JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: children at the border.
Amid a growing outcry to end the separation of immigrant families, President Trump defends
his policy.
Then I sit down with a top South Korean diplomat, Lim Sung-nam, to talk about what's next in
the negotiations to denuclearize North Korea.
And Portland, Oregon, one of the most gentrified cities in America, we ask if a housing program
can make a dent in the massive displacement of black families.
LESLIE GOODLOW, Portland Housing Bureau: They want to live in the same neighborhood that
their grandmother lived in.
They want to live in the same neighborhood where their barbershop or their beauty salon
still is.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: There's been more tough talk from the Trump administration today on separating
children and parents who illegally enter the U.S. and possibly some of those seeking asylum.
But the outcry against the policy is growing on both sides of the political aisle.
White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor begins our coverage.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The United States will not be a migrant camp
and it will not be a refugee holding facility.
Won't be.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump began the day defiant, pushing back on criticism over
his administration's family separation policy.
In New Orleans, the secretary of homeland security, Kirstjen Nielsen, also rejected
the backlash.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security: There has been much outcry, consternation
and, frankly, misinformation from many in the press, in Congress and advocacy groups
over the last few weeks that we at DHS are intentionally doing things that are un-humanitarian,
that are cruel, immoral and disgraceful.
We are doing none of those things.
We are enforcing the laws passed by Congress.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But the outcry grows with every new report.
Border Patrol released video shot over the weekend of a facility in McAllen, Texas.
It showed people held in fenced cages, and children lying on mats covered in foil blankets.
Outside, Democratic politicians joined with protesters.
SEN.
JEFF MERKLEY (D), Oregon: What we're doing as a nation is inflicting enormous harm on
these kids and on the parents.
WOMAN: This is not the Texas I know.
This is not the America that I grew up in.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Federal officials say about 2,000 children were separated in April and
May alone.
And, increasingly, Republicans are joining in expressing outrage.
In The Washington Post last night, former first lady Laura Bush called the policy cruel
and immoral and said, "It breaks my heart."
She went on, "These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps
of World War II."
Current first lady Melania Trump said in a statement that she -- quote -- "hates to see
children separated from their families."
Some congressional Republicans are also objecting, including, on Sunday, Maine Senator Susan
Collins.
SEN.
SUSAN COLLINS (R), Maine: What the administration has decided to do is to separate children
from their parents to try to send a message that if you cross the border with children,
your children are going to be ripped away from you.
That's traumatizing to the children.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Collins, along with fellow Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona,
wrote to the Trump administration requesting clarification on the asylum process and separations.
And in a lengthy Facebook post, Nebraska's Republican Senator Ben Sasse defended efforts
to curtail illegal immigration.
But he said of the separations: "This is wrong.
Americans do not take children hostage, period."
Today, though, President Trump again falsely blamed Democrats for his administration's
policy.
DONALD TRUMP: If the Democrats would sit down, instead of obstructing, we could have something
done very quickly.
Good for the children, good for the country, good for the world.
We're stuck with these horrible laws.
They're horrible laws.
What's happening is so sad, is so sad.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The roots of the current fervor go back to at least March of last year.
Then DHS Secretary John Kelly said then family separation might be a way to curtail border
crossings.
JOHN KELLY, White House Chief of Staff: In order to deter more movement along this terribly
dangerous network, I am considering exactly that.
They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.
JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. Attorney General: Yes, we are pursing a zero tolerance prosecution
policy at the border.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced zero tolerance,
prosecuting anyone illegally crossing the border.
As a result, accompanying children are separated from their parents.
In New Orleans today, Secretary Nielsen argued it all stems from a 2015 court settlement.
®MD+IT¯®MD-IT¯KIRSTJEN NIELSEN: We cannot detain children with their parents, so we
must either release both the parents and the children -- this is the historic get out of
jail free practice of the previous administration -- or the adult and minor will be separated
as a result of prosecuting the adult.
Those are the only two options.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Opponents insist blaming the policy on Democrats or existing law or
the courts is an outright lie.
Today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the separation policy leaves a -- quote
-- "dark stain on our nation."
REP.
NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), House Minority Leader: This is not an immigration issue.
This is a humanitarian issue.
It's about the children.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: She visited a detention center near the border in California.
The debate promises to keep growing, with President Trump set to meet with House Republicans
tomorrow, as they grapple over immigration bills.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And Yamiche Alcindor joins me now, along with Lisa Desjardins, who's
been covering congressional action on immigration.
Welcome to both of you.
So, Yamiche, what are the politics, what is the political thinking behind the White House
policy here?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the policy of separating families is both a political calculation and
a cultural calculation.
On the political side, President Trump thinks that this is something that is actually going
to play well with Republicans.
There are polls that were just released from the Quinnipiac University that said the majority
of Republicans, 55 to 35 percent, agree with the policy of separating families.
That same poll found that the majority of Americans, some 66 percent of Americans overall
without political affiliations, that they don't back this.
But at the end of the day, this is about President Trump saying, you elected me to take a hard-line
stance on immigration policies and that is what I am doing.
CNN found these internal documents, they obtained them, that said that the administration actually
made a calculation that said that if they separated families, that this would deter
other families from coming to the border.
Unfortunately, we have seen an uptick in illegal border crossings, so that has not actually
happened.
JUDY WOODRUFF: As you mentioned, Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, had that
briefing late this afternoon.
So, Lisa, the White House, what the department -- the secretary of homeland security was
saying today is that this is in Congress' court, Congress should be doing something.
So, tell us, what is the state of play?
Two bills now before the House of Representatives.
LISA DESJARDINS: Well, in one ways, you would think the planets were aligning, because this
is immigration week in the House of Representatives.
However, right at this moment, Republicans are trying to figure out what is in their
compromise bill.
They are tweaking language in the Republican compromise that they say would deal with this
issue of family separation.
How they would deal with it is, they would have these families be detained together.
However, Judy, that bill right now doesn't look like it's going to pass.
That could change.
So the Senate is taking action.
We're seeing multiple senators, Ted Cruz just moments ago, unveiling their own stand-alone
legislation to deal with this issue.
And we're going to be watching over the next couple of days as to what those different
issues do.
But at the same time, Judy, we see a difference in that we are seeing some longtime senators
today, Republicans, come out with some strong statements about this.
Senator Pat Roberts, a statement to the "NewsHour," he said: "While I firmly support enforcing
our immigration laws, I am against using parental separation as a deterrent to illegal immigration.
My concern is the protection of the children."
That is quite a statement from a very longtime veteran senator.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, at the White House, they are saying the ball is in Congress'
court.
But do they have a plan B?
Do they have -- are they talking about an any alternative here themselves?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: That is the key question.
Secretary Nielsen briefed from the White House today, which is very rare, because she doesn't
usually come to the White House briefing.
She was questioned about that issue particularly.
She showed no signs of backing down.
I actually went and visited the White House today and talked to some White House officials
about that.
They also say that there are no plans to change this.
That is pretty remarkable, because, as Lisa mentioned, there are a number of Republicans,
of course, former first lady Barbara -- Laura Bush, and all these other people coming out
basically saying that they are very bothered by this.
But when you go back to the culture portion of this, President Trump is casting this as
saying that this is the future of the America at stake here, that he doesn't want the United
States to be a migrant camp.
He wants this to be a country where the future is American.
So -- and what he ran on was America first.
So, in this way, he's basically following the line the administration has had.
Secretary -- Chief of Staff John Kelly, he once said that a lot of immigrants cannot
assimilate well here, that they don't have skills.
So when you look back at kind of the course of this administration, they have been talking
about immigrants in a way that some people say is really criminalizing them and really
looks at them in a way that does not look at them as Americans or potential Americans.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Lisa, back on Congress, you have been talking to a lot of House members
today.
The actions on the Republican side, where are you seeing the divisions there?
LISA DESJARDINS: This goes to another cultural issue, religion in the Republican Party and
the Christian right.
There is a real divide.
We have seen some Christian leaders come out, Reverend Graham, for example, come out and
say they have a real problem with this.
But there are also some in the pro-life/anti-abortion community who are having a tough time with
what policy they have.
We were the first to get the statement from the Susan B. Anthony List.
That's a group that is anti-abortion, very well-known.
Let me read you what they decided to come out on this -- with today.
"We are dedicated to protecting the first right," they say "the right to life.
Therefore, we refrain from public comment on immigration and other topics that impact
families."
They are compartmentalizing.
They are saying, we are focused on abortion.
But, at the same time, many in their community say this is harming the families that we're
trying to protect.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, just about 20 seconds left, what does it look like Congress is headed
towards?
LISA DESJARDINS: Here is what no one is saying, Judy.
There is a real problem down the road, because Republican solution to this in Congress is
to detain families together.
Democrats in the Senate will never go for that.
They have different bills that would keep families together, but that would allow them
to go through the process outside of detention.
And I'm worried for this problem, because I don't see how those two sides come together
any time soon.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Conundrum, certainly, at least at this point.
Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you.
We will talk to the former head of the Customs and Border Patrol Agency right after the news
summary.
In the day's other news: The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped definitive rulings on partisan
redistricting.
The justices ruled against Wisconsin Democrats who claimed Republicans gerrymandered state
legislative districts.
The court said the plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to sue.
A second ruling in a case from Maryland went against a preliminary challenge by Republicans
against over a district drawn by Democrats.
The cases now both return to lower courts.
Democrats and Republicans jousted today over the report released last week on the FBI's
probe of Hillary Clinton's e-mails.
It happened at a Senate Judiciary hearing with the Justice Department's inspector general
and the FBI director.
Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy traded arguments over anti-Trump
text messages by FBI investigators.
SEN.
CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), Iowa: If the inspector general had not discovered their anti-Trump
texts, they would still be with Mueller's team.
They would still be investigating the Trump campaign.
Remember these facts every time you hear the press or my friends on the other side of the
aisle claim that this report found no bias.
SEN.
PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont: Irony doesn't begin to describe President Trump and his
allies exploiting this report for partisan gain.
Clearly, some of Mr. Strzok's text messages were inappropriate, but if the FBI were trying
to throw the election to Hillary Clinton, they could not have done a worse job.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The FBI director, Christopher Wray, said again that nothing in the report
impugns the integrity of the bureau as a whole.
In Afghanistan, scores of peace marchers arrived in Kabul today after a nearly 40-day journey.
Many of the activists traveled more than 300 miles by foot, demanding an end to 17 years
of war.
Their calls came a day after the Taliban rejected a government offer to extend a cease-fire.
All of this on the heels of a violent weekend farther east.
In Jalalabad, suicide bombings on Saturday and Sunday killed 55 people.
The newly elected conservative president of Colombia is promising unity after a deeply
polarizing election; 41-year-old Ivan Duque beat out Gustavo Petro, a leftist former guerrilla,
in Sunday's run-off.
Duque celebrated his victory last night in Bogota.
He called again for changing a peace deal with Marxist rebels, but he also talked of
conciliation.
IVAN DUQUE, Colombian President-Elect (through translator): This election is the opportunity
we were waiting for, to turn the page of polarization, the page of grievances.
I do not recognize enemies in Colombia.
I will not govern with hatred, nor will I have hate against any Colombian.
It is about looking to the future for the good of all Colombians.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Duque is the protege of Colombia's former President Alvaro Uribe.
He remains broadly popular, but is also blamed for thousands of civilian deaths during a
campaign against the rebels in the early 2000s.
Back in this country, the trade war of words with China showed no sign of abating.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo charged that Beijing's claims of openness are -- quote
-- "a joke."
In a speech in Detroit, he said China practices predatory economics.
The two nations have announced plans to impose steep, steep tariffs on each other.
Worries about trade tensions kept Wall Street on edge today.
The Dow Jones industrial average lost 103 points to close at 24987.
The Nasdaq added less than a point.
And the S&P 500 slipped five.
The man who has been acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration since October is
retiring.
Robert Patterson told his staff today that it's become increasingly challenging to serve
in a fill- in capacity.
Also today, President Trump nominated Kathy Kraninger to run the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
She is currently an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget.
The World Health Organization now says that excessive video game playing qualifies as
a mental health condition.
The U.N. agency reported today on gaming disorder, believed to affect 2 to 3 percent of players.
The agency said formally defining the problem will help families and will help health workers.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": the former head of Border Protection on the ongoing immigration
debate; the South Korean view of President Trump's dealings with North Korea; Portland
Oregon, tries to make amends for gentrification; and much more.
We return now to the immigration debate and a rare view from inside the agency tasked
with securing the country's borders.
John Yang has more.
JOHN YANG: Judy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is the nation's largest federal law
enforcement agency.
It handles border security and trade issues, including immigration.
Gil Kerlikowske was the head of Customs and Border Protection under President Obama.
He served from 2014 until January 2017.
He's now a professor at Northeastern University.
And he joins us now.
Mr. Kerlikowske, thanks for joining us.
GIL KERLIKOWSKE, Former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner: Thanks.
JOHN YANG: I want to start with a little bit of audiotape that ProPublica, the nonprofit
journalism organization, got.
They said it was recorded last week inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection detention
facility.
They won't say where.
The woman -- or the person, I should say -- we don't know woman, man -- the person who made
the recording has asked not to be identified.
The person gave it to a civil rights attorney in Texas.
So, let's take a listen to that tape.
(CRYING)
CHILD (through translator): Daddy!
Daddy!
CHILD (through translator): Mommy!
(CRYING)
MAN (through translator): Well, we have an orchestra here, right?
Where are you from?
CHILD (through translator): El Salvador.
CHILD (through translator): Guatemala.
MAN (through translator): Don't cry.
JOHN YANG: As the man who once ran the agency in charge of that facility, how do you react
to that?
What is your reaction to that?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, those things are absolutely heartbreaking.
And it's heartbreaking, not only to tear these children away from their mothers and fathers,
but I'm very concerned about the effect that it would have on these Border Patrol agents.
I saw them in the toughest of times taking care of, in the summer of 14, 68,000 unaccompanied
children.
And for them to be put in this position is unconscionable also.
JOHN YANG: And that -- the period you were talking about in 2014, when you took over
Customs and Border Protection, there were a lot of unaccompanied children coming across
the border or coming to the border.
Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said that the Obama administration
did what the Trump administration did, separating families.
What is your response to that?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: So, if someone was arrested for some criminal charges, if they were smuggling
drugs also, if they were wanted on warrants, if they are going to be prosecuted, then certainly
the family is going to be separated.
But that number would be absolutely minuscule when you looked at that summer of 2014, with
all of those children and all of those families.
So, keeping them together and then giving them an opportunity to go to a hearing is
the right thing to do, not tearing kids away from their parents.
JOHN YANG: When you say go to a hearing, now, the administration, the Trump administration,
is saying that they are going to prosecute everyone who comes into the country illegally.
Is that the reason they're separating them?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: So, there is a group of United States attorneys that represent the border
U.S. attorneys, and I would meet with them regularly.
None of the U.S. attorneys, from San Diego across to the -- to Texas, would even begin
to think that they would have enough resources to prosecute now up to 50,000 people a month.
So, to say that we're doing this just because they're going to be prosecuted, you know,
I clearly agree with what a lot of other people have said.
This is just being done to try and be some what of a deterrent effect.
But, quite frankly, I can't see it being a very effective deterrent effect, because we
have been down that road before.
JOHN YANG: And your policy wasn't to prosecute everyone.
You would only prosecute those who had other charges against them, were carrying drugs?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, Customs and Border Protection has a narrow mission.
And they are not the prosecutor, and they are not part of the Department of Justice.
So, if they had cases where people were wanted on warrants, smuggling drugs, maybe even being
human traffickers, that would be up to the Department of Justice.
But the mere misdemeanor of crossing the border, particularly with a family, is not going to
result in anyone that has the resources to effectively criminally prosecute.
JOHN YANG: Secretary Nielsen also said a lot of this was being done because they couldn't
prove a family relationship, that they were worried about human smugglers, they were worried
about protecting the children, they were doing this to protect the children.
What is your response?
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: So, I sat down in those centers many, many times, not only McAllen, but Brownsville
and others places along the border.
Quite frankly, I think we're giving a lot of credit to the smarts and the sophistication,
if that is what is going on.
These experienced Border Patrol agents, myself, having a long career in law enforcement, we
never even began to detect that these young people, these families coming across were
doing it for some nefarious purpose of being able to get into the country by using children.
I mean, it was very clear these are family units.
JOHN YANG: And she also said that the current law encourages families to put children in
the hands of human smugglers.
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, I think the potential of coming across the border and making a claim
of credible fear, making an asylum claim, and having your family or your children with
you can be enhanced somewhat by that.
I don't see it, though, as the cause.
I see it as the fact that people are leaving these three countries for a variety of reasons,
not just crime, but also economic reasons, also.
You know, they're coming with their families.
JOHN YANG: She also said that if someone wanted to legitimately claim asylum, they should
go to a port of entry, and not just cross the border at any place.
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, ports of entry could be a little more helpful.
What I saw, certainly, and I think what we see in many places, whether it's in San Ysidro
or places in McAllen, Texas, ports of entry are incredibly busy.
And, remember, it's not just people coming through.
It is all of the cargo that we depend on, all of the trade that we depend on that is
also coming through the port.
JOHN YANG: Gil Kerlikowske, a former commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, thanks so
much.
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: It has been a week since President Trump met with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un.
They signed a document that laid out broad principles in which the United States would
provide security guarantees to North Korea, and North Korea committed to eliminating its
nuclear weapons.
But the agreement didn't have a timeline or provide any specific details of what comes
next.
So, what are the next steps?
For that, we turn to South Korea's first vice minister of foreign affairs, Lim Sung-nam.
He's a veteran diplomat.
He has dealt extensively with North Korea.
Minister Lim, thank you very much for being here.
So, your president, Mr. Moon, called this summit a great victory.
He said it is a huge step forward.
And yet a number of American officials who have dealt with North Korea in the past said
they didn't see very much in the way of specifics.
They don't really understand that North Korea has made a serious commitment to denuclearize.
What makes your president so positive?
LIM SUNG-NAM, South Korean First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs: Well, you should first
think about the history of the relationship between the DPRK and the United States.
For more than 70 years, there has been no summit meeting between the two countries.
And for more than 70 years, there has not been any kind of meaningful agreement between
the two countries at the level of the heads of state.
And now that the Singapore declaration has set declaration set out big principles for
going ahead with denuclearization, I think the two leaders have laid a meaningful foundation
on which to further build the process of denuclearization.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Are there tangible signs that you have seen that tell you North Korea is
serious about carrying through with this?
I ask because the statement they issued at the end of the summit was, what, one-and-a-half-pages
long.
And some of the diplomatic language in there was the same language that had been in previous
statements.
So what was -- what is new?
What is tangible?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, for instance, they had been taking unilateral actions, such as shutting
down their nuclear testing sites.
And they vowed to dismantle the key rocket engine testing site as well.
And they also released three American hostages without getting any kind of a concessions
from the U.S. side.
So these actions do support the sincerity of the North Koreans in going ahead with denuclearization
down the road.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So what do you see as the next steps?
What is going to happen next?
The North Koreans put out a statement after the summit.
They describe what they see unfolding next.
What do you see?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, if you look at carefully the Singapore document, the two leaders agreed
to fully and speedily implement the agreement.
And they also agreed on the need for the speedy follow-up negotiations.
So, I'm sure and I do hope that, in the very near future, there will be follow-up negotiations
at the working level to implement the Singapore agreement.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Are there working level meetings going on now?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Right now, I don't think so.
But, in the near future, I do believe there will be some meetings.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you -- will South Korea be involved in those?
Are those just between North Korea and the U.S.?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Those will be the working level negotiations between the United States and
the DPRK, but we also have the inter-Korean talks with Pyongyang.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The leader of North Korea has indicated that he is prepared to denuclearize,
at least in general terms.
President Trump is saying the nuclear threat is gone, it's behind us.
Do you have that confidence?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, of course, their nuclear weapons and facilities still exist.
But if you compare the situation with the situation about a year ago, then I think the
changes have been very positive.
About a year ago, we were talking about the sheer number of the missile launches by the
DPRK, and we were afraid that there could be another nuclear testing in North Korea.
But now we are talking about how we can go ahead with the dialogue.
And, as claimed by Winston Churchill, jaw, jaw is better war, war.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you trust the North Korean leader, Chairman Kim, to go ahead with denuclearization?
You have confidence he will do that?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, we believe so, and we hope so.
And, always, a new history can be made only with optimistic assumptions.
JUDY WOODRUFF: We know -- we saw after the summit President Trump spoke about the suspension
of what he called war games, joint military exercises between the United States and your
country, and South Korea.
He said, those are very expensive.
He said, that's something I have wanted to do away with for a long time.
Is your country, is your government comfortable with that?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, both Seoul and Washington are on the same page regarding the important
issues like the joint military exercises.
Having said that, the U.S. was also very clear that, as far as the talks with North Korea
go in good faith, we can afford not to have the kind of the military exercises we used
to have in the past.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Were you surprised?
Was your government -- did your government know ahead of time that President Trump was
going to declare that these war games were stopping?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Once again, I would like to emphasize that our two countries have been
on the same page on the important issue like that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you weren't surprised?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, I wasn't surprised.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you also about security guarantees from the U.S. going forward.
What else do you see that the U.S. could do for the North to make it more possible for
the North to go ahead with denuclearization?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, at the end of the day, I suspect that the normalization of the relationship
between Pyongyang and Washington might be one way of providing Pyongyang with a kind
of security guarantee.
But on the way to the kind of security guarantee which is -- we might be able to provide for
Pyongyang, I think the two Koreas and the U.S. might be able to declare that war is
over on the Korean Peninsula.
That could be kind of the interim step on which we can further build the permanent peace
regime on the Korean Peninsula.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that should be done before North Korea dismantles its nuclear
program?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, those kind of details can be further discussed between South Korea
and the United States, as well as between the United States and North Korea.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean -- you're saying it is a detail, but that is a pretty major detail,
isn't it, whether there is peace, whether the war has actually come to an end, the conflict?
LIM SUNG-NAM: Well, I think what I am talking about is a political declaration.
I'm not talking about the -- kind of the legal agreement for creating peace regime.
But, at one point, we might be able to benefit from the kind of the political declaration
regarding the security situation on the Korean Peninsula.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think reunification could come in your lifetime?
LIM SUNG-NAM: I hope and believe so.
Once again, only with the optimistic visions, we might be able to turn a dream into reality.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And one other thing.
What you have learned about Chairman Kim in these most recent round of negotiations that
you didn't already know about him?
What is he -- how is he presenting himself as a leader, and what do you think his priorities
are?
LIM SUNG-NAM: I think he is a leader different from the previous leaders of North Korea.
He was bold enough to come to the meeting with the U.S. president face to face.
And I believe he has made a strategic decision to get out of the self-imposed isolation.
And, plus, in the past, North Korea was talking about the (INAUDIBLE) which is kind of two
-- dual-track policy of pursuing the nuclear and missile capabilities, as well as the economic
prosperity.
But they declared in April this year that their policy focus is now on economic progress.
So, with all those changes, I believe he's coming to the meeting with President Trump
with a determination to go ahead with denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
JUDY WOODRUFF: This potentially historic moment.
LIM SUNG-NAM: Yes, of course.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The foreign minister, Vice Foreign Minister Lim Sung-nam, we thank you
very much.
LIM SUNG-NAM: Thank you for having me, Judy.
Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": the political stakes of the White House policy to separate
families at the border; and remembering the life of one of the "NewsHour"'s own.
Portland, Oregon, is known as a hub of liberal and progressive thought.
It's also one of the most gentrified big cities in the country.
Now an ambitious new program, which some experts are calling the first of its kind, aims to
atone for the repeated displacement of thousands of African-American families from North and
Northeast Portland.
In a city with soaring home prices and a steady pattern of gentrification, can it make a difference?
Amna Nawaz and producer Mike Fritz recently traveled to Portland to see firsthand how
it's all playing out.
AMNA NAWAZ: For Giovanni Battles And Ashley Rollins, this part of Portland has always
felt like home.
You were just surrounded by family growing up?
GIOVANNI BATTLES, Portland, Oregon: Oh, that's it, yes.
Everyone knew somebody.
You would drive by my grandmother's any day, it would be five to 10 people, cousins, everybody
out there.
You would stop and turn into an impromptu barbecue.
AMNA NAWAZ: Ashley was raised by her mother and grandparents, trailblazers in their time.
ASHLEY ROLLINS, Portland, Oregon: She was the first woman, African-American woman judge
in Portland.
And then my grandfather, he was actually a Tuskegee Airman.
AMNA NAWAZ: Ashley and Giovanni's roots here may run deep, but when the former high school
sweethearts looked for a place to raise their sons, the neighborhood they once called home
was out of reach.
ASHLEY ROLLINS: We went to high school in this neighborhood.
This is what feels like home and comfortable for us, so our hope was to live here, but
things have just, like, changed drastically.
AMNA NAWAZ: That change traces back to the displacement of thousands of African-American
families from North and Northeast Portland since the 1960s, forced out by waves of city
development and gentrification.
Portland's policies that led to that exodus are deeply rooted in the state's past, according
to Walidah Imarisha, who studies Oregon's racial history,
WALIDAH IMARISHA, Expert on Black History in Oregon: The Oregon territory passed laws
like the black exclusion law in 1844 that outlawed black people from living in Oregon.
It also included the lash law that said black people would be publicly whipped every six
months up to 39 lashes until they left the state.
AMNA NAWAZ: The few who stayed in Portland were mostly relegated to the North and Northeast,
by 1960 home to more than 80 percent of the city's black population.
For years, the area saw little to no investment, ignored by lenders and developers.
Property values plummeted.
But, by the 1970s, a series of city projects, including a basketball arena, a new highway,
and a proposed hospital expansion took over huge sections of land, razing hundreds of
houses in the way.
Private money poured in.
So did new homeowners who could afford to live here.
Many existing residents were priced out.
Fast-forward and the neighborhood that was 68 percent black in 1990 was just 28 percent
black by 2010.
WALIDAH IMARISHA: When folks say, well, why aren't there more black people in Oregon,
why aren't there more communities of color in Oregon, it's important to recognize that's
the foundation of it.
AMNA NAWAZ: Today, just 6 percent of all Portland residents are black, and the average home
price in North and Northeast Portland is more than $500,000.
But to Ashley and Giovanni's surprise, the same city that played a role in driving out
so many of their friends and family now stepped in to help them buy their first home through
a preference policy that's been dubbed by many as a right to return.
GIOVANNI BATTLES: I think acknowledging a wrong is done is the first step, and I want
to thank them for the opportunity that we took advantage of.
AMNA NAWAZ: Started in 2015, the program set aside $20 million for current and former residents
of North and Northeast Portland, offering down payment assistance to 65 new homeowners,
more affordable rental units, and home improvement loans to help residents stay in the area.
Families who could prove their grandparents or parents were displaced from these neighborhoods
got priority.
But not everyone wants to return.
GERMAINE FLENTROY, Oregon: I have never walked from 15th to 17th since we left out of this
neighborhood.
This is my first time ever walking this far.
AMNA NAWAZ: These two blocks?
GERMAINE FLENTROY: These two blocks.
I mean, I don't feel welcome here.
AMNA NAWAZ: Germaine Flentroy grew up on this Northeast Portland block.
He left in 2001 as his family's rent spiked and the neighborhood began changing.
GERMAINE FLENTROY: Back then, white people wouldn't come in this neighborhood.
Right?
They wouldn't come in this neighborhood at all.
Then, all of a sudden, you just started seeing like the hipsters, right?
And that's really, really getting to be -- then, all of a sudden, we started seeing community
gardens.
And we were like, what are these people doing?
Why are they so weird?
AMNA NAWAZ: Today, he qualifies for the city's right to return program, but the area, he
says, is no longer home.
GERMAINE FLENTROY: There's nothing here for me.
When they have this program right to return, I still don't understand, what are we returning
to?
LESLIE GOODLOW, Portland Housing Bureau: I talk to people every single day that want
to move back into Northeast Portland.
AMNA NAWAZ: Leslie Goodlow is the Portland Housing Bureau's equity and business operations
manager.
LESLIE GOODLOW: They want to live in the same neighborhood that their grandmother lived
in.
They want to live in the same neighborhood that their church is still in,.
They want to live in the same neighborhood where their barbershop or their beauty salon
still is.
AMNA NAWAZ: But three years in to a five-year plan, Portland's right to return program is
not hitting its marks; 1,000 people applied to buy homes.
The city's goal was to fill 65 slots.
To date, they have only moved in six new homeowners.
Those numbers led Portland's mayor to call the program an abject failure.
LESLIE GOODLOW: Getting a mortgage is not easy.
And if you're only making, you know, $40,000 a year, you can't afford, you know, a $200,000
or $300,000 mortgage.
AMNA NAWAZ: How did you not know that the same people that had been disenfranchised
for so long and moved to the bottom of the priority list for so long wouldn't immediately
be available and ready to make that kind of leap?
LESLIE GOODLOW: So, some people could get ready in six months, and some people might
take three years.
And do we hold a slot for somebody that's three years out, or do we move somebody else
up?
And so that's been the struggle
AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, home prices in Portland continue to rise.
MAXINE FITZPATRICK, Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives Inc.: Property values over the
course of the last 10 to 15 years are up somewhere in the range of 400, 500, 600 percent.
AMNA NAWAZ: Which is why Maxine Fitzpatrick says these rental units could offer the city
some success.
Her nonprofit is working with Portland to build more low-income rentals as part of the
right to the return program.
MAXINE FITZPATRICK: our whole thinking around rental property is that it allows them an
opportunity to stabilize, so they don't have to worry about being uprooted, you know, at
the given will of the landlord.
AMNA NAWAZ: But experts say the key to building wealth is owning a home, and that's where
the program is failing.
LISA BATES, Portland State University: The program very much needs to be retooled and
rebooted to face the realities of the market.
AMNA NAWAZ: Portland State University's Lisa Bates examined the right to return program
earlier this year, and she gives the city credit for putting it in place.
But whether or not it makes a difference, she says, is something the rest of the country
will be watching.
Similar efforts to bring back families with ties to gentrified neighborhoods are now under
way in New York, Philadelphia, Austin, and San Francisco.
LISA BATES: When it comes to a history of racial segregation, of exclusion, of sort
of containment of the African-American community into a very small neighborhood, followed by
the dispersal of those same exact white families with gentrification, it's extremely typical.
This is a very basic story of urban history and urban planning in pretty much every city
in the country.
AMNA NAWAZ: That's a history Cornelius Swart has spent years documenting.
His new film, "Priced Out," tracks the dramatic change in Northeast Portland.
He first moved here in the 1990s.
CORNELIUS SWART, Filmmaker: We have spoken to folks who had said that when the neighborhood
first started gentrified, that first wave, of which I was a part of, folks were conscious
that it was a black neighborhood.
Now, the last five or six years, there's been this erasure of history.
People moving here, they don't even know it used to be a black neighborhood.
GERMAINE FLENTROY: This was my grandmother's house, right?
AMNA NAWAZ: Just across the street there?
GERMAINE FLENTROY: Just across the street.
This is where my -- predominantly, my main family grew up.
AMNA NAWAZ: For Germaine Flentroy, walking these streets today is a reminder of everything
he had to leave behind.
GERMAINE FLENTROY: We feel like this was stolen from us.
Like, we feel angry about it.
At least, me personally, I feel angry about this.
LESLIE GOODLOW: There's no way to make it right.
We're talking about a community that was basically bulldozed.
And we're going to be able to probably bring back maybe 2,000 families if we're lucky.
AMNA NAWAZ: Some people will say Portland had an image problem it was trying to fix.
Is that fair?
LESLIE GOODLOW: Well, that's probably some of it.
But it is a way for the city to demonstrate we recognize what we did.
We want to try to do something.
AMNA NAWAZ: The neighborhood isn't what they remember, but Giovanni and Ashley say they're
now focused on making new memories.
GIOVANNI BATTLES: The best feeling is knowing that we set a foundation for our kids.
Owning a home is the first step.
It's a stepping up in economic class.
And so that's the -- honestly, the best feeling I have is knowing that my kids have something.
AMNA NAWAZ: A first step towards a future, still firmly rooted in their past.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Amna Nawaz in Portland.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That story and more from our series Chasing the Dream.
The series on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.
Back to politics now.
A lot to talk about this Monday.
And for that, we are joined by Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and Stu Rothenberg
of Inside Elections.
Politics Monday.
Welcome to both of you.
The border story, separating families, parents from children.
Amy, first and foremost, this is a human story.
It's about human beings and what is happening in people's lives.
But let's talk about the political consequences of the administration, President Trump doing
this, and the Democratic response.
Right now, what effect do you see this having?
AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Judy, I'm glad that you opened it like that, because
it is actually a political and a human story weaved together.
And that's what makes it even more challenging.
Politically, for Republicans, who are out there -- obviously, they're on the ballot
in 2018.
The president is not.
He made immigration enforcement the centerpiece of his election in 2016.
A lot of Republicans didn't.
And what we're seeing, as I'm watching this unfold throughout the day, the number of Republicans
in Congress who are coming out and saying this isn't OK, we have to stop this policy
of separating children from their parents continues to grow, especially from members
who are in swing districts, who again have a -- might have a tough reelection in 2018.
The head of the National Republican Campaign Committee, Steve Stivers, that tells you something
when he comes out and tells in a tweet, says, I don't like this policy.
So, it seems to me this is an unsustainable situation that Republicans find themselves
in.
The president, if he continues to defend this, Republicans legislatively are not going to
back him up, and politically they are going to distance themselves from this policy, or
at least try to.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see the Republican...
(CROSSTALK)
STUART ROTHENBERG, Inside Elections: Well, I understand why the White House might feel
that it is obligated to push this immigration agenda, that they're playing to the base,
that they promised us this is what they're going to deliver.
What I don't understand is how audio and video of children crying, screaming, photographs
of mothers who have -- children are being taken away, I don't understand how that is
going to play to the Republicans' benefit.
It seems to me, just politically, like a disaster, I was going to say waiting to happen, but
a political disaster and a human disaster, but happening right now.
I mean, it puts Republicans in the awful position of having to defend these acts that look unfeeling.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But do you have the base of the Republican Party -- I listened to Steve
Bannon yesterday on one of the Sunday shows talking about how the president is simply
fulfilling what he said he was going to do.
He is upholding the law.
AMY WALTER: Well, it's interesting.
If you look at the polls that are coming out right now, yes, a majority of the Republicans
say that they support it, but only like 55 percent of Republicans.
This is not a 90 percent Republican issue.
And I think Stu is exactly right.
This idea, I think, that the White House and those around the president have had for a
long time is, if we make the story about all these criminal elements at the border, we
make it about drugs, we make it about MS-13 gangs, then we win, because we make Democrats
have to defend the indefensible.
But the image of children and the audio of children is going to beat all of those other
images nine times out of 10.
And just listening to that audio, to Stu's point, earlier in the show, you could see
this coming up in every campaign ad that goes out in 2018.
It's a situation that I think Republicans are going to have to get...
(CROSSTALK)
STU ROTHENBERG: Judy, I have two thoughts.
One is, the Republicans are still worried about the base.
That tells you something, because the Democrats are working on swing voters and independents...
JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.
STU ROTHENBERG: ... and the people who will decide some of these elections.
And, second of all, when you looked at this Quinnipiac poll in terms of separating children
and parents, it's not only 66 percent of all voters oppose that, but it is 68 percent of
independents, 68 percent of whites with a college degree.
And, as Amy points out, one in three Republicans disagree with what the president and their
party are doing.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Amy, this thinking on the part of the White House that they still
need to focus on the base...
AMY WALTER: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... is that smart?
(CROSSTALK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is that going to take them all the way to victory in November?
AMY WALTER: Exactly.
This is what 2018 is going to show us, Judy.
This is a president who has done everything just for the benefit of the base, and it worked
for him in 2016, when everybody told him it couldn't, because he had to expand the universe,
he was leaving out too many swing voters.
Now he says, well, it worked for me then, it is going to work in 2018.
But when you see where these numbers are not, just on this issue, but -- Stu and I have
been talking about this a lot, just where the swing voters are in this election.
White women who have a college degree.
STU ROTHENBERG: In the suburbs.
AMY WALTER: Just imagine how this issue is going to play with these voters.
If you are trying to lose those voters, you couldn't do worse than this.
STU ROTHENBERG: Here's a prediction.
Donald Trump will do really well with Trump voters in the midterms.
(LAUGHTER)
STU ROTHENBERG: But that's not enough.
AMY WALTER: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's my question.
Is it enough in enough districts?
STU ROTHENBERG: Oh, certainly not.
It might be enough to hold the Senate.
It might be enough to hold North Dakota and West Virginia and Indiana.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That's the question.
STU ROTHENBERG: But it's not going to be enough to hold the House.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Different story.
Supreme Court ruled today -- actually didn't rule.
AMY WALTER: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: They sent it back to the states.
Both Wisconsin, Amy, and Maryland had come forward with these cases challenging redistricting,
gerrymandering.
What does all this mean?
What is the effect longer-term here?
AMY WALTER: I think the longer-term reality is that the Supreme Court is not really interested,
or at least they haven't found the right case to be able to come out and definitively say
this is OK when you are redrawing lines, this is not OK.
Here is the standard that the Supreme Court now endorses.
Instead, we're going to see states do what they do, legislatures do what they do, which
is, they are going to draw district lines.
They may get sued.
It will go to a lower court.
A lower court is going to decide.
And then the lower court's decision is the one in which we move from, rather than the
Supreme Court.
Or I think, more likely, we're going to see these lower court decisions find their way
back up to the Supreme Court.
We may see North Carolina, for example, come out next year, a debate over the North Carolina
lines.
So I think it means we're in a constant flux on this.
But, fundamentally, if you are Democrats, your number one concern right now has to be
winning enough legislative and gubernatorial seats so that, when the next round of redistricting
comes around in 2020, you have the necessary number of members who can draw these lines.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.
My question is, what is the precise political fallout from all this?
STU ROTHENBERG: Well, I think Amy and I and others have been assuming that the lines that
we have now will be the lines that we have in November.
We have been handicapping races based on that.
So I think we don't have to change our analysis.
So the trajectory of the election isn't changed.
If the court had acted and recognized political gerrymandering, that would have caused us
to reassess all these lines.
But, right now, it's -- the way we look at these races yesterday is simply the way we're
going to look at least for the next six months, and maybe for the next 2.5 years.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, does that benefit Republicans more or Democrats?
STU ROTHENBERG: Well, if the court had recognized that there was partisan gerrymandering, it
would have almost certainly helped Democrats in states like Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin,
so it would have probably helped the Democrats, although it would have helped Republicans
in Maryland and Illinois.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, it's kind of a mix.
STU ROTHENBERG: So, depends on which state.
Right?
AMY WALTER: Right.
And I don't think any of this would have occurred before the 2018 elections, because we're so
late in the process.
So, it really would have been looking forward to 2020.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we're always looking ahead, to 2018, to 2020, even beyond.
(LAUGHTER)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Amy Walter, Stu Rothenberg, thank you.
STU ROTHENBERG: Thank you, Judy.
AMY WALTER: You're welcome.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight: remembering the work and life of a longtime correspondent
for "NewsHour."
ELIZABETH BRACKETT, Journalist: And the question people are now asking is, what will the long-term
impact on their community be?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Elizabeth Brackett once said she wouldn't take no for an answer.
And it was a trait that came to define much of her 40-year career in journalism, including
more than 25 years as a special correspondent based in the Midwest for the "NewsHour."
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: These three acres of corn are all that Boyer (ph) has left of the 800
acres he planted this year.
He's completely wiped out.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Whether she was covering the impact of devastating floods in Iowa, the
space shuttle Challenger disaster, or families fleeing after Hurricane Katrina, Elizabeth's
reports stood out in the way she captured the voices of those affected.
WOMAN: We have been walking since yesterday.
We have had people that have been walking for three days.
Everybody's out on the bridge.
Nobody gave us nothing.
We haven't eaten in three days.
JUDY WOODRUFF: She was competitive.
And as one of her producers at the "NewsHour," Merrill Schwerin, put it, "She always pushed
for more, more interviews, more phone calls, more perspective."
Elizabeth wanted to be at the front of a breaking story, as was the case when she covered the
heated battles over an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Three hours after patients had gotten into the clinic, those who had
not been arrested from Operation Rescue were still on the street.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Elizabeth was a true Chicagoan at heart.
She worked for several TV stations, most notably with our colleagues at WTTW for two decades,
where she was a correspondent and host for "Chicago Tonight."
She often focused on education and the deadly toll of gun violence.
But she loved politics as well, and Illinois was a great place to focus on that.
She reported extensively on the downfall of former Governor Rod Blagojevich.
And she wrote a book about it.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The calls for impeachment are growing.
There is now a bill introduced into the Illinois legislature calling for impeachment, in the
House.
JUDY WOODRUFF: She received numerous awards during her career, including national and
regional Emmys, as well as a Peabody Award.
She retired, so to speak, in 2014, but still was reporting 10 stories a year for WTTW.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Well, after all that worry, it didn't rain.
And I really had a great week.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Remarkably, she completed her first triathlon at age 50 and went on to win
five global titles in her age group.
Elizabeth died Sunday after an apparent bicycle accident on the lakefront path in her beloved
hometown of Chicago.
She was 76 years old.
And we are heartbroken.
And, online, we have more remembrances of Elizabeth from producer Merrill Schwerin,
who, together, they worked on dozens of stories.
That and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.
And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.
For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we'll see you soon.