Sreenivasan to break it all down.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, thanks. Jonathan Blitzer, thanks so much for joining us.
You wrote a recent piece for the New Yorker titled "The Unchecked Authority of Trump's Immigration Orders." I guess let's break down the title a little
by little here. What is the unchecked authority that you're most concerned about?
JONATHAN BLITZER, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER AND AUTHOR, "EVERYONE WHO IS GONE IS HERE": There are two general ways in which I think this latest
volley of executive orders and presidential actions are unchecked. The first is that very much built into the language and logic of these
executive orders and a lot of the president's new plans is this notion that mass migration constitutes a kind of invasion. That word is where we've
heard a lot, obviously, politically, and we, at this point, are almost numb to how histrionic and dramatic it sounds.
But in a legal sense, the claim being made by the new administration is that this so-called invasion necessitates a whole host of new presidential
powers. The president always has a lot of latitude and power over immigration policy but the proposal that we're seeing in the constellation
of these executive orders and a lot of the early actions of the administration suggests that they're taking the broadest possible view of
what the president can do to deal with the reality of people migrating in the region. That's the first way in which this kind of new set of powers
are unchecked.
And the other, I think, is a political issue, which is, you know, we're in a moment where the general consensus seems to be, and I don't think it's as
clear as the consensus suggests, that the president has a popular mandate to pursue a lot of his immigration policies.
Immigration policy is extraordinarily complex. I'm not convinced that the public always understands different facets of what immigration policy looks
like, or for that matter, the impact it has on people living in the U.S. And so, my big concern, too, the same day, the first day in which President
Trump takes office, that you have all these executive orders coming out of the White House, you also had, in the Senate, 12 Democrats joining
Republicans to pass what's called the Laken Riley Act, which is a draconian and very, very extreme bit of enforcement policy, which suggests to me the
fact that Democrats right now are very much cowering from the kind of political threat that Trump seems to represent on this issue.
So, my concern too, is that we're entering a moment of, you know, very wild and radical policymaking from the White House, when there seems to be a
real scarcity of political impediments to his pursuit of those powers.
SREENIVASAN: OK. Let's take that down one step at a time here. We'll get to the Laken Riley Act. But first, what is the value or the -- I guess the
worth in giving something in name, calling it an invasion or as one of the other executive orders did, calling out cartels and calling them foreign
terrorist organizations?
BLITZER: So, there are kind of two things you see in these executive orders. The first is something that we have seen President Trump do before
in his first term, which is to declare a national emergency at the southern border. And factually, I think that is wildly off. And we're at a moment
when the number of arrivals at the southern border are way down. In fact, the situation is very much under control.
[13:40:00]
That's not to say the system doesn't need reform and repair, but the idea, even that the president is saying there's an emergency and he's sending
federal troops to the Pentagon, to the border to assist DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, and law enforcement, that already to my mind is a
real misconstrue of what the reality is in the ground.
But to your question, the utility for the new administration of calling mass migration an invasion is that it allows the president, by the logic of
these executive orders. Now, obviously, this is an unsettled legal matter and there will be all kinds of challenges in the courts. But by the logic
of these orders, the idea is that because the arrival of so many people constitutes an invasion, the president has authorities that go over and
above authorities laid out in the immigration statutes that regulate and direct immigration policy and that go to questions that are constitutional,
that the president is commander in chief, has a responsibility to repel invasions, to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Once
we enter that territory, the scale of what the U.S. military can be brought in to do expands considerably.
Now, we're in entirely uncharted territory here, so I don't know what this would all look like concretely, but studied through these executive orders
are references to extremely rare and alarming historical acts like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the Insurrection Act that basically forecast
that the president is willing to go to great, great lengths to use the military to start carrying out enforcement operations at the border and in
the interior of the country. We'll have to see whether or not this materializes, but that's at least the logic as laid out in some of these
orders.
SREENIVASAN: The Alien Enemies Act or the Insurrection Act that some of this reference, I mean, these were in incredibly different times in
America, right? But at the same time, the president, even in his first term, was able to mobilize U.S. troops to go to the southern border. And we
hear now that the Pentagon is going to dispatch about another 1,500 people to the border as of just this past week.
BLITZER: Yes. And I should say, the fact that troops are being sent to the border to work in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security,
that is something that has happened before, not only under Trump in his first term, but under Democrats as well. So, that on its own isn't
something kind of out of left field, say, in the history of U.S. policymaking in regards to the border.
Generally, though, there has been more of a specific justification for sending those troops at a given moment in time. Right now, for instance,
you know, there aren't huge numbers of people arriving. It's not fair or accurate to say that federal immigration authorities are overwhelmed the
southern border. So, it's, of course, extremely dubious to be staging this bit of political theater with troops being sent to the border.
But the fact of sending troops -- you know, troops -- the Department of Defense have actually always had a role to play in immigration management
at the border, whether it's to provide, you know, provisional detention centers for newly arrived migrants, whether it's to help with monitoring
or, you know, logistical tasks along the border, that sort of thing on its own isn't, you know, wildly unprecedented.
What is the language in these executive orders suggesting that the scale of what the U.S. is facing, this so-called invasion, necessitates a whole
higher order military intervention. That, to me, is a major departure and a major escalation, the likes of which we've really never seen.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the executive orders about birthright citizenship challenging the 14th Amendment has already been
constitutionally challenged. There was a federal judge that -- on Thursday, blocked it, saying it was, quote, "blatantly unconstitutional."
So, I guess, why even take that step? What is behind trying to draft an executive order that not only do you know is going to be challenged, but
very likely will get block in court?
BLITZER: Yes, it's a good question. I think built into the new administration's plans, and this I've gotten from, you know, the
president's advisers and, you know, allies of the president's over the years, is this idea that if they flood the zone, you know, day one, if they
accomplish as one of the -- as one presidential adviser had told me in the past, you know, the idea is to accomplish in 100 hours what used to be
accomplished in 100 days.
The thinking being, if we overwhelm all of the opposition, opposition from Democrats, opposition from civil society groups, operation -- resistance
from the public, we can achieve more because it's hard for our political opponents to know even where to start. That said, the idea that that
birthright citizenship executive order would come out as starkly and immediately as it did is, I think, also reflective of the fact that they're
ready and willing to fight this thing out in the courts.
[13:45:00]
And I would say a kind of ancillary political benefit for them in these kinds of protracted legal battles is the fact that the public gets
desensitized to some of the terms under discussion.
SREENIVASAN: You know, Jonathan, that reminds me there, there were already reports that in Newark, New Jersey, there were ICE raids on a specific
business. I know Senator Booker and the mayor, Baraka, have been pushing back about this and want more information on exactly what happened. There
seems to be a gap here between what is laid out as an executive order on day one, whether we have to wait for the courts to have injunctions and to
stop things versus like the memo that gets written to the local ICE office that says, you can do this now.
BLITZER: In the past, the way ICE conducts its operations is it prioritizes people for arrest. There are so many undocumented people living
in the United States that it's impossible for a law enforcement body to attempt to arrest all of them unless there are some guiding principles for
how they go about that work.
And so, what's happened over the years is ICE, as an agency, has refined a set of priorities whereby it essentially targets for arrest and eventual
deportation, people who have committed serious crimes and people who have arrived very recently in the country and are undocumented and maybe have
orders of removal.
And what that's meant for people who don't fall into those particular categories is, by and large, they don't have to worry about the kind of
randomness of just getting swept up any particular day because of their legal status. That is all out the window.
And a lot of checks on how ICE arrests occurred in the past are also out the window. So, for instance, you know, for years, there was a kind of
general idea laid out in the regulation at ICE that, OK, you wouldn't make arrests at schools, at hospitals, at places of worship, it's called the
Sensitive Locations Policy. That policy has been scrapped.
And so, the idea now really is it is a free for all in a way that it hasn't been for the last four years. And we're going to see flare ups all over the
country. And I think particularly in Democratic enclaves, because there are, A, large immigrant populations in a lot of big metropolitan areas in
the United States. And B, because they -- those cities represent to the president and his party political opposition.
SREENIVASAN: Are we heading to a scenario here where the federal government tries to prosecute state and local, you know, jurisdictions and
individuals and kind of what does that -- how does that tension get resolved?
BLITZER: You know, one of the striking things with the, you know, sanctuary jurisdictions and so on is the politics in these places has also
started to really shift over the last couple of years. And so, there was a lot more outright resistance to the Trump administration in 2017 during
that first term than there is now.
And some of this is the result of the governor of Texas' Greg Abbott's busing plan, which began basically in the spring of 2022. And he bused, you
know, more than 100,000 recently arrived migrants from Texas to blue cities and states across the country without coordinating with local authorities
ahead of time and very much overwhelming city and state resources. And so, as a result, in a lot of these cities, I mean, I'm speaking to you from New
York, the politics in New York City itself and in the suburbs of New York City and in the state at large, have really shifted.
And so, you know, there's -- over and above the legal questions are flagging. There's also this question of political will. You know, if there
is sustained and serious pressure from the current administration brought to bear on, you know, cities and states that typically have held the line
against these kinds of federal incursions, you know, do local office holders or state office holders really want to duke it out at a time when
it seems like, by and large, the public's hostility to immigration on the whole has really grown.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned earlier the Laken Riley Act. For people who aren't aware of it, what is the significance of it that just passed the
Senate?
BLITZER: The Laken Riley Act essentially does two things. First, it requires the detention of any undocumented immigrant who is charged of even
minor crimes, like shoplifting, for instance, which is to say you do not have to be convicted of these crimes, merely charged, trigger the mandatory
detention and what almost always follows in the case of undocumented immigrants in these instances, deportation.
And then the second prong of this law, which in many ways is equally radical, is the idea that it allows state attorneys general to sue the U.S.
attorney general or the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. If someone who has been paroled into the country, paroled into the country
just means that someone has given legal protection to enter the country, it's not a permanent status, but it is a kind of an official way of
bringing someone into the country.
[13:50:00]
If a person paroled into the country goes on to commit any sort of crime or cause any kind of damage, whether it is to a person or to the finances of a
person or the state in an amount more than $100. I mean, this is extraordinarily draconian.
And the fact that Democrats immediately got on board with it and didn't really even put up much of a fight or push in a serious way for amendments
or carve outs, really reflects their desperation to try to outrun this immigration issue, which they feel has really dogged their party in which
the president has clearly used his advantage.
SREENIVASAN: Now, we've been talking a lot about immigrants coming across the southern border, but there are obviously asylum seekers, there are
refugees, and those programs in the United States have already also been affected by the incoming administration. I mean, we saw the app that a lot
of people, asylum seekers might be using at the southern border, and we also have heard reports about refugees, including about what, 1,500, 1,600
Afghans who the United States has said, will take care of you. They are now kind of in limbo too. What's going on?
BLITZER: So, the U.S. Refugee Program, which Trump essentially decimated in his first term, got restored in large part by the Biden administration.
And now, it has been frozen in place again by the Trump administration in the form of this executive order, which basically said, anyone at any stage
in the refugee resettlement process is now on hold.
And so, you have 10,000 people who have already been vetted, whose security background checks have already been run, who were literally just waiting
for airfare to come to the United States and be resettled are now stuck with no obvious path forward for them. So, that's one prong of all of this.
And then, as you mentioned, at the southern border, the Biden administration really cracked down on asylum in between ports of entry. So,
if people were to show up at the southern border seeking asylum, the Biden administration was very harsh with them if people showed up in between
ports of entry. But what the Biden administration did simultaneously was it said, OK, every day at ports of entry there are appointments for 1,400
people a day to be paroled into the country. And that way they could begin any sort of legal process they want to pursue.
The current administration in its executive orders has also immediately halted the app that allowed for those applications and schedulings to
start. And an additional program that the Biden administration to put in place, allowing for 30,000 migrants from four countries where there have
been high rates of immigration over the last few years, that also got frozen in place.
And so, now there are large numbers of people who, by and large, we're trying to avail themselves of specific legal channels created by the
previous administration or already existing in U.S. law who are now completely frozen out of the system.
SREENIVASAN: Jonathan, you've been covering this topic for quite some time. You've even wrote a whole book about it, "Everyone Who is Gone is
Here." And I wonder -- put this in perspective for us, given that even in the length of time that you've been following immigration, how significant
are the changes that we're seeing really just in the past week and compare that to what's been happening, our immigration policy that seems to ebb and
flow from one administration to the next?
BLITZER: You know, a lot of the stuff you're hearing about, a lot of the stuff you're seeing, whether in the form of executive orders or whether in
the form of this new legislation are not addressing particularly acute needs that experts say are things that need to be addressed to improve the
immigration system.
And so, the political conversation, I guess, when I take this kind of broader view, as you can imagine, politics around immigration have always
been intense. They've always flared up over time. But we are in a moment where the politics have veered off so drastically from any of the actual
policy discussions of what needs to happen or what should happen, that I think there's a level of dysfunction that's new.
SREENIVASAN: Jonathan Blitzer, author of "Everyone Who is Gone is Here" and staff writer of The New Yorker, thanks so much.
BLITZER: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now, on this important day of remembrance, a final thought. As years pass and understanding of the Holocaust unfortunately diminishes, it
is vital to continue listening to the firsthand accounts from the survivors themselves to the journalists who bore witness.
The BBC's Richard Dimbleby was the first reporter to enter the liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Here's part of the radio report he filed
on the horrors he saw.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD DIMBLEBY, BBC CORRESPONDENT: I find it hard to describe adequately the horrible things that I've seen and heard. But here, unadorned, are the
facts. I passed through the barrier and found myself in the world of a nightmare. Dead bodies, some of them in decay, lay strewn about the road
and along the rutted tracks.
[13:55:00]
On each side of the road were brown wooden huts. There were faces at the windows. The bony, emaciated faces of starving women, too weak to come
outside. Propping themselves against the glass to see the daylight before they died. And they were dying every hour and every minute.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: And when we listen to that, consider that for many listeners, it was the first time they had heard the unimaginable reality of what actually
happened within those camps, and the horrifying scenes he described, of course, remain just as important today.
That does it for us. I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
