And as we close out the year, we're asking you to stand with us.
We're good to go.
Joining us this morning is Benjamin Johnson.
He's the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, here to talk about President -elect Donald Trump's immigration plans.
Let's begin with your association.
Who do you represent?
We represent about 17 ,000 immigration lawyers all across the country doing almost every conceivable type of immigration, whether it's asylum to highly skilled folks.
Yeah, in just about every jurisdiction in the United States.
What do you think about President -elect's call for mass deportation?
Well, it's hard to know what to make of that.
I think Donald Trump is famous for, as he calls it, the weave.
Like, what he says and what ends up happening could be very different things.
If he's true to his word and he's talking about truly a mass deportation, then I think it is deeply troubling.
I think it's going to have enormous ramifications both financially, economically, and socially.
There's a lot of people in this country who have been here for a very long time and ripping them out of the workplace, ripping them out of the communities where they live.
Which agency right now is in charge of finding and deporting immigrants who are here illegally and who are committing crimes?
Also known as ICE.
ICE, yes.
Maybe, you know, with the added involvement of the CBP, Customs and Border Protection, certainly at the border doing that.
But yeah, those working together, ICE and CBP, are primarily responsible for that.
And do they have the authorization in law to do so?
And are they doing that?
Sure.
There's no question that the law, somebody who's here without authorization is subject to deportation.
I think what's driving most of the way that we enforce immigration law is a reality check.
It is the fact that because in large part Congress has not done anything to align our immigration policy with economic reality, we have a lot of people here who have been here for a very long time out of immigration status.
And randomly and enforcing the law against all of those would be incredibly disruptive and incredibly difficult.
So primarily, most agencies, excuse me, most administrations have operated under the theory of discretion, figuring out who we can focus our attention and resources on because we just don't have the resources to say we're going to try to find,
arrest, and remove.
Somewhere between 11 and 13 million people in the United States right now.
I mean, it's sad that we've gotten to that point, allowing that to happen, but the answer is not to be naive about the reality that we're in now.
Of those undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants who are committing crimes, do they have a right to a lawyer before they're deported?
Do you have a right to a lawyer?
Getting it's but it's different than in a criminal context it's the proceedings can continue whether they've got a lawyer or not so the ability to find a lawyer particularly when you're been put in really remote locations really remote detention centers is incredibly difficult so many many of the folks that are going through the system
What is the percentage?
85, 90 % of the folks that are here in the United States have been here for a very long time, majority more than 15 years, and they don't have no criminal record.
Of the ones, that other like 10, 5%, they have a criminal record that's...
Almost all traffic violations.
It is a tiny fraction of the immigrant population here, the undocumented population, that has committed a serious crime.
So there is an opportunity then to focus on those folks because that is a very small number.
I know that folks have been playing fast and loose with what that number is in the current environment, but it is a very small number.
If they wanted to go after serious criminals, that's something that's doable, and I think that's something that across the board people would support.
It doesn't help that...
Under immigration law, we have a very broad definition of what's a serious criminal.
I mean, the definition of an aggravated felony can include shoplifting and murder.
So that doesn't help with the ability to really decide what do we mean by criminal alien.
Murderers?
Sure.
Shoplifters?
I'm not sure we should make that a priority.
How quickly are those folks deported?
It can happen very quickly, particularly if it's a very serious offense.
You'll go through something called an expedited removal process.
So you could effectuate removals in that context in days, weeks, if not hours, depending on the circumstances.
I do believe, as a lawyer, I do believe that the system can move very quickly without losing our core values as Americans, which is...
Everybody needs an opportunity to be heard.
You can lose your case, but you gotta be able to make a case of what happened and assert your rights.
So I would be really concerned about America in response to this environment, giving up the things that we believe to be true and sacred, which is a judicial system that is fair.
It can be fast, but it should be fair first.
Here's a headline in the national section of the New York Times.
"Trump will need help to fulfill his promise of mass deportations.
Local -level cooperation would be indispensable to make a policy work." You're probably going to need either a massive increase in capacity for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or some cooperation with some local folks.
And I think...
You know, the idea of these sanctuary cities is a little bit of a misnomer.
Mostly what that means is, look, states are saying, I'm going to do my job.
I'm focusing on enforcement of state laws, state criminal laws, and let the federal government do their job.
But even sanctuary states or cities, I think, would agree that when we're talking about serious criminals...
Let's listen to President -elect Donald Trump.
He appeared on NBC's Meet the press last Sunday and criticize the leniency migrants face when they go through the immigration process in the United States.
Somebody walks onto our land and we have to now say welcome to the United States.
They could be a criminal or not a criminal.
We release them into our country.
It's called catch and release.
We release them into our country.
Wait just one second.
And now they get them lawyers.
And the lawyers are good lawyers.
And everybody has a lawyer.
And do you know how many judges we have?
Thousands.
Thousands.
Now, here's what other countries do.
They come into the land and they say, I'm sorry, you have to go.
And they take them out.
With us, once they touch our land, we're into litigation that lasts for years.
Hundreds of billions of dollars.
We have judges, and I'm sure they're all honest, but I don't know that for a fact.
You can imagine what's going on with the judges.
But just so you, because I have a lot of judges, I tell you what, I know more about judges than any human being in history.
Look, we have judges.
Every time somebody puts two feet or even one foot on a piece of our land, it's welcome to long -term litigation.
Other countries...
Every other country.
When somebody walks on and they see that they're here illegally, they walk them off, they take them back to where they came from.
We have to get rid of this system.
It's killing our country.
Benjamin Johnson, your reaction?
I mean, if what Donald Trump is saying is that by getting rid of the system that we get rid of judges and lawyers, then that's a complete remaking of who we are as a country.
It's what distinguishes us from many of the authoritarian...
We're good to go.
How do you do it?
How do you address the asylum laws?
You do need to hire more judges.
You need to create processes that are workable.
But you've got video technology.
You've got the ability to invest in lawyers on the ground there and judges who can evaluate these cases.
These cases could move quickly.
Cases could be made in a matter of weeks or months rather than years.
And when you're talking about people We're good to go.
We're good to go.
People that are being persecuted in China for being Christians.
It protects women who are in oppressive regimes where the Taliban is treating them like animals.
So the idea that we can and are a place where people can receive asylum where they're being persecuted is something we should be proud of and we should invest in a system that can figure out who deserves that protection and who doesn't.
Throwing that away because it's a challenge is a mistake.
Let's go to Alexis, who's in Detroit, an independent.
Welcome to the conversation.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you.
My question is, and I know the guest won't have an answer, but I'm posing the question, I guess, maybe more to C -SPAN, Greta, and if you guys could do a segment on this, on immigration with this angle.
How many housing units are going to be opened up once the mass deportations start?
And what is the effect going to be on housing costs?
I believe millions will open up and housing costs will fall precipitously.
This is the problem with having illegal aliens in our country.
And I just want to say to you, sir, I believe all the current modern immigration lawyers are bleeding heart traitors.
Mr. Johnson.
I think that the last...
The comment obviously was wrong and bleeding heart.
Traders were folks who believe in the American system of justice and work to ensure that the decisions that are made by the system have integrity.
And I think that the integrity of those decisions is improved by there being a real process and an opportunity to be heard.
That can happen in an expeditious way, but I think it's an important part of who we are as a country.
In terms of the housing units, the thing you have to remember is Sure, if you removed all of those folks, would those houses be available?
But what about the jobs that they are working in?
What about them as consumers of goods in those communities?
So you have to remember, there are places like Topeka, Kansas.
Topeka, Kansas is literally paying people to move to Topeka, Kansas.
You move to Topeka, Kansas and get a job, the city will give you $5 ,000.
That's because they are...
That doesn't mean all of the folks that are coming will fit into that equation.
But it means we are missing an opportunity to say how about if those folks came legally to places and communities that needed them.
Then that problem becomes an opportunity.
But that's going to require Congress to look past the politically expedient solution, the rhetoric of mass deportations, and think about how do we create a system that will work, that will put immigrants where we want them and need them.
And create a legal system to do that.
If we did that, then again, I think we could absolutely solve this problem.
We'll go to Easton, Pennsylvania.
John, Democratic caller.
Hi, Mr. Johnson.
I was wondering if you can explain to me why immigration is a problem when the very people who wrote our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights were immigrants.
Our whole First Continental Congress were immigrants.
Thanks, John.
Mr. Johnson.
Yeah, to be clear, I don't think immigration or immigrants are a problem.
It is true that we are facing problems in the way that we manage immigration.
It's not properly funded.
There's too much political infighting and partisanship in figuring out how do we build a system that will work.
So our immigration system is the problem.
I think immigrants are caught up in that.
Look, here's the basic reality.
When you pit the world's largest economy...
I don't know.
This economy is going to win and we're going to see people trying to do anything and everything they can to come in.
That's the problem.
Let's focus on solving that problem.
Let's create legal channels of immigration that reflect the realities of our economy and the needs of communities and then we will have a system that will work that won't be a problem, it will be an asset.
What do those legal channels of immigration look like?
I mean, well, they look like...
Take an example.
One of the highest demand areas in the U .S. economy right now is sort of the hospitality industry and the construction industry, where we have a lot of homes that are being built, a lot of services that are being provided.
And we have fewer and fewer Americans that are entering into that labor force.
They're getting college degrees or graduating from high school.
They're looking for different kinds of jobs.
Right now, in the immigration system, there are...
We're good to go.
I think?
That's a ridiculous mismatch to the reality of the US economy.
So, you create a legal immigration system that allows for people to come here to work in places where we need them, both in the economy and in the communities where we need them, then you will have a legal system that will be the envy of the world.
The rest of the world is dying for the kind of talent and resources that our immigration system
The Senate proposal, bipartisan proposal, James Lankford and Democrats put together.
Would it address what you are talking about?
It did address some of those things.
It recognized the need for an increase in legal immigration to its credit.
It recognized the need for the system to move faster.
The availability of lawyers should be part of that.
So it had funding for a system that had some integrity and could move faster.
But it importantly had an increase in legal visas.
Look, there was other problems with that bill.
I think it's good to celebrate the fact that there was a bipartisan effort.
We congratulated the folks.
For stepping into a very difficult political hornets nest and trying to solve this problem and not just talk about it.
So it was a good bipartisan effort.
The end result should have been the beginning of the conversation about what we need, not the end of it.
It wasn't a perfect bill.
It needed significant improvements, particularly in some of its enforcement strategies.
But it was a process that has to be replicated.
People got to get together, look past their partisan differences, and find common ground on an issue that should matter to all of us.
All right.
Mike, Houston, Texas, Republican.
Good morning to you.
Good morning.
Benjamin, that bill was so bad.
That bill was so bad.
It basically, it was one senator, one Republican senator.
There were more bipartisanship with the House immigration bill.
Not even close.
More, but it's never talked about.
HR2.
There's no bipartisan support for that bill, but go ahead.
Mike, it passed along party lines.
No, there were six House Democrats who supported it.
Now, the thing is, the one that did go through the Senate, or may have gone through the Senate, had all this kind of discretionary, like, oh, there's this, and they didn't count kids, and they didn't count this,
and all these stipulations that gave so much power to the homeland security, that there were so many discretionary parts.
It sustained the problem.
It didn't solve the problem.
Second point, you've never talked about the cost to society.
You said, Benjamin, that we are the richest country on Earth.
I'll tell you what.
Look at that debt clock someday.
$36 trillion.
Do you know we pay as much for our interest on our debt as we do for our military defense?
Now, that is not a rich country.
We have too many costs.
We have too many people.
Why don't we get to choose who comes into our country?
Rather than have the TSA agents on the border, I call them TSA agents, they're doing their job, but they're having too many people to process.
They come through like they step aside and just let them in.
That's not how you operate.
Third thing.
Third thing.
What about these 300 ,000 kids missing?
You haven't spent one second on the 300 ,000 kids missing in the United States.
Tom Homan is sitting on Fox News while you're talking.
And he's been talking about all these kids missing.
And what do you think is happening to them?
Do you want to go down that path and imagine what happened to them when they crossed the border?
How many of them were raped and assaulted and found stranded on their own from those human trafficking cartels?
That is disgusting.
Those kids, a lot of people lost their lives coming across that border.
You know, you talk about these things and you're not addressing the cost to our society.
Milton Friedman said, All right,
Mike.
I think we got the point.
We'll ask Mr. Johnson to respond.
Wow, there's a lot there.
I'm not sure where to begin.
Actually, where I will begin is sort of where he was starting to talk about.
This idea of folks getting raped and assaulted on the journey to the United States, that is true and it is a tragedy.
The discretion that he was talking about in that Senate bill really was discretion about when do we completely shut down the border.
It was something that a lot of us struggled with, the whole idea that there would be these triggers and that we would simply close the border.
And the reason that there is If you're going to do that, which I'm not sure we need to, but if you're going to do that, there's got to be a lot of discretion, is to keep in mind those people that were assaulted, robbed, and raped or murdered on the way up here, when you close the border,
you push them back into the hands of the people he's just talking about.
So that's one of the reasons that I think there's remain in Mexico.
It might be a good political situation and it pushes the problem 200 yards away from the border and maybe out of the view of the news cameras, but it doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't deal with the fact that those people then will be pushed back into Mexico and subject to the abuse of the cartels that brought them here.
So we should be really, really cautious about that whole idea of closing the border.
Who gets to choose?
We get to choose who comes to the United States.
There's no question about that.
We have to have a system that allows us to decide who gets to come in and who doesn't.
But we should do that under a system that's consistent with our values.
Our values say that we're going to hear a case.
We're good to go.
I think?
Workers and people are expensive.
Their kids need education.
They need access to a healthcare system.
That's true of everybody in this country.
Immigrants actually, sadly, are less expensive because we deny them access to a lot of those things in the first five or six years of their probationary period here in the United States as legal permanent residents or as temporary workers.
What are they denied access to?
They don't get immediate access to direct benefits.
So they don't get cash benefits, for instance.
You're not eligible for those types of welfare benefits for the first three to five years of permanent residency in the United States.
There is a bit of a trial period there.
You could debate about whether that's right or wrong, but it is the reality now.
So we have a system that's set up to make immigration a really powerful, effective...
We're good to go.
How about we focus our attention on doing that right and not on simplistic solutions like border closures and mass deportation.
That's not going to get us the immigration system that we want and need.
Wall Street Journal headline: President -elect prepares for legal fight over his birthright citizenship curbs.
Is this?
He's going to have a legal fight over it.
I mean, that's a basic tenet of the 14th Amendment, that if you're born here or naturalized in the United States, you're a citizen of the United States, as long as you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
So it would be very interesting to see what the argument is.
I think Donald Trump believes that he can, through executive order, say that folks born in the United States are not citizens.
I guess maybe because they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If that's the case, we're going to have a very hard time prosecuting folks that are here because they're not subject to our jurisdiction.
I mean, so the best example of people that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are diplomats and other folks who have immunity.
They are not subject to our laws here.
And so if they're born here in that diplomatic space, for instance, then they're not U .S. citizens.
If you're subject to the laws of the United States and you're born here, you're a citizen.
We'll go to Brad.
Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
Independent.
Good morning.
I have a few points I'd like to make.
This guy, well first, Mike, the previous caller, was right on pretty much all of his points.
This guy, this lawyer guy that's on the show right now, he's blurring the lines between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
This...
Morning, his guest speaker started with the drawbacks of mass deportation and how much that would cost and the cost to society, but he's ignoring the cost to society of illegal, illegal immigrants coming over the border.
Also, he's way off on his crime stats, saying that it's a very small percentage.
He's somewhere in the area of 10 or 15 percent with, he said, even a fraction of that is violent crimes.
I mean, no violent crime is acceptable, and those are probably the gangbangers, the MS -13 and so forth, but he said the other crimes are traffic -related.
Well, those are the hit -and -runs where people don't have insurance or a driver's license or a DUI, and they hit somebody and they don't want to get deported, so they flee the scene, and sometimes that could be vehicular homicide.
But let's be real, 100 % of the people that are here illegally are criminals.
They're here illegally by that tenant.
I'm not sure what to say.
If I'm perceived as blurring the lines, let me be clear.
We shouldn't have undocumented immigration in the United States.
We should create a system that allows for people that we want and need to be here legally.
That's the problem.
But that's not going to happen as long as you've got laws.
Subtitles by the Amara .org community Right now, we have people, 70 % of the undocumented population have been here for 15 years or longer.
So you're talking about 5, 6 million people that actually have been here 25 years or longer.
To create an enforcement regime that treats them the same as the folks who are trying to come in in an undocumented status now is...
The caller doesn't trust your statistics.
Where do you go for your statistics about immigrants, legal, and crimes being committed?
We're good to go.
the bad apples that do commit crime shouldn't be subject to the full force of enforcement of our laws that's the same whether you're a citizen or an undocumented immigrant or a legal immigrant bad people exist in our world and we should focus on
Good morning.
Immigrants are heartbreaking people.
They're good and bad in everybody.
All right,
I'll go on to Alice, who's in Chicago, Independent.
Hi, Alice.
Hi, how are you?
Immigrants who come here under the guise of asylum They should show that they were denied asylum in the nations they came through en route to tears.
They came from China and they stopped in Mexico, walked through Mexico.
You have to have something to show Mexico denied them asylum.
Also, people relocate all the time from one state to another, from one country to another, and they take their children with them.
They don't leave their children behind.
Children go with the family.
There's nothing wrong with when these illegal aliens are sent back to their home country or back to Mexico, they take their children with them.
And by right, they should.
You don't leave the kids behind.
And the kids are not being punished or hurt because they're going back to...
I don't know where to begin there.
Folks that are coming here in an undocumented status and aren't eligible for asylum should be removed.
I think we can do that safely and humanely.
That may involve the removal of an entire family.
That can be done safely and humanely.
So I don't disagree with the idea that if we had a system that could fairly and accurately and efficiently adjudicate these claims, then I get the fact that the result is removal if you didn't win your claim.
And if you made your claim with your kids and your family, then yeah, the kids would be beneficiaries of a victory and they would be removed if there was a denial.
Chris is a Democrat in Dayton, Ohio.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'd like to talk about the mass deportation.
I don't think Stephen Miller or Donald Trump have any idea, or the general public have any idea what a million people look like.
So I'm going to give you a reference.
If you ever watched a football game at Ohio State, that stadium holds 100 ,000 people.
100 ,000 people.
Now you need 10 of those stadiums to get to a million.
Where are you going to put those kind of people?
Where are you going to put them?
Mr. Johnson?
How you doing?
Yeah, well, first of all, go Bucks.
My daughter goes to Ohio State.
So, yeah, look, the entire population in every jail and prison in the United States, that entire population is 1 .9 million people.
So we have incarcerated more people than the rest of the world, and it's still just 1 .9 million people.
That's a huge population.
But you think about it.
What he's saying is right.
To attempt a mass deportation would result in a mass incarceration of a size that we've never seen and that could end up involving some replication of this entire jail system that we have now.
So those are huge numbers.
And again, it's going to have huge economic consequences.
I think the reality is that a lot of this is rhetoric.
I think it's reflecting, and I think Donald Trump is, if I give him the benefit of the doubt, I think he is speaking to an anxiety and not to a policy.
He's good at that.
He's good at capturing people's fears and anxieties and speaking to them, often inflaming them.
So, you know, I think the truth is that at some point the desire to get control of our system is going to collide.
With the economic success that he's reaching for as well.
And then we're going to have to figure out when that overlap happens.
A lot of pain can happen in the meantime.
A lot of families will get divided.
A lot of communities will see that, oh my god, I know.
I didn't know you were talking about removing that person.
I sit next to that person in church.
I work next to that person in my business.
So I think there's a reality that'll settle in as this is happening, and then there's going to be an economic consequence that we're going to have to deal with.
Because it just is true, and Donald Trump says this and recognizes it, we need immigration.
It is a powerful tool for us, and we better get serious about not just the deportation part, But about the legal immigration part, because it's part of our superpower,
is the ability to choose the best and brightest in the world.
And the fact that there are people literally dying to come to the United States is something that most of the rest of the world would want.
But listen, we all should take stock of the fact that this is not just a U .S. problem.
The world is moving.
The world is in motion.
And lots of countries are struggling with the rise of nationalism and nativism.
It isn't just happening in the United States.
It's happening in lots of other countries as they struggle to figure out how do we set up regimes that allow us to control our borders in an effective way.
I think we have an opportunity to lead the world in showing the world how that can happen.
And I think that will involve us resisting the temptation
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
This week on Capitol Hill with C -SPAN coverage.
Laverne in Converse, Texas, Democratic caller.
Good morning.
I'd just like to say, number one, I do believe that the president -elect of this country has no...
He's an idiot and an ignorant man.
He has no understanding of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Number two, he, because he has money, was able to get his current wife, an immigrant, a genius green card.
Now, what...
What makes her a genius?
Is being a nude model a new standard for being a genius in this country?
I don't think so.
Then her parents follow her here?
Father was a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia?
Please, I am just...
I have no words.
The other thing I'd like to speak about is the portrayal of those people from Ethiopia, wherever, in Ohio.
In Springfield, Ohio.
Alright, well let's talk about that, Laverne.
It was the Haitians...
In Springfield, Ohio, invited there.
Are you familiar with the story?
Sure.
Who wasn't familiar with it at the time?
It was everywhere.
And I think Mike DeWine, a good governor of Ohio, a good, solid Republican, been around these issues for a very long time.
I think he was absolutely right when he said it was disgusting.
It really was a low point in political rhetoric in the United States.
You know, the sort of the disinformation that was being spread in just, you know, horrible ways.
Those were valuable contributing members of that community.
They were there, you know, helping to Build and provide and support the economy of Springfield, and the governor knew that, and I think other folks spoke out about it.
And, you know, look, for that same reason, I'm not...
I hate the politics of personal destruction.
It's one of the things that I dislike most about the president -elect is his willingness to go after people in vicious ways, so I'm not gonna...
You know, saying he's an idiot or maligning his wife, that's not going to get us where we need to be in politics in America.
It's time for us to step back and start finding common ground on issues that should matter to all of us.
And the immigration system is an issue that should matter to all of us.
Somebody has to try to be the adult in the room and end the vilification and the politics of personal destruction.
I know the American Immigration Lawyers Association is prepared to do that.
We're willing to work with anybody that's serious about solving this problem.
And I'm not going to call anybody names if they're willing to sit down at the table and talk about how we build a better immigration system than we've got now.
We'll go to Hale, Michigan.
Dave, Independent.
Yes, good morning, Ben.
Your lawyers have ways to verify, I'm sure, or try to verify other immigrants that are leaving their country.
Now, what I'm trying to get at is trying to go around the money -making deal with these coyotes and everything.
I feel that there must be a way that the United States can tell those people, all those immigrants from other countries, To have a file for us signed and sealed by their government leaders,
a document that says, and they're going to pay their leaders to leave this country if that's on a permanent scale to go work for somebody else.
That means they're not coming back or whatever.
And when they do, they come over here, and we've got verification that that government has been paid a certain amount of money to leave their country.
All right.
Well, Dave, let's take your idea.
Mr. Johnson.
Well, look, the reality is most of the places that people were fleeing when they were coming to the U .S. border were places that...
You know, we're not going to be able to negotiate, you know, those kinds of deals with.
They were failed dictatorships, whether it's Venezuela or Cuba, Haiti that is, you know, just, you know, devolved into chaos.
So that's the point, is that those folks were fleeing really, you know, places that were collapsing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they were entitled to asylum under U .S. law, but I get why they were leaving.
Here's the thing, though, that...
It's kind of sad that the only line that they could go to stand in was the line at the U .S. border.
What a great world it would have been if we could have created ways for them to stand in line at their U .S. consulate at home to line up for visas that we put forward
We're good to go.
How do we deal with the country conditions that are driving them out?
And how do we create opportunities for them to stand in lines other than at the southern border?
Can our viewers find recommendations at your association's website?
Absolutely.
You know, aila .org.
We have been trying to be in the business of solutions for a long time now, including during the first Trump administration.
I think we need to focus a little less on, you know, Random acts of anger and outrage, and we ought to focus more on solutions.
That's what we've been focused on, as has been an organization we've worked with for a very long time, the American Immigration Council.
Their website also has a lot of solutions -based work, a lot of research and analysis.
They've got a great map on Map the Impact, where you can go onto that and you can select what does immigration mean in economic terms in Ohio, in Arizona, in Wisconsin.
Thanks for the conversation.
Thank you.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Former NFL coach Bill Belichick whose father coached at the Naval Academy participated in a discussion on leadership and values.
He also talks about his career transition from the NFL to his new position as the head football coach at the University of North Carolina.
The National Medal of Honor Center for Leadership hosted this 90 -minute event.