Are you really mad? What can you do about that?

As hosts of a civics podcast, we are not allowed to advocate for policy. But you can. Here are three things you can do to get your elected officials to listen when you're mad about something.

By way of example, Nick reveals his pettiest, most apolitical gripe; and methods he would hypothetically use to address it. We talk lobbying, contacting your electeds, and getting (possibly famous) people together to advocate for change.

This episode features Emily Gallagher, serving District 50 in the New York State Assembly, and Eric Schwartz, of the National Film Preservation Foundation.

Here is Eric's piece on the National Film Preservation Act of 1988.

Here is our episode on Who REALLY Writes Bills.

Here is a video of Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie complaining about the soap opera effect.


Transcript

C101_Soap opera.mp3

Nick Capodice: And it's not going to succeed. But I'm talking to a policymaker tomorrow and you're calling on Congress to. I'm I want to call on Congress on the soap opera effect. Well, it's the time. It's the time. You and Al Pacino, me and Al Pacino, he's going to get up there. It doesn't look anything like. Like I thought I knew.

Dan Barrick: It was you, Fredo.

Movie archival: I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window.

Movie archival: You want the moon? Just say the word, and I'll throw a lasso [00:00:30] around it and pull it down.

Movie archival: And like any good liberal, I should question. Everything. Right. So I should question this. For instance. When did I last make a stand?

Movie archival: I don't care whether I'm alone or not. It's my right. What do you want? I say he's guilty.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice. In today's episode, I kind of have an existential crisis about my job. I'm going to talk about what you can [00:01:00] do when you get mad. Stick around. Hey out there, listener. Are any of you out there mad? Are you frustrated at the government? You just want to do something.

Movie archival: I don't have to tell you. Things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth.

Nick Capodice: That's [00:01:30] Peter Finch, and in the Movie Network, it's one of my favorite movies ever made. He plays a news anchor who's unjustly fired, and he has a breakdown on the air where he speaks his heart about the problems in the world.

Movie archival: We know things are bad, worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy. So we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller. And all we say is, please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV [00:02:00] and my steel belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.

Nick Capodice: Oh, but he doesn't want to leave you alone. He wants you to get mad.

Movie archival: I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad.

Nick Capodice: So, look, I get mad. I get mad a lot. I get mad at big things, and I get mad at little things. So what can I do about it? And what does this have to do with Civics 101? Well, let me give you a [00:02:30] tiny bit of background. The first episode of Civics 101 was in January 2017. Donald Trump had just been elected for the first time, and people frankly had a lot of questions about what would happen. And the podcast team at Nhpr, which didn't include me yet. Hannah was there, but I wasn't. They were sitting around. They were talking about Trump's potential pick for chief of staff and somebody quite bravely. And I really mean this Bravely said, what is the chief of staff? [00:03:00] And this person received blank faces all around the room, and in a moment which we at Civics 101 consider akin to sainthood. Then producer Logan Shannon Logan, I miss you, she wrote on a post-it note. Schoolhouse Rock for adults. Question mark. And the show was born. The podcast refresher course on the basics of how our democracy works.

Nick Capodice: But there's just one small problem.

Movie archival: Just one [00:03:30] small problem. Sell their houses. To who? Ben?

Nick Capodice: Who in their right mind wants to listen to a show about rules and systems? If those rules and systems are manipulated to serve whomever is in power at any given point, or if those rules and systems are just flat out ignored. And let me give you an example. We spent tons of time meticulously breaking down the Fourth Amendment's protections against unlawful search and seizure in the fascinating [00:04:00] Supreme Court decision in Mapp v Ohio. And yet, this month, Ice agents were instructed to forcibly enter someone's home without a judicial warrant.

Archival: Mr. speaker, you're a constitutional lawyer. Can you detail the Fourth Amendment protections and rights someone has? If an Ice agent approaches their home with an administrative warrant?

Archival: Um.

Archival: Yeah.

Archival: Right.

Nick Capodice: What's the point of it all? And while we're here, while we're airing the grievances, [00:04:30] the word civics. Civics is a word that I and Hannah and Rebecca and Marina wrestle with all the time. Because people hear the word civics and they think just schoolhouse Rock. How a bill becomes a law. Separation of powers, checks and balances. All that stuff which I love, I love more than the average bear. And maybe you do too. Which is why you're listening to our show. But civics isn't just that, gosh darn it, civics is navigating how we exist in a [00:05:00] society. The rules about what we do to others and what others can do to us. And in times when the rules about what we do to others and what they do to us don't seem to matter. What the heck can you do? That's what today's about. And you, gentle listener, can do a heck of a lot more than I can. You can do things that I can't because I am a journalist. There is wonderfully, though sometimes frustratingly, a [00:05:30] check on my power.

Nick Capodice: Could you tell everybody.

Nick Capodice: Your name and your title?

Dan Barrick: My name is Dan Barrick. I'm the news director here at NPR. You've checked your.

Nick Capodice: Phone three times.

Nick Capodice: Since I turned on the. That's not even true. No. One time. No. Okay. That wasn't your phone. No.

Nick Capodice: Okay. So I, I asked you in here today. We have sort of different jobs, but we work at the same radio station. Can you explain to me just basically. I know you don't work in HR, but basically what are [00:06:00] the rules when it comes to journalists advocating for what they want in terms of like, you know, calling their congressmen or writing their senator or something like that?

Dan Barrick: Generally speaking, we try and recognize that people are journalists, which has a very distinct code of ethics and expectations, but they're also humans who have personal lives, personal identities, uh, personal needs. Uh, I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to check all that at the door and become [00:06:30] kind of reporting robots when they step into the newsroom. But our credibility hinges on the fact that the public believes and can trust that the people reporting the news and telling them what's going on are not, uh, operating with any hidden agendas or, um, or other goals that, you know, that would get in the way of that.

Nick Capodice: All this to say that I, as a member of the media, cannot write my elected member of Congress. I cannot call them. I cannot call my representative. [00:07:00] I cannot publicly advocate for policy. Even if, hypothetically, that policy was more money for civics education, I can't say I want it to happen. This also means that I can't go to a protest. I mean, I could go to one to cover it, but I can't hold up a sign. So I asked Dan, is there anything out there so small, so personal that I, as a member of the press, would be allowed to advocate for it? Like the tried and true example, putting [00:07:30] up a stop sign at the end of my block.

Dan Barrick: I've never had a reporter ask me if they can advocate for a stop sign, and I would want to. I would want to think about that a little bit before I would answer, but I would say, yeah, that would be included because you're reaching out. You're asking a public official to do something personally, whether it's something as big as, you know, voting on a major piece of legislation or to change the trash pickup day.

Nick Capodice: This is why several members of the press don't even vote. [00:08:00] They believe it is unethical and I respect that. I vote Hanna votes, but a lot of folks don't. Now, the second reason members of the press don't advocate for policy is because it is a gross abuse of power. If I went to my local New Hampshire state legislator and said, hey, I work for a civics podcast, I want you to support this bill for civics education. And if you do, I'll talk about it on the show. Whew. No no no no no, that would be a disgusting overreach of power. [00:08:30] But you there. Hey, you. I want to tell you how you can do it. Not necessarily how you can ask for something that might benefit me in my work, but something you can actually do to make a change that would benefit you. So I needed a subject to demonstrate how to actually make change. And I wanted to find something so small, so apolitical, so innocuous. But it's also something I care a lot about. [00:09:00] And I wanted to explore how I could make a dent. Two things about which I am passionate leapt to mind immediately, and the first was AI.

Nick Capodice: I despise AI. I feel it's destroying our brains and our hearts. I hate that it feels like it's being shoved down my throat when I'm just trying to write an email to someone, or read an email from someone. Maybe get one robot to rewrite the email in the other robot to read the email. We can just go hide under the bed. [00:09:30] Most of all, I hate it when I'm tricked into thinking I'm talking with a real person. Like you hear somebody be like, oh, hey, Nick, just one second. Let me get that for you. You're clicking and clacking of the keyboard and people buzzing and chatting by the water cooler, and then I'm like, can I ask, are you a real person? And it says something like, chuckles, I'm an automated assistant. It actually said that to me. It said chuckles. Chuckles. But anything that touches AI can be seen as political. [00:10:00] So I couldn't do it. So my second peeve it's a big one for me and you've probably never heard of it. The soap opera effect.

Movie archival: Kristen Yes, that's right. Ladies and gentlemen, Kristen DiMera is back.

Nick Capodice: There are like five of you out there who just, like, leapt out of your chairs, but the rest probably don't know about it. I asked Dan if he [00:10:30] knew about it. Uh, so, listen, are you familiar with something called the soap opera effect? Uh oh. You don't know this?

Dan Barrick: Uh uh.

Nick Capodice: Dan leveled me with a blank stare. He had never heard of the soap opera effect. And he loves old movies. Most people I talk to don't really know about it or care about it, but I care about it. And so too does Tom cruise.

Tom Cruise: Hi, I'm Tom Cruise, obviously.

Chris McQuarrie: And I'm Chris McQuarrie, obviously. And we're talking to you from the set of Top Gun Maverick. We're [00:11:00] very proud to present Mission Impossible Fallout, and we want you to enjoy it to the fullest possible effect, just as you would in a theater.

Tom Cruise: To that end, we'd like a moment of your time to talk to you about video interpolation.

Chris McQuarrie: Video interpolation or motion smoothing, is a digital effect on most high definition televisions, and is intended to reduce motion blur in sporting events and other high definition programing.

Tom Cruise: The unfortunate side effect is that it makes most movies look like they were shot on high speed video rather than film. This is sometimes referred to as the soap opera effect.

Nick Capodice: This is from a PSA [00:11:30] that Tom cruise did with Chris McQuarrie. He's the director of Top Gun Maverick and a lot of Tom cruise movies. I wrote to McQuarrie to see if he wanted to be in this episode, and he never wrote back. Didn't write to Tom cruise because I was a little scared. I hope I can leave it at that. So I love movies a lot, especially old movies. I could talk about old movies for hours. I do a pretty good Michael Caine singing kiss from a Rose by seal. Maybe I'll put that in the credits. So the soap [00:12:00] opera effect is when a newer model of television uses something called motion smoothing. And what it does is it greatly improves big massive air quotes here improves the definition of a picture by increasing the frame rate. And what do I mean by that? Film traditionally is shot at 24 frames per second. Television is shot at 60 frames per second. Soap operas are television and they are [00:12:30] shot at 60 frames per second. This is why you can just look at a TV somewhere and be like, oh, that's the news, or that's a soap opera, or that's a movie because they look different. Motion smoothing does make an image look clearer. It's useful if you watch a lot of sports, but to me and to Tom cruise and millions of other people out there, it makes movies look like soap operas. Now I have gotten into fights with my friends about this. [00:13:00] One of my best friends didn't notice he had it on his TV and I had to leave his house. I couldn't watch the movie he was watching. To me, it's the equivalent of putting a three Michelin star meal in a blender and saying, hey, it's the same food, you can just drink it through a straw now. For your convenience, to me it is like my favorite movie ever made. The lion in Winter looks like days of our lives.

Movie archival: Not history's forces, nor the times, nor justice. Nor the lack of it, nor causes, nor religions, nor ideas, nor kinds of government, nor [00:13:30] any other thing. We are the killers. We breed wars.

Movie archival: Like sands through the hourglass. So are the days of our lives.

Nick Capodice: Last quick anecdote here. I think I'm past the statute of limitations on this. I don't think I'm going to get in trouble. I'm gonna make a little confession. About a year or so ago, I was in a hotel and my girlfriend and I were watching Godfather Part two, and the hotel TV had motion smoothing on by default. [00:14:00] They usually do. But unlike if I was at home or a friend's house where I could just press the Filmmaker Mode button to turn off motion smoothing, you can't do that in a hotel. They don't let you mess with the settings. So I made a little bit of a boo boo. I went on Reddit to find out how to adjust the settings on a hotel TV by pressing a bunch of buttons in a certain order. And long story short, the TV stopped working entirely, and about an hour later there was a guy in the room sweating it out with [00:14:30] a drill. Uninstalling the TV and putting in a new one. I am so, so sorry. All this to say, I want change, right? I want motion smoothing to be turned off as the preset in hotels, and if I'm dreaming, I want it to be turned off as the preset on all TVs. And if you want change in the long run, you need policy to be enacted. You need a law, and [00:15:00] your elected representatives are the ones who make those laws. So how on earth do you get them to listen to you? Today I am going to go over three different methods to get your elected officials to pay attention to your wants and needs. Number one, hire a lobbyist. Number two, reach out to your elected official directly. And number three, my personal favorite. Get a lot of people together. Parentheses, [00:15:30] some of whom might be famous, who care about the same thing. And now that I have gone on long enough by myself, I'm going to bring Hannah in here right after this quick break. Yeah. Bob, would you get a Scandinavian swimmer?

Nick Capodice: This show is brought to you by Scandinavian swimmers.

Nick Capodice: The delicious way to start your day. Greg, do you want to introduce yourself?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I'm Hannah McCarthy, co-host of Civics 101.

Nick Capodice: So I've given Hannah kind of the lowdown [00:16:00] on what this episode is about. But this first chunk here is about hiring a lobbyist.

Hannah McCarthy: And, Nick, we do need a full episode on lobbying, but to be clear, this is not that episode, correct?

Nick Capodice: No, it is not. It is just a touch. Would you just be able to give us the sort of base layer of paint on what lobbying is, exactly?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, sure. Lobbying is when an interested party, be it an individual or a corporation or an interest group, [00:16:30] hires people to advocate for policy like law. Lobbyists are often lawyers, and successful lobbyists are often well connected and lobbyists are paid to influence members of Congress to get them to write or vote for legislation.

Nick Capodice: Wonderful. That is about the size of it.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, how many lobbyists are there in the US do you know?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, there are about 12,000 just in Washington, D.C. that is about 22 lobbyists for each member of the [00:17:00] House and Senate. But lobbying happens at the state and local level as well.

Hannah McCarthy: And how do they do it exactly?

Nick Capodice: How do they do it? Lobbyists just talk to people. Their job is to get face time with elected officials and say, hey, so here's why this bill should be passed. Or as is more often the case. Look, we have all the information on this topic. We got a ton of lawyers who can write legislation for you using that information, and it'll benefit you and your constituents. It's a [00:17:30] win win. For a full breakdown on this, by the way, please listen to our episode on who really writes bills, which I have linked below in the show notes.

Hannah McCarthy: And I do know that a great many of these lobbyists are former politicians themselves, or the aides of politicians. They have good relationships with members of Congress, and they know how the system works.

Nick Capodice: Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: And in terms of the interested party that we're talking about here, can that be one person? Can one person [00:18:00] hire a lobbyist?

Nick Capodice: Well, a single person can hire a lobbyist if you got the money, they got the time.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. But how much money?

Nick Capodice: Well, of course it is a spectrum, Hanna. A wide spectrum. But if we are talking about a federal issue.

Hannah McCarthy: And you are talking about a federal issue. Right? Banning the soap opera effect.

Nick Capodice: Yes. Well, I know I can't ban it, Hanna, because people want fancy technology on their TVs, and that's not going to change. But if I narrow my focus, I [00:18:30] could say I want legislation that bans it from being the default setting for hotels. So if I wanted to hire a lobbyist for this specific task, I would need to hire the services of a lobbying firm. A small firm would require a retainer of about 15 grand a month. But if I wanted a firm that has former politicians, senior seasoned staff, etc., that's going to run me about 100 to $200,000 a month.

Hannah McCarthy: And with this particular [00:19:00] case, you would want to hire lobbyists who I assume had maybe worked with hotel companies before.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And one of the biggest hotel chains in the country is Hilton. Hilton worldwide. In 2025, they spent just over $1 million on lobbyists from a few firms and $2 million on two of their own in-house lobbyists. Now, I don't work for Hilton. I don't think I could hire them, but I would want to hire their biggest outside lobbying company. So I'd call [00:19:30] up Avoq.

Hannah McCarthy: What is Avoq?

Nick Capodice: Avoq. Ava.

Nick Capodice: Avoq is a, quote, insights driven firm that helps companies, organizations, and industries shape narratives, manage reputations, influence debates, and engage audiences.

Hannah McCarthy: Synergy influence debates. That is a real standout there.

Nick Capodice: It is. The subhead of that is, quote, policy expertise and relationship building. End quote. Avork [00:20:00] was hired by 97 clients last year, making them $18 million. Avork claims, quote, we don't just help clients understand policy, we help them move the needle.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. So we're talking a lot of money.

Nick Capodice: A lot of money. Hiring lobbyists is very expensive.

Hannah McCarthy: But I do know that hiring a lobbyist has a famously profitable return on investment. I listened to that piece from Planet Money a few years back that said that a high yield savings account will get you a 5% [00:20:30] return on your investment, but hiring a lobbyist can do a whole lot better than that?

Nick Capodice: Sure can in 2018. The top ten fortune 100 companies in the United States spent $325 million on lobbying, which was directly tied to them, getting $338 billion with a B in federal contracts and grants. That is a 1,000% return on your investment.

Hannah McCarthy: And aside from the fact that you simply cannot lobby, I'm [00:21:00] gonna guess you don't have 20 grand just lying around to throw at a lobbyist.

Nick Capodice: Well, you never know, Hannah.

Nick Capodice: You never know.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, can we get into the other method of getting your elected official to listen to you? Reaching out to them directly?

Nick Capodice: Yes. Let us do that. I wanted to talk to someone who understands the system and understands that not everyone has the money to hire a lobbyist.

Emily Gallagher: I can talk about the regular system because I hate the regular system and it's impacted [00:21:30] everything.

Nick Capodice: This is Emily Gallagher.

Emily Gallagher: I'm Emily Gallagher and I am the state Assembly member for district 50, which is Williamsburg and Greenpoint in Brooklyn.

Nick Capodice: Full disclosure Emily Gallagher is an elected official, but she's not my elected official. She is first and foremost my friend. We go a long way back. Eagle and I, we worked together in New York in the 20 tens, after which I went to go work on a civics podcast, and she went and ran for office in her assembly.

Hannah McCarthy: And [00:22:00] New York is one of those states that refers to their House of elected Representatives as a state assembly versus a state legislature.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And Emily is one of the 150 reps. In New York's assembly.

Hannah McCarthy: So she is one of those people who lobbyists meet with to try to get certain outcomes.

Nick Capodice: Not necessarily.

Emily Gallagher: I mean, I interact differently because I'm a democratic socialist, as you well know.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Democratic socialist. I'm sure some people [00:22:30] out there have heard this term. Uh, did Emily explain what exactly that means in terms of her politics?

Emily Gallagher: So I can talk about that? Because what that means is that I don't work with, like, lobbyists and wealthy people I work with. I work with nonprofit lobbyists and stuff like that. But I really I don't prioritize the normal system.

Hannah McCarthy: So the whole lobbying angle we talked about that would work with a lot of officials, [00:23:00] but not with Emily.

Nick Capodice: No, unless you're a nonprofit lobbying group or an activist group, in which case it would. Emily is one of about 250 members of the DSA in office right now. Most of them are in state legislatures around the country, but there are three in the US House of Representatives Greg Casar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And you might be thinking out there, oh, well, lobbyists probably focus the most on big national issues, but there is [00:23:30] a lot of lobbying at the state level.

Emily Gallagher: So I was quite surprised when I went to Albany. How much people are hanging out with these lobbyists for the oil companies, for the gas companies, and for the real estate board? I would say that those are the top three lobbyists that are hanging out in the state government. You know, what you end up finding out is you have to really learn what [00:24:00] their talking points are. If you're not working with them, if they're going against you. Um, because people will adopt them as their perspective. And one of the the most disturbing things that I've witnessed is the way lobbyists will rename themselves so that they look like they are grassroots organizations, but they're actually astroturf organizations.

Hannah McCarthy: What does Emily mean by astroturf here?

Nick Capodice: That they are hiding their true intentions. They [00:24:30] look and sound like a group of concerned scientists or economists or whatever, but they are actually working for corporations and industries to pass legislation to benefit them specifically.

Emily Gallagher: So, for example, the American Association of Concerned Chemists, who do you think they are, like the plastics industry? So they have scientists that they hire to come and tell people why we shouldn't be doing [00:25:00] this bill that we are trying to pass, that would make corporations responsible for the cost of recycling the chemicals that they're creating. So it's very easy to get duped. As an elected official into following and supporting initiatives that are actually just the very wealthy hiding behind like a costume of concern.

Hannah McCarthy: All [00:25:30] right. And getting back to your original question, Nick, if you have got a problem and you want your official to do something about it, what does Emily recommend you do?

Nick Capodice: Well, first off, make sure you're reaching out to the right person.

Emily Gallagher: Well, if you have a.

Emily Gallagher: Local issue that is causing you a problem, you do want to write to your city or state legislator, but not your congressperson. This is one of the things that really mixes people up [00:26:00] is like, we all have a different wheelhouse that overlaps, right? So for example, city handles, parks, trash parking, all this stuff that really gets people up in arms that, you know, it's the little angry minutia of daily life. State is like housing law, uh, MTA, utilities and unemployment. So every office has two wings. The legislative wing and the constituent service [00:26:30] wing. And in my office I have two people on each side of the wing, and then I go in between.

Hannah McCarthy: Do people just walk into her office and say, hey, help me with this thing? Yes.

Emily Gallagher: It happens every single day. And actually, I really recommend that people, if they're having any kind of issue with an agency or a service or even with a company that they come because like I also am in charge of the liquor. I'm not in charge of the liquor authority, but I, I communicate with [00:27:00] the liquor authority. So if there's a bar where they're like selling drugs and there's people getting really sick, you know, I can connect with the state Liquor Authority to get that shut down or something like that. And the other thing that happens is sometimes people come with a problem, and then you look into it and you find out that what they're complaining about is actually legal. So then you want to take that and turn it into a bill that will make that illegal.

Hannah McCarthy: Did Emily have any advice [00:27:30] about stopping the soap opera effect?

Nick Capodice: Well, she did admit that it's not the sort of legislation that actually happens. It's extremely specific. It's not something her constituents are really interested in or care about. But she did encourage me to follow the money.

Emily Gallagher: Who's benefiting from that being a preset, you know, and then I end up sounding like I'm a conspiracy theorist all the time, but it's real. Who's making the money from this? It's probably like the NFL, you know, has some kind [00:28:00] of connection to the television companies so that it preferences their format. The only way that we can really get anything through is by figuring out what is the root of somebody's opposition. It's always that they're going to make less money, but it's like, who is going to make less money? And then, you know, like maybe with this motion blurring thing, they want you to watch it at home. They don't want you to go to a bar. The cable companies [00:28:30] are getting more money. So maybe there's something with the cable company there, you know?

Hannah McCarthy: Did you follow the money, Nick?

Nick Capodice: I did a little bit. Hannah. And I've read a lot of theories on why the soap opera effect is enabled automatically on TVs. And until I get more evidence, I'm going to go all outcome here and hypothesize that the simplest answer is the correct answer. I think that TV companies want to sell TVs. I can actually say, I know that. I know TV companies [00:29:00] want to sell TVs. They sell a lot of them at stores. When you're showing off a TV in a store, you want it to look as bright and clear as possible. And when the customer gets home and they plug it in, they want it to look like it did in the store. So it is the default setting.

Hannah McCarthy: So here's where we are. You are forbidden from hiring a lobbyist because of a job. You are also, as it turns out, too broke to hire a lobbyist and an elected official is not likely to touch this because it's [00:29:30] understandably not at top of mind for a lot of their constituents.

Nick Capodice: That is about the shape of it, Hannah. But I got one more stone in my sling, and this very stone was used 30 odd years ago to slay a very similar Goliath. We'll be right back. Okay, Hannah, my third and final method to get elected officials to care about your problems, even if they're super [00:30:00] small problems like Robert Shaw. Looks like he's in the soap opera General Hospital when he's stealing a subway train in The Taking of Pelham 123. You know, that's still one of my all time favorite movie soundtracks.

Nick Capodice: It's so good.

Speaker 20: Bum bum bum.

Movie archival: What do you want?

Movie archival: I'm taking your train.

Movie archival: You're taking my train.

Nick Capodice: Anyways, I wanted to talk to someone who cares a lot about film and I [00:30:30] mean a lot, and someone who also knows about all the laws surrounding creative artists and how to convince Congress to care about those laws.

Eric Schwartz: But what happened? Just the short story, and it's not relevant for your podcast, but it's my story. I arrive at the Copyright Office April of 88. April 1st, 88. And the other lawyer who arrives with me are assigned the task of doing this moral rights [00:31:00] study on colorization of motion pictures.

Nick Capodice: This is Eric Schwartz.

Eric Schwartz: I'm Eric Schwartz. I've been a member of the National Film Preservation Board since its founding in 1988, and I'm also a member of the National Film Preservation Foundation.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, cool. Wait, what was that part about moral rights and colorization?

Nick Capodice: I am going to get to that in a sec. Hannah. But in this study, Eric read that a lot of films [00:31:30] made before 1950 were gone.

Hannah McCarthy: Gone. Like disappeared. Gone.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Irretrievably gone. Nobody had copies. Nothing had been digitized. Just. And it wasn't big Hollywood movies that were gone. It was films that the chair of the film board, Faye Cannon, referred to as the, quote unquote orphans.

Hannah McCarthy: The orphans.

Eric Schwartz: The orphans. No commercial benefactors. Independent avant garde films by and about women and and people of color. [00:32:00] Uh, newsreel footage. Right. All of that stuff that is historically valuable, culturally valuable, but didn't necessarily have commercial value. And and from that, we created the National Film Preservation Foundation. I did the articles of incorporation on that. And then we started in the first meeting was eight people sitting around a table looking at me. Um, Scorsese threw his archivist wanted to be on the board, and he showed up, and he's sitting at [00:32:30] the table, and I said, look, I'm an associate in a law firm. I know I did the articles of incorporation, but I don't have money for pen and paper. And within a week I got a check from him. I always joke that, you know, you should have put a little post-it note that said, here, kid, buy some pen and paper.

Hannah McCarthy: Martin Scorsese.

Nick Capodice: Oh yes.

Nick Capodice: Eric described it as a truly serendipitous creation. He was working with Laurence Fishburne, Leonard Maltin, Roger Mayer, everybody's favorite, AIP, Roddy McDowall, [00:33:00] you name it.

Hannah McCarthy: What does the National Film Preservation Board do?

Nick Capodice: Well, among other things, each year it selects 25 films to be added to the National Film Registry for preservation in the Library of Congress.

Eric Schwartz: We've always said that these titles stand in for the thousands of others in need of preservation. So we're not the Academy Awards. It's not the best films ever made. Some of them, you know, are controversial, but the point is that you preserve material. And [00:33:30] the criteria is it's got to be more than ten years old, and it has to be culturally, historically or esthetically significant.

Nick Capodice: Just last month, they announced this year's additions, which include six silent films from before 1926, four documentaries, but also also films like The Staple of My Youth, The Karate Kid.

Movie archival: Take Off the Glasses.

Movie archival: Why?

Movie archival: Because I Asked You.

Nick Capodice: And clueless.

Hannah McCarthy: The staple of My youth.

Movie archival: You mean to tell me that you [00:34:00] argued your way from a c-plus to an A minus?

Movie archival: Totally based on my powers of persuasion.

Nick Capodice: You do love that movie.

Hannah McCarthy: I love that movie.

Nick Capodice: Isn't it based on.

Hannah McCarthy: It's Emma, it's Emma. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Okay, so back to my thing. I hate the soap opera effect a lot. I hate it because it is, with few exceptions, not what the makers of the movie intended. A director directs a film. They and their cinematographer spend a lot of time and thought to make sure it looks how they [00:34:30] want it to look, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Right.

Nick Capodice: So the idea of an audience seeing something other than what the director intended has happened before, and in the 1980s, it rose all the way to Congress. And this story all begins in the 1960s, when movies start to be shown on television.

Eric Schwartz: And so you have some changes that begin to be made at that point. That, by the way, uh, are irritants, to say the least, or the creative [00:35:00] artists, because you got to change the aspect ratio changes. That is screen size, width and height. Uh, and so changes have to be made like panning and scanning. So you and I are both on the screen together. But if it was a widescreen and we're off, the camera's got to go right to get your voice and go left to do mine. And that was usually done without the creative artists participation, right? So the cinematographer, the director sets up a shot, and yet now there's [00:35:30] this mechanical process going left. Going right. Yeah. In addition, you have the so-called time compression, in which for broadcast television, they somewhat imperceptibly, to most of the audience speed up the film. But clearly the director, the cinematographers, the actors all noticed that the pacing has changed so that it can fit in that broadcast time slot, because at 11:00, the broadcast news has to come on. Right. And the film [00:36:00] has to be over, but it normally would run however many minutes over.

Speaker 6: I don't take much to see that the problems of free people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Here's looking at you, kid.

Nick Capodice: That is the 1960s. Creative artists are not happy. And then in the 1980s, we see the explosion of home video.

Movie archival: Now you can take the hippest film of the year. Home for keeps.

Speaker 11: Awesome.

Speaker 27: Because Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles The Movie is on videocassette [00:36:30] for just 24.99.

Nick Capodice: And the studio who owns the film can do whatever it wants with the home video to sell as many copies as humanly possible.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, did the actors, the directors, cinematographers, all of the people who made these films, did they have any say in what was done to the home video?

Nick Capodice: Very little.

Eric Schwartz: Your rights in Post-theatrical changes are limited to your guild agreements, whatever the guild agreements say. And sometimes it can be you have [00:37:00] a right to, uh, consent to something. It can be sometimes a right to review, but not to consent, which is a big difference because you have the right to say, I don't like it. And they say, thanks, but we're going to do this anyway because we're the copyright owners, and colorization is basically the spark that really ignites all of it. Because from the director's point of view, the actors and certainly the cinematographers, it's an entirely different looking film.

Nick Capodice: But [00:37:30] a film buff or be you just a lover of complicated legislation. I warmly encourage all of you out there to read Eric's article on this. It's called the National Film Preservation Act of 1988, a copyright case study in the legislative process. But like Eric said, colorization was the spark that lit the flame. Media mogul Ted Turner bought the MGM library for billions of dollars, and he was releasing colorized versions of black and white films, including, notably [00:38:00] It's a Wonderful Life.

Movie archival: Dance by the light of the moon, What Do You Wish When You Threw That Rock?

Nick Capodice: Now, when he was chastised for this, he famously said, quote, the last time I checked, I own the film's end quote. Chance for me to do some old movie impressions here. Jimmy Stewart did not like the colorization. He said it was like dunking the film in, quote, a bath of Easter egg dye, end quote, and that it was wrong. Completely wrong, insulting and unfair. End quote. [00:38:30] I didn't give a full Jimmy Stewart on that. Orson Welles once asked how to stop Ted Turner from, quote, coloring my movie with his crayons. What does he say? This is a wearying one.

Orson Welles: This is a very wearying one. It's unpleasant to read. Unrewarding.

Nick Capodice: Crisp crumb coating.

Eric Schwartz: Then, frankly, the audience didn't like the colorized versions of these older films. So the the whole thing sort of went away. But during [00:39:00] that time and and during the debates about it, it led to the very heated debates between the three guilds and the ASC, the DGA directors write, WGA writers SAG the screen actors, and ASC, the American Society of Cinematographers, versus the studios.

Nick Capodice: At this time, the United States was moving to join an international copyright treaty. It was an old one that Victor [00:39:30] Hugo helped create called the Berne Convention, which had an article in it about moral rights and what are moral rights. They are personal nontransferable rights, protecting an author's reputation and connection to their work, regardless of who owns the copyright for that work. Are you with me?

Hannah McCarthy: This is intellectual property.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So this was the setting for the creation of the National Film Preservation Board, and some rather famous people came to Congress to lobby for it.

Eric Schwartz: Jimmy [00:40:00] Stewart came to the committee hearing. Now, the House Rules Committee is a tiny hearing room. I know it because I worked for the House Rules Committee, coincidentally for nine years. I remember saying at the time, you know, Mr. Smith literally came to Washington to make sure that this legislation was going to get passed. And needless to say, every member of the committee wanted to get their picture taken with with Jimmy Stewart. Uh, whether they were for or against the bill. And that really [00:40:30] ensured that the the bill was going to go forward for the benefit of the creation of the National Film Preservation Act in 88.

Nick Capodice: All right. Getting back to the topic at hand here, after hearing about all this from Eric, I asked, so if I want another Jimmy Stewart moment, if I want to get motion smoothing turned off, how do I go about it?

Eric Schwartz: But I think it best for you to talk to the creative [00:41:00] artists and the guilds. Talk to the studios about what they think they need to be doing and they will be doing, or they are doing with, you know, those uses.

Hannah McCarthy: In other words. Find powerful, influential people who care about the soap opera effect and have them use the collective bargaining power of their guilds.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it's like unionizing, basically. And while Tom cruise did a PSA that I [00:41:30] referenced earlier, there was a cinematographer and director, Reed Morano. She directed the first few episodes of The Handmaid's Tale. She wrote a petition. It's actually there on Change.org to have motion smoothing turned off by default. But as with so many petitions, nothing came of it, even though it got thousands and thousands of signatures and it just went away. So it seems like to have actual change. A group of famous, influential people need to come together, [00:42:00] and Tom cruise needs to testify in the House Rules Committee. So here's hoping, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: From your lips to Tom Cruise's ears, per usual.

Nick Capodice: Well. There is a lesson in how to get rid of the soap opera effect. You know, it's not really about the soap opera effect. I was reading a book yesterday about power and politics, and the author said, I think this is [00:42:30] right. About four out of five Americans said that they are politically engaged. And what does that mean? And then he said that the vast majority of people who say they're politically engaged, when asked what they do, they say they, you know, keep a close watch on the news. They argue with their friends and family. They do a ton on social media. They track what's going on and they celebrate or they boo. That is like me saying, I play football because I watch the Super Bowl. I [00:43:00] am going to look more into this in the near future. But until then, If you care about politics, if you want to be politically active, you got to do something. Really do. This episode was made by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Rebecca LaVoy and Marina Henke. Music. In this [00:43:30] episode from Epidemic Sound, blue Dot sessions and Chris Zabriskie, who deep down in my heart knows he hates motion interpolation as much as I do. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Michael Caine as Seal: Do you know when it snows, my eyes become large. And the light that you shine can't be seen. Baby [00:44:00] I compare you to a kiss from the rose on the bloody gray.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

What does "detention" mean?

We've used the word "detention" many times when we've talked about immigration laws and ICE. But what does that word actually mean? A listener wanted to know, so we got the answer.


Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] Hannah McCarthy here. This is Civics 101. If you've listened to us in the past, you've almost certainly heard my co-host Nick Capodice or [00:00:10] me say, you know, if you have any questions, please ask us. We will do our best to answer them. Now, over the past few weeks, we have released several episodes about Immigration [00:00:20] and Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Ice. We tried to get down to the very basics of the system, how it works and [00:00:30] what has changed about it. One thing we did not do, however, is explain exactly what we meant when we kept referring to people being [00:00:40] detained. Fortunately, Tyler was listening.

Tyler: [00:00:44] Hello, Civics 101, this is Tyler from Milwaukee. Love your show. My question today is what [00:00:50] is detained and how is it different from arrested? And how long can someone be detained without being arrested? Thanks.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:58] So a huge thank you to Tyler, [00:01:00] without whom we might have glided glibly on thinking we knew what detention actually was. And a huge thank you to our guest who does know what it actually is. [00:01:10]

Georgiana Pisano: [00:01:10] Yes, my name is Georgiana Pisano. I'm a practicing immigration attorney and professor in Texas.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:16] You might remember Georgiana from our episode on asylum what [00:01:20] it is and how it has changed. And to my great relief, she was willing to once again help me wrap my mind around something that is referenced constantly in the headlines, something [00:01:30] that so many journalists, myself and Nick included, might talk about as though everyone knows what it means, when in actual fact, I [00:01:40] really didn't. All right, so first, Georgiana, what is detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:01:46] Yeah. What is detention? I don't know that it [00:01:50] is that different than what people are picturing in a criminal sense, in that it looks like jail or it looks like prison, but it is people with or without immigration [00:02:00] documentation. People who are not citizens are taken into government custody. Specifically the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. And they stay there [00:02:10] until whatever citizenship or immigration proceedings they are in or not in resolve.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:22] And [00:02:20] how does someone end up in a detention center? What gets them there?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:02:26] So what would get them into a detention center is that they are not a citizen, [00:02:30] and they have an interaction with a immigration official. So a member of DHS, whether they are subject to detention and whether DHS makes an initial determination [00:02:40] that they should be sent to a detention center, is going to have to do with their individual immigration background and the circumstances of their apprehension by immigration authorities. [00:02:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:51] And is apprehension different from arrest?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:02:55] Yes. So I think there is some confusion around arrest, because [00:03:00] it's so common in a criminal setting that you would have a warrant for your arrest, that you had committed a crime and that subjected you to arrest. The apprehension [00:03:10] is a bit of a broader term, because you don't have to commit a crime to be apprehended and sent to detention. It can be that you don't have immigration status, right? [00:03:20] Which is a civil a civil offense. But, you know, when we use the phrase arrest, it can kind of lead to some confusion in that area.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:28] In terms of the legality. [00:03:30] You say perhaps when people picture what detention is, it's not terribly different from jail or prison. How is it legally different?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:03:40] How [00:03:40] is it legally different? It is accounted for in a different law than criminal detention. So our jails and prisons follow different [00:03:50] standards and laws and statutes that govern individuals criminal detention and what those detention centers look like jail and prison. [00:04:00] The immigration detention centers are under a different statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act. So they follow different standards and they serve [00:04:10] sort of a different purpose. But the idea of what they look like and what they feel like is very similar. I have heard from some individuals that they don't look like [00:04:20] jail or prison in comparison. I've been in all three, and I do think they have a lot of similarities to each other. In some aspects. [00:04:30] What I saw in the immigration detention centers was much more severe than what I saw in some low security prisons.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:43] Could [00:04:40] you describe for us what's actually in a detention center? What have you seen?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:04:48] Yeah. So it's [00:04:50] there are many detention centers across the country. I saw one in the El Paso region in 2022 or 2023. And so that's all going to be, you know, subject to the time and place. [00:05:00] They are closed to the public for tours. Although individuals can visit detainees depending on the availability of each individual detention center. [00:05:10] And they do offer tours to government employees and sometimes to employees and congressional representatives.

Speaker4: [00:05:16] This visit comes at a moment of national scrutiny over Ice. California [00:05:20] Senator Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff say they're responding to concerns about how detainees are being treated inside this facility.

Speaker5: [00:05:27] When you walk inside.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:05:28] It looks like a center [00:05:30] block cement building. It's flat. It's surrounded by barbed wire. Every door locks behind you. Every door has to be unlocked before you go through it. [00:05:40] You go through security. There are very strict dress codes, that sort of thing. What struck me when I went was that the dorm area [00:05:50] in this specific detention center was bunk beds, and it was a dorm area, an activity area in a bathroom. None of those areas [00:06:00] were separated by full walls. Which is to say, you could be sitting at a table and see someone using the restroom. That's not necessarily something you would see in a low [00:06:10] security prison. Right. You might at least have a toilet stall. They had these pieces of metal screwed into the wall that were clearly burnished, so you [00:06:20] couldn't see anything in them. But the detention officer said, here are the mirrors. I don't know if you can tell me that's a mirror with a straight face, but the detention officer [00:06:30] just said, you know, oh, it needs to be polished. You're not allowed to have your own cell phone. [00:06:40] So they detainees, individuals who are detained in these centers have limited access to phone time. They have to pay to use the phone.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:06:49] In recent [00:06:50] years, we've seen a little bit more access to video calls, but still not quite. This is a bit of a larger philosophical question for why don't people in jail and prison have phones? [00:07:00] I would suggest that it's because you don't want them to continue any criminal enterprise. That's not an issue in immigration detention. So there [00:07:10] is, you know, a question of why those individuals are not given more access to their belongings and to communication and to family members. There's an outdoor area, there's a big [00:07:20] cafeteria. There are jobs. They can work in the cafeteria or work in the laundry room. According to my tour of the detention facility, those jobs are all optional, [00:07:30] but I don't know who would do them if the detainees did not. I guess one of the largest differences is that immigration detention is not built for a long term stay. So [00:07:40] in theory, you wouldn't be there long enough to get the jobs that you see in prisons where they're manufacturing big items and working for third party companies [00:07:50] and things like that. But it also means that people that do stay in immigration detention for a long time are not receiving what they should be receiving in long term care.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:01] Okay, [00:08:00] so you're describing something that sounds very much like a prison, which is a place someone ends up after they have been through the criminal justice system, [00:08:10] after they have been arrested, charged, gone through the court system, been convicted, been sentenced. That is not the process that precedes the kind of detention we are talking about [00:08:20] today. So what is the rationale behind the detention of undocumented immigrants? Is it the same rationale behind criminal detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:08:29] I guess I [00:08:30] should say that criminal detention, one of the reasons is punitive, and that is impermissible as a rationale for immigration detention. It is [00:08:40] impermissible for immigration detention to be used as a deterrence tactic, which is how the United States uses it to deter people from seeking asylum or any form [00:08:50] of immigration status in the United States by threatening them and following through with immigration detention. This is unlawful under international human rights law and is not a permissible [00:09:00] rationale for the use of immigration detention. The other stated concerns that differ a little bit from criminal detention is that individuals will be ordered [00:09:10] deported, but they won't leave the United States, and that the state has an interest in public security and that some of these individuals have committed crimes and should be [00:09:20] detained pending their immigration proceedings.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:23] Okay. So this actually helps to explain why the United Nations human rights chief has called the [00:09:30] United States out. You know, reminded the country that it is bound to follow international law.

Speaker6: [00:09:36] Un human rights chief Volker Turk calls on the United States [00:09:40] to ensure that its migration policies and enforcement practices respect human dignity and due process rights, decrying the dehumanizing portrayal [00:09:50] and harmful treatment of migrants and refugees.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:53] Now, this also makes me think of our own law, specifically habeas corpus, that is, you know, the legal tool, the procedure by [00:10:00] which someone can challenge their detention by the government if they don't think the government has the legal authority to detain them. And [00:10:10] habeas corpus is something that the Trump administration has suggested it could suspend.

Speaker7: [00:10:14] Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the [00:10:20] privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So it's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the [00:10:30] right thing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:32] Is habeas corpus coming up a lot lately in cases of immigrant detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:10:38] Yes, absolutely. Habeas [00:10:40] comes up a lot. And I will say in the past 12 months has skyrocketed in the immigration profession as really like one of [00:10:50] your client's only options, uh, because the detention rates are going up so significantly, and the access to counsel, among other things, from detention is so [00:11:00] challenging. Now, the reasons for an individual's detention will also dictate whether or not they are plausibly going to receive [00:11:10] habeas relief, be released as a result of a petition for habeas.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:19] The [00:11:20] reasons for detention, the length of that detention and so much more is coming up after a quick break. We're [00:11:40] back. A little reminder here that though things [00:11:50] are certainly changing in this nation. Legal interpretations among them. It is still vitally important to know our laws, know our history, know [00:12:00] the point of the United States of America. Everyone needs a reminder now and then. Some people are especially forgetful. Fortunately, my co-host [00:12:10] Nick Capodice and I wrote a book. It is called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. It's got nearly everything you need to be able to say, hey, [00:12:20] now that's a violation of my constitutional rights or any number of other things. And it is also fun because if you can, you've got to have [00:12:30] some fun. You can get a User's guide to democracy wherever books are sold. All right, on to the show. This [00:12:40] is Civics 101. I am talking with Georgiana Pizano [00:12:50] gets practicing immigration attorney and professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, who is generously helping us to understand what immigration detention [00:13:00] is. And before the break, we started to get into the different situations a detainee might be facing. Okay. So, Georgiana, can we talk about [00:13:10] those different situations for a detainee, why they are in detention, for how long, etc.?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:13:17] As far as length of stay [00:13:20] or knowing when you are going to get out? Obviously when you're in criminal detention, you receive a sentence. You know what sentence you're going to serve. Immigration is a little bit harder. If you're in removal proceedings. [00:13:30] You presumably will be either released when you succeed in your removal proceedings or deported if you do not succeed. However, [00:13:40] that can take a long time for your removal proceedings to take place, which in criminal proceedings people sometimes remain incarcerated during their trial as well. There [00:13:50] are individual subject to immigration detention, who have already had their removal proceedings and either received an order of deportation, and [00:14:00] for whatever reason, the government was not able to deport them. This happens when an individual succeeds in their proceedings and they receive protection [00:14:10] from deportation, like withholding or deferred action.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:13] Okay. And just quickly jumping in here removal proceedings. That means the government is trying to remove you from the country, [00:14:20] trying to deport you. You know, for example, for overstaying your visa or unauthorized entry into the country. You get a notice to appear for a hearing. You have a right to a lawyer [00:14:30] at your own expense. You get a chance to argue your case for staying in this country, and a judge either says you do have to be deported or delays [00:14:40] your removal. You can think of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, for example, or a judge withholds your your [00:14:50] deportation says you cannot be deported.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:14:53] I believe this is what Kilmer Abrego had withholding of removal, which means that the government cannot deport them to their home country, [00:15:00] but they can deport them anywhere else that will take them. Now, [00:15:10] for obvious reasons, the US did not pursue this right. If someone has a genuine fear of their home country and they don't have ties to any other country, they [00:15:20] get to stay. They don't have a path to citizenship, but they don't get deported. But technically they have been ordered deported from the United States. And [00:15:30] just that deportation has been withheld to their home country. What we're seeing now is that individuals in that situation are being detained under this administration, and [00:15:40] the administration is trying to get some other country to take them. We also see individuals who did not succeed in any way, did not receive any relief, like withholding or a deferred [00:15:50] action received an order of deportation, but the government still was not able to deport them. This happens when the government doesn't have a good relationship with the home country of the individual. [00:16:00] Cuba is very unlikely to receive deportees from the United States. A lot of countries might decline to take, you know, what may [00:16:10] be seen as rejects from the United States. And so then they get caught, right? And they have an order of deportation. And DHS could detain them, but they might be detaining them [00:16:20] forever because they never get that diplomatic relationship repaired, and they can never actually effectuate deportation. Those individuals for the past several [00:16:30] years to decades have been released on an order of supervision. They go to an Ice office every year. They confirm their address. So if Ice ever thinks they [00:16:40] could actually deport them, they can take them back into detention. But in all likelihood, those circumstances don't change. And the government does not effectuate that deportation. [00:16:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:50] Okay, so that to me sounds similar to probation. You're not under lock and key, but you do have to check in with the powers that be. There are restrictions. [00:17:00]

Georgiana Pisano: [00:17:00] Supervised release. So, yeah, very similar idea. Under this administration, they are not confirming that a country will receive this individual, but [00:17:10] they are taking everyone in that procedural posture back into custody.

Speaker8: [00:17:14] Obviously, Ice is focused on detaining individuals who are unlawfully present [00:17:20] in the country. And there have been hundreds of thousands of of illegal aliens who have been arrested and detained and deported from this country by Ice over the course of [00:17:30] the last year. And that's their intention, and that is their goal.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:37] And I just want to make sure I have this correct. We used [00:17:40] to release these individuals from detention centers. They would be on supervised release. The government cannot find a way to deport them. But now [00:17:50] we are bringing these individuals back into detention centers. But this is with the knowledge that they have already gone through [00:18:00] a removal proceeding, that we cannot find a way to deport them. So are these individuals now in a kind of limbo where [00:18:10] they will just be in this center for who knows how long?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:18:14] That is exactly right. And that is where habeas comes in, because these are individuals that will never see a judge. [00:18:20] They will never see an immigration judge. They are not in proceedings. Their proceedings are closed. So they are just sitting in a detention center being told that they're going to be deported for months. [00:18:30] And it never happens months, if not longer. So that's where the immigration attorneys step in to file the habeas petitions with the federal courts to challenge their detention, because there [00:18:40] are laws against detaining individuals for longer than six months after they've been ordered removed. If the government cannot show that there's a reasonable likelihood that [00:18:50] they will actually be deported, right? Because then people could just be there forever.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:53] And that would, of course, be very illegal. Part of the reason the framers put habeas corpus in the Constitution, article one, [00:19:00] section nine. Okay. And you are saying for those individuals, the people who got the deportation order, the government could not deport them but has them in custody. Now, their only [00:19:10] option is a habeas petition.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:19:12] If they're an individual like the ones we've been talking about who have already completed their removal proceedings, they have very few rights, right? They have a right to file [00:19:20] a habeas petition, but they're not going to be put in touch with an attorney. They're not going to be informed of that avenue.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:26] So they can work with a lawyer, but they have to figure it out on their [00:19:30] own. Okay. So what about the people who have not actually gone before a judge yet but are in detention? What are their options?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:19:39] We might [00:19:40] refer to the first group as post order because they're after an order of removal, and then we might refer to everyone else as like pre order. There's no order of removal or order granting relief. And [00:19:50] then the preorder individuals are in two different groups. One group is eligible for release on bond, and they have a right to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration [00:20:00] judge. The other group is subject to mandatory detention, and they do not have a right to even be considered to be released on bond. This is very different [00:20:10] than criminal detention. And what we are seeing in 2025 and 2026 under the new administration is that the statutes that allow for mandatory detention, [00:20:20] which were significantly increased in our last major immigration statute, which was the 1996 law, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility [00:20:30] Act largely expanded mandatory detention. And we're seeing a huge expansion of mandatory detention under this current administration. [00:20:40]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:00] Now, [00:21:00] what does mandatory detention mean?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:21:03] There is a phrase in the statutes for mandatory detention that reads shall be taken into [00:21:10] custody. This has previously included orders of supervision. Right. That they check in with DHS. Maybe DHS gives them an ankle monitor. Any number of things. [00:21:20] The current administration is reading shall be taken into custody to equate to detention, mandatory detention that is not subject to review by an immigration judge. [00:21:30] So this is subjecting a huge new group of people to detention with no relief, no rights to a custody determination.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:39] Okay, a custody [00:21:40] redetermination meaning a bond hearing. Right? Like, you pay money and you're allowed out of detention. They do not have that option, and supervised [00:21:50] release used to be an option for this category of people to this preorder category. But this administration is not doing that anymore. [00:22:00] So way more people in detention centers now. What about moving these detainees? Is there any law or rule that says that they [00:22:10] have to stay in one place? Or can the government move people from one center to another?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:22:17] Yes. You are able to be moved from one detention to another [00:22:20] and you will be moved. Um, that is completely a DHS discretion. We have no idea why or when they will choose to do that, but it does [00:22:30] not matter to DHS if you move across state lines because you're in federal custody. However, the law that applies to your case will change [00:22:40] depending on the detention center you are in. It will change in your immigration proceedings based on the circuit that you are in, which refers to [00:22:50] sort of regional legal rules that apply in the US, and it will change where your habeas petition is filed and what judges are going to hear your habeas petition, because it has to [00:23:00] be filed where you are being detained. So what we are seeing is that an attorney jumps in, they file a habeas petition, and DHS moves the individual away from [00:23:10] the district where the habeas petition is pending, which removes the court's jurisdiction over the issue. Although the court some courts are trying very hard to keep that jurisdiction because it's a very obvious [00:23:20] bad faith behavior to have control over the location of one party and then just move them. We saw a lot of individuals who were apprehended [00:23:30] in Minnesota be transferred directly to Texas. Texas is in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is a very challenging place to have your immigration proceedings. [00:23:40] And very recently, maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit issued a rule on these mandatory detention cases and whether or not they can have a bond hearing that [00:23:50] really favored the government and stripped individuals of that bond hearing. So now I think we will see a huge uptick in DHS detentions and transfers to Texas, because they want that Fifth Circuit [00:24:00] law to apply where individuals don't have access to bond, regardless of where they were apprehended in the first place.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:12] All [00:24:10] right. And, you know, just thinking about incarceration in the criminal system in America, I know that's really costly. I know totally depending on the state, but it can be [00:24:20] anywhere between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per person per year. What is this increased detention of undocumented [00:24:30] immigrants in the U.S. right now costing us?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:24:34] Yeah, so it's very expensive and it doesn't make money for taxpayers. It makes money for private [00:24:40] prison groups, specifically CoreCivic and Geo Group, who are all over and actually run. A huge number of these detention centers have been outsourced to these private groups [00:24:50] rather than being run by the government, which also brings up issues with accountability in people's ability to file complaints. Numbers wise, we are [00:25:00] seeing the current administration. I don't have completely up to date numbers, but we're well over 55,000 people being in detention at any given time. We know [00:25:10] from a couple years ago that in June 2024, Congress approved 3.4 billion for this project. And we know that detaining individuals [00:25:20] in immigration detention costs about $160 per person per day. And so it is extremely expensive. It's way more expensive than ankle monitors or [00:25:30] any other form of supervision. And as far as the money, it just is going to be out of that huge check that Congress cut for DHS a couple of months [00:25:40] ago in the in the federal spending bill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:42] And do you happen to know when detention centers first came into play in the immigration enforcement system in the US?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:25:49] So they've been around [00:25:50] for a long time. I will say the large majority of individuals, um, non-citizens until about 1982 were [00:26:00] released on parole, which is going to be that kind of supervised release, which obviously looked very different in 1982. But between 1954 and 1982, most [00:26:10] non-citizens were released from immigration detention. There was just little to no interest in that, you know, huge financial investment in keeping people under 24, [00:26:20] over seven care.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:31] Now, [00:26:30] I know that you have mentioned several laws and provisions over the course of this conversation, but is there an overarching legal [00:26:40] justification or guideline for the way the system is functioning right now. It sounds like it is operating in a very different sphere from our [00:26:50] other legal systems.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:26:52] I think that is definitely how the current administration wants you to think about it. And what their arguments are rooted in is that this [00:27:00] detention is justified and lawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and these detention centers are built to satisfy these standards of [00:27:10] national detention standards set by Ice, which are different than the criminal standards. And there's really no reason for that. There's really no reason to have a different set of detention standards. If [00:27:20] you're detaining individuals, the standards for where they could should be kept and what they have access to should look pretty similar and certainly should not be lower. But I do think the argument [00:27:30] under the current administration is that this is a whole new ball game. We need to be considering it completely separately, which is why some people can go into detention who are not in proceedings, who have [00:27:40] no access to an immigration judge. And, you know, very limited access to counsel or any of the things that people in the criminal justice system have fought so hard [00:27:50] to create this access for, for criminal detainees for decades. It feels like we are starting over at zero with immigration detention, and there is no reason for that. If [00:28:00] anything, there's very little reason for detention at all when you're talking about a civil offense. I did want [00:28:10] to note that what determines what the detention center looks like or has is the Ice performance based national detention standards, which [00:28:20] are not the same standards that apply to the criminal sense, obviously, because they're by Ice. And I do want to note that the standards are nonbinding, so the detention centers do not actually have to [00:28:30] meet them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:30] So there are guidelines, but there's nothing that says that Ice has to abide by them.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:28:37] They do not have the force of law. They are simply nonbinding [00:28:40] suggestions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:42] Is there any law that explicitly states how these detention centers should be operating?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:28:48] I would not say explicitly. [00:28:50] Any detention is going to be subject to the Eighth Amendment, that it can't be cruel and unusual.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:01] Okay. [00:29:00] My last question for you, Georgiana. When you personally look at the shifts that have occurred within this detention system, how do you, [00:29:10] as a practicing immigration lawyer, interpret these changes?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:29:15] It is very obviously a effort [00:29:20] to deter people from immigrating to the United States. Period. Dhs is now offering individuals in detention up to $3,000 to deport themselves, which [00:29:30] is also not something they can really offer under the law. But they're proceeding with that anyway, which tells you that the government would rather pay someone pay to detain [00:29:40] them, which is very expensive, and then pay them $3,000 rather than have them join the economy and work. So it is a huge just [00:29:50] push against immigration, lawful and otherwise. It simply does not matter to them. More cynically, it is a huge wealth transfer to these private prison [00:30:00] companies. The more detention there is, the more centers are built. The more people are detained, the more money core civic and Geo group get paid by the federal government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:17] That [00:30:10] was Georgiana Pisano Gaetz, practicing [00:30:20] immigration attorney and professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center. And [00:30:40] that [00:30:50] does it for this episode of Civics 101. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, and our executive producer Rebecca Lavoie. Nick Capodice is my co-host. Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this [00:31:00] episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Tyler did, and without that question, I would certainly be unknowingly in the dark on this one. You [00:31:10] can submit a question by clicking the ask Civics 101 a question link on our home page. Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR New [00:31:20] Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Why did the FBI keep tabs on high school students?

As Aaron Fountain Jr. was working on his book, High School Students Unite!, he discovered a little-known partnership of sorts. He found that, during the Civil Rights era of protest and reform, parents were reaching out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and requesting help. Namely, please spy on my civically active kid.


Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:10] This [00:00:10] is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy. So about a week ago, I'm doing my thing, my thing, being scouring the internet for truths about the United States. [00:00:20] Because there is always, always something I may have missed. Something that has just happened. Something that has just come to light. And I found this [00:00:30] article by an historian named Doctor Aaron Fountain Jr.

Aaron Fountain: [00:00:34] Oh, so my name is Aaron Fountain, and I am a historian of 20th century American [00:00:40] history and recently published a book on high school student activism in the 1960s and 70s.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:47] Aaron's book is called High School Students Unite [00:00:50] Teen Activism, Education reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. And that article of his. It was titled Newly [00:01:00] declassified records suggest parents collaborated with the FBI to spy on their rebellious teens during the 1960s. So [00:01:10] yeah, I had to talk to Aaron. So [00:01:20] Aaron Fountain discovered that the FBI was [00:01:30] surveilling high school students in the 1960s, and that parents would sometimes be the ones tipping the FBI off. And [00:01:40] this was something that not many people knew, including some of the very students who were being surveilled. So first, I wanted to know why [00:01:50] Aaron was focusing on high school students and their activism in the 1960s to begin with.

Aaron Fountain: [00:01:57] Oh, well, let me just [00:02:00] say I was not an activist in high school because I attended eight different schools in three states, so not really possible. However, it really started by accident. I came across [00:02:10] a book by political scientist Richard Ellis called To the Pledge, and in several pages in one chapter, he talks about junior high and high school students who sat during the Pledge of Allegiance [00:02:20] as a form of political protest in the 1960s and 70s. And it made me just wonder, well, what were the stories behind those court cases? So during that process, I saw [00:02:30] so many passing references to high school students involved in civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activism. So maybe ask, well, how did the Vietnam War affect students, teachers, and administrators? And [00:02:40] I wrote a paper on the San Francisco Bay area on that very topic. And yeah, doing my doctoral dissertation on high school student activism in the San Francisco Bay area. But the book, however [00:02:50] that I publish is nationwide.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:52] And in terms of what is actually going on in the country at this time, I know that the 1960s or the civil rights era can be this [00:03:00] kind of catch all term for, you know, social, political, global unrest and activism and change. But, Erin, can you just paint us a picture of how this period [00:03:10] of time precipitated high school civic action?

Aaron Fountain: [00:03:14] Well, in 1960s, you have a record number of teenagers enrolled in secondary school. I know high [00:03:20] school is now like a universal experience. But prior to the 1960s, less than half of the adult population in the United States had a high school diploma. It was not as important [00:03:30] to get a good paying job. However, after World War Two, receiving a secondary education became much more important in our understandings of modern citizenship [00:03:40] and to be a productive member in society. But also coming out, you know, you have the civil rights movement. Then you get the burgeoning, um, anti-Vietnam War movement, and it's teenagers [00:03:50] who are participating in both movements, and they bring these Partizan politics to campus, and they start to clash with school administrators who were determined to keep those type of activities [00:04:00] off campus. Not to upset parents. Not to upset the school board because you know you want to keep your job if you're an administrator. And it's just this constant clash going back and forth [00:04:10] between whether students have constitutional rights to engage in political activism, have free speech in the campus newspaper, etc., and school administrators [00:04:20] who look at students more paternalistic and parents who argue that his school just as democratic as a household. You don't punish your kid and put him on trial. Just, you [00:04:30] know, you do whatever your parents tell you. So that's what comes out. And over time, you get this very unique brand of high school student radicalism. Um, and there's [00:04:40] two moving parts of this, um, ideology. The first one is that high school students constitute an oppressed group analogous to poor people, minorities and women. And second is [00:04:50] that you couldn't truly reform society unless you first reform the high schools.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:55] Did you get the sense that these students were aware that they were a member of an oppressed [00:05:00] group.

Aaron Fountain: [00:05:00] Oh, yeah. When you read the underground newspapers, leaflets, fliers, they're calling their schools, prisons and concentration camps. They refer to them as like, [00:05:10] factories that just churn out future soldiers to go into the Vietnam War. And then you wonder, like, well, are we citizens? Do we have, like, free speech, the right to assemble? Um, [00:05:20] freedom of the press. And this occurs gradually. It's not like an overnight realization.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:29] And I know that college [00:05:30] campus activism was a major media focus in the civil rights era. Were high school students coming into this on their own, or was this something they [00:05:40] were, you know, borrowing from their older counterparts?

Aaron Fountain: [00:05:43] So high school student activism then and now is hyper local. Um, students are largely responding to issues that [00:05:50] affect their everyday lives. And when you think about controversies that occur in a school, it usually doesn't spill out beyond like a school board or individual campus. It remains confined to that. [00:06:00] So because they're hyperlocal, they're not seen as national stories. However, by 1968, and especially in 69 and 70, there was a lot of reports on student [00:06:10] uprisings in high school. And there was like, um, credibility behind that. There was definitely a record number of like student walkouts, boycotts, protests and sit ins or whatever. After [00:06:20] Doctor King's assassination in 1968, students start to form more independent student organizations, and underground newspapers have a stronger network. By 1968, however, [00:06:30] it was not a spillover effect. Now, I should say high school students are not adversarial to college students. They actually work alongside them. But there's a lot of distrust. [00:06:40] So for a 16 year old, somebody who is 20 year old is like old. In fact, some of the people I interviewed, they told me like, yeah, the organizer, they were like 2021. But as teenagers, we [00:06:50] thought they were just old guys. So I mean, teenagers, they definitely align with adults, but for the most part, they seek assistance from them. They're not letting them run [00:07:00] their affairs. So as teenagers, they don't have access to like, media and printing press, so they have to go to them for that type of help. High school student activism. When it reaches [00:07:10] the national attention, it's already a full blown movement. In fact, teenagers learn that there is a movement for mending from high schools. About a year or two before the national press does.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:22] You [00:07:20] know, it is hard enough for practiced adults to organize and find consensus and then do something with that in terms [00:07:30] of civic action. How did high school students, who maybe did not yet have any kind of experience with that, figure out how to do [00:07:40] it?

Aaron Fountain: [00:07:40] Oh, I'll be honest, there are just as many as adults are. There's a lot of ideological divisions. I mean, not to mention there are kids. So as a person who I interviewed told me that, [00:07:50] you know, there was jealousy, there was romance. You like, you wanted to so and so, like me or not, there's like immaturity and some of the males and some independent student groups were quite sexist [00:08:00] to their female counterparts. So it's all really messy at the end of the day. But what brings them together is that they all agree that, okay, we have to reform the school. So like, [00:08:10] you can generally get a consensus amongst students to like reform dress code like students, regardless of whether they were political or not, just did not like the fact that girls couldn't wear pants and boys had to keep their hair at [00:08:20] a certain length, and the bans against, um, afros. So, you know, no student group or underground newspaper or protest gets like the majority of support, but they do [00:08:30] get enough support to trigger a pretty vigorous reaction from people in power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:35] Oh, yeah. And we're going to get to that. Um, but in terms of what actually, [00:08:40] you know, got these students, that reaction, what were they activating around, you know, was it about national issues, you know, the Vietnam War, civil rights, or [00:08:50] was this about what was going on in their own schools?

Aaron Fountain: [00:08:54] So it's actually a mix of both. So one thing that was pretty common is that students would ask their school principals [00:09:00] to allow, like an anti-war speaker, to come and speak at the school to balance out a visit from a military recruiter. And they had various successes and shortcomings when it came [00:09:10] to that. Um, so but you see these like, you know, there's national issues, but again, it's it's in this local context and the same thing with like, you know, black Power, a lot of there's a lot of similarities [00:09:20] between a lot of black student protests where they're asking for like, you know, black teachers, black administrators, black history courses to be taught in schools, and, um, soul food. However, while the [00:09:30] overlap, there also are local concerns too. So they want like, you know, doors on the bathroom stalls, which is a very basic, uh, concern. Um, you [00:09:40] know, they ask for, like, police officers to be removed from campus in many urban school districts. This is when you start to see school administrators become much more reliant on law enforcement to handle [00:09:50] everyday disciplinary matters. Or they'll ask for like access to a stadium that's adjacent to the school, so it's similar in a lot. A lot of these protests [00:10:00] are quite similar. They're reacting to a lot of national stuff, but it's always shaped by what's ever going on locally. So it's a combination of both that they're reacting to.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:11] Okay. [00:10:10] Law enforcement in schools. Why was it that administrators were turning to this outside force to navigate what [00:10:20] was going on in their classrooms and hallways?

Aaron Fountain: [00:10:23] That's the main point in my book where I talk about, like, the expansion of student rights coincided with the modernization of school security. So school police. There's [00:10:30] a history going back to 19, the mid 1950s, when Tucson, Arizona, was the first school district to experiment with a school resource officer. But by the 1960s, especially [00:10:40] with urban uprisings, um, you have a lot of protests that are coming out in high school, a lot of racial protests. So you have desegregation and in desegregated schools or schools that were newly integrated, you get a lot of [00:10:50] racial violence. And you also in those schools, you get a lot of protests coming from black students, Latino students, Asian students, and white students as well Native American students too. So in response, [00:11:00] with all the social unrest coming from the high school, you get a lot of pressure from parents, from teachers, school administrators, as well as the local newspapers and whatever [00:11:10] respective city demanding that order needs to be maintained in high school. So school administrators, they don't initially bring cops into school. They try like hall [00:11:20] monitors and parents patrol, or they lock the doors on campus at key, quote unquote, outside agitators out. And increasingly, what you start to see is that police officers in the department [00:11:30] in many cities start to patrol schools, but also you get undercover cops to the NYPD, and the New Orleans Police Department were quite open about the fact that they [00:11:40] had young officers with cherubic appearances masquerading themselves as seniors who would attend school and eventually investigate student activists. [00:11:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:50] I can only imagine what it might feel like to learn that the person who you thought was a friend or an ally is actually an officer in disguise [00:12:00] investigating you. Who were these students? You know, I know your book tells the stories [00:12:10] of so many individuals in this era. Can you share a story about someone who really stood out to you?

Aaron Fountain: [00:12:16] Oh, yeah. One of my favorite characters in my book is Bruce [00:12:20] Triggs, a kid from New York City, All-American Boy Scout. You know, he's from a Jewish background. World War Two is quite celebrated in his household. [00:12:30] Um, and, you know, he joins the Boy Scouts and he believes at a very young age that the United States is, uh, you know, a moral example, a good force for the world, and that he could do no [00:12:40] wrong. And what happens is that his family moves to Queens, and he attends a different school where he meets students who smoke marijuana, who are involved in the antiwar movement. [00:12:50] And he eventually dates a girl who's a girl in high school who was an antiwar activist. She introduced to him Che Guevara, and he asked like, hey, he's a communist, isn't he? She's like, you bet [00:13:00] he is. And his head, he's like, this is just too much. I can't support a communist. Are you crazy? And what happens is that he eventually goes to an anti-war conference where a schism occurs. [00:13:10] And normally, as he recalls, most people would be turned off, but he was just blown away. But the turning point is when he attends the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and when the riot breaks [00:13:20] out, he finds himself, he gets punched in the face by a police officer. And from, well, he was already kind of gradually shifting. That was the catalyst. And then he comes back to New York as a full [00:13:30] blown radical and helped find a New York high school student union, which leads to a pretty, you know, chaotic year in New York City schools in 1968 and 1969. So [00:13:40] that's definitely one of my favorite characters to write about. The person who goes from being a very all American Boy Scout to a political radical.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:54] All [00:13:50] right. So we got to talk about the FBI because kids like Bruce Triggs were clearly setting [00:14:00] the adults in the room on edge. And we're going to get to that after a quick break. We're [00:14:20] back. You're listening to Civics 101. And Civics 101, by the way, is a nonprofit podcast. [00:14:30] And maybe one day we should make an episode that gets into the specifics of what a nonprofit really is. But the main point here is that we are not, you know, making a profit for [00:14:40] ourselves or for anyone else. Whatever money we receive is used to pay our journalists and pay the people who keep New Hampshire Public radio functioning, and make sure we have [00:14:50] the basic gear to record people's voices and share those voices with the public. Our whole reason for existing is to share with you what is happening [00:15:00] in the world now, and what happened in the world in the past, so that you can better understand your world. So if you have the ability to contribute to that effort, please consider making a donation at civics101podcast.org. [00:15:10] You can just click the red bar at the top of the homepage to do that. And just a shout out to the many, many listeners who have already done that who make sure that we [00:15:20] can do this work every day. You know, you are proof positive that the world is not all about profit. It is also about people, education and civic empowerment. All [00:15:30] right, back to the show. I am talking with Erin Fountain, junior historian [00:15:40] and author of High School Students Unite! Teen activism, Education Reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. Erin put in an immense [00:15:50] amount of work to figure out what was going on re students and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the postwar era, during the 60s and the 70s. [00:16:00] And given the fact that I had never heard of the FBI surveilling high school students before, I wanted to know what first tipped Aaron [00:16:10] off.

Aaron Fountain: [00:16:11] Oh, yeah. Well, it came across when I was going through an underground newspaper from Palo Alto, California, and there was a group called the United Student Movement. And in [00:16:20] the interview, the two people who were interviewed or several I don't I forget how many they kind of bragged about being spied on by the FBI as teenagers, like, we're bad. You know what? So I submitted [00:16:30] a FOIA request on that very group, was told nothing existed. So when I got to graduate school, I wrote a seminar paper on a New York high school student union, which is actually in a [00:16:40] book. And a former member gave me about 80 some pages of memorabilia. And two of those pages were the groups FBI file. My jaw immediately dropped because I'm like, oh, [00:16:50] when I long suspected is finally confirmed. So I went to a professor who gave me a FOIA template, and I submitted one on the New York High School Student Union, but realized I was too late because [00:17:00] all the files were destroyed in 79 2010. In April 2014, I had just submitted that request August of that very year. So realizing [00:17:10] that, okay, the National Archives and Records Administration's actively destroy documents, let me submit Fourier requests on all the groups I know about. I immediately got positive results from [00:17:20] Milwaukee, Minnesota, El Paso, Texas, including the United Student Movement. When I told when I was originally told, nothing existed. And, you know, over time, it wasn't like a eureka moment. I would start to expand, [00:17:30] and I submitted FOI requests on high school, underground newspapers and schools that had civil unrest or racial violence. And I started to look at suburban and rural areas. And [00:17:40] over the course of ten years, I found well over 370 high school groups under some form of surveillance or counterintelligence operation. Now, if you count the amount of students [00:17:50] who as young as 14, who had an FBI file as well as police departments, the US military and state legislators who spied on teenagers. Then that number is well over 600. [00:18:00] But even that's an undercount.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:08] And, Erin, I know that you have submitted [00:18:10] over 2000 Freedom of Information Act requests, FOIA requests in pursuit of this information, meaning essentially, that this was not common knowledge, right? It was not something [00:18:20] that everyone was aware of. What has been the reaction so far when you have told people that the FBI was surveilling [00:18:30] them?

Aaron Fountain: [00:18:31] Oh, it has varied actually. Some people say, wow, that's kind of pathetic. Like the FBI was spying on teenagers. Others are not surprised [00:18:40] because they were around at the time. I remember one one comment I saw was somebody like, I knew it when I shared an FBI file, because one thing about the FBI file, I [00:18:50] remember some school administrators, parents and students who are informants. I remember one person's like, you know, I can see school administrators and even students serving as informants, but the parents. Wow, [00:19:00] that is quite shocking. In fact, most people I interviewed, everybody was shocked that parents were informants. They weren't as surprised as school administrators were. And some were suspicious whether students were informants. [00:19:10] But for the longest time, I only had one example, so I thought it was an anomaly. It wasn't until like eight years later that I came across multiple files showing me like, oh, this was actually more widespread [00:19:20] than I had assumed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:21] The notion, the notion of a parent, you know, ratting you out to Herbert Hoover. Right. Or expressing concern to the FBI [00:19:30] is really kind of beyond my comprehension. I think if my mother had said to me, I'm calling the FBI on you when I was in high school, I would have said like, ha ha, yeah, good luck with [00:19:40] that. You know, um, could you give us a sense of how or why a parent would feel that calling the FBI, writing a letter to the FBI was [00:19:50] a remotely reasonable response when a kid started to get activated, right? Started to to speak out or organize around what was going on in their school or what was going on [00:20:00] in their country.

Aaron Fountain: [00:20:01] Yeah, that's a good question. So nationwide, when high school student activism reached its peak, the large consensus amongst people was that this was a master [00:20:10] plan by some outside agitators who these outside agitators were. It changed over time. In the mid 1960s, they were just communists. And by 1968 and to early 1970, [00:20:20] they were SDS, the Black Panther or whatever local political group that existed in whatever locale. And parents, interestingly, they start contacting [00:20:30] the FBI as early as 1965 when students are organizing against the Vietnam War. They're mostly white, middle or upper middle class parents. But it's also important to understand what the [00:20:40] FBI symbolized in the 1960s. Popular culture lionized it going back to 1930s. I mean, you could read about the FBI in comic books and [00:20:50] listen to them on radio stations, on television and films and all of them. This still exists to the present day. I recently watched The Wolf of Wall Street. It was a scene that exemplifies [00:21:00] the FBI as being an incorruptible, crime fighting organization.

Archival: [00:21:04] What is it that you think that we did or do? I don't get it. Well, Jordan, I can't [00:21:10] discuss an ongoing investigation. No, I get that. No, I understand.

Aaron Fountain: [00:21:14] And so within that context, parents, unsurprisingly, a minority parents start [00:21:20] to contact the FBI. They either wrote letters to them, sometimes directly to J. Edgar Hoover, or they made phone calls. Any time at night. Sometime at midnight. In fact, [00:21:30] I recently got an FBI file. This is not in a book from Madison, Wisconsin, and a father. He serves as an informant in a very interesting way. His boy talks openly about a [00:21:40] political group he's involved in in Madison, Wisconsin, called the High School Student for Social Justice. And he listens to him. And what the boy doesn't know is that he relays all that information to the FBI. [00:21:50] And the FBI agrees to only contact the father when he's at work. So the son doesn't suspect anything and they all express concerns. It wasn't that they're children they thought were [00:22:00] committing like, criminal acts. They just thought they were all being indoctrinated. Um, or sometimes they thought children that weren't of their own were being indoctrinated by some quote unquote, [00:22:10] sinister force. So it's really this, this concern. I mean, I know in our contemporary eyes it's seen as obscene. Like, why would you do that to your own kid? But for many, [00:22:20] the parents, they just thought that every institution had failed to keep their kids safe. And the FBI was their last and best resource.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:28] And when you say surveillance, [00:22:30] what does that practically mean? Are we talking FBI agents hanging out in some unmarked vehicle outside of the school with binoculars? [00:22:40] Like, what does surveillance actually mean when it comes to the FBI and high school kids?

Aaron Fountain: [00:22:46] Oh, that's a good question. It's a variety of things. They will like, you know, cut out [00:22:50] newspaper clippings and, I, you know, clip them onto some, some poster or as a paper. Police officers, parents, students and administrators would confiscate. Underground newspapers and other published [00:23:00] materials and forward them to the FBI. Which is why in the book, I call the FBI Unintentional Archivist, because a. Lot of documents they collect I've never seen anywhere else. One agent in [00:23:10] Los Angeles masqueraded himself as a graduate student from UCLA, writing a paper about underground newspapers. So he calls a kid who's now a college student, Antioch [00:23:20] College. And the kid just tells him everything about the underground newspaper, and he has no idea that the person on the other line is an FBI agent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:28] What is it about [00:23:30] the actions of these teenagers that makes adults around them act in this way?

Aaron Fountain: [00:23:38] Yeah, it's it's really just the the extent [00:23:40] of their organizing. I mean, when I say these independent student groups, they weren't just like some of them were groups with like three people, but for the most part, they were like citywide or metropolitan wide groups. They would have members [00:23:50] from across public and private schools across the city and the surrounding suburbs, and he created underground newspapers, which were really sophisticated. They would have, like [00:24:00] a photographer, a field correspondent, who, if there was a high school having an uprising, they would actually send their correspondent there and interview students. So, so much like written material, [00:24:10] so much sophisticated organizing that it's believed that there are just no way in the world teenagers on their own are doing all of this, and somebody has to be pulling the strings. I've [00:24:20] seen letters to the editors where they'll say, like, this is just way too sophisticated for our kids to write.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:25] Yeah. And to your point, right, this is the beginning of high school as the standard for American [00:24:30] teenagers. It is a new world when you have this many young people being brought together in the same place, finding their voice through both education and through community. Can you [00:24:40] talk a little bit about what these disparate movements actually ended up accomplishing? What came out of this student activism?

Aaron Fountain: [00:24:49] Yeah, [00:24:50] it's short term and long term goals. So short term a lot of schools would definitely did hire like black teachers and got, um, you know, black and Latino principals. [00:25:00] And they started teaching black history courses, which I think is important when we think about black history, that that came because of the demands from high school students themselves, wasn't just given to them. So the combination [00:25:10] of very hyper local, like for example, Berkeley High School, till this day it still has a black studies department, and it was the first one in the nation to like sex education. Or they stopped kicking girls out of [00:25:20] school because they were pregnant, which was a widespread practice in the 1960s. Of course, not the father, only the the girl who got pregnant. One thing to the school district, they passed high school bill of rights. [00:25:30] Um, Bill so these Bill of rights bills kind of really embedded the notion of student rights in the school. So like empowered, like, um, school councils gave more freedom to like, student [00:25:40] press, gave students due process rights so they can actually contest, um, suspensions and expulsions without it being arbitrarily decided. So there's the hyper local initiative, but [00:25:50] the long standing one is definitely the notion that students have constitutional rights in schools. That has to be respected so long as they don't cause a disruption. It still gets debated and whatnot. But prior [00:26:00] to 1969, that was not a notion that most people could comprehend. Whether a minor had constitutional rights.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:24] We're [00:26:20] back. You're listening to Civics 101. I am talking with Aaron Fountain, junior historian and [00:26:30] author of High School Students Unite. Teen activism, Education reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. What [00:26:40] about high school students today? Do you think that they can have the same impact on their schools and their communities?

Aaron Fountain: [00:26:45] No. Students today still will like, you know, support like labor disputes. I remember thinking [00:26:50] Madison, Wisconsin. There was a janitor who was the father of a kid at the school, and he lost his job after a dispute with his students protested, and he got his job back. So there are [00:27:00] things like that. Um, and students today still protest against book bans, or I've seen incidents in them making like freedom schools, um, challenging what's taught in the curriculum. [00:27:10] I do think it's important to, to understand that not all students are on the left. There definitely are students on the right, and they are free to believe whatever they want. So any protest I'm talking about, [00:27:20] there's always a a counter demonstration or a countermeasure to whatever students are trying to achieve. And sometimes students on the right are successful as well and getting their [00:27:30] demands.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:30] Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking about the fact that even today we are seeing students organize. We are seeing them stage school walkouts in order to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [00:27:40]

Archival: [00:27:40] The fear that our peers, um, go through every single day. It has to be vocalized. And what we're doing right now is vocalizing that fear that we've been hearing for months.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:49] And I wonder, [00:27:50] you know, just thinking about the title of your book, High School Students Unite. Exclamation point. Would you say that you are pro student activism?

Aaron Fountain: [00:27:59] Oh, yeah, [00:28:00] I'm pro people. Um, I quote Diane Nash, who made a statement that I wholeheartedly agree that one of the issues with the civil rights movement is that it's often viewed [00:28:10] as a Doctor King movement and not as a people movement. And when it's viewed as a people movement, people can sit around and ask instead of saying, hey, can we have another Doctor King [00:28:20] like figure come. They can just sit and ask, like, what can I do? So yeah, I'm a big proponent of student activism. Many of the people I talk about in the book, it really shaped their careers a lot and wanted to academia, [00:28:30] some of them became journalists. Interestingly, one person started an underground newspaper and became a journalist in the future. Um, you know, became scientists and elected [00:28:40] officials and labor organizers and a lot of that activism that they continue into their adulthood, even if they don't see it as activism, it's all rooted into their political precociousness [00:28:50] as a kid. So no. And these kids are interested in politics and issues that affect their everyday lives, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right. I think, you know, students [00:29:00] from both sides should get active.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:06] Is there anything else that you want to highlight from your book? Maybe something that [00:29:10] you don't get asked to talk about very often?

Aaron Fountain: [00:29:12] I will say one thing I wish people asked me more about was the fact of how not just national, but international high school student activism was in [00:29:20] 1960s and 70s. Um, in this book, I have a list that I worked on for over ten years to list ones. It includes the name, over 500 independent student organizations, and [00:29:30] the names of over 1000 high school underground newspapers. And I did that because when I decided to focus on the San Francisco Bay area in grad school, I was kind of getting a little annoyed when people [00:29:40] say, oh, yeah, of course. Or like, oh yeah, that would never occur where I lived though. So yeah, when I made the list, it includes the names of groups and papers from all 50 [00:29:50] states, including D.C. and Puerto Rico. Um, but I do not have, like, the international aspect. And I should for listeners to know that high school student activism in this period occurred on [00:30:00] all six continents. From the literature, we know that it occurred in Guatemala, Panama, England, France, Italy, Finland, Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Australia, New [00:30:10] Zealand, Canada, and also students to, to a small extent actually knew that they were part of an international protest movement fomenting from secondary schools. And there was [00:30:20] correspondence between American teenagers and teenagers who lived in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And American and Canadian teenagers actually met one another in person. [00:30:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:30] Okay, so how were these students communicating across borders? What were they saying to each other?

Aaron Fountain: [00:30:36] Oh, so this is the high school underground press. Um, teenagers in the [00:30:40] United States created a national syndicate as a network to connect all the high school underground newspapers. So pretty pretty much the syndicates, a newspaper exchange. So let's say where I live is like [00:30:50] the office of whatever group. So I have 20 subscribers from across the nation. They each send me five copies of their papers. I send each copy to every subscriber. Maybe keep like, you know, [00:31:00] two to myself and send the others to like national publications and they will share articles. And this, this just accumulated over time to the point that they had about 700 newspapers. [00:31:10] And when you go to the archives at Temple University, you see these letters that students are writing to them from across the United States, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, [00:31:20] um, and asking them, how do I create an underground newspaper? This is what hey, can you send me papers? Because I want to see what American students are writing about. Um, it's a unique, uh, [00:31:30] correspondence. The guy who donated that collection, who I interviewed in the book, called it the social media of the age. Unfortunately, some of those records got destroyed. He kept 50 of the best, he told [00:31:40] me, but it got destroyed in a flood. Yeah, this happens a lot. But the ones that exist, it's just, uh, it's a phenomenal collection, just to see what students were, [00:31:50] um, discussing and what issues they had. Some of them talk about like police and FBI harassment, uh, of their of their papers and others would talk about, like, you know, this is a current lawsuit, [00:32:00] um, that we're going for. So it's a, yeah, fascinating collection that they had over time. But again, it took like five years for them to build that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:24] Well, [00:32:20] for those who want to know more about what Aaron learned, you can find high school students unite teen activism, [00:32:30] education reform and FBI surveillance in postwar America wherever books are sold. And stay tuned for what Aaron is working on right now. It's another book covering teenage action during the Vietnam [00:32:40] War, but this time he is going global. Aaron is looking at the roles that Canada, Australia, even New Zealand played and how high school students from across the world responded [00:32:50] to the ways their nations got involved in a war that inspired millions of people to get organized and speak out. This [00:33:00] episode was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy, Nick Capodice is my co-host. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic [00:33:10] Sound. If you got something out of this episode, if you learned something, if you're taking what you learned and doing something with it in your world, your community, consider leaving us a review on [00:33:20] whatever platform you are listening to this on. Help us get the word out that we are here for you and only you, the public. Because this [00:33:30] is, after all, a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

When did immigrants become "illegal?"

The rules about who could and could not come and live in the United States have changed many times over the last 250 years, but exactly when restrictions were first put on immigration might surprise you.

Today, walking us through the myriad qualitative and quantitative systems surrounding immigration policy is Muzaffar Chishti, Senior Fellow and Director of the Migration Policy Institute.

Here are some links to our episodes on: The Chinese Exclusion Act, ICE, and Becoming a US Citizen.


Transcript



Speaker1: Dhs says federal agents have arrested some 4000 illegal aliens in Minnesota.


Speaker2: Us cutting off health care benefits for illegal aliens. They prioritize taxpayer funded benefits for illegal aliens.


Speaker3: I'd like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive.


Speaker4: By the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.


Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.


Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.


Nick Capodice: And today we are exploring the logistics, [00:00:30] politics, and linguistic peccadillos involved with a very charged term illegal immigrant. Now hold on, hold on everyone. I have not used that expression since 2009. Since the day I first learned, it was not the proper term to use for someone who was not authorized to reside in the United States.


Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. How did you first learn that?


Nick Capodice: Well, I was learning my very first tour at the Tenement Museum [00:01:00] in New York, and I was using that term to describe a Sicilian woman, Rosario Baldeschi, who came to the US through Canada in the 1920s, and the tremendous, patient, kind man who was training me, said, hold on a second. We prefer not to use that word.


Hannah McCarthy: Did he give you a specific reason?


Nick Capodice: He did. And that reason is kind of this whole episode - where we will dig into our country’s history with - and laws around immigration. So stick around.


Hannah McCarthy: All [00:01:30] right. Nick. So what were like the first laws in the United States that pertain to who could immigrate to this country and who could not?


Muzaffar Chishti: It's an interesting question. I mean, I like to tell people that we had no immigration laws at the federal level in the country till 1880.


Nick Capodice: This is Muzaffar Chishti.


Muzaffar Chishti: I'm Muzaffar Chishti, I'm a senior fellow at the Migration Policy [00:02:00] Institute.


Nick Capodice: Muzaffar is a lawyer who specializes in immigration. He has testified in front of Congress numerous times, and several years ago, he worked as director of the immigration project for the Ilgwu, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.


Hannah McCarthy: Oh wow. You have told me a lot about them.


Speaker8: Look for the union label when you are buying white coat, dress or glove.


Hannah McCarthy: So Muzaffar said there were no federal immigration [00:02:30] restrictions until 1880.


Nick Capodice: That is correct.


Hannah McCarthy: Were there state restrictions?


Muzaffar Chishti: Sort of like we would. New York State would impose a tax on shipping companies that brought people from Europe to the US. It was literally called the head tax, which means we counted the number of heads that were brought to the shore and then charged them for bringing people in. Uh, and the second thing I tell [00:03:00] people that we had naturalization laws before we had immigration laws.


Nick Capodice: Naturization by the way means becoming a citizen.


Hannah McCarthy: When was the first naturalization law passed?


Nick Capodice: Almost at the very beginning of our country. It was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said, to become a citizen of the US, you had to be in the country for two years, and you had to be in your state for one year.


Hannah McCarthy: And that was it. There were no other restrictions.


Nick Capodice: Well, there was one, a very big one.


Muzaffar Chishti: And that was [00:03:30] basically reserved for free. White men, black men and Native Americans were clearly excluded from that. So in the 1790 statute was for the first time the word alien was used because it was a naturalizing aliens who were present in the United States.


Nick Capodice: So that is the first use of the term alien in state law. And then eight years later, the United States passed the Alien [00:04:00] and Sedition Acts, which was the first time in federal law that the word alien was used.


Hannah McCarthy: All right. Now, we have talked about these acts a few times on Civics 101, but can you just go over them real quick?


Nick Capodice: Absolutely. The Alien and Sedition Acts were for acts passed in the John Adams administration on naturalization becoming a citizen. Sedition, which is you're not allowed to say false or malicious stuff about the government and the alien friends, which allowed the president to deport foreigners [00:04:30] deemed dangerous. And the alien enemies acts.


Hannah McCarthy: And all of these acts are expired or were repealed, save for one.


Nick Capodice: Save one. The Alien Enemies Act, which allows a president to detain foreigners in times of war or invasion. This act has been invoked in three wars and one time outside of a war scenario, and it was by Donald Trump in 2025.


Speaker9: I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 18 [00:05:00] zero of 1798. Seven. Think of that. 1798. That's when we had real politicians that said we're not going to play games. We have to go back to 1798.


Muzaffar Chishti: And just to be more historical about it, the word alien literally comes from the crown. We inherited everything from Britain. Oddly, the birthright citizenship debate that we're having today [00:05:30] is a is a relic of the Crown during the British Empire. You either owed your allegiance to the crown or you're an alien. You're an alien was someone who did not own their allegiance to the King, and therefore everyone who was born on the territory of the king was accepted as a citizen at birth and the word illegal alien. I don't think was used in our statute until 1986.


Hannah McCarthy: Okay. [00:06:00] In 1986, this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act that Ronald Reagan signed.


Nick Capodice: Exactly. This act basically made it so any unauthorized person residing in the United States prior to 1982 was suddenly authorized.


Muzaffar Chishti: 1986 is the only time in our history where we have legalized illegal aliens. Then there was never any provision, any, any [00:06:30] chapter when we did that. Europeans have done it a number of times. Spain does it every six months, but we had never done it and we haven't done it since. That was unique. And since that legalized aliens, therefore, you had to be an illegal alien to be legalized because I actually one of my favorite cases, I. I essentially cut my teeth in that act from the coming of that act in the initial stages to [00:07:00] it becoming law. And then I was actually head of the coalition that, uh, that implemented the law. Uh, we ran the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and one of the largest legalization programs. We legalized 3000 members. But to be legalized under that law, you had to be illegal.


Hannah McCarthy: So the first time there was a law that created a designation that there are people here legally and there are people here illegally [00:07:30] was 1986.


Nick Capodice: Yeah.


Hannah McCarthy: But that same law said that you couldn't be here legally until it was proven that you were here illegally first.


Nick Capodice: Yeah. Joseph Heller would have loved it.


Speaker10: There's some catch. I catch 22. It's the best there is.


Muzaffar Chishti: Because that was the only way you could get a green card. That if you are here as a student or lawful status or [00:08:00] H1-b worker, or you were not eligible to be legalized. So we found creative ways to to find that someone was here in violation of the law. That's why the word illegal alien by necessity, had to find its way in the statute in 1986.


Nick Capodice: As a quick aside, as we are talking about this word illegal. Do you remember Frank Luntz?


Hannah McCarthy: Oh, yeah, I do. From your episode on framing, he was [00:08:30] the guy who wrote memos to the Republican Party to tell them to use certain phrases and avoid others like, say, climate change instead of global warming or, say, death tax, not estate tax.


Nick Capodice: That's the guy. In 2005, he wrote a memo to Republican candidates saying always use the term illegal immigrants and do not use the term illegals. But Luntz was largely ignored.


Speaker3: And those.


Speaker11: People that hire illegals ought to be penalized.


Nick Capodice: In [00:09:00] 2018, a congressman in Texas, Steve McCraw, defended using the term illegal immigrant because he said it was a legal term. It is in state and federal laws.


Hannah McCarthy: Is it in state and federal laws?


Nick Capodice: Well, no, no, there is no use of the term illegal alien or illegal immigrant in Texas state law. And there's nowhere in federal law that says an unauthorized immigrant living in the United States is here illegally. And maybe part of the reason for that is, as you noted, Hannah, in your Ice episode, [00:09:30] being undocumented in the United States is not a crime.


Muzaffar Chishti: It doesn't mean the word illegal alien was not used in popular parlance. It was used by journalists quite a bit, especially in the beginning of the 20th century when the country was getting very concerned about immigration for the first time.


Hannah McCarthy: Early 1900s. So this is like peak Ellis Island era?


Nick Capodice: Absolutely it is. When Salvatore Cappa came [00:10:00] here from termini, Sicily, when the grand and great grand and great great grandparents of a staggering amount of people listening to this very podcast came to the United States. And this leads me to one of my favorite things to talk about in the world. Who came to the United States when and why, which we're going to get to right after a quick break. You're listening to Civics 101. We are talking about legal and illegal immigration today. And just a reminder, we have [00:10:30] several hundred episodes on just about any topic you can imagine on our website, civics101podcast.org.


Hannah McCarthy: All right. Nick, and you were about to tell me about the myriad groups coming to the United States. When and why? So let me have it.


Nick Capodice: Absolutely, Hannah. And I think it makes sense to look at it through how we determined who was not allowed to come into the United States, who would have been turned away, which was for the first hundred years, nobody [00:11:00] whatsoever.


Hannah McCarthy: Nobody.


Nick Capodice: Literally nobody. Again, here is Muzaffar Chhetri.


Muzaffar Chishti: Anyone who showed up on our shores, it was admitted in literally you became citizen after certain requirements under the 1790 act. But you were a legal person the moment you entered on the shore in 1880 for the first time, we said we will exclude [00:11:30] some group of people and the exclusions we put in place were not numerical. I like to say they were not quantitative limits. They were actually qualitative limits.


Hannah McCarthy: Qualitative as in there are certain qualities, be they medical or professional or racial qualities that we keep out of this country.


Nick Capodice: Yeah, and not numerical. Like we only allow 10,000 Germans or French or whatever each year it was if you had this [00:12:00] quality, you were not allowed in.


Hannah McCarthy: And who was coming at that time?


Nick Capodice: We had folks coming from everywhere. Hannah. But a few groups in particular. First off, Irish immigration, the famine in Ireland in the 1840s that led to a massive influx coming from there. Around the same time, Chinese people were actively recruited in huge numbers to fill the labor force, specifically in mining and to help construct the transcontinental railroad. [00:12:30] And then from 1870 to 1900, over 12 million immigrants came to the United States, mostly from Germany, Ireland and England.


Hannah McCarthy: When did Ellis Island open as our immigration processing center.


Nick Capodice: That was 1892.


Hannah McCarthy: All right. Where did people go before that?


Nick Capodice: The biggest processing center was called Castle Garden. It's on the southern tip of Battery Park in New York City. And again, until 1880, nobody was turned away. [00:13:00]


Hannah McCarthy: All right, so who was on that first list of limited people?


Muzaffar Chishti: The talk in the 80s that certain kind of people we don't like. So the candidates for that were convicts. Candidates for that were people with communicable diseases, tuberculosis especially of that time, people who were paupers, people who were prostitutes. And we in 1882, we added all of Chinese in [00:13:30] the Chinese Exclusion Act.


Hannah McCarthy: All right. Now that was huge. We have a whole episode on Chinese exclusion, which I wholeheartedly encourage everyone listen to.


Nick Capodice: Absolutely. Agreed. So this was America's first racial restriction and it would not be the last. But then we get to the big wave, the Ellis Island years.


Speaker12: These gladly faced the long ocean voyage. Then immigration gateways like Ellis Island and [00:14:00] examination by immigration officials.


Hannah McCarthy: If we're going to talk about Ellis Island, do you want to start with your thing?


Nick Capodice: My thing? My soapbox.


Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Let's hear it.


Nick Capodice: Something I have been known from time to time at parties and social occasions is to get on my own little soapbox, to tell anyone who will listen that nobody's name got changed at Ellis Island.


Hannah McCarthy: And to be fair, Nick, you used to think that people's names were changed. [00:14:30]


Nick Capodice: I did Hannah. I was also a victim of Godfather Part two.


Speaker12: Come on son.


Speaker13: What is your name?


Speaker14: Vito Andolini Corleone.


Speaker13: Vito corleone.


Hannah McCarthy: Nobody's name was changed at Ellis Island because nobody at Ellis Island wrote down names.


Nick Capodice: That's right. And this is a lesson in the inability to break someone's framing. I've told this little tidbit to probably a thousand people before now, and I share articles on it, and I encourage people [00:15:00] to look it up themselves if they don't believe me. But they usually go, hmm, I don't know, kid. And then they tell the Sean Ferguson joke.


Hannah McCarthy: What's the Sean Ferguson joke?


Nick Capodice: I'm not going to get into it. Hannah. Do your own research.


Hannah McCarthy: But there were inspections at Ellis Island, right? Checking for tuberculosis, trachoma, etc..


Nick Capodice: Yeah, and there was a potential that you could be sent back if you would be considered a, quote, societal burden.


Hannah McCarthy: And how many people were actually sent [00:15:30] back to their country of origin?


Nick Capodice: Very few. About 20% of immigrants who came through were detained for one reason or another, but they were usually let in eventually. Of the 12 million immigrants who came through Ellis Island, less than 2% were sent back.


Muzaffar Chishti: So the debate between the end of the 19th century and 1917 was that too many people are coming and too many [00:16:00] wrong kind of people were coming. And the definition of wrong was clearly some Europeans. We don't like some Europeans, one group of Europeans, because for both they were intellectually and physically inferior to another group that we like, mostly northern and Western Europeans. The Nordic supremacy was the governing wisdom at that time. We don't like Italians. We don't like Slavs. We don't like Russians, [00:16:30] and we certainly don't like Jews. And we definitely don't like Chinese. And then other Asians, that was clearly stated. So the the that era. This is where theories of eugenics were sold as science by distinguished academics, convincing members of Congress that these people were not at par.


Hannah McCarthy: Wait, this was in the 19 teens. People were promoting eugenics back then.


Nick Capodice: They were. And [00:17:00] contrary to what I had thought, the United States was at the very forefront of it. The seminal work on eugenics and eugenics, by the way, as the very much not real, not scientific theory that some people from some places have superior genes and others don't. But again, the seminal work is called The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, a New Yorker. Adolf Hitler wrote Madison Grant a letter [00:17:30] saying, quote, this book is my Bible, end quote. End quote. We Germans must emulate what the Americans are doing.


Hannah McCarthy: Wow.


Nick Capodice: And I bring all this up because this this is what inspired our first immigration quota system.


Muzaffar Chishti: That became our first, first attempt to control immigration in quantitative limits. And guess how we decide to put the quantitative limits was by racial [00:18:00] quotas. We started putting what we call the national origin quota system in 1917, became law in 1924, is that we're going to give quantitative limits for each country based on the number of people of the stock of that country in the US in 1910.


Nick Capodice: So Congress takes the 1910 census. They look at it and they decide there already too many Italians [00:18:30] in the United States in 1910. So they push it back. They look at the 1900 census. Well, maybe this is the America I remember and still too many Italians. So they pushed the goalpost to 1890. They use the 1890 census as a guide.


Muzaffar Chishti: So it was clearly racist, openly racist by members of Congress speaking language on the floor of the House and Senate, which you would find unprintable today. So when we started putting limits on immigration, [00:19:00] they were clearly driven on racist terms.


Nick Capodice: And this this is what Muzzaffar tries to explain to people who say the well trotted out line, well, my family came here this way, the legal way.


Muzaffar Chishti: So the first thing they don't understand, and this is because they say, why didn't they come the way my grandparents came the right way, as we just finished saying, until 1924, there was no way of coming illegally. So everyone who came had to come legally. [00:19:30] So therefore, the notion that you would even have to wait in a line, There was no lie until 1924. So we started once we started the quantitative limits. Therefore, there was there was a line. So if you did not fit that line, then if you came outside that line, you were illegal. And that was the law till 1965.


Hannah McCarthy: 1965?


Nick Capodice: Yes. There was no [00:20:00] significant immigration from places like Italy, Eastern Europe, Hungary, Turkey, China, India, etc. from 1924 to 1965. In 1965, at the feet of the Statue of Liberty, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Hart-celler act, reversing the 1924 National Origins Act.


Speaker15: And this measure that we will sign today will really make us truer to ourselves, both as a country [00:20:30] and as a people. It will strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways.


Muzaffar Chishti: We entered the national origin courses and we opened the America to the entire world. So therefore history. It was a promise that had been made by President Kennedy in his campaign for presidency.


Nick Capodice: John F Kennedy gave a speech to an Italian club in Boston, and he asked everybody, hey, you know what's on your mind? [00:21:00] And they said, these quotas are destroying our families. I can't bring my sister, I can't bring my nephew, etc. And John F Kennedy promised if elected, he would change the quota system.


Hannah McCarthy: But he didn't.


Nick Capodice: No, He did[n’t lift a finger to end the national origin quota system.


Muzaffar Chishti: He made three states of Union addresses, did not address immigration even in one. It fell to President Johnson [00:21:30] to end the national origin quotas.


Nick Capodice: An LBJ was not really known to be a pro-immigration kind of guy.


Muzaffar Chishti: He was a confirmed Southern Democrat, anti-immigrant person. History shows that he had never met any immigrant, except for a piano tuner of his wife, who was a Czech man. He had no relationship with with immigration. And so he when he became president, [00:22:00] he calls all of us Kennedy's advisors into the white House. He said, look, I'm an accidental president. Just tell me, what had President Kennedy promised in his campaign? They listed immigration. He said, that becomes my cause. I have to do it.


Nick Capodice: And even though even though this lifting of the national origin system is celebrated by those who, you know, respect the words of Emma Lazarus in The New Colossus, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. [00:22:30] I still gotta say, the 1965 act was not without its own problems.


Muzaffar Chishti: The authors of the 1965 act made sure that European immigration supremacy remained intact. They wrote the law in a way that would guarantee white European immigrants to come, because they expanded the category of brothers and sisters of US citizens to [00:23:00] get privilege. The relatives of US citizens get high privilege. Guess who were the US citizens at that time? They were all white Europeans. They said if they were their brothers, they will keep on getting. This did not work out that way. The Europeans lost interest in coming to the United States. I mean, why would you? After the Marshall Plan, especially, why would we come to the US when you could live in an Italian villa? And the third world countries got out of the colonial [00:23:30] yoke, and they started sending students and then professionals. And 50 years later, the face of America had changed. Nick: Muzaffar points out that this change has stoked a lot of heated feelings in our communities, and in our politics.And those feelings about non-European immigrants were foundational - 65 years later, to the success of one president’s election in particular.


Speaker9: They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities, with no regard for the impact on [00:24:00] public safety or resources.


Muzaffar Chishti: He saw how a country had radically changed in its mix in 50 years in the history of our country, 50 years is not a long period. In 1965, immigration was 90% [00:24:30] European. Today it's 90% non-European. How that could not affect something in the country. Uh, you know, you have to be unmindful of how people think about change.


Hannah McCarthy: We have talked before about how different people with different classifications from different countries have different wait times when it comes to becoming a US citizen through the legal channels, because [00:25:00] we still use a quota system. So someone immigrating from Norway or New Zealand with family in the US will have a very different wait time than someone coming from Mexico or India in terms of the current quota system.


Nick Capodice: Yeah, I just read a report from the Cato Institute in 2018 where they found that someone trying to immigrate to the US from India with an advanced degree has an estimated wait time of 151 years. And [00:25:30] to be clear here, Muzaffar is in no way saying that the recent rise in anti-immigrant sentiment is at all justified. But he is pointing out that we have not amended our immigration policies in a long.


Muzaffar Chishti: Long time and we haven't changed our immigration level since 1990. So no wonder we're having the effect of all this paralysis in in Congress to deal with immigration. And the numbers [00:26:00] have grown in from 3 million to 14 million is not a small thing to happen. And now, because these we haven't changed our laws since 1990, and we haven't done a legalization program since 86, we now have a large number of people who may die unauthorized. We have at least probably two generations of unauthorized people. Now that's telling. So [00:26:30] a large number of people have deep roots now who are unauthorized. Therefore, when you see people being snatched from the streets, these are not people who arrived yesterday. These are people who arrived many years ago with deep roots. And almost none of them have criminal backgrounds. So therefore, if you have made this bargain that I'm going to deport a million people a year, where are you going to find them? That's the difference between the narrative and reality, is that to find them, you have to go on the inside of our country. And people see it. See this more as an attack on Americans and more [00:27:30] as an attack on American, deeply held values like First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Then they see as an attack on illegal immigration. And that's why I think Trump is losing the people on this.


Nick Capodice: This episode is made by me. Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Thank you. Our staff includes producer Marina Henke and executive [00:28:00] producer Rebecca LaVoy. Special thanks. Here. Special thanks. Go out to everybody at 97 Orchard Street, specifically Pedro and Annie. Sunday crew forever. Music. In this episode from blue Dot sessions. Epidemic sound and the wondrous Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.




 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

What is ICE's job?

We examine what the current presidential administration tells us about Immigration and Customs Enforcement and what the numbers, courts and history of the agency have to say.

For more information on the data referenced in this episode, you can check out this Politico fact check of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's statements about ICE, this CATO Institute analysis, this CBS report, and this TRAC report and this Deportation Data Project release.


Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: Do you remember the last time we made an episode about ice?

Nick Capodice: I do, I remember it was the first interview you did by yourself here at Civics 101. And you were nervous. This was like eight years ago, right?

Hannah McCarthy: May 2018. And yeah, I was nervous. We had just become the hosts of the show. This was only the third episode we had made as hosts of the show, and I was like, ah, man, how do you make a Civics 101 [00:00:30] episode about this agency that is really unpopular right now?

Archival: More protests are expected this morning after a 37 year old Minneapolis man was shot and killed by a federal agent.

Archival: Reports the incident happened on the heels of the shooting death of Rene Good, and has led to escalating tensions between protesters and federal officers.

Archival: Fast moving developments in Minneapolis after a protester, Alex, was shot and killed by federal agents in broad daylight over the weekend.

Archival: We've [00:01:00] got a deadly shooting here. We have to have an investigation. And you've got protesters screaming on the ground in front of us. Emotional throwing trash cans, barricading rooms.

Archival: Worth it, buddy. It's worth it. All right, we'll see. Hey, when you're in jail, something to protect you for long. You're in jail.

Nick Capodice: So how do you make a second Civics 101 [00:01:30] episode about ice?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, you start all over again in 2026. That's how. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And today, Ice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And again, we do already [00:02:00] have an episode about Ice. It explains a lot, but it doesn't really get to what is happening right now. So two things I recommend you go back and listen to that episode if you want to know why ice exists and what the deal was in the second year of Trump's first term as president. But for the purposes of this episode, Nick, I just want to get to something really basic. What is ICE's job?

Nick Capodice: Well, I guess we can start with the actual name [00:02:30] of the organization, the Enforcement of customs and Immigration Law.

Hannah McCarthy: Let's talk about that enforcement part. You've got Customs and Border Protection, CBP historically at our ports of entry and patrolling the border. So they're usually at the edges of the country, the areas where people come into the country and they are enforcing our laws there, the borders and ports of entry. Those are not specifically ICI's job. For the most part, though, they can and do [00:03:00] work with CBP, especially lately.

Nick Capodice: All right, so Ice is on the inside.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, Ice is for the most part, the agency tasked with interior enforcement, though, you know, because a big part of their job is to arrest and detain people they suspect of being in the country without authorization, without documentation. That is something they can do at the border as well. I do just want to note here that people have noticed that Customs and Border Patrol employees have been participating in immigration operations [00:03:30] far from U.S. borders. And because of something called the hundred Mile zone in the Immigration and Nationality Act, people are wondering why that's allowed what they're doing so far from the border.

Nick Capodice: Hang on. The hundred mile zone.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, there is a federal regulation that says that immigration enforcement, this is actually both Ice and CBP have authority to board a train or a bus within a, within a reasonable distance, unquote, which federal regulation says is 100 [00:04:00] miles from any external boundary of the US. Planes, by the way, are different here because they are part of the port of entry for international travelers. So if you have heard about the 100 mile zone and thought to yourself, okay, what is going on in terms of immigration enforcement happening so far from the borders? Well, again, that hundred mile zone, it is really about boarding vessels, right? A bus or a train. And really, all of those agents and officers do have the legal authority to pull over a car and interrogate [00:04:30] and arrest them when they suspect of being undocumented. So that hundred mile zone thing, that is a restriction, but not as much of a restriction as it might seem. And while typically Border Patrol has done enforcement at the borders, and Ice has done it away from the borders, the distinction has blurred under the Trump administration.

Nick Capodice: So that's why you're seeing CBP alongside Ice far from the border and Hannah, real quick. Can we touch on this suspect of being undocumented thing? What [00:05:00] constitutes suspect?

Hannah McCarthy: So courts have said that immigration enforcement cannot stop, arrest and detain people based on their perceived race, what language they speak, where they work, or where they physically are in any given moment.

Nick Capodice: Aka Ice and CBP cannot racially or culturally profile people.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, in September 2025, the Supreme Court issued what's called a stay on a lower court's order that had barred [00:05:30] racial profiling.

Nick Capodice: Oh, so the Supreme Court said that Ice and CBP can target people for their looks and behavior?

Hannah McCarthy: Essentially, yes. For now, at least, they have paused the lower courts order.

Nick Capodice: What about 14th amendment, equal protection and Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure protection? How did Scotus explain that one?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, they didn't explain much. There is no opinion in this instance. I can tell you that Justice Brett Kavanaugh did write what [00:06:00] is called a concurrence, where he suggests that, you know, if you are a documented immigrant or a citizen who is stopped and questioned, you should just be able to show your ID and common sense says you would then be permitted to go. But many people have not had that experience.

Nick Capodice: Oh, a concurrence, but no opinion. This was a shadow docket thing, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. Or as the Supreme Court prefers to put it, the emergency docket or the non [00:06:30] merits motions docket. But listen to our episode on the shadow docket to learn more. Okay, so back to your question. What does suspect mean? Well, it can mean right now according to the Supreme Court, that you look sound or are in some way acting like an undocumented immigrant in the eyes of immigration enforcement. Okay. Moving on. Because I want to talk about the differences within [00:07:00] Ice itself. We keep hearing about Ice agents and there are Ice agents. But in terms of the way that they were originally established, agents and officers perform different roles. Ice agents are supposed to do the investigating. They are stationed across the country and across the world. They fall under the label h s I. Homeland Security Investigations.

Nick Capodice: Investigating what exactly? [00:07:30]

Hannah McCarthy: Well, crimes. There are more than 400 U.S. laws pertaining to national security. Who investigates violations of those laws? So think smuggling of various kinds, trafficking of various kinds, financial crimes, fraud. Hcy agents are also tasked with breaking up terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations, and these agents are working in offices, like I said, across the country and across the world, they are everywhere.

Nick Capodice: But to be clear, an Ice agent is not the same thing as an Ice enforcement officer, [00:08:00] right?

Hannah McCarthy: An officer falls under the e o label enforcement and removal operations. And actually, in the past, during the first Trump administration, some Hpsci agents requested to please be removed from the agency because they were getting confused with air officers.

Nick Capodice: So they're under the same umbrella. But these agents were like, we do not do the same thing, right?

Hannah McCarthy: And before I read you a bit of this letter, I do just need to say that an executive order that Trump [00:08:30] signed at the beginning of his second term does appear to change the nature of Hci's main mission. But in 2019, a number of agents reports say as many as 19 were requesting some kind of independent, some kind of distinction from this other part of Ice. In a letter they wrote to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary at the time, Kristin M Nielsen, an agent, said, quote, the perception of high seas investigative independence [00:09:00] is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of eero's civil immigration enforcement. Many jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with Hpsci because of a perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration, unquote.

Nick Capodice: In other words, the people who investigate crimes were upset that they were being confused with the people who were taking undocumented immigrants into custody.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. And I am not sure how [00:09:30] Hpsci agents feel right now, but later on, I am going to talk a little bit about how their mission may have changed under the Trump administration.

Nick Capodice: And what exactly are the Ice officers, as opposed to the agents supposed to be doing?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, according to the Ice website, the Ero or enforcement officers. Quote, target public safety threats such as convicted criminal, undocumented aliens [00:10:00] and gang members, as well as individuals who have otherwise violated our nation's immigration laws, including those who legally reentered the country after being removed and immigration fugitives ordered removed by federal immigration judges, unquote.

Nick Capodice: All right, here's where I'm getting caught up a little. Hannah, are Ice officers supposed to be targeting just anybody who violated immigration law? Or are they supposed to be going after safety [00:10:30] threats, criminal, undocumented aliens, as they put it?

Hannah McCarthy: This is a good question. So as I was making this episode, the Trump administration circulated a draft memo that, you know, if official would direct Ice to avoid engaging with agitators, now agitators. That is the term that Trump and his administration has used to describe people protesting Ice.

Archival: The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're [00:11:00] bad people. They should be in jail.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. And before I read this quote from this memo, I do just want to state that we are fully aware of the problematic nature of the word aliens, instead of using the term undocumented immigrants or unauthorized immigrants. But you are going to hear that term in this episode, because it is in a lot of the language that is used by the Trump administration. It has been used by administrations in the past. Okay. So, you know, avoid engaging with quote unquote agitators. And this memo also says, [00:11:30] quote, we are moving to targeted enforcement of aliens with a criminal history. This includes arrests, not just convictions. And then this is in all caps. All targets must have a criminal nexus, unquote.

Nick Capodice: A criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I actually learned a lot because of encountering this word. Nexus just means a link in this case, an arrest, a charge, a conviction. This is a term that comes up a lot with criminal cases. [00:12:00] A defense attorney might challenge the nexus, try to prove, for example, that there was no probable cause for search and seizure, or that a judge should have denied a warrant because of a lack of nexus.

Nick Capodice: And the administration is now saying there has to be a nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, on January 29th, 2026, borders are. Tom Homan gave a press conference in Minnesota. He said that they were working on a, quote, drawdown plan, getting more Ice officers working in jails and prisons and fewer on the street. [00:12:30] He said agents who did not act professionally would be, quote, dealt with. He said Ice is focused on threats to public safety and national security, with a caveat. Of course.

Archival: There is not going to be a focus on people who have no other crimes except for their status.

Archival: If they're in the country illegally, you're not. You're never off the table.

Hannah McCarthy: So in terms of the quote, all targets must have a criminal nexus thing that would be so big, if true.

Nick Capodice: Why is that?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, under both Barack Obama's [00:13:00] and Joe Biden's administrations, ICE's guidance was to prioritize non-citizens who posed a threat to public safety or national security.

Nick Capodice: Prioritize, but not, like, go after exclusively.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, there's some wiggle room there. Now, you know that memo stating all targets must have a criminal nexus? Again, we have no idea if that is an official order or policy, or if it's going to be the new way of doing things. Um, in that press conference, I [00:13:30] mentioned the one with border czar Tom Homan. You heard him state that, you know, nobody who is here undocumented is, quote, off the table. And while that memo, you know, if it really means anything, would mean a significant change. This administration and its agents and officers have also signaled, in both language and action that crime and undocumented immigrant kind of go hand in hand. I'm going to talk about that in a moment, actually, because, Nick, what is ICE's [00:14:00] job? So if you look back to the beginning, right, I'm going to read you a quote from the first ever Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Julie L Myers. This is from 2007. She said that ICE's mission was, quote, to protect the United States and uphold public safety by targeting the people, money and materials that support terrorists and criminal activities, unquote.

Nick Capodice: I want to make sure I get this right. Ice was established to, if [00:14:30] I may put this extremely ham handedly to target like, identify, find, deal with The quote unquote bad guys.

Hannah McCarthy: Ice continues to state that they go after the worst of the worst. And this is a big part of what I am trying to understand with this episode. The president says that Ice is going after criminals.

Archival: Boy, these are rough characters. These are all criminal, illegal aliens that [00:15:00] in many cases, they're murderers. They're drug lords, drug dealers. They're the mentally insane. Some of them who are brutal killers, they're mentally insane. They're killers, but they're insane.

Hannah McCarthy: And then this memo comes to light that appears to say, you know, we're pivoting here. We're going to go after criminals, even though that is what, you know, the American public has been told. Ice is already doing. And before this memo even came out, Homeland Security Secretary [00:15:30] Kristi Noem said that 70% of noncitizens in custody have been convicted of or charged with a violent crime.

Archival: What's the breakdown of the percentage of those who you have in custody who have actually committed a criminal offense versus just the civil infraction?

Archival: Every single individual has committed a crime, but 70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes and crimes that they are charged with or have been convicted of.

Nick Capodice: I actually watched this clip. [00:16:00] Noam was on Face the Nation, and journalist Margaret Brennan is like, wait, 70%, because your agency says 47% of detainees have been charged or convicted of a crime.

Archival: Okay. Well, our reporting is that 47%, based on your agency's own numbers, 47% have criminal convictions against them. But let's talk about the other numbers again.

Archival: Absolutely. We'll get you the correct numbers so you can use them in the future.

Archival: Well, that's from your agency.

Hannah McCarthy: Importantly, like [00:16:30] I just want to draw your attention to the fact that that piece of information talks about crime, not violent crime. A violent crime is. And this is according to the Department of Justice, a violent crime happens when a victim is harmed or threatened with violence, unquote. This includes sexual assault, robbery, other kinds of assault and murder.

Nick Capodice: But Noam said violent crime. So where is that coming from?

Hannah McCarthy: I will tell you that a lot of people are trying to understand where exactly that is coming from [00:17:00] and what period of time Noam might be referencing, and whether she's referencing arrests or detentions. Those are two different things. Not everyone who's arrested ends up in detention. But she was being asked a question about the people currently in Ice custody, the people currently detained. And that was the answer to the question. So, you know, as soon as Ice or DHS releases the data that supports that, I will add a little addendum to this episode. Currently, there are no numbers available from DHS [00:17:30] or that have been leaked or FOIA requested that remotely suggest that much non-citizen violent crime, be it a conviction or a charge, which are two different things.

Nick Capodice: All right. The other thing that Noam also said was that everyone detained by Ice has committed a crime.

Hannah McCarthy: What Noam meant by that is not clear to me, but this does seem like a good time to share with everybody that it is not a crime in and of itself to be an undocumented person in [00:18:00] the United States.

Nick Capodice: And you're not speaking colloquially here. You are speaking literally. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. It's not like a that's not a crime thing. It's like this is an actual legal definition being undocumented in the United States, which means you do not have a form of legal status like a visa is a civil violation. Civil violations have civil penalties. Criminal violations have criminal punishments. Overstaying your visa puts you under the civil violation umbrella. Undocumented [00:18:30] status only becomes criminally punishable if someone has already been deported and then reenters attempts to reenter or is found within the United States.

Nick Capodice: And just to be clear, you can be deported if you overstay your visa.

Hannah McCarthy: Absolutely. That is the civil penalty for the civil violation of being undocumented in the United States. You could also face reentry bans and you could, you know, have future visa applications denied depending on how long you've [00:19:00] overstayed, etc. but it is not, again, in and of itself, a crime. Congress has established it as a civil violation, and the Supreme Court actually upheld that in a case called Arizona v United States, when Arizona essentially tried to treat being an undocumented immigrant like a crime.

Nick Capodice: Hannah. So why is the secretary of DHS saying everybody in detention has committed a crime? And on top of that, most of them are either guilty of violent crime or [00:19:30] facing violent crime charges again.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, I am really looking forward to the data that explains where that piece of information is coming from. It is really confusing when internal reporting says one thing, and the person in charge of the people who did that reporting says something entirely different.

Nick Capodice: So the administration says this is about criminals, but the data from the administration, or at least the data that's been reported, shows that it's about, well, not just criminals or [00:20:00] criminals as far as the law defines criminals.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. As opposed to the statement that everyone detained by Ice has committed a crime, which is, according to United States law, how we define a crime. Untrue. Unless Kristi Noem knows something we don't. Of all the many, many data sets and analyzes I have read, and I will post links to those in the show. Notes the highest percentage of detainees convicted of or charged with a crime that [00:20:30] I could find was in this time period between Trump's inauguration that was in January of 2025 and October of 2025. So total, that was 64%, 64% of detainees convicted or charged with a crime. And that is according to a PolitiFact analysis. But then if you look at who Ice was booking into detention as the year went on, fewer [00:21:00] and fewer people had that criminal nexus, as they say.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, how many undocumented people are there in the United States right now?

Hannah McCarthy: I do not have an exact number for you, but the most recent numbers, this is from the federal government, from state governments show between 10 and 11 million.

Nick Capodice: All right. I have seen reports that say this administration has an internal goal of deporting a million [00:21:30] people a year. Is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, that number comes from anonymous sources in the administration. So who can say? But I can tell you that Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller and DHS secretary again, Kristi Noem, set a target of 3000 arrests a day earlier this year, which would be just over a million people, over 365 days if everyone arrested was detained, which they are not. And if everyone detained [00:22:00] was deported, which they are not.

Nick Capodice: Right. And how many of those people have a criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: That I cannot even begin to tell you? But here is another I can tell you. I can tell you that of the people who were booked into Ice detention last year, who either had criminal convictions or charges, and I bring this up because again, we are talking about what the purpose is here and [00:22:30] the purpose is public safety and national security. Most of them were not charged with or convicted of a violent crime. For the most part, it was either vice traffic violations or immigration violations. And again, because it is not a crime to be undocumented in this country. In that case, we are talking about things like crossing the border without going through the proper channels or being in the country after being deported.

Nick Capodice: So there are a lot of things, nonviolent things, including traffic [00:23:00] violations that could amount to a criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: If you want to better understand, by the way, how low level offenses became a much bigger deal for undocumented immigrants. I warmly again recommend that you go back and listen to our first episode On Ice from 2018. There was a 1996 immigration law that really shook things up. Okay, let's take a break. We're [00:23:30] back. This is civics 101. We're talking about ice. And before we try to further understand what exactly ICE's job is, just a reminder. Civics 101 is a public radio show. We do not receive any funds from the federal government because there is no longer the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. [00:24:00] We rely on contributions from listeners. That is you. If you are someone who is able to contribute to Civics 101 to help keep us going in trying to understand what is going on here, you can always go to our website to make a contribution that is at civics101podcast.org. Every little bit helps. Thank you so much.

Archival: It's the same situation that we've seen happening over the past several weeks since the shooting death of Rene Good back on January 7th, and the shooting of Alex [00:24:30] Preddie one week ago today.

Archival: Minnesota state and local officials are going to try to argue in court that the federal Department of Immigration agents in Minneapolis is illegal. Two separate hearings today will focus.

Archival: To a person to almost a case, with one exception. Every time the judges are saying you have no right to detain these people sort of underscores what we're seeing on the streets.

Archival: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said. He told President Trump that the city would continue cooperating in what he called real criminal investigations, adding that people should be prosecuted [00:25:00] for the crimes they commit, not where they're from.

Hannah McCarthy: So back to talking about Ice. We have talked about ice before. Things are different now. We are talking about ice again. We are in the midst of an immigration crackdown promised and consistently executed by the Trump administration. The DHS secretary told us recently that everyone who was in Ice detention at the time was a criminal. The government's own data contradicts that. Recently, there has been a move to de-escalate isolated [00:25:30] tension following protests and the killing of American citizens and non-citizens alike in Minnesota and elsewhere. So Nick and I are trying to figure out what ICE's job is, what their purpose is.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, that's what I want to know.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so Ice has been around since 2003. And the big goal from the beginning for this agency within the Department of Homeland Security, a department created in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, was public safety and national security. [00:26:00] As to whether or not that is the actual role Ice plays, that has always been a question, but never a question to the degree that it is today. They have always arrested, deported and detained both criminal and non-criminal undocumented immigrants. But the numbers, the percentages of non-criminal detentions and on the street arrests vary wildly from Barack Obama's administration to Trump's administration, and then from Joe Biden's administration to Trump's second administration. [00:26:30]

Nick Capodice: As in, I'm just spitballing here, based on what we've been talking about so far, the numbers of non-criminal arrests and detentions are higher under Trump.

Hannah McCarthy: That is right. That is an accurate spitball. Both Obama's and Biden's Ice policy had two significant points prioritize terrorists national security threats, violent criminals, and exercise prosecutorial discretion.

Nick Capodice: And what does that mean?

Hannah McCarthy: Meaning, don't go after everybody. Don't get distracted [00:27:00] by the millions of non-criminal, undocumented immigrants. Focus on the ones who pose some kind of safety threat. And it seems that Ice did not like this. In 2012, for example, Obama was sued by Ice agents for preventing them from deporting DACA recipients. Do you remember DACA, Nick?

Nick Capodice: I absolutely do. Deferred action for Childhood Arrivals. It was a policy that protected certain undocumented immigrants from deportation. If they'd come to the United States when they were children.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. [00:27:30] Ice agents said that Obama was stopping them from enforcing immigration law. They also said that his prosecutorial discretion policy made it hard for them to do their job. Now, I do just need to add here that Obama was labeled by critics as the deporter in chief for removing more undocumented people from this country than any other president in U.S. history. Now, reports say that Trump has yet to surpass the numbers under Obama, though he does appear to have loftier goals. So [00:28:00] we will see if that changes. My point is, lawsuit or no, immigration law enforcement was very much in full swing under Obama. Agents and officers were able to do a big part of their job.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, what is their job.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, you know, I guess I would say it's not that much different from any other workplace. What ICE's job is very much depends on what their boss says it is. When Trump was first running [00:28:30] for office, he employed a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric. Now, whether that was exactly what Ice liked about Trump, I don't know. But I can tell you that their union endorsed him for president. And then when Trump first became president, he got rid of that prosecutorial discretion thing. In fact, he decided to leave a whole lot up to Ice agents. They could target not just people who had committed a crime, but those who they deemed to, quote, have committed acts which constitute a chargeable [00:29:00] criminal offense, unquote, or who, in ICE's judgment, otherwise posed a risk to public safety or national security.

Nick Capodice: So essentially, they got to decide who the real threat was, essentially.

Hannah McCarthy: And under the current administration, you can find a lot of Ice policy in the executive order called protecting the American people against invasion. Nick, do you remember Hpsci.

Nick Capodice: Homeland Security Investigations? [00:29:30] Right. In 2018, some of them were like, hey, we are not the same thing as Ice officers. We want to make that clear.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. I want to read you another quote from that letter that they wrote to the DHS secretary in 2018. Again, some agents from Hpsci explained, quote, Hpsci investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross-border crimes impacting our communities and national security, [00:30:00] unquote. In that executive order from Donald Trump that I'm talking about, he writes, quote, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the primary mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations Division is the enforcement of the provisions of the I and other federal laws related to the illegal entry and lawful presence of aliens in the United States, [00:30:30] and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.

Nick Capodice: And what is the Ina.

Hannah McCarthy: That is the Immigration and Nationality Act? I think we should probably do an episode about it.

Nick Capodice: Okay, so here Trump is saying that DHS will make sure that the primary mission of Si is enforcement of illegal entry and unlawful presence. That sounds like targeting undocumented people. The thing those agents were worried about being perceived as doing. Back in 2018.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. In [00:31:00] 2018, there were hpsci agents who were worried that the public, the press and the law enforcement agencies they needed to work with would think that they were doing the same thing as enforcement officers. Now, I don't know enough about Hcy policy or internal direction right now to say for sure, but this executive order suggests that now they are supposed to do the same job. But what that job is.

Nick Capodice: Yes. Hannah, please. What is their job? What is it?

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, there is some language in this executive order [00:31:30] about cartels, human and drug trafficking, transnational criminal organizations. You know, that's the bad stuff, right? Perhaps if you want to find the worst of the worst in here, that is where you find it. But before you get to that section on these people who may be causing harm in the United States, there is this section Trump writes that the executive departments and agencies, quote, shall employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution [00:32:00] of the immigration laws of the United States against all inadmissible and removable aliens, unquote.

Nick Capodice: All inadmissible and removable aliens. And again, to be clear, the penalty for being undocumented in the United States is deportation.

Hannah McCarthy: That is correct. So the term removable aliens applies to all undocumented immigrants in the United States. You know, this is barring [00:32:30] a couple of options you have if you actually get to go to immigration court. But yeah, and Ice is fully, legally permitted to identify, arrest, detain and deport undocumented immigrants regardless of criminal history or charges.

Nick Capodice: So I think, Hannah, if we want to figure out what ICE's job is, we have to ask, in lieu of Congress passing or amending laws, what does the president tell them they should be doing and what they should not be doing?

Hannah McCarthy: Which is why, Nick, this could [00:33:00] be a moment to watch. You know, Trump did replace top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, who had been commanding Ice operations in Minnesota with border czar Tom Homan. Now, of course, this is following massive backlash and escalating tensions after the deadly shootings of Renee Good and Alex Preddie. But in terms of that de-escalation, Homan has said that change is contingent on cooperation. What kind of cooperation remains to be seen? Homan has also said that, quote, mass deportation [00:33:30] will continue. The administration seems to be suggesting a possible shift in its approach with Ice. But Trump has not revoked that sweeping executive order that I mentioned. The Department of Homeland Security has not said if or how their operation is changing. One thing that has never changed, though, in terms of ICE's job description, in terms of the way that administrations have talked about Ice, is this focus on public safety? Who and [00:34:00] what Ice is keeping the public safe from and how they go about it? That is not up to the public. That is up to the federal government and to the president of the United States. This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Marina Henke is our producer. [00:34:30] Rebecca LaVoy is our executive producer. Special thanks to Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, who spoke with me to help me understand this very complex picture. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. There is a lot that did not go into this episode, but we here at Civics 101 are going to keep trying to understand as much as we can and share what we learn with you. If you have questions for us, you can submit them at our website civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

What is the Monroe Doctrine?

After its inception in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was largely ignored. But after a while, different administrations saw the value in maintaining control over the western hemisphere. And notably, it is having a renaissance in the Trump presidency.

So what IS the Monroe Doctrine? How has it been interpreted in various presidencies? And, most importantly, is it legal under international law? Civics 101 regular Dan Cassino takes us from Monroe to Maduro.

⁠Click here⁠ to listen to our episode on the history of Venezuela leading up to America's invasion in 2026.


Transcript

Speaker1: The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot.


Speaker2: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an order to, quote, kill everybody on the vessel.


Speaker1: By a real.


Speaker3: Life Panama Canal is ours. Trump should mind his own business. And all countries have the ability to use the Canal Monroe Doctrine.


Speaker1: We sort of forgot about it. We're very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore.


Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice, [00:00:30] I'm.


Hannah McCarthy: Hannah McCarthy.


Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about a 200 year old written statement by a president that didn't really mean much until it did. The Monroe Doctrine, what it was, what it became, how it was used over the centuries, and why everybody is talking about it right now. Stick around.


Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, we're talking about the Monroe Doctrine. Let's start with what it is. James Monroe, our fifth president. [00:01:00] Was this something that he wrote? Was it an executive order?


Nick Capodice: All right. Well, I got to set the scene first, Hannah.


Hannah McCarthy: All right.


Nick Capodice: It's the 1820s. We got the War of 1812 in a rear view. We've got a national purpose. I'm okay. You're okay. It is the moment in history known as the ERA of Good Feelings.


Hannah McCarthy: In other words, the period when the Federalist Party collapses, the Democratic-Republicans run the show, and seemingly nobody is disagreeing about [00:01:30] anything.


Nick Capodice: Anything at all. And ask your question, Hannah. What is it? This is something written sort of by James Monroe, but it is not an executive order.


Dan Cassino: All right. So 1823, this is the seventh state of the Union address from President James Monroe.


Hannah McCarthy: Dan casino. It has been too long.


Nick Capodice: Every moment a treasure with Dan Casino.


Hannah McCarthy: Is Dan still professor of government and politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University?


Nick Capodice: You know it.


Dan Cassino: Yep. You know, it was fun. I, one of my colleagues, a history professor [00:02:00] got a text from his son and said, wait, do you know Dan Cassino? We heard his stuff.


Nick Capodice: James Monroe gives his state of the Union address in 1823.


Dan Cassino: Remember, state Union is not him giving a talk to Congress. It's. He just writes a letter. They didn't give talks to Congress until the 20th century.


Nick Capodice: Here's what I'm going to note, though. Hannah. It was Monroe's state of the Union. But these words were not written by him. They were written by Monroe's then secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.


Dan Cassino: So embedded [00:02:30] in this very long state of the Union address, he has this little statement where he says that foreign countries, European countries should not get involved in South America or in the Western Hemisphere.


Hannah McCarthy: One more time to make sure I've got it. Europe should not meddle with countries in the Western Hemisphere.


Nick Capodice: Right.


Hannah McCarthy: And what's the follow up to that “Should”


Nick Capodice: What do you mean?


Hannah McCarthy: Well, if Monroe says, don't do this, it seems like there should be some sort of. And if you do, like a consequence dot dot dot.


Nick Capodice: Right, right. It's the sort of thing that should be followed up with or else, you know.


Dan Cassino: But it's not. It's just a period [00:03:30] because America doesn't really have much of an army or navy at this point. So we are just making as a statement of policy, there should be no more colonies in South America.


Hannah McCarthy: All right. But why? What is the problem with European government getting involved in South America?


Nick Capodice: Well, we've got to think in the geopolitical context of the 1820s here.


Dan Cassino: Remember, so America has this revolution. You have the French Revolution. Looks like republics are taking over Europe. But by the time you get to 18, 15, 18, 16, there's been a retrenchment of monarchies.


Hannah McCarthy: A retrenchment [00:04:00] of monarchies.


Nick Capodice: Like the Empire dress and Beethoven piano sonatas. Monarchies are so back.


Dan Cassino: This is right after the defeat of Napoleon, right? And you get Poland. Russia and Austria form this alliance. Pro monarchic alliance. Putting a monarchy back in France. So we are having a resettlement of monarchies. You know, the republican fervor has finally passed and monarchies feel like they're safe going forward. And monarchies are taking back over. [00:04:30] There's a fear that those monarchies are going to try and reconquer the South American countries that had already had revolutions against the monarchy and established republics. The idea we're putting forward here is that these new republics that have been formed in South America should not be reconquered. You shouldn't try and make them back into monarchies because the old world. Okay. You guys have monarchies. We accept that. Fine. Whatever. But the new world should be republics.


Nick Capodice: And again, there is no [00:05:00] or else in there. And what we now call the Monroe Doctrine sort of floats into the mist.


Dan Cassino: So no one pays any attention. Nobody cares because America doesn't have much money, doesn't have much of a Navy. We just got our butts kicked in. The War of 1812 like this is not really much of a statement. We know, like Simon Bolivar hears about this and goes, ah, that's nice, I guess. I mean, like, no one is really taking this seriously. In fact, the only one who takes this seriously is the British, because this is really good for [00:05:30] the British.


Hannah McCarthy: Why is this good for the British?


Nick Capodice: It's good because of one word mercantilism.


Speaker7: The best things in life are free. But you can give them to the birds and bees I want money.


Dan Cassino: We don't talk about mercantilism enough. But mercantilism. All right. Mercantilism is the economic theory that in theory, Adam Smith put an end to. But in practice he did not. That the way you get the strongest and best country The strongest and best economy is by accumulating as much gold as you possibly can. If [00:06:00] you get the most gold, you win. What do you win? We don't ask questions like that, but you win if you get the most gold. So your trade policy under mercantilism is to get as much gold as possible. How do you get gold? You sell stuff to other countries because they're going to pay you in gold. So whenever I sell something in another country, some of the gold, they're gold gets transferred over me and I get their gold at the same time while I'm selling stuff. I am not buying anything, because when I buy something, gold comes out of my coffers and goes to my potential enemies. So my job is to sell as much [00:06:30] as possible and not buy anything, which kind of falls apart when you start to make this economic theory that's applying to an entire continent, because everyone is trying to buy trying to sell stuff and nobody wants to buy anything. So indirectly, this is, of course, what actually leads to colonialism. The idea that I need to find other stuff that they don't have in their country that I can sell to them, so they have to buy it from me. Ideally an addictive substance like caffeine or tobacco or something, opium, whatever. And if that doesn't work, then my colonies work as a captive audience. They have to buy [00:07:00] my stuff. Right. And I get gold from them. So this is a huge deal geopolitically in the 18th and 19th centuries.


Hannah McCarthy: Now, what did Dan mean when he said Adam Smith supposedly put an end to mercantilism, but actually didn't?


Nick Capodice: Yeah. So Adam Smith was a renowned economic philosopher who published a treatise in 1776 explaining why some nations are rich and some nations are poor, and that mercantilism is not the way to go to ensure [00:07:30] success. The short name of this treatise is The Wealth of Nations.


Dan Cassino: In theory, you know the Wealth of nations put an end to this. You know, it was a very definitive proof that this didn't actually work. And the true Wealth of nations is in the bounty and the production of your people. But nobody really bought that for at least another 40 or 50 years. So the British love this idea because all these newly freed Republicans, South America? Well, they're not part of the mercantilist system that the Spanish or whoever [00:08:00] previously owned them are part of. So previously, if Brazil is owned by Portugal, Brazil ain't trading with anybody, right? The British can't trade with Brazil, right. Because they're part of the mercantilist system with Portugal. You know, all the you know, Mexico is with Spain is with Spain. You can't trade with them because they're tied up with Spain.


Hannah McCarthy: So big, powerful European countries like Portugal and Spain, if they take over a country in South America, that makes it a lot harder for Britain to trade with that country, to get stuff [00:08:30] from South America that you can't get anywhere else like bananas.


Nick Capodice: Oh, man. Hannah, we are gonna get to bananas.


Hannah McCarthy: Really?


Nick Capodice: Oh, yeah. But yes, it is easier for Britain to trade with a small, independent republic that needs the money and doesn't have a big whanging army behind it. And remember, at this time Britain has the biggest navy in the world.


Dan Cassino: So the British become the biggest defender of the Monroe Doctrine, basically saying to other countries in Europe, no, no, [00:09:00] no, you can't go back in and reconquer this place and reconquer your your former colony, South America, because the Monroe Doctrine. Right. That's that's the whole thing over here. So the British become the defender of this throughout the 19th century, and the Americans do basically nothing with it.


Hannah McCarthy: Okay. So when does America finally start to care about the Monroe Doctrine?


Nick Capodice: First, a few little dribs and drabs. President James K Polk hints at it a little bit to justify manifest [00:09:30] Destiny and the Mexican-American War, but the rise of the Monroe Doctrine into something that actually affects American policy going forward is in the 1850s. And before we get to that, we've got to take a quick break. We are back. You're listening to civics 101, and we are talking about the Monroe Doctrine. Just a reminder to our listeners. We have hundreds and hundreds of episodes [00:10:00] at our website, civics101podcast.org. Just check it out if you need a refresher on just about anything.


Hannah McCarthy: Okay, Nick, you were going to tell me about the point at which the Monroe Doctrine actually started to matter. When does that happen?


Nick Capodice: All right. But first, Hannah, a quick word on the name, the Monroe Doctrine. Here again, is the inimitable Dan Cassino.


Dan Cassino: It doesn't even get called the Monroe Doctrine until sometime in the 1850s. No one thinks about it. No one calls it a doctrine. No one. This is just something Monroe [00:10:30] said until the 1850s, where it becomes starts to get more important. Now, why is it get more important? It gets more important because America gets a bigger army and navy, so we can actually start to do stuff. And so the first time we actually see the Monroe Doctrine actually coming into effect in any sort of recognizable form is the Spanish-American War, where we're going into Cuba and saying, no, no, no, we have this long standing doctrine that we've never enforced before For saying that you, Spain, cannot have Cuba. No one can do this now. During the period between the 1820s and the 1890s, [00:11:00] lots of European powers came in and muddled around South America. I mean, the French conquered Mexico and installed an emperor in Mexico.


Hannah McCarthy: So Spain and France were actually acting against the Monroe Doctrine.


Nick Capodice: They were we said, don't do this. And they just didn't listen.


Hannah McCarthy: Okay. And why didn't we do anything about it?


Dan Cassino: Uh, we didn't do anything about it because it was 1862, and we were a little busy doing other things at the time, but there was not a whole heck of a lot America could do about it because we didn't have an army or Navy, right? We had no way of enforcing [00:11:30] these rules. We'd, in theory, put into place. And again, no one even thought of them really as being rules. Okay, so Spanish-American War, we're going in conquering all of these territories to free them from the yoke of European oppression. And it's Teddy Roosevelt who's, of course, very deeply involved in the Spanish-American War, who puts his corollary, we call it the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine this moment.


Nick Capodice: Hanna, this is a huge yes. And to the Monroe Doctrine. This is how Teddy Roosevelt justified [00:12:00] the war where the US took over Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines. And it also began our protectorate relationship with Cuba.


Hannah McCarthy: And what is the corollary? Exactly.


Dan Cassino: The Roosevelt Corollary is, again, all about economics. His argument is that we as America, we are responsible for the economic and social well-being of the Americas writ large. And what that means in practice [00:12:30] is that if a country in South America is going to default, right, if their trade policy is out of whack and they're going to default, we Americans are going to step in and get things back on track so the Europeans don't have to. The way we're going to keep Europe out of South America is by going into South America ourselves and regulating the economies, regulating the government of South America to make sure that the European powers don't actually have to do that.


Hannah McCarthy: So now it's not just, hey, Europe, stay out of South America. It's we here in the US are responsible for maintaining [00:13:00] the economic stability of South America.


Dan Cassino: Yeah, we're taking over from the British. Now. We want to do all the trade with everyone in South America. Right. And look, there is a real fear that if, uh, you know, Venezuela defaults on its loans, that the British going to come in and invade, because that's what you did at that time. And so we're saying, look, we're going to make sure Venezuela, whoever doesn't default on its loans, their economy doesn't get out of track. They don't nationalize stuff. We're going to make sure that that never happens in order to not give the Europeans an excuse to come in.


Nick Capodice: And here [00:13:30] Hannah, is where we get to the bananas.


Dan Cassino: And you get America becoming very, very active in South America and Central America. And this is because of the expansion of American companies into Central America and South America, mostly fruit companies. You're getting fruit, you're getting sugar and all these things. And so America expands its military presence in South America and Central America to protect American business interests. This actually leads America to a series of wars between about 1920 and 1934, colloquially known as the Banana Wars, and [00:14:00] the Banana Wars are the the truest expression of the Monroe Doctrine, where we just send in the Marines to protect American business interests.


Nick Capodice: So we had just finished the Panama Canal. Trade from South America was now significantly easier, and the US owned a lot of fruit companies down there, namely Dole and Chiquita, then named the Standard Fruit Company and the United Fruit Company.


Dan Cassino: So if you're the United Fruit Company, we're going to invade. We're going to attack. If you're under attack again, [00:14:30] we have to make sure that their economies are being run properly, because if their economies are not being run properly, that would, in theory, give an excuse to Europeans to come in and do something about it. But we're not really worried about that. But we're saying our business interests are supposed to be dominant here in South America and Central America. So therefore we are obliged to do whatever the heck we need to do in order to protect those business interests. Um, the Banana Wars are very, very bloody. I mean, we are talking, you know, thousands of American Marines [00:15:00] are killed in these banana wars. Uh, but that's nothing compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands of Central and South American people who are killed in these banana wars, essentially to protect American business interests and to keep the flow of tropical fruit into America and tropical fruit, sugar in America going strong.


Hannah McCarthy: So this is US owned companies using the American military as protection.


Nick Capodice: Exactly. Before this, a company would and did hire private security firms like the Pinkertons to be the muscle. [00:15:30]


Speaker8: I don't like the Pinkertons.


Nick Capodice: But now you've got the US armed forces.


Dan Cassino: Look, these are colonial economies. These are colonial plantation economies. In a plantation economy, the only people who have money are the people who own land. Right? And everyone else has no money, has no nothing. Because all the wealth comes from land, from owning where the crops are growing. And so it turns out, if you have a bunch of Americans who come in and own all of the land in the country, the locals get a little squirrely about this. They're unhappy, and sometimes you get revolts. And what are these? What are these poor American business owners supposed to do? If you [00:16:00] want to keep the flow of pineapples and bananas going to New York? Well, you call in the Marines.


Hannah McCarthy: The banana Wars ended, didn't they?


Nick Capodice: They did.


Hannah McCarthy: Why?


Dan Cassino: For a couple reasons. The big one being the Great Depression and the buildup to World War two. Like we need those Marines for other things. Weirdly, public support for supporting businesses and supporting business oligarchs [00:16:30] drops during the Great Depression. Like, I don't know, public opinion is not there. Um, and President Franklin Roosevelt's not really as big on this as, like, Calvin Coolidge would have been because, you know, Calvin Coolidge, he'll call it the Pinkertons on anybody on a moment's notice. So Franklin Delano Roosevelt's not as big on this. Knows we're building up to war in Europe. So, you know, these things wind up, you know they die down. So Franklin Roosevelt, you know, basically pulled the troops out and lets the business owners, you know, fend for themselves, which, again, is not really too much of a problem. Private security forces, things like that.


Speaker8: I [00:17:00] don't like the Pinkertons.


Dan Cassino: So we essentially don't need to send the military all over the place.


Nick Capodice: But after World War Two is over, when all the soldiers and the marines and the ships and the tanks were no longer needed in Europe, when the US is embroiled in a Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine has another renaissance. And this time it's not just protecting economies of other nations. It's about ideas.


Speaker9: Like an iceberg. Much communist [00:17:30] activity is out of sight in the underground. But here and there, signs appear.


Dan Cassino: Yeah, we are in the Cold War era, and during the Cold War era, there is a long standing tradition of America intervening in South American countries and South American governments, and this can be seen as an offshoot of the Roosevelt Corollary, the idea that our job is to maintain stability. And just by the 1950s through 1970s, we have redefined stability to mean not socialist. So because socialism is basically [00:18:00] communism, and you know how the domino theory works, if one country goes communist, then they all go communist. During the Cold War, we have to protect South America from socialist governments. And so we oftentimes don't do this with the military anymore. We're going to do this with the CIA because or with other secret means, because we don't want to get the blame for it, because people will be very upset at us if they know what we were doing.


Hannah McCarthy: Okay. As we're starting to get nearer to the modern era. Nick, I have to ask something I should [00:18:30] have asked at the beginning. Is this allowed? Can we invade a foreign country because we don't like their ideals? I know we have done it many a time under various justifications and names, but is this in line with international law?


Dan Cassino: No. Absolutely not. International law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia is supposed to say that you can't intervene in other countries without a casus belli. Um, but we look, we're at this point we're a very powerful country. And that [00:19:00] means international law doesn't really apply to us.


Nick Capodice: And I'm going to come back to that point because it's a big one. But the US continued to involve itself with affairs in the Americas, most notably in Panama in the 1980s.


Dan Cassino: And the arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1989 on drug trafficking charges, which looks very much like recent events. But in that case, we send the Marines. We invade and occupy Panama for a month while we're looking for the guy. So there's lots of times where we're still saying the Marines, but not nearly as much as we were earlier, because we don't really need to [00:19:30] as much as we did before, because we're making sure the governments that in South America are relatively friendly to us.


Speaker10: Multiple explosions and low flying aircraft were seen in Caracas in the early hours of Saturday morning. Maduro's government immediately accused the US of an imperialist attack on civilian and military installations.


Hannah McCarthy: We did an episode a few weeks back on what happened in Venezuela on January 3rd, 2026. We've got a link to that in the show notes. If anyone wants the big picture on the history leading up to the capture of Nicolas Maduro, but I will [00:20:00] just share right here. Donald Trump cited the Monroe Doctrine specifically in justifying the invasion of Venezuela.


Speaker1: The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot.


Dan Cassino: President Trump was very clear about the Monroe Doctrine, as President Trump often does. He talked about as if no one had ever heard of it before. He said, this is no doctrine. It's very big right now. Um, people forgot about it. They're not gonna forget about it again. So, yeah, he absolutely cites it as part of the justification for this.


Speaker1: Under our new national security strategy, American [00:20:30] dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.


Nick Capodice: The doctrine was explicitly called out in Trump's National security Strategy, released in 2025, which announced a quote unquote Trump Corollary, which was to quote, reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere. End quote. The Trump Corollary has been referred to by the Trump administration as the Donroe doctrine. [00:21:00]


Speaker1: They now call it the Donroe document. I don't know, it's, uh, Monroe Doctrine.


Nick Capodice: And it was not just used to justify the Venezuela invasion, but the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed acquisition of the Panama Canal, the blowing up of boats in the Caribbean, and also which we're going to have to get to in a future episode as things unfold. I don't even know how to refer to it. The explicit intended taking of Greenland.


Speaker1: And I'm [00:21:30] a man. And by the way, I'm a fan of Denmark, too, I have to tell you. And and, you know, they've been very nice to me. Uh, I'm a big fan, but, you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land. Uh, we had lots of boats go there also.


Hannah McCarthy: Can we get back to what Dan said about international law? That the Monroe Doctrine is not applicable under international law. Because under international law, we do not invade unless [00:22:00] someone threatens or provokes us, or unless that country asks us to. How do we square that? What happens when we ignore international law?


Dan Cassino: This is reflects a very 18th century understanding, a pre-modern understanding of international law. You know, this is, you know, the Greeks during the Peloponnesian War, those who can do and those who can't suffer. I mean, we have power so we can do whatever the heck we want. And this is not the way the modern, rule oriented [00:22:30] post 1945, uh, world system is supposed to work. You have to remember. So in 1945. Right? America, we are the dominant power on earth. Everyone else has been blown to smithereens, partially by us. And what we do, We've got this hegemonic moment where we're the only ones with the nuclear bombs, the atom bombs, like we have everything. And we could use that to become the global hegemon. But instead, what we do is we say, all right, we are going to establish all these international organizations like the UN and all these other things that are going to regulate [00:23:00] trade and regulate international relations. And then we're going to give ourselves a privileged position within those organizations. But everyone gets a voice, and that way everyone will buy in to America being the leader of the world.


Dan Cassino: And we'll be able to maintain this kind of global dominance for much, much longer if we just try and do basically everything we've got. The atom bomb and you don't. Well, in ten years everyone's gonna have an atom bomb, so it's not going to work. But we can build these organizations. Yeah. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the you [00:23:30] know, the UN, we can build these organizations and that'll extend that hegemony for much, much longer because we'll get everyone to buy into it. And so when we go ahead and abandon, really the rules we set up to deal with exactly this kind of thing. We abandoned those rules. We are giving permission to other people to abandon those rules as well. And that's really troubling, because one thing that's made the world safer in the last 80 years has been this rules oriented, you know, norms based, international organization system. [00:24:00] And when we get rid of that, that causes problems and doesn't cause problems just for other people, causes problems for us.


Nick Capodice: That is the Monroe Doctrine today on Civics 101. This episode is made by me Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Marina Henke is our producer and Rebecca LaVoy, our executive producer. Music. In this episode from The Usual Suspects, Epidemic Sound, blue Dot sessions, [00:24:30] and the tremendous Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.




 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

How does asylum work? And what has changed?

On this episode, we’re talking about the history and evolution of United States’ refugee and asylum policy. We have been a country of exclusion for about as long as we’ve projected the image of a democratic refuge. We talk about what it actually takes to secure refugee or asylum status in the U.S. and how that gargantuan task has been made so much more difficult, if not impossible for some, under the second Trump Administration.

This episode features Georgianna Pisano-Goetz, Esq..


Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] On December 2nd of 2025, US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memorandum, the subject A Hold and Review of all pending asylum [00:00:10] applications in all USCIS benefit applications filed by aliens from high risk countries.

Archival: [00:00:17] There's a temporary halt for people coming in from [00:00:20] countries like Afghanistan. And in a cable obtained by the New York Times, the State Department has issued orders to the embassy.

Archival: [00:00:26] Asylum decisions are being halted. This means any asylum seekers attempting [00:00:30] to flee persecution in their country. They'll now be not be granted access into the U.S..

Archival: [00:00:35] He's also promising to expel millions of immigrants already here, revoking their legal status.

Archival: [00:00:39] Wednesday's [00:00:40] attack by an alleged Afghan national President Trump is calling for a stricter crackdown on U.S. immigration.

President Trump: [00:00:45] These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain. [00:00:50] And from where they came from, they got nothing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:57] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:59] I'm Nick [00:01:00] Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:01] And today, per usual, I am trying to figure out what is going on. So we're going to be talking about the history and evolution of United States refugee [00:01:10] and asylum policy. We have been a country of exclusion for about as long as we have projected the image of a democratic refuge. We'll talk about what it actually [00:01:20] takes to secure refugee or asylum status in the US, and how that gargantuan task has been made so much more difficult, if not impossible, for some [00:01:30] under the second Trump administration. Stay tuned. Today [00:01:50] on Civics 101, we are covering refugee and asylum policy in the United States, namely what those terms mean, what it takes to achieve that status, [00:02:00] and how far out of reach this has all become in the past year. And to get there, per usual, I spoke with someone who knows a lot more than I do.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:02:09] My name is Georgi [00:02:10] Pisano Goetz. I am a practicing immigration attorney down in Texas, and I'm also an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:18] So if Georgie is a practicing [00:02:20] immigration lawyer, does that mean she actually works with asylum seekers?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:25] Yeah. But before we get to the speaking part, Nick, do you know what asylum [00:02:30] means?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:31] Generally, it is when something or someone keeps you safe from something else or [00:02:40] somewhere else.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:42] That's a start.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:02:42] So when students are coming, uh, registering for a class in asylum law, what they're learning about is the protection that the [00:02:50] US and other signatories to the Refugee Convention offer to individuals who are fleeing their home countries from persecution. So they're learning what protections are available to individuals [00:03:00] who have suffered an extreme level of harm in their home country, to the extent that they no longer feel safe remaining there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:06] So those are the basics. Someone has experienced harm [00:03:10] where they are and they want out. And the United States has a process for that.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:03:15] Ostensibly, we actually derive it from something called non-refoulement, [00:03:20] which is a French word that I'm definitely butchering. Uh, but it means no return. And so it just means that it's a commitment that if an individual is fleeing a country where they're being harmed, [00:03:30] usually their country of origin, that the nations that are a party to this agreement refuse to return that individual to their home country. Asylum goes one [00:03:40] step further and gives them a path to citizenship and some other benefits within the country that they choose to resettle in.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:46] All right. And before we sink our teeth into what that actually looks like, [00:03:50] or I guess looked like will maybe look like again in the United States. Hannah, can we do the briefest of histories here? Because Georgie mentioned [00:04:00] the US signing a convention, which is in this case an international agreement. But from what I know about the immigration system in the United States, [00:04:10] we must have been a little late to the international part of the game.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:14] That we were. Nick, do you want to remind the people of your bona fides?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:17] I do, uh, so I worked at the [00:04:20] Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side of Manhattan for about nine years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:23] I have been there only once, and it made my archive. Nancy Drew mystery obsessed heart sing. I cannot recommend it enough.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:29] Me [00:04:30] either. Highest recommendation possible. While I was working there, I learned a ton about immigration. And for the purposes of this episode, I learned how the United States has responded to [00:04:40] foreigners during and after global disaster. Which is which is over and over again. We walked back the whole tired, huddled [00:04:50] masses thing. During World War One, we created a literacy test. We banned anyone, quote, likely to become a public [00:05:00] charge, end quote, which is one of a long list of what the United States thinks makes for a good immigrant or a bad immigrant. And we created a quote unquote, barred [00:05:10] zone, which expanded on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and banned people from almost all of Asia from immigrating to the United States. This [00:05:20] new act of 1917 was passed by Congress. Woodrow Wilson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:28] Which is not to say that Wilson was an [00:05:30] open borders kind of guy.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:31] Oh absolutely not. Wilson was totally down with race based exclusion, and very wary of anyone who might just be an anarchist, [00:05:40] socialist or pacifist.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:42] Hello, Red scare number one.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:44] All right. And then, 1921, Warren G. Harding signed the Emergency Quota [00:05:50] Act, which was the first time that the United States had a formula for how many people from what nations would be allowed to emigrate to the United States. We call this now the [00:06:00] quota system, and this got even more restrictive in 1924 when America passed the big one, the Johnson-reed act. This act drastically [00:06:10] lowered the quota numbers, in effect stopping immigration from places like, for example, where my grandparents came from, from Italy, but also from Eastern Europe, other [00:06:20] parts of Asia, etc..

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:21] That was the same year that we created the Border Patrol, by the way.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:24] Yeah. Now getting us back to that refugee convention that Georgie mentioned, because [00:06:30] I know in 1948, after World War Two, we passed the Displaced Persons Act, which sounds like we are opening things up to refugees, but [00:06:40] was actually super restrictive, especially for Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:46] So much so that when Harry Truman signed it into law, he called it, quote, wholly inconsistent [00:06:50] with the American sense of justice, unquote. Because to your point, this act was specifically discriminatory against Jewish displaced persons, despite [00:07:00] the United States having been a key Allied force in World War Two. Key to the downfall of the Nazis, and to the liberation of many of those displaced peoples [00:07:10] from concentration camps. You can't go home. But you sure can't come here. So, Nick, what do you think the United States did when the United Nations [00:07:20] introduced the 1951 refugee conventions, defining the term refugee and laying out refugee rights and standards for international protection. [00:07:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:07:31] We said nope.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:32] We said nope. We did not sign it. We wanted to be in charge of our own policies, especially after World War two. Now, do [00:07:40] you happen to know when we finally did sign on to an international refugee agreement.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:45] That I do not?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:47] 1968, one year after [00:07:50] the UN came up with a revised refugee protocol. The old one was pretty much about European refugees following World War two. The new one took those restrictions away. [00:08:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:08:00] So this one was more broad and we agreed to it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:04] Well, Nick, it was the Cold War. We had already begun to change our approach to admit refugees fleeing communist [00:08:10] oppression in Europe and the Middle East. Then Hungary, then Cuba. Now, to be clear, we still had restrictions, but we were projecting an image. We wanted the United [00:08:20] States to be seen as the leader in the protection of democracy and human rights by agreeing to the 1967 UN protocol. According to then President Lyndon B Johnson, [00:08:30] we would be helping the whole world to accept and stick to those humane standards.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:37] And how does that all square with the Vietnam War?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:39] Well, yeah, [00:08:40] this is, in fact during the Vietnam War, but I would not so much try to square that despite the humane standards thing, the United States military [00:08:50] committed atrocious human rights violations in Vietnam. We were both a cause of the refugee crisis that followed the Vietnam War, and we created a path [00:09:00] for hundreds of thousands of those refugees to resettle in the United States. Contradictions abound here, Nick. Okay. Finally, in 1980, [00:09:10] Congress passed the Refugee Act. This is what gave us the law to abide by that international protocol and codified our refugee [00:09:20] policy.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:21] So smooth sailing after there, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:25] I'll get to that after the break. We're [00:09:40] back. We're talking about refugees and asylees today. Before the break, we crash course covered how we ended up with a refugee and [00:09:50] asylum process here in the United States that is also tied to an international approach to refugees and asylum. And before we get into the processes, there are two [00:10:00] things that you have to keep in mind. One, a lot of what we are about to discuss is currently, as of the publishing of this episode, [00:10:10] suspended. Two even if it weren't.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:10:14] It depends on where you bring your claim. It depends on the country you're coming from. It depends on what the current situation in the country is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:19] Again, [00:10:20] this is Georgie Pizano, a practicing immigration attorney and adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:10:26] It depends on who's in charge of DHS. It depends on the attorney in the [00:10:30] room with you. It depends on your client. So it would really depend.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:34] I'm just going to kind of tie all this together, Hannah and Hazard that this [00:10:40] whole refugee and asylum thing depends on factors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:46] Sure does. And I should say right off the bat, I'm not going to be able to give you the precise [00:10:50] process for any one individual to become a refugee or an asylee because so much goes into the United States decision to grant someone refugee or asylum status, or I [00:11:00] should say in many cases, so much depended. But we will get into that in a bit. Before we can get to asylum, we first should go through the refugee [00:11:10] process.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:11:11] So if you're seeking asylum, you need to show that you meet the legal definition of a refugee, which we see as someone who's fleeing their country because [00:11:20] they have or will suffer harm, rising to the level of persecution on account of a protected ground and those protected grounds. Race, religion, nationality, membership [00:11:30] in a particular social group.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:31] All right. This we laid out before the break. Basically, you've got to be in some kind of specific, provable form of harm's way to [00:11:40] be considered a refugee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:42] That's right. And even so, I mean, even if it is definitely true that if you were sent back to your country of origin, you will be in some kind [00:11:50] of danger. It is still really difficult to achieve refugee or asylum status in the United States. Remember how Georgie talked about [00:12:00] the principle of non-refoulement? Please forgive me, French speakers. It is the big part of international refugee and asylum law. The thing that prohibits countries from [00:12:10] forcibly returning someone to the place where they face danger or persecution. Well, people are really fouled. This is a complex and difficult [00:12:20] process, but there are processes. And Georgie talked about the two basic pathways.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:12:28] Outside of the US and inside the US. [00:12:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:32] If you're outside the US and want to come here as a refugee, or at least this is how it used to go, you could submit an application to the [00:12:40] United States Refugee Admissions Program. Before doing that, though, you generally need a referral.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:46] From whom?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:46] From the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, or [00:12:50] from a United States embassy, or from some other non-governmental organization.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:55] So some higher power has to know about you and agree that you are, in [00:13:00] fact, a refugee before the United States will decide whether they agree that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:07] And you almost always need to already have left your country of [00:13:10] origin unless the US president makes a special authorization.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:14] This already sounds both difficult and immensely complicated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:19] None of [00:13:20] what we're going to talk about today is easy, but what I am describing is probably the easiest of what we are going to talk about. So let's say you get the referral. [00:13:30]

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:13:30] You apply abroad, you go through a vetting process and then you enter the US as a refugee.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:34] Already I'm going to assume that the vetting process is fairly involved.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:39] There is a pre-interview, [00:13:40] a prescreening biographic checks, biometric checks, another interview, a security check, medical exams, making sure you have an agency to sponsor you in the United States. And [00:13:50] then even after you have arrived in the United States, Customs and Border Protection makes the final call on letting you in as a refugee. But then once [00:14:00] you're in, you are a resettled refugee. You can legally work immediately, and you actually must apply for a permanent residency, aka green [00:14:10] card, one year after arriving in the US as a refugee.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:14] Hang on, you don't have to apply for asylum if you go through that process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:18] Nope.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] But [00:14:20] I thought, George, you said you had to meet the legal definition of refugee in order to apply for asylum.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:26] Oh, and you do. And that is another process entirely. [00:14:30] So we just talked about applying for refugee status from outside of the US.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:14:35] Whereas if you are inside the United States or appearing at the border, you then apply [00:14:40] for asylum and you can apply to USCIS. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is considered an affirmative application. Or you can apply [00:14:50] defensively because you've already been placed in court proceedings and you're defending against deportation by saying that you need asylum because you have a fear of returning to your home country. This is a defensive [00:15:00] application.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:00] You can apply for asylum from inside the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:04] Actually, you must be either inside the United States or at a port of entry, like [00:15:10] an airport or border crossing to do so.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:12] And let's say you're already in the country. Does it matter how you got there?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:20] There [00:15:20] are so many. It depends for that one, like the kind of visa you have, or maybe you never had a visa, or your visa is expired [00:15:30] and on and on. Very broadly speaking, if you are in removal proceedings, as in the government is trying to remove you [00:15:40] from this country, you are going to apply for asylum defensively, like in defense of removal, in defense of deportation. If you are [00:15:50] not in removal proceedings, you apply affirmatively. Generally, you have to do this within a year of arriving in the United States. That is something [00:16:00] called a statutory bar.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:02] I think I got it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:03] Well, you see, the thing about asylum and refugee law is that you might think you got it, but you could be wrong.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:16:09] Do you have to have a [00:16:10] lawyer? No. Technically, the process is not built to require a lawyer. Right. You should be able to request asylum in the country you're arriving in, and not need to pay someone thousands [00:16:20] of dollars to represent you in that process. However, is it easier with a lawyer? Absolutely.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:26] More so than any other episode. Nick. This one had me on a research [00:16:30] tear because I just kept thinking, well, what about this situation? Or this one or this one? There are so many factors. There are so many situations. If you [00:16:40] go to USCIS, gov, it is a bevy of you may do this, you must do this, have this form, do this. By this time. There are exceptions to this. This may not apply to you. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. [00:16:50] So yeah, you know, a lawyer helps, but there's a part of that process that ostensibly should not require a lawyer. [00:17:00]

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:17:00] Which is the affirmative application, which if we want to think of something as being better or worse or easier or harder, the affirmative application is going to be easier. It's not an adversarial process. [00:17:10] You truly do not need an attorney there because there's no prosecutor, you know, grilling you. There's it's not an adversarial process. You're not being tested, so to speak. [00:17:20] So you can apply you file the form, um, the form requires some biographical information from you. It asks you certain questions about harm you've experienced in the past, other countries [00:17:30] you've traveled through. If you've returned to the country, you're claiming harm from those types of things. You typically need to provide some evidence. However, your personal [00:17:40] credible testimony can be sufficient to prove your claim, but it is always helpful to provide evidence letters from people that witnessed the harm you experienced. Identification [00:17:50] certainly documents. If you're applying as a family to prove that you are a family that is related to each other. And then country conditions evidence.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:57] So that is the basic affirmative process. [00:18:00] You're in the country, you apply at the right time. You go through the system and you are either awarded asylum or you're not.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:06] And if you're not.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:08] Well, you're probably going to be referred [00:18:10] to immigration court and go through a defensive asylum process, which is also where many asylum seekers end up when they arrive at the border of the US. So [00:18:20] let's pivot to that. What does that defensive process look like? It's something like this. You show up at the border and you say you are afraid to return to your home. You fear [00:18:30] persecution. You fear perhaps torture. An agent is going to interview you.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:18:35] So there are a couple of different interview stages.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:18:37] There's one that you have to pass to [00:18:40] be placed into immigration proceedings. That usually is happening if you're arriving at the border. And that's the credible fear interview.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:46] Is credible fear different from proving that you're a refugee?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:52] It [00:18:50] is. It actually has a lower bar. That agent is just going to decide whether there is a significant possibility that [00:19:00] an asylum seeker might actually get asylum. From there, you're probably going to end up in immigration court, which means, okay, maybe you could get asylum, but [00:19:10] you are also now defending yourself from removal, hence the term defensive process.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:19:16] The similar sort of process at the courts is that you file your form. [00:19:20] You definitely need an attorney. You don't have to have one. But I would highly recommend having one because there is a prosecutor. You're filing the same sort of evidence, but maybe a little bit [00:19:30] more because you're anticipating the adversarial approach. You do not have an interview, have a hearing where you provide testimony and there's a direct examination, there's a cross-examination. [00:19:40] The attorney from the Department of Homeland Security is asking you about any inconsistencies in your case. The immigration judge is asking you about any inconsistencies in your case or [00:19:50] anything really they see fit to ask you about because asylum is discretionary. So those are the interviews. That's what you are required to do is provide [00:20:00] this form, provide some evidence to support your claims, and then speak on those claims.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:06] If you're defending yourself from removal, does that mean you're [00:20:10] being detained by the government at that point?

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:20:13] Within the courts.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:20:13] We have two processes. One is non detained. You're living at home. You go to your court proceedings, it proceeds, the other [00:20:20] is detained. You're in a detention center. You go to court via video conference and your proceedings move much faster because you're in a detained setting. Any number of other things also happen [00:20:30] in the detained setting. Like I said, sometimes it takes place over video conference. Your ability to communicate over video conference varies. Your access to counsel is much harder to get a hold of somebody from a detention center [00:20:40] for someone to visit you in a detention center, obviously, detention centers are in rural areas. They're in different states. It just really makes it very difficult. [00:20:50] You can ask to be released on bond, which functions similar to a criminal bond. You prove to the court that you're not a danger and you're not a flight risk. The court releases you. You are now in the [00:21:00] non detained proceedings.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:01] There have been a lot of changes to this whole process, Anna, and as you mentioned at the beginning of the episode, a lot of what you're talking [00:21:10] about is currently moot for a whole lot of people.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:13] What we are currently.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:14] Seeing over the past year is a movement towards detaining every single person [00:21:20] who is in court proceedings, rendering them ineligible for bond, whether or not they are truly ineligible for bond is a legal issue that is being taken up in the federal district court. [00:21:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:31] I'm going to get a little more into what is going on right now in just a bit, but I do just want to add that there are so many different things [00:21:40] that can go or were going into this process, and so much of them have to do with whether you know about them, like [00:21:50] finding a lawyer.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:51] If you're arriving at the border, you very rarely have an attorney. And there are a couple of different things that can happen. If you are placed in court proceedings, the judge should give you an opportunity [00:22:00] to find an attorney. However, what we're seeing is more and more constraints on that initial entry point. And so individuals are not necessarily [00:22:10] going to court proceedings. They don't necessarily understand their rights at any given point. And, you know, there are certainly individuals who are asylum seekers, who speak English, who have a certain level of education. [00:22:20] But there are also huge groups of individuals who do not have an education, do not speak English, do not speak a language that a border officer might speak like an indigenous language [00:22:30] from Guatemala comes up on the southern border quite a bit. Many indigenous languages, not just one. And so the idea that they then know what their rights are and know to [00:22:40] contact an attorney is slim to none. They're mostly, you know, fleeing from something very serious. And then, uh, anticipating that the country will provide a system [00:22:50] for them to enter into.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:51] Just one point of note here. Speaking English is not a requirement to be granted refugee status. And as you may know, before [00:23:00] March of 2025, the United States didn't even have English as an official language. But going back to the border, even crossing at the correct location is [00:23:10] more complicated than it may seem.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:23:12] It's very important in the United States that you arrive at a port of entry. So like an airport or also physically, there are bridges along [00:23:20] the southern border and probably the northern border as well, although I have not worked at the northern border. And so it is very important to your case process whether or not you entered with inspection or [00:23:30] without inspection. And that means you saw a Border Patrol agent, which you saw at the port of entry. However, if you've lived in another country and you've ever crossed a border, did [00:23:40] it look anything like the United States border? Was there any, you know, clear delineation? Was there a clear office that you had to go to? You know, a lot of people arrive and have no understanding [00:23:50] that they've quote unquote, entered without inspection because they just know that they need to cross the border. And once they cross the border, they will be eligible to apply for asylum.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:01] These [00:24:00] are things that I had not really considered, Hannah, that it's one thing to go through this complicated process. It's quite another to know anything at all [00:24:10] about this process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:12] And as Georgie told me again and again, it is so totally dependent on your individual case. But [00:24:20] let's say you do actually get awarded asylum. An incredibly difficult thing to do.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:24:26] If you get asylum status, you're then an Asylee and an Asylee [00:24:30] can apply for their green card after one year. Um, and then after you have your green card for five years, you can apply for citizenship. So you get this path. And asylees typically have access to [00:24:40] some benefits. The government partners with non-profits to provide sort of resettlement assistance in the country. Um, however, we're seeing that really shrink, [00:24:50] because that has to do with a private public partnership between the government and the nonprofits. So we're seeing a lot of the resettlement agencies shrink. And so then no one's there to provide [00:25:00] the asylee benefits. However, they are technically entitled to them. And once you have Asylee status, you can be eligible for other forms of social benefits. And certainly once you get your green card, you're eligible for [00:25:10] benefits by benefits.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:11] I should just say Georgie means things like healthcare, social security, child care, benefits, supplemental nutrition assistance. There's also [00:25:20] work authorization, education benefits, travel flexibility like making it easier to enter or exit the United States, and protection from deportation if you follow US [00:25:30] law. I should also point out that green card holders from certain nations are now having their status reviewed, and we will get into that. But generally, why [00:25:40] is all of this so much further out of reach for so many people? Let's dig in after the break.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:05] We [00:26:00] are back here on Civics 101. We've been talking about refugee and asylum seekers vis [00:26:10] a vis the United States. And Hannah, just before the break, you said you were going to finally bring us up to speed on what's going on today in terms of asylum seekers and [00:26:20] refugees.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:21] I did here's Georgie Pizano again.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:26:23] This is certainly a shift away from protection on every front, right, making it harder. People cannot apply [00:26:30] from abroad, making it harder for people to apply at the border, making it harder for people to apply within the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:36] So what is actually happening to people who are trying to [00:26:40] flee their home country and become a resettled refugee, or become an asylee in the United States?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:46] As far as those who apply abroad, the process we described [00:26:50] as incredibly difficult and yet easier than other processes.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:26:53] One of the first presidential proclamations, executive orders, was to end the US Refugee Admissions Program, which was [00:27:00] where you apply for asylum abroad and enters a refugee. So it's not surprising that if the administration is closing the valve abroad, that they're trying to close the valve domestically [00:27:10] as well.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:11] One of the first executive orders, meaning like a year ago.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:15] That's right. Trump first suspended refugee admissions full stop, then [00:27:20] announced the administration would be prioritizing white South Africans for refugee admission, who Trump says face racial persecution in their homeland. South Africa, by the way, denies [00:27:30] this. Trump also lowered the refugee ceiling in terms of how many people would be accepted every year, from 125,000 to 7500. [00:27:40]

Nick Capodice: [00:27:40] Wow. So very few refugees comparatively, and mostly white South Africans, correct?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:48] This also meant that many, though not all, [00:27:50] people who have spent years having their refugee applications processed have now been, at least for now, stranded without a process. The USCIS [00:28:00] has also announced that it will rereview previously reviewed cases of refugees admitted to the United States between January 2021 and February [00:28:10] 2025.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:12] As in people who already went through the whole process that you laid out earlier.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:16] Yeah, we're talking about the people who succeeded. People [00:28:20] who are in the United States legally, who went through the very detailed and very in-depth refugee vetting process, which can take up to three years by some estimations. [00:28:30] The memo announcing this new policy claimed that Biden era vetting was insufficient and led to national security concerns. Five days [00:28:40] after this memo was circulated, two National Guard soldiers were shot by an Afghan national who had come to the United States under a special Biden era resettlement program. [00:28:50] The shooting was then cited in the December policy memo that halted USCIS asylum applications and cited high risk countries, including Afghanistan. [00:29:00]

Archival: [00:29:01] For families who believed their future here was settled, certainty has now shifted to fear.

Archival: [00:29:07] I had a client just just asked the other day for a case that we just [00:29:10] filed. Like, does that mean that they're going to be out of status? Like, is that going to mean that they can be picked up? You know, there's all kinds of fears around that.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:18] Okay. What happened with the [00:29:20] asylum seeking process? Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:22] Okay. Us Citizenship and Immigration Services, aka USCIS. What I keep talking about has paused the decision making process for [00:29:30] all affirmative asylum applications, regardless of your country of origin. Trump has also issued a pause on all immigration applications, including asylum, from nearly [00:29:40] 40 different countries.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:29:42] Uscis had said that they will not process any applications for asylum or any form of benefit from those countries. You can still apply and the USCIS [00:29:50] cannot, as far as I know, cannot reject your application. They have to accept it if it's properly filed. However, they just won't do anything with it. Like you're not going to get [00:30:00] an interview. There's not going to be a process. That's. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:30:02] And Hannah, you said affirmative applications have been paused. What about the defensive applications?

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:30:09] Any applications [00:30:10] before USCIS have been paused, however. What is going forward before the immigration courts has not been paused. So anybody applying for asylum before an immigration judge is still being processed. [00:30:20]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:20] At the southern border? Agents are also currently engaging in something that has been referred to as metering.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:30:26] Metering is just about controlling the access to territory. [00:30:30] So like I said, you're only eligible to apply for asylum in the United States when you have entered the United States. From a cynical point of view, it's a way to prevent people from entering the United States and barring [00:30:40] them from applying for asylum. From a less cynical point of view, it's a way to control the flow of people at the southern border that it's just too many. We don't have enough people [00:30:50] to process them and to hear their asylum claims and put them into the proper process. Uh, and so we need to control how many people cross the border at a certain point. Um, we saw it under Trump [00:31:00] 1.0, where at certain stretches of the southern border, they were saying turning people away. This is the turn back policy, which is sort of hand in hand with the metering turn back from the border and saying, you need [00:31:10] to come back a different day. We've filled our quota. And then it was sort of haphazard. They maybe had handwritten lists of who could come back, who had an appointment later. There were multiple days [00:31:20] that they didn't accept anyone who didn't have documents to cross into.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:25] Georgie explained that this is something that shifted a little bit during the Biden administration with the [00:31:30] CPB one app, something that migrants could use to schedule an appointment. That was unsurprisingly short lived.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:31:37] And now we're back to a little bit of metering. Well, I guess no [00:31:40] metering at all, because no one's being allowed to request asylum at the southern border under Trump 2.0.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:45] All right, Hannah, I also have to ask about arrests and detentions. There have been [00:31:50] so many cases of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka Ice, arresting people before or after their asylum hearings. What [00:32:00] is that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:01] Yeah. So this is something that has prompted a lot of public outcry and resulted in people showing up both inside and outside of federal [00:32:10] immigration courthouses to show their support for non-citizens and to protest the presence of Ice agents. To be clear, Ice can arrest and detain asylum [00:32:20] seekers. The targets of these arrests and detentions are ostensibly people who Ice suspects are subject to removal from the United States for various [00:32:30] reasons. Now, some states, like New York, have laws that would generally require a warrant from a judge for an Ice agent to arrest an asylum seeker on their way [00:32:40] to, at or leaving court. Ice has also made, quote, collateral arrests of people suspected of violating immigration law, regardless of whether or not they are the initial [00:32:50] target. Ice also has limited ability to arrest and detain U.S. citizens if they are determined to be interfering with an arrest, assaulting an Ice agent, or [00:33:00] despite citizenship suspected of being in the United States illegally. This is ostensibly how Ice has arrested and detained US citizens, green card holders [00:33:10] and other people in the country legally. Ice agents have dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot American citizens recently, killing one Renee Nicole [00:33:20] Good in Minneapolis on January 7th, 2026. There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against Ice for various reasons, including detention and deportation policies. [00:33:30] Now, in terms of what is going on with asylum seekers and their cases today, I can tell you that detention is more likely if your court case has ended [00:33:40] or been terminated.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:33:41] Certainly, we saw a couple months ago that people were showing up to court in DHS was moving to terminate their cases.

Nick Capodice: [00:33:48] So the Department of Homeland Security was [00:33:50] actually requesting that those cases be terminated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:33:53] Right. You'd have DHS attorney move to dismiss the case. And Georgie told me that at least in [00:34:00] the past, this could actually be a good thing, a way to turn around and send an affirmative asylum application to USCIS.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:34:08] Sometimes termination can seem like [00:34:10] the best case scenario because you want to go through the affirmative process. However, several months ago, when DHS was terminating these cases, it was to place people in expedited removal. And I don't know [00:34:20] of any list. However, we did see that DHS had internal guidance that expedited removal would apply to anyone who had been in the US for less than two years, and so they were [00:34:30] targeting cases that had just started or were in preliminary proceedings. I should say two years is preliminary, right? Immigration court takes a long time unless you're in a detained [00:34:40] setting. So they were terminating the cases which the non-citizen and maybe their attorney, if they had one, was like, well, great. Like then we can pursue some other opportunities. But it was to put them in this expedited removal [00:34:50] and really limit their access to process, limit their access to an immigration judge.

Nick Capodice: [00:34:56] Expedited removal, meaning trying [00:35:00] to get them out of the country as soon as possible, right? Well, while we're on the subject, Hannah, I've heard of asylum seekers being sent to other countries. [00:35:10] Like, not the country they're fleeing from, but a third country. Is that real? Is that happening?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:17] It is. It is done through what is called [00:35:20] an asylum cooperative agreement. Us law does provide for these agreements, provided that an asylum seeker is safe in that third country and has access to a full and fair [00:35:30] asylum process. Now, for a long time, Canada was the only country with which we had such an agreement. We now, according to reports, have those agreements with nations [00:35:40] such as Uganda, Honduras and Ecuador.

Nick Capodice: [00:35:43] Which are, to my understanding, countries from which some people flee to seek asylum in the United States. [00:35:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:50] They are indeed. Now, in case you're wondering, there are plenty of lawsuits pertaining to so much of what we just talked about. There is so much that remains to be seen, [00:36:00] and there is so much that we did not talk about today, so many other kinds of immigrations of situations for refugees and asylees, so many new developments [00:36:10] all the time. But for now, I think the big takeaway here is that the path is narrow and getting [00:36:20] narrower.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:36:21] Everything is shrinking. We see that over the years since 1950 that the US moves towards protection or away from protection. [00:36:30] Right. And that's the way that the law shifts in the immigration space in the United States. This is certainly a shift away from protection on every front.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:36:51] That [00:36:50] does it for this episode. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our producer is Marina Henke. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. [00:37:00] Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you are seeking more information on asylum, refugee or immigration services in the United States, you [00:37:10] can find some basic information at USCIS.gov. But of course, many of those processes are suspended or halted at the moment. There are also many, [00:37:20] many resources available on the websites of many, many law firms and services available in states around the country. Just do a quick search online with the state that you're in [00:37:30] and what exactly you need help understanding. Because there is a lot more than went into this episode. You can find a lot more Civics 101, including every episode we have ever made at our website, [00:37:40] Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

What's happening with Venezuela?

Sometimes, we just have to make a "101" episode of Civics 101. That is the case this week, in the wake of the arrest of Venezuela's sitting president by the United States. So, what's happening with Venezuela, Maduro, and the Trump administration's plan to "run" that country?

Listen:

Read the transcript:

Hannah McCarthy: Two days ago I woke up and texted our boss, Rebecca Lavoie, asking if she wouldn’t mind if I swapped out our originally planned episode for something else. She said yes, so I wrote this. Civics 101 was not designed to be a news-responsive show, and it will continue to be the place you can turn for the basics of American democracy, laws and systems, whether they’re in the headlines or not. But we also believe it’s also our responsibility to help people understand what is happening RIGHT NOW. So. Hi, Nick

Nick Capodice: Ohhhh hello. Heads down, thumbs up.

Hannah McCarthy: I’m Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice: I’m Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Civics 101. And this is your guide to what is going on vis-a-vis America/Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro and President Donald Trump’s plan. Or at least what we know of it. We are going VERY 101 with this one, because that is why we EXIST. So first, Nick, what just happened in Venezuela?

Nick Capodice: Well, on January 3rd the United States military conducted a “large-scale strike” as they’re calling it. In Caracas, the capital of the Venezuela. As of this point Venezuela is saying that 40 people were killed, including military and civilians. And the U.S. military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They put them on a plane and brought them to New York. And I know there are federal charges against them.

Hannah McCarthy: Yup. So anyone wondering what’s going on here?

Nick Capodice: I am. Me. 

Hannah McCarthy: I’m going to do my best. Stay tuned.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok. Before we can talk about what JUST happened in Venezuela and what is supposedly going on and what ELSE looks like it’s going on, I think we need to establish something very basic. Venezuela. What do you know about it, Nick?

Nick Capodice: So it’s at the very northern tip of South America, I know that. Next to Colombia. And I know they got a lottttttta oil.

Hannah McCarthy: They sure do, they actually have the MOST. The most oil of any country on earth. As far as we know. 

Nick Capodice: And I know that Donald Trump says the Venezuelan government has been purposefully sending a lot of drugs into America. 

Hannah McCarthy: That is also what the federal indictment against President Maduro says. AKA the thing that the United States is using as justification for having captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and bringing them to the United States. What else do you know?

Nick Capodice: Uh. Well, like you said, the President of Venezuela is Nicolas Maduro. I know that people call him a dictator even though the Venezuelan government is technically a constitutional republic. Like it’s got three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. And I guess the last big thing that comes to mind is Chavez? 

Hannah McCarthy: Oh yeah. Hugo Chavez sure does come to mind. Actually, it might make sense to start there. Who was Chavez?

Nick Capodice: Also someone people call a dictator? He died in… 2013. Former president of Venezuela.

Hannah McCarthy: And right off the bat I’m also going to tell you that there are also people who call Chavez a hero. And to get to Maduro, and not all that much to drugs, to be honest, we have to talk about Chavez. And we have to talk about oil. Those oil reserves you mentioned, the same oil President Trump is now promising to “take back,” those made Venezuela one of the wealthiest nations on the planet for a while. Their economy was almost entirely dependent on oil.

Nick Capodice: Did you know that’s called a petrostate? Or a petrocracy? The world wants oil, a country has oil, a LOT of oil, oil becomes their main thing and that causes problems.

Hannah McCarthy: It sure does. Power concentrates, corruption spreads. But before things went bad, Venezuela had all this oil, giant oil corporations like Exxon, Mobile and Chevron were down there playing a major role. And then the country went through decades of attempting to nationalize the oil industry.

Nick Capodice: Meaning what?

Hannah McCarthy: Meaning, essentially, Venezuela wanted to take control of operations and keep as much oil money in the country as possible. But also there was a little problem in the 1970s and 80s re: oil. Any guesses?

Nick Capodice: OH yeah. The energy crisis! Long lines at the gas station in that hazy 1970s sunshine. Which was caused by a lot of things. Like war.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, if you want an episode on the energy crisis drop us a line cause it’s not happening right now. But Venezuela was going through a lot of political changes, the government wanted to nationalize oil operations to gain economic sovereignty aka be the ones in charge of the stuff that makes the money. So this combination of taking control and super low oil prices by the 1980s leaves Venezuela in a pickle. Also, taking over the oil industry left them in BIG TIME debt to American oil companies who either got the heck out of dodge or struggled to negotiate new contracts AND who wanted to be recouped for their lost oil pipelines and rigs. That is a debt Venezuela has struggled to pay off. Also the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuelan oil, which I am also not going to get into, but which made it harder to sell that oil. And make money. To pay back debt.

Nick Capodice: Ok, take a breath and hang on. When Trump says Venezuela STOLE our oil… is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: No. Venezuela owns its own resources. Foreign companies negotiate contracts with the government in order to have oil operations there. Or, if the government and the industry is in turmoil, they fail to negotiate contracts. Which is what happened to U.S. companies in the past.

Nick Capodice: Uh huh. Ok. And the political turmoil part?

Hannah McCarthy: To the PoliSci and history professors listening, I am sorry for this broad brush. The broadest brush I got. This is my broad Chavez brush. The oil stuff was a mess, the government was blamed, the economy was in trouble, people were hungry, there were riots, a military officer named Hugo Chavez attempts a coup. He goes to jail. He gains a lot of support. He’s let out of jail and runs for president, promises to end poverty, corruption and the old political system. He wins.

Nick Capodice: And he stayed in power for a long time, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Chavez was elected in 1998. And uh oh, my brush is getting broader. Chavez says the people are in charge and have ultimate power. Like more power than the legislature and more power than the Supreme Court. And BASICALLY, Nick, BASICALLY, there is a constitutional convention with delegates who are almost entirely Chavez supporters. They change the constitution. They fire and replace the Supreme Court. The legislature loses its power.

Nick Capodice: Is this why people call Chavez a dictator?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, this is why people call Chavez a hero and this is – BROAD brush – why people call Chavez a dictator. Also, Nick, the way people in the U.S. talk about Chavez is not necessarily the way that everyone talks about Chavez. The new Constitution was chock full of human rights, supports for impoverished people, supports for workers. It also made the president very powerful. And Chavez was in power for a long time. And while he was in power, the economy got worse and worse. There was a lot of corruption. There were, as it turns out, a lot of human rights violations. The oil industry was a mess. And then in 2013 he died and Nicolas Madura stepped up.

Nick Capodice: Oh, ok, we’re on to Maduro?

Hannah McCarthy: We’re on to Maduro. Rolling right along here, because, again, what on earth is going on right now, right? That’s the point here. Chavez wanted Maduro to be his successor. Maduro wins a tight election, so tight that his opponent calls for a recount, that recount does NOT happen. 

Nick Capodice: Uh oh.

Hannah McCarthy: Maduro is not Chavez. Chavez was beloved by many. He was super charismatic. He led a sweeping regime change and told the people that THEY were in charge. Maduro inherited a collapsing economy and opposition to his leadership. He cracked down on protests and killed people. In 2018 he was declared the president again in an unopposed election, but a lot of countries refused to recognize that as legit. Maduro jailed or exiled opponents. In 2024 he claimed to have won again, despite evidence that his opponent, Edmundo Gonzalez had won. More political prisoners ended up jailed.

Nick Capodice: But all of this, Hannah, is not why the United States captured Nicolas Maduro. All of the political oppression.

Hannah McCarthy: No. Maduro was captured, after months of the United States conducting strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking boats and killing over a hundred people, on the grounds of that federal indictment we mentioned earlier. That indictment accuses Maduro, his wife and four others, of narco-terrorism.

Nick Capodice: Which, I mean, I can guess, but for the people in the back?

Hannah McCarthy: So Maduro is accused of flooding the U.S. with thousands of tons of cocaine to get himself and others rich and acquiring and using things like machine guns to do it.

Nick Capodice: Is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, there’s gonna be a trial, isn’t there. There’s the truth and then there’s the American legal system. Experts say that Venezuela plays a minor role in trafficking drugs that reach the U.S.. Most of the trafficked drugs come from countries like Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala or Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia. 

Nick Capodice: But we didn’t capture the leaders of those countries.

Hannah McCarthy: Nope, we captured Maduro. 

Nick Capodice: Why were we allowed to do that, exactly?

Hannah McCarthy: “Allowed” is tricky, because U.S. intervention of this kind has long been scrutinized, criticized and challenged. There are people saying this is an illegal kidnapping. We have, by the way, captured foreign leaders in the past. A lot of people are comparing this one to the U.S. capture of Manuel Noriega, you remember that one?

Nick Capodice: That’s Panama, right? Under George H.W.?

Hannah McCarthy: That’s the one. Noriega was a military dictator in Panama, he was accused of drug trafficking, among other things. The United States captured him in 1989. He was tried and he was imprisoned. The difference THERE is that Panama had declared itself at war with the U.S. prior to Noriega’s capture. Prior to Maduro’s capture, the Venezuelan president told a journalist that he wanted to work with the U.S. on drug policy and oil agreements.

Nick Capodice: And just real quick, back to this “allowed” thing. How is it that the U.S. can just go in and grab someone? There’s gotta be some kinda something under that.

Hannah McCarthy: Well first I’ll tell you that this is almost certainly a violation of international law. There’s a United Nations treaty that says you can’t use military force against other countries without that country’s permission, the U.N.’s permission or in self-defense, none of which appear to apply here. BUT U.S. presidents have claimed they have constitutional powers that, basically, float above or outside of national law. That’s how Nopriega’s capture was justified. I’ll also tell you that Trump is saying that the Monroe Doctrine is one of the reasons the U.S. can do this. Although he is now calling it the “Don-roe” Doctrine.

Nick Capodice: Yeah I think I heard that one. The Monroe Doctrine I sort of know. It was the 1800s.

Hannah McCarthy: 1823.

Nick Capodice: And it was basically a deal that said the U.S. will stay out of European conflict and issues if Europe stayed away from countries in the Western hemisphere.

Hannah McCarthy: Which, by the way, European nations initially were like, ok, whatever Monroe. When France put an emperor in Mexico in the 1860s, the U.S. was like get outta there and eventually they did. THEN Theodore Roosevelt comes in with the Roosevelt Corollary.
Nick Capodice: The what now.

Hannah McCarthy: Roosevelt thought the Monroe Doctrine should also mean we can go in and get involved in unstable Latin American countries. Which, ultimately, is how the U.S. scored the Panama Canal Zone. And this principle of using the Monroe Doctrine to help out American interests – and I don’t mean interests like keeping drugs out of the country – is the way that a lot of experts are viewing what is going on with Venezuela right now.

Nick Capodice: I mean, ya know. Oil DID become a talking point pretty much right away. 

Hannah McCarthy: Something to keep in mind here is that “Western Hemisphere” part of the Monroe Doctrine. 

Hannah McCarthy: Trump is now suggesting that Colombia needs to watch its back. 

Hannah McCarthy: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is suggesting that Cuba is in play as well.

Hannah McCarthy: The Cuban government, by the way, has issued a statement telling all nations of the region to “remain alert, as the threat hangs over all.”

Nick Capodice: Well. Ok. We’ll just keep watching, I suppose. And because we are not clairvoyants all we can do right now is talk about Venezuela, right? Because I have one really big question.

Hannah McCarthy: Go for it.

Nick Capodice: President Trump said the U.S. is going to run it. Run the country of Venezuela. Explain that one to me.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, Nick, I can’t, really. And Trump hasn’t either. What he has said is that, if Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, “does what we want” we won’t have to send U.S. troops into Venezuela to help run the country.

Nick Capodice: Ok, but Hannah, run the country.

Hannah McCarthy: I know. Experts don’t see a legal basis for it. The phrase “violation of international law” is coming up a LOT lately. As of now, Marco Rubio seems to be the one who will be helping the “run the country” thing if necessary. Trump said Rubio talked to Vice President Rodriguez and that she was “willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” Rodriguez, meanwhile, is saying the U.S. illegally kidnapped Maduro and said Venezuela will never again be the colony of another empire.

Nick Capodice: And the oil thing seems to be THE thing here. Trump talked a LOT about oil.

Hannah McCarthy: Trump has said U.S. oil companies are going to go and spend billions of dollars to revitalize what is currently a crumbling oil industry in Venezuela. And then get reimbursed and make tons and tons of oil money. How that is supposed to happen without a stable government or the ability to guarantee employee safety – that we don’t know. That and a lot else.

Nick Capodice: Right, well. You did your best, McCarthy. I think we gotta leave it there for now.

Hannah McCarthy: I think we gotta. Would you call all that a 101?

Nick Capodice: Definitely not.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. I know. Maybe 201?

Nick Capodice: Eh.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.