thumbnail of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Hide -
MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the Senate passes an immigration bill, Kwame Holman reports [Focus - Immigration Reform], two advocates debate; what Quebec separatism is doing to the city of Montreal, Charles Krause reports [Focus - Identity Crisis]; the Republican platform plank on abortion as seen differently by two GOP House members [Focus - Abortion Plank]; and the earlier and earlier bounce into professional basketball, two sports columnists have a say [Finally - Hoop Dreams]. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY
MR. LEHRER: The U.S. economy grew at a high 2.8 percent rate the first quarter of this year. A Commerce Department report today said the January to March figure was five times higher than the growth rate in the previous quarter. The report said it would have been even higher without the severe weather in some parts of the country and the partial shutdown of the federal government. Laura Tyson, the head of the President's National Economic Council, had this to say about the figures.
LAURA TYSON, Chair, National Economic Council: This report is only the latest in a series of very good reports on the economy that we have had this week. Consumer confidence, according to the Conference Board reached its highest level in six years in April. Manufacturing, the National Association of Purchasing Managers Index went over 50, indicating an expanding manufacturing sector in April. We got the employment cost index report this week which showed that wages grew at their highest rate in nearly five years.
MR. LEHRER: Wall Street reacted negatively to the good news on fears the numbers could cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down nearly 77 points at closing. President Clinton vetoed the product liability bill today. He said it would have left consumers vulnerable to manufacturers of unsafe products. At a White House ceremony, Mr. Clinton said there are better ways to limit damages in frivolous lawsuits.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: It is a hallmark of our system of justice that when a product produces injury or death, a family has the right to try and recover its losses. And if someone endangers the health of the public, he or she should be held responsible. I believe we can protect these rights even as we curb frivolous lawsuits. Congress knows well my specific positions. If it will send me a balanced bill that cuts back on frivolous lawsuits while being fair to families, that gives manufacturers more predictability but doesn't bail out real wrongdoers, I would sign such a bill without hesitation. But this bill does not do that.
MR. LEHRER: The bill passed the House and Senate with strong Republican support. Republicans have accused the President of siding with trial lawyers on the issue of product liability. They claim many product liability suits are unnecessary or too costly. The Senate passed a bill today aimed at deterring illegal immigrants from entering the United States. The vote was ninety- seven to three. The legislation would nearly double the number of Border Patrol guards to 10,000 and would increase penalties for using false passports and smuggling aliens. It would deny welfare and other government benefits to illegal immigrants, but it does not contain a provision the House bill does, which would deny public schooling to children of illegal immigrants. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Also in Congress, the House passed an AIDS assistance bill that provides $738 million for HIV and AIDS treatment and support services. The vote last night was four hundred and two to four. States will get money for voluntary HIV testing programs for pregnant women. The bill also calls for some mandatory HIV testing of newborns by the year 2000 if certain goals are not met. The bill now goes to the Senate. The husband of Congresswoman Enid Waldholtz was indicted today on 27 counts of bank fraud. Joseph Waldholtz is accused of writing a series of worthless checks to joint checking accounts belonging to him and his wife. Mrs. Waldholtz, a Utah Republican, has denied any wrongdoing. She has announced she will not seek a second term and has filed for divorce. If convicted, Joe Waldholtz could face up to 30 years in prison and a million dollar fine. There was news today about the sun. NASA scientists said a new space observatory is helping them better understand it. They released pictures of what they call solar plumes, long feathery plumes that extend from near the poles of the sun, out more than 13 million miles into space. The plumes are made up of billions of tons of gas invisible, invisible to observatories on earth. Scientists say their new data may help explain climate shifts on earth and other phenomena such as sun spots. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to immigration in the Senate, the Montreal story, the Republican struggle over abortion, and the early jumps to the NBA. FOCUS - IMMIGRATION REFORM
MR. LEHRER: The Senate passed an immigration reform bill this afternoon. That is our lead story tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth is in charge.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Senate bill, like its counterpart in the House, touches lightly on issues of legal immigration but provides for major changes in laws dealing with illegal immigration. Kwame Holman reports on the Senate bill.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON, [R] Wyoming: We have the Simon amendment. We have two Graham amendments, Sen. Graham of Florida. I really think--and Sen. Feinstein will modify her amendment.
KWAME HOLMAN: Over the last four days, Wyoming's Alan Simpson, chief sponsor and manager of the Senate's illegal immigration bill patiently steered the legislation through more than 100 amendments, each an attempt by a colleague either to toughen or weaken the bill.
SEN. PAUL SIMON, [D] Illinois: This is acceptable. The Senator from Wyoming, I would ask that we set aside the amendment I just offered so that I may consider a second amendment that I have.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON: That's perfectly appropriate with me, Mr. President.
MR. HOLMAN: For instance, one provision in the Senate bill would lengthen retroactively the period of time sponsors would be responsible for the immigrants they support. Sen. Paul Simon made several attempts to remove that provision.
SEN. PAUL SIMON: The question is whether Uncle Sam is going to live up to his contract. We say to the sponsors, you are a sponsor for three years. Now we come back with this legislation and say, sorry, we're changing the contract. You thought you signed up for three years. We're going to make it five years. I think that's wrong.
MR. HOLMAN: Not all Senators accepted the long list of amendments with the patience of Alan Simpson.
SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: I don't see what we gain by going over and over and over gain, plowing the same ground, or in this case dragging this dead cat which smells rank back across the table. When you sign that pledge that you're going to take care of these people until they can take care of themselves, we expect you to live up to your promise. We expect you to use your income and your assets to see that the person you have sponsored does not become a burden on the taxpayer. And so what the bill does is it, in essence, counts the sponsor's income and the sponsor's assets as yours for the purpose of you applying for welfare.
MR. HOLMAN: The debate over the sponsorship provision demonstrates how issues of legal and illegal immigration can become intertwined, despite the best efforts of members to keep them separate, but the Senate, like the House, says it will deal with legal immigration at another time. This bill is designed primarily to reform America's policy toward illegal immigrants. It increases the number of Border Patrol agents, toughens penalties for aliens who enter the country illegally, prohibits states from offering most forms of public assistance, and establishes a national hotline so employers can verify the resident status of prospective employees.
SPOKESMAN: The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham.
MR. HOLMAN: Even though the national hotline is proposed only as a pilot program, a group of Senators led by Michigan Republican Spencer Abraham tried to remove it from the bill.
SEN. SPENCER ABRAHAM [R] Michigan: Anybody who has dealt with computer databases knows the potential for error in these types of systems. And in my judgment, to invite that kind of high cost on the employees and employers of this country would be a huge mistake. The cost of imposing these programs even on a trial basis is going to be excessive. I feel that it leads us in the direction of big government, big government expansion, and the imposition of costly federal regulations and burdens, especially on small businesses, that they do not need at this time.
MR. HOLMAN: But Abraham lost that argument to one expressed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California: We live in an information age. Hundreds of databases now exist in both the public and private sectors, databases for national credit cards, for health insurance companies, credit rating bureaus. Technology is, in fact, advancing so rapidly that the ability to create these databases and ensure their accuracy is enhanced dramatically every year. So why then, I would ask, would the Senate of the United States not want the United States Government to use a computer database to try to find a better way to help employers verify worker eligibility?
MR. HOLMAN: The Senate voted to keep the national verification system in its bill but removed provisions that would have made it much tougher for illegal aliens to enter this country by claiming political asylum. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy led the fight against the provision.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, [D] Vermont: Secondly, when we talk about the people coming in with the false passports, fleeing persecution, they don't get a hearing, they get an interview before an asylum- -they get an interview by whoever is there at the border, and can get kicked out right then and there. It's cruel. It's fundamentally unfair to traumatize a fatigued refugee who would be allowed no assistance, no interpreter.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON: As my friend from Vermont says, if a person is fleeing for his life because of religious beliefs and must use forged paper and travel through several countries to get here, under the bill, that person will be summarily sent back. That is not so. Such a person arrives under the provisions of the bill, he or should would get a hearing before a specially-trained asylum officer, and if he or she had a credible fear of persecution, substantial likelihood, and the facts are true, as I have just cited, he or she will be permitted to remain in the United States and have a full asylum hearing when he or she is prepared and ready with counsel.
MR. HOLMAN: Sen. Leahy convinced a slim majority of his colleague to remove the more restrictive language on political asylum, and late this afternoon, the Senate went on to pass its illegal immigration reform bill ninety-seven to three.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON: Don't go home and analyze your votes because you'll never be able to explain them. Your staff is wondering why you voted this way or that. This issue is about America, and America is about conflict and resolution.
MR. HOLMAN: The Senate now must reconcile its bill with the version approved by the House, a version that does include the more restrictive language on political asylum, as well as a provision allowing states to deny public education to the children of illegal immigrants, which the Senate bill does not include.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Now to analyze where immigration reform stands, we're joined by the executive directors of two advocacy groups. Frank Sharry heads the National Immigration Forum and Mark Krikorian heads the Center for Immigration Studies. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Sharry, what do you think of the Senate bill?
FRANK SHARRY, National Immigration Forum: Well, I think what's interesting is how different it is that it originally started out over a year ago. A year ago, Senator Simpson wanted to cut legal immigration by 40 percent. He wanted to gut our asylum system. He wanted to slash the number of refugees admitted by 50 percent. He wanted to mandate a national identification system. And I think what you see in its final form is a slimmed down bill that deals primarily with illegal immigration, retains the pilot test for this ID system. It strips away the efforts to cut legal immigration and to gut our asylum system, so I think--and it has a number of provisions to restrict federal benefits, so I think, quite frankly, you have a more focused bill that deals with what most Americans are primarily concerned about, which is illegal immigration and the use of federal programs by illegal immigrants, and I think it, as a result, it enjoyed the kind of bipartisan support that we saw on the final vote.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Krikorian, what do you think?
MARK KRIKORIAN, Center for Immigration Studies: Well, some of the changes that Frank identified I think actually were significant weakenings of the bill, and one of the most important things that I'd point to is the fact that the legal immigration provisions were, in fact, removed from this legislation, and unfortunately, what that does is make the illegal immigration provisions inadequate to actually control the problem because legal immigration is one of the engines that drives illegal immigration, and without reforming and reducing the legal flow, any measures, and there's a lot of sensible measures in this bill, any measures against illegal immigration will prove to be inadequate.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. I want to come back to the point about legal immigration and why you think there should have been--it should have been dealt with, but let's deal with the Senate bill right now first, some of the specifics of it. It will restrict public benefits for both legal and illegal immigrants. Explain how it will do that. How will that work, assuming that the provisions in the Senate bill become the final law.?
MR. KRIKORIAN: Obviously, that's the assumption
MS. FARNSWORTH: Although the House bill and the Senate bill are quite similar here.
MR. SHARRY: Right.
MR. KRIKORIAN: The, umm, the important thing on the public benefits, of course, is the--the point that Congressman Smith and other people have made, is that public benefits are one of the magnets that are drawing immigrants in the United States, so I think job supports--
MS. FARNSWORTH: You're talking about welfare--
MR. KRIKORIAN: --welfare, AFDC, cash and non-cash benefits, and the Congress has shown that immigrants, that foreign-born people overall, legal and illegal, are half again more likely to be using public benefits than native-born Americans. It is one of the magnets--there's no question--that draws immigrants, but jobs, of course, are one of the more important magnets, and that's one of the other provisions.
MS. FARNSWORTH: So what would the bill do about it?
MR. KRIKORIAN: With regard to, umm, the--with regard to jobs, in other words, what it would do is institute this pilot program that- -
MS. FARNSWORTH: No, no, with regard to the, the welfare programs.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Would limit welfare to, umm, given to illegal immigrants, would prohibit welfare to illegal immigrants. No. 2, the--what they're called deeming provisions--and what this does is sponsors of legal immigrants would have to have--would count their income toward the income of new immigrants before, umm, the government would be able to give them welfare. In other words, the sponsors' income would be included in the immigrants' income before they were judged to be poor enough to receive these public benefits.
MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that? Is this a good part of the bill?
MR. SHARRY: Again, I think there's broad bipartisan support for the idea of sponsors who bring in their relatives to have, to take more responsibility. Some of those obligations have been undermined by some court decisions, but I don't think there's much disagreement. What there is disagreement is how far it should go, so some of the provisions in the Senate bill, for example, if you're a legal immigrant and you use Head Start for a year, you get a Pell grant to go to college, you could end up being deported. So it not only--
MS. FARNSWORTH: Because you're not supposed to receive any kind of government aid--
MR. SHARRY: Exactly.
MS. FARNSWORTH: --of that sort--
MR. SHARRY: Exactly.
MS. FARNSWORTH: --in the first five years you're here.
MR. SHARRY: Exactly.
MS. FARNSWORTH: And if it's discovered you do, you can be deported.
MR. SHARRY: That's right.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Even if you're young, very young.
MR. SHARRY: Exactly. So the idea of restricting cash benefits so that the sponsor has to take full responsibility is understandable, but when you get into the public health area or job training or college education or basic programs that help people become self- sufficient, the idea of making it--an individual subject to deportation really we think goes too far, so while I think there's an understandable thrust to restrict the access of legal immigrants to benefits as long as their sponsors should take responsibility, what we care concerned about is it's really going to be excessive in its implementation.
MS. FARNSWORTH: And what do you think about the hotline, the, the hotline which is a pilot program which would make it easier for employers to check on the resident status of their potential employees, perspective employees?
MR. SHARRY: It's a very attractive idea. Certainly jobs are a magnet for illegal immigrants, the idea if we just had a simple technological system that would screen people out, it would work beautifully. The problem and the reason there's such a debate about it is that the experts know that such a system won't work unless there's really a national ID card that has your picture and has your thumb print and had these little machines on every desk that correspond to a database run by the federal government that's efficient, and it's that concern about whether it's viable that Americans, will it work, and will Americans settle for a national ID card to deal with this problem of jobs going to illegal immigrants is really the question so this sparring that you're seeing is really, I think, foreshadowing a debate in the next few years over whether a national ID card is going to be--nobody really thinks these kinds of pilot tests result in illegal immigrants not getting jobs. They're really designed to show that you're going to need a card, and I think, again, this foreshadows what is going to be quite a debate in a few years.
MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think?
MR. KRIKORIAN: Well, I think Frank is getting a little carried away with himself. The fact is the concerns that he's identified are legitimate. There are--these are huge databases we're dealing with, there's a lot of technical matters that need to be worked out, and that's why we have pilot programs. That's why the immigration service already has a limited pilot program in this area, and it has ironed out a lot of the bugs, and there's, there's no question, some work left to do. But employers love this system because it takes the immigration service off their back, if you will. They're required now to verify a new employee's eligibility to work. They have to check a variety of documents. They don't know whether these are real or fraudulent documents. They're very often fraudulent. The immigration service will often have to enforce, enforce employer sanctions, which is what this provision is called, by inspecting the files of employers, and they're--in a sense, the employers are between a rock and a hard place. This will get them out of that difficult position, and employers in California and now in Florida are lining up to participate in these pilot programs.
MR. SHARRY: Just a quick point. Employer points lined up in opposition to this system, and that's why you saw so many Republicans speaking out in opposition.
MS. FARNSWORTH: There was division among employers.
MR. KRIKORIAN: The most, the most important employer group that's involved here is the Chamber of Commerce of the State of California, and they endorsed a mandatory verification system.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's move on to this question of--you brought up the point that the bills that were originally proposed went much further than the bill that finally came out of the House for the Senate and did deal with legal immigration, the early proposals. Which changed? What has changed in the, in the nation? What kind of coalitions were brought tobear? What happened? What changed all this?
MR. SHARRY: Two things happened. One is that many of the, I think, the original sponsors didn't think the American people were smart enough to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. And the fact is, is that what became the most compelling argument in this debate is that you shouldn't penalize people who follow the rules when the concern is with people who don't follow the rules. And the notion of separating out illegal from legal immigration became really an undeniable argument and--with bipartisan support. So both the House in March and now the Senate by a vote of 80 to 20 rejected dealing with legal immigration in this bill and rejected cuts. I think it's very significant that's what's happened is that following the passage of Proposition 187, where it seemed- -
MS. FARNSWORTH: In California.
MR. SHARRY: In California--which was a measure really designed to deal with illegal immigrants, many--
MS. FARNSWORTH: And which denied public schooling--
MR. SHARRY: Right.
MS. FARNSWORTH: --and other public facilities to illegal immigrants--to legal immigrants--to illegal immigrants.
MR. SHARRY: Exactly.
MR. SHARRY: And so you saw the sponsors of the bill say, well, Californians are upset about illegal immigration, let's cut legal immigration. And it didn't hold water when it got inspected closely. The idea that we should deal with legal and illegal immigration in the same bill was compared to, you know, comparing aspirin and cocaine in a drug bill. They're two fundamentally different issues and deserve different approaches, and I think that's what won out.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Unfortunately, they're really not as different as Frank suggests. They're really Siamese twins in a sense, legal and illegal immigration. The reason I think legal immigration was split out this time, even though reform of legal immigration went farther than it has at any time in recent past, is because a, a coalition of a lot of powerful special interest groups on the left and the right, business organizations--
MS. FARNSWORTH: A very unusual kind of--
MR. KRIKORIAN: The Christian Coalition.
MS. FARNSWORTH: --coalition.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Left, leftist civil rights groups, ethnic pressure groups, and others all got together to remove these legal immigration provisions, and I think there wasn't a sufficient effort to, to convey the importance that legal and illegal be dealt with comprehensively, but this--
MS. FARNSWORTH: You think it was a mistake that they were divided.
MR. KRIKORIAN: I think it was a mistake, and I think the opportunity isn't necessarily lost because these illegal immigration proposals are going to prove inadequate, and next year or the year after, Congress is going to be forced to revisit this issue.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Just very briefly, why should they be paired? How does legal affect the illegal?
MR. KRIKORIAN: Legal and illegal immigration have risen jointly over the past 30 years. Legal immigrant communities are, in a sense, a kind of incubator for illegal immigration. Many families have both legal and illegal immigrants within the same household, and interestingly enough, the immigration service data from last year, this the first time we've had this information, suggests that each year about one out of four legal immigrants is, in fact, an illegal alien already here, using the legal system to launder his status. Essentially, the legal system becomes a permanent rolling amnesty for illegal aliens.
MS. FARNSWORTH: That's all the time we have.I'm sorry. Thank you both for being with us.
MR. SHARRY: Thank you.
MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Montreal story, Republican abortion differences, and jumping to the NBA. FOCUS - IDENTITY CRISIS
MR. LEHRER: Now, a report from Canada on the effect last fall's referendum on Quebec has had on the city of Montreal. Charles Krause reports.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Montreal was once Canada's undisputed cultural and financial capital. It was a world class city, where anglo- Quebecers dominated business and commerce, while French Quebecers gave the city a European style and elan unique to North America. [music] Montreal still has a rich cultural life: four major universities, a first-rate symphony orchestra, and community centers where free concerts are offered almost every night of the week. [applause] But despite appearances, Montreal is a city in steep decline. Over the past 20 years, dozens of corporate headquarters have left for English-speaking Canada. Even the Bank of Montreal is now headquartered in Toronto. The exodus has left downtown Montreal filled with half-empty buildings. There are also boarded up theaters and shops, some for sale, some for rent, clear signs of a city in crisis. Unemployment is higher than any other large city in Canada. Fully 10 percent of Montreal's nearly 2 million people have no jobs. Many are forced to take their meals at glorified soup kitchens like this one, called Restopop, located in the basement of a church. Montreal's economic crisis didn't begin with last fall's referendum. But the tension and economic uncertainty that resulted from the referendum have clearly aggravated the city's downward spiral. Radio talk show host Albert Nerenberg.
ALBERT NERENBERG, Radio Talk Show Host: There's a sense of--an enormous sense of crisis, when you have half the population saying that they're planning to leave, you have the other--a big part of the population saying it's time to stand up and fight. People are getting pretty extreme, and, and I would say very, very emotional, and their feelings are strong.
UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: We feel spiteful. We feel we're not being heard. We feel that we're being sold down.
MR. KRAUSE: Nerenberg's mid-day radio talk show reflects the anxieties of Montreal's once-powerful English-speaking minority.
UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: It's like you've got something eating away at the country's foundation and it took everybody by surprise. This is how I would explain it. That's the angst.
ALBERT NERNENBERG: That's very well put.
MR. KRAUSE: Their collective trauma even has a name. It's called Anglo angst.
CALLER: We need to make a decision now and work together either as Quebec or as Canada. We need to get this thing done with.
MR. KRAUSE: Last fall's referendum was meant to settle once and for all whether Quebec would become independent or remain a part of Canada.
MR. KRAUSE: The separatists lost, but the vote settled nothing because the result was so close that Quebec separatist leaders have said there'll be another referendum.
ALBERT NERNENBERG: The horrible irony was that we all got the thing that we didn't want, which is that we got the most indecisive vote possible, so we're all cursed with this indecision and uncertainty. The one thing we didn't want was uncertainty, and that's what we got. You can't go on with your life. You're living in limbo.
MR. KRAUSE: Much of the resentment among anglos is a result of Quebec's strict language laws which forbid exterior signs in English. Most businesses comply but some don't. The resentment is most evident in Westmount. Overlooking downtown Montreal, it's an enclave where many of the city's wealthy anglo families have lived for generations. But since the separatists' near victory last October, hundreds of homes in Westmount have gone up for sale. Nearly every street has a family packing its belongings, preparing to leave for English-speaking Canada or the United States. Nicholas Lomasney is a banker, and his wife, Wendy O'Donnell, is an office administrator. Like many others, they've decided to move to Toronto.
WENDY O'DONNELL: We want to leave because of economic problems here, because of the decline of Montreal, and we do not see that there's really a great future for us here anymore. And we're also really tired of the political uncertainties.
NICHOLAS LOMASNEY: We want to see what else is out there, outside of, outside of Montreal, and, uh, and, uh, not have to worry about this all the time, because it's a monkey on our backs.
WENDY O'DONNELL: It's just, it's irritating, you know that. I mean, we're both fluently bilingual. Nicholas speaks four languages. I speak French and English and you just, it's--you get tired of it, you know. It's constantly there, and Bouchard is planning another referendum, and it's just like everybody is just saying, enough already.
MR. KRAUSE: Quebec separatist Premier Lucien Bouchard has attempted to reassure anglo Quebecers as well as the city's business community, but the hemorrhaging continues. Since the referendum, several major corporations have announced plans to either move their headquarters from Montreal or cancel significant investments due to the continuing talk of yet another referendum. One of those companies is Jack Spratt, a leading clothing manufacturing which had planned to expand its operations here on this vacant lot. Owner Jack Kivenko.
JACK KIVENKO, Clothing Manufacturer: There is no way that we're going to take our hard-earned money and invest it in real estate in Montreal, when the real estate may have very little value two years from now, three years from now.
MR. KRAUSE: Kivenko says he's cancelled all future investment in this business because if Quebec separates from Canada, he expects his customers to boycott the jeans he makes here in Quebec.
JACK KIVENKO: They've made very clear to me that the moment Quebec separates that any orders that are outstanding will be cancelled and that we don't need to show them our, our product line, they're not interested. They'll buy the products from other parts of Canada, from the United States, from Mexico, or anywhere else. Remember that the free trade agree that Canada has with the United States and Mexico is between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and our access is threatened by any move to secede from Canada.
MR. KRAUSE: The growing uncertainty has also spread to Montreal's poor but no less vibrant ethnic communities. They too feel threatened. Already their children are forced to go to French- language schools, and they worry about even more restrictive policies if Quebec becomes independent. As a result, they too have begun to leave Montreal for other parts of Canada, hurting the many small businessmen who remain. Puymong Sir started his corner grocery store from nothing when he arrived in Montreal from Cambodia 15 years ago. The future looked bright, he says, until the referendum campaign began last year.
PUYMONG SIR, Small Businessman: Business is very slow. Every day it's the same. Economy is slow, so a lot of people move from, uh, Montreal here, I mean, Quebec to somewhere else, like some of them, they move to Vancouver and some of them, more of them, they move to Toronto.
MR. KRAUSE: Mohsen Anvari is an immigrant from Iran who's now dean of the business school at Montreal's Concordia University. He says that what many ethnics in Montreal fear is that if Quebec becomes independent, they'll become second-class citizens.
MOHSEN ANVARI, Concordia University: They've come here to a multicultural city, a window to the world, a forward-looking environment, and all of a sudden, they fear that it is becoming xenophobic. They're thinking that it's becoming inward-looking, and would exclude them.
MR. KRAUSE: Since the referendum, Quebec's separatist government has appointed Serge Menard to a new post, minister for Montreal. It's the government's way of recognizing that there's a problem. Part of Menard's job is to reassure Montrealers of all backgrounds that they have nothing to fear, that they should remain in Montreal and invest here.
SERGE MENARD, Minister for Montreal: We had referendums on very divisive questions, without having one single brawl, so everything is going to be made peaceful here. We will remember what rights we have to give to the, uh, to our minorities, and we'll be respectful of them.
MR. KRAUSE: As minister for Montreal, Menard maintains a full schedule of public appearances meant to emphasize what's positive about Montreal and the shared experiences that bring Montrealers together. But anglos and Montreal's ethnics aren't buying the message.
MOHSEN ANVARI: It's not very reassuring. I don't know how to convey the sense of this to you, but I think that when people feel that they are going to be excluded and they're not going to be treated like everybody else, they tend to avoid bringing about situations where that can happen.
MR. KRAUSE: Perhaps the clearest sign of the growing polarization and bitterness that have resulted from the referendum is growing support for what's called partition, the break-up of Quebec into ethnic and linguistic enclaves. The idea is that non-French- speaking parts of the province, like Westmount, would separate from Quebec if Quebec separates from Canada. McGill University Law Professor Stephen Scott is a leading proponent of partition. He cites a recent poll which found that fully 60 percent of Quebec's non-French-speaking population now favors partition if Quebec separates from Canada.
STEPHEN SCOTT, McGill University: Most anglo Quebecers, most federalists, accepted, in my view, and have understood throughout that if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I simply say that the government of Canada then says to Quebec we are going to remove, we will allow you independence, but only on the basis that the North, the West, and the South of the province remain part of Canada.
MR. KRAUSE: But wouldn't this idea of partition lead to the kind of violence that we've seen in Beirut and Sarajevo and other places around the world?
STEPHEN SCOTT: We don't propose violence. The state has the right to defend itself, and no one is obliged to submit to the revolutionary overthrow of the state.
MR. KRAUSE: But separatists say partition is a malicious idea designed to undermine support for the separatist cause by raising the specter of violence between those loyal to Canada and those loyal to Quebec. Serge Menard.
SERGE MENARD: Partition is an idea that's made to, to make people fear of civil war because on certain boundaries, that's what it means in history. You must hate Montreal if you're for a partition because, uh, that could kill Montreal economically.
MR. KRAUSE: But still, lines are being drawn and viewed from almost any angle, Montreal is today a fractured city. Quebec's separatist government thinks it can repair the city's economy without sacrificing its dream of independence, but most others believe that as long as there's tension and political uncertainty, Montreal's tragic decline will be nearly impossible to reverse. FOCUS - ABORTION PLANK
MR. LEHRER: Now the Republican Party and some politics of abortion. Margaret Warner has that story.
MARGARET WARNER: For 20 years, the Republican Party platform has called for a constitutional amendment ending a woman's guaranteed right to abortion. Abortion rights supporters hope to strip that plank from the platform this year, but the Christian Right and disappointed Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan are fighting to retain it. This week, California Governor Pete Wilson fueled the controversy when he told reporters in Washington, "We should put the plank to one side and simply get on with our business." Yet, also this week, Sen. Bob Dole, the party's putative nominee, picked long-time abortion foe Henry Hyde to head the platform committee. The Illinois congressman said, "I don't intend to weaken the party's pro-life position." To discuss where the party should go on this issue, we have two Republican members of Congress: Connie Morella of Maryland and Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas. Welcome, both you.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA, [R] Maryland: Thank you. Good to be here.
MS. WARNER: Congressman, what's your reaction to what Gov. Wilson said this week?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas: Well, we've been the party of open debate. We've allowed this whole subject to be debated. We've allowed a big tent policy to exist. But I don't think, we certainly ought not set it aside. This is the greatest moral issue facing America today, and for a great political party to ignore that issue I think is unconscionable. It's unthinkable, and this has been a winning position. This has been a winning platform two out of the last three presidential elections. We've won on this platform. We took control of the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate on this platform. Umm, six out of seven of our freshman women are pro-life, so I think it would be very, a very big mistake to abandon the prof-life position.
MS. WARNER: You disagree?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: I think it is totally incongruous with the tenets of the Republican Party, which are individual freedom, umm, minimal government, limited abortion, entrepreneurship, and I think it doesn't belong there, and it--if it is going to be in the plank as a plank in the platform, it's going to be divisive, instead of being a big tent, it's going to look like a revival tent, and I think we're going to have real problems for our presidential candidate to have something that is so divisive. We need to come together. We need to be unified. We don't need to be divided, even though we may disagree, and it's perfectly fine to disagree, but it just does not belong in the platform.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, no one agrees with everything in the party platform. You know, pro-choice Republicans are being given a prominent role in the convention. I assume Pete Wilson will have a prominent role. I know Governor Whitman will have a prominent role. So there's certainly a great contrast, Connie, to the Democrat Party where a pro-life governor is not even allowed to speak. So I think that's healthy, and we don't all agree on tax policy, we don't all agree on national defense in the party platform, but we can be together and we can be unified but there are tens of millions of Republicans, loyal Republicans, pro-life Republicans, who have fueled the energy, the enthusiasm to give us the majority in the House, and I think it would be so demoralizing and so discouraging for us to abandon that pro-life plank that's served us very well.
MS. WARNER: Do you think it would cost Sen. Dole votes if it were removed from these, these people you've just described?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: I think it would cost votes. Well, let me say this. I think it would cost the grassroots support, enthusiasm, and excitement that we're going to need this year to turn those polls around. You know, Connie said it's incongruous with, with what our party stands for, but our party was born as the party of respect for human life, and so I think it would be incongruous for us to abandon that principle.
MS. WARNER: What about that point that it could cost Sen. Dole the enthusiastic support?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: Well, you know, the polls have demonstrated that most Republicans are pro-choice; they have also demonstrated that many pro or anti-choice Republicans believe that the plank should be taken out of the, uh, platform for the presidential. Why alienate every pro-choice American who will be voting? And in some of the other elections where we had Republican Presidents succeed, there have been other issues that have been more paramount. What we need to do is we need to work together on the common ground. We need to prevent teen pregnancy. We need to help make families flourish. We need to work on many of those issues, rather than the issues that divide and just flaunt them, and so I think that it could be the battleground for this Presidential election.
MS. WARNER: All right. Now, if this plank stays in the platform, I'm going to reverse the question, do you think it will cost Sen. Dole votes among--
MS. WARNER: Among whom?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: It comes also now at a time when there's a gender gap, and there are so many things that the Republicans have done for women--domestic violence, umm, we've had family and medical leave, we've had other issues that have come-- entrepreneurship--that have assisted women, and this is what they should be pushing, opportunity for women, and not, umm, and not making this gender gap even larger in terms of it being affiliated with one party, so I think it will cost some votes because Americans are middle-of-the-road, and they feel that abortion is personal and should be private, and it has to do with one's personal beliefs, and it doesn't belong on the agenda for politicians.
MS. WARNER: Cost him votes of women?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: No, I don't think so. I mean, as I said, six of our seven freshman women are pro-life. It didn't--and I don't, I don't think so at all. Umm, I don't think we have to abandon our commitment to the unborn in order to showcase many of the things- -the--many of the pro-women things that we're doing, and I would hope that we would do that but I don't think--you know, the polls can--they can say a lot of things, depending upon how the questions are framed, but I can guarantee you this: that where the energy is, where those who are deeply committed on this issue, that's the pro- life side, and they're the ones who are going to be left out of that big tent--
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: We have to show--
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: --if we abandon this principle.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: We have to show that we really are a party that is a party of inclusion, instead of exclusion. If we disagree on that issue, fine, but whey put it in the platform? Why not bring out the economy, jobs, education, the environment, those things that Americans really care about, and leave that, the bedroom, the personal philosophy that people may have, to individuals personally. I think that's what the Americans want.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, our statement, our principle for life in the platform is in no way a litmus test. We have welcomed pro- choice Republicans into the party and have given them prominent, prominent roles in it, in great contrast--you know, if there's an exclusionary party, it's the Democrat Party.
MS. WARNER: Let me ask you, if it isn't a litmus test and many candidates such as Congresswoman Morella run being pro-choice, then what does it mean really?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, I think it means a great deal. It means a great deal to the millions of Americans who feel very, very strongly. Uh--
MS. WARNER: But I mean does it commit the party to anything?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: It does. I think it certainly does. It's-- there is going to be a pro-life party in America, uh, and the Republican Party should be that party identified with human life, and for us to abandon that, I think, invites a real bad future for our party. We didn't start winning these elections, we didn't take control of the House till we had the social conservatives join in this coalition, and to turn our back upon the social conservatives I think would be a devastating mistake.
MS. WARNER: Let me--
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: Don't forget, we lost the last Presidential election.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: And we won control of the House.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: And there were a number of Republicans who did not vote presidentially for President Bush for that reason.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: And it was, it was this very platform under which Ronald Reagan won a huge landslide.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: But there was also an interest rate at that time that was 18 1/2 percent, and inflation was high.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: He won reelection. There's lots of things to explain the Bush defeat, apart from looking to our party platform.
MS. WARNER: Let me ask you both something about your assumed nominee, Sen. Dole. What do you think his position is on abortion?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: I, I think that Sen. Dole should be pushing integrity, experience, and leadership, and he should be talking about a party of inclusion.
MS. WARNER: No. I'm sorry, I'm--what do you think his view is? What is your understanding?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: I think he'd like to have it taken out of the platform.
MS. WARNER: What do you think?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, his voting record is strictly pro- life. I hope he'll look deep within himself and he'll find there a commitment to human life, and that he'll be willing to speak out forcefully on that issue, umm, and I'll take him at his word, and I'll take him at his voting record that he's a pro-life Republican.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: But he may be, you know, a pro-life Republican, but that doesn't mean he wants to have that in the platform. He's got to appeal to the American people and they are middle-of-the-road. They would like to do what they can to prevent abortion, but they believe in choice, and they just don't think that politicians should be playing around with that issue.
MS. WARNER: Does the platform have any bearing on any--you're both running for office this year--is it going to have any bearing on your race?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, as I said, I think it definitely has a bearing upon those who are committed to the pro-life cause. For us to abandon that would raise real questions. Of course, I think I've been outspoken on the issue, and I don't think it would have an impact there. Umm, but I certainly think it will impact the national political picture, the environment in which we will all run if the Republican Party should turn its back upon the pro-life position.
MS. WARNER: If it stays in, does it affect you negatively, do you think?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: I don't believe so because I have a track record in the state legislature, and, and in the federal legislature, but I do think it's going to have an impact on the Presidential election.
MS. WARNER: Mm-hmm. Now, the Congressman--just respond to this, if you would. He said he thought it was very healthy to have this debate very publicly. I think that's what you were saying.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: That's right.
MS. WARNER: Do you agree, Congresswoman?
MS. WARNER: Do you think it's good to have this?
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: Sure, I think it's fine because we--but we also must remember that in having this debate that it may mean that we're going to take this out of a platform, and that doesn't mean that it has to stay in the platform, but I think the debate would be healthy, we have got to show that we are a party that is an inclusive one, and not exclusive. We don't build up fences and say, if this isn't in the platform, then I'm going to walk away.
MS. WARNER: And you think the debate's healthy?
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: The debate is healthy, but I certainly believe that our party will continue to be pro-life, and I'm reassured that Henry Hyde is chairman of that platform committee.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: But now Henry Hyde is a pragmatic man. He is a man also who has some experience.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: He's a man of deep conviction.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: And maturity. And I think he does not want to tear the party apart, and I think he would like to see this as a party that is an inclusion party. It is the only way the Republican Party is going to expand and attract more people.
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Well, we don't have to bend in our principles and our convictions to be an inclusive party. We are inclusive, but we should stay by our principles, and I think we will.
MS. WARNER: All right. We'll--
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: Let's let personal things stay person.
MS. WARNER: We'll have to leave it there, but thank--
REP. TIM HUTCHINSON: Thanks, Margaret.
MS. WARNER: --you both very much.
REP. CONNIE MORELLA: Thank you very much, Margaret. FINALLY - HOOP DREAMS
MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the early jumps to the pros. This week, two young basketball players announced they were leaving school and going directly to the National Basketball Association. One, Kobe Bryant, is a high school senior in suburban Philadelphia. The other is Allen Iverson, who is just finishing his sophomore year at Georgetown University.
ALLEN IVERSON, Georgetown University: I'm excited. I have a lot of confidence in myself, in my game, um, and it makes me feel good that, you know, Coach Thompson is, is, umm, sticking with me on this, and he has confidence in my game as well. You know, that really means a lot to me, for him to, umm, you know, let me leave out of here and for him to think I'm ready for the NBA.
MR. LEHRER: Here to talk about the issues raised about this are two sportswriters, Michael Wilbon of the"Washington Post," and Bob Ryan of the "Boston Globe." Michael Wilbon, what is driving this, strictly money?
MICHAEL WILBON, Washington Post: Not strictly money, overwhelmingly money perhaps. But there's also a cultural phenomena that is going on, particularly almost exclusively in, in black American communities, where kids think that this is the only way out and the only way up from a certain set of circumstances. You hear kids all the time talking about I want to do something for my family, I've got a daughter to support. In Allen Iverson's case, as we heard from Georgetown University yesterday, his sister has an illness, and he wants to be able to provide the best medical care. And there are some financial considerations, but also it always comes back to it is exclusively basketball that will allow them up and out of certain circumstances, you have a cultural phenomena going on, and indisputably, there are just incredible amounts of money not only on the court but in marketing opportunities, endorsement opportunities, that make kids just look at these zeroes behind these figures and just say, I've got to go right now.
MR. LEHRER: Bob Ryan, put us in the picture on how big the money is in professional basketball. The two kids that we just talked about, that we just mentioned at the beginning, what kind of money are they going to make?
BOB RYAN, Boston Globe: [Boston] At the high end of the scale, there is a rookie, um, ceiling now, a salary cap on the rookies. The top No. 1 choice and 2 choice, 3 choices, will make in excess of $2 million over a three-year period. Allen Iverson will clearly be one of the top three picks in the draft and can expect to get one of those slots worth about $2.7 million over a three-year period, and then progressively down. The young man, Kobe Bryant, who will be picked somewhere probably, I would hazard a professional guess between ten and fifteen in the draft, will get certainly a million dollars or so a year, which certainly is enough to raise anyone's eyebrow.
MR. LEHRER: And as Michael said, in addition to that, there could be endorsements for schools and for T-shirts and all kinds of other things too, right?
MR. RYAN: Absolutely. And Michael's correct. The money is there, and I do think that this has driven in some cases but not--these two are not the best examples to speak of the ills of the system- -
MR. RYAN: Because Allen Iverson clearly does need the money. Kobe Bryant doesn't necessarily need the money. He comes from a much different background. His father is a former professional player. He's an assistant coach at LaSalle University. His father has great experience in the field and understands the perils that his son faces, but his son is a very mature young man who speaks fluent Italian. He spoke--he grew up when his father was playing in Italy and he lived there eight years. He's an uncommonly mature young man and would do very well in college. He had over a thousand on his college boards, was being recruited by schools that are at the high levels such as Duke, and he's going into the MBA because he feels that he's mature enough to handle the whole thing.
MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Michael, tell us what we should think about this, those of us who don't follow basketball, who look upon this as a, as, oh, my goodness, what's going on here, what should--what is going on?
MR. WILBON: Well, I mean, there are individual cases, as Bob mentioned.
MR. WILBON: And case by case, there's always--there always seems to be a reason. Umm, collectively, however, it's a frightening trend I think when you look at a situation. We see the faces of people who will perhaps make it, but every year, if you go back the last ten, fifteen years, even twenty years in the NBA's annual spring college draft, you'll find players who stayed two years in college and came out, decided to enter the draft, go for the money, and they never were all they could be. Now there are certainly shining examples of people who were on the other side exceptions, like Magic Johnson, who of course has been with the Los Angeles Lakers for quite a while, like Isaiah Thomas, who won the championship for the Detroit Pistons, and there seems to be a new wave of players that we think will wind up being all they can be as professional basketball players.
MR. LEHRER: Superstars.
MR. WILBON: Superstars like Penny Hardaway who did spend three years in college, though only two years playing basketball, but so many do not make it, so many do not make it, so many just fall to the wayside. Others who maybe make it and stay around in the league eight or ten years, they are never all that they could have been had they stayed in school at least one more year from a basketball standpoint economically, from a marketing standpoint. Yesterday at Georgetown, Allen Iverson, everyone he consulted, told him that he would stand to lose money by coming out this year, as opposed to coming out next year or the year after, when his marketing potential would be much higher, so there's so many cases of guys who do play but they are not what they could have been had they stayed in college for a while.
MR. LEHRER: Bob Ryan, compare this with baseball and professional football.
MR. RYAN: Well, baseball and professional football, baseball has always been able to take young men who are seventeen, eighteen years old, sign them out of high school.
MR. LEHRER: Mickey Mantle.
MR. RYAN: Right.
MR. LEHRER: Mickey Mantle, one of the greatest stars of all time, came out of high school in a little town in Oklahoma.
MR. RYAN: That's correct.
MR. LEHRER: When he was 17 years old.
MR. RYAN: Commerce, Oklahoma.
MR. RYAN: This is part of baseball. Then you got to--through an apprenticeship where you go into the minor leagues. You earn very little money. You learn your trade, and then you come up to the big leagues and then you are not paid very much. It's a much different salary situation. Football, everyone comes out of college with very, very few exceptions. They do have to stay the four years, although more and more--
MR. LEHRER: Do they have to stay, or is that an option?
MR. RYAN: Well, there the college problem is that, the talent factor, that they simply aren't good enough--
MR. LEHRER: Not good enough.
MR. RYAN: --to compete. College you need--
MR. LEHRER: You're shaking your head--
MR. WILBON: Mature enough.
MR. RYAN: And hockey, of course, hockey has always preyed on young men in Canada who are taken out of their families literally at age 12, 13, and 14, placed in a junior age system and go through a whole other--well, this is entirely different--to make instant millionaires, as a rule, out of people. Let me just say this.
MR. RYAN: Picking up on what Michael said, and I couldn't agree more about the detrimental effect of this whole thing on the part of the average young man in high school, we have a situation now in which almost every player in high school today who is a senior, who is judged to be among the top thirty to forty players, envisions himself in the NBA within two years.He's not even thinking about going through college and getting an education now. And they all can't make, fulfill that dream, No. 1. Then, once they get to college, they start harping on playing time, they start creating problems for the coach, and then an agent gets their ear, so their heads are completely in the wrong place at the wrong time- -from the beginning--
MR. RYAN: --over and above the fact that so many of them are just kidding themselves to think that they've even got a chance to make it in the first place.
MR. LEHRER: Is that--is another one of the problems, Michael, that unlike say baseball, where a kid goes into baseball, usually, he very seldom goes right to the majors, there's a developmental phase, these kids don't get that, do they, in basketball?
MR. WILBON: No. There's a developmental stage also in just personal maturation away from sport. John Thompson said yesterday he doesn't worry about Allen Iverson's two hours of basketball, he worries, you know, incredibly about the twenty-two hours of the day otherwise in which he's not playing basketball, what is going to happen to young men with all this money who are coming into it instantly, almost like hitting a lottery, who are completely ill- prepared?
MR. LEHRER: It is like a lottery. It's like winning a lottery.
MR. WILBON: It is absolutely like a lottery, except that they have got many more people preying on them. We're talking about kids with entourages numbering ten, twelve, fourteen people who all expect to be on some sort of official or unofficial payroll. We're talking about parents in the case of one young man who left Georgia Tech and family members, hands out instantly. They want cars. They want homes. They want to be put on some sort of payroll, so a million dollars for Kobe Bryant is not really a million dollars.
MR. RYAN: Jim, one of the things--
MR. LEHRER: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. RYAN: One of the things that I think has happened is it couldn't have been a worse situation. A young man named Kevin Garnett came out of Sparagot Academy in Chicago last year and went into the NBA draft, the first high school player to come directly in over 20 years, and he has done well. I think every one in the professional ranks and everyone in college was praying that he would not do well because it would not--it would send out the wrong message. He's an uncommonly gifted talent. He is absolutely one in X thousand. Anyone in the pros will tell you this. He has certain weird physical gifts that remind people of the great Moses Malone as a young man who was able to make the same transition 20 years ago. Very few kids are going to be able to do this. Most people think that Kobe Bryant is stepping in way over his head, for example.
MR. LEHRER: Is this going to get worse before it gets better, Bob?
MR. RYAN: Yes. I think the Garnett thing will send the message out that it can be done and why not me?
MR. WILBON: And the terrible thing, Bob, is in Kevin Garnett, for those people who are not into basketball statistics, averaged about 10 points in six rebounds a game this year which--
MR. LEHRER: Who's he play for?
MR. WILBON: For the Minnesota Timberwolves.
MR. LEHRER: All right.
MR. WILBON: Hardly makes him Wilt Chamberlain.
MR. RYAN: Right.
MR. WILBON: I mean, there has been this rush to proclaim Kevin Garnett as a great, great success, and he certainly had a really nice first season, debut season in the NBA, but it does not mean he's a great basketball player. His team didn't make the play-offs. He didn't make a great turnaround for his team, so we still don't know. The book is still very much open on what kind of professional Kevin Garnett will be.
MR. RYAN: True.
MR. LEHRER: And we will leave that book open at that. Michael, Bob, thank you both very much. RECAP
MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the Commerce Department reported the U.S. economy grew at a high 2.8 percent rate the first quarter of this year and the Senate passed a bill to deter illegal immigrants from entering the United States. And a follow-up before we go. It's to a story we aired a few weeks ago. Today, the president of PBS, Urban Dugan, offered to make free airtime available to the major presidential candidates in the fall. The idea of free access on television networks is being pushed by a group of journalists and political figures. We'll see you tomorrow night with a look at some front-runner political history and Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Producing Organization
NewsHour Productions
Contributing Organization
NewsHour Productions (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-qz22b8w73n).
Episode Description
This episode's headline: Immigration Reform; Identity Crisis; Abortion Plank; Hoop Dreams. ANCHOR: JIM LEHRER; GUESTS: FRANK SHARRY, National Immigration Forum; MARK KRIKORIAN, Center for Immigration Studies; REP. CONNIE MORELLA, [R] Maryland; REP. TIM HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas; ALLEN IVERSON, Georgetown University; MICHAEL WILBON, Washington Post; CORRESPONDENTS: ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH; KWAME HOLMAN; CHARLES KRAUSE; MARGARET WARNER;
Asset type
Social Issues
Consumer Affairs and Advocacy
Politics and Government
Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
AAPB Contributor Holdings
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-5519 (NH Show Code)
Format: Betacam
Generation: Preservation
Duration: 01:00:00;00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” 1996-05-02, NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed October 3, 2023,
MLA: “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” 1996-05-02. NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. October 3, 2023. <>.
APA: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Boston, MA: NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from