cox supports c-span as a public serce, along with these other television pviders, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal," we take your calls and comments live. then a look at the week ahead in washington with punchbowl news' mica soellner. also, we speak with austin kocher, a research assistant at syracuse university, about the backlog in immigration courts and impact on the asylum process in the u.s. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: it is "washington journal" fort february 5. several news outlets reporting the biden administration authorizing several other

strikes. secretary of state antony blinken is back in the region on releasing hostages and humanitarian pause. this first hour, i am asking you to rate the biden administration and its handling of the israel-hamas war and the recent strikes. here's how you can call and let us know your thoughts. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to make your thoughts known via text on not only the handling of the hamas war but also these strikes by the biden administration, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. you can also post your thoughts on facebook and on x. the washington post has coverage on those recent attacks that took place early sunday, saying it is u.s. central command that

struck five houthi cruise missiles early sunday hours after their an attack of the night before hit targets in yemen and prompted houthi officials to say they would meet escalation with escalation. forces conducted a strike insult defense against a houthi land attack cruise missile. then the u.s. struck four cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the red sea. cencom also adding u.s. forces identified missiles in houthi -controlled areas and presented an imminent threat. cencom going on to say these will protect freedom of navigation. that is from the washington post on those recent attacks, prompting sponsors from houthi

officials. this is usa today this morning, saying it is iran backed houthi rebels saying that strikes will not pass without response. "these attacks will not deter us from our moral, religious, and humanitarian support of the steadfast palestinian people," a houthi spokesperson said. the houthis were targeted on scores of attacks on ships in the red sea. also in the larger aspect of the israel-hamas war. if you want to comment on either of those things, particularly how the biden administration is doing in management of these things, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can always text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. the associated press recently held a poll taking a look at issues in the middle east here one of the questions being asked about the administration's handling of the israel-hamas war, this comparing it to december. it is in january of 2024 that, overall, 67 percent of those respondents saying they disapproved of the management of the biden administration of what is going on. 53% coming from democrats, 77 percent coming from republicans. comparing that to december of 2023, overall, 61% say they disapproved of the handling, only 39% of democrats at the time, 81% of republicans. that in december of 2003. when it comes to other things, we will show you the associated press poll as we go along.

you can call, text, post on social media. again, the biden administration's handling of not only the israel-hamas war but also iran as well. on our independent line in north carolina. as far as rating goes, how would you go far -- as far as rating? caller: i think that biden -- i am an independent, and i like to study all the channels on tv and get my information from everybody and try to derive what is truth and what is not. i found -- the national tv channels. they had a list of biden's achievements the other day. i also heard from -- i do not know the name of the department. they handle the money and give the report and all the new jobs and stuff. everything was sound. --

host: we are talking about issues of foreign policy, particularly when it comes to israel, hamas, and iran. caller: i was telling you what i thought -- host: we are asking you to rate how the biden administration is coming -- is when it comes to israel, hamas, and iran. caller: biden, no matter what he does, is wrong. we should judge him -- that is what is wrong. everybody i know who has called in and said this before, but everybody wants to play armchair quarterback, and nobody can understand the man, the tension he is under. i approve of biden, even though i do not necessarily vote democratic every time. host: ok. jim is next in portland, oregon, democrats line. caller: this is jim from oregon. i would grade biden definitely a

b anyway. most of the discouragement is from the republican party. they have no morals at all now, and they are supporting a convicted sexual abuser -- host: sir, we are sticking to the topic of israel, hamas, and iran. how would you rate the biden administration on that specifically? caller: a b at least. host: what leads you to that rating? caller: because that is what the generals in the military are recommended. it is not all biden. it is all recommended by the top officials. host: jim in oregon. that associated press poll asked people to -- what they thought should be taking when it comes to israel-hamas. this is what they concluded from the pole, saying that, overall, when it comes to the topic of

recovering hostages that were held by hamas in gaza, 62% saying that should be the top priority of the united states when it comes to israel-hamas. when it comes to the topic of negotiating a permanent cease-fire, 53 percent saying that should be a top priority. 66% of democrats and 37% of republicans saying that should be a very important priority. then the topic of providing humanitarian relief to get -- two postings in gaza, 45% overall saying that is an important priority, 61% of democrats saying that, 29% of republicans. when it comes to the other topics that come associated with this, the establishment of an independent palestinian state, only 30% said that was a very important priority for the u.s.

and providing aid to israel's military fight, 29% overall saying that should be a top priority for the united states. maybe you rank about as well when you're talking about the biden administration's handling of israel, hamas, the war there, and also the strikes on iran-backed. let's hear from joe in maine, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. what do you want me to talk about this morning? you seem to be controlling the conversation -- host: it is on the graphic there when it comes to the -- caller: i -- host: how would you rate the biden administration's handling of israel and hamas? caller: fabulous. he called him what he is, a fraudster who ran into israel with a 20% approval rating. that is what i think -- host: and as far as the strikes

against iran-backed groups, how would you rate that? caller: he's bombinb them. trump just talks about doing stuff and did nothing, so, you know, that is the truth. you do not want to talk about the truth. biden's presidency, he had no transition. any other american president you know of that did not have any kind of transition, whether it is military, economic? donald trump and the republican party lost by 7 million votes and started to light. host: ok. sterling, virginia, democrats line. caller: i want to give the biden administration an a with the way they handled first the iran-backed attacks on the u.s. military servicemen. he used restraint, he used the advice of his generals and intelligence.

they were targeted attacks or targeted strikes. i give them an a for that. as far as his handling of the war in gaza, between the palestinians and israelis, i give him another a. once again, he has used wisdom, experience, and the way he has handled the entire situation. i am sure the biden administration is using back channels to convince netanyahu what he is doing is entirely wrong. he is not trying to play one side. he is working to get both sides to come to a peaceful agreement. now those muslim americans in this country who may have voted for president biden in the past and say now they will not vote for him, what an incredibly stupid decision. if they choose to not vote for biden or sit out the election and trump wins, trump will come in and gave netanyahu the green

light to wipe the palestinians off the face of the earth. you better think about it twice, muslim americans. host: ok, andrew in virginia. other acts of diplomacy being reported, u.s. secretary of state antony blinken headed to the middle east for another crisis tour. this is in a bid to secure a new truce in the israel-hamas war as southern gaza saw no let up fighting on his fifth trip to the region since the october 7 attack that triggered the war. blinke is expected -- blinken is expected to visit saudi arabia, -- after the devastating impact on the besieged territory. this after nearly four months of war. again, you can give your rating on the handling of what is being

done on israel-hamas and the strikes as well. call (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. social media channels are also available on facebook and on x. this is from tom, salem, illinois, independent line. caller: hello, good morning. as a conservative, i definitely support biden's maneuvering and response in these matters. andrew, i believe it was earlier, and i would agree with pretty much he was saying up until he started commenting on how other people vote in this country. but significantly, i would support even that last comment up until that point. it needed significant response, and it has to be mitigated with the most extreme caution, and i think that is being done in

service to this republic. god bless him and his efforts. host: in california, julie is next, independent line. caller: i am julie harrison, and i support katie. ok, i cannot believe i am on with you. host: as far as israel-hamas or the administration's handling of iran, how would you rate those? caller: iran, i have my son married an iranian woman, and they do not talk to me. i have called in before -- host: ok, that is julie. albert on facebook saying when it comes to the rating the administration will get, he describes it as excellent, saying it is not america's war, and our involvement should be limited. president biden is handling it perfectly. this is from conrad in virginia, saying funding the israeli defense force and poking iran,

then he goes on from there. he said an l. i do not know what letter grade. brian saying -- then carl, also on facebook, giving his thoughts, describing it as weak, saying you th be an ally with unconditional support or hold a wet finger in the political breeze. saying biden putting irs funding in front of ally support. one of the things you will see play out on capitol hill is an effort by the house speaker for a stand-alone bill when it comes to supporting israel. this is how the washington post reports it, saying house republicans are planning on that vote. that would give billions in military assistance to israel and u.s. forces in the region. expecting a package for border

security, speaker mike johnson saying in a letter that the house would send the $17.6 billion to reinforce israel's defenses and support u.s. personnel in the region as a result of ongoing conflicts. if it is approved i the house, the bill would be the second one set to the senate, but it includes $3.3 billion more for israel and does not include the controversial offsets to the internal revenue service that house republicans considered a champion. and the senate releasing their border security and international support bill, that also including money not only for ukraine but israel, as well as provisions for border security, which is said to be debated by the senate this week. we will talk about that as we go along for the program this morning. to your rating of what is going

on in israel, hamas or iran, this is norge in tennessee, democrats line. caller: yeah, i will give him an a-plus. the other side, these republicans, what would they do if they were in that situation? these people have better come out of this coma they are in and get to the bear facts -- bare facts. as far as you asking people why this or why that -- i agree with that other caller. host: i will ask you, then. if you gave them an a, what do you base it on? caller: we have been bombing them. you know why. he is doing what he can. if this would have came -- this would have came up, regardless of who was in the white house. you know it and i know it. bye. host: stephen is next. caller: hi, good morning. i think it is a complicated question. i would have given him an a, his

first initial response. since then, it has been a lot of politics and all that. people do not understand. we consider this israel's war, but it is ours as well. this is a coastal war going on in the world. we better step up and defeat this pure evil. when we see people in our country -- host: when you say that, do you mean that over concerns of this becoming a more widespread thing, and escalation thing? caller: the point is it is a widespread thing. it is a widespread thing. this is not just israel versus the palestinians, this is a fundamentalist, worldwide regime that hates us, that hate the

west. they hate our freedom. they hate the fact that anyone can call this channel and say what they want. that is what we are fighting. i do not think the administration has gained an f and exciting that to the american people. i hear this is an israel war. this is not an israel war. if israel goes down, we are next. host: ok. one of the people excluding the actions of the administration was the national security advisor himself, jake sullivan, talking about the recent strikes as of sunday. a portion of his interview yesterday. [video clip] >> the central purpose of the strikes was to take away capabilities from the iranian-backed forces. we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and the houthis. if necessary, we will continue to take action. >> so do you expect more

retaliation for the u.s. strikes in jordan earlier this week? >> the first thing i would say, and you noted it at the top of your program, is this is the beginning of our response. there will be more steps. some of those steps will be seen. some may not be seen. but there will be more action taken to respond to the tragic deaths of the three brave service members. we cannot rule out there will be further attacks from iranian-backed militias in iraq and syria and from the houthis. we have to be clear about that. the president, in being clear about that, has told military commanders to be in position to respond to further attacks as well. >> are you concerned about direct retaliation from the iranians themselves? >> well, again, this is something we have to look at as a threat. we have to prepare for every contingency. we are prepared for that contingency. i would say, from the perspective of tehran, if they

chose to respond directly to the united states, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us. >> how much direct contact has there been with iran to try to contain this conflict? >> over the course of the past few months, we have had the opportunity to engage in the message -- in the passage of messages back and forth, but in the past few days, the message we have sent has been through our actions, not our words. host: on the actions of the administration when it comes to israel and hamas, how would you rate the handling? (202) 748-8001 for republicans. it's (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. doug in boston, you are up next. caller: thanks. if you go to opensecrets.org and type in "pro-israeli pac

money," you will find biden is the rep's -- recipient of more than $4 billion of israeli pac money. biden, like everyone else in congress, are bought and paid for stooges of the pro-israeli lobby. host: so are you saying that is influencing their actions, and if that is the case, house of? caller: all you have to do is go to opensecrets.org -- host: you said that, but how is it fluency -- how is it the actions to specifically? caller: they are bought and paid for. if they do not tote the israeli line, they are targeted by the israeli lobby. it is as simple as that. like patrick mccann inset in 1992, congress is

israeli-occupied territory. never a truer word was said. host: ok. roberto in houston, independent line. caller: good morning. i am really disappointed in israel. to me -- i'm a christian -- israel should be a moral leader, like the united states. they should be equal when it comes to moral leadership. but when it comes to the current administration and in israel, and if trump comes back, he is on the lay -- he is on the same level as the current administration of israel. i am a retired history teacher. i would rate biden right now an incomplete grade, because the war is not over. also, i will bring up one more thing. reparations on the part of israel, i think, are going to be wanted and needed by the world, starting with the united nations.

and i will remind everyone again, israel is a creation of the united nations, not of god, in 1948. there is a lot more to this than just rating biden right now. host: if you say it is an incomplete grade, then what determines, ultimately, a good grade or a bad grade? what determines that in your mind, if it is incomplete right now? caller: good question. i am looking at the forest instead of the tree, the tree being biden. we need to look at this objectively and not be so, for lack of a better word, brainwashed. for example -- you brought it up. the $17.1 billion aid package. just one time, $17.1 billion to israel. they have shown to me a misuse of the weapons we sold or gave or whatever to them. remember this, too.

israel has an atomic bomb. it has shown, to me, an american who trusted israel, until the current administration in israel, that we can't trust them with the use of weapons. they will do what they want with this administration. host: ok. let's hear from marion in georgia. caller: thank you. good morning. i think biden's handling of this is poor, at best. i understand why, because it seems to me that we have a very small -- what, 2% -- of jews in this country, but israel seems to have a huge influence on our politics. i think they control our middle east policy. they have been wanting war with iran for as long as i can remember. you know, the beating of the drum, that iran is the worst

thing that has ever happened, they are evil, demonic, and they are finally getting their wish. another thing i really want to say is i want everybody to understand this. netanyahu has been giving hamas millions and millions of dollars for years and years, and that was to disrupt the plo, so that they would have chaos there, and that would keep palestine from being able to ever be a threat to them. so there's a lot going on that isn't just they are our ally and we should just look the other way when they do things wrong. they talk about mowing the lawn, and that is when the settlers decide, the jewish settlers, say, hey, we want more land for a farm, and they call it mowing a lawn. they take a bulldozer and just

mow somebody's house and take it. host: we will move on to greg in new york. caller: biden gets an f, or a 0, because he is totally hypocritical. he is supporting israel because we send arms there. that's all that matters. israel is illegally occupying the west bank, and they are illegally occupying gaza. gaza is a concentration camp. hamas was just resisting, just like the american revolution, we resisted the british, and we used terrorism, tar and feather ing people kills someone. it is not a joke, but we think it is cute when we learn american history. hamas is just like the united states. israel is illegally occupying

their land, stealing their land. the settlers attack innocent people, the palestinians. they have no choice but to resist on october 7. host: ok, greg in new york. one of the editorials in the wall street journal takes a look at israel, titled "israel's untold gaza progress," the subheading saying israel's defense forces are winning against, spirit of the -- against hamas. -- the losses have invented hamas from mounting military maneuvers and quieted rocket fire down more than 95% from the war's earlier days, the editors going on to write that once hamas' last brigades are defeated, it will take time to sweep gaza's

infrastructure. israel is finding tunnels are vast and soldiers finding munitions in home after home. the editors adding israel's task for 2024 is to finish the job, but will u.s. political support hold? the biden administration, despite its second-guessing, continues to provide munitions and diplomatic cover that it would have a hard time withdrawing. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. you heard from the national security adviser earlier on. it was the house intelligence committee chair, mike turner, on the sunday shows yesterday, specifically addressing the administration's actions towards iran. here's a portion of that interview. [video clip]

>> i think they have confusion among their goals and objectives. they keep shifting on what they are trying to achieve with the attacks and what their policy is with respect to response. secretary of defense austen said , when attacked, americans will respond. however, they have tolerated 160 of these strikes -- >> they have been carrying out attacks. >> but in minor areas, nothing to counter this issue. you also heard from jake sullivan, when he said there are attacks or deaths of american service members, we will respond. he was coupling this to both. this is the problem. they keep saying they want to retaliate. then they say it is about deterrence. then they say it is about diminishing goals and deterrents. these are different things. these are all franchises of iran. the administration has no policy with respect to iran, how to

diminish their activities in the middle east. host: that is mike turner from yesterday. we will hear from rebecca in north carolina, independent line. caller: i just want to start with saying the whole thing, you comparing the united states government to hamas just shows sheer stupidity. iran is actually funding hamas. there have been interviews with hamas officials confessing and saying how they have been trained in iran, with iranian military. the guns the idf found in gaza are clearly guns made in iran. whatever biden is doing should not be limited in any way. this does not just affect israel, this affects america. host: do you think that the administration is being limited in what they can do? that person left us. let's hear from michigan,

republican line. caller: hey, thank you for taking my call. good morning. i just want to say a couple things. in regard to the previous caller that said they hate our freedom and the fact that we are free, i disagree with that. i think they're angry. the houthis and others are angry with us because we are over there, and i think there's a lot of solidarity. we have a lot of troops over there. we can disagree with them, but it kind of dumbs down the conversation when we simply stick lycée they're evil, and we're good. that does essay the service -- that does us a disservice. you're asking how biden is doing. biden is doing a poor jog. we should -- is doing a poor

job. we should not just go conquer the entire middle east. iran's been there for millennia. they still will be there. it's foolish for us to think they hate our freedom, they're evil, and we will just bomb everybody, and we'll win. what are our objectives? what are we really trying to do? serious question there. why do we have troops in syria, jordan, iraq? what are our objectives? what are we really trying to do? i think we should use this time in the world, when we still have a lot of influence and power and our economy is still strong, to work very, very hard for peace in that region and elsewhere. host: patty up next in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i really like c-span.

i want to remind people this is a war between israel and hamas, it is not a war between us and israel. people say biden has to stop this war. biden is the american president. he can't stop an israeli war. he may be able to influence it. i think he is doing an a-plus jo b, because he is keeping our troops off the ground, or trying to, when we have the whole arab world that is not helping. my question is where is the arab world? where is jordan, where is saudi arabia? why won't they help with the palestinians? it is because they do not want them in their country, because the palestinians are just -- i hate to say it -- not the palestinian people but hamas. they are a terror group. they are troublemakers. gaza is an example of giving the

palestinians a two-state solution, and look what they did with it. it is reality. we have to protect the palestinian civilians, of course, but they are being used by their government. and when they are being used as human shields, there's not much that you can do. people need to stop having so much sympathy for hamas. i feel abandoned, as an american jew in america, that people in america and all over the world are marching for a terrorist group. where's the outrage for the hostages? it is a terrible war. it has been going on since the beginning of time. and, you know -- host: ok, that's patty in new jersey. the ap poll asked a couple other questions about u.s. support for israel and also the palestinians. when asked the question of if

the u.s. is too supportive of israel, 37% responded to that compared to 33% saying the level is about the right amount, 22% saying not enough support. when it comes to palestinians overall, 25% saying that it's too supportive, 34% saying that level is about the right amount, and 36% saying the u.s. is not supportive enough of the palestinians. again, you can add that to the mix if you want to make your comments known when it comes to raiding the biden administration on these efforts. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from jerry, mississippi line. caller: yes, can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i think our president

has done as good a job as he can do. everyone seems to have their own idea on what they should. our government is telling the president to do one thing, the other government is telling the president to do this. we have all got to sit down and say, listen. israel is fighting a war for existence. sure, there're innocent people getting killed, but that is hamas' fault. they chose it. they did these things. we have got to help israel out. there is no other choice. our president is doing the best job he can. he has all the world leaders looking at him, and he has all the people of the united states looking at him. she has all of our government officials looking at him. they have got to help. we have got to all realized that israel is fighting for existence. thank you. host: from arizona, independent line. this is harry.

caller: good morning. i agree with a few of these points about getting out of there. i do not think we got any business over there to begin with. that whole area has been fighting each other since time began. biden can't control a thing in the world over there. he can't even control his bowel movement. host: all right, let's hear from eddie. caller: good morning. biden, personally, this is way wrong. if he is catholic, he should believe in the 10 commandments. thou shalt not kill. they keep talking about october 7. look at what preceded that, what was before that, and that was how they were attacked. they were being attacked by the palestinians. in may, september. they were killing them here this

got to the point where they got tired of that pay let's get to the american part. israel has attacked america twice, in 1959, where they went in under false pretenses, dressed as egyptians. then in 1967 with the uss liberty, where they killed some navy men. they also attacked a submarine. if you want to go to the religious part, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state -- host: so should those activities you mentioned prevent us from involvement overall? caller: it is a separation between church and religion. if you want to go to religion, read the bible. revelations weather talk about the synagogue the saint. host: i do not know how that applies israel-hamas. caller: because when you talk about how they rc jews, this is where it talks about bible.

read it. host: ok, dan in maine, republican line. hello. caller: hi. ken. host: ken. caller: f-minus, definitely, for the president. it is based primarily, almost exclusively, on our foreign policy. i do not understand how people can continue to argue to send more troops to the middle east in order to create peace. what are we, idiots? look at the last 30 years of activity. do you wonder why there are other people in the world that have a different opinion of what we are doing as good for the world? no one's paying attention. let me give an example of who is not thinking or what is not paying attention. have you heard of the --

steadfast 24? host: what is the relevance? caller: the relevance is announcing the kickoff of exercise steadfast defender 2024, commencing next week and running through may. that is an announcement that went out -- host: again, what is the relevance when it comes to issues of israel-hamas? caller: it has to do with our using military force. right now, nato is going to do an exercise in europe and bring 90,000 troops from the united states over to europe, and it has already started, and it is supposed to be completed by may, and no one is talking about that. host: let's hear from frank in maryland. caller: yes. i really mourn for the posting people who have been deceived,

whose charter demand they have total control from the river to the sea. if they want to do what is right, what israel needs to do is rebuild gaza. and they also need to do one of two things. they rule over the palestinian people. they either need to allow a palestinian state or states to be brought up, or they need to make all the palestinians, from the river to the sea, full israeli citizens, with full rights of citizenship and voting and real citizenship, not the artificial, second-class citizenship that palestinian israelis -- i would say enjoy, but they dumped enjoy it, because they do not have equal rights. if israel wants to exist as a state, they need to give

everybody full rights. otherwise, likely american people who say taxation without representation -- the palestinians are taxed, but they do not have representation. host: ok. from georgia on the biden administration on israel-hamas. caller: yes. i -- i gave joe biden an f. he is complicit in the genocide of the palestinian people. he could stop this immediately. they are under us. we control them, to the point where we give them all this money. we support them by giving arms.

the united states and israel are complicit, and the world's people see this. and the world's people are not going to forgive. they see the hypocrisy of the united states and israel, both of them. i will never agree with any kind of genocide, and we always want to say somebody is a terrorist. the people that are against us that do not want us meddling in their country are not terrorists. they want us out of their country. we have no business in iraq, we have no business in syria. we are where we are not supposed to be, and the world is changing. what america was in 1994, after the soviet union, has ended. things are not the same. people are not the same. countries are not as weak as they used to be. we keep thinking that we are still the superior country.

we are wrong, and time is going to show this. the world is getting tired of us bullying them. host: ok. the associated press poll asked about the airstrikes that were done against yemen's houthi rebels. when asked, 39% of those in this poll saying they strongly or somewhat approval though those airstrikes. 13% strongly or somewhat disapproving. when it comes to the topic of whether these conflict will increase prejudice against jewish and muslim americans, 44% saying they were extremely concerned for jews, that the prejudice would occur. others -- more at the ap poll. as far as military responses, one of the topics yesterday with john kirby at the white house

talking about the recent strikes in iran, the administration's viewpoint. [video clip] >> two thoughts there. first, it is not like held back any notification we would respond if we were attacked. the president has been clear. we will respond. it is not as if, prior to the attack last weekend, that the folks in tehran did not know we would take seriously any attacks on our troops and facilities. with the specific attack that the targets we struck friday night, you want to do this in a deliberate way. you want to carefully select your targets, you want to make sure that all the parameters are in place to have good effects, including factoring in the weather. these attacks were using manned aircraft. you want to make sure your pilots get in and out safely. there was a lot of planning. the pentagon believes we had good affect.

host: that was from fox news sunday. let's hear from joe in virginia, republican line. caller: i would give president biden an f-minus-minus-minus, not just the way he has handled what is going on in israel and hamas and with the iran-backed proxies but really the way he has handled his full administration. just a few examples, when president trump left office, the world was very stable. china was in check, north korea was in check. he had a clear path for exit in afghanistan. the order was in check. and the russia-ukrainian theater was stable. and the middle east, through the abraham accords, was a very stable environment and getting even more peaceful -- host: specifically, then, why would you give the current president an f on these,

particularly the middle east front? why would you do that? caller: the middle east in particular, the response -- i do not believe his response to israel has been wholehearted. i believe it has been tepid, and he has reluctantly helped israel. at the same time, he has tried to please the palestinians and the arab world at the same time. in a case like this, it is good versus bad, evil versus good. you cannot choose both sides -- host: what would a non-tepid response look like, in your mind? caller: for me, an actual solution to the problem is israel -- of the arab world is always going to use the palestinians as a thorn in israel's side. the arab world, iran in particular, is always going to use their proxies to attack and destroy israel, because that is

their goal and their mission. i believe we have to have a clear strategy as far as the palestinians. if i were israel, i would have an operation -- i would let the arab world know that gaza is going to be evacuated. israel needs clear orders. and the arab world will no longer be able to use the palestinians as cannon fodder. they will have to absorb the palestinians into the arab world, because israel needs to secure borders. i would give the arab world a further warning, and every time they attack israel from lebanon, israel will take territory. if hezbollah attacks israel, clear out, hezbollah, and take about 10 miles of lebanese land. if they attack syria, clear out the iranian-back -- host: ok. let's go to kathy in new mexico,

democrat line. caller: i just want to say i cannot this agree with everything the previous caller just said, because it was not peaceful, what trump did. the abraham accords did not include the palestinians, so i do not there was any prospect of peace. i do not think biden is doing a good job. we cannot be an honest worker in this. it's too one-sided. there needs to be more empathy for the palestinians. it is horrific. i definitely do not want trump back in, i think trump would be much worse. but basically, when it comes to this issue, it would be done faster. he would give full support to netanyahu. right now what is going on is just slow, slow -- it might -- the same goal might happen, it is just being done a slower way with biden. i wish you would change his course. host: when you say it is too one-sided, what do you base that on? caller: just with israel, it's

too -- there is not enough for the emphasized on palestinians. what hamas mustard was horrific, yes, it was. but what israel is doing, as far as how many people in palestine are dying, then cutting off the eight. they are already at risk of starvation. i think there's not enough emphasis on that. there are so many people dying that are innocent. what hamas did was wrong, but also what is going on now is wrong. i wish there was more emphasis placed on that. host: kathy in you mexico on the biden administration, rating their efforts concerning actions again -- actions on israel-hamas. you can call us on our lines, post on social media, or text us at (202) 748-8003 . republican line, we will hear next from gordon in kansas city. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i'm just an old man. i wish people would look at the maps in the back of their bible. you will see that palestinians are actually philistines. king david had to kill their champion. if god was running this war, he would wipe out every man, woman, child, dog, cat, goat in gaza. host: ok. kim in ohio, democrat line. you are next up. caller: hamas is a terrorist group. they will make a terrorist country. that don't make sense. what they're doing to the palestinians is so sad. i would like to put myself in

their position. they have no food, they're bombing them, they're telling them to go left, telling them to go right. the way they go, they bombed that way. they are bombing the hospitals. we are supposed to support that? i do not get that. and there are a lot of arab countries out here. that we can keep pulling them and it is ok? it's not. i love biden. i am going to vote for biden. but i do not like him taking israel's side. that is what donald trump did. we went over there and took all their property. and israel being settlers. host: ok. kim in ohio. let's hear from tyler in pennsylvania, independent line. your next up. caller: good morning. i want to remind everyone of the icj ruling, in which they

clearly stated that there is merit to a genocide being committed by israel, and if there wasn't, the icj would have thrown that case out, like israel wanted. ever since that happened, the u.s. and other western countries have, in response, with ron funding from unrwa, which provides aid, the minimum amount of aid to gaza. they cut all that funding off. and unverified links to "hamas" and also, in response to the icj ruling, since then, we have bombed all these countries, yemen, iraq, syria -- host: so the writing administration's role in all this -- so the biden administration's role in all this, how would you rate that? caller: poorly, because clearly benjamin netanyahu is doing whatever he wants, and biden is

bypassing congress to give them more aid, no matter what. it seems like there is no conditions, no accountability that biden is doing for israel. host: by the way, that ruling was a brief part of our conversation with two experts. this took waste january 26. if you want to see that discussion on topics of israel-hamas, you can go to our website at c-span.org, or you can follow along on most recent things that happen on this program on our platform and network of apps at c-span now. one more piece from mike johnson, the house speaker, talking about the independent bill expected to be on the floor of the house this week specifically supporting israel and why he is making the effort. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> the reason we will send the

new package over is because the time is urgent and we have to take care of that responsibility. >> mr. speaker, as you know, the billy preston the house with the dead on arrival in the senate. your republican colleagues have said as much. my question is did use -- did you propose this package to kill the compromise deal in the senate? >> no, we made very clear what the requirements of the housework, and that is to solve the problems at the border. apparently, the center has not been -- we have been awaiting their action. we cannot wait any longer. the house is willing to lead the reason we have to take care of this israel situation right now is because the situation has escalated, of course. the hamas terrorists have not relented in their attacks on israel. we are now having u.s. personnel being fired upon there. and with retaliatory strikes

taking place, the heat has turned up there. israel has never been in greater need of our support. host: that is something to look for on the house side. you heard the speaker referencing the text of the bill was not put out. it was put out last night. when it comes to border issues. you can see that play out in the senate on c-span's 1 and 2 respectively when it comes to work and discussion on those fronts. let's hear from steve, republican line, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. what i wanted to talk about is what is going on in israel. this started by hamas. the palestinian people voted these people in office. they are actually their representatives read these cowards -- they are actually their representatives.

these cowards. you see these tunnels they put in schools, hospitals. they do not care about human life. we do. israel has told them to get out because something was going to happen in a few hours. hamas has not let their people go. this is going to expand. i do not believe in a two state solution -- host: how would you rate the biden administration on this then? caller: very poorly. they should have started bombing long before this, because if they continue to blockade that little seaport or whatever you call it, all our equipment will go around africa. it will take months on end. it will cause the prices of stuff go up.

war is bad because individuals get killed, innocent people, but this needs to be stopped, because if it continues -- they will build itself back up thanks to iran. my personal opinion, they should go into iran right now -- and i will be honest. blow up a nuclear reactor. because they will have a nuclear weapon, one or more nuclear weapons, before this year is over. can you imagine, iran? host: ok. tamara, we will hear from her in virginia, independent line. tamara in mclean, virginia. hello? one more time. caller: hello. when it comes to biden, i give h im a-plus for being honest.

at least he declared he is being zionist. but for hamas, they are declared terrorist, and i do not know why. in 1948, when israel was built on palestinian grounds, they were the terrorists. but today, the world has forgotten that. how could our president, humanitarian country, allow such an aside? i truly do not believe, whether trump comes or biden stays, the policy of this country will change, until we review whether we are the we are the allies of israel or israel is our ally. host: ok. that is the last call we will take on this topic. to those who participated, thank you for doing so. we will continue talking events to look for in the house and senate particularly, as the senate released the text when it comes to their border security deal. joining us to walk us through that is mica soellner of punchbowl news.

also, later on in the program we take a look at issues of immigration. one of the things we will look at is the backlog whe it comes to immigration courts and what goes on in those courts. austin kocher of syracuse university's transactional records access clearinghouse. of those discussions taking place later on "washington journal." ♪ >> for c-span's voices 2024, we are asking voters across the country what issue is most important to you in this election at white. >> the most important issue is immigration. >> economics in the deficit. >> i think homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website, c-span.org/campaign 2024, select

record your voice ted and recorded 32nd video telling is your issue and why. c-span's voices 2024, be a part of the conversation. ♪ >> be up to date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends for insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capitol, to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks

like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand, keep up with today's biggest events with floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪

"washington journal" continues.. host: our guest reports on the congress to talk about the week ahead in congress in a busy week we are looking forward to, thanks for joining us. one of the discussion sure to take places is that about border security. the senate released in the text of their border security bill yesterday. can you walk us through what led us to this point before the release? guest: we saw this text coming after four months of negotiations among the senate lawmakers who are trying to apply for -- to tight in aid with the board of the domestic issue that has grappled capitol hill. republicans have tried to tie these two together with more ukraine funding and other elements of foreign aid that is risen with the rise of some of these more conservative america first type lawmakers in the senate that are following

president trump foreign policy style. we sow $118 billion that is being allocated including 64 ukraine. there is a lot of controversy around this a lot of disagreement in terms of where this will go in if it will remain alive in the senate and in the house. we heard mike johnson say this bill is already dead on arrival given several elements. host: such as what? guest: i think the ukraine element is the big deciding factor. we sow the house freedom caucus caucus come in opposition saying , one member in particular said you should never tied in the border with foreign aid despite conservatives saying that's what they wanted all along. the other thing i'm hearing from republicans is that they are saying this does not do anything to secure the border and does not go far enough on some of these border provisions in the

text of the bill. of course, the house republicans have a hard-line immigration bill last year and they wanted to see that passed alongside pennies kind of foreign a bill. host: one of the provisions on the border security side, $20 billion for immigration enforcement including the hiring of new officers to evaluate asylum claims and expulsio authority that kicks in a certain amount of legal border crossings kick in and migrants could still apply for port of entry. how him -- how much more do republicans want other than what they are saying in the text? guest: the senate negotiation saying there is a lot of misinformation being spread and one of those is that this would increase illegal immigration to the united states is which is not with the bill would do. in the package for the republicans past last year includes elements that democrats

would reject like the resurrection of trump's wall and other measures that would really crackdown on the migrants crossing the border. the only solution really that house republicans have come up with in that bill is trying to impeach secretary mayorkas which will come up for a vote this week. the border and immigration has divided congress in each party. this issue will not go away and it's really sensitive challenging problem. host: why are republicans interested in getting rid of the guest: guest: homeland security secretary? we saw the homeland security committee impeach him at the committee level last week and it's been a long drawn out process. chairman mark green of that committee has led to one year long investigation. he has swiftly maneuvered through the impeachment effort and a lot of it was at the will of some of these republicans

that have said he's done a poor job at the border and they accuse him of intentionally trying to open the border and flood the country with more migrants. they've accused him of basically being derelict in his duty and i think that's one of the arguments that house republicans have made so they are trying to impeach him onto articles including deceiving the public and lying to congress and the other one was willfully not following the law. i want to add that the border is a huge issue for democrats. i haven't seen any democrats come out in support of impeaching mayorkas but they are big very vocal in terms of the poor job he has done. host: two aspects of the busy week ahead when it comes to congress and you can ask our guest about it. you can ask your questions by calling (202) 748-8000 four republicans -- for democrats,

(202) 748-8001s, independent (202) 748-8002 or text us at (202) 748-8003. walk us through the time of what to expect as far as the senate. guest: it will be challenging to get anything concrete done. some of the more conservative senate republicans are concerned about within the bill. there is a lot of fingers being pointed at leadership so it will be hard to maneuver but i would assume the senate wants to move this through a since the house introduce their own version of a standalone bill which was intended to get ahead of this. host: why did speaker johnson decide to go that route? guest: he's in a difficult position. he's been undermining his authority so he just wanted to move ahead knowing the bill would always be dead on arrival in the house.

and he had a lot of opposition among his members in terms of what's in the bill before the text was released. there was a lot of assumptions and presumptions about what the bill actually does. this is a different kind of move for him. he showing his authority any even said yesterday that he is the one that's in charge, not donald trump which was a big topic. trump came out against this bill before it was announced. host: one of the things he said yesterday when it comes to the border bill is the amount of discussion for information he got from the other side when it came to putting this together. i will play what he had to say and get your thoughts on it. [video clip] >> were you offered a briefing? >> no, i have had individual senators call and give me tips and offer things going on in the room but we've not been a part of that negotiation. i have been absolutely clear from day one that literally the next morning after being handed

the gavel in late october, what the functional equivalent of hr two, what those are and why that was necessary to solve the problem. i brought 64 house republicans of the border in january and we heard from the people in charge and they said these are the things you must do to stem the flow. the reason we have the biggest and immigration catastrophe in u.s. history president biden took these actions. host: that was speaker johnson from yesterday. as far as this do you want to elaborate? guest: the speaker has called out the president's executive actions. previously, congressional republicans have wanted to use legislative action. they passed hr to which is a high demand on their list. i think speaker johnson is trying to use his bully pulpit a little bit and trying to persuade the administration use some authority and show that

he's in this position now. he's stepping up a little bit more and becoming more vocal. he's very media shy but i think he's becoming a little bit more bold in his job. host: punch bowl news is joining us for this discussion. let's hear from rex in minnesota, democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i'm very concerned about one thing a particular and that is now that trump has shown his hand with being aligned with denying aid to ukraine, it seems that it's more and more obvious that the hard right is more concerned with denying aid to ukraine to destabilize eastern europe, in particular ukraine and aiding prudent than they are

in actually resolving the border crisis. the chaos that has ensued with the border crisis is -- or has become a staging area. what it amounts to in my mind, and i would like your reaction to this, it seems this is trump's ticket to aiding prudent and allowing the destabilization of eastern ukraine. i will listen to your comments, thanks a lot. guest: thanks for the question. i think your point about ukraine becoming very sore topic among republicans is pretty accurate. the majority of the house conference and senator still support ukraine but there has been this vibe since trump is been in power and they put more emphasis on more isolationist approach were focusing more on

domestic needs. it's the america first movement that has turned on a lot of members of the argument that a lot of republicans, may be some that are more moderate are making is that the united states has already given a lot of money to ukraine and also i think they want to see more transparency in the funding as well as a strategy on how to win the war. that's what i'm hearing from members on capitol hill. host: how is congress generally reacting to the recent strikes by the biden administration against the iran back groups. guest: it's more complicated and a lot of those talks have been more internal. i know the intel committee was briefed on those a couple of weeks ago or last week. i think you'll hear the same argument from some people saying this is just the administration trying to wage another war. there is a lot of screaming on each side that you of members

saying this is the reaction to take. host: how much has -- information has the administration given congress on the strikes? guest: these are oftentimes closed meetings but they have been briefing lawmakers. host: teresa is next from tennessee on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the border deal. you can spin it anyway you want to but it still does allow 5000 illegals went to this country daily until the borders shut down and the keeper of the border being shut down is joe biden. does anyone really believe that joe biden is going to shut that border down? another thing, would you please talk about the $39 million that's allocated to joe biden in

this bill for a slush fund? that's until september, 2025. you all keep laming donald trump and mike johnson for stopping this bill. the american people want this bill stopped. ukraine funding and the open borders is a hill that republican voters are willing to die for. i also believe democrats are not going to vote for that bill because black voters in chicago are pitching a fit about the illegals coming into their communities and job biden is a reggie dishes already hemorrhaging the black vote in south carolina. guest: it's interesting because there is some democratic opposition to this bill as well. when you've seen this all along especially from the congressional hispanic caucus, the largest hispanic group on capitol hill in the house and

also lawmakers in the senate were saying this bill goes too far in trying to tie some of trump's former policies and they are blaming the biden administration of giving into republicans. depending who you ask, it's interesting who says the bill doesn't go far enough or goes too far. i think it's also interesting that how big an issue the border has become for the biden issue as well as democrats in election year. a lot of these members especially those representing border states in border districts are becoming more vocal about the issue area over all, they are saying the administration needs to step up or they should have acted sooner on this with didn't become such a huge issue as it is now and especially with 10 months away from november. host: richard is in augustine, georgia, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. the immigration problem began

back in 1980 when i was a part of the military in the cuban book lift. since then, i've come to feel that we have five immigration policies, one for europe, one for cuba, one for haiti, one for mexico and the far east from the northwest. when they address these issues since 1980, they haven't done it. my question is, if a bipartisan bill is passed in the senate, why not represented johnson of the house look at it and read it and dissected and add something to it to strengthen it more? the problem we have since 1980 for the first cuban boatlift when 250,000 people came into the country. host: thank you. guest: that's an interesting

point. speaker johnson said yesterday he was not based on this and senators are eager to brief the house leader on this. i want to add that i think house republicans have been clear. a lot of them have been against his bill for a long time saying they don't really trust anything democrats do with republicans to handle this issue. a lot of them are saying that if donald trump was an office and wins this election, that political risk is that we will wait until there is a republican president in the white house to tackle the issue because joe biden cannot handle it. republicans in the house, one of the reasons it's become challenging or the speaker and the president with a narrow majority in his hands are tied this viruses members to the right in the house freedom caucus saying they use the border as their main issue and

has said they will not vote for anything they are willing to vote down rules and other laws if they don't get something on that issue. that mirrors the bill they passed last year. host: mark is in california, independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. this question came from friend and his question, he wanted me to relay was wise biden helping the cartels make money? host: why do you think that is? guest: because he opened the border as soon as he came in and millions of people have come to this country and basically this country is a melting pot but now the pot is pretty full. his question was why is biden and mayorkas basically working for the cartels?

guest: a lot of republicans have used just accused mayorkas of fostering some of those issues. they have said he's tried to open the border on day one. mayorkas has pushed back and a lot of those claims. he said the illegal immigration numbers in the illegal crossings have actually gone down. it's really hard to find solutions to these issues i think republicans have used the argument that mayorkas has done a poor job in the borders and a lot of democrats of use that as well. i think that's why this impeachment effort has come to fruition. even though it's probably not going to pass. host: we saw a temporary rip -- reprieve from a government

funding deadline, the next deadline will happen in march. where is the house and the senate is for is resolving the issue of government funding? guest: there were tight deadlines and what will likely happen is that the speaker will have to do another continuing resolution. that's not going to make conservatives happy at all. especially after he did it the first time and a lot of them have floated that they need a motion to vacate. i personally don't see people making a move to try to oust johnson. we know what happened with kevin mccarthy and they govern in a similar fashion. mike johnson was always seen as a conservative and an ally. being in leadership as a whole different job and i think he's learning that he has to govern and legislate and make these deals and work across the aisle

at times. host: to what degree does mike johnson have backing? guest: i think he has gotten quite a bit of cover unlike mccarthy. a lot of it is personality driven quite frankly and i think he came in with no baggage. there were members that were skeptical of mccarthy from the start, thinking he wasn't conservative enough and he would give in to the demands of house that he wouldn't give into house conservatives. mccarthy's hands were tied and he pushed back strongly against issues and that's how congress has been govern. they've been allowed to dictate the agenda. host: this is from giovanni in missouri, republican line. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i want to know what the

world to listen to this -- can you please tell me what they will not pass a clean bill and why do they keep adding pork in the bill? it's our border in the united states of america is protecting us, why can't they just pass a clean bill? what is the problem that the democrats refused to pass a bill over the border? i'm amazed how the democrats want to keep adding more and more to a bill for other countries when we have the problem in our country. please tell me why they won't pass a clean bill. host: we will let our guests respond. guest: democrats do want to pass a bill and that's part of the reason why democratic negotiators have sought to try to find a bipartisan solution for this issue in the senate for

many months and have just now released this and democrats in both chambers are acknowledging that the border is a problem and they are not afraid to say the biden administration has played a role in the influx of migrants coming into the country and having pointed fingers at secretary mayorkas at times. it is a big issue for them and they are trying to plan this proposal and argument that some democrats are making, particular those that might be more aligned with the progressive side saying these are going too far and we need to be more humane to the situation and others are saying the border is a big problem and those representing border states are really speaking out against this issue saying that we need to fix this problem. this is just a really challenging issue on capitol hill over all and everyone will

have a different view and that's what makes it so difficult to get anything done on this. host: i want to ask about a recent story you wrote. you can fill in the blanks -- how stems worry joe biden is turning off young voters. guest: i spoke with maybe two dozen house democrats on this issue privately and publicly a lot of them are coming to the consensus that biden is losing enthusiasm among young voters with everything going on between gaza, climate change, student loans, a lot of these issues that young people are saying the administration is not doing enough on and physically in light of the issue of gaza, they are up by the presidents stance on israel. it's interesting to see not just progressive democrats more likely to be a foil for the president and the administration and democratic leadership but seeing more of these

rank-and-file democrats like daniel cleaver of missouri saying this is a big problem is something that members are talking about. biden has 10 months to turn this around but he did rely a lot on younger voters to help them get elected in the last cycle. it's something he will have to shore up and is working really hard by backing some of the communities to sway young voters. maxwell frost is the youngest member of congress and he's been working with the administration and the campaign to try to shore up younger voters. i think the administration and the campaign is doing everything it can. host: you highlight the fact that the biden campaign hired someone directly to appeal to the youth? guest: yes, that shows there is acknowledgment of this issue and they are a little worried about turnout in particular. i think a lot of democrats are rely if donald trump is the nominee that that will sway

young voters to come up just because they don't want trump of the other issue is if they will turn out at all if enthusiasm for biden wanes. host: you can find that story at punch bowl. news. good morning. caller: the border has been a problem for 40 years, 2013, there was a border bill. john boehner didn't bring it to the floor. that was when the tea party that's morphed into the freedom caucus. first day in office, biden presented a border bill. it's the republicans who just don't want to legislate. they want chaos. it's political. they don't want a solution. border bill, scott lankford is a republican and not just the middle-of-the-road republican. he is extremely conservative. it's a good bill, it's

bipartisan, johnson is listening to trump who wants chaos. trump had two years to deal with the border, ok? there was more coming in during the pandemic. if you want to see things get bad, don't pass this bill, don't bring the bill to the floor. then you will see more people coming in. host: thank you. how much is the former president republican response to this bill? guest: i think he is influencing things quite a bit especially given leader mcconnell's private comment saying the political situation has given trump's opposition to the bill. it is making things difficult and it was up in the air whether

, after trump made his comments and continues to. in the house, i think he has influenced but not as much as people think especially among the house freedom caucus which are not aligned with his policies. a lot of them are supportive of trump but have not endorsed him yet so i don't know how much influence he has in the group anymore despite the fact that they are aligned in their political views. host: how much resistance is there? they don't want to give the president a win especially on immigration. guest: i think that's a big factor. election years change everything. giving biden a win at a time when republicans know the border and immigration is a huge issue for the president is not going to be something they want. biden will use that to go on the campaign trail. he will say he got a bipartisan win for the border and that will only help them in the election.

host: what else should we look out for in congress this week? guest: obviously, impeachment will be big so we will look for a vote this week. it will be a short week in the house. house democrats will go on their retreat later this week so they will be doing some rallying for their party. it's at a time when i think there is low participation in both parties. we will watch developments on this bill and how things go and a potential leadership shakeup. host: you can see the reporting from our guest at punch bowl. news. she covers congress for that publication, thanks for your time. we will go to open forum and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 democratss and independent (202) 748-80023 .we will take

those calls and open forum when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪

>> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage coming can find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlight. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play unselect videos. the timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. "washington journal" continues.

host: if you want to participate in open forum, you can do so on the phone lines, (202) 748-8001 republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. a couple of things to keep you aware of on our network today -- at 10:00 a.m., a forum by the poor people's campaign will discuss 2024 and is comprised of state leaders talk about plans to energize working-class voters this year in this election year you can see that on this network, c-span now and c-span.org. on thursday, 10:00 a.m. is wherein the supreme court will conser the 14th amendment when used against the former president trumon appearing on ballots. back in demb, the colorado supreme court ruled the former president was ineligible to appear in the states presidtial ballot.

the supreme court justices wl take up that case thursday at 10:00 a.m. and you can listen on our main network c-span for that to take place. it's open formative you want to participate, clearwater, florida, independent line, go ahead. caller: hey, pedro. i wanted to ask your last guest the question i had. i wanted to hear her response. you hear the democrats talking about they are humanitarians but people need to understand and maybe you could explain what an indentured servant is. indentured servant is something -- you are not getting paid, is basic slavery. how many of those people are coming across the border? where are the kids at? why is there sir -- so little coverage from the mainstream media and it's upsetting. all you hear is about

humanitarian but how are these people paying back what they owe to the cartels? host: marvin is in new york, democrats line. caller: it's time president biden honored the 101st in texas. you can have a governor flouting the laws of the supreme court. biden should send all the outsiders home. host: ok, linda is next in arkansas, republican line. caller: yes, i wanted to make three points. president biden says on day one he will appeal to the senate. on day one, nancy pelosi was

speaker the house and he had a majority in the senate and the house. i would like to see the voting record of democrats. two, 5000 per day does not include families. it does not include people who charge those families to come across the border and does it include the whole border or just the texas parks? three, the red cross is handing out maps to these people along with food and water. i have one more -- candace built, there is $1.4 billion for the msg's. the catholic societies that are supporting and promoting this immigration. why are they using our tax dollars for that? host: that's one of the people speaking out about the bill was one of the senators working on it, kyrsten sinema, an

independent senator from arizona and was on cvs yesterday and spoke about some of the aspects of the senate bill. here she is from yesterday. [video clip] >> we've all seen the images on television of what's happening in arizona and southern texas. large numbers of migrants are approaching the border and being processed and released into the country, sometimes with a piece of paper called a notice to appear where they may see a judge in 5, 7 or 10 years, no one knows. our law changes that and ends the practice of capture and release. when people approach the border and say they want to enter error country to seek asylum, they will go into one of two situations -- first, short-term detention which we would take them into custody and we do an interview right then and there to determine if they meet the standard for asylum. for individuals that don't meet the standard is most of the

migrants coming to our country right now, they will be swiftly returned to their home country. these are the folks we cannot detain like families. it will ensure we are supervising them over the course of just three months and conduct that interview with that new higher standard requiring them to show more prove early on about whether or not they qualify for asylum and return them to their country if they do not have the evidence or the proof they qualify for asylum. we will no longer have people just entering the country and maybe going to court in the next seven or 10 years. instead, we will make swift justice and folks who do qualify will be in a rapid half, six months or less to start a new life in america. those who do not qualify will quickly be returned to their home countries. host: a follow-up story on the text that was released when it comes to funding of the border itself -- 20.20 3 billion to

exist existing operational needs and expand capabilities at the nation's border to resource new border policies and help stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics from senator murray's office, saying the legislation would prohibit additional u.s. funding for the united nations relief agency, following allegations from israel that several staffers participated in the october 7 attack on israel. this also says the legislature would give the secretary of option to shut down the border. that's the stories coming out with details of that text. you can see the senate and watch

the senate as they consider the bill especially for those might push back and stood and watched that on our main channel and follow along on our app at c-span now. in new york, independent line hello. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks, you are on. caller: i was calling to express my view on gaza and stuff like that. host: it's open forum, go ahead. caller: i don't agree with the position of president biden on that. i believe he has committed genocide by supporting israel. as a black person, i feel that is unjust and in violation of

genocide law. that's what i had to say. host: heath, ohio, democrats line is next. caller: i think the new border deal is a good step forward or a good idea. i don't understand why trump is against it because if he gets into the presidency, he and his almighty powers can change the bill. i don't know why he is objecting to a positive thing on the border. thank you. host: from john in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hi. from watching your show, if you can enlighten me on article eight which would shut down the border. i would also like to say trump 2024 and let's go brandon. host: that's john in pennsylvania. one of the other stories takes a

look at derailments of railroads especially after the incident in ohio that took place last year. this is from the wall street journal this morning --

more there in the wall street journal if you want to read about that. kentucky, independent line. caller: good morning to you. i've got a couple of questions in a couple of comments. they are concentrating on this border and giving money to ukraine and i've heard it till i'm about blue in the face but the one thing you're not stressing his social security. they don't talk about social security like they talk about ukraine in the border. we've got people here on social security that can't even make ends meet. and everything. we need help. people on social security need some help badly. some of them have to pay their own medicine, they have to do

without medicine and pay their rent and it's getting really tough for us people on social security or retired military. i've run into some military people that are homeless. now they have this stuff in kentucky. they want to arrest homeless people. i can think of better things to pass a bill on than beating up on people that's trying to make something of themselves. host: let's hear from mason in texas, democrats line. caller: how are you doing? i really appreciate what you do on the show. i love it and i know you are dealing with a lot of different personalities and it's great to watch you.

anyways, i wanted to talk quickly about the tech industry. i don't know if you look into that much. i work in video games and there's been a ton of layoffs lately. it's really become a big problem. i don't think i've heard many people talk about it. that's all, i just want to bring it up. host: what you think is the cause of that? caller: people are lending money , microsoft just bought two giant companies, the two biggest ones in the u.s.. they finish their last projects and they just laid off 3000 people almost. host: would you consider yourself a gamer? guest: caller: yeah, i've been working in the industry for 20 years. host: do you have a favorite?

guest: yeah, probably battlefield. host: if you are calling and to participate in open form, continue to do so, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, democrats, (202) 748-8000 an independents (202) 748-80023 . you can text us at (202) 748-8003. campaign 2024 continues on the tickly after the results of the south carolina primary. here to join is to break that down is a semaphore political reporter. thank you for giving us your time. guest: good to be here, thank you. host: we saw a victory for joe biden in south carolina so how does that change is campaign going forward? guest: it doesn't change much because the president went to primary night saturday with no serious competition for the nomination.

he still has marianne williamson running but he is not -- she is not a position to winning any delegates. there were not that many democrats in the primary and about 30,000 people showed up. those are for the democrats in south carolina but it was a signal of biden's strength in these primary states that have the delegates for super tuesday. they have lots of nonwhite voters and as we got nomination last on that's why he's got no serious impediment to the nomination this time although two candidates are still in the race. host: president biden made a big effort of south carolina first so did it change his relationship with the state, particularly african-american voters? guest: it was helpful.

it's a question of pushing south carolina first in the calendar and not voting in terms of picking up delegates in new hampshire, it ended up not hurting that much. you had a larger number of people turned out to vote for joe biden is a write in candidate last month than people who showed up for barack obama for a second term in 2012. it didn't hurt there. in south carolina, it anecdotally did help the president to put a focus on the state and rollout issues that have uplifted black voters, people below the poverty line. that's a lot of what is campaign is about. that campaign is largely about using paid messaging and mail and digital ads to say whatever you think of the president, look what he's delivered for you in terms of drug costs and unemployment.

it did help at the margins but not in the states he will need in november against donald trump. host: south carolina has yet to hold its primary for the republican candidates. talk about those competing there and what south carolina means to them. guest: it is down to nikki haley and donald trump competing in south carolina. there is a three week march to the primary were nothing has really changed since new hampshire. there was a hope by anti-trump republicans that nikki haley would win new hampshire and do so well she got ahead of him in south carolina but it didn't really happen. the trump campaign has taken its foot off the gas in south carolina because they have a 25-30 point lead. if you look at the most recent polls, trump is very popular with the people who vote in south carolina republican primaries. nikki haley is less popular than him even being the former

governor. people rarely switch between parties for practical reasons. he has a 50 point lead in south carolina. she is only winning with people consider themselves democrats or independents and 130 up -- 130,000 of them just came out for the democratic primary. there isn't effort and less money involved to turn away people who are not traditional republicans are nikki haley. if you are a democrat in south carolina and you remember nikki haley 10 years ago, whether she was a tea party governor or a conservative icon the party before trump, convincing you to turn around and vote strategically for her to slow down trump has been tough. she's been campaigning harder than trump in the state when making little progress in the polls. host: one of the papers say is

one thing that may be working against her she is more competitive against the former president. guest: that's right, there is no good way to attack donald trump and get republicans to keep liking you. whoever has attacked him has seen a collapse in their approval rating. chris christie did that. it's just the dim munition of it. ron desantis tried it in iowa and new entry to a lesser standard. nikki haley much less so but in her outreach to non-republicans as attacked trump in performance that republicans don't love. she went on saturday night live the day of the south carolina democratic primary and participated in a sketch where she was talking with a trump impersonator and her riffing about nikki haley issues like

trump taking a mental competency deep -- mental competency test. that's not going to endear her with voters. she's the only one left and they think once trump is in legal peril, most republican voters decided he was being unfairly targeted and they had no sympathy for somebody who wanted to keep the primary going. i saw his last week at the rnc meeting. there was a lot of anger among the more conservative members of the rnc that were maga members that nikki haley is running at all. you hear that from a lot of republican voters. host: you in nevada we talk about what to expect but talk about how they do their primary and how they split it. guest: it's complicated. democrats ran the state for the last four years. they changed it instead of a caucus that has a primary.

that said democrats will assign their delicates but not how republicans will. they voted as a party pro-trump to make the primary irrelevant make the caucuses which are two days later assigned delegates. you had to choose the candidate of competing in the primary or would you compete in the caucuses which is two days later and will probably have a lower turn it but will pick that delegate. the trump campaign decided to compete in the caucuses and the nikki haley campaign decided to compete in the primary. you will have a democratic primary were biden's favorite to win again in the republican primary where the ballot is nikki haley and candidates you've never heard of and the ability to write none of the above which the governor will do. he says i will write in none of the above. it's a strange two-part republican process and only one part democratic process.

we will watch what the turnout is for republicans and how many vote for nikki haley or an alternative. any win number at all for nikki haley says she has traction which rick santorum did 12 years ago. sometimes it helps you but in the trump campaign, they will say that's not relevant, we are picking up the delegates anyway. nikki haley has no place to pick up delegates before she gets to south carolina. you have the virgin island caucuses. they will happen this week and they will only assign a pledged one delegate. there is a chance nikki haley gets maybe one delegate out this week. that would be it. you will have a nevada competition with low stakes in the expectation that trump will pick up all the delegates thursday. host: we've got about 30 seconds, you wrote a recent piece -- the republican

primaries were built for donald trump. tele reviewers why. guest: it's what i was just saying, they change the rules of trump would benefit. nevada was the big one. they banned super pac some acting in it and that was a shot across the bow against ron desantis. even in california, rules were changed so delegates are assigned at large. trump is up by about 40 points and he was already favored but where republican parties could change the rules and benefit from, they did and that's why nikki haley is running but has few places to mount an attack against donald trump to win delegates. host: you can find the work at semaphore. calm, thank you for your time. back to your calls and is open for them. zachary in miami, florida, independent line, go ahead. caller: i just want to talk

about messaging and hypocrisy. we've been talking about the border so i will start there. this build is being talked about is real simple. biden on day one signed 42 executive orders and literally undid everything we had that trump had done to keep the border secure. what's in the bill now, they are asking for five or 6000 people to come across and then take action. that's ridiculous. you come to this country at the ports. that's how you get in here. if you don't come in that way, you are an illegal alien. they started out as illegal aliens than they became migrants, then they became asylum-seekers. first it was the ozone layer, then it was climate change, global warming, then it was

climate change. the messaging and the hypocrisy is ridiculous and i just wish more people would look into and not take their information from one source. host: democrats line, michelle in virginia. caller: hello, want to thank you for having me on. i want to make a statement, i would hope people would look for all types of information before the vote and dig into the resources that are out there so that we can be well-informed and make the best decisions we can. the other thing i would really love to see happen is that the rhetoric that people like to use to degrade or belittle people just because of their party, knowing we all may be in the same church but we all have different political views. i would love to make a comment about that as far as, i wish

people would just learn to calm down the rhetoric and for people to have a peaceful conversation which would also help lead to peaceful transition when it comes to policies and border control and when it comes to anything. if we could just not have to be so aggressive and demeaning to other people and actually have more respect for each one of us. i want to thank you for having me on. host: let's hear from gloria in kansas, republican line. caller: hi, is this open farm? host: it is. caller: i wanted to make a comment about the border. it's about the border bill. i think the democrats and republicans in the senate need to make schumer do his job. the house passed a border bill months and months ago and sent it to the senate and chuck

schumer will not put it on the floor to be voted on. if he put it on the floor, they could put amendments in it. all kinds of stuff. he won't put it on the floor, he won't do his job, he cares more about democrats than he does our country. another thing is i think the republicans need to get rid of macconnell because mcconnell just as anything chuck schumer wants him to do and we need a republican in there to help compromise and do things like they are supposed to. another thing is about schumer, for months and chuck schumer, for months and months, the house past seven appropriation bills to keep the government open, and he will not put those on the floor to be voted on or to be amended, so i just want to let all the democrats know that schumer is not doing his job.

host: ok, that is gloria in kansas. one of the things you will know during the pandemic years was the wearing of masks. the wall street journal reports this morning that the manufacturers of those masks seeing less demand these days, seeing 70% of the u.s. masked companies launched during the pandemic have closed, according to industry estimates. u.s. production of the masks fell by 90% in 2023 after elimination of masking requirements not out consumer demand -- knocked out consumer demand. more on that story in the wall street journal this morning. caller: you talk about biden running against trump. well, you know, it is trump against whoever is behind biden.

because i have seen biden at several videos, which they don't want to show on cnn, msnbc, where biden is walking around mumbling and going off-topic. he says things like i would close the border if they let me. i have to do this -- they told me i have to do this, and i would like to go to sleep. who is running the democratic thing? it is not biden. biden is taking instructions from somebody within his cabinet. i have had a mother who had cap. this man has dementia. host: jerry in virginia, you are next on the republican line. hello. jerry, hello? caller: yes, sir. i'm sorry. i got thrown off because of the last comment about the masks. everyone was required to go to jail if they did not wear a mask, but they were not

required to wear a mask at a boxing match and they were 100 politicians who did not wear masks and everybody stopped wearing masks. but i just wanted to say the more i listen to everybody that comes on here, if you never watched a donald trump rally, then you don't understand the message he is putting out. and you just watch the mainstream media. you are the problem with this country, and i feel sorry for you and i pity you and i thank you all for listening to my comment. host: this is reporting out of the associated press that president biden's latest campaign swing is taking him across the country to nevada, where they are underway with absentee voting. he was arriving in las vegas yesterday for appearances through monday, flying from california after events there saturday. the president last visited nevada in december where he

highlighted more than $8 billion for projects nationwide. yesterday, they planned to meet with voters in the majority black historic westside and speak with community leaders about infrastructure investments. stay close to c-span for those travels and news that comes out of there. in chicago, democrats line, hello. caller: yes, good morning. first of all, i am not going to dignify the last couple callers with their distorted views of joe biden and what is going on with the border or going to trump rallies and not listening to the mainstream media for your information. give me a break. this is what is really sad in this country. it has turned so extreme. anyways, two things. joe biden, i want to defend him again because this is a man who served over 30 years in the u.s.

senate, was the head of the judiciary committee, was the head of the senate foreign relations committee, international affairs, also served in a bipartisan manner, willing to work with the other side, was reasonable, and continues to want to be that way. spent eight years in the white house as a vice president, and now he has been our president. yes, he is 80 years old and fumbles words sometimes, but remember he was also a stuttered growing up -- also a person who stuttered growing up. pushing him aside and having someone like kamala harris as the candidate, you don't have to go against joe biden in the fall in november for election. about the border real quick, too. congress has had every opportunity in the world for the

next 20 years to settle the crisis at the border. there was a gang of eight senators, bipartisan, dick durbin, menendez, john kane, marco rubio was on that list, and they had a deal of comprehensive immigration reform back when president obama was president. what happened in the end right before the election when trump was running in 2016, marco rubio pulled out at the last minute. again, the influence of donald trump pushing to destroy the deal down there. that included increased security, a pathway for citizenship, the dreamers act. host: got you, tom. thank you for the call. the caller referenced vice president kamala harris. there was an interview yesterday that former president trump at least possibly teased who he could be looking at as the vp

nominee. here is part of that interview from yesterday. [video clip] >> when will you announce who your vp is? >> after a while. so many good people in the republican while but not for a while. >> what criteria are using to identify who your running mate is? >> it is who will be president. you always have to think that because in case of emergency, things happen. >> who is your running mate? >> i have a lot of good people. we have a lot of really good people. >> so you have not decided? >> i have a lot of good ideas but there is no reason -- i speech everybody. i told tim scott this. i called him and said you are a much better candidate for me then you are for yourself -- than you are for yourself. when i watched him, he was good but low-key, etc. i saw him last week sticking up for me and fighting for me. i said you are a much better

person for me than you are for yourself, because for himself he was real low-key. for me, he has been a real tiger. he has been incredible. and others, too. >> maybe tim scott. >> it could be a lot of people. it was interesting. i have been watching him. for a while, i watched him campaign as a candidate, but i watched him over the last two weeks. as you know, he endorsed to, fully endorsed me, gave a pitiful endorsement, and he has been strong in terms of that. but that has nothing to do. i don't want anybody to take any inference. but someone who was incredible fighting for me, that was a very nice thing to say. host: let's hear from florida, independent line. hello. caller: good morning. yes, my name is roberto. talking about the border because when i came, i was a kid in

1965. i came with a visa, you know? i flew over. for me, it was hard because i was a kid. i went to high school and went to work really hard over here. why can't people do it? instead of going over this, trying to come from central america through mexico. they should stop the border. i think it is better than what has been going on lately. i am an independent. i voted for donald trump once in 2016. i have seen so many fights in the country. i voted for biden last time because i have a son in

politics. see how things work and how they make compromises. the compromise lately is pretty good. host: in maryland, democrats line, hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: hi. sorry, pedro. i wanted to respond to a previous caller. he said we don't listen to trump rallies and what his message is and what he has to say. i can say as a democrat i voted across party lines in several times. i am 50 years old. i did not want to vote for biden or trump and 2020. i really don't want to vote for them in 2024 either. i think they are too old. too much controversy, too much chaos surrounding both of them. but to go back to the caller saying we never listen to trump's rallies and what he has to say, i have. his message is regurgitated chaotic lies, and i cannot but for someone like that.

thank you. host: in north carolina, we will hear from david, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i was wanted to discuss the border crisis that we have, which is a crisis. there was a caller earlier who said the border has always been that way, but i would like to remind that caller that we had a secure border for four years. a lot more secure than what we have now. this open invasion that our leaders are just turning their head to, there is a reason it is being done. they know the reason it is being done. i will not state it but i know it is wrong and it is something that needs to be addressed. and it is a hazard for all of us with the danger that is going on in these foreign wars. these people -- we got an open

border. there is no way in the world they are not looking. and i am sure you hear nothing about it hardly, but i am sure that people with common sense understand and know that a n open border is it interesting to have. god bless usa, and thank you for your time. host: two events today particularly as they both focus on aspects of china and policy tords china. one this afternoon, a discussion on chinese-american competition with a ranking member of the select committee on the chinese communist party. that event will be live on our main channel c-span. follow along on our app and .org. at 2:00, republican representative michael waltz discusses maritimeecurity and the threat pos by china with the heritage foundation. that is at 2:00 on c-span2.

you can also follow along on the app and .org. let's hear from wanda in california, republican line. caller: ok, pedro, last time i called greta, she cut me off in 10 seconds. but i want to thank tara reid. maybe it is read, but she was raped. host: these are accusations she has made. caller: so it is that other lady. let me say trump being attacked by the democrat party, judges injury in kangaroo courts, trying to ruin trump politically business, and personal. your audience is and rachel maddow's bubble planning to splurge on trump's corpse. and i kind of think that c-span

is a shield for the democrats now. you don't challenge any of your audience what they called from a dictator and a criminal. biden is taking bribes from russia, ukraine, kazakhstan eastern europe. host: just to let you know, we talked about all of those issues in previous presidents and the current president as well. we try to present a balanced viewpoint when it comes to those issues. some you may agree with. some you may not agree with. thank you for calling and participating. one more call from new york. hi. caller:. . i have listened -- caller: i have listened to your callers from both sides. one thing you never talk about, we talk about a two-tier justice system. how about the two-tier news media system? abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn, all

democrat, extreme left news media outlets. i think that if some of these people would like to watch fox news or one american news or newsmax, there are things you will see on there that the other networks do not show. for instance, the other day, the migrant boat that landed on the shores of san diego and seven or eight illegal immigrants got out of the boat and scattered. they did not show that. at least i have not seen any of the networks showing that at this time. if i missed it, that is my fault. up until today, i have yet to hear them talk about it. and i like to ask everyone out there, is your life better now than it was previous administration? what were you paying for food and fuel?

what was the immigration system like? how many wars were we involved in? how many of our military people were murdered? host: in new york, finishing off this open forum. thanks to all who participated. after the break, we will talk in system but also -- we will talk about the immigration system but also about the cases in the court, the backlog of the cases, what the biden administration is doing to alleviate that, particularly in light of the senate bipartisan bill. joing us for that discussion is austin kocher. has been tracking these issues for syracuse university, and we have that discussion when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> in the weeks that lie ahead, the famous and influential men and women who occupy those seats are going to have a lot to say

about the solutions for our time. >> american history tv will air a 10 part series free to choose saturdays at 7:00 p.m. it first aired on public television in 1980. they also wrote a best selling companion but by the same name. programs in the series take us to locations important to the u.s. and world economy. the advocate free-market principles and limited government intervention in the economy and social policy. other topics include welfare, education, equality, consumer and worker protection, and inflation. watch free to choose saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast.

and on q&a, wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others making things happen. conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide providing of topics and the about books podcast takes you behind-the-scenes on the non-fiction publishing book industry with industry updates and best sellers lists. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcast. c-span's online store, find apparel, books, home to core, and accessories -- home decorations, and accessories. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: this is austin kocher. he is with syracuse university. he serves as a research assistant professor here to talk about immigration, the courts, and the backlog there. thank you for your time. guest: glad to be with you. host: a little bit about the clearinghouse. can you tell us about how it was developed and how it particularly provides information in immigration related matters? guest: her. it has been around for 30 years. we believe the american people deserve to know how the government is operating on an that's on a daily basis -- operating on a daily basis so we get information and make that available to the public. as a researcher myself, one of our main areas is immigration so we get more immigration data than anyone else in the country

and make that available to the public online and through analysis. host: when it comes to how the clearinghouse is funded, can you explain a little bit about that? guest: sure. as a research institute, we are primarily funded through research grants. host: so the topic of immigration. one of the things you are clearinghouse looked at is the backlog of cases. can you explain how that fits into the larger immigration discussion? guest: certainly. so there is currently about 3.2 million pending cases in the immigration court system. the immigration court system is just one part of the larger immigration system. the cases that come into the court are typically people who right now anyway are arriving at the southern border and seeking asylum. maybe they entered unlawfully. maybe they entered and other forms of entry. or in some cases, they may have been in the country for a long time, 10, 20 years, or more

without documentation and are now facing deportation in the court. that backlog rose to 3.2 million cases as of the end of december. it represents a massive workload increased the immigration courts and immigration judges. host: we saw pretty much the same amount of cases according to your analysis in the charts that were provided. it starts rising in 2021 when it comes to the backlog in court. it flatlined again, and then you see the increase in 2023. can you explain why these ebbs and flows happen? guest: certainly. historically, the immigration court has processed cases for people who have been in the country for a long time. when i got into this work 15 years ago, asylum was relatively rare in the immigration court in terms of the total number of people who were facing deportation. but that has risen dramatically the last 10 years because of economic and political situations.

largely latin america and the caribbean but we have seen large numbers of ukrainian and russian and afghan people in the ignition courts too. one thing that is important to understand about this growth, the immigration courts really focus on people the government is trying to deport. the immigration court happens to be the place where people can request asylum if they recently arrived to the country. so we have a separate system to make decisions about whether or not someone deserves to file outside of the court system but because of the way the structure is set up, it may be unusual or counterintuitive but the vast majority of people facing deportation now are actually asylum-seekers. so we currently know that about a third of them in the 3 million cases, more than one million of those cases currently have pending asylum claims in the immigration court system. about a third of all people facing deportation right now are under the age of 18 so a lot of

young people, a lot of children and also families. of immigration court system is the venue where people have a chance to request safety if they are fleeing instability. host: when you talk about immigration courts themselves, how does it work when someone appears before the court to request asylum or other things? what is the process? guest: sure. it works much like a court you have seen in other similar criminal courts. the judge is dressed in judicial robes. there is opposing counsel, which is an attorney for immigration and customs enforcement, ice. they are most known probably for local immigration enforcement. they also run a detention system, unlike border patrol, which primarily does border enforcement and typically transfers people they arrest into the detention system. oftentimes, those individuals end up in court. when does it do -- when those individuals get to court,

if the request asylum and have adequate legal support eventually lodge and file an asylum application. they are very complex and demanding in terms of resources and time and research to file an adequate one. many individuals who would like to request asylum are not able to because they may not have the resources. but for those who do, they file them with the court and there is eventually a merit hearing or individual hearing where the individual will have a chance to make their case in front of a judge. the opposing counsel, the ice attorney, may more or less agree with the asylum seeker that their claim is meritorious. most often they will make some sort of opposing case or try to verify or validate the case being defended and the judge will eventually make a decision. currently, about half of all asylum cases that are decided on their merit are approved and about half are denied. that is a number that fluctuates over time.

host: does the judge in these cases have to have a specific background in immigration related issues? guest: they are not required to end the courts and judges themselves really don't have full judicial independence to negotiate with the federal court system. they exist under the department of justice, so there are some issues with independence that has been a long-standing concern. historically, they have not been required to even have any immigration law background. and even today there are judges on the bench who before they became an immigration judge may be a municipal judge in a local court or practice law in some other area of law because they were hired and appointed by the department of justice. but by and large, the vast majority of people appointed to the bench these days have immigration experience. host: for someone who makes this request for asylum, what does the judge have to sift through in order to ultimately decide? guest: sure.

typically with the judge will be looking for is credibility of a whether they feel like the story at east the individual -- story and the cased individual is presenting is reliable, if it meets the threshold of possibility and is supported by facts. individual present a detailed -- does the individual present a detailed and factual claim that is backed by news reports? there are common claims of persecution, whether it is being targeted by a targeted figure, targeted by gangs, targeted by religion, those are all claims. the immigration attorney and the individual will present not just the narrative of the individual but ultimately provide typically quite a thick packet of recent research on what is actually going on in the country the person is coming from. if someone is from a particular country and they are claiming let's say gender violence for

being a woman or a nonconforming gender, they will also provide evidence of persecution of other people in that situation as well as first-hand narrative to present the overall case, and the judge will ultimately decide whether or not that case get approved or not. host: this is austin kocher of syracuse university. if you want to ask him questions about the immigration related cases, particularly when it comes to asylum and other matters, you can call and ask. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. perhaps you have had experience with the immigration process, particularly on the legal front, and he want to ask a question. (202) 748-8003. you have probably heard on the senate side there was release of the text when it comes to the senate bill on border security. a couple of these things could apply directly to asylum. first of all, $20 billion would

particularly go for immigration enforcement, including the hiring of thousands of new officers to evaluate asylum claims. i don't know if that means judges per say but how would the money and new officers influence the current system? guest: certainly. so the number of pieces coming into the court far exceed the number of cases that judges are able to complete in any given month or year. even though the judges have been working harder than ever. they completed more cases in the first few months than they ever have so they are doing good work but there is a lot of cases. the bill provides funding not only for hiring many more immigration judges, as you said, but other officers within the immigration services will help adjudicate these claims. increased capacity could increase the responsiveness to people seeking asylum. the bill includes restrictive measures on asylum that increase

the hurdle migrants would have to face to be able to apply for asylum. there are some immigrant rights advocates that have concerns about that. the state of cases also affect outcome so insofar as the bill is attempting to speed up cases, that could be good from a processing perspective because it keeps people from waiting for years and years. but it also could disadvantage migrants seeking asylum. how people determine the bill is how they view border rights versus security. host: you talked about the standard applied to asylum. if there is an increased hurdle, what could that look like compared to what is being asked now of a person applying for asylum? guest: sure. fear -- currently, we have a credible fear standard. before someone is allowed in the country to make a full asylum claim, whether that is the uscis or the immigration courts, they

have to reach a threshold of having a credible fear. there is an asylum officer who has to make a determination the person has a credible claim, and if someone cannot meet that threshold they have to leave the country. increasing that hurdle would basically reduce the number of people or the percent of people let's say who would end up going on and being able to make a full asylum claim. host: again, our guest with us. we have calls lined up for you. the first one is from john. caller: yes. what a coincidence. the only thing that i agree with the republicans on his immigration -- is immigration. i want all of these people deported, and i am a democrat. if you are invading this country illegally, i want you deported. now let's get onto the assignment. why? what a joke this is, the asylum

thing has turned into. asylum is if you held us in vietnam and afghanistan and you were going to stay there and he would be killed, you deserve asylum. if you are gay in venezuela, you are being picked on, discriminated against, that can happen in america. the asylum lie -- everyone will claim asylum. it is a big show. i would do it too if i was coming for a better life. all of these people are coming for a better life and claiming asylum. and then you say they are in unsafe situations. join the crowd. try walking through chicago in the middle of the night. they should be thrown out. host: ok, thank you. guest: yeah, so the asylum laws the united states has was created in 1980. it is part of the international

refugee system created after world war ii. a crucial legislation that helped us deal with the fact that there are so many geopolitical and political events that happened in the world that produce massive display meant -- displacement. most do not come to the u.s. most go to other countries. those in syria go to jordan. but it allows people to request asylum for safety. and i just want to point out that in recent years, about half of people who present a full asylum claim in immigration court are approved for asylum. it is an indication that not only there are many meritorious claim asylum -- claims for asylum, but let's remember there are trump appointed judges who are approving asylum because

people meet that standard. that is a crucial thing to understand. whether or not there should be additional restrictions on asylum, whether the asylum system needs to change because of the number of people arriving at the u.s.-mexico border, that is a point of political debate. i think across the aisle, left, right, and center, i think people see value in providing options for safety and protection for people who are fleeing instability. i would point out venezuela is not a country the u.s. typically has strong relations with. it is also a country that faces tremendous instability. in fact, there are more of it is wayland seeking asylum now and facing deportation than people from mexico and central america at this point. the largest number in the immigration court backlog has been from venezuela. it is individual cases feeling uncomfortable about where they are.

these numbers reflect systemwide, societywide instability. something we should take very seriously, although of course there are lots of ideas on how to reform and improve the system. host: in tampa, florida, from greg, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i have a couple comments basically. number one, the hypocrisy of the republicans regarding immigration where they won't allow biden to issue executive orders because they say it should be legislated. but legislation they won't agree to even when they are given everything they ask. that is just one comment. the second comment i have is over 40 years ago i had the unfortunate pleasure of spending some time in denver county jail, and i met a person who was a russian who had overstayed his visa and was awaiting deportation.

well, he had been in there for two years waiting for deportation. that was 40 years ago. our system was broken in that matter, and nothing has changed since. it is just a political issue for politicians. they don't want to fix it because they want to be able to gripe about it. host: ok. thanks, caller. guest: immigration is what we call a wedge issue in american politics, the kind of political issue that has more political capital when it remains a problem than opposed when it is solved. i am inclined to agree with part of that color's observation, caller -- caller;s observation -- caller's observation. it is important for everyone to understand that is difficult as that may be at as polarizing as it is, it is important to have

serious adult conversations about how we can improve the system. for instance, the bill that came out last night, the legislation that came out last night, there are lots of parts of it that are interesting and positive for migrants. there are lots of parts that are positive people concerned about border enforcement. my hope would be that legislation and series debate is possible and people take an interest and really read and try to understand it. my fear is serious legislation and discussions and debates about how to reform get so polarized that people don't even bother to understand anymore, which is leading with reacting. i really hope and encourage people would adopt an open mindset. host: we have a viewer tha asked a follow-up question about the fear threshold. is it the impression of the interviewer or a list of answers to standardized questions?

guest: sure. the asylum interviewer will ask a series of questions about the individual's story and claim. ra number of things that will discourage the asylum officer from approval. so if it is clear the individual is only motivated by let's say economic gain, if they are only looking to come to the united states for a job, that is not ground for asylum. asylum requires individualized persecution on account of a couple factors. so it is not just the individual has a possible claim facing individualized persecution as a factor. if it is clear the individual has a plausible claim, they may prove that cripple fear and determine the individual met the threshold and allow them to make a full claim in front of a judge.

the goal is really to remove any obviously fraudulent or claims that are not going to really be a plausible asylum claim. it was not originally intended to be a full-grown asylum hearing itself. it is not that everybody that gets over the threshold will necessarily get asylum in the end. it just means they have a possible claim. host: kirk is next on the republican line from oklahoma our guest, austin kocher. hello. caller: as a former immigrant myself, i was deported in 2015. basically, i was in custody for three years. and it is a tedious process. and this guy is explaining for a

lot of americans who don't want to understand the process. and what i hate as it is so political and they don't really want to solve the problem. you know, just like my senator here. is doing a good job and getting best -- he is doing a good job and getting bashed in his own state. i love this country. immigrants play a pivotal part and contributed. my part this year was over $5,000 for the government and state and local. it is sad, mad. -- it is sad, man. it is a rocky road. a lot of asylum claims today in

front of a judge won't make it because it is a tough standard. people think it is easy, but it is not. i have a friend who was in custody for a case that is another one people don't know about. an asylum case. i see people that do not meet the threshold in front of the judge. oklahoma and texas have some of the most strict judges, man. i got deported out of texas. dallas, texas. host: ok. caller: keep up the good job. host: thank you for sharing your story with us. i will let our guest respond to it. guest: i think the first 10 narratives and stories are important because they show the real struggles of people in the system. i think there is a perception when we just look at numbers and video and news coverage from a distance or we see the heated

discussions online, we often miss the very human side of the story. it is difficult for people. it is a difficult system to navigate. many people have to do it themselves. right now, 70% of people facing deportation do not have an immigration attorney so they probably have very little chance. even if they might qualify for asylum, they might not have a chance to make that claim because they don't have that support. i think first-hand stories are important to understand what the process is like and in fact how it is, how difficult it is for many people. host: mr. kocher, what happens to a person who wants to apply for asylum? how much time do they have to spend before they are in a court and what happens in the meantime? guest: sure. once the individual is in the country, the losses they have to final and application -- they have to file an application within a year.

once they filed application, one consequence of the backlog of 3.2 million cases is a lot of these cases move pretty slow. asi said, it is very -- pretty slow. as i said, it is a very complicated process. people's lives are at stake. there are many cases. i don't immigration judges worry about this and it keeps them up at night. there have been many cases where people have been deported before this, let kidnapped -- left the country, kidnapped or even killed on the grounds they made their original claims. judges are doing everything they can, but it is still going to take a while. so those individuals have to wait even after they file their application for a couple years. host: what is the reality of someone getting a day to appear before a court but not appearing at all? guest: sure. there is a misconception that

people disappear into society but the reality is we look into the data and that is not the case. the vast majority of people want to go to court and have their asylum court hearing so they duplicate there are a certain number of cases -- so they do. there are a certain number of cases where people are not present for their hearing. sometimes people emergencies and can make that petition before the court. sometimes they don't and the immigration judge issue a deportation order which means the person did not show up and they get deported. they get a deportation order. the court does not have a police system or a sheriff system that immediately goes out and arrests someone and imports them. that is the job of immigration and customs enforcement. but those individuals once they have a deportation order are essentially living their life with the clock ticking before they have to leave. host: if someone appears before the court, they make the claim of asylum, the judge does not grant it, how soon before that

person gets put out of the country? guest: that really depends on a wide variety of factors that include ice's capacity to arrest and detain people. some may have legal reasons to stay in the country. very often not. it could be anywhere between -- it varies case-by-case, region by region. it will depend on that individual's history. ice tends to prioritize individuals, not always come up they claim to prioritize individuals with more criminal history. if someone does not have any other criminal history, it could be a long time. it could be a year. if they do, may be months or longer -- maybe months or longer. this is a tricky area.

as a researcher, i will say we don't have great data for how many people have partition orders and are living in the country, how long it takes for people to eventually get deported, and how light never deported. host: this is austin kocher joining us with syracuse university's trac. let's hear from lynn in florida, democrats line. caller: thank you. i just want to say that basically i am involved with a very big problem like that. not really a problem. i don't think people realize we came to america because we wanted to. we are in a situation where you can take off a day and come back. there is a lot of people waiting to get in. that part we forget sometimes. i am glad to be -- i am glad to hear that we have something out there they can

touch. you have children playing on the ground and nowhere to put them. they want to be in america. they want to be in america. they want to be simplest democratic and not one person chopping off heads, etc. so i don't blame them. if the next thing we say to them, we can't take care of that, i hope we get to someplace where on the other end they get there. but you cannot let people get all upset and said he will throw this person out. you have to go with them because you are born here. you are born here from germany and ireland, etc. you were not born here. host: we got the point. thanks, caller. mr. kocher, go ahead. guest: yes, so it is important to connect what is going on now to american history. the united states has been a destination for migrants for a very long time.

that is a big part of the history of our country. and so i think it is important to put that in context. in fact, many people who came through ellis island 100 years ago, they came through without documentation, without papers. there was effectively no way to even come illegally or undocumented because there was no system for exclusion. the office created in the 1850's was created to recruit migrants for the u.s., not exclude and deport them so i think it is important to keep that in context -- keep that context in mind and see how it has changed over the last century and think about whether or not that adds some compassion and context. certainly there is a lot that has changed since the 1920's or 1940's and we have to keep up with those changes, but i think it is good to draw on our background to give us some perspective. host: mr. kocher, if someone gets legal help through their

asylum process, how much could that cost that person? guest: so for asylum cases, i talk to immigration attorneys across the country all the time. if someone is trying to do it generously and charge as little as possible, it could be $4000 or $5,000. complex cases could be $15,000 from a private attorney. there are lots of organizations that provide pro bono or free legal services or very low cost legal services. for example, one of the largest if not the largest provider of immigration attorneys for the country are at low or no cost. i know immigration attorneys sometimes -- there is the perception that they are there to help the migrants facing deportation, to help them with asylum claims. certainly they are. but what we have seen again and

again with the research over the last 10 or 15 years is that immigration attorneys actually benefit the court system itself. they help with all kinds of efficiency. imagine if you have 3.2 million people facing deportation. imagine how difficult it is for the immigration judge to assess the situation of an individual who does not have hardly any money. maybe they are indigenous from central america. if they even speak spanish, they speak it as their second language. they may belong to a group that has faced really well documented oppression and persecution. in that case, that still may be difficult for the judge to assess because there is no one there to help the client. that only creates more headaches, more problems, more delays. it creates challenges with communicating with the individual, challenges with getting things filed on time or filed at all. so actually immigration

attorneys are a crucial part of the system overall, not just in filing the asylum application and represented their client in court, but actually helping with a whole range of other things that by and large supports the operation of the entire system. host: let's hear from victor, who joins us on our independent line from philadelphia. hello. caller: thank you. short time and a lot of questions and answers. thank you for your interview. i just want to start off, and i got a lot going on with immigration in my head. i am 67 years old and have been around to see a lot of things. with immigration system, with all the money the u.s. contributes to all of these countries of people coming from these countries, i have not heard much at all or any speaking about all the trillions or billions of dollars we are getting each year for the infrastructure to these people

who are so-called coming here and claiming they are being persecuted from this and that. why are we trying to fix their home? why aren't we having a conversation about the situations that are going on within their government? why don't we put our hands on those responsible? because it is not our responsibility for immigration at all. if we decided to really fix those countries and make there is protection there -- make sure there is protection there, housing, education, so forth there. one of my other questions i want to ask if i can get it out quickly, the timing you mentioned about immigrants coming here from the 1930's and 1940's those times were different. those times were totally different. all the immigration that is coming over here now, the 10

million, how can you actually confirm that these people are actually, you know, for persecution? it is a massive situation. just sitting here thinking about it, it is a massive situation legally just to go back to doing interviewing and for the people to pay for attorneys, they can't even pay for housing. host: got your point, caller. thank you for the questions. we will let our guests respond to them. guest: those are good questions and i will take them both in turn. the question of what we refer to as root cause analysis, so why people are moving in the first place, is a very important question. i know this administration has tried to collaborate more on what we refer to a hemispheric level. there have been conversations with countries throughout latin america and collaboration

precisely on trying to assess the root causes. this continues to be i think an area of a minor concern. i think a lot of people would share your perspective that it is not really enough to simply think about what is happening on the border. one really needs to think about what is happening in countries elsewhere before people come here. i think that is a really important thing to mention. there have been efforts to do that. i would also mention that in addition to all of the funding the u.s. has provided over the years for economic development, many of the countries where people are coming from, they are coming is where the united states has been engaged -- they are coming from countries where the united states has been engaged with in politics. some of the countries in latin america, where people are fleeing from as well. so that is where foreign aid and foreign-policy involvement goes both ways and we have to think

critically about that. the second question concerning looking at how things have changed and how one can meaningfully assess the asylum claims is a good question. i know that the team of folks who work on this along the border work really hard to do this and get a lot of training on this. they are working hard to try to address that issue. host: mr. kocher, just to clarify, if someone is coming into the country, they can only apply for asylum if they go through a port of entry versus if they go between ports of entry? guest: this is an area of debate and policy. i would say what the biden administration is trying to do with the current policy is to push people toward ports of entry so people are coming in in a more orderly and systematic and scheduled kind of way. they are using a smartphone app these days for migrants to

schedule these sorts of appointments at the ports of entry, and they are strongly discouraging people from crossing between ports of entry. it does not mean people cannot cross between ports of entry and seek asylum. it is important to note that legally within the global framework on refugee and asylum law, if someone is seeking protection, the manner of entry someone makes is not supposed to be held against them. in other words, if someone is fleeing persecution and i have to cross between ports of entry to make an asylum request, that should not prevent them from being able to request asylum. again, that is a broad conceptual and legal note. this administration has created additional barriers for folks who do not go to the ports of entry. if people cross between ports of entry, they are being prevented, although again not 100%, but there are avenues for those to

request asylum. host: brad in minnesota, republican line, hello. caller: good morning. kind of an interesting conversation. i enjoyed this. the reason i enjoyed this is my father started in 1955 under operation went back -- wet back. he went with the immigration naturalization service. it was a district director who ran the point of entry in minnesota on the last of his career. but this young man telling me about how it is, and i was my dad's caregiver for his last remaining years of his life. we got to talk a lot about his job. the one thing i hear about this gentleman talking about -- before he died four years ago, he started talking about going out to these people, these immigrants, illegal aliens coming across to using the

keyword asylum. this has all been brought on by a certain group. that is what is the troubling problem. but the real troubling problem i have is on the deportation side. it was not so many years back that when they decided to change how they come to deportations because they were only counted by deportation hearings. that is how you call it -- counted a deportation. they decided they will start calling kickbacks and apprehensions deportations. so now they started skewing the numbers. now they are skipping the numbers even further on the asylum -- skewing the numbers even further on the asylum claims. it is like slim to none. but the real kicker here comes with deportations that when they are getting deported, they are questioned. and one of the questions they are asked is, did you ever vote

in a general election? did you know about 80% say yes? host: ok. we are running close on time. mr. kocher, anything on that? guest: thanks for the last caller, and sorry for your loss. i am sure you had a lot of fascinating stories from your father. when it comes to people and their hearings, we did a study that looked at the data on people not showing up for their hearings and getting a deportation order. for families at the time, we looked at 45,000 cases of people who recently arrived at the border and we found that the percentage of people who went to not just one but all of their asylum -- all of their immigration court hearings was about 80%. 80%, 81% of people attended all of their hearings. for those people who were represented, this goes back to my earlier point about the importance of attorneys, for

people who had legal representation, their attendance rate for the hearing was over 99%. actually, the real solution is we want to get people to their court hearings, to make sure they have an attorney. even those who don't, the vast majority of them do attend their hearings. i am not saying that as a political statement but as a data point. host: i believe we have time for one more call. chris in new mexico, go ahead. make it fast, please. caller: good morning. my name is chris. i live in a border state, new mexico. and i get very discouraged, the amount of disinformation that is being spread particularly by conservative media about immigrants. the conservative callers time and time again call in and say exactly the same things. in many cases, they are absolutely wrong. these folks are not coming here

to collect benefits. they are coming here to work. i am wondering what the effect of any comprehensive guest worker program would be where we issue biometric ids and create an orderly process. host: ok. thanks, caller. have to leave it there. mr. kocher, go ahead. guest: thank you for bringing up the issue of misinformation. as someone who has been in this field for a while, i have seen misinformation from across the term for sure and that is what we do-- we want people to have data that comes straight from the federal government and we put the data out there for the public. you don't have to trust what we say. you can see the data for yourself on our website. it is at trac