>> BRAUDE: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON," JOSEPH JABIR POPE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE CHANCE OF PAROLE, FOR A MURDER EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE STATE, AGREES HE DID NOT COMMIT.

NOW HE'S FIGHTING FOR A NEW TRIAL.

BUT AS A "GLOBE SPOTLIGHT" REPORT SHOWS, HE'S FAR FROM ALONE IN HIS SITUATION.

HE JOINS ME FOR HIS FIRST BROADCAST INTERVIEW, ALONG WITH HIS ATTORNEY, AHEAD.

THEN LATER, UKRAINIAN REFUGEES ARE GETTING THE GREEN LIGHT IN THE U.S., WHILE OTHERS FLEEING WAR AND ATROCITIES SEEM TO FACE HURDLE AFTER HURDLE.

DO WE HAVE A REFUGEE DOUBLE-STANDARD?

AND IS THE MEDIA, AT LEAST IN PART, TO BLAME?

>> BRAUDE: BACK IN 2009, TIMOTHY BROWN WAS HANGING OUT WITH A GROUP OF FRIENDS AT HIS APARTMENT, WHEN ONE OF THE FRIENDS DECIDED TO ROB TWO BROTHERS HE KNEW IN LOWELL.

BROWN CHOSE NOT TO GO.

BUT WHEN HIS FRIENDS ASKED HIM TO LEND THEM HOODIES AND A GUN, HE DID.

THE FRIENDS ENDED UP KILLING THOSE BROTHERS, AND EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, INCLUDING TIMOTHY BROWN, WHO WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE MURDER SCENE.

THAT'S BECAUSE MASSACHUSETTS LAW AT THE TIME SAID THAT ANYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN A FELONY, SUCH AS KNOWINGLY GIVING PEOPLE CLOTHES AND A GUN FOR AN ARMED ROBBERY, CAN BE CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE FELONY MURDER, EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE TAKING OF A LIFE.

BROWN APPEALED HIS CONVICTION.

AND IN 2017, THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT RULED THAT, GOING FORWARD, PROSECUTORS SEEKING A FELONY MURDER CONVICTION WOULD HAVE TO PROVE A DEFENDANT ACTED WITH THE INTENT TO KILL OR SERIOUSLY HURT SOMEONE.

AND AS FOR BROWN'S SPECIFIC CASE, THE COURT REDUCED HIS CONVICTION TO SECOND-DEGREE MURDER, MAKING HIM ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AFTER 15 YEARS.

BUT THE NEW, LANDMARK RULING BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIS CASE DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY SET HIM FREE.

IT WAS NOT RETROACTIVE.

HIS MOTHER RECENTLY TOLD THE "BOSTON GLOBE," "I'LL BE TOTALLY HONEST.

I GET VERY BITTER AT THE SITUATION.

I THINK THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME."

AND AS THE "GLOBE" HIGHLIGHTS IN THEIR NEW "SPOTLIGHT" SERIES, "UNFINISHED JUSTICE," BROWN IS FAR FROM ALONE.

THEIR REVIEW OF A FEW HUNDRED CASES GOING BACK TO THE '70S FOUND AT LEAST 23 MEN SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR MURDERS THAT THEIR JUDGES, JURIES AND PROSECUTORS ALL AGREED THEY DID NOT COMMIT.

AND THERE MAY BE MANY MORE.

AMONG THEM IS JOSEPH JABIR POPE, A U.S. MARINE VET, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY MURDER IN CONNECTION WITH A 1984 ARMED ROBBERY, AND HAS BEEN FIGHTING THE LEGALITY OF THAT CONVICTION SINCE ALMOST 30 YEARS BEFORE THE BROWN RULING CHANGED EVERYTHING.

HE HAS SERVED 37 YEARS.

37 YEARS.

HE'S OUT OF PRISON TEMPORARILY, WHILE HIS ARGUMENT IS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT.

JOSEPH JABIR POPE JOINS ME, ALONG WITH HIS ATTORNEY, JEFFREY HARRIS, WHO'S BEEN ON THIS SHOW BEFORE REPRESENTING FREDERICK CLAY AND TYRONE CLARK, BOTH OF WHOM HE HELPED SET FREE AFTER DECADES IN PRISON FOR MURDERS THEY BOTH HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THEY DID NOT COMMIT.

>> Braude: JOSEPH POPE, GOOD TO MEET YOU.

JEFFREY HARRIS, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> THANK YOU, JIM.

>> Braude: JOSEPH, IF I CAN START WITH YOU, WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN THAT DORCHESTER HOUSE IN 1984 WHEN DEJESUS WAS MURDERED?

>> IN A PHRASE: A DRUG TRANSACTION.

>> Braude: AND DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER OF MR. DEJESUS, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIM WHEN HE WAS MURDERED?

>> NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE MURDER.

NOR WAS HE EVER ROBBED.

>> Braude: DID YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FELONY MURDER LAWS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT THE TIME OF THIS LIFE TAKING?

>> NOT IN ANY DEPTH, NO.

>> Braude: JEFFREY, DOES ANYBODY DISPUTE -- DO ANY OF THE PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THIS MANNER DISPUTE THE NOTION THAT MR. POPE DID NOT COMMIT THIS MURDER?

>> NO.

EVERYONE AGREES THAT HE WAS UPSTAIRS WHEN THE MURDER WAS COMMITTED DOWNSTAIRS.

SO, UM, IN THAT WAY WE HAVE A PRETTY CLEAR-CUT CASE.

>> Braude: SO WHAT ARE THE VEHICLES FOR ADDRESSING WHAT THE S.J.C.

ITSELF SAID A MINUTE AGO SAID IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED FIXING, AND TO REPEAT, THEY FIX IT PROSPECTIVELY, NOT RETROACTIVELY.

WHAT HAPPENS FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHALLENGE THE SENTENCES FOR MURDERS THEY DID NOT COMMIT?

>> SADLY, THERE IS REALLY NO OBVIOUS WAY TO DO IT.

WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE COULD DO WITH RESPECT TO CHALLENGING THE FELONY MURDER CASE.

BUT THE BROWN CASE SAID IT WAS PROFLECTIVE ONLY.

WE ARGUE THAT THE RULE SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE THE RULES, AND THEY DO CHANGE RULES LIKE THIS OFTEN.

AND IF THE RULE GETS CHANGED, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME LIMITED RETROACTIVE AFFECT, THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE IN MR. POPE'S CIRCUMSTANCES WHO NOT ONLY CHALLENGED THIS RULE THROUGHOUT AND SAID THIS ISN'T RIGHT, EVEN AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, EVEN 30 YEARS BEFORE BROWN, BUT ALSO TODAY THE COMMONWEALTH ACKNOWLEDGES IF THERE WAS EVER GOING TO BE A CASE FOR RETROACTIVE, THIS IS THE CASE.

AND THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT PREJUDICE BY RETRO ACTIVE CASES IN THIS CASE.

>> Braude: JEFFREY, I WANT TO STAY WITH YOU.

ONE OF THE THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- AND MAYBE YOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION -- THE S.J.C.

'S CONTENTION, IN TERMS OF THE RETROACTIVELY, IS NOT TO HAVE THIS RETRO RETROACTIVELY DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THERE IS INTENT TO HARM.

MAYBE THEY COULD PROVE THAT, BUT SINCE THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THAT ELEMENT, IT'S NOT FAIR.

SO WHY DIDN'T THEY REQUIRE OR ORDER NEW TRIALS IN ALL OF THESE CASES, LIKE JOSEPH POPE'S, AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO INTENT TO HARM, NO INTENT FORFOR MALICE?

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, JIM.

THAT THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE MOST JUST OUTCOME, SOMEONE WHO IS CONVICTED ON A NOW ILLEGITIMATE THEORY SHOULDN'T STAY IN PRISON.

BUT, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY QUESTION THAT IN THIS CASE MR. POPE WAS NOT A PART OF THE MURDER.

SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY -- THIS IS A CLEAR APPLICATION OF THAT.

AND THE COMMONWEALTH HAS SAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE -- THAT THEY -- EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN ON NOTICE THEY HAVE TO PROVE MALICE, IN MR. POPE'S CASE THEY COULDN'T PROVE IT.

SO THEY'RE NOT PREJUDICE IN THIS CASE.

>> Braude: I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU, JOSEPH POPE, FOR A SECOND.

37 YEARS IN JAIL, UNTIL AT LEAST THIS TEMPORARY RELEASE -- DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD DIE IN PRISON?

>> UM, WHEN I WAS BEING PROCESSED OUT, A CASE WORKER ASKED ME IF I EVER THOUGHT THAT THIS DAY WOULD COME.

AND MY RESPONSE TO HER WAS, I ALWAYS FOUGHT FOR THIS DAY TO COME.

I DIDN'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF GIVING UP, BECAUSE GIVING UP WOULD HAVE SIMPLY MEANT TO DIE IN PRISON, AND I WASN'T PREPARED TO DO THAT.

SO I HOPED AND I PRAYED AND I STRIVED, AND I STAYED FOCUSED ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS DAY WOULD COME.

>> Braude: I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOCUS.

YOU HAVE A REALLY POWERFUL QUOTE YOU GAVE TO "THE BOSTON GLOBE," YOU SAY: "INNOCENT PRISONERS USUALLY DO TIME DIFFERENTLY THAN GUILTY PRISONERS.

I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN BOTH.

THOSE THAT ARE GUILTY THEY SOMEHOW FIND RELIEF, BUT WITH INNOCENT PRISONERS, THERE IS A HUNGER AND RAGE THAT ACCOMPANIES US ON A REGULAR BASIS."

HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT HUNGER AND RAGE IF YOU DON'T KNOW THERE WILL EVER BE AN END POINT?

>> IT IS SOMETHING THAT DRIVES YOU.

I'VE BEEN ASKED THAT AMONG MY PEERS AND VARIOUS GROUPS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, AND I LIKEN IT TO BEING A FATHER.

I'M A FATHER, I LOVE MY CHILDREN, AND I DON'T GET TO STOP BEING A FATHER, NO MATTER WHAT.

IT'S THE SAME WITH THIS.

I DIDN'T HAVE THE LUXURY TO FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM.

I WAS HAUNTED BY THE FACT I WAS IN PRISON FOR SOMETHING I REALLY DID NOT DO.

I WAS CONVINCED THAT ALL PARTIES THAT WAS INVOLVED KNEW THAT.

THAT'S WHY RAGE HAS BEEN MY CONSTANT COMPANION FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED.

>> Braude: HOW DID IT FEEL, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT IS TEMPORARY FOR NOT -- HOW DID IT FEEL WHEN YOU WALKED OUT THAT DOOR, BE I BELIEVE YOU WERE GREETED BY JEFFREY HARRIS?

WHAT DID THAT FEEL LIKE?

>> IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT.

IT WAS A MOMENT THAT I WASN'T SURE WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING UNTIL MAYBE MY FIRST BITE OF A DOUGHNUT AT DUNKIN' DOUGHNUTS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[LAUGHTER] >> AND I'M STILL ADJUSTING BECAUSE I STILL LIVE IN A GRAY AREA BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT MADE A DECISION.

I DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF MAKING LONG-TERM PLANS OR LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS BECAUSE I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THE COURT WILL RULE.

BUT FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT I AM OUT, I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO SOME GOOD.

I WANT TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO MY COMMUNITY, IN THE HOPES OF TURNING THE YOUNG AWAY FROM THE ROAD THAT LEADS TO PRISON, AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS THAT I CAN MAKE.

>> Braude: JEFFREY HARRIS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU.

KEVIN HEY HAYDEN WAS ON OUR RADIO SHOW, AND I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THE POPE CASE, BUT I DID ASK HIM HOW TO TREAT THESE FELONY CASES THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER.

HERE IS A LITTLE WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.

>> I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW TO APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY RETROACTIVELY APPROACH SOME OF THESE CASES ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE JUDGE GANTS ACTED BECAUSE PART OF THIS POINT WAS, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED DIFFERENTLY WITHOUT THE MURDER REQUIRING A SHOW OF MALICE.

OTHER STATES HAVE LED THE WAY WITH LEGISLATIVE FIXES, AND I THINK A LEGISLATIVE FIX WILL BE APPROPRIATE HERE AS WELL.

>> Braude: WHAT DO YOU TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT KEVIN HAYDEN HAD TO SAY, JEFFREY?

>> THAT'S A VERY WELCOME ADDITION.

I'M GLAD THAT HIM AND SEVERAL D.A.s, AS THE GLOBE HAD NOTED, SEEM TO BE OPEN TO CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, WHICH IS NOT RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE NEW LAW THAT CAME OUT AFTER BROWN, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING.

I ASKED THEM, BEFORE WE WENT TO THE COURT IN THIS CASE, BEFORE THE S.J.C.

ARGUMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE WILLING TO REVERSE THEIR POSITION ON THE FELONY MURDER ISSUE IN MR. POPE'S CASE, AND I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING BACK AT THAT POINT.

SO THAT WAS THEIR POSITION IN JANUARY .

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS CHANGED NOW, WHICH IS NICE.

>> Braude: WILL YOU PURSUE RELIEF IN THAT FORM, IN THE SUFFOLK D.A., IN THE MATTER BEFORE -- >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

I ALREADY HAVE.

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK TO REVIEW THIS -- >> Braude: OKAY.

>> BECAUSE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK OUT SOMETHING.

>> Braude: HOW ABOUT -- YOU KNOW THAT THE GOVERNOR FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE OUTGOING GOVERNOR, HAD TWO COMMUTATIONS RECENTLY.

IS THAT A POSSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER?

>> WELL, I GUESS I WANT TO SAY THIS ISN'T YOUR CLEAR-CUT CASE OF THE PROVERBIAL GET-AWAY CAR.

I DON'T THINK IT FALLS INTO THE KIND OF CASES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

MR. POPE SAID I WAS NEVER ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF ARMED ROBBERY OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

BUT -- SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET HIS CONVICTION VACATED COMPLETELY BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO IT.

NOT THAT HE SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO SOMETHING ELSE, OR THERE SHOULD BE SOME OTHER CHARGE.

THIS IS -- HE IS INNOCENT.

SO I'M NOT -- THAT'S OUR POSITION.

>> Braude: UNDERSTOOD.

JOSEPH POPE, DO YOU FEAR A LOSS HERE AND RETURN TO WHERE YOU SPENT MORE THAN 37 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE?

>> OF COURSE.

OVER THE SPAN OF 37 YEARS, I'VE SUFFERED A GREAT DEAL OF LOSSES.

AND THAT'S BEEN MY JOURNEY UP TO THIS POINT.

SO I KNOW THAT TOMORROW IS NOT PROMISED TO ME, LIKE IT IS NOT PROMISED TO ANYONE ELSE, AND OF COURSE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY I COULD RETURN TO PRISON.

>> Braude: ONE LAST THING FOR YOU, JOSEPH, IS -- ONE OF THE CRUEL IRONIES OF YOUR CASE, AT LEAST TO ME, IS THE STATE HAS TAKEN MORE THAN HALF OF YOUR LIFE FOR A MURDER, THAT AS WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE NONE OF THE INVOLVED PLAYERS EVEN SUGGEST YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND THAT'S THE SAME STATE, THE SAME COUNTRY THAT YOU VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE.

DO YOU REGRET THAT SERVICE AT ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU OVER THE LAST FOUR DECADES?

>> NO.

APPLES AND ORANGES.

>> Braude: WHY?

>> BECAUSE WHEN I WENT INTO SERVE, THAT WAS A DECISION I MADE.

ME BEING INCARCERATED WAS A DECISION THAT PEOPLE MADE ABOUT MY LIFE.

THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE.

>> Braude: WELL, YOU'RE A BETTER MAN THAN I AM IN THAT REGARD.

>> I WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY, I LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY, I LOVE THIS COUNTRY, YOU KNOW.

I JUST DON'T LIKE HOW IT BEHAVES OFTEN.

>> Braude: WELL, I HOPE IT BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY IN YOUR CASE.

JOSEPH POPE, IT IS GOOD TO MEET YOU.

I WISH YOU LUCK.

JEFFREY HARRIS, GOOD LUCK TO YOU AS WELL.

>> BEFORE WE LEAVE, JIM, IF I MAY -- >> Braude: OF COURSE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO ALL OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO SERVE IN RAMADAN, WE'VE GOT IT.

>> BRAUDE: JOSEPH JABIR POPE, JEFFREY HARRIS, THANKS.

>>> A WARNING BEFORE OUR NEXT SEGMENT: SOME OF THE IMAGES WE'RE GOING TO SHOW ARE DISTURBING, INCLUDING THOSE COMING OUT OF BUCHA OF MASS GRAVES, PEOPLE BOUND AND SHOT AND CLOSE-RANGE, SIGNS OF MUTILATION AND TORTURE, AND DESCRIPTIONS LIKE THESE FROM UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY BEFORE THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL TODAY.

>> (SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER): SOME OF THEM WERE SHOT ON THE STREETS; OTHERS WERE THROWN INTO THE WELLS, SO THEY DIED THERE IN SUFFERING.

THEY CUT OFF LIMBS, CUT THEIR THROATS, SLASHED THEIR THROATS.

WOMEN WERE RAPED AND KILLED IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN.

>> BRAUDE: THEY'RE DESCRIPTIONS AND IMAGES THAT HAVE CERTAINLY CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THE MEDIA, WITH HEADLINES LIKE "IMAGES OF DEAD CIVILIANS IN UKRAINE SHAKE THE WORLD" AND "UP-CLOSE UKRAINE ATROCITY PHOTOGRAPHS TOUCH A GLOBAL NERVE."

AND THE BRUTALITY ON DISPLAY HAS LED TO INTENSE CONCERN ABOUT THE FATE OF THOSE REFUGEES, WITH THE U.S.

COMMITTING LAST MONTH TO ACCEPTING AS MANY AS 100,000 PEOPLE FLEEING UKRAINE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MANY OTHER REFUGEES FLEEING VIOLENCE AROUND THE WORLD IN PLACES LIKE SYRIA, HAITI AND CENTRAL AMERICA, WHICH GET COMPARATIVELY LESS MEDIA ATTENTION AND LESS CONSIDERATION BY AMERICANS, AND OUR LEADERS AT LARGE?

JOINING ME ARE ADAM ISACSON, DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE OVERSIGHT FOR WOLA, WHICH ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AMERICAS, AND DANIEL PEREIRA, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE ADVOCACY COALITION.

>> Braude: DANIEL ADAM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Braude: CAN I GET A BRIEF REACTION FROM BOTH OF YOU -- ADAM, FOR STARTS -- WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO PRESIDENT BIDEN'S DECISION TO WELCOME 100,000 UKRAINIAN REFUGEES?

>> I THINK IT IS A SMART DECISION.

YOU'RE SAVING LIVES.

IF YOU'RE A REFUGEE, IT MEANS YOU CAN APPLY AND START THE PROCESS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, HAVE YOUR BACKGROUND HOPEFULLY QUICKLY CHECKED, AND THEN BE ABLE TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES.

RATHER THAN HAVING TO DO SOME TRANSATLANTIC VOYAGE OR MAKE YOUR WAY ACROSS MEXICO.

THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY.

>> Braude: DANIEL, ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT?

YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD IN AGREEMENT?

>> I THINK IT IS 100% CORRECT.

HONESTLY, THE WAY THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS REACTED TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND THE REFUGEE CRISIS IS IN MANY WAYS A MODEL FOR WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE FOR CONFLICTS AND SITUATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

>> Braude: ADAM, I KNOW YOU JUST GOT BACK FROM THE BORDER OF TEXAS AND MEXICO, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DISPUTE THAT WE, NOT ALL REFUGEES AND ASYLUM ASYLUM-SEEKERS ARE CREATED EQUAL IN THE EYES OF SOME.

WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DISPERITE TREATMENT?

>> U.S. LAW SAYS THAT ANYBODY WHO CAN SET FOOT ON U.S.

SOIL HAS THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM.

IF THEY SAY, I AM AFRAID TO GO BACK TO MY COUNTRY, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE FOR EVERYBODY.

TITLE 42 SAID BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, NOBODY CAN ASK FOR ASYLUM.

THERE IS EXPULSION IMMEDIATELY.

THE STATE OF MEXICO, WHICH IS THE ONLY BORDER STATE THAT HAS A LEVEL 4 TRAVEL WARNING FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, SAYING DO NOT GO HERE.

THERE IS KIDNAPPING AND VIOLENCE ALL OF THE TIME.

AND YET WE'RE SENDING TENS OF THOUSANDS BACK THERE, EVEN IF THEY'RE TRYING TO ASK FOR PROTECTION.

ALMOST NONE OF THEM ARE UKRAINIAN; ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE FROM SOMEWHERE IN LATIN-AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN.

LATIN-AMERICA HAS MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE WORLD'S HOMICIDES.

A LOT PEOPLE HAVE VERY VALID ASYLUM CLAIMS, BUT FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS NOW IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO BE HEARD BY A U.S. OFFICIAL WHEN YOU SAY YOU FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE.

>> Braude: ADAM, STAYING WITH YOU, I THINK EVERYBODY WATCHING REMEMBERS THE COMMENTS REPORTED BY NBC AND OTHERS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO AT LEAST USED TITLE 42, WHICH JOE BIDEN HAS SAID WILL EXPIRE SOME TIME I BELIEVE LATER IN MAY, THE INFAMOUS COMMENT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHY DO WE HAVE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE FROM SHIT-HOLE NATIONS, AND IT IS HARD TO ESCAPE THE NOTION THAT THAT IS ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE SKIN OF PEOPLE HOPING TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY.

IS THAT UNFAIR?

>> ABSOLUTELY -- NO, IT IS FAIR.

THERE ARE THREE REASONS.

RIGHT NOW UKRAINIANS ARE WALKING RIGHT PAST OTHER NATIONALITIES.

THE FIRST IS ABSOLUTELY RACISM.

UKRAINIAN ARE FAIR-SKINNED PEOPLE.

SECOND, OBVIOUSLY, THE BEGINNING OF THIS STORY SHOWED THE URGENCY IN THE NEWS, DEAD BODIES ON TV IN UKRAINE.

AND THE THIRD REASON, ASYLUM IN THE UNITED STATES COMES SINCE 1980, AND THE CHIP IN OUR BRAIN IS THOSE MOST DESERVING OF ASYLUM IS SOMEBODY FLEEING FROM COMMUNISM.

AND SOMEBODY FLEEING FROM HONDURAS, THEY DON'T SEEM TO MEET THE SAME URGENCY.

SO THESE THREE THINGS TOGETHER -- >> Braude: DANIEL, IT SEEMS WHILE NOT NOT IN THE BUSINESS YOU BOTH ARE IN, THERE WAS A COMPARABLE URGENCY FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HAITIANS, WHETHER THEY WERE LITERALLY BEING WHIPPED BY PEOPLE, AGENTS ON HORSES, OR JUST ROUNDED UP.

THERE WAS AN URGENCY THERE, AND THAT WASN'T SEEN OR VIEWED THE SAME WAY THE URGENCY FOR UKRAINIANS IS VIEWED?

>> NO, IT WASN'T.

AND I THINK PART OF IS IT IS THE ROLE THAT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GROUPS HAVE PLAYED, THAT THE MEDIA HAS PLAYED, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS PLAYED, IN DEHUMANIZING THE PEOPLE FLEEING CATASTROPHES OR POLITICAL STRIFE IN HAITI OR CENTRAL AMERICA OR THE CARIBBEAN AND AFRICA.

THE RACISM IS PART OF IT.

THE DEHUMANIZATION, THE IMPRESSION OF THE REFUGEE OR THE ASYLUM-SEEKER AS THIS PERSON OF COLOR, AND WE DON'T REALLY THINK OF THIS AS PEOPLE AT A CERTAIN PEOPLE.

WE SHOULD, BUT THEY'RE NOT TREATED THAT WAY IN THEIR PERCEPTION.

I THINK ANOTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER IS THAT DEALING WITH REFUGEE AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS FROM THESE COUNTRIES OFTEN INVOLVES RECKONING WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT'S OWN ROLE ON CREATING THE SITUATIONS THEY'RE FLEEING FROM.

NOT TO SAY THE GLOBAL SUPER POWER, BUT ESPECIALLY WITH OUR POLICY DECISIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, IN THE CARIBBEAN AND HAITI.

I THINK THAT BY LOOKING AT WHY PEOPLE ARE FLEEING, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT DID THE UNITED STATES DO, AND HOW DID U.S. INVOLVEMENT CREATE THE CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE NOW TRYING TO FLEE FROM?

>> Braude: AND POLITICS ALSO, OCCASIONALLY -- I'M NOT AN HISTORIAN OF REFUGEES, BUT ALSO WILL OCCASIONALLY TRUMP RACE IN THE CASE COMING FROM CUBA BECAUSE THAT SATISFIED OUR POLITICAL INTEREST.

OBVIOUSLY WE WERE WILLING TO OVERLOOK THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN WAS NOT LIKE OURS.

DANIEL JUST MENTIONED THE MEDIA, AND I DON'T THINK THE MEDIA COULD HAVE POSSIBLY DONE A BETTER JOB ON THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE THAN IT HAS DONE.

BUT THE CONTRAST THAT COMES TO ME, FROM SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE MEDIA, IS THE JOB WE HAVEN'T DONE WITH A LOT OF THE POPULATIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IT SEEMS TO ME IF THE SAME ATTENTION BY THE MEDIA WAS PAID TO PEOPLE COMING FROM CENTRAL AMERICA, OR THOSE HAITIAN REFUGEES, NOT FOR A HANDFUL OF DAYS BUT BEYOND AND TRACK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN, WHAT, 10,000 WERE DEPORTED OVER A PERIOD OF A MONTH OR SO, AND WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT RECEPTION ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT.

IS THAT A FAIR ANALYSIS?

>> THAT IS A MORE THAN FAIR ANALYSIS.

THERE WAS SOME VERY GOOD MEDIA COVERAGE OF THOSE FEW DAYS IN DEL RIO, TEXAS, WHEN THE BORDER PATROL PEOPLE WERE CHARGING AT THE IMMIGRANTS.

BUT IN PORT-AU-PRINCE, THEY WERE DUMPED IN VERY TREACHEROUS CONDITIONS.

AND VERY FEW REPORTERS HAVE GONE THERE.

THERE ARE SOME AMAZINGLY GOOD REPORTERS WORKING ON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM, AND THEY ARE SOME OF THE MOST FRUSTRATED PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY CAN REPORT THE HECK OF A STORY, AND IT BARELY LASTS MORE THAN A NEWS CYCLE.

AN INTERESTING COUNTEREXAMPLE WAS THE FAMILY SEPARATIONS OF 2018.

SOME VERY GRIPPING PHOTOS, SOME SMUGGLED OUT AUDIOS OF CRYING CHILDREN, AND THE WHOLE COUNTRY STOOD AT ATTENTION BECAUSE OF THAT GOOD MEDIA COVERAGE.

I FIND WHEN IT HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT, LIKE THE 800 OR MORE PEOPLE THAT DIED AND U.S.

SOIL IN THE LAST YEAR, IT IS VERY HARD TO GET ATTENTION, DESPITE SOME VERY GOOD REPORTERS' VERY GOOD WORK.

>> Braude: ONE LAST THING FOR THE TWO OF YOU.

WE MENTIONED TITLE 42, A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE THAT ALLOWS THE TRADITIONAL RULES OF ASYLUM TO BE SUSPENDED, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, SO IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE COMING ACROSS THE BORDER FROM THE DAY THAT THIS WAS STARTED BY DONALD TRUMP, AND IN ALL FAIRNESS CONTINUED BY JOE BIDEN UNTIL HE MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THE OTHER DAY, PEOPLE INSTEAD OF AWAITING THEIR ASYLUM HEARING HERE, ENDED UP IN SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PARTS OF MEXICO.

THE GOOD NEWS: THAT'S ABOUT TO DISAPPEAR.

I ASSUME MORE FAIRNESS, DANIEL, WILL BE INVOKED.

THE BAS BAD NEWS, IT SEEMS TO ME, WE WILL MORE LIKELY HAVE A RUSH AT OUR BORDERS THAT WILL FURTHER IN FLAME THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION PART OF OUR COUNTRY, BOTH POLITICIANS AND CITIZENRY THAT WILL MAKE IT WORSE.

WHAT IS YOUR ANALYSIS, QUICKLY, DANIEL, WHAT THE END OF TITLE 42 IS GOING TO MEAN?

>> I THINK FIRST OFF IT IS WONDERFUL THAT TITLE 42 IS ENDING.

I THINK WE HOPE IT ENDS SOONER.

THEY'RE ENDING IT IN MAY, BUT I THINK IT COULD ABSOLUTELY BE TAKEN CARE OF SOONER AND DONE AWAY WITH.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING HERE IS THE LEGACY OF THE GUTTING OF THE SYSTEMS, THE STRUCTURES, AND THE BUREAUCRACIES THAT MANAGE REFUGEES AND ASYLUM.

APPLICATIONS ON THE BORDER AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY -- AND WE'LL BE DEALING WITH THE GUTTING OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS FOR A LONG TIME.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID TREMENDOUS DAMAGE TO THEM, UNDERFUNDED THEM, AND IT WAS IN -- I THINK IT IS VIOLENT THAT WE STAFF THOSE AGENCIES THAT WE NEED AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PURSUING THOSE MISSIONS AFFECTIVELY.

>> Braude: ADAM, I ONLY HAVE 30 OR 40 SECONDS, SO IT IS CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION, BUT I ASSUME FOR MUCH WORRY AS WELL?

>> IT IS CONSTANT WORRY.

IF YOU HAVE 200,000 PEOPLE COMING TO THE BORDER RIGHT NOW ASKING FOR PROTECTION, YOU COULD HAVE 300,000 OR 400,000 FOR A FEW MONTHS AFTER TITLE 42.

IF WE DID WHAT DANIEL HAD TALKED ABOUT, IT WOULD BE UNDRAMATIC.

PEOPLE WOULD BE FILLING OUT FORMS AND HAVING THEIR HEARING DATES SCHEDULED.

NO PROBLEM, RIGHT?

BUT STUFF IS NOT IN PLACE.

SO THE DANGEROUS IS SCENES OF CHAOS, PEOPLE CROWDED INTO TENTS, UNDER BRIDGES, AND REPUBLICANS JUST MAKING EH HAY OF IT ALL THE WAY TO NOVEMBER .

>> BRAUDE: ADAM ISACSON, DANIEL PEREIRA, THANKS.

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT, BUT COME BACK TOMORROW.

FORMER GOVERNOR MICHAEL DUKAKIS JOINS ME ON HIS PLANS TO HONOR UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT, AND I'M SURE ANOTHER POLITICAL TOPIC OR TWO.

PLUS, COMEDIAN AND STORYTELLER PHOEBE POTTS ON "TOO FAT FOR CHINA," HER ONE-WOMAN SHOW ABOUT THE AGONIES OF ADOPTION.

THAT AND MORE, TOMORROW AT 7:00.

THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND PLEASE STAY SAFE.

Captioned by Media Access Group at WGBH access.wgbh.org