Also, why immigration . Why now . Why such passion on both sides of the argument . I have a great panel to discuss. And a new arms race in space. This week, President Trump announced a sixth branch of the u. S. Military, a space force. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force, separate but equal. What would it do . And good idea . The great Neil Degrasse tyson helps us understand. Itd be nice if peace in space led the way to peace on earth. But first, heres my take. Democrats are exaltant that donald trump had to reverse his policy of separating immigrant families at the border. And there is good reason to celebrate. The policy was meanspirited and unnecessary. But i do wonder whether trumps retreat will prove to be as damaging to the president as liberals think. The president s cruelty made it easy to oppose his policy, but in that delighted the administrations latest missteps, democrats may be walking into a trap. The larger question is surely, should the country enforce its immigration laws, or if circumvented, should we just give up . According to a u. N. Report, last year the United States became the worlds leading destination for Asylum Seekers with a 44 increase of Central Americans who comprised almost half the total at about 140,000. David frump suggests in the atlantic that most of these people probably come to escape poverty, rather than violence, which is actually declining, and that many hope bringing children will help them avoid punishment. Thats why when asked in 2014 about the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who had come to the border, Hillary Clinton responded we have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesnt mean the child gets to stay. So, we dont want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey. Immigration has become an issue that motivates a large group of americans passionately, perhaps like no other. Some of this might be rooted in racism, but it also represents a kind of heightened nationalism. In an era of rampant globalization, people want to believe that they still maintain some sense of stability and control. Nationalism has been around for centuries, but is it now in a sense the last doctrine standing . The great story of the 20th century was the loss of faith between the ascendance of science, socialism and secularism, people lost their ability to put their trust in the dogmas and duties of religion. But this didnt change the reality that people wanted something they could believe in, something with which they could have a deep emotional bond. Nationalism has increasingly become that substitute, being endowed with a strong and almost mystical attachment. And immigration has become the litmus test of nationalism, perhaps because other sources have faded or become politically unmentionable. As western societies became more diverse and as minority groups within them asserted their own identities, it became more difficult to define nationalism by ethnic or religious terms. So, what is left . How does one define a nation . For americans, political ideas and ideology have always been at the heart of nationalism. Thats why being a communist could be thought of as unameric unamerican. But beyond ideology, there has always been, even in america, a more emotional conception of the nation. And immigration has become a proxy for that gut feeling, the sense that the country must be able to define itself, choose whom it will allow to come in, and privilege its own citizens over foreigners. In politics, people remember a few simple things. To illustrate that point, a poster in the 1980s once told me a story. A focus group asked a man whom he would vote for in the 1984 elections, Ronald Reagan or his democratic opponent, walter mondale. Reagan, the man replied, mondale is a communist. The post explained that this wasnt actually true. The man replied, well, maybe. Ill still vote for reagan. One thing i know, nobodys ever thought he was a communist. Donald trump might have this round, but no one will ever think he is soft on illegal immigration. For more, go to cnn. Com fareed, and read my Washington Post column this week. And lets get started. The policy of separating children from their parents at the border didnt, of course, just arouse passions in the United States. No Less Authority than the pope spoke out about it backing catholic leaders who had called it moral. Macron, trudeau, even the Supreme Leader of iran, of all people, criticized the policy. And the human rights chief said it was unconscionable and called for it to be halted. Zeid Raad Al Hussein joins me now from geneva. You quoted the American Association of pediatrics and said this is essentially governmentpracticed child abuse, governmentsanctioned child abuse. The administrations response, even though it has not reversed policy, has been to say, look, we cannot allow people to come in here deliberately to break the law. These people are coming in illegally, and the country has to be able to protect its borders. How do you respond to that . Well, the point that you made i think was an important one, fareed, that the aprobrium across the world was very clear there must be a humane way by which those seeking asylum can access not just legal help but are entitled to individual assessment. And if there are conditions of detention, they must be a last resort, and detention must be kept to a minimum, especially where children are concerned. And clearly, the separation of children from families is absolutely prohibited under International Human rights law. And even if the u. S. Is not party to the treaty that governs this, it needs to respect international standards. And so, as you said, we were pleased to see that the president has reversed course on this. You point out the u. S. Is actually not has not signed the convention on the rights of the child. In your view, should it . Oh, yes. The u. S. Is the only country not to have exceeded to it, and certainly, it should. But again, even if it doesnt carry that obligation, it should meet and respect the international standard. And its simply, of course, not good for the reputation of the United States worldwide. The United States has been a chief architect of the human rights system that we have in place that was put together after the second world war. And so, to be taking such measures is clearly it doesnt do itself any credit. And again, i think the response that you cited is demonstrative of that. Its been a tough week for the Human Rights Council in other ways. The United States has withdrawn, i think the first member state to ever do this. And nikki haley and Administration Officials argue that, look, this is a Rights Council that makes a mockery of the name. You have countries like cuba and venezuela and saudi arabia, known human rights abusers, on it. Do they have a point, that if these countries are on there, the whole thing is a sham . Well, there is certainly a point to be made on composition. And we ourselves have said that especially if you have members who are not cooperating with my office, which is distinct from the Human Rights Council, or other human rights mechanisms, then they, of course, should, their whole membership, membership needs to be revisited, and we agreed. And i have cited, for example, in the past, the examples of venezuela and burundi being members who are not cooperating with the council, and therefore, their membership needs to be reviewed, and but what happens the resolution that set it up. What happens when the most powerful country in the world is absent from the council . I mean, you try to present very tough reports. You have this one on venezuela, you have this one on kashmir. These are very tough ones, in the case of kashmir, against a very powerful country, the government of india. Presumably, not having america at the table going to make it less likely that these reports are taken seriously. Well, i think youve hit the nail right on the head. Youre absolutely right, fareed. We produced our second report on venezuela. It is a hardhitting report. My office produced it. And the Human Rights Council is a place of destination. Thats where the report would normally be considered informally, because it hasnt been asked of me to produce it. And when we look in the past, we did the same on yemen, for example, where we produced a succession of reports. And after three years, the Human Rights Council produced an investigation, an international investigation. And weve asked now the same for venezuela. Weve asked the same for the situation in kashmir on both sides of the line of control. And like that, youre absolutely right, if the u. S. Is not at the table to discuss these issues, then its hard to see how you can move them forward. And so, one hopes that the u. S. Would reconsider its position. It seems to be premised almost entirely, if one were to speak openly, about the issue of the item seven, the socalled item seven, where theres a singular agenda item for the occupied palestinian territories, and israel feels that, of course, and from the view of the United States, that its being singled out. But that seems to be the principal cause for its departure. And whats the response . What response do you have to the argument that the Council Focuses too much and too obsessively on israel and that occupation . Well, i think the record shows that while this may have well been the case, you know, 10 to 15 years ago, over the last ten years, the number of resolutions focused on israel has dropped, and others, and our viewing of other crises and other human rights situation has expanded. And clearly, if there was a political horizon in terms of advancing the peace process, and i think the movement of the u. S. Embassy to jerusalem has complicated the possibilities of coming out with a result. And now it does look very difficult. Admittedly, i dont see an easy way to resolve that particular problem, but my hope is that the u. S. Would reevaluate its position and come back. And we still have a lot of important work to do. And the u. S. Does play an important role. Zeid Raad Al Hussein, pleasure to have you on. Thank you, fareed. Next on gps, well dig in deeper. Why is immigration such a hot topic in america, and who won this round, the left or the right . When we come back, nick christoph, linda chavez and rayhan salaam. Ou doing tomorrow 10am . Staff meeting. Noon . Eating. 3 45 . Uh, compliance training. 6 30 . Sams baseball practice. 8 30 . Tai chi. Yeah, so sounds relaxing. Alright, 9 53 . I usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. Wouldnt it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do . Yeah. Introducing essential portfolios. The automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life. To give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you dont. Ill take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. New ensure max protein. In two great flavors. This is a story about mail. And packages. And its also a story about people. People who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams theyre handing us more than mail theyre handing us their business and while we make more ecommerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget. That your business is our business the United States postal service. Priority you so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. Well, that seems fair. We didnt use it. Wish we got money back on gym memberships. Get money back hilarious. With claimfree rewards. Switching to allstate is worth it. You want things done right. Thats why we test all of our paints and stains for months. Or even years. We dedicate 175,000 square feet to getting it wrong. Because you deserve paint thats done right. Thats proudly particular. Benjamin moore. The standard for paint professionals. Only at local paint and hardware stores. electronic dance music let someone else do the heavy lifting. Tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. So you barely have to lift a finger. Or a wing. Tripadvisor. That you dont think about is very much. Counties its really not very important. I was in the stone ages as much as technology wise. And i would say i had nothing. You become a School Teacher for one reason, you love kids. And so you dont have the same tools, you dont always believe you have the same. Outcomes achievable for yourself. When we got the tablets, it changed everything. By giving them that technology and then marrying it with a curriculum thats designed to have technology at the heart of it, we are really changing the way that students learn. And i cant wait for ten years from now when i get to talk to them again and see, like, who they are. So, just why has immigration become such a divisive topic in america today, and which side of the aisle has the upper hand politically . Joining me to talk about that and more, Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times op ed columnist. Linda chavez is a columnist and commentator and the chair of the center for equal opportunity. And reihan salam is the executive editor of the national review. Linda, you are a conservative republican. You worked for Ronald Reagan on these issues. And im wondering what you think has changed, because Ronald Reagan was once asked something about illegal aliens, and he said, i have another word for illegal aliens, its willing workers. Thats exactly right. A long way from today. Thats exactly right. And in fact, i think he would be mystified by whats going on. And by the way, illegal immigration when Ronald Reagan was president was actually at a higher level than it is today. So, this whole idea that there is this huge infusion of people coming across the border, its a crisis, we have to do something about, weve got to build walls, weve got to keep people out, simply dont comport with the facts. And unfortunately, i think that the Republican Party has seized on this issue as a way to galvanize workingclass whites to try to turn their economic anxiety into a kind of fear of immigran immigrants, that immigrants are stealing their jobs, and i think thats bad for the Republican Party, bad for conservatism, and bad for america. So, nick, does that suggest a kind of increased, inevitable polarization, where the Republican Party is going for this white workingclass vote that is anxious economically and culturally . The Democratic Party is trying to build this new Multicultural Coalition of immigrants, and therefore, cant imagine any kind of sensible measures that would restrict it . I think that may have been true historically. I do think that there are a couple of things now that will create more opportunities, and one is the fact that, look, were down to a 3. 9 unemployment rate. I mean, im from an area in rural oregon where there was deep resentment in the White Working Class at immigrants, perception that they were partly to blame for the deep economic troubles there. But its a lot harder to feel that resentment when unemployment is this low, when there are jobs available, signs everywhere. And i think the other thing that has really changed is, indeed, the fact that President Trump is in office and that there is this very deep revulsion at the family separation, and i dont think immediately, but i do think that creates some opportunity over time to try to actually address these issues. Rae hhan, let me ask you because youve been on the conservative side of immigration. Nicks argument in his columns that the family separation is so brutal, that its immoral in his view and unconscionable, but also, it might backfire politically for the republicans. I think there is definitely something to that. If you look at the Antiwar Movement when george w. Bush was president , it was large, it was vibrant, it was very powerful and influential. As soon as barack obama was inaugurated, however, that Antiwar Movement really receded very, very quickly. Oftentimes in our politics, you see a kind of thermostatic reaction in which when you have the other party in power, you polarize the rest of the public against a given position. So, before donald trump was on the political scene, the American Public was somewhat more restrictionist. Once donald trump came on the scene, the American Public has actually moved very quickly and very drastically towards a more favorable position towards immigration. The question is whether or not thats actually durable when you think about some of the larger issues. And one of the larger issues, i dare say, is what happens to immigrants after theyve been in the country for 10 or 20 years. The emphasis right now is on harr y harrowing stories at the border and the sacrifices people make to enter the country. But then you also see a different, silent crisis that no one wants to talk about. Fareed, you and i both live in new york city and have lived in new york city for many years. You now see a rash of suicides among mostly men who have been in the country for 20, 30plus years. These are people who have seen very little, if anything, in the way of earnings growth. These are people who are not fresh and new and