Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Post-Vietnam War Refugees 20240712

News in recent years, i imagine that you, like me, have found it difficult to ignore the topic of refugees. This is an image of a refugees experience fleeing communist vietnam in 1975. But in many ways, it reminds us of images that we might see on the news today. It is hard to ignore the human stories of families perishing it see. Refugees are suffocating in meat trucks. They are crowding onto leaky boats. They are drowning. The bodies of those who are unable to cross to safety are washing up on mediterranean beaches. And refugees have been in the news for the past few years. Particularly related to the crisis in syria. But refugees are being uprooted by conflict all around the world. Were not just talking about refugees coming from syria, but from other war torn regions. Especially in the past couple of years, it has also been very difficult to ignore the public response to refugees. And Refugee Resettlement, like so many other topics today, has become a polarizing topic. On one hand, opposition to refugees has been theorists and even hostile. Politicians at the local, state and federal level have linked refugees to terrorism and have pursued anti refugee policies in the name of National Security. The most famous of these measures is president Donald Trumps executive orders which ground the federal Refugee Program virtually to a halt in january 2017. His imposition of what is widely known as the refugee ban, shortly after taking off this, initiated one of the sharpest legal and political debates of his presidency. It is part of a broader effort to limit the number of foreigners who are able to enter the United States. To be sure, politicians are not the only ones have taken action on the issue of refugees. Theres also been instances of vigilante anti refugee activism. Some of it potential to potentially violent, and much of it centered on specifically muslim refugees. For example, in shelby ville and tennessee, there were rallies led by white nationalists and neonazis. But it is also hard to ignore the fact that there has been a tremendous amount of public support for refugees. The january 2017 executive orders prompted thousands of americans to protest and facilitate legal aid at airports across the country. Community groups organized rallies and Service Projects to raise awareness on the issue of refugees. People put signs declaring their support for refugees on their front lawns or above their church entryways, or even on stickers on their laptop. Now i am a historian and my job is to remind you that we have to have some historical perspective. The truth is that, in many ways, we have been here before. Ive already pointed to this image of a boat. This is an image from 1975, but it could very well be an image of people fleeing by boat today. Weve seen these images before. Weve seen a vicious eruption of anti refugee sentiment before. Weve seen a generous pro refugee response before. Weve seen anxiety about religious and cultural differences before. Weve worried about refugees and National Security before. Now i am frustrated a little bit by our contemporary conversation because so much of our contemporary conversation is not paying attention to our history. As well as the lessons that we can learn from the past. We especially do not hear a lot about asian refugees. We might hear a little bit more about jewish refugees, but not that much about asian refugees. Now ive made the case this entire semester that Asian American history is american history. And this is true for refugee history as well. So today im going to talk about asian refugee migrations that took place for decades ago. This refugee migration, i argue, changed the course of refugee history in the United States for the decades to come. Im going to talk about refugees known as the ugandans asian refugees and Southeast Asian refugees. They arrived in the 19 seventies and 19, some of them as late as the beginning of the 21st century. And the migration of these asian refugees was a turning point in several different ways. Number one, in the 1970s, refugees were accepted for new reasons. For the first time, the United States wasnt just accepting refugees because they opposed communism. The United States was accepting refugees on the basis of emerging humanitarian commitments to human rights. Number two, during this period, refugees were accepted and resettled in a new way. We are talking about a huge refugee migration here. Over 1 million southeast rare Southeast Asian refugees came to United States in the last couple of decades of the 25th century. That refugee migration and the amount of work it took to coordinate, relief and resettlement efforts, both overseas and domestically, made government officials racket realize that they needed to have a more systematic and organized and prominent way to respond to refugee crises. So it is in part because of Southeast Asian refugees in particular that we see the emergence of a push for new legislation, which culminated in the 1980 refugee act. This act is still enforced today and i will talk about details of that act later. Number three. Another reason why Southeast Asian refugee migrations, and also ugandan asian refugee migrations, matter. These asian refugees were at the beginning of a new wave of refugees. A new refugee population. They were the first group of non white, non european, non Christian Refugees to be resettled in the United States. There have been cuban refugees and jewish refugees, i will talk about that later, but this was the first huge group of non white and non european and non Christian Refugees. Can these refugees these refugees were so different that it was a great source of anxiety for americans. In truth, these refugees ended up being the foreigner for refugee populations who would arrive in the United States in subsequent decades. So these refugees, in many ways, set the groundwork for how the United States would resettle refugees, but also were a harbinger for what would come. In some asian refugees, ugandan asian refugees and Southeast Asian refugees in particular, they were at the center of major changes in the 1970s and profoundly changed the u. S. And its approach to refugees in the decades to come. Would lie literature, you will know that weve been talking about asian refugees. In fact, the history of vietnamese refugees as received a lot of attention in the past couple of years because of this book, the sympathizer. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 2016. You are reading an excerpt from this novel this week and we will discuss it next week. The author himself was a refugee and he is reflected a lot on what it means to be a refugee and a writer and to tell his story. In an essay he published in the New York Times, he observed the following. Many people have characterized my novel, the sympathizer, as an immigrants story, and me as an immigrant. No. My novel is a war story. I am not an immigrant. I am a refugee, who like many others, has never ceased being a refugee in some corners of my mind. He continues, immigrants are more reassuring than refugees because there is in and point to their story. However they arrive, whether they are documented or not, their desires for a new life can be absorbed into the American Dream or into the european narrative of civilization. By contrast, refugees are zombies of the world. The undid who rise from dying states to march or swim toward our borders in endless waves. So lets stop and think about this line for a little bit. What do you think he means by saying that immigrants are different from refugees . Rays hands. I think theres a choice that immigrants take to build their own new future, whereas like with the refugee crisis is that we see now, theres often like a push that forces them to leave their own countries and migrate somewhere else just because of a failure of government or reasons that they dont have control over themselves. Absolutely. So there is a forced migration that characterizes refugee migrations, rather than immigrants who, as you point out, have more of a choice. I also think with refugees theres somewhat of a connotation that when their home country, like when the turmoil stops in their home country, a lot of times they would be okay going back, versus an immigrant who came to this country by their own choice. To build a new life for whatever the reason is. So for a refugee, the reason we would welcome them in is like we are housing them until they go back. But within emigrant, that connotation isnt there. So the ability to be able to return to your home country. Weve talked about how a lot of may migrants migrate to the United States or elsewhere and then returned home, but refugees do not have that option. That is a really important point. That is because they have been forced out due to war, persecution, Natural Disaster, any number of reasons that make their life in their previous country impossible. They would not survive. So i think you are exactly right. Refugee migrations are characterized by a need for survival. What do you think he means when he says that refugees are exam these of the world . I thought that was evocative. Some of these of the world. The undid who rise from dying states. In a way, they are like the only vessels of culture left of these dying states. Its really hard to get someones to completely forfeit their culture because it is part of their identity. So as long as they lived, the culture lives. Yes. So i think this is very powerful. They are often vessels of their culture. They are leaving desperate situations where they would have otherwise died, physically and perhaps also their community would have died, their culture would have died. And so this idea of leaving dying states. In circumstances a profound dislocation, trauma is really powerful. I think that language of zombies is really powerful because it reminds us of the desperation, the violence, the that people leave, that pushes people to migrate. And i think that its important for us to remember that this violence, that this suffering, that this persecution, that this upheaval, that forced them to migrate doesnt just and there. It continues to shape their lives in new years to come. So the author calls attention to the two most important aspects of refugees and what distinguishes them from immigrants. Number one, they are involuntary migrants as you point it already, forcibly removed by their from their homes from forceable conflict Natural Disaster in other circumstances. They are often very traumatized people, zombies. As he would say. The interesting thing about refugees is they are powerful in our mythologies of immigration history. Think about the palm, that is on the statue of liberty. The new colossus. In it, anna lazarus calls refugees the mother of exit exiles. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Youre teaming shore. Send lease to me, i lift my lamp beside an open door. How many of you have heard those lines before . And the fact that those lines, are on the statue of liberty which is a symbol of immigration in the United States and it centers the United States and it shows again faces being an opening haven for those who are exiles. Unfortunately the history of the United States tells a somewhat different more complicated story. The truth is we havent always had the humanitarian impulse to welcome refugees usually we have only done so when its in our humanitarian National Interest. Usually usually, we have been more inclined to reject refugees. To borrow the words of historian eric tang, often refugees who have been accepted for resettlement are not only resettled, they are also deeply unsettled by the experience. To give you an overview, i will give you a little background about american Refugee Resettlement policy after the Second World War. Im going to use that background to set up why the 1970s were such an important period of change. That is when a small group of ugandan refugees arrived in the United States and they were followed by a larger group of refugees, Southeast Asian refugees, who are described as indochinese refugees, including those from vietnam, laos, cambodia. I will talk about the crisis that developed overseas. But i will focus mostly on development that took place here in the United States. How the general public viewed Southeast Asian refugees. How Southeast Asian refugees were admitted and resettled. And how Southeast Asian refugees themselves tell stories about their experience. I will tease out why the history of Southeast Asian Refugee Resettlement matters and conclude with discussion about how southeast Asian Americans today are drawing on their refugee history to enter Public Policy debates. Any questions so far . Lets begin with some background on Refugee Resettlement in the United States during the 20th century. During the 1940s through 1960s, most refugees came from europe, with the exception of cuban refugees. Most were white and jewish or christian. During this time, after the Second World War and the cold war, a commitment to opposing communism shaped have the United States determined which refugees to accept. During and after world war ii, the United States changed its immigration policies to accept people displaced by war. They were known as displaced persons and they benefited from the landmark legislation of the time, which was the 1948 displaced persons act. That act eventually expired and in 1953, was replaced by the Refugee Relief act, which helped other europeen refugees, including italians, greeks and dutch refugees. In 1956, we see cold war developments in europe also shape a new refugee population, give rise to new groups of people seeking refuge. In particular, the hungarian revolution occurred and Freedom Fighters were welcomed to the United States. They were accepted under what is known as parole power, which allows the United States to accept refugees and circumvent its own Immigration Laws, which at this time, were pretty restrictive. Throughout much of the cold war, the executive branch used a loophole in Immigration Law to admit refugees when he deemed that it was in the National Interest to do so. Most refugees admitted were fleeing leftwing or communist regimes. Finally in 1959, cuban exiles began to arrive. The first to arrive were batasista sympathizers who feared reprisal. The United States was a country of first refuge, meaning they came straight to the United States. Especially to places like miami. The policy for cuban refugees was such that these refugees with the given asylum as part of a bigger anticastro policy. A number of requirements were imposed on these early refugee populations. They illustrated how the United States pursued its own cold war selfinterest. First, as i have already mentioned, the u. S. Offered a special welcome to people fleeing communism. Second, preference was given for refugees who were professionals or highly educated or skilled. This is in keeping with other Immigration Laws of the period. While welcoming people has been seen as a human acts, these efforts were often centered on the need of the United States. These images feature refugees who arrived in the United States during this time. The photo on the left features displaced persons who were registering at fort ontario emergency refugee center. It housed 1000 people displaced by world war ii. The photo on the right is the cover of Time Magazine 1957, featuring their chosen person of the year in 1956. The person of the year 1956 was the hungarian freedom fighter. Lets think about this. What do you think this image on the right tells us about how americans viewed hungarian Freedom Fighters . Think about what it means for Time Magazine to choose hungarian Freedom Fighters as they are person of the year. Whats this tell us . Refugees today. Yes, really positive. You can see this phase, so serious, noble. There was enormous enthusiasm for welcoming people who were seen as fighting for freedom. They were seen as being allies in the United Stateswar against communism. It is a really important image to have in mind. How refugees can be celebrated and have the celebration of refugees converges powerfully with american interests. In particular, this moment, the cold war. Later in the 20th century, the cold war continued to shape the United Statesstance toward refugee populations. But the last quarter of the 20th century saw a shift in the worlds refugee population. In 1964, a Refugee Affairs expert at the World Council of churches declared we are now faced with the problem of refugees who are by and large nonwhite and nonchristian. It remains to be seen how we will react. Americans were worried about how the United States would handle these new refugees. One pastor explained, many problems will arise because of the influx of new people to america. As a result of new people coming from different cultures and backgrounds. How would these new immigrants be accepted . Government leaders worried about this new immigrant population, his new refugee population in particular. During a congressional hearing after the fall of saigon, julia taft of the Interagency Task force declared never before in the history of this country, have so many people from such different cultures and religious backgrounds been introduced into American Society in such a short time . What separates these populations was not that they were different, but that these communities did not have a community of people in the United States already to welcome them. Who were these new refugees . Amid the contemporary debate about muslim refugees from syria and somalia, there has been little attention paid to the fact that the United States has been resettling muslim refugees for a long time and in fact, has been since the 1970s. The first muslim refugees accepted for resettlement or such were ugandan asian refugees. They had been expelled from uganda. They were resettled in the United States and the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Beginning in 1972. They marked a turning point in that they were quite different from their refugee predecessors, they were religiously diverse, identifying as muslim and hindu and christian. One question worth asking, how did it go . A ugandan asian refugee who was later a history professor actually wrote a report called the brown diaspora and noted that cultural and religious differences were a source of anxiety for refugees and their christian sponsors. He noticed that some problems did arise. A strictly vegetarian brahman was given work in a poultry processing plant, which did not go so well. He pointed out that it produced significant psychological and emotional strain and though he praised the good intentions of the sponsors and the agencies at the time, he said there needed to be better understanding of the needs of refugees. Overall though, he said that ugandan asian refugees, had a pretty positive experience. I mention ugandan asian refugees, because they really set the stage for a larger refugee population, that arrived in the 1970s. A lot of the Lessons Learned from the uganda in asian refugees, informed how they handled Southeast Asian refugees. Shortly after the arrival, of the uganda asian refugees, another population arrived as a result of the war in Southeast Asia. To give you some context, on whats happening in Southeast Asia at the time, in 1975 communist governments to control in vietnam, cambodia and laos. And this initiated the out migration of thousands of people fleeing for their lives. The American Public tended to see these refugees as a single group, frequently referred to as the indo chinese. And that category came with the important differences within the population these were several different ethnic groups coming from Different Countries and speaking different languages. They had different religions and different class backgrounds and political orientations and more. What united them was the experience of war. The trauma of war. The forced migration produced by war and the experience of having to create a new life in the United States. After having experienced the war. These refugees arrived in several waves. The first occurred during the United States is military involvement in the vietnam war, which began in 1965 and lasted a decade. By 1971, he wore had already caused considerable violence and economic and political and cultural damage. It had displaced by 1971 approximately 6 million refugees in South Vietnam and 700,000 refugees in laos. Later in the fall of saigon in the spring of 1975, the withdrawal of American Forces caused another outpouring of refugees. In response to this immediate crisis, president gerald ford gave the green light to admit 200,000 vietnamese refugees. Some of them were evacuated with the help of American Forces. Others fled on their own and were later taken into protective custody by the United States. These vietnamese refugees in 1975 were placed in several military run refugee camps on military bases here in the United States. They stayed there until sponsors could assist their resettlement elsewhere. As 1976 began, americans thought they were done with the refugee crisis. They had handled those couple hundred thousand refugees who want to those military run refugee camps. But the crisis was only beginning to heat up at this point. Violence and political conflicts in Southeast Asia continued to escalate and continued to spur new refugee migrations. For example in cambodia, the vietnamese invasion of 1978 brought the downfall of the cameras and the removal of pol pot in january 1979. During pol pots three and a half years in power, the khmer rouge had killed 1. 7 million people. That was about 21 of the cambodian population. With pol pot no longer in power, approximately half 1 million cambodian people managed to survive his regime and sought refuge in nearby talent. In addition, 122,000 cambodia refugees joined them in thailand between 1980 and 1986. In vietnam, there was a another outpouring of refugees known famously as the boat people. These people escaped by sea. They were people who had formerly been political, up military or cultural leaders in south yet mom. Some of them were ethnic minorities who were fleeing persecution. About 160,000 went to china while tens of thousands took to the oceans and made their way to other places in Southeast Asia, including thailand, indonesia and the philippines. They sailed in boats that were hardly see where the at times, and then estimated 25 to 30 died at sea. If they were lucky to make it to land, sometimes they were forced back to see by governments like thailand and relay malaysia refused to accept them and take responsibility. Those refugees who were fortunate enough to make it to a refugee camp and lived there, they live in squalid conditions. Very difficult conditions in thailand and elsewhere. By the middle of 1979, nearly 100,000 vietnamese boat people were in malaysia and hong kong. So far, ive only talked about refugees from vietnam and cambodia, but i should also mention what are known as meng and allow refugees. This is in edge an image of a traditional quote. It is really embroidery, but a lot of stories about the war have been told through this traditional art form. Just looking at this image, what do you see . What do you notice . What story of war does it tell . Do you see any depictions of war here . Anyone notice. Amelia. Yeah, i think its very interesting the spending of technology is really depicted in this depiction of war. I see sword fighting but then i also see planes which, to me, is a very funny thing to see embroidered on a quote. Im also just interested in the dear to the left at the river. I guess its kind of a nice juxtaposition of how like ward comes into a landscape, but the landscape still functions as is. It would be cool to see an aftermath quilt of what would happen. Yes, absolutely. You call attention to some really key details. You see a river. This river represents the mekong river which borders laos and thailand. You will see the airplanes, the helicopters, you see the juxtaposition of rural life and war. You see these little boxy buildings which could represent either the refugee camps or the military sites where troops organized. You see people in a line all walking in the same direction and fleeing perhaps for safety. This represents experiences during the war and their subsequent migration out of laos to thailand. Now the United States worked with the meng and allow people in their fight against communists during the secret war in laos in the 1960s. With the assistance of the cia and the green berets, a monk leader and tens of thousands of soldiers whom he commanded where the frontline defensive responsible for warding off the communist advance until the american evacuation in 1973. The staggering cost of sacrificed during this period is really important to know. Throughout 13 years of figures guerrilla warfare, estimates claim that one in four soldiers, approximately 17,000 people, died. And some of the soldiers who died were teenagers, they were quite young. The secret war entered a new phase in 1973 when the United States signed a peace accord with north vietnam. They evacuated all of the American Military leaders from laos. But 18,000 hmong soldiers were left behind. Some dispersed into the countryside. Some joined the general army. In 1975, so military leaders were airlifted by the cia out of laos. But most hmong people were less fortunate. Of the 10,000 hmong who fled the headquarters, only a small fraction were evacuated by the United States. Thousands of hmong people there embarked on the treacherous westward exodus to thailand, carrying their possessions on their back, families traveled by foot through the jungle and journeyed at night to avoid capture by the communists. By 1979, nearly 30,000 hmong refugees attempted to make the dangerous crossing each month. So that crossing of the river is such a powerful part of hmong stories and the refugee migration. You can see it powerfully depicted here. While americans today have paid attention to news of refugee crises overseas, theyve been following news reports and watching but age on nightly news. Theyve been following on social media and americans in the 19 seventies were just like us today. They were following developments overseas with great interests. And americans who were moved by news accounts of this humanitarian crisis, this was an Important Development in causing americans to say we should actually do something. The plight of Southeast Asian refugees began to build and americans began to push to provide relief and resettlement opportunities. First i want to talk about support for Southeast Asian refugees. Americans gave a lot of reasons to support the southeast right asian refugees. For one, Many Americans routed their support in the idea that the United States is an exceptional country, an immigrant country, that has special status in history as a refuge for the scorned, hated and hunted. One 1975 Public Opinion survey found that the leading reason by americans what americans supported the admission of Southeast Asian refugees was the, quote, tradition of the United States as a sanctuary for europeans playing oppression of their homelands. That same poll found that a plurality agreed with the statement that the United States began with people of all races, creeds and nationalities, coming here to escape religious or political persecution. So we ought to leave the refugees from vietnam in. Throughout the cold war, americans continued to feel a special obligation to people who were fighting against communism. People who were the less fortunate human beings who faced retribution and persecution. This is also another reason why a lot of americans were open to accepting Southeast Asian refugees. In 1986 poll found that a majority of respondents agreed that the United States should accept political refugees who were specifically fleeing communist fleeing communist countries. There was also the specific context of the vietnam war. The fact that refugees were fleeing a region where the United States had been directly involved in years of brutal warfare, highend americans sense of obligation. Americans were particularly committed to admitting Southeast Asian refugees who had worked closely with u. S. Military and this yai, as translators or the diplomatic corps. Americans who had worked in vietnam felt terrible about potentially abandoning the Southeast Asian colleagues. Other refugee advocates argued that americans must aid and admit Southeast Asian refugees who suffering was the direct consequence of u. S. Military action. For some religious people, accepting refugees for resettlement was an act of penance for americas sins in vietnam. Just as powerful as american guilt was the idea of american goodness. Pride in american compassion and generosity spared spurred americans to take action. The idea that the United States was the benevolent leader of the free world also converged with religious ideas. The idea that the United States needed to be a good samaritan. Finally, refugee advocates argue that americans should not admit refugees because americans are good, but because refugees are good for america. One Senate Resolution from 1975 declared this period of influx of refugees in exile conserve to keep humble keep us humble. Saving us from the sins of arrogance, pride and self righteousness. I need to tell you the support for refugees really was small compared to the opposition to refugees. Despite the lofty ideals and passionate advocacy of refugees supporters, in reality, the majority of americans consistently opposed the resettlement of Southeast Asian refugees. This sentiment was by no means a new development in american culture. Public opinion polls indicated consistently throughout the 20th century, americans have not supported the admission and resettlement of refugees. For example, in january 1939, as the u. S. Was grappling with the question of whether to accept jewish refugees fleeing nazi germany, only 30 of americans surveyed said the u. S. Should resettle jewish refugees. 61 said it should not. Compare that to Public Opinion polls after the vietnam war. One National Gallup poll in may of 1975, which is right after the fall of saigon, found that only 36 of americans surveyed favored the resettlement of Southeast Asian refugees. 54 of americans surveyed opposed it. Attitudes toward Southeast Asian refugees warned somewhat overtime, but american reluctance to admit Southeast Asian refugees remain fairly consistent throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Even a full decade after the end of the vietnam war, a plurality of americans have believed that the United States had accepted too many refugees. This slide indicates i added some statistics from october 2016. 41 of voters said the u. S. Should accept Syrian Refugees. 54 said it should not. This is interesting because more americans are supportive of Refugee Resettlement today than compared to after the vietnam war, which i think is surprising for a lot of people. So why do people pose sorry oppose Southeast Asian refugees . The New York Times visited a town called niceville, florida. The town was not particularly nice to the refugees from vietnam. Niceville is located near an air force base, the site of one of the military run refugee camps. Despite the proximity to vietnamese refugees, or perhaps because of it, the people there felt the limits of american welcome. A local Radio Station pulled residents about the 1500 refugees being airlifted from saigon and 80 of people surveyed did not want the military to bring refugees to their town. At one point, residents circulated a position demanding that refugees be sent to a different place and School Children made jokes about shooting refugees. As far as im concerned, they can ship them back, one woman told the New York Times. This support for sending refugees back to vietnam reflected broader national sentiment. In one National Poll in june, 1975, 80 of americans believed the United States should arrange to send refugees back to saigon. In a town close to niceville, anxiety about refugees reflected anxiety about a economics and weakening safety net. We have enough problems take care of, said a local farmer. One of his customers agreed they dont have enough money to take care of Social Security and they want to bring in more people. These economic concerns were widespread. Many believe that Southeast Asians were problematic. In june 1975, 28 believed that refugees did not take jobs away from americans. A realtor in nearby valparaiso fear that over that the minis refugees would bring communist. How do you know we will not get the bad guys, he said. Nobody can say for sure and lord knows, we have enough communist infiltration right now. This topic also came up in discussions in congress in 1975, in ambassador led the administrations response to refugees responded to several questions from congress about the adequacy of the immigration and Naturalization Services security screening, which many thought maximized expediency over thoroughness. There were also cultural concerns. Americans concerned to Refugee Resettlement of Southeast Asian refugees were culturally unassimilable. You see language that was the yellow peril language we saw earlier. Opponents of resettlement pretrade Southeast Asian people as germ ridden people who threatened public health. There is no telling what kind of diseases they will bring in, said Vincent Davis of niceville. When asked to identify what diseases they might bring, he could not name them. He said, i dont know, but there is bound to be some kind of tropical germs. Hostility to refugees sometimes boiled down to racism. At a high school near niceville. Students discussed plans to create a racist group. A variety of reasons why people were concerned about admitting refugees. The funny thing about refugees is that given all of this hostility, it happened. Southeast asian refugees were admitted and resettled. As a historian put it, given the intensity of the public opposition, it is a miracle that Southeast Asian refugees were resettled at all. They were resettled in substantial numbers. Between 1975 and 2000, over one million refugees came to the United States and in what was the most extensive, expensive, institutionally complex resettlement effort in american history. It was haphazard, chaotic, controversial. Planners expected to take a year but it took decades. Southeast asian refugee migration developed in phases. Theres the indochina migration and assistance act in 1975. This outlined plans to help refugees from vietnam and cambodia. The federal government underestimated how extensive it would be, how much money was needed, how much time and manpower and in the years that followed, Congress Approved the arrival of more refugees, including lau and hmong refugees in a series of stopgap measures. The stream became a tide as more vietnamese, cambodian, and land lau and hmong refugees began to come to the u. S. President jimmy carter raised the quota to 14,000 per month in 1979 and there remained a challenge of bringing refugees to a level of selfsufficiency. To meet these needs, Congress Passed a landmark legislation, the refugee act of 1980. This is the act under which we operate today. It aimed to fix the inefficiencies in the program and maintained much of the preexisting program, but aimed to make it more permanent and stable. It capped refugee annual entry at 50,000. It facilitated the resettlement of record freeze provided funding for programs, it was the first general refugee act. Until 1980, the United States had been under criticism from the helping people who were anticommunist, rather than people who needed to be helped. Refugee policy critics argued, we should not be driven by cold war geopolitics, but by International Laws and norms. The 1980 refugee act is important, because it redefined refugee in american law. It defines refugees as any person outside his or her own country who is unable or unwilling to return to that country and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the country because of fear of persecution. Southeast asian Refugee Resettlement, given its complexity, helped illuminate the need for the refugee act. That is what is important. It also marked an important shift. The shift toward centering admissions on human rights, rather than cold war into communism. This period saw a shift toward humanitarian thinking. Not everybody was on board. Gerald ford continued to argue that we should admit refugees as they had been the United States allies, but liberal prorefugee advocates like ted kennedy emphasized that Southeast Asian refugees deserved american help due to a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering. What happened to these refugees once they arrived in the United States, how are they resettled . So lets unpack this a little bit. In the United States it is a Public Private resettlement. Interesting, a lot of these agencies are also religious, 75 of Southeast Asian refugees, who arrived in 1981, which is around the mid point arrivals, were resettled by religious organizations. Some of these organizations are ones that are very active today. Lutheran refugee service. And catholic bishops. So religious organizations were very important in both advocating for increased refugee admission, and also doing the work of helping refugees make it in United States. These voluntary agencies received a government grant, between 300 and 500 dollars per refugee. To help refugees in their first weeks upon arrival. And these voluntary agencies, also partnered with local organizations. Sometimes an individual, usually a community group, especially a congregation. A synagogue or church. And these churches, were civic organizations, which sponsor refugees and take them under their wing. Sometimes refugees would actually live injured buildings for the first few days in the United States. I interviewed one family, and actually once one church sponsor, who had housed people in their church, and they didnt have shower, so they lived in sunday school classrooms. And walked across to the seminary and showers there. They live like that for a few weeks. Well and this actually came up in the movie gran torino. Which some of you have seen. In that film clint eastward is talking to a young woman, and asked how did you get here to the wild west. And she jokingly says blame duluth rinse. I think that scene in gran torino, says to simply one important thing. Religious organizations, religious groups have been powerful one in having refugee admissions. And they fit important, to make this happen. Theres four arrive variety of reason, as they point out here, churches in their view, our avenues of gods love to refugees. The last line is important here, articulating how christians viewed refugees, it says jesus himself who was a refugee, said by helping refugees we are helping him. So these religious groups, had a lot of commitment to helping refugees. They also had, the financial backing of the government to do that. The United States Refugee Program would not have happened without these private organizations. Now they have their own goals for resettling refugees but religious groups and government had a shared objective, which is bringing refugees to self sufficiency as soon as possible. This quote eliminates that, im inviting someone who wants to make a difference and wants to get involved in that effort, but also there will is not to be everything for the newcomer. The role is to help them be as self sufficient as soon as possible. Do not create dependencies. Its the worst thing for individuals. So this reflected the governments goal, every settling refugees in a way that would not put a lot of people on welfare. This was an obsession of both government and private agencies, so the goal was to ensure that refugees would not be a public ours charge. Were economically self sufficient, have a job. And there were also commitments to cultural a simulation. To that end refugees were spread out across the country. As one person put it, spread thin like butter. So it was a desire on the part of refugee policy makers, to prevent the formation of immigrate immigrant enclaves. And immigrant i migrations earlier in the u. S. History as well when. So for my final portion today i want to talk about how refugees experienced this migration and in my view a lot of our conversation about refugee migration today takes into consideration its a government, it takes into consideration the needs of sponsors, and community members, and it doesnt always involve listening to Southeast Asian refugee voices. In general i will say, that refugees that were grateful to be resettled in United States, but they were disabled by the experience. There was a number of challenges. Economic challenges, cultural adjustment, language acquisition, trauma due to war. Physical and Mental Health problems due to war also. Intense anti refugee racism and hostility. Separation from family and friends. The uncertainty of what the future lay ahead. I think one of those powerful ways to understand what it was like to experience this refugee migration, is to listen to oral histories. So im going to call attention to, story. Its a young woman who lives in st. Paul minnesota and she shared her story for a history project. And she is at the Minnesota Historical society. And i will share a few lines which i think will show the challenges she experienced. At the Welfare Office they say why dont you go to work, and why are just coming to ask for more money. That is what he told me. But he did not know how much struggling we have been through, and he did not how lucky we are to stay alive, so we can come to this country. Maybe he would still say all those things about us, but the reason why we are having this problem is because of the americans who came to our country, and caused all these problems. That is the reason why we came to this country. But he does not know about that. And all he sees is that we are here to use his money, and you take his country and his home. They really hate the people who are on welfare like us, for those who went to work to support their own families, then the american said that now they are taking away our jobs. Okay so lets look at this and it, what does yer moua feel frustrate about with life in america. What are her frustrations . Keep shes frustrated because, the Welfare Office is like assuming that her story, without really knowing her. And it reminds us of the last session, and how the perception of americans, you know i think just like, they are not really taking into account her experiences. There is a frustration, absolutely americans not fully understanding, why they are coming to United States in the first place. This is a big issue for a lot of refugees. Why are you hating us we are on your side. There was a lot of frustration for lack of understanding in the history. And by, sharing stories with things like oral history projects, and you know fiction and i think vietnamese people have been able to tell the story, to a wider audience. And in this first years, they dont really have a platform to tell their story. As easily as they do now. Another person is also a Young American woman, she lives in st. Paul, and you read her memoir. And i want to call attention to a few lines that you think are powerful cause she came to the United States as a child, so she has the unique position experiencing a refugee migration from the Vantage Point of a young person. Thats different from yer moua who came to United States as an adult. So kao writes, my mother and father told us not to look at the americans. If we saw them they would see us. For the first year and a half, we wanted to be invisible. Everywhere we went, in the Housing Project we are looked at, and we felt exposed. We were dealing with a widespread realization, that they must be one of two things to survive in america, grow up, or rolled. Okay so she felt profound pressure, to grow up really fast. Translating for her parents, helping them navigate the bureaucracy, that allowed their family to eat. Later she writes, mommy was like a person i never known, or id never reach before. It kept me away from my grandma. I sought no way to clean this well. Sometimes i thought so much about money i couldnt sleep. Money was not bills and coins or check from welfare, in my imagination it was much more. It was the nightmare that kept love apart. So here you have another aspect, a frustration. Her family is not just financially struggling, but that financial struggle, meant that they could not be with loved ones. This is a powerful aspect of refugee migrations. The fact that people might be separated for years. From family members. Might not even know, what their status is. One last line, from the memoir. At night the families gathered for long conversations, which were always about surviving in america. The same topic that the adults my family started the first night we arrived in the country. It was a conversation that we continue for the next 20 years. How do we survive in america . And still love each other as we have in laos. So what are some of the things that kao did to survive . Its anyone remember . What was her strategy to survival . How do you connect, to her commitment to education. For kao the way to survive, was to do well in school tremendous amount of pressure on her, in the story to do well academically, now to go to college one day and one thing i think is powerful about learning about southeast Asian American history, is it reminds us that Asian Americans, are not monolithic, not a minority, there are a viral variety of different backgrounds, experiences that shape their migration to the United States. But what is amazing to see is how much, upward mobility has been accomplished by a lot of these refugees within the span of a generation. I once interviewed a young woman who described how she gave birth on the side of the mcclung river to a baby, and she could immediately swim across the mcallen river, because she had just given birth, the baby was a small. But as soon as she was able, she did. And her husband carried one child on his shoulders, and she carried the newborn baby, and i swam across the river as troops were shooting at them. And i asked after she told the story, well what happened that baby that you carried. She said oh she is a law student, at uc berkeley now. So i think its powerful to remember, how much struggle, Southeast Asian refugees have experienced, due to war. Did you people, dislocation, culturally, politically economically. Its powerful. And i think we do a disservice by focusing just unsuccessful race, and i want to conclude here and kao is a Success Story. And theres another Success Story you have authors and professors. But just like how the mueller minority model is so a recognition of success only. And increasingly see, Southeast Asian refugees telling stories about the struggle, pointing out the unsettling this of being a refugee. Not simply to correct the narrative, but also to look at contemporary debates about refugees today. I want to revisit now and read a few lines from the essay that i quoted at the beginning of this lecture. Here, she writes about the hidden scars of all refugees that they carry. And he connects the past in the present. In the same way that japanese americans who have been incarcerated during world war ii, have been intervening and debates about treatment of muslims during the war on terror, we see scl feast asians in americans, drawing on their own refugee passed, to stand up for refugees in the present. And here the right, today Many Americans think of being vietnamese americans as a success tory. We forget that the majority of americans in 1975, did not want to accept the vietnamese refugees. For country the prides itself on the American Dream, refugees are simply unamerican. Despite the fact that some of the original english editors of this country, and puritans were religious refugees. Todays Syrian Refugees, have a similar reaction. To some european sees refugee scene on european. For reasons of culture, religion, and language. And in the United States and the attacks on paris and in san bernardino, have people seer fearing that Syrian Refugees can be radicals. Forgetting that those refugees, are some of the first victims of the islamic state. And its a powerful connection, to the perception of vietnamese refugees as a potential communist infiltrators, when they were wanting to flee persecution at the hands of communist in asia. I continue here. Because this judgment has been rendered on many who have been casting out or fled, its important for those of us, who were refugees to remind the world of our experiences are. And what they mean. A colleague of mine was jokingly referred to as journey from refugee, to. What i told my she was a refugee he felt guilty and said, you dont look like one. He was right, we can be invisible even to one another. But it is precisely because i do not look like a refugee, that i had to proclaim being one. Even when those of us who were refugees, would rather forget that there was a time when the world thought us to be less than human. So i will close there. Any questions . On any of the material that ive lectured about today . Okay thank you. I will see you all next week. Discussing the sympathizer, and the bond tempo chapter. I wish you a wonderful weekend, and i can say that. I will see you next week. Thank you. Thank you. Former white House Counsel john dean, now teaches up next his errors on the State University class on watergate, and the discovery of the Nixon White House taping system. In june of 1973, during testimony from the Watergate Committee mister dean implicated president nixon and officials including himself in the watergate coverup was dean later pled guilty of obstruction of justice for his role in watergate and served 4 months in prison. This class is about an ho