♪ >> Hello, everyone.

Welcome to "Amanpour and Company."

here is what is coming up.

>> Do not believe the lies of smugglers.

People who do not use available, legal pathways to enter the U.S. now face tougher consequences.

>> Kevin border search.

Is the U.S. equipped to handle a sudden immigration spike as Covid era deportation powers expire?

I asked Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Caitlin Dickerson who has spent years investigating America's immigration prices.

Also ahead -- >> Say you are lonely and are extroverted to society is almost saying you are not lovable or something is wrong with you.

>> America's top Dr. gets personal about his own mental health struggles and why loneliness is now a public health priority.

Then, why activist Kristol echo Hoch says the U.S. is one giant crime scene, as she uncovers historic abuse of Native American children in government run schools.

Finally -- ♪ >> As renowned conductor David Barenboim says farewell to Berlin State Opera, we revisit a cherished interview.

>> "Amanpour and Company" is made possible by Sue and Edgar -- by the Anderson family fund.

Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III.

Candace King Weir.

Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams.

The family foundation of Leila and Mickey Straus.

Mark J. Blechner.

Seton J. Melvin.

Bernard and Denise Schwartz.

Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

We try to live in the moment, to not miss what is right in front of us.

At mutual of America, we believe taking care of tomorrow and help -- can help you make the most of today.

Mutual of America financial group, retirement services and investments.

Additional support provided by these funders.

And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

>> Welcome to the program.

I am in Washington, D.C. sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

The border is not open.

That is the warning from Washington as tens of thousands of migrants gather in northern Mexico.

It is after controversial Covid era immigration rules known as Title 42 came to an end overnight.

What does it mean?

Harsher consequences for those entering the U.S. illegally.

Several border communities have issued disaster declarations in anticipation of a possible surge, but there was no influx at midnight, a top official says.

Migration is high on the agenda of lawmakers around the world.

It is set to feature heavily in the year's presidential election.

Let's take a listen to those most affected, like this woman who fled to Venezuela and now cannot find her partner.

>> [speaking non-English language] >> [Speaking Spanish] >> Just a glimpse of what tens of thousands of people are enduring on this a very dangerous trek.

One of the places these migrants are trying to reach is El Paso, Texas, which is where our Laura -- our Rosa Florez is.

Thank you for joining us.

Tell us what you are seeing there in the hours since five -- since Title 42 has been lifted.

>> According to DHS officials, they say they did not see the expected influx that they were expecting once Title 42 lifted.

That is exactly what we are seeing today here in El Paso.

To show you what I'm talking about, I'm standing behind the border wall.

Beyond the border wall is a staging area where migrants wait to be transported for processing.

I want to show you video we shot yesterday.

And you can see that the lines are long, according to the U.S. border patrol chief, in the past few days, there were about 2500 migrants in this area.

Within 48 hours, they were able to transport and process 1500.

Yesterday, according to the chief, there were about 1000 individuals there waiting to be processed.

I want you to take a look at video from today, and you will be able to see those lines are much shorter.

There is actually a very small group of individuals who are there.

That is the reality on the ground right now.

You are probably wondering, where did all of these individuals go to?

And is it having an impact in these communities along the border?

What I can tell you is the Biden administration is using something called decompression.

What that means is they transport migrants from areas that are overcapacity, like El Paso, to other areas along the border to facilities along the border where they can be processed.

That is what we are seeing right now.

And it appears to be working.

According to officials, about 10,000 migrant encounters is what they are seeing now.

.

It is an increase.

But that increase has been going on for a few days.

I think that is the point from the point from the Biden administration at this point.

>> Way too soon to be calling this a victory of any sort for the administration, especially since they have seen legal setbacks overnight.

Talk about that.

>> You are absolutely right.

The -- preparing for this for more than a year.

They put in place various policies to make sure they were prepared for the lifting of Title 42.

There are a lot of different ways to explain these policies, and they are complicated.

But it boils down to this.

The Biden administration implemented policies that provide legal pathways for migrants to come into this country legally, but it also builds in legal consequences.

One of those most controversial policies is the asylum band that went into effect.

That asylum ban says any migrant who crosses multiple countries or other countries to get to the U.S. and who does not seek protections or seek asylum in those countries is banned from asylum in the U.S.

Here is the setback.

Overnight, what happened is the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration claiming the policy is very harmful to migrants, that it puts migrants in danger, it puts asylum-seekers in danger.

There was another one out of the state of Florida, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration's ability to release migrants who are already in its custody into the country without court dates.

I should mention, that is a policy that has been used by prior administrations.

It has been used a lot during surges.

What that does is it allows the Biden administration to manage the flow within detention facilities.

And the administration this morning saying that is a harmful practice, not just for migrants, but also the agents working in those detention centers.

>> Clear sign that legal challenges are coming from the right and left against this administration and its policy.

Rosa Florez, thank you.

Our next guest has spent years covering immigration, and just this week, won the Pulitzer Prize for her reporting in the Atlantic.

Caitlin Dickerson's cover story "we need to take away the children" was a compelling account of the Trump Administration policy that forcefully separated migrant children from their parents.

Kate enjoins me now from New York.

Thank you for joining us.

Congratulations on the much-deserved award.

.

I know you have been covering this beat for so long.

You're the perfect person to be talking to on this momentous day.

First, let me get you to respond from what we have been hearing from Rosa and your reporting, that we don't in these early hours of Title 42 having been lifted, don't yet see much chaos along the border.

What do you make of that?

Caitlin: Thank you so much for the congratulations, and for having me.

I have to say that I am not surprised by what you are is seeing on the border today.

Where to begin, really?

Title 42 is just one of literally dozens of Band-Aid policies that administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have applied to the border since 9/11.

That history is traced in the article, I wrote that you referred to.

Under the Trump Administration, which was really desperate to curtail the number of people requesting asylum, Stephen Miller, who was President Trump's Chief immigration advisor, he scoured federal law looking for ways that the president could bypass Congress and shut the border down himself.

I documented this in a front page story in the New York Times.

He finds Title 42.

He tries to put it in place initially based on small public health issues, outbreaks of things like lice and the flu and White House lawyers tell him no, this is not serious enough to invoke this public health rule.

When the coronavirus pandemic comes around, it actually offers an opportunity to Miller.

The Trump Administration pushes forward Title 42 under the guise of a public health concern.

When it was really just an attempt to minimize the number of people seeking asylum.

Here's the problem with Band-Aid solutions that cut off access to a portion of our immigration system, but not the entire thing.

When Title 42 cut off access to asylum, illegal crossings rose dramatically.

They have been very low because prior to Title 42, most people crossing the border were turning themselves over to border agents and requesting asylum.

Illegal crossing closed.

Now we have Title 42 lifting, which affords some people access to asylum again.

But the Biden administration replace it with yet new Band-Aid solutions that I think, as he mentioned, are both being challenged in court, and I think are just not going to meaningfully address the much more powerful factors, those that draw people to the United States, are very significant labor shortages, American employers who are desperate to hire migrants.

And on the others of the border, factors like climate change, instability, violence, severe hunger, but are pushing people to the United States.

.

These minimal policies really are no match.

In terms of the quiet we are seeing on the border today, it is very to go for a surge in migration to occur right before a transition in administration or a change in policy.

Those moments offer smuggling organizations the opportunity to basically start ASAP -- start a fire sale.

Then the change takes place, numbers go down.

This is very much typical and not surprising.

That is why I'm trying to take the opportunity to draw the conversation to our bigger immigration issues and not just the border on a day-to-day basis.

>> It is so important you explained it the way you did and laid it out the way you did.

Clearly this is an issue that has been grappling multiple administrations, both Republican and Democrat.

It is notable the difference it makes when a candidate is seeking the presidency as opposed to when they are in office.

Then-candidate Biden was campaigning harshly against Title 42.

Yet here we are, two years into his administration, and finally, you see this program lifted.

I do want to play sound from the president who is under no illusions that this process is going to be without chaos.

He addressed it and said as much earlier before this expiration.

Let's listen.

Pres.

Biden: It remains to be seen, it will be chaotic for a while.

And as an example, as I raised in the meeting when they said, we are going to cut, no spending more money, what the hell happens?

If you cut people at the border?

We were going to cut agents at the border?

We need more at the border, not less.

>> Your right to describe these policies as Band-Aids.

What needs to happen is Congress needs to get its acts together.

And really enact significant change on a bipartisan basis.

Without that, we are seeing this president and administration taking unilateral action.

Can you explain for our viewers the difference?

There have been criticism from Republicans and Democrats about this policy that has been introduced by President Biden looking quite similar to the policies that have been enacted by his predecessor.

Caitlin: Absolutely.

I think one of the things that the Trump Administration created, Former President Trump was so focused on immigration and immigration policy, that he made it seem to the American public like the president sets immigration laws.

Which of course is not true.

What presidents can do is issue memos, issue regulations that chisel out different ways in which the existing set of laws are applied.

Many times, presidents will attempt to go too far, and that is what the ACLU, which is challenging the Biden administration in court now contends.

It is the same thing that they argued against ways in which the Trump Administration eroded the asylum system.

The baseline into important thing for people to understand is that the United States immigration laws are very outdated.

They have not been updated in decades.

And they don't address the current geopolitical realities.

They don't address the circumstances that are drawing people to the United States, nor do they address those factors I mentioned earlier.

The need for migrants who ideally would arrive in the United States in a safe and legal way.

But because the Trump administration, as I mentioned, got so much attention for the president's own focus on immigration, the Biden administration is operating from a position of fear.

From a concern about losing moderate voters who are worried about chaos at the border.

Let me be very clear.

In no way do I want to minimize the number of resources, the amount of resources required to process large numbers of people crossing the border.

That is very significant.

What I'm saying is I think a fear in the Biden administration about pictures that depict chaos is preventing meaningful progress in the way of updating our laws to address these macro issues, rather than just worrying day-to-day and trying to keep those border numbers as low as they can on a daily basis.

Bianna: Can you talk about the specifics that this program holds?

It raises the question that some of its critics are saying that this is a ban on asylum, similar to what Trump had in his policy.

The Biden administration is quick to clap back on that claim, saying no, while they do maintain that the asylum-seekers have to seek asylum in a separate country before coming to the United States, that there is a variety of other government services they have expanded, a parole program.

But that is based on a U.S. sponsor.

Sponsoring them.

They would require more resources than the majority of these migrants.

Can you give us more detail on what this administration is proposing?

Caitlin: Absolutely.

I'm glad you asked.

This is an important question.

Stay with me here, I'm going to about history for a moment.

Since World War II and the response to the way the United States and other Western countries responded to World War II, when we actually turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the hollow cast based on the argument that they simply had not applied, had not gone through the right legal process, and turned people away to their deaths, that led to a U.N. convention on refugee resettlement, and eventually the establishment of American asylum law.

Which since the 1980's, has held, if you set foot on American soil, you are entitled to apply for asylum status.

It comes from this history of not wanting to repeat the same mistake the United States made historically.

That has been the law of the land.

The Trump Administration began eroding at that system by coming up with things like the remain in Mexico policy with Title 42, which was always a temporary pandemic related measure.

But what the Biden administration is doing now with new restrictions it has imposed is doubling down.

It is very, very meaningful shift in U.S. policy on a lot of academics and experts are concerned about.

It is effectively 80 years of evolution and progress being turned back, and we are changing the rules now.

It is no longer the case under these Biden administration policies, that they remain in place, that anybody who sets foot on American soil is entitled to apply for asylum.

Something that lots of advocates are dismayed about.

And that is why they are challenging it.

They said they had hoped that today, the United States would be going back to joining the rest of the world.

In having not every, single country, but those that came to the same conclusions after World War II as the United States did, having a legal system that allows for people to apply for protection and access it.

What we have instead is new rules that require people to apply in advance.

If they do not get advanced permission to enter the United States, they face a legal bar.

Not only that, but many will have to show that they tried to apply for asylum elsewhere, if they transited through countries before arriving at the United States.

Is somebody who spends a lot of time reporting in Mexico and Central America and abroad, the reasonability of requesting that somebody apply for asylum in advance, in a country like what a mellow, El Salvador, even Mexico, most of which is really struggling both economically and from a public safety standpoint, it is very difficult to say those are reasonable places to ask people to seek safety before they come to the American border.

Bianna: What happens to the migrants that are already at the border now?

Caitlin: Those that are in the United States will be processed and eventually released.

Just to give you an example, here in New York, my sources in shelters that have been set up for incoming migrants say most people have a job within days of their arrival, and they are going to work six or seven days a week.

.

They are gardening, cleaning houses, cleaning offices, they are preparing food.

People tend to integrate into American society very quickly because of the labor shortages that I described.

And for people who are trying to cross the board or no, it is going to be -- cross the border now, it is going to be a changing situation as these new policies are debated in court.

What is effectively the case is you have got to use the CBP app to apply in advance if you are trying to enter without prior authorization, some sort of the sub.

You have to be approved, the app is very glitchy.

Bianna: And it only works in Mexico!

Caitlin: Yes.

There are lots of restrictions that will make it difficult for people to get access.

Again, we are not seeing huge numbers of people that we were warned about in advance.

And that is very typical.

We have been getting inflated estimates from the border patrol for at least three administrations now.

I think it is not going to be as dire as was anticipated.

But the broader situation and the brokenness of the situation has been dire.

Bianna: We have this Biden policy and also, we have a Republican response as well.

Republicans in Congress just passed an immigration bill, and basically, it calls for more increase in beefed up security services at the border and finishing Donald Trump's wall.

We are talking about 2000 mile border.

I'm curious from your perspective in a years covering this issue, in your view, can anything fundamentally be done to change this crisis and address it head-on without congressional approval and legislation from a bipartisan basis, coming together and enacting law?

Caitlin: No, I don't think that's possible.

I will just point to the last three administrations as very hard evidence.

The Biden administration -- excuse me, the Obama administration, you will recall, had a goal of reforming our immigration system.

What did it end up with when President Obama left office?

DACA, an incredibly flimsy executive after -- Access that has been debated, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in limbo.

Now when you take them and their children and families into consideration, because they have been waiting for so long for some sort of real, clear, and lasting answer from Congress, you have got millions of people who are living in the United States everyday functioning members of our society, and contributing members of our society, but who are still living with this lack of clarity about whether they are going to be able to continue their lives here or not.

That is just one small sliver of the system.

Of course we all recall the four years of the Trump Administration and the dramatic changes and whiplash that occurred as a result of all of the legal challenges that administration faced.

There is no way you could call that meaningful progress on immigration.

Here we are again.

I don't think that this situation can be solved without Congress.

But I think Congress has done a really effective job at blaming the White House, and taking attention away from itself.

Bianna: We should note in the newly passed secure the border act passed by Republican majority Congress, it does not address legal pathways for migration or the status of the dreamers that are already here in the U.S. Caitlin Dickerson, this is an enormous crisis you have been covering for years.

And it is important we keep talking about it and continuing to cover it.

Congratulations again on your award and all of the work you are doing.

We will continue to follow this for sure.

Caitlin: Thanks for having.

Bianna: Here.

America's top doctor is warning the U.S. faces an epidemic of loneliness.

U.S.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy says even though the COVID global health emergency is officially over, the virus and the lonely world it cultivated are far from gone.

Hari Sreenivasan speaks with him about his mission to foster a culture of human connection.

Hari: Thank you so much for joining us.

First off, this week marks the official end of some of the pandemic era benefits that citizens have been enjoying.

Even down to snap benefits.

I'm wondering if you are worried that there might be any negative byproducts of ending this nationally?

Dr. Murthy: I'm glad you asked.

We have come a long way in the last three years in our fight against COVID-19.

At the end of the emergency declaration, it is evidenced and a marker of the progress we have made.

It does not mean that COVID is gone.

It does not do that we don't need to think about it anymore.

It means we have to use many of the tools we have built over the last three years, like vaccines and treatments and tests, and ensure we are utilizing these tools.

With vaccines, we want people to stay vaccinated, stay up-to-date with their vaccines.

We want them to reach for treatments if they are in a high-risk group.

If we do these things, my hope is we can manage COVID the way we manage other respiratory illnesses.

Hari: I was looking back at the stats and I want to say somewhere around 1000 people died a week ago from COVID-19 infections.

4500 were hospitalized.

Is this going to be something that we accept as the new normal?

See any forecast that these numbers could trend downward, for similar to the flu, it is kind of what we will have every year?

Dr. Murthy: That is a good question.

That story remains to be written.

It depends on what we all do collectively.

We have these lifesaving tools available like vaccines and treatment we need to make sure that everyone avails themselves of these tools.

Over the last three years, we have had over 700 million doses of vaccine administered in this country, and we have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

What we are seeing is many of the people who are losing their lives to COVID today are people who are under vaccinated or who are at high risk groups and not getting treatments.

We will continue our work to make sure people know about these tools.

We are certainly continuing work to make sure that they are covered by insurance, and those who are uninsured, that there are provisions for them to get access to vaccines and treatments.

That program was announced a few weeks ago.

We are going to continue to work on COVID, and we want people to know that even though we are at a better place now, it is important for all of us to know these tools are out there and to use them.

It can make the difference between getting something that feels like it is a mild illness, versus ending up in the hospital or losing your life.

Hari: Do you see or hear from either the pharmaceutical industry the CDC, others that you speak with, that there will be more vaccines or booster shots that senior citizens or people with compromised immune systems will want to keep getting?

Dr. Murthy: This EDC FDA will work together to make sure that when there are recommendations for one people should get additional doses of the vaccine, that they will know that.

Right now, we anticipate that for most people, they may need an annual shot similar to what you get with your flu shot.

They have announced that for people in higher risk categories, six months or so out from their last shot, that they can get an initial -- additional shot of the vaccine.

As new recommendations come out come of the CDC and FDA will make those known to the public.

Hari: Speaking of one of those impacts, you have been writing for some time now and you recently have made statements in an op-ed about loneliness.

But is interesting to me is in your essay you had in the New York Times, you talked about loneliness in a way that I don't think most people would get.

Say, he is a public figure, he is surrounded by family and friends and has a high-profile job where he is constantly meeting people.

Yet you say after your first time as Surgeon General when you finished, you experienced something you did not expect.

Tell is a little bit about that.

Dr. Murthy: I wrote this story about my personal experiences because I realize so many of us feel a sense of shame when we talk about loneliness.

In our extroverted society to say you are lonely is almost saying you are not likable or lovable, or something is wrong with you.

What we now understand is one in two adults are struggling with loneliness at some level.

And kids, young people, are experiencing the highest levels of loneliness in the population.

I am no stranger to this.

As a child I struggled a lot with loneliness.

And then various points as an adult.

During my first tenure ended, I wen through this deep periods of loneliness and -- I went through this deep period of loneliness.

I wasn't doing the work that I found to be meaningful to me.

I also made at this critical mistake that I write about, which is during my job when I was Surgeon General, I had largely neglected my family and friends.

Sure, I was spending time with them at dinner or around the table, but I was always distracted my my phone.

I lost touch with friends who supported me over the years.

And I felt their absence so deeply during that lonely period.

I had to rethink of my life in many ways and with the help of my wife and parents and a few good friends, I have really tried hard over the last few years to build a life that is centered around people and around my relationship.

In focusing on that has made my second tenure as Surgeon General not only more enjoyable and sustainable for me, but ultimately has made me more effective in my work.

Hari: Is there a distinction between how you are describing loneliness and how people might hear those symptoms and say, sounds like he was depressed and how do you measure when you say almost one in two people are feeling this?

This is through surveys?

Dr. Murthy: It starts with how we define loneliness.

Loneliness is a subjective dealing.

It is the feeling that what I need in my life is greater than what I actually have.

You can experience loneliness if you have a lot of people around you.

.

It is about the quality of your connections.

When I talk to college students on campuses who are surrounded by hundreds, thousands of other students, tell -- and they tell me they are feeling lonely, it's because they don't feel they have people that they can be open with and vulnerable with.

That is important for us to have in our lives.

In terms of the relationship with depression and anxiety, we know people when they struggle with loneliness, that increases their risk of depression and anxiety and suicide.

Interestingly, and this may surprise some people, it also increases their risk of physical illness as well.

Of heart disease, stroke, premature death.

As well as dementia.

The powerful effects of loneliness and isolation on our health are really not well understood by the broader public.

That was one of the reasons why I issued the Surgeon General's advisory.

I wanted to people know -- people to know how common this was, how consequential it is for our health, and I want to come to know this is a problem we can address.

That is why we lay out a framework for a national strategy to address loneliness and rebuild social connection.

Hari: One of the pillars you have laid out in this advisory is about reforming digital environments,.

Tell us about that.

We have heard.

in different dribs and drabs about the impacts of screen time, social media on young people.

Is this also the same for adults?

How do we reform those environments?

Dr. Murthy: What we have seen is an introduction of not just digital environments more broadly, but social media in particular has impacted how we communicate with one another, and our relationships.

Too often is people substituted what used to be in person face-to-face relationships for online connections.

We have come to value quantity of connections over quality of connections.

Too many people, especially young people, have been subject to bullying and other exposure to harmful content as well through their experience on social media.

All of this together has had an impact on how people feel about themselves.

When you are scrolling through your feet and constantly comparing yourself to other people, especially young people whose brains are in a sensitive period of development, that can negatively impact your self-esteem, which can make it harder to go out and build friendships with others.

Young people also commonly tell me that in addition to feeling worse about themselves when they use social media, they also feel worse about their friendships.

They feel -- they see the activities people are doing without them and feel left out.

On a policy perspective, we need to establish the safety standards that we have from any other tools and products and platforms that kids use.

We also have to make changes in our personal life and try to draw down Drew's in our -- draw boundaries in our lives.

Think about time at the dinner table, being able to focus on them without the distraction of technology is important.

Bedtime also is essential.

We have so many people, young people and older people, who lose hours of sleep as they are on their phones.

They go to bed at 11:00, come 1:00, they are still on their phones.

We have to carve out time in space in our days that are tech free so that we can enjoy each other's company, have deeper, higher quality interactions with one another, and protect activities that support our health and well-being like sleep and exercise.

Hari: Several of the other pillars you are looking for to is to build a culture of connection, rebuilding social infrastructure and communities.

Such of that seems like OK, these are abstract ideas.

How what I put that into practice if I was small town Council or city that has the ability to create policies in a region?

Dr. Murthy: Let's take social infrastructure.

This is a place where community leaders and policymakers have a role to play.

We are used to thinking about infrastructure meaning roads and bridges and highways.

There is also social infrastructure.

These are the policies of structures in the programs that support the building of healthy relationships.

Think about those spaces and programs that bring people together to learn about one another, and build relationships.

Think about the built environment in cities that can facilitate people seeing and interacting with one another, versus certain environments can cut up cities.

Think also about what we do workplaces and schools.

School-based programs that teach children about emotions and healthy relationships.

The workplaces which help build a culture of connection and support.

People coming together to learn about one another.

These are all elements of the social infrastructure that as school or workplace leaders, as community leaders, we can invest in.

In the last half-century or so, we have seen a decline in participation, in recreational leagues, and faith organizations, and other community and service organizations that used to bring us together and helped us build relationships.

That is why we have to proactively rebuild that social infrastructure.

Hari: It is interesting, I have heard in the context of the pandemic that a lot of people lost that third place, especially people lost that second-place if they were not going into the office and connecting with human beings.

Whether it is the security guard you say hi to on the way in, one of your coworkers.

I wonder, when you're talking about rec leagues and church groups, those are spaces that are not either work or home, but where you can form deep connections with people.

Dr. Murthy: Absolutely right.

And a lot of people did lose those spaces during the pandemic.

In addition to losing the opportunity to see colleagues at work.

The truth is, we have been losing those third spaces, where you can meet people and build relationships, we have been losing those for years now.

It has been the consequence of declining participation.

We also have so much convenience that technology has afforded us.

I don't need to go to the grocery store anymore, I don't need to go to the mall or the store anymore, I can have packages and groceries delivered to me.

This candy really convenient.

But we have to understand there are consequences that come with that.

Have fewer and fewer unplanned interactions with people.

We are not bumping into one another, we are not having the short but pleasant conversation that can give us a boost in our day.

We have to intentionally and proactively build the infrastructure for connection in our communities in our day-to-day lives.

That is why I issued this advisory, because it is time to take that proactive approach.

Otherwise, I worry we will move deeper and deeper into what I think of as a social recession, where we experience fewer and fewer connections with one another, and that has impacts on our health.

Hari: You have already written a book called "together: The healing power of human connection in a sometimes lonely world."

When you were out there researching the book, what did you find that surprised you?

Dr. Murthy: What was so interesting to me in doing the research on the subject is one, understanding how many people were actually affected by this.

But did not feel comfortable talking about it.

Loneliness exists behind the current -- the curtain.

We have to draw it out of the shadows and help people talk about it.

What I also saw that was hopeful for me is I saw examples in communities across our country of people who recognize that loneliness was a problem and we are trying to build programs to address it.

I met a mom and dad who lost their daughter years ago to an illness.

The day after the death, they realize that she had been struggling with loneliness in school.

They decided to create a school -- a program in middle schools and high schools where students would help each other to address loneliness, where they would find people who may have been struggling, and create a place where they could come and feel accepted, where they could build friendships.

I encountered individuals who were making changes in their own lives.

I remember a woman in Texas who I encountered who had just moved to Dallas and she felt really alone, she did not know anyone.

She was not in a relationship, didn't have friends, but she made this bold and courageous decision that she was going to invite her neighbors over for a meal.

She was really nervous, didn't know if anyone would come.

Her father helped her build a wooden table, because her place was really small.

And the big wooden table they placed outside and had an outdoor potluck, and so many people came.

Even though some of her neighbors had been there for years, they also felt isolated.

And her neighbors table, as it came to be called, became a gathering point for people around her community.

Really a place where many beautiful friendships were built.

This is at a time when a lot of people were struggling with loneliness but we can't tell from the outside.

Choosing to check on one another to reach out to a friend and say hey, I'm thinking of you, just want to see how you are doing, stop by a coworker's desk to say hey, how are you doing, I just want to know what's going on in your life.

These are small, small moments, which can make a world of difference to somebody who may be struggling with loneliness.

That is the power we have now to be healers and help each other address our loneliness.

Hari: Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, thank you for joining us.

Dr. Murthy: To be with you.

Bianna: Such an important conversation.

Now to a new podcast that is shedding light on the historically terrible treatment of Native American children.

A federal investigation last year revealed indigenous children were taken from their families and forced into boarding schools as part of the U.S. governments attempt to assimilate them into society by force.

>> For more than a century, tens of thousands of indigenous children were taken from their communities and forced into boarding schools run by the U.S. government.

Specifically the Department of the Interior and religious institutions.

Many children like them never made it back to their homes.

Bianna: The makers of the podcast which is called "American genocide," say one school in particular is the epicenter of controversy.

America's attempt to "reckon" with its dark history.

The cohost joins me now.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I'm so glad we are finally able to have this conversation.

It is a captivating podcast.

I want to dive into it in a moment.

Let's talk about the history and backup to the story, this American history story, which you describe is one giant crime scene.

Tell me more about this crime.

Crystal: First and foremost, thank you for having me.

This really is one of the original crimes of the United States.

From 18 come nine, until 1969, more than 100,000 Native American children were taken from their families.

And placed into these boarding schools set up by the federal government in partnership with major institutions including the Catholic Church.

It is one of the things most Americans or anyone in the world don't know about, that this happened in the United States, and many people first heard about these boarding schools, and unmarked graves of indigenous children in Canada.

But to understand that the scale and scope and size is greater in the U.S., and Canada learned a lot of lessons from the United States pioneering this.

When we look at this history of more than 100,000 children being taken, and many never made it back to their families.

What Secretary Holland who you opened with that speech of hers, she is really the one as the first Native American Cabinet Secretary that has led this investigation to bring light to truth.

The federal government's accountability in this and what happened in religious institutions.

What was admitted last year in the report that came out from the government is that this was a political military policy that targeted Native American children, in order to dispossess tribes of their land.

That is what they did.

Bianna: Let's hear more from Secretary Haaland.

She gives more detail into this investigation and its findings.

>> I come from ancestors who endured horrors of the assimilation policies carried out by the same department that I now lead.

This department was responsible for operating what we now know to be 400 federal boarding schools across 37 states, more than territories, including 21 schools in Alaska and seven schools in Hawaii.

Bianna: Those are jaw-dropping figures.

Over 50 marked and unmarked graves were also found at the school site.

Given that, the Normandy of what had been transpired -- what had transpired, why is it we are not hearing more about this?

Crystal: I think the reason why is it is part of a political policy.

Here in the United States, we are constantly fed the great story of manifest destiny and American progress.

Where Native Americans gently Fade to Black with westward expansion.

There is a powerful narrative in the United States when we think about this land, our land, but not understanding the cost that it came and it came at the cost of genocide, both physical genocide, and when we think about cultural genocide, the wiping away and eradicating of Native American culture.

You look at the design of the schools which is in the federal report and the admissions that has been made by the federal government, that they went in and not only took the children as a means to break up families and tribes, but then put these children into institutions where their hair was cut, they were forbidden to speak their native languages, praying, practicing their ways, and even went so far in terms of the policy and methodology they used two makes children from different tribes into one classroom so they were forced to have one common language, English.

When you look at the success of this policy -- we don't know the sheer number of children yet.

.

This is what the investigation is underway.

The fact that I'm here speaking English to you today shows the success of that policy.

And the fact that my language, the ponte language, is one of the languages on the endangered language list.

The famous saying perfected at the Carlisle Indian school which was "kill the Indian, save the man."

It was the federal government's policy along with religious institutions to wipe away any cultural, spiritual, native tribal identity, and to really assimilate us.

If we would not assimilate, then we were going to be eradicated.

The reason why we don't know about this is that is a very violent, troubling, dark history that underpins the United States, not only is American history, but everywhere we walk in the United States that is indigenous land.

People need to understand that came at the cost of Native American children.

Bianna: We are at a time politically, we are discussing our history and dark history, which has become a very partisan issue.

I don't have to tell you that.

We should note in your podcast, this is what I wanted to let our viewers know, that we were showing hundreds of pictures of these indigenous students taken.

You mentioned the lengths the government, the system had gone to to integrate them into American education system, and to English-speaking curriculum.

Go to one of the schools and it is in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

Telus story about this school.

Crystal: The school, red cloud Indian school, which is on the home to the Lakota nation, this school was established in the 1800s.

It's first name was called the holy Rosary mission.

It was later rebranded as the red cloud Indian school after one of the Lakota people's greatest chiefs.

That rebranded came within these last few decades.

We got a tip about this school toward the end of 2021, that they were per troop -- they were pursuing a truth and healing initiative at the school, understanding there have been reports of severe abuse that had happened at the school run by the Catholic Church and the Jesuits.

But that the new generation of people beating that school, opened -- were opening up their own investigation to investigate themselves.

While some people hailed that and thought that was a really important move, especially given Secretary Haaland's investigation, there were people within the community, young people, who questioned, is it right for the church to be investigating itself?

Bianna: You were there the day the school was scanned for mass graves.

I can only imagine what that day was like.

This is not just ancient history.

It is recent.

Some of the survivors are still alive, some of the survivors from the school.

And you hear from some in your podcast.

Let's play some of that sound.

>> We were punished at night.

I remember this prefect.

He would walk-through up and down the halls.

Pretty soon he would say, I hear something, everybody out.

He didn't hear anything, because we knew what was coming.

And a lot of us boys were burned on radiators.

I never got burned.

I was lucky.

I had friends that were burned.

Bianna: Clearly they are still dealing with emotional wounds.

How has this impacted present-day generations in the community and generations to come?

Crystal: One thing I want to say for elders like Brian Brewer who shared their stories and so many elders since the investigation was announced by Secretary Haaland, for many, this is the first time they have spoken about the abuse.

This is deep, deep bleeding wounds so many of our elders and generations have been carrying.

When you look at the rampant not only physical abuse, but sexual abuse, psychological abuse, to have your hair cut, as we interview a grandma who talks about a nun beating her with skeleton keys in the head, to the psychological abuse, and being told every day that you are bad, you are daemonic, you are all of these things if you practice your ways.

When you look at the generational abuse, these schools, red cloud has operated since 1890.

You look at generations, not just one generation and longtime with.

This is up through the 1960's when there were children being boarded at the schools, that the abuse was happening.

I think it was lessening as the generations preceded.

You look at those children that leave, they become parents, members of society, and they are carrying that trauma.

You look at how that trauma is perpetuated.

I have heard testimony from so many elders and their children who said, my mother never told me she loved me.

My mentor never hugged me.

She was never tactile.

Other children which airstrip dories about how great -- how strict their parents were with cleanliness.

These were things that they were taught and conditioned, that they passed on.

You look at the generational trauma that exist today and that is what is so important.

This investigation is still brand-new.

We are not at the tip of the iceberg in terms of unmarked graves and understanding that count.

I don't want people to get lost in the body count.

That is important in finding are lost and stolen children and finding a way to ring them peace.

We need to understand the cultural genocide.

Bianna: I know you will continue to shine a light on this important story.

A dark chapter in our history that needs to be told.

You raise in this important podcast the idea of what accountability looks like and what reconciliation come look as well.

American genocide podcast is available to download now.

Crystal Echo Hawk, we appreciate your time.

Crystal: Thank you so much.

Bianna: Finally, some reflection with one of the all-time greats of classical music.

This, the conductor and pianist Darren Barenboim announced he was putting down his tong and resigning as the general music director for the Berlin state Opera.

He has allowed the world for more than seven decades.

And Christiane spoke to him at the height of his powers as he made his long-awaited return to New York's Carnegie Hall in 2017.

Take a listen.

Christiane: It is extraordinary, you are celebrating 60 years since you debuted at Carnegie Hall.

What does that mean to you?

>> Is a very moving experience for me.

Carnegie Hall is one of those halls that have a very special aura about them.

♪ I remember conducting my first Symphony in Carnegie Hall in 1970.

It was treated as a rarity.

It is not just a good or wonderful concert hall, but it is something where you feel the words tell the story of all of the people that went through it.

♪ People have to have the curiosity to see the real value of music.

20 music can give the human being.

It is of course an uphill battle, because there is no music education in schools.

Music gives us so much that we cannot get without music.

If you are able to hook onto the first sound of a piece you are listening to and remain with it, in it, and on it until the very end, you experience the equivalent of a lifetime.

You experience that.

♪ There is -- I found a very lovely story about a very great violinist who played his first violin recital when he was five.

When he became 75, he had his 70th anniversary on the stage.

And the journalists of the New York Times asked him, what was the difference between 70 years ago and next Wednesday when you play at Carnegie Hall?

And he said absolutely none.

Then and now, people say, I play very well for my age.

[LAUGHTER] I hope I am not in that category yet.

♪ Bianna: We would like to send Daniel Barenboim Knauer best wishes.

That is it for our program.

If you want to find out what is coming up next on the show each night, sign up for our newsletter at PBS.org/amanpour.

Thank you for watching "Amanpour and Company."

on PBS.

Join us again next time.