Gerald Ford and America's "moral obligation" to refugees
Fifty years ago, when the city of Saigon fell and the U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia came to an end, President Gerald Ford faced a choice: Many anti-communist South Vietnamese feared forced relocation and political persecution at home, and looked to America for refuge. But the American public was bitterly divided over whether to accept such a large influx of refugees. At the time, Lesley Stahl reported on the "overwhelmingly hostile" mail received on Capitol Hill about the issue; one letter, from a Nebraska constituent, read, "They bring only disease, corruption, and apathy."
The U.S. unemployment rate sat at nearly 9 percent, a post-World War II high. To many, bringing destitute Vietnamese to American shores seemed nonsensical.
But President Ford saw the issue in stark moral terms: "There are tens of thousands of other South Vietnamese intellectuals, professors, teachers, editors, and opinion leaders who have supported the South Vietnamese cause and the alliance with the United States, to whom we have a profound moral obligation," he said. Ford ordered several airlifts to extract 130,000 South Vietnamese refugees and asylum-seekers. He signed into law a bill securing relocation aid and financial assistance.
And he corralled a coalition of religious groups, southern Democratic governors, and labor leaders to secure their housing and employment.
At first, many of the new refugees relied on public assistance and took low-paying jobs. But in the years that followed, most gained employment, and their reliance on government aid declined. They became small business owners and pillars of community … contributors large and small to the American tapestry. Among them: federal judges, a Pulitzer-winning novelist, and even an Oscar-winning actor.
"My journey started on a boat," said "Everything Everywhere All at Once" star Ke Huy Quan. "I spent a year in a refugee camp, and somehow I ended up here, on Hollywood's biggest stage." Ford's decision to welcome these refugees wasn't just the right thing to do – it was smart. He realized that in a nation of immigrants like ours, strength derives in large part from diversity. His leadership showed compassion, political courage, and moral clarity … qualities our leaders could use today more than ever.
For more info:
Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley
Story produced by Robert Marston. Editor: Lauren Barnello.
See also:
Remembering the fall of Saigon ("Sunday Morning")Surviving the torturous hell of the Hanoi Hilton ("Sunday Morning")The singer who spoke her mind to Richard Nixon ("Sunday Morning")The improbable true story behind "The Greatest Beer Run Ever" ("Sunday Morning")A Vietnam veteran's epic poem of war ("Sunday Morning")A very personal "thank you for your service" ("Sunday Morning")Mark Bowden on Vietnam War's "tragic and meaningless waste" ("Sunday Morning")The lost platoon: Aftermath ("Sunday Morning")How a tagged-and-bagged soldier was saved from the dead ("Sunday Morning")The girl in the picture ("Sunday Morning")Vietnam orphans search for their roots ("Sunday Morning")Re-viewing the legacy of LBJ ("Sunday Morning")
Saturday Sessions: Goose performs "Thatch"
Saturday Sessions: Goose performs "Give It Time"
Who will be the next pope? Some of the top possible candidates
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
For the past 70 years, Gallup has measured US presidents' approval ratings. Bill Clinton had the highest approval ratings at the time he left the Oval Office. Donald Trump's first-term rating is tied for eighth place with George W. Bush's and Jimmy Carter's. President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's China Gambit Belies Rocky Road Ahead on Tariff Deals
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. President Donald Trump has come up short on striking trade deals with most nations with just one month left before his self-imposed tariff deadline, even as he took his first steps in weeks toward engaging with China. Trump secured a much-desired call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, paving the way for a new round of talks on Monday in London — yet the diplomacy was overshadowed by a blowout public fight between Trump and his billionaire onetime ally, Elon Musk. Trump's aides insisted Friday that the president was moving on and focused on his economic agenda. Still, question marks remain over the US's most consequential trade relationships, with few tangible signs of progress toward interim agreements. India, which the Trump administration has cited as an early deal target, has taken a tougher line in negotiations and challenged Trump's auto tariffs at the World Trade Organization. Japan held another round of talks with the US, while also signaling it wants a reprieve from duties on cars and light trucks. The legal fight over Trump's tariffs hangs over everything. A court ruling striking down the country-by-country duties imposed using emergency authorities left partners with no certainty over what Trump's powers are. The next test could come as soon as next week, when a court could rule on the administration's appeal. Trump and his team were eager to draw attention to inroads with China as proof his ways are working. Trump on Friday described talks with Beijing as 'very far advanced' and said Xi had agreed to speed shipments of critical rare-earth minerals that were at the center of recent tension. Unlocking those supplies would spell relief for major American automakers. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will visit the UK next week, during which he will conduct trade negotiations with the US, the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement late Saturday. The mixed results in the talks so far demonstrate the highs and lows of Trump's mercurial approach to trade, in which he and aides have cast him as the ultimate decision-maker on any deals. Rather than provide a clear-cut victory, Trump's dealings with Xi also show the difficult road ahead with China. The rare-earths dispute revealed how important those supplies, which Beijing dominates, are for the US economy. 'Xi is not letting go of the rare earths. He's got leverage, he's using it,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. 'They talked, that's the most important thing. I think they're really far apart.' The clock is ticking for Trump. His 90-day pause on higher tariffs for the European Union and nearly five dozen countries expires July 9 — barring an extension he could do with the flick of a pen — while China's reprieve extends until August. If deals aren't reached, Trump plans to restore tariff rates to the levels he first announced in April, or lower numbers that exceed the current 10% baseline, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'We will have deals. It takes time. Usually it takes months and years; in this administration, it's going to take more like days,' White House trade counselor Peter Navarro said Friday on Fox Business. 'We're on task and on target.' The Office of the US Trade Representative 'looks more like a deli now,' Navarro said, with countries lining up for talks. USTR sent letters this week to trading partners reminding them of the deadline. It's unclear what all the frantic activity has yielded. Xi for months was reluctant to get on the phone with Trump and analysts speculated about what concessions the US president offered to his counterpart in exchange for the call. Trump at least appeared to give some ground on foreign students, saying it would be his 'honor' to welcome Chinese scholars even as his administration cracks down on student visas. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz visited Washington facing demands from his nation's automakers for tariff credits for vehicles they produce in the US. But the subject barely came up during the public portion of his meeting with Trump, who spent a large chunk of time unloading on Musk. 'We'll end up hopefully with a trade deal or we'll do something — you know, we'll do the tariffs,' Trump said Thursday alongside Merz. Merz, in his US visit, emphasized the integrated trade ties between countries that are at risk — including by personally driving a BMW built in South Carolina. The German leader said Friday at an industry event the nations should agree on an 'offset rule' that would provide tariff relief for existing US production. Trump's UK deal — the lone pact so far — was undercut this week when he plowed ahead with levies on steel and aluminum. The UK said the pact included an agreement for zero tariffs on British metals, but Trump's latest order kept a 25% charge on them while negotiations continue and doubled the rate for others. Still, the upcoming Group of Seven summit of leaders from major economies could provide an opportunity for the type of in-person dealmaking Trump craves. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been discussing terms of a potential interim deal with Trump ahead of the gathering this month near Calgary. One theme is clear: Negotiations over his so-called reciprocal tariffs have grown intertwined with his separate duties on autos and metals, despite previous US signals that the administration considered them separate. 'He's entirely transactional,' Holtz-Eakin said of Trump. 'He will always deal.' Talks are ongoing with the EU, which has previously proposed an agreement with the US to mutually drop auto tariffs to zero as part of a broader trade framework, which the Trump administration rejected. The bloc subsequently suggested working toward zero-for-zero tariffs on cars, other industrial goods and some agricultural imports with tariff-rate quotas as a possible interim measure. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this week he'd consider some type of 'export credit' on autos, the kind of carve-out sought by Germany on vehicle tariffs. And he predicted there would be a US-India deal in the 'not too distant future.' Lutnick signaled, though, Trump's push for so-called reciprocity comes with caveats. The US wouldn't agree with Vietnam to drop all tariffs, because it believes the Southeast Asian nation is a hub for so-called transshipment of Chinese goods. Talks with South Korea, where Trump spoke with newly elected president Lee Jae-myung, and Japan, which had top trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa meet with Lutnick, continued this week. In yet another sign of the Trump team's frenetic approach, Nikkei reported that different — and even competing — positions among Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Lutnick had confounded Japanese counterparts. --With assistance from Akayla Gardner, Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Alberto Nardelli, Hadriana Lowenkron, Arne Delfs and Shiyin Chen. (Updates with China's He attending talks in London in eighth paragraph) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
