Books are available for purchase at the register. Todays guest is the director of the center for immigrants rights that concludes school of law. Professor has worked as a director in washington dc. Today professor is here presenting her new book and immigration to spend time with trump. D4 questions. What is trump policy look like and who is affected and how have they been affected and how do relevant and parties perceive the situation. Chris coons is called the book called research immigration. Core american value. Please help me we will professor. [applause] thank you for that introduction. Good afternoon. I want to think politics and prose for hosting me. I will get started. Banning muslims. Shrinking refugee numbers. Deporting cancer patients. The Trump Administration has used the discretion and extraordinary ways. But in america, no president is above the law. Courts have played an important tack on the business power. The people affected by immigration policy are worried about the future. Their living through a chapter of American History that future generations my grandchildren, will read about and question. I document this story and band. I do so by combining a close study of shifting immigration policy in the first 18 months of the Trump Administration with 21 interviews. I conducted with an effective individuals of former Government Officials and attorneys on the ground. I am grateful to those who opened up to me. This book would not have been written that went out them. Everyone is the priority. It all started in january of 2017. The new white house unleashed two executive orders with the goal of increasing number of people to be deported and the scope of who is the priority. Enforcement priorities referred to the government his choice of who it will target for its highest removal. The government has a resource recording to one guideline from 2011, the government has resources to deport about 400,000 or less than 4 percent of the entire undocumented immigrant populations. Because of these limited resources, i or entities are necessary. Who will the government deport. Who will it leave alone. Historically the people who have been left alone are those who exhibit strong equities. Humanitarian aid, lengthy residence, steady employment. But it is hard to see any real prioritization in a time of trump. For example, the Trump Administration has labeled anyone with an old removal order as actual priorities. That went out mentioning any dive boat circumstance that could be considered for a low priority. Former vice head immigration and Customs Enforcement had, tom bowman said there is no population off the table. If you are in the country illegally, or looking for you. These words translated into tragedy on the ground. What immigration advocate told me, everyone is the priority. It doesnt matter if you been in the country for 20 years and you have never committed a crime and you are on your way to sunday school. You know a priority. The time of top Immigration Enforcement is even extended to branches to the government that dont normally do deportation. As one former ins official told me, you see an enforcement outlook and actions that u. S. Eis citizenship integration services, is taking people today can go in for a naturalization interview and walk out in handcuffs. That wouldve never happened and ins. Were related to how the Trump Administration uses and thinks about discretion, and priorities, is their choice to deport dreamers. Deferred action for childhood arrivals or dogra is the policy that was rolled out in 2012 by former president barack obama. It has enabled 800,000 people to be present in the United States often work and in many cases stripe. When the make a request, they have to show that they been in the United States for a period of years and that they are in school or graduated and the other requirements. And in exchange, they get a dive boat discretion known as deferred action. The Trump Administration announced an end to dhaka on september 5th, 2017. The announcement was delivered at a press confronts at which former attorney general called docket recipients illegal aliens in the policy unlawful. I interviewed a number of docket recipients in the course of writing this book. One docket recipient told me about how she used her lunch break for listening to this press confronts by attorney general sessions. She said just hearing everything that he said and knowing that that was such live is such an excuse and such a bold, it was pretty deceiving dehumanizing moment. And other docket recipients i spoke to doctor about the mental toll. He said i think its not about the effective policies that are being enacted which are dangerous and poisonous to our democracy but its the psychological warfare that we are subjected to on a daily basis. We live in a time where the president can just pick up the phone and send out a tweet and then you spend a whole day deciphering it. How bad is it. How bad isnt it. Thats followed by really bad actors across all agencies that are trying to diminish any sort of real idea that the nation continues to be a nation of immigrants. Litigation and several courts have stopped dhaka from being stopped altogether. The u. S. Supreme court will hear oral arguments on how dhaka ended on november 122019. The court will hear two questions specifically cannot hear or review the case at all. If the answer is yes how the policy ended lawful two. Other lawful residents in the United States have been vulnerable to Immigration Enforcement in the time of trump. In 1990, congress created temporary protective status. It is a program that provides durable status to people in the United States who are unable to return to their country because it is specific if it in their own country. Like a Natural Disaster or a civil war. Many people have this have limited in United States are decades because of ongoing conflict in their country. In the current administration, it was announced that several holders would lose their status. Nationals from el salvador and honduras and hades to name a few. According to one advocate i spoke to, the government is actually taking people who have access to legal Work Authorization and have built their lives here. It created chaos at our nations gateways and attorneys was dispatched to airports to help individuals who had valid visas to enter but were denied admission. The last version of the travel ban or muslim ban survived in the courts and has been operational since december 4th, 2017, the ban excludes wouldbe green card holders and several travelers from iran, libya, north korea, somalia, syria and yemen and explaining the breathe of the immigration statute, the u. S. Supreme court upheld the ban and said that the statute exudes deference to the president at every cost. The muslim ban includes a waiver process for those who are otherwise covered and this waiver process requires somebody to show the denying entry would cause undue hardship and granting entry is in the National Interest and that the individual does not pose a threat to National Security, however, there have been many people concerned about how the waiver process is actually working and to echo the words of Justice Briar during oral arguments around the ban he asked the solicitor general is this really a functioning waiver process or is it window dress dressing. To not even be able to hold their grandchildren, not support their kids who are doctors, its hard, its really, really hard on the community, she continued the Common Thread i see among every Single Person that walks into my office is i need my mom because im going to be in labor and i cant do this without her or im the first person in my family to get a ph. D and it would mean the world to me for my parents to be there or im in love and im getting married and im getting engaged and this is a huge moment in my life and i would like my parents to meet my future husband. There are moments in our life that we normally share with family, graduations, birth of a child, engagements, weddings, all of them destroyed for people because of the muslim ban. The most vulnerable, Immigration Enforcement in the time of trump has targeted the unauthorized, those who are in the United States legally as well as the most vulnerable, Asylum Seekers, refugees, parents, children, none of these changes have been legal requirements under the law but rather have been choices, unprecedented discretionary choices by this government, both refugees outside the United States and Asylum Seekers inside the United States have to show to the government that they have suffered a type of harm known as persecution, either in the past or in the future because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership and a particular social group. President trump set the refugee numbers for fiscal year 2019 at 30,000, the lowest number in the history of the refugee act of 1980. Meanwhile in may 2018 attorney general Jeff Sessions announced a zero tolerance policy for those crossing the border without papers, Jeff Sessions if you cross the border unlawfully we will prosecute you, policy also extended to Asylum Seekers, related to zero tolerance policy and later found out would be wholly unrelated was practice by the Trump Administration to separate parents from their children at the border. Said President Trump, i hate the children being taken away, the democrats have to change their law. The statement is misleading as theres no statute, no regulation, no case law that requires family separation, as described by a former ins official i interviewed, to define refugees as National Security threat to the country, we havent thought that way for decades. Crucial to the conversation of discretion is not just who we deport but also how we deport. In june 2018 President Trump tweeted, had included tweet there, we cannot allow all of these people to invade our country, when somebody comes in, we Must Immediately with no judges, no court cases bring them back to where they came from, our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order. What President Trump may not have known is that we already have programs in our immigration statute that allow for this sped or no courts deportation, in fact, even before this administration the vast majority more than 75 of all deportations in this country happened before or in lieu of a person seeing a courtroom. But what this administration wants to do is maximize these programs, so theres two recurring themes if you think about changes in the time of trump, one recurring theme is discretion, right, the idea that many of the policy changes that we are seeing, theyre not legal requirements or mandates, they really represent choices and the fact that these choices are informed by cruelty as opposed to compassion is quite unprecedented, if you compare it to the history of Immigration Law in both democratic and republican administrations. The second recurring theme that you see with current immigration policy and in the time of trump is that sometimes you dont need to make a new law, but rather take laws that are already in the books and use your discretion to maximize them to the fullest extent. As told by one attorney i spoke to about speedy deportations, i dont think the public realizes how often speed deportation is actually used and how even in the system that trump inherited people were just regularly deprived of their basic Due Process Rights and the other thing is a conception that speed deportation is okay because the people who were subject to it generally have no ties to the u. S. Because we think of them as either being at the border or as people who were previously removed, even if thats true in some cases, thats not universally true. Where do we go from here, the courts have played tremendous roll in rolling back some, not all of immigration policies in the time of trump, but the courts are not going to save us and the courts certainly did not save us with the muslim ban, these are shortterm solutions, critical checks but shortterm texts because what is ultimately needed lies in the executive and legislative branches of government, to the executive branch and likely a future one, the department of Homeland Security must narrow its enforcement priorities and recommit to the use of prosecutorial discretion, the need for greater compassion when executing discretion is critical, said one advocate i spoke to even setting aside being an advocate, being an american who pays taxes, i dont want them to be deporting moms and dads who own their homes and are working and havent done anything criminal, i think its a complete misuse of resources to be deporting folks just because they have this paperwork problem from 20 years ago. Discretion is also special to the rule of law, one former Government Official from ins coined it as this, the meaning of the law has always included law and equity, that is the rule of law, fairness plus rules, one without the other is not the rule of law. To congress, congress should modify sections of the immigration statute, terminate the muslim bans, set limiting principles that were upheld as lawful by the Supreme Court, so for students in the room this is a great civic lesson on the 3 branches of government where the executive comes in and announces an order or proclamation that is in the form of a ban or exclusion where the courts step in and say, by the way, america, this is lawful and then youre left with the third branch the legislative branch responsible for really setting limits on the statute that the court found lawful. Congress also provides legislative solution to people who have been here for a long time. So my own view is that longterm residents is a useful tool in deciding who should be here on a permanent basis, so that might include somebody who is living in the United States without papers and removal order for a decade or more as well as tps holders or Daca Recipients or holders for another prosecutorial Discretion Program i discuss in my book called deferred enforced departure for lyberians, many supported for these populations, said one Government Official in terms of tps, these are people who should have legal status in the country, they should be part of legalization program. Its just silly to try to round up and send home people who have been here for 15 or 20 years and are members of the community once served. These solutions, not exhaustive list for this talk, really represents what to me are an inclusive and humane immigration policy, they provide my answer for what u. S. Immigration policies should look like, what kind of america i want to leave behind for my own children, thank you again, i look forward to your questions. [applause] thank you so much for this wonderful presentation and the wonderful booklets i had the pleasure of reading in the last couple of weeks. I was thinking 5 years ago or 6 years ago of discretion, a time of obama and many of us who are immigrants rights advocates in the room were already displeased with the way that enforcement was happening, the fact that it was targeting people who should not be targeted and just the fact that theres this sort of underlying theme of criminalization of immigrants that have been the case and have been sort of put into sharp focus in the Trump Administration and i think that kind of got me to thinking about the way that your book sort of lays out not just howdies cession is being exercised but actually how its being exercised to harm, i think in one of your chapters you say discretion can either be used to protect immigrants or it can be used to harm them and in this context it seems like every sort of method that can possibly be thought of is being used to harm and one really great example of that is during the zero tolerance sort of enforcement and family separations it turned out that they were actually taking u. S. Attorneys who normally were enforcing drug, like largescale drug laws and convictions and focusing on that and took them from that task force to put them on , you know, prosecuting Asylum Seekers for illegal entry and illegal entry in some cases, so anyway i just thought that the book was fascinating and gives great picture of all of that and one thing that i was going to ask you if you can sort of comment on is how you see these sort of very targeted attacks specifically against immigrants of color in every context where thats possible and also how you see these sort of very destructive behaviors of setting a floor thats so low that makes it very hard to sort of be ambitious in our view about what the real, you know, what oh are nation of immigrants ideal should look like, or what the laws should be providing and i kind of sort of wondering if you can comment on the longterm effect both on sort of trust in the ideals of the country among communities of color who have been so harshly targeted and among advocate who is are saying, okay, what can we advocate for now that the floor is so low, i thought that both of those themes are in the book and i wish you could discuss that further. Thank you for that question, great question, race is implicit conversation and i would agree with you that many of the policy changes that weve seen in the time of trump have really attacked immigrant communities and in particular communities of color. In terms of how do we pick up the pieces, so you know me a bit and im an optimist, that helps, im reminded by one of my favorite quotes is from the Golden Notebook and he says whatever youre meant to do do it now, the conditions are always impossible. Whatever it is that has to happen or be transformed, that should be informed by our principles and our values and what is right and we cant stop because its inconvenient or its too difficult. Actually we do need places like aclu im aware is documenting every single bad thing in this administration, so it has its laundry list of the things that need to be changed or repealed or reinvented in a new administration. So theres also the tedious task of ensuring that every change is documented and then sharp thinking about what is the tool that will be used to reverse or reinvent. There is old bipartisan reform of immigration legislation thats been languishing in congress forever and ever, if this ever gets moving, what are the most important features that should be in any reform of existing Immigration Law. Thank you for that question, another big question. So the Bipartisan Legislation on immigration reform, weve seen versions from 2006, 2007, 2013, the the level of dust on that legislation right now is pretty thick and the mainor most important components to me include and this is related to a recommendation in the book, what do you do about the people who are here, right, people who are living in the United States in the shadows, people who are here in raw temporary in a temporary legal status and one major component of legislation or reform would be to create a pathway that currently doesnt exist frankly for people in the United States who are living with their families or are contributing in meaningful ways. Why dont they get online, the reality is that for many immigrants theres no line for them to be on. Mechanism of addressing people in the future, especially if reuniting with families, getting rid of some restrictions in our law as well as those who are coming here to work. In this space of asylum detention, due process, i mean, this really gets to first question, theres so much damage has been done already so that theres a lot of fixing, if you will, that needs to be made before we can Start Talking about, well, how do we rethink who is even in detention in the first place under u. S. Taxpayer dollars as well as what are the restrictions that make it harder for genuine Asylum Seekers or refugees to gain the protection that they are eligible for under the law, so those are just some examples of what id like to see in comprehensive legislation. You mentioned the zero tolerance policy under which underlying predicate for the family separations. In the first democratic debate Julian Castro pointed out that what made that possible was the law making it a misdemeanor to cross the border without permission. And in the second debate, one of the other candidates were asked about that and 8 of them raised their hand say they would agree to decriminalize the border but they didnt explain how that differed from open from an openborders policy and im sure that in the next Election Campaign the Trump Administration will show pictures of the 8 democrats raising their hands and say democrats are for open borders, if you were advising a democratic president ial candidate, for that matter a republican president ial candidate, what would you have them say about what the rules should be now for crossing the border . Okay. So so unlawful entry is a federal misdemeanor crime under the criminal code. So for lawyers in the room, usc1325 and i i support the policy of decriminalizing unlawful and continue to push that policy and push back on the idea that somehow create open borders, there are significant reasons why people might come to the border in the first place and they are typically not deterred by whether theres a rule in place that criminalizes unlawful entry. I might also point out to Trump Supporters or my candidates on the other side of the aisle that we have this system called the civil removal system that still imposes a number of barriers for people who enter without inspection. So the mere fact of decriminalizing the border doesnt change the fact that someone can technically still be placed in removal proceedings, tried, detained and deported. I think thats a poor use of resources personally, but we still have a removal system that targets people who are without authorization so its a fantasy, mr. Trump, to think that decriminalizing the border creates open borders. Hi, the Obama Administration deported more people than any president in history in my understanding and even the daca reform happened if im correct prior to Midterm Election and this was in the second term of the Obama Administration. My question is, do you have a critique of the Obama Administration policies and maybe more specifically what changes did the Obama Administration make that paves the way to turn over this machinery of deportation to the Trump Administration . So i i dont critique or talk a lot about the Obama Administration analytically in the book, i would be concern and remain concerned of the number of people removed turned Obama Administration. I am academic and not a politician so thats what i will claim to answering why he rolled out daca, i support daca as a policy and im glad that he announced it and i think if we go back to the earlier framing of how we used discretion, did we use discretion and have compassion underlying it or do we use it for cruelty, i think we see some real differences between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration and so we can we can discuss kind of who should not have been deported or targeted under the Obama Administration, but i would say that as a matter of policy the decision to announce prosecutorial discretion in the open, in fact, daca is the only reason the American Public even knows what deferred action is and the fact that he had delegates in arms of the department of Homeland Security at least announce prosecutorial discretion policy that uses and announces equities an circumstances that should be considered in the exercise of discretion. I see the former administration is quite different than the current one. Hello, in terms of solutions the immigration judge union advocated to be independent from the department of justice, how important do you think that is, how successful do you think that will ever be and if you think so, do you think the board is going with the board of immigration appeals, where do they end up fitting in . So youre giving me a lot of power and authority in that question because im not going to be making that decision. [laughter] but i do i do talk about courts in my recommendation section for the book. The Immigration Court system just to step back a moment is currently housed by the department of justice which means that Immigration Judges are employees of the Justice Department and their boss of the attorney general and theres been a push even prior to this administration for the Immigration Court system to be taken out of the department of justice and for an independent Court Structure to be created, article 1 court, for example, i support taking the board with them because i think it provides more integrity and independence for Immigration Judges without having to rely on directives or really unreasonable and irrational case loads which they are currently under. Hi. Thank you so much for all the work that you do and bringing forth to anyone not just practitioners what we always see in the immigration atmosphere. I wonder if you can also comment on not just the defensive or removal side of immigration and asylum, but also how theres already under this administration especially an invisible wall with regard to Legal Immigration and legal applications from professional workers, from the business end, from other family who petitions where theres been a drastic change in, again, discretion and prosecutorial review of those types of applications and which has really led to the satisfaction of highlyskilled workers, so much so that in my representation of businesses, theyre leaving, theyre leaving this country which will lead to a brain drain of scientific needs, business needs, i dont know if you can comment at all about that part of the immigration needs of this country being disseminated and dissolved by this administration. I dont talk specifically about highlyskilled worker in the book but certainly part of the theme in the book about two things, first, the way in which citizenship and Immigration Services has taken on a more enforcement role so some of the work with former ins officials who talked about how Different Things are from old ins and the current uscis when it comes to the use of discretion and enforcement. Certainly doesnt help if uscis is taking on a more enforcement outlook in immigration generally, but to sort of broader question of how we use discretion to the extent that employmentbase petitions for highlyskilled workers are at an alltime low or that the request for more evidence which is a piece of paper you might get that that makes it very difficult for someone to start looking on time or even ultimately receive a benefit later on, you see discretion being used in an inhumane quite frankly way and i think the way we reverse that is to think about discretion as a capital d. Thank you so much for i look forward reading your book and the presentation was wonderful. I have a question which has to do with if we think about President Trump he appears to have a lot of fear and hatred on immigrants and policies seem to be implement that fear and hatred and goes all the way up and down and feels like every day he wakes up and his administration wakes up and trying to think about how we can be more cruel to immigrants and how can we deny people, peoples ability to qualify for benefits that they have always been able to qualify under law and the consequences seem like they are very stark, if somebody qualifies for asylum isnt able to make their case in Immigration Court or at the border or not even able to come into the country, then they it means that they when they return to the country of origin they are facing risk of death in many cases, so its really stark. But i wonder besides compassion and besides the rule of law, what is why should the rest of us care about about these sort of violations if theyre not violations of law, they are violations of humanity and morality. Why should that matter to the rest of us, cant we just continue to go on and, you know, feel bad for immigrants but not why do we have to do something about it, why is that a priority . So being silent is not an option to me. I think if why should people care, i think theres an economic argument that people should care because government has limited resources on how it it enforces Immigration Law and we certainly should care more about our government going after those who are truly dangerous as opposed to those who are seeking refuge. I think the American Public should care about the rule of law because we live in what is supposed to be one of the greatest democracies in the world, india may be the biggest but we have been coined as having the greatest and if, in fact, is true, we shouldnt standby to an executive branch that overreaches to such a degree that we dont know what type of government or world we are living with anymore. And then finally, i think there is basic humanity that goes beyond the law in terms of how we think about our communities, our neighbors as well as the kind of world we want to leave behind for the next generation. I dont expect everybody to have the philosophy that each person is an individual life that deserves the same opportunity and the same treatment and humanity but thats my philosophy, right, so i dont know that im more special than anyone else else, beyond immigration, you know, to ensure that everyone has that same opportunity to excel and to be created humanely and with dignity, i think that cuts across many core values that go beyond just immigration advocate s. [applause] thank you for not being silent. I think that one of the most fascinating parts of your book of interviewees that you spoke to, can you speak about how they were when you talked to them, recipients of the programs that are on shaky grounds and some of the former chiefs of staff . So thank you for that question, it was an eyeopening experience for me, i specially did not interview clients for whole host of reasons and its interesting to have these interviews when they are not your clients and another piece i will say is that a lot of my research is based on looking at data and data sets through foia, the freedom of information act and look at what the government provides in response and analyze that but this was much more of a intent experience, it brought me much closer to the human suffering and it also opened my eyes to how defeated and disappointed former Government Officials in these roles, the roles that are being carried out to promote cruelty today, just howdies appointed they are. So i i think those are some of the reactions i had to the interviews in a nutshell. Hi, thank you for everything. You mentioned the civil removal system, i wonder if you can comment on the paradox that this is a civil system that relies heavily on detention and what that means that we are using detention in a civil context and how that in the federal government most detainees, immigration are largest detainers of human beings in the federal system, i wonder if you can comment how the availability of cheap detention impacts the decisions that the government makes. So thank you for that question, so in a lot of ways and detention is a good example, there are many features in the Civil Enforcement or deportation system that smell like the criminal Justice System in terms of detention people who are held in custody are in jail and often times theyre in a jail that is with the general criminal population, thats certainly true in the state of pennsylvania where i live where the vast majority of immigrants were held are in county jails. So i think that the way its expanded so much which is why many call immigration detention the sort of most significant version of mass incarceration in this country is that it allows the administration to show that its gone clamming down on the immigrant community, it helps localities in some cases because it fills bed that would otherwise go unused, thats somewhat true in the county jail context. So i if i understand the frame of the question, theres a way that you could talk about the civil detention or enforcement system and say its really like the criminal Justice System but without all of the protections that exist in the criminal Justice System like the right to a speedy trial or a grand jury or the right to courtappointed council, some advocates have said we should just criminalize the ina because if we do that then ina stands for immigration and national act or Immigration Law because then maybe immigrants would have some protections that other immigrants receive. I dont think thats a great idea for other reasons but i appreciate that question. It struck me that the title of your book when i first heard it sounded like something in the past tense, people who were banned but here we are 2 and a half years into the trump transportation and the list of peoples who are being banned is growing and is continuing and i was wondering if you could comment on President Trumps asylum ban 2. 0 which was announced in the summer and most recently the Supreme Court just this week its going to allow it to go into effect nationwide how it will get implemented remains to be seen but could be used to essentially block asylum for most Asylum Seekers other than mexicans surviving at the southern border . So i think its a disaster, asylum ban 2. 0 referring to a policy by this administration to block asylum for any person who crosses through a thirdcountry before arriving in the United States. Lets just think about that practically for a moment, right, people who are coming to the border through venezuela, guatemala, honduras, more likely than not going to pass through mexico before they arrive in the United States. To unilaterally strip to ability for this many people to apply for asylum is both inhumane and unlawful in my opinion. So i was cocouncil and friend of court brief on the asylum ban 2. 0 and the challenge was really based on the statute, the immigration statute is really clear that any person regardless of how they enter the United States may apply for asylum. It doesnt guaranty that theyll ultimately receive protection but the clause is quite crystal clear. Secondly to the extent that there are restrictions for times spent in a third country before someone applies for asylum, congress was quite clear too, Congress Said two things, first that if you are in a safethird county and its safe for you to apply for asylum there and the United States has an agreement with that country, then you might be barred, well, we have that agreement with one country, canada. The second thing Congress Said is, former settlement, if you resettled in a country and the conditions are such that you have been given an offer of lawful permanent residence or green card and it is reasonable for you to be there, then you cannot apply for asylum. So contrast the narrow limitations, the congress wrote in the statute to this breathtaking rule that any person who crosses through a third country is banned and you see a clear violation of law. You know, in terms of the Supreme Courts ruling, it is sobering to say the least and also brings flag bash for me to the muslim ban where the Supreme Court was willing and able and did say the injunction in the muslim ban before the Appellate Court even made up their minds as to whether the ban was unlawful under the statute and the constitution and that kind of raises what will be my final point and that is another reason the courts cant save us is that we cant always rely on the courts to actually serve as a check on the executive overreach. [applause] thank you. Thank you, everybody, for coming, if you havent purchased a copy of the book, we have have many behind the register. Thank you, everyone, for coming and supporting the book. [inaudible conversations] today on book tv at 7 45 eastern the black books majority book party in washington, d. C. Features audrey and andrew rich and White House Correspondent april ryan author of under fire. But at tend of the day those Founding Fathers, they never realized that there would be a april ryan questioning bill clinton, george w. Bush, the first black president Barack Hussein obama and never imagined that donald trump would be there either but i stand on the pillars that our Founding Fathers put in place, my story is your story. Then at 11 00 eastern andrew polak, father of student killed at Margie Stoneman douglas in his book on why meadow died. And it was all these leniency programs like the kids, they had the first kid before school that he was so dangerous, they frisked and wasnt allowed with a backpack, thats how dangerous he was. He threatened students lives and never arrested. Sunday at 9 00 eastern on afterwords in his book the years that matter most paul reports on the challenges and costs of a college education. Hes interview bid sarah, author and founding director of the hope center at college, community and justice. And we are still debating about whether a first grade education is enough, its obviously not enough and all the signs from the economy and the labor market are that its not enough but now unlike our predecessors who were able to respond to that basic, those basic economic signs by saying, okay, lets educate our young people, we are fighting and turning into questions of identity, snobbery, politics and partisanship when clearly a sign that young people need our support, need our help, need more education, need more credentials and need more skills in order to survive in the current economy. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan2. Up next on book tv robin turner argues that we are close to losing our republic and civil war from the south from mississippi book festival, little bit later pollster Stanley Greenberg shares his thoughts on how the Republican Party will fair in the 2020 election, check our Program Guide for more schedule information. Now here is author robin curner. We want to introduce you to an author that has not appeared with us before, this is robin curner, besides being author what do you do for a living . I consult and train folks likes candidates and volunteering organizations that need to persuade large numbers of people of new ideas, kind of