You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Jack Fitzpatrick here from Bloomberg Government, sitting in for Joe Matthew will be back next week plenty to discuss, especially on the Middle East. I'm looking forward in a few minutes to speaking with Hagar Shamali, who led the efforts focused on Syria and Lebanon at the National Security Council back during the Obama administration. We'll get some big picture takeaways on that and some specific information from her. But let's bring in our panel of Bloomberg Politics contributors right now,
Rick Davis and Jeanie she and Zano. I think I have one obvious question on the politics of everything that's happening in the Middle East, and they're basically three points to discuss here. One the explosions in Iran that the latest I've seen in our coverage on the Bloomberg terminal is that at least one hundred and three people in
Iran killed. Also, separately from that, the death of the deputy Pullit Bureau leader of Hamas sala al Aaruri in an explosion in Lebanon, and also the rising tensions in the Red Sea, especially following a report from the Houthi rebels in Yemen saying that they had gone after another ship of French origin. Part of their broad discussions brought broad focus on going after ships that they say have
any connection to Israel. And let's go right now to Hagar Shamali again with experience of the National Security Council and founder of Greenwich Media Strategies. Hagar, really happy to
have someone with your breadth of knowledge here. And as I go through a sort of triumvirate of issues to focus on in the Middle East, my big picture question for you is, to what extent do we look at this as a string of individual incidents or to what extent do we see this as a collective rising of tensions that can itself further tensions further violence in the Middle East. Do you see these as in any way collectively rising tension in the region.
Sure well. So.
One of the things that I always say is that when the storms gather in the Middle East, it rains everywhere. And what I mean by that is that you have numerous terrorist groups. You have a run backed terrorist groups and militants and militias. You also have sunny terrorist groups,
and they take advantage of that instability. Whenever they see that maybe governments are pouring their resources somewhere, that they might be distracted by something or focused on a certain event or source of instability, they take advantage of that and pursue their own efforts to further that instability. And that doesn't mean that it evolves into a larger scale war or that it devolves things into chaos, but that is their goal.
Their goal is to.
Take advantage of that and say, hey, because you've got people not paying attention perhaps or or you know, it almost feels like a free for all. And so then they pursue attacks of this kind. And so when I saw what happened in Iran, right away, it had the markings of a terrorist an attack made by a terrorist group. It has nothing to do with the relationship right now or the state of affairs between Iran and Israel or
Iran in the United States. This is purely a terrorist attack, a terrorist group that took advantage of the situation.
And I want to be clear on that.
The latest reporting we have has not even really vague insinuations yet at this point of who is expected to or suspected to be responsible. Have we gotten any updates? Is there any intelligence on who Iran would suspec at this point? Is it an absolute mystery and pointing fingers is not useful on that front?
Well, no, pointing fingers is certainly not useful.
And it is interesting that Iran has not said anything yet as to what group or who might be behind this. What we have seen in the past is that ISIS has pursued a number of attacks inside Iran. For example, in twenty twenty two they attacked a schiite shrine where fifteen people were killed. And that's in addition to other attacks and so and al Qaida, by the way, still operates in Iran. And the attack that I saw today it bears a lot of the markings of attacks pursued
by ISIS. You've seen them do the same thing in Afghanistan when they've seen groups of people civilians gather for a certain event. Maybe it's a wedding, maybe it's some kind of mourning or procession for a funeral or whatever it might be. They take advantage of that because they see that it's a group of people and they want to maximize the casualties and death that they that they seek.
And so I can't put the finger at Isis, obviously, but I can highlight that this is not new to Iran, that we've seen it before with Isis in particular.
Well, one other point of confusion that I think is an important one as we track broadly everything going on in the Middle East, when we look toward the Red Sea. The news recently from the Houthis Armed Forces spokesman saying that they targeted the CMA CGM tage and the French container shipping company responsible for that saying that vessel did
not suffer any incident. The Houthis had said previously they would focus on ships going through there, either to Israel or with connections to Israel, but there seems to be some vagueness around who exactly that applies to. I'm thinking, from the perspective of companies with ships going through the Red Sea, what is the breadth of who should be concerned they have the Houthis succeeded in any way targeting ships with connections to Israel, or how widespread are the issues there.
So this is this the situation of the Red Sea is very volatile and is and it could it could get worse if the naval coalition that's there now that's led by the United States, the US group together an international navy coalition to combat the threats that are being posed by the Houthis and those aggressive attacks that the Houthis are pursuing against these vessels. Already, you have seen a few weeks ago you saw the Houthy militants succeed in attacking certain vessels. Now, the US has been very
successful at intersecting missiles. Now you've seen this week, for example, Houthi's approached a vessel and then they made an emergency call signal to the United States. The US came with helicopters and sank the three Houthy militant boats. And so what you see is this kind of constant whack.
A mole effort.
And what the Houthis are portrayed are saying here is that while the US here is at the US and the international Navy coalition is succeeding at mitigating this threat and addressing those threats when they arise, meaning when you've got those houthy militant boats approaching vessels or when they lobb rockets or drones or long range cruise missiles wherever they are lobbing them, including at Israel, they've been able
to intercept those. At the same time, you see that the Huthis are not being deterred from pursuing this type of aggression in the Red Sea, which has, as you've noted, real real implications for shipping and for by the way, for global inflation.
Obviously already, just in one.
Week freight rates have increased two point five to four times fold for what is normal quote unquote normal for this time of year. And so this situation is volatile. When that in the International Navy Coalition was created, Marisk had resumed shipping in that area along with other shipping companies, for example, and then this week, because the attacks had continued, they halted they and other shipping companies have halted that shipment, those shipments through the Red Sea and the Swiss Canal
once again. So this is going to remain very volatile unless the US and other partners take a more offensive approach against Uthi militants and remind them that that freedom of navigation is a national security priority.
And can you spell that out a little more, a little more for me, Shamalley, when you say a more offensive approach or exactly what should or would you expect to change in the US military's role in the Red Sea.
That's a great question. So what you're seeing now are kind of tick for tack attacks. You've got the Houthy militants either approaching a vessel with a boat or labbying some kind of rocket, and in those instances, the US and the International Navy coalition they respond to it. So that coalition is not proactively pursuing any kind of offensive air sprichs or other military engagement against the Houthi militants who are based in Yemen and who are funded and armed by Iran.
So it's very much a position.
That's meant to be defensive in nature and to also just not spark something bigger, and that is a risk, and that is something the bidenministration has made very clear. They do not want to spark a regional wide war. They don't want to escalate things further, and so that's why you see when these militant groups, and it's not just in the Red Sea. When you have militant Iran backed militias and terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria pursuing attacks against US bases there, you're also seeing the same
type of response. It's very tit for tat the US is making it clear we're not pursuing aggression, you are, and if you do, we will respond in kind.
So the responses are very proportionate.
But the Huthis are not as armed certainly as the United States. They are nowhere near as strong as all of those countries that make up the Navy Coalition, and so if they wanted to pursue a more offensive position, they could prohable actively go and pursue air strikes against where they see major weapons depots or command centers of the Houthis in Yemen.
And Hagar.
Bigger picture question for you for the Biden administration, which broadly had looked to pivot to Asia, just looking at everything that's been in the news for not only this week, but big picture, it seems very difficult for the Biden administration to really extricate itself from the degree of focus on the Middle East to the extent that they wanted to what position does all of this put the Biden administration in regarding the big picture goals that they have for President Biden's term.
Sure, well, you know, it's funny.
I feel like this is just the story of every administration for the past, for the past and ten to fifteen to twenty years when I was at the National Security Council, I was director for Sarria and Lebanon at the White House under President Obama, and that is and then the whole theme of the pivot to Asia started. It was this sentiment the Arab Spring was raging, we were unable to affect real change, and it was a sentiment that you know, the Middle East was really nothing
but problems between Iraq and the Arab Spring. It was a drain on our resources. We weren't getting anywhere, We had very few partners to work with, and on top of it, we were losing troops. And so it kind of felt like this massive strain and liability for the United States and where our national security interests were waning. And so there was this pivot, the idea of a
pivot to Asia. And every time there was this effort to focus more heavily on Asia, something would rope the United States back into the Middle East, whether it was Iran or whether it was something to do with Israel or Syria for example, isis I mean, all of these major milestones would rope the United States back into the Middle East, and this is a bit of an example
of that. However, I will say that while I understand the the lack of prioritization on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the fact is that you know when you have something like this happened when you had October seven, happened and happened, and what happened afterward that was because not only did Israel take the eye off the ball of the threat
that Hamas posed, but so did the United States. And the US also downgraded pursuing a two state solution because it had seemed it was so difficult and practically impossible to achieve in the two decades prior to that. And so that's when you have things that bubble up and then rope the United States back. But that where I see this becoming an issue for Asia is that if I were president, she and I were watching the United States send its resources to Ukraine and Israel, and to
be very focused on Ukraine and Israel. It doesn't mean that the US is unable to focus on China or other threats in that region. They're not going to take their eye off that ball. They have a huge teams and that is a very marked threat that they know about. But at the same time, if I were president, she and I will watching the negotiations on Capitol Hill and how difficult it is to pass aid packages now for
Ukraine and Israel. Then if I were present, I would think, well, now it might not be such a bad time to pursue some kind of action or maneuver visa the Taiwan, because the US is taken with these other issues. It's an election year and the public is not very supportive of sending these massive aid packages. So that's where I could see things prey this year.
That's an important point and I should sneak in one more quick one with you, Hagar, since we've been leaning on your analysis on Middle Eastern issues. On Iran, you were on balance of power yesterday and made the point that if Iran was going to do something with more force, that might have already happened by then. But of course, big news this morning with the explosion, Does that change your mind? Does that change your thinking about a response
from Iran and the forcefulness of any actions. If you can give me the thirty second version of that one.
No, I still see when I saw today's action. To me, it was just yet another effort on the part of a terrorist group to take advantage of this instability. And you're gonna see the instability grow. I don't mean to diminish it or to diminish the threats that come from the region. It is going to grow further until things in Gaza calm down, and they're not going to calm down until probably February or March. Now that's short in the grand scheme of things, But I still don't see a major.
War, right.
Hagar Shamali, former director for Syria and Lebanon at the National Security Council, now the founder of Greenwich Media Strategies Great Insights. Coming up, we're going to talk about the US Mexico border, a key point of negotiation in Congress with the panel. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
The new Speaker, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House for a couple months now, is heading down to the US Mexico border, not only making the point that the President will have to negotiate with Republicans on border security measures and asylum issues, but seemingly staking out a hard position
going into an election year. It seems that we will hear a lot about the border in twenty twenty four, about three point thirty, Speaker Mike Johnson will do a press conference, but we already know that about sixty House Republicans are down in South Texas by the border, drawing attention to that as ahead of them coming back to
Washington next week in the House of Representatives. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg Government, sitting in for Joe Matthew today, and I'm here with our Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie she and Zano and Rick Davis. Really looking forward to getting your insights on the politics at play, the policies that could come about because this is not just politics. This is an active legislative negotiation as Congress negotiates what they have said would be a combined border security.
And Ukraine aid measure.
Rick, it does not seem that Republicans are changing their position, moderating their position at all. What should we take away from the fact that, well into these negotiations on border issues, you have a large group of House Republicans going down to the border putting a spotlight on the issue. To me, it seems that a sign that is a sign that they are not moderating. But what do you take away from this point of emphasis from the new speaker here?
Yeah, I think the point you make about them not moderating, I think they are kind of the tip of the spear with Republican strategy right now, you know, and taking sixty members, as you mentioned, down to Eagle Pass in the Texas border, one of the most active border crossings in the entire country, is meant to kind of shock the same right here. We've got all these legislative agenda items do here in Washington, and you know, here we got a third of the Republican caucus down on the border.
That gives great high cover to Jim Langford's Republican senator in the set, you know who has been spearheading the talks with Chris Murphy Democrat and Christian Cinema Independent on trying to get a package deal where border security is added to the Ukraine and Israel funding. So those two are working quite in tandem, and I think the more pressure on the administration to come to the table in
a compromise position, the better off you are. So the House is trying to push the outside envelope on policy while it gives some room in the Senate for them to negotiate.
Genie, there's the policy side, the legislative negotiations happening in Congress. Even as they're out there are still a few senators in Washington discussing this. And then there's the politics side. It's twenty twenty four, or it is election year, an election year not only for these House members but for the president. To what degree do you see the hard line Republican stance demanding something on the border as genuinely simply a negotiation on a bill versus Is this about
twenty twenty four? Is this about election day? How do you separate, if at all, the policy and the politics at play here.
Yeah, it is so hard to do. I mean, we do see a real effort on the part as Rick mentioned of Langford of the Democrats and the Independent Christian Cinema Chris Murphy trying to negotiate. But the reality is, if there is a deal to be had, it is simply not enough to get something out of the Senate. Even if they can get sixty senators, You've got to get it through the House. So what I really really wish the President would do is he would call the
House Republicans bluff. He would say, absolutely, let's deal, give them what they want. Can you imagine if he said, we'll give it all to you, we will pass comprehensive immigration reform. They will not buy it because their focus is on using this for political reasons. And of course, as we've been hearing in the last twenty four hours of impeaching Mayorcis the head of Homeland Security, the first time they're going to impeach a cabinet level official since
the late Civil War period. That's their focus. Marjorie Taylor Green said she was promised, and we hear January tenth, they hold their first hearing on that. But I do wish the President would call their bluff and say we should act, give them what they want and see if they bite. I guarantee they won't, and nor will Donald Trump let them.
A gutsy recommendation from Genie. I see the logic there, Rick, I think this all begs the question who is actually in charge? You mentioned James Langford taking the lead on the Republican side in the legislative negotiations. But when it comes to the question of if there is a realistic chance that they can pass something in the House and Senate, is it James Langford we should be looking to, Is
it Mike Johnson? We should be looking to who is the key person who's the most important X factor among Republicans in terms of if something can be enacted?
You know, look, I mean we look at this as a legislative debate right now in Washington. But I would just, you know, as a parenthetical, point out that somebody else who's playing a game on this, and it's an important game and a high risk is Governor Abbott in Texas. He is launched, excuse me, what he calls the Operation Loan Star, and he's putting ten billion dollars to work
on the border, basically usurping federal authority. The federal government is responsible for immigration, and basically what Governor Abbott has said is they've failed in their duty and I'm taking action as a governor. This puts even more heat on Republicans to act in the Senate because the last thing they want is all these governors having you know, a hodgepodge of policies on the border. They want the federal government to act. And even Democrats are looking at this saying,
oh my god, we cannot let this issue slip. As you pointed out early in the segment, Jack, this has become a hot button political issue. It's always been important to border states like Arizona and Georgia, you know, where targeted presidential states. But the reality is more and more Americans are saying that immigration issues are you know, they're number two, right behind the economy, and so everybody's got
something at stake here. I would say, like what Genie suggested, I think Biden's going to have to articulate what deal he's willing to have Democrats accept, because otherwise, if left just to Chris Murphy to cut a deal, he may not get a deal. And the only thing that's bad for Biden is if no deal gets done and then no funding or the border, no funding for Ukraine, no funding for Israel. That would be seen as his greatest legislative failure since his term began.
And Rick, go a little deeper for me on the role of Governor Abbot And can you spell out the motivation there? Is he pushing this so much out of a motivation to put a major national spotlight on the issue of immigration. Is it a particular deal that he wants to see Congress strike? Is it a political spotlight on himself? Explain that power of Governor Abbot for me a little bit more.
Yeah, Jack, all of the above right hit the nail right on the head. I mean, this guy is shipping immigrants all over the country via buses and planes. I don't think there's a single market that hasn't been affected by this, in Democrat run cities all across the country. He has gotten the spotlight on the state of Texas
by putting barriers in the Rio grand. I mean like he has done more to bring to attention the trials and tribulations of this border problem than anybody else, A border problem that at best of the Biden administration is just hope would go away, and it has only gotten worse. So if there's a face behind broken immigration policy and the sort of political attack machine that Republicans have on this,
it's Governor Abbott. And I think he's done a really amazing job of elevating this into the political debate.
Now.
I know it's a completely separate legislative topic or policy topic, but legislatively the border has been tied to the fate of Ukraine AID, so I think I'd be remiss not to ask about where things stand there, Genie. There seems to be an undercurrent of maybe the idea that a lot of Republicans would be perfectly fine seeing Ukraine AID fail, at least specifically the Biden request for Ukraine AID fail.
How should Democrats approach this issue? Should they be looking for an alternate route to get rid of this tie between these two issues? What are the options on Ukraine for Democrats given the seemingly intractable nature of these border talks.
Yeah, and you know, it was such a idea to bundle them together. Was so sort of experimental in that regard. And if none of this gets done, it's going to be seen obviously as a failure. You also have some Republicans like Mitch McConnell supporting Ukraine aid, and so I do think that they should handle these separately. At this point, we need to get aid to Ukraine, we need to get it to Israel, it needs to be for Taiwan. The border has been a vexing problem in this political year.
It needs to be resolved. But I can't see getting major comprehensive reform legislation at this point, and so I do hope that they, you know, sort of disentangle those I don't even know if that's a word, jack, but get do those separately so they can get the aid they need to Ukraine and also free up the Biden administration so they don't have to end run around Congress to get aid to places like Israel and Ukraine that's desperately needed.
I'm giving you a pass on disentanglement. Jeanie Sheen's Dana Rick Davis.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Jack Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg Government hosting today in instead of Joe Matthew, and I'm here with Annawong, Bloomberg Economics Chief US economist, for the initial takeaways. First, high level, what's the biggest news from these minutes?
In your view? What's the main takeaway from December?
Several officials see rates stay at peak level for longer, and at first glance, it seems that the takeaway is that the minutes tone is more hawkish than how Jerome Pale sound like back in December.
I see the headline cuts projections show cuts by.
End of twenty twenty four.
What is your view on the most likely route of when cuts occur? Are we talking late twenty twenty four? What have we learned about the timeline there?
Right?
You know, the FED has published in their dot plot back in December they expect seventy five basis points of great cuts and that could come in the second half of twenty twenty four. If I'm guessing that several of the officials think those seventy five basis point what happened towards the back end of twenty twenty four, and there's no reason why the minutes would differ from what the dot plot had indicated, right, But the question going into this always is should we believe in what the Fed
officials are saying? And the bond market traders did not believe in these numbers. The botto markets believe that the first rate cut could come in March twenty twenty four. Right now, the probability of a rate cut in March twenty twenty four is about seventy to eighty percent.
It used to be even.
More priced in back in December. They were already paired back that bets already in the last couple of days. But I think the minutes did very little to I mean, the minute did.
Very little to.
Support what powells. That's because Powell was very dovish, right, and the minutes seems to be more of sticking to the dot plots numbers saying that, you know what, don't be too optimistic about rate cuts too soon.
And a lot of this conversation is about the length of keeping them near their peak. But just for my understanding, what's the prevalence among voting members of any push or any openness to further increases?
How signs definitely, I mean if you look at the dot plot, you could see that I think there was a sizeable group that sees seventy five basis point rate cuts, but there were I believe for at least four or some who seem more. In fact, there was one who actually see one hundred and fifty basis point of rate
cuts in twenty twenty four. I think so. For my own takeaway, I think that the FOMC minute is actually communication tool that you can think of it as another speech by the VEED officials, another way that they could twist the message, but what they will actually do is not really dependent on what this minute will say. And in fact, New York Fed's own research shows that typically in easing cycles, the FED internal deliberateberiations much more dubvish
than these public communications. So my view is that the FED is still likely to cut in March twenty twenty for the reason that the growth is faltering, and I think the data in the next three weeks would be quite critical, because, for example, this Friday with the jobs report, and we do see significant weakening, then I think the bond traders will be putting back on that trade of March rek that's even January.
Anna Wong, thank you so much for great, very immediate insights on those FOMC minutes from December on some fairly hawkish language, but good insights on what to expect as early as March. From Anna Wong. Now, let's bring in Enrique moronas executive director from hente Unita of hente Unita,
the Human Rights Border Coalition. We spoke in the last hour on the politics of some of these congressional negotiations on the border, but I want to cut through some of the political language as much as possible and learn a bit about what's happening on the border, what the causes are, what the policies at play are. Enrique, thank you so much for joining us, giving your long work on these issues and communicating with people who are seeking
to come to this country. I'm curious what you make of what's in the news with regard to congressional negotiations. Have you heard of any policy changes, especially when Republicans push for third country keeping asylum seekers in third countries? Do you see any solutions being discussed in Congress or are they missing any of the root causes? What should we know in Washington about the root causes of people coming to the US seeking asylum in particular.
Yes, glad to be with you. I have been on the border all my life, as you know, I have been working to help the situation along. And I don't think that the Republicans come into the border to speak to the border patrol is the answer. How come they never speak to the migrants themselves. They don't want to
become citizens, they want to become residence. They're looking for a life, not necessarily a better life, but a life to escape the violence, the environmental situation, the politics, and much of that has to do with the United States. The United States has four and a half percent of the world's population, yet it consumes a third of the world's illegal drugs, It consumes a third of the natural resources. It provides weapons to these countries. That is not the solution.
The solution is to work with these countries, come up with a plan that makes sense to both countries. Comprehensive immigration reform if something that a lot of people have battled for for a long long time, and we're not any closer today. I think both the Republicans the Democrats have done about bad job, and I believe that the solution will be coming in the next administration. Hopefully it will be Biden, but I don't think Biden or Trump
will be the candidates. I think they're both not going to be there for twenty twenty four, Trump because of his legal problems in biting, because of his health. So I hope that we really do have humane immigration reform. I'm right here on the border and that one of those migrants has said I want to become a citizen. They just want to get their papers so they could come here and be saved. It's a worldwide situation. It's not just the US and Mexico, and here on this
border US in Mexico. Never is there a bigger difference of the two countries, the United States being the most powerful country in the world and Mexico being a developing country. Neither country is bad. But let's have humane immigration reform, more asylum judges, more immigration attorneys. That is the real solution.
Enrique, what do you make of, especially the push from Republicans for asylum seekers who have traveled through another country where they may be eligible for asylum. They want to stop people from coming to the US if they have traveled through another country where they could have sought asylum. This is I think maybe sort of tangential to the quote unquote remain in Mexico policy. Do you see that as effective? Is that something that you can easily apply
to people who are seeking to come here. What's the actual effect and that is that feasible in your mind?
Well, a lot of people are actually looking for asylum in Mexico, and Mexico has granted asylum. But I think that the United States should be more forgiving of these people and have let them have an asylum hearing. It's a terrible situation for them. Mexico has done a really bad job. I think Amlo the president is not doing a very effective job. I don't think majorcas is doing an effective job either. But we got to stay away from Trump. He was very dangerous, separating families, shooting people
through the border wall and so forth. But let's think of twenty twenty four and beyond. I think that we should have a more humane immigration reform. This is a worldwide situation. It's not just here on the on the Western hemisphere. It's also happening in Europe and other parts of the world where there's more migration than ever, more migration than ever, because of the environment, the violence, the hunger, and so forth, Let's let's provide human immigration for these people.
We have plenty of space. Yes, it's a challenge, but it's more. But we can't be using these political ploys like Abbott and the Scantis are with using the migrants as political ploys and busting them or flying them to other states. That is not the way to do it. We should have a solution. We have had many attempts at this for many decades, and I know that we
can do it. It's it's a it's good. It's gonna be a my national situation that we have to uh, you know, work on, and I know the United States and the other countries can do it.
Enrique, could you tell us a little more about, especially what has happened in the past few years, what are the underlying causes in South and Central America driving the recent border surge are what are those root causes?
Well, those causes not only there but also in African Asia. Is the environment, the fact that there's environmental challenges. The United States is more responsible for for environmental damage than any other country in the world when you talk about it per capita. It's also the situation with lack of resources, lack of resources to provide jobs for them. It's also
the situation of violence in their countries. These are all situations that are happening in all over the world, and the United States and the country where they're coming from have to do a better job, and they can do a better job. Remember years ago we had this issue with Columbia and Colombia was able to straighten it out. We also had the situation in other countries and we were able to straight straighten it out. We should not be pitying this. That also with giving aid to Ukraine
or the Middle East, they should be separate issues. This should be separate issues. The United States is a much greater country than that. Most of the people in this country were once immigrants. Before we were us, we were them, and we were able to settle this issue. Now is no different, uh, And it's a situation in which the whole world seems to be closing in on them and nobody wants to help them. We believe that we should
have human immigration reform. Love has no borders, and of course we want security, but most of the migrants are not a problem as far as security is concerned domestic terrorists are more of a problem, and we look at we need to look at the realities of this situation, not the myths.
And given your first hand noledge of the situation, I know this is discussed a lot in a political lens, but in the reality of it, can you, Enrique, tell us a little bit more about this state of people who make it to the US when they seek asylum, when they either across the border or present themselves at a crossing point. In terms of their safety, they a lot of them have made it through a dangerous area
or paying somebody to bring them here. Tell us a little bit about the state of safety and well being or sometimes lack thereof of people when they arrive finally at the US.
Well, we have a situation right here in San Diego, only an hour from US is Hakkumba, and Hakkumba is where a lot of the migrants have crossed. That's in the US, and they cross over there and they're left out in the open. It's freezing at night, it gets very hot at in the day. We need to have a situation where the people can can have shelter. They should be treated in a humane manner. They don't know what's going on. They speak different languages Dyinese, Spanish, et cetera,
and the culture is very different. For example, if the person is from southern Mexico, when the border patrol tells them, you know, look at me when I'm talking to you, that's a sign of disrespect in their culture. So there's always this game going on where people don't know how to how to respond. We need to be more sensitive to these people. The overwhelming majority of them are just looking for a life. I was at a synagogue recently and somebody said, I saw you on TV the other day.
I don't know why these children are coming unaccompanied, And I said, you know the story of Moses better than I do. And when Moses' mom put him in the river to go to you know, to cross the river, she didn't know people he was going to live or die, but she knew that if her baby stayed in Egypt, he was going to die. It's the same situation. It's an act of love, so we should be responding in the same We're a we are a country that has
had the history of welcoming migrants. Sometimes we haven't always welcomed them. Look at the Canadian border. There's no wall with Canada. It's twice as big as the length of the Mexican border. We know a lot of people have been going through there. This is really raised based. It's unfair and we all need to do a better job.
Enrique moronas executive director of pente Anita, the Human Rights Support Coalition.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern
Time at Bloomberg dot com.