>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government and we are funded by these companies including charter. >> charter is one of the best internet building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public

service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. iy of texas at austin, professor of law immigration codirector here to talk about president biden and former president heading to the border today. they will both appear in different spots along the southern border. denise gilman, there is an executive action under consideration by president biden. i want to go over those and get your reaction before we get a phone calls here. using a section of the immigration and nationality act to bar migrants in seeking asylum is what he's considering, instituting a trigger mechanism to enforce restrictions after a certain number of illegal crossings, making it harder for migrants to pass initial screenings and quickly deporting

others who don't meet those elevated asylum standards. talk about what is under consideration and will that address the recent surge that we are seeing? guest: it has been pretty clear in numerous studies and just looking at the patterns of migration over the years that these harsh border measures really don't deter migration. migration is motivated by the dangerous situations in home countries and not by whatever policies are being adopted at the border, and that is why you see every time that there is a new harsh policy adopted, even such things as family separation, there were more arrivals at the border of families in the years immediately after the trump family separation policy as compared to the year prior. as to what the measures would do and how they would impact the

border, essentially the new asylum ban showing that one qualifies for asylum would mean that many people who are fleeing really extreme situations of danger would be turned away at the border and returned to their home countries in violation of existing u.s. law that allows people to access the asylum system an international standard that we've adopted into u.s. law, and in terms of the idea that the border could be shut down at certain trigger points, this is really just a reincarnation of several different measures that were adopted during the trump administration that again, didn't stop arrivals at the border, but just meant that people were unfairly and arbitrarily turned away even if they had viable asylum claims. host: and what about legally? are these legal actions they can take? guest: it is extremely doubtful

that the court could allow these actions to be found to be lawful and to be implemented. the government shutdown measure is basically a provision that the trump administration used with muslim ban that were declared unlawful numerous times before finally the particular way that the administration crafted the final version had it go into effect to a certain degree. and they are also similar to the measures that were adopted during covid which the court also found to be unlawful as applied to asylum-seekers. so the biden administration basically can use these same measures even after they've been declared unlawful by numerous courts is really unclear. the administration knows that it won't be successful in the end

but hopes to gain some political points with certain sectors by buying into this idea rather than a simple management problem. > you heard republicans say shut the border down, nobody is crossing. is that possible? guest: it's really not. even the executive measure that is being described as a border shutdown isn't a border shutdown. the border is always going to be open to at least some traffic back and forth, and it is always going to be the case that some people are going to evade border checkpoints and go straight into the country either crossing the river crossing the desert. so what the border shutdown really means is that when people cross and are apprehended, rather than being processed under the law that requires that asylum-seekers be processed rather than simply being turned back without regards to

protection needs that they may have under u.s. and international law. host: what role does congress play in the management and laws of our border? guest: so the regime that is currently in place, the law that says that those who are seeking asylum must be processed in the united states, that is really coming from the refugee act of 1980 that has service pretty well. it is true we are seeing larger numbers of asylum-seekers, but the existing legal framework that was adopted is still there and it doesn't necessarily need to be radically changed. in terms of the shutdown executive measure that were being discussed, it is pretty clear that those violate existing laws, so really the only way that that could change is if congress enacted new laws,

which it so far has declined to do, and even if congress were to adopt new border shutdown measures, we would have to look at whether they violate the constitution or international law obligations that are enacted into u.s. law through the constitution. host: you said more resources are needed. which resources? >> financial resources are a significant part as well as additional staff, additional officials to go down in processed people effectively. there is some discussion of additional funding and agents specifically for border patrol. i would argue that that isn't really the place that resources are needed. really what is needed is officers and humanitarian staff that can help to receive and process asylum-seeking families which is really the main demographic of what we're are seeing currently at the border.

host: dorothy in dayton, ohio, independent. you are out first. caller: yes, good morning. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions. first off, it looks like you have never been to the border because you talk as if this is -- she cut me off. host: we heard you, he said this is a little hiccup. caller: we are talking about 18 million illegals. with all due respect, i get so tired. she just said it. i don't know if she's watching the same footage. i haven't seen a child in months. all i see are strong young men and then she also said she wants resources, money, money money money money money, we need more

money. it is simple. they are illegals, they are crossing the border, not being vetted. they are not vaccinated, it is really scary was probably happening to a lot of the children. so i would appreciate a border gassed instead of some college professor. host: well hang up and turn up your phone now so you can listen to her answer. guest: i have been to the border repeatedly. i'm in texas and i go to the border pretty regularly in connection with my work and also for pleasure because the southern border, the texas- mexico border is actually in the gorgeous location. the beautiful river, wildlife that can be seen nowhere else. and if you do visit, you will see that it is actually quite gorgeous and a mostly peaceful place. there certainly are some challenges presented by large

numbers of porter-crossers, and those are challenges that united states of america can handle if proper resources are put into play. in terms of whether or not we can just understand it simply as being a question of law-breaking, it is actually really more complicated than that. most of all what i would like to emphasize is that u.s. law that has been in place for 40 plus years makes it very clear that person to arrive at the port of entry or cross into the united states seeking asylum and without regard to status have the right to seek asylum under the law. and that is because the united states takes its obligations seriously for that international law that protects refugees and to make sure that we are not turning away people who would be put in danger if they are not allowed to process their asylum

claims in the united states. in terms of checking for vaccinations, histories, backgrounds, active measures are really quite stringent and people undergo quite extensive processing both at the border and once in the united states as they undergo asylum proceedings. in fact if anything, i would actually argue that we need to streamline some of those processes because right now people may undergo three or four different full-day interviews for court proceedings while they are vetted and those resources could be better spent focusing on the cases that do present really serious questions either about danger to the community or the validity of the underlying asylum claim. >> host: 10 asylum claim is being considered, -- once your asylum claim is being considered, what happens to you

and what federal benefits if any are given to those in the country how they wait for their silent claim to be vetted? guest: absolutely no federal benefits in terms of any kind of health, medicaid or food stamps or anything. in fact, under current law, people are not authorized to work until six months after they've filed their asylum application, which means that asylum-seekers who are often also pretty much seeking to support themselves but also to contribute to the economy really are prevented from doing that in some instances, so that might be something that would be beneficial to change. but what happens to asylum-seekers after they are processed at the border is that they are required to appear for their immigration court hearing. multiple studies have been conducted in recent years, multiyear studies and they all show that people appear for their hearings at rates above

95%. they appear for their hearings and then most of the series are extremely delayed. but we put in additional resources and those hearings to take place quickly, one way or another. host: marianna, georgia, democratic caller. >> i wanted to ask a little more clarification on why you think the biden administration is doing essentially what the trumpet ministration is doing but behind legality. at least that sends the same message. these people are escaping extreme poverty and violence. it feels like we are less interested in the source of that than the symptoms and punishing these people for trying to flee these conditions. both parties seem to have the same mindset, just with different methods. so i just wanted a little more

clarification on exactly why you might think that might be. guest: yeah, i agree with the way you are analyzing this and unfortunately it does seem that the actions are quite similar. this is largely about politics, unfortunately. unfortunately, i think that the entire debate around the border has become one in which every politician, every potentially elected official must show strength and harshness at the border rather than showing leadership and really trying to kind of reframe what is happening at the border. the border is being described in the media and some of the images mentioned as being a really threatening place, a place of crisis.

so both parties are rushing to outdo one another rather than recognizing asylum-seekers that need to be managed in a fair and efficient way. unfortunately, one of the biggest problems with this approach, treating the border as a threat situation, as a crisis situation is that first, as you mentioned, you don't get to the reasons why people are migrating and you don't turn arrivals because you are still in the same place in terms of the number of people at the border. but what you do because is increased violence at the border because what has happened with the increasingly harsh measures at the border is that organized crime cartels on mexico's side of the border are very, very aware of the challenges that these people are trying to reach the united states and seek asylum and so they see this as a huge motive to engage in that

industry, and that does lead to increased incentives for the cartels which leads to increased violence in the border region. so that is actually a cause of the stringent policies which are not actually reacting to a situation, a threat in terms of migration. they are causing that danger by supporting the operations of the cartels that now are needed to help people cross into the united states. host: sandy in youngstown, ohio, independent. question or comment on the border? caller: comment. i don't know why you don't have, like, somebody that works on the border or did work on the border instead of a professor who is from the most liberal city in texas. so that is one point.

now, when biden was running for president, he said i would search the border, which is what they did. and also, he researched on his first day of office all of terms border policies that kept the legals, most of them down to a very small amount. host: sandy, let's take your point and please turn up your television so you can listen to the answer. you sort of touched on this before, professor, but how do the numbers today under the biden administration compared to previous presidents including former president trump? >> good question. first i would like to mention that actually biden didn't reverse trump border policies right away. in fact, -- continued in place

-- 2023. other measures also remain in place for a significant amount of time as well. in terms of porter numbers, the numbers are high right now. i do not want to say that they are not. that was because of essentially a backlog of people waiting at the border that was caused in part by those restrictive border policies that had people turned back to mexico. but title 42 and remained in mexico actually lead to a situation in which you had surveyed backlog of people in northern mexico who were crossing repeatedly. so you saw and you still are

continuing to see some of the effects of that repeated crossing that looks like higher numbers when actually it is not always individual cases of border crossers. so that is kind of the aftereffect of some of those restrictive policies as part of why we are seeing large numbers of people at the border right now. but that is not the only thing. we are also any situation that by all accounts, the united nations and numerous other researchers and those who are looking at the situation acknowledge is that we're any situation of forced displacement across the globe that is only similar in size to the immediate aftermath of world war ii which is what we saw the world's largest global movement of refugees, of people needing to move from their home countries. so obviously we are going to see some of that at the u.s. southern border. we are not the only place that is seeing the large numbers of migrants including latin america. columbia has seen --, which has

much fewer resources than the united states. but this is not because of biden border policies, it is because of worldwide situations. another point i would just have to make is that people often compare the numbers currently to other high points of immigration, for example, around 2000. we are actually slightly above 2000, although not significantly 25 years later. the world population has grown quite significantly in those 25 years and so it is not surprising that we would see larger numbers than we saw than, and right now we also have many, many more border patrol and other authorities at the border whereas in the past, we actually

weren't detecting all bo