philadelphia enquirer" will talk about her trip to afghanistan. we will have a discussion on racial diversity in america. "washington journal" is next. . .

our question for you this morning is about financial regulatory reform. do you think it will get bipartisan support? the lines are -- you can also e-mail up -- e-mail us at journal@c-span.org or twitter.

senators will face a future -- crucial test vote on far reaching legislation to overhaul the nation's regulatory system. republicans said sunday they plan to block efforts to move forward unless democrats altered several elements. meanwhile, democrats and obama officials spent much of the day finalizing strict new rules to rein in the huge derivatives trade -- other coverage of that in "the washington times." republican leaders said yesterday their ranks are unified and determined to shoot down a key test vote today, potentially embarrassing scenario for democrats seeking to advance a major item of

president obama's agenda. our question to you is, do you think bipartisan support will materialize today on the financial regulatory bill. and it's not today, because of differences between the parties -- do you think it will be different, perhaps, than the health care debate? we will take a live look at today and what is going on in congress with a reporter from capitol hill -- a staff writer from "roll-call." guest: thank you for having me. host: seems like a big development of the week and was the decision not to move forward today unveiling climate legislation. guest: senator lindsey graham sent a letter to majority leader harry reid saying he felt that the debate on immigration was being rushed for political reasons and so he essentially he was saying he is stopping progress on anything -- not on anything, but on the issues for which he has been out of the

most recently, which was climate change. that was expected to be introduced today with senator kerry and lieberman and as far as things go right now, it is not going to happen. host: do we have a sense how it will go this way? is it political posturing or sort of a derailment? guest: we will have to get some numbers back and see -- there is going to be a vote at 5:30 p.m.. certainly this has been a major, major goal of senator kerry since last year to get something passed and certainly they are shot grambling to salvage it. senator reid put out a statement yesterday -- or i believe saturday, actually -- he prioritizes both issues highly and not putting one in front of

the other and accused senator graham of political posturing. and could be partisan debating over the financial regulatory reform bill so it is piling on at this point. host: immigration reform bill, how key is that in what will happen this week? senator raid -- senator reid saying both are priorities. how is everyone else weighing in? guest: when issue that everybody agrees needs to be addressed. the will to act to do it varies among members. of course, it is quite a bit of light -- like health care reform, the system needs to be addressed but the political sacrifices of doing that are pretty great. so, senator schumer, who chairs the subcommittee on immigration, has been working with senator

graham cents last year, very much was to get it done. senator leahy, the chairman, said as long as there is a bill ready, he will make time in the committee to take up, even if his committee is also taking of the supreme court debate. so, the principals are definitely committed to making the process work. and we will see if the caucuses want to take up as well. republicans have been reticent to do that. some democrats, too, certainly. there are quite a few hispanic voters back in nevada and there could be some political benefits. for others, it may not be the case. host: talk to us about this afternoon's test vote on financial regulations. guest: at 5:00 tonight the senate will vote on a motion to proceed to the financial reform bill. this bill is one that was voted out of senator dodd's banking

committee last month along party lines. he and senator shelby, the ranking member, have been working trying to reach an agreement and so far have not announced a bipartisan agreement. because of that -- the democrats would like the 60 votes they need to proceed and that they will continue their talks and try to bring something together to mark or early this week. -- tomorrow or the berlin next repaired host: is there a different tone? guest: with health care you heard republicans going to the floor saying scrap this bill, let's start over. smaller and target. you are not seeing it with a regulatory reform. senator mcconnell had -- have been quite critical of components of the bill but has not said anything like, let's get rid of this bill, let's totally ignore this and move on to something else. there is a will to want to work something out.

however, senator dodd has been trying to put together a bipartisan agreement for quite a while. so, democrats on the are concerned this will go the way of health care with the gang of six, there were bipartisan talks and did not yield for the at the end. senator dodd does not seem to have that same set of thinking. he has been working with senator shelby even over the weekend. they were going sunday talk shows yesterday. the belief on the hill is even if yesterday's vote goes down, that progress will be made this week. host: jessica brady, staff writer ed "roll-call." financial regulatory reform, do you think it will find bipartisan reform today? let us go to colorado springs, colorado, republican, nancy. caller: i have so much to say about cap-and-trade, but i won't

talk about that. what concerns me is, if you ask somebody why we want to stop somebody counterfeiting money, and they say because it will wreck the dollar, but yet our own government is wrecking the dollar by producing money more and more. i'm hoping that the government will finally look at what is going on with our country, and i believe that is what the tea party is about, thank you. host: omaha, nebraska. jeff, independent line. caller: i would just like to say that as usual, they are putting

way too much in the bill, cramming it through they should be taking baby steps, just like pretty much done everything -- should have taken on health care and everything. this is pretty common sense and simple. separate of the banks from the banking and the "gambling brings" like it was before, separate those out. if the people want to take a big risk, it is totally separate. and the other is derivatives. obviously when you bought go up a bunch of bad mortgages and trillions of dollars and you spread them around and sell them, are you kidding me, the biggest ponzi scheme i have seen. and the bankers keep on saying, people keep on being suckers. if we don't have derivatives they will not lend any money. they are not lending money. and it would go overseas -- in a what? let the derivatives go overseas because of the stuff blows up every two or three years. let them deal with it.

we will give the money here and get jobs. host: jeff mentioned the derivatives. this on "the wall street journal." democrats take a step toward their goal of financial regulation -- let's go to tucson, arizona. sarah on our democratic caller's line. caller: i just wanted to ask a quick question and make a quick comment. the goldman sachs -- the entire think it's really frustrating to name and it is just icing on the cake with the politics going on in america. instead of it being about human

beings alliance and being kind to fellow americans and equality and justice and corporations not to taking over, every single vote is just so ridiculous. i am not a democrat if i can vote like you, i am not a republican if i can -- i am so tired of politics and it is so obvious why so many people are becoming independents. i was on to say, do you think this will continue? well partisan politics -- or do you think we will find a place where we realize we have to move past that if we are going to get anything done and we have to support our present and even if we don't always agree with them. host: de think the situation with a goldman sachs board -- spurred on more of an effort for people in washington to change the system? caller: it helps, because whenever john mccain or somebody else comes out and speaking

about their views on it, they are just political. it you don't -- don't hear about -- corp., we give them a lot of power, we need to take the power away and how we work together to get it done? instead, it is who they are against. host: let us talk a little bit more about derivatives. a definition, from "the wall street journal." that is some of the relevancy of derivatives. linda, republican, rapid city, south dakota.

caller: i hope i can get this out properly. i read the bill. in fact, i was doing it just before the show so i could be prepared. i understand we have a problem. and it is not democrat or republican, it is just plain old greed. but what people aren't a looking at and realizing, in this bill i noticed a lot of language that, first of all, establishing a new council. one of the members of this council will be the chairman of the sec. that disturbs me right there. the second thing, they will be able to pick a corporation that is going to be able to tote -- take over any of these so-called "bad company's." that worries me. who will the corporation date? this bill is another rush to -- quick, we have to get something done -- and it is going to be wrong and it is going to put the power in the wrong places.

they are just not doing it right. this is not a democrat, this is not a republican. this is the american people with a government just can't -- with a government just can't get it right and doing it, a lot of them with good intentions but a lot of the language in this bill. and one other thing jiging -- one other thing, it also specifically exempts any federal housing, which means fannie mae, freddie mac, fha, va -- any of these loans through the government that might be messing up, they are exempt, only private companies. so, i understand we have a problem and we need something done but if you look at this bill it gives too much power to too few people. thank you. host: let us take a look at minority leader senator mitch mcconnell talking on fox news yesterday about bipartisanship and what is going on. >> we want to make sure that they don't have the same kind of approach on financial-services that they did on health care,

and ironically, chris, my view is very similar of that bastion of conservatism "the washington post" editorial page, that said this bill -- but $50 billion fund it needs to come out. we need a system where creditors expect to be treated fairly, somewhat similar to bankruptcy laws. and we need to have enhanced capital requirements. none of that is currently in the bill the majority leader would try to have us take up on monday, which came out of the committee on a strictly party- line vote. that is not the best place to start. host: minority leader mitch mcconnell talking on fox news yesterday. looking at the issue of bipartisanship, the financial regulatory bill, this from "the washington post." republican and democratic aides expect the monday vote to fail unless --

what do you think? do you expect to see a bipartisan effort out of this financial regulation work? ohio, john, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the bill may not be perfect, but we have to do something. anybody that is involved in writing this bill knows that we cannot put this aside and longer because the financial system is constantly flowing and evil drink and changing.

and as -- flowing and the evolving and changing. and as christopher dodd said, like somebody breaking into your house and you have not changed biloxi it in your house and if that is any of us who had it personally and our own personal lives that had to do with change and making changes to keep it from being breached again, we would have done it. but we are dealing with our country and our country is all we have. we literally lost billions and trillions of dollars because we don't know -- we don't even know how many people were involved in making these decisions as we sit here today. so, we need to show some some light on what is going on and why people are getting away and some are getting rich. we don't even know what is going on on the racetrack. so, these people calling in,

especially the republicans, saying things like, we need to get it right. it is the same thing they said during the health care debate and this is a little different. i value my money, i value my investments and i want something done. host: let us look at "the washington post" for more clarity on what is on the table today. republicans are recent focus their criticism on a proposed $50 billion resolution fund which would help cover the cost of dealing with a major financial firms failure.

one of the elements still in discussion right now. terry, good morning did caller: what i want to say is, i don't want to think. people don't believe we need a bill passed. i don't know what is going on with this country. bipartisanship. it is more important to get a good bill -- everybody on board. the republicans truly do not want financial reform. if you listen to their rhetoric -- i am not trying to be partisan even though i am a democrat -- they are doing the same exact thing they did with health care. finding any excuse to try not to vote for this bill. they are supposed to have a test vote this evening. it is just to get the debate going so people can add -- right now they are trying to block conversation on financial reform and something is truly wrong with this party.

i don't know if they want this country to fail, they hate the president so much. if you look up any major legislation he tries to pass they try to put a block on and i truly believe they do want this country to fail if it means bringing down obama. people need to get real and understand if they are hurting now they will hurt if we have another big financial problem. host: let us look at some of the other news in the headlines today. a picture from "the new york times" of the memorial service held yesterday for about -- for the coal miners who died in the west virginia accident. let us go on to other pieces -- oil spills and to the gulf after rig disaster. looking at the after effects in the gulf of mexico after the explosion.

an oil sheen covered as much as the five boroughs of new york. the health-care debate likely to re-emerge. it is coming from "the washington times." the cost of health care bill. what is it going to cost me? this coming to us from "the washington times." the thing bipartisan support would emerge? caller: i think it is going to have to. if it doesn't, the previous

caller just spoke and he said something like, if i care about my money, that is fine, you know what, let us go back and look at his health care bill, then, this gentleman who just referred to it. we get an announcement that it will actually cost -- it will not save me? i do not think you will be able to get anything done without bipartisan because you need two sides to any valid bill. you need two argument and you need both sides taking a look at in these arguments and meet in a compromise. host: the thing that is happening? the you'd think the republicans -- sens you are a republican, d think they will get influence in this? caller: let's put it this way. actually, no, i don't. and i think you don't, either, and i don't think anybody else does. i am not really a republican at this point. i am leaning more independent as the days go. but, no, i think there is a big disconnect in the whole political system. not with just republicans -- but

the whole system. and i think people have to acknowledge that. a lot of people like to go down on the tea party -- like to smash them and say bad things about them. to me, they are the most american people that are right now because at least they are out there and they are voicing their first amendment rights, freedom of speech. that is more than what a lot of other people are doing right now, including the congress. host: atlanta, georgia, brett, independent column. caller: i wanted to say i'm against any kind of wall street regulation based on the fact that it will give the false impression that things are being taken care of and they are being cleared up. make no doubt about it, these walls street guys are smarter than any of these people in congress, smarter than you or i, and they will run our around any

kind of regulation. what should happen is you should let the normal flow of events happen. if the people on wall street are swindlers and controllers and not dealing honestly, you should let the public know that and that in turn would save the people money because they would not invest and wall street. but regulation would be in the book false impression that things are being taken care of -- would give the false impression that things are being taken care of, given people the illusion that it is ok to invest again and they will start throwing their money away again and that is not the way to go. host: let us take a look at what presidential adviser lawrence summers said on "face the nation" yesterday. >> if you look at the things the experts have identified as causes, whether it was the subprime mortgage is, whether it was derivatives, whether it was

a concept of too big to fail, they are all addressed by this bill. you know, we passed, going back to the depression, profoundly important financial regulation legislation. what happened is the market's evolves, involved in all kinds of ways. we saw innovations to credit cards, innovations to mortgages, innovations to many areas and they had many, many benefits. but our regulatory system did not catch up to all of the innovation and then you had the things that are as old as time -- greed, avarice, irresponsibility, hubris, without any proper regulation system. that is what led to this crisis and across the board that is what this bill addresses. host: ted calling from manhattan on our democrats line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. the history of all of this

financial lobbying, especially the last 10, 20, 25 years -- i am no expert but i heard this and that. phil gramm back in the clinton years, the republican controlled congress, and chipping away, the constant chipping away at financial regulations. i think i heard it said at one point that a regulation -- regis -- legislation was passed with the regulation was that congress had no power to regulate, so the lobbying efforts at this point, what is going on, almost seems to mimic the lobbying efforts during the health care. in no, these bills, it is costing the american taxpayer money. we could have had a much cheaper health care bill. we could have had a public option, a by in where people had to pay full premiums for

medicare. the same thing now for financial regulation. the republicans are again the party of no, saying no, and they will not allow for common-sense regulations and i fear that the board of that would be set up to oversee -- i forget what the exact name is -- the community board, the civil board, will be beholden to them -- will have an exclusion where they would have to answer to another board that will again put back the same kind of nonsense regulation that has been hanging up the system the whole time. host: this comment from paul over e-mail. there will not be support of this financial bill from the party of -- thnine let us go to brenda, republican caller from georgia. caller: it is not -- it is not

that the republicans are a party of no, it is a party of trust. do you think that i would trust any bill that chris dodd would come up with, that he is going out this year? no. take a step back -- host: de think senator shelby is able to wield influence, a republican center? caller: no, i don't. it is probably all dodd. no, i do not trust any democrat in the congress right now. and president obama -- i mean, i do not blame obama for any of this. it is congress that i do not trust. it is a republicans and democrats that i do not trust. host: gary n. jacksonville,

florida, on the independent line. caller: i would like to know one thing. where is the tea party at now? where is the tea party at now? they say they are not partisan but think about it, the president is trying to reform the banking system. i don't hear the tea party coming out against these republicans. i want to thank him for giving my kids a future. host: arcadia, louisiana, jane is calling on the democratic line. caller: let's be clear, america, it is about president obama, not his policies. i do not believe there will be a bipartisanship -- like the teabags ears, tea party is, the republicans say president obama and they will oppose and use any

excuse to try to destroy his man. host: can i ask you, if something comes together and a bill is passed in the senate this week regarding finance reform, would that be a sign of bipartisanship? caller: yes, that would be a sign of bipartisanship. i do, i pray every day for that. but i know that the republicans and like-minded people, they hated this man simply because of the color of his skin and they have set out to destroy it. host: let us take a look at some financial news. in other financial quarters -- from the marketplace section of "the wall street journal." strong first quarter results prompt firms to restart hiring, raise outlooks. and moving onto a piece about the california budget problems. california finance is looking of but budget debt and likely for years.

signs california finance is beginning to recover. republicans, bruce. california. caller: i just cannot understand how anybody could turn anything over to president obama. he never worked a day in his life and you've got a tax cheat, and they are going to decide whether a business is solvents or not. nothing he has done so far has worked and there are 25 million people out of jobs. by the year 2020, if you make a hundred dollars you will only take home $35. he talks about his advisers, but he has never given a press conference in the last year to tell us what he wants to know because he knows there will be such criticism of his problems because of his advisers are socialists, marxist, and admitted communist spirited and the press has never said anything about it. i cannot understand it. thank you. host: let us go to fort worth, texas, terry, independent

column. caller: basically i was calling to say that i don't think either party is going to do anything. i think they have been bought and paid for by along -- for a long time. they have tons of money. they shipped all of our jobs overseas. it is a service economy. it has been destroyed. this was a long time ago. it is not just now. this has been something going on ever since reagan. these too big to fail, they need to be stopped and people need to be taken their money out of there and start putting it into small banks and give the small banks a chance because of a thing about it is, it will not stop with the republicans or the democrats. they are bought and paid for. they need to get some people in there that believe in the constitution because both parties have torn into pieces. host: is there something you would like congress to act on,

specific key to finance a regulatory reform? caller: absolutely. they need to go back to where it was. they need to get rid of all of these brand new deregulation, the need to start regulating them just like they were before, put the pressure on them. no more where banks owned insurance agencies -- they made tons of money out of that. host: let us go to "the financial times." goldman releases an internal paper trail. this is the head of -- and head of the chief executive's appearance --

they are definitely under scrutiny right now and we will watch to see how it plays out. keith, democratic caller. caller: thank you for c-span. there were a couple of callers i have to agree with as far as the current congress is concerned. this big problem with the congress. the president seems to be pretty much centrist and some of his views, however, to comment on what the question is, after watching the sunday news shows with all the democrats and republicans, there is a obviously not any decision to vote on anything this week because if history repeats itself, which it has been doing for the last 15 months, there will be a lot of posturing done prior to anybody getting anything done. it is all about elections. if you go look at it -- the republicans are setting up their defense, the democrats are setting up their defense, and it is all about posturing and getting as much face time.

obviously, the public would like to see something happen with financial reform but would discourage congress it is not going to happen. host: let us go to "the washington post." lawmakers are acutely aware of the wall street back less. that comment from senator shelby on nbc. new castle, delaware. republican, jim. good morning. caller: yes, i believe the way we will get out of the crisis is to have the congress stop insistence -- insisting that bankers' loan money to people who could never reef -- the

afford to repay their loans and instead create opportunity incentives for people with money so they can create guelph and therefore allow people don't have the money to make more money. we seem to have this progressive idea that giving people something that they don't know what to do with is going to somehow raise all of the boats and the lake. what has happened is we need an opportunity society and that is funded by incentives in the tax structure. what is going on right now is just people shuffling around the deck chairs on the titanic. it is not going to work. host: steve, independent line, johnson city, tennessee. caller: thank you for c-span. let's wake up, america. come on, we need to watch where we are spending all of this money. a gentleman called an earlier and said that his children -- i

grew up in ridgewood west virginia, and he said his children will have some type of future. if you are not going to have a feature in america with a 12 trillion dollar, 13 trillion dollar debt. let us wake up and let us get all of these lobbyists, all these greedy people out of congress -- republicans, democrats -- and i thank president obama for going to west virginia for all of those miners this week. another caller said that we are prejudiced against president obama. i am not prejudiced. i like president obama as a person but we have to get greed out of washington, d.c., and we have to help our senior citizens not to lose all of their benefits. they would not give a senior citizen $250 but give unemployment to everybody into this country. let us take care our seniors. let us quit taking all of the monies that we have in washington, d.c., and quit

greasing palms of all the congressmen and like president obama said, he would take a lobbyist out of washington. it has not happened. host: let us go to an e-mail comment. democratic caller from cleveland, ohio. welcome to "washington journal." caller: i am hoping you will give me a moment because it seems like every time someone mentions that they think that the tea party is prejudice or racist against obama we get cut off. when it seems to me that it is very obvious. that is exactly why they are up in arms right now. this deficit, this spending is out of control. congress -- this was going on all while bush was in office. he was spending money. the only difference was he was giving it to rich people and his corporate buddies. and the military. he was not giving it to average

americans. now obama is in there and his motivation is absolutely honest. he may not be able to get things done because congress is corrupt -- and everybody knows that. every caller is talking about how corrupt congress is but obama's motivation and his heart is in the right place. he really wants to help every day average americans and the money he is spending to help us. host: what do you think would like to see happen over the next couple of weeks with financial regulations? caller: i would have liked to obscene his bill be stronger but he seems to water everything -- i would like to have seen his bill to be stronger but he seems to water everything down for bipartisan support. i think he ought to do what bush did. when bush wanted something through, he got it through, whether he agreed not he just pushed it and did not care if anybody like it or agreed. he just did it. and all of his buddies profit from it. i'm one of obama's buddies and i

would like to profit from his policies and i would like to see people that go through and if we are going to spend money let us go back to the people who support the government. we give all the money to the government -- at least if they are going to spend money, let them spend it off. host: sorry to cut off but i want to share this article from "the financial times." moment of truth. let us go to scott, republican from manassas, virginia. good morning. caller: one comment i would like to make on financial reform is,

i would like to see the scales tip on how loans are structured. in other words, use the taxes people pay each year as a base line that you will at least perform enough equity to parallel your taxes your first year. and maybe your last mortgage payment 30 years later, you would still be paying an interest on its but that would help the transient people always perform better with equity in their homes. host: ok. rochester, new york, hugh on our independent line. good morning, welcome. caller: c-span. i believe the republicans will eventually come around. i don't think they have the opportunity to allow it to be said that by election day that they did not want to go for some kind of financial reform. i think they are in cahoots with

the big banks and right now they are just holding out for as much as they can get on their behalf. host: from "the washington post ," looking at some of the policy disagreements that the two parties are facing. the two parties must find common ground from the vocal role -- four volcker rule. some philosophical differences there. akron, ohio, joan of the democrats' line but caller: how are you this morning? i think the republicans have a large problem and america has an even larger problem for the simple fact that you want to keep on blaming the president. where was your president when

they sold the money is out of the savings and loan? who were in -- where was the president when they stole all of your money, your retirement money from enron, where were the tea partiers. they will not have a bipartisan bills of the already said they was not going to vote for nothing. mccain and the house already said they are not going to do anything. what part of don't do nothing and leave us at the behest of any retarded people to come down the line and it is sick what is going on with the united states. host: what we talking about with the "roll call" reporter about the climate change building put on hold.

there is a graph over here of all of the work senator kerry has put into this bill. the senator has invested more time than any other senator on the climate and energy bill. over 270 meetings and phone calls with key senators, 140 other significant meetings, 69 with administration officials, 45 with foreign energy and environment leaders. that plan now on hold as things could work out on the senate. a union, missouri, where greg is on the republican line. caller: i hope i don't reach -- they don't reach an accord on

the financial system. you have to understand that obama, dodd, barney frank and charlie rangel all took money from those people. so they are not going to shoot them down. they are going to act like they are, but they are not going to make it happen it is just a fun side for the american people to see. host: do you see republicans being able to take a leadership role in financial reform? caller: i think they will. i think they are more fiscally responsible and they want to make more things happen in that direction. we are broke. america is broke. they don't understand. you know the health care bill? that will cost us more money than what we think and what we were told. so, we have to keep that in mind going forward. thank you. host: checking in with a norman from pennsylvania, independent caller. do you think bipartisan support will surface for the financial regulatory bill? caller: it is hard to determine what direction they are going to go.

thank you for c-span, by the way. i have a little promise that kind of put stings in perspective when we talk about regulations. the far right would like to say, no, we don't need to regulate. i'm a capitalist, too, but if you take -- this is a simple analogy. a six-foot sand box and put a little five-year-old kid on each corner and give each of three toys and walk away for 20 minutes and come back you got chaos in the sandbox with three kids crying and one little greedy bugger and the corner with all of the toys. it is just human nature. we all know somebody who will take advantage of and exploit the kinder and gentler nature of somebody else. and therefore we need rules in the sandbox, we need rules on wall street, we need rules in the corporate board rooms and

washington is as opposed to being handling these wrote -- washington is supposed to be handling those roles and they are not. host: in a moment with a look at immigration policy and talk with two guests about the recent decision in arizona, the recent bill signing and what is coming up next with immigration. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> with financial regulations legislation pending on capitol hill, the independent community bankers of america are meeting in washington and today they will hear from banking committee ranking republican richard shelby and also political analyst charlie cook and others. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. the u.s. chamber of commerce is holding a forum to help businesses know the time line for implementation of the new health-care law. a series of discussions this morning beginning at 10:00 and that will be live on c-span3. >> i think there is a huge vat of knowledge about how this town

works, how congress works. >> when you are doing the actual research work -- >> this weekend, award winning the start says richard norton smith and douglas bernanke -- douglas brinkley will talk about their books, their works and professions. q&a, sunday night on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have folks talking about immigration policy. daniel stein, federation for american immigration reform. thank you for being with us. frank sharry, founder and executive director of american boys. news this past week -- american voice. news this past week and immigration. let us look at an article from "usa today." opponents from nationals of rights activists to phoenix mayor vowed to take their fight to the court as soon as this week.

looking back at the law that would take effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns, requiring local law enforcement officials to determine immigration status of a person during any legitimate contacts made by an official or agency of the state if a reasonable suspicion exists. if the person is an alien who is on lawfully present in the united states. let us go to mr. daniel stein. guest: i think it is an excellent law. i want to commend senator russell pearce for acting on a lawn not just needed a highlights a growing divide the country. a highlight in "usa today" says the law creates a race. adds of the rift is being carried by the fact that we have a failure in leadership of washington to recognize that the american people want the immigration laws enforced, they want to see a smooth, unified and forced the system between the federal government and the state and local governments. the arizona legislature is

operating fully within its constitutional authority to enact laws that are entirely consistent with federal immigration enforcement scheme is, and yet what you have is this anniversary action of the president and administration sang -- american people want to see their laws and force are somehow not entitled to see it done. the growing clarity on this issue has been defined by a series of strategic interests that believe that the essentials have a right to demand a mass amnesty with no real accountability for future enforcement or reform of the overall system. that is the proposal the president is pushing. aversive, the general public at a time of high employment, major job losses, structural changes in the american economy, many hard-working americans looking for work saying -- why isn't the federal government getting serious about enforcing the law? this is a rational response. what we are like -- would like to see. we are calling for the federal government to come in and ends

-- assist arizona and other states, help them enforce the laws. it's co-founder of america's voice, give us your take. guest: a very important debate on how to eliminate illegal immigration. we don't think a patchwork of radical laws of at the state level should do it. we think congress should work with the president to pass comprehensive immigration reform, secures the border, cracks down on illegal hiring and make sure people are here legally. the arizona law, i am afraid, is abruptly written it literally declared open season on 30% of the state which is hispanic. they say it you are suspect, the police have to ask your papers. who is suspect and who is illegal and not? we know when there is a disturbance at a soccer field, who will be asked for papers, most likely hispanic americans. many are here legally. so i think what arizona has done is institutionalize racial discrimination and racial profiling in a way contrary to

basic american values of fairness, rather than pressing congress and the administration to step up and pass immigration reform that end illegal immigration. host: protesters turned out sunday at the arizona capitol assailing the measure. the mayor of phoenix and also a congressman, democrat from arizona. they called it racist and unjust. they are concerned, as mentioned, how they would take effect. play out a scenario of concerns. guest: let us say there is a park with a soccer field. maybe 500 people doing very sector it is and a fight breaks out and the police show up and they, they the people that are involved. what do the police do? i have tremendous sympathy for police in this situation. one of the reasons there ever is on a police jeep opposes this bill is that they say it will -- police chief opposes the bill is

that it will compromise with is critical to fighting crime. they will begin to ask questions. some people will run away because they don't have papers. other people to stay -- do all it ask for papers? as arizona become the kind of state where every interaction with police become commercially your papers, or just some big book asked. that is what the law does. it creates this awful situation whereby the way you look you can be asked for papers. brian bilbray, a supporter of dan's group, they would be able to tell by the shoes they wear. that is how ridiculous it has become. the governor asks to how you could tell -- and she says, i don't know but the police will write a description and we will follow it. it is open season. host: daniel stein, why are you not concerned about civil rights? guest: they are as concerned as any other -- host: why don't you think this will be a civil rights -- guest: engaging in hypothetical

on how a law might be enforced is extremely speculative. i think the law was carefully crafted to ensure the civil rights of all in arizona is respected. at some point, however, the constitutional norms need to prevail again that allows local police on reasonable suspicion to verify the person's right to be in the country and to have the services of the federal government to make the determination. americans ask, why is illegal immigration out of control? if you look at the arizona situation and you get on line and read the law and take a look of the language, what you see is this sets up a very careful framework to try to bring about rationality on how we actually enforce these laws. naturally you want to monitor -- monitor the law carefully for civil-rights violations. at the same time we feel comfortable that the compass of the law as well as state authority -- and it will be administered properly and effectively. there is a climate of fear and arizona but the fear is that as a result of drug cartel, gang

violence, mob violence, if you will, orchestrated. this is a very serious national security issues and to continue to talk at the federal level about an amnesty program, encouraging people the belief that we will not enforce these laws, we cannot expect it to work. we cannot expect it to work if we will growl off an entire agency in dhs, isolated from state and local police departments. no other area of federal law is so isolated in its enforcement components as immigration law? the arizona law deals with another -- a number of other areas as well. but it empowers the police to be part of a team with the federal government. many police departments are recognizing the need to maintain trusting community relations, but they understand it is quixotic to try to contain crime if you cannot contain illegal immigration. all, but there is a wing and the democratic party that seems to believe that the civic fabric

can be maintained when one population in the united states is essentially saying we do not have to obey the law -- we don't have to respect u.s. law, we don't have to play by the rules and we will be sent to get ahead of the game and get amnesty. people are saying, this is not what the american assimilation ethic is about, not what immigration is all about and it is causing a rift and our policy. the polarization and partisanship in this debate are deeply troubling right now. i did not believe i have seen in the history of this country america's immigration policy debate become so polarizing and politicized as it is now in this congress. can that thing we are going down the wrong road. we are not dealing from a consensus basis. we have no commission to come up with a large view of the national interest. it is nothing more than a special interest political power grab and the reason why people are being -- being frustrated. host: and the scenario about the soccer match, and there is a disturbance and his organization is concerned that perhaps hispanics would be targeted by

law enforcement officials and ask for their papers. why are you not concerned about that scenario? guest: welcome i think it is important not to engage in hypothetical. police departments are going to be looking to enforce over all laws in arizona, criminal laws, and what have you. to engage in this kind of speculation on how they will enforce the law -- clearly, if they in the course of a regular unlawful police conduct aside a one to ask for identification -- which they usually do -- and then have a basis saying we would like to see if you have off of a nation to be in this country. fair has been arguing for years that we need a single document to verify citizenship or alien status. we have been pushing it for 30 years. why we don't have it now? special interest lobby prevented it from happening. .

that is not a practical assessment. guest: i am looking at some

areas where comfortable have to do with on the beat every day. but under the law, they are required to ask who is suspect. if they do not, they will be subject to a lawsuit. let us take a look at what "u.s. today says. the new la of course, there are r opinions. walter, daytona beach, florida. democrat line. caller: when i travelled extensively through central and south america, i am often asked

for my papers because i look different. i do not mind showing my papers to the door is, because i am aghast, so i do not know but the big deal is here. as well, there is a war going on in mexico. since 2006 there have been an average of 5000 killings a year because of the drug war, but nobody is talking about that. nobody is mentioning this. janet napolitano says, no big deal, everything is fine. what is wrong with you people? host: let us get a response to the phone call. questions about how this measure could help with drug

issues, border violence. guest: first of all, there are lots of laws against drug smuggling, kidnapping, going after drug cartels. when police say these things undermine their ability, it speaks volumes. border violence is incredibly important, but that is a cross- border issue. the idea of open borders -- we have had defacto open borders for way too long in the u.s.. nothing that we have done has worked. why? the real key to stopping immigration is to turn off the jobs. you do not do not at the border with a wall that you can scale

over. you do that at the point of higher where you have an employment verification process. but you have to couple that with a process by which workers pay their taxes, learn english, and get back to the citizenship line. that will eliminate illegal immigration and do a much better job than we are doing currently. host: what about the idea of the enforcement being done at the job site? guest: we go back and forth on this issue. we have been working on this for very long. coupling employer sanctions here is not acceptable. we tried that in 1986. we are not trying that again we will not be giving illusory

enforcement. this administration has made promises about border security, they have not met them. napolitano has not finished the border fence and that congress demanded be built. john mccain said in a obama does not like the arizona law, they can send troops down to the border. pretty much, they are saying, put up or shut up. essentially, what we have been listening to from frank's side of it is fine if we do immigration law, as long as no one is deported.

you undermine completely moral authority to make the argument that there is a good faith basis for believing any consensus compromise your side of the aisle is pushing would ever fulfill the commitment. the reason why we month not see in bill is because democratic leadership does not have a convincing, credible enforcement strategy in place. host: joe, independent caller, lubbock, texas. caller: we are experiencing a building boom because of the cheap labor. they are seeking a better life. red than criminalizing the immigrants, how about the employers who are attracting them? employers who hire illegals are

unpatriotic and should be jailed. i will take my answer off the line. guest: amen, and that is what drives illegal immigration. that at all employers are looking to hire these people without paying taxes or benefits. that is at the heart of illegal immigration. so what do we do about it? in addition to the measures being taken at the border, we need aggressive enforcement at the worksite. we have to have an aggressive enforcement of labor laws, so that the same people and violating these calls, we need to go after them as well. we can lower the playing field,

but you cannot do that only with the employer enforcement. you also have to make sure the 11 million people here become legal. dan favors making everyone so miserable that they eventually leave the country. we do not think that is realistic and politicians who favor that are not being realistic with the american people. we know we've had a should be able to seek citizenship after they learn english, get to the back of the citizenship line. in the future, people will not come if they know that the job to magnify and not let the markoff books. guest: your point is well taken, but there are states that are working to beef up sanctions

against day labor employers. working aggressively to crack down on employers because the obama administration is doing more paperwork audits of employers but they're not actually increasing the fines or upper hand in the workers themselves. frank and objects to what the obama administration is doing, which is firing individuals from worksites, but they are not taking them into custody. so the policy does not make sense because, at root, we are not going to solve the problem it be the party uses this situation for political gain. republicans believe that cheap later contribute to corporate contributions. this thing is coming to a head in the country. unless we start dealing with

this, and will simply explode. host: this is from "the washington post" -- joe, republican caller. south carolina. caller: i know that the republican support big business, want cheap labor, and democrats want more hispanic votes to overcome the moderate, center-right of voting blocvoti.

this fellow on the right, frank sharry, he does not do anything. if you mention any ballot proposal, he would just knock it down, and anything defending our border, he is not for it. canada defends their border so aggressively, mexico called them racist or something. guest: we strongly support professional accountable border patrol. we think it is essential as an exercise of national sovereignty and to protect the american people. we support aggressive work site in foresman, going after employers who deliberately seek out illegal to get an unfair advantage in the labor market. we also support the idea of making sure that the 11 million

people who are here illegally -- this is the dividing point in the debate. his organization wants to drive the 11 million people out of the country. we do not think that is realistic. we think they need to get into the system. as a result of turning up the drums amendment, we will change the immigration system into an orderly system. when you say that we are not for real control, i would argue that those of us who support comprehensive immigration reform are more interested in eliminating illegal immigration more than the people who think that driving a 11 million people out of the country will solve the problem. these people have been here for 10 years. you may not like it, but it is something that we have to deal with. that is why most americans are

interested in a common-sense approach, rather than town names, come on, let us get serious. host: let us take a look at arizona gov. jan brewer and the signing last week >. >> we are working to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government refuses to fix. the problemthis bill strengthene laws of our state. if all of us, every arizona citizen. it does so while insuring the constitutional rights bubble

all and arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast. host: the arizona governor. bruce in utah. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i support arizona. a lot of these issues are going against u.s. best interest. i worry when people do not get their retirement or other things are, that they will go out and break the law. i worry about the future of the country when so many things are going wrong. host: let us get a response.

guest: as you say, this country is facing long-term problems. there is a sense that washington is not a move to deal objectively with a significant percentage of the problems the country is facing. if democratic leadership or could take up an obama amnesty bill right now, it would be viewed as further evidence that the people in washington are completely out of touch with what the average person is concerned about. if it were possible, we would seek congressional ratings plummet even further we have been immigration policy that continues to admit up to 1 million workers a year. we have extremely high level of unemployment in the country. people are desperate, looking for work, and we should be seeing federal strategies to make these jobs available for

americans, but what do we hear instead? amnesty. what are we of electing these people to congress who only have to fringe group pressures, the seiu? they are behind a lot of the funding for this and they believe this is something that the democrats will benefit from. public interest need to prevail now. we need to see the arizona model emulated across the country. we need the government to come to the aid of these states. poll after poll has shown that this is what the american people want but are frequently rebuffed by democrats. host: we have this e-mail from michael --

would that be too much? guest: that is part of the solution. we need a national employment verification system with a reliable database and appropriate safeguards. people are concerned, they want to make sure immigration is illegal. if we make sure that these 11 million get into the system, we do not want 11 million more in a decade. that is why turning off the jobs magnet, with this employment verification system, with a background check system -- that is the combination that will be a huge leap forward in eliminating illegal immigration.

the key is this. everyone agrees we have to do a better job to chairing the border. everyone agrees we have to crack down on bad actor employees. the reality is, we have to deal with these 11 million people, two-thirds of them are in families. most of them will say that they are americans, in everything except the paperwork. we need to make sure that they are paying taxes, we the additional benefits that would come from comprehensive immigration reform. that will increase our security, reduce our deficit. we are hoping that congress can get to that this year. host: next phone call. michigan.

caller: i have a couple of statements and a question. we are a nation of laws. here is the deal. e-verify. why can we do that? i am from michigan. i come down to florida to work in the winter. i was the only american worker there. out of 13 people, of was the first person to have to go back home. here is a great solution for all the immigrants. instead of marching to

washington, march 2 washington and sign up for the army, navy, marines. america is not free. guest: i think you raise an important point about the e- verify program. arizona it is one of the few states require a individuals to participate in this. we are opposing this kind of program to push it nationally. in the end, there are a lot of programs out there that are conditioning robust worksite and foresman, which amnesty. what we are saying is, this is the wrong approach. to some extent, they are taking me the obama administration is painting themselves into a

dangerous corner by saying we are going to take the interest of illegal aliens at a hard- working families who need enforcement. if they were serious about a pathway to citizenship, they would be talking about a far more comparable to a set of measures. they would be talking about curtailing future migration of extended family relatives. meaningful reforms that have been recommended by every commission in the last 30 years to start burning some credibility into the system. instead, because of the legislation they are talking about at the federal level, which appears to be tailor-made to the seiu, amnesty, it appears to be more like a partisan power grab. host: what is your response to what has occurred in arizona? guest: this is going to result

in some sort of legislation. everyone knows this system is broken. everyone knows that we have to deal with the fact that we have 11 million people here and we do not want 11 million more in the future. that is what comprehensive immigration reform is that for. american people are frustrated, not with the fact that there are illegal workers and a little -- illegal immigration, as much as the fact that our political leaders are more concerned with scoring political points. we have heard all the political reasons why not. i am tired of hearing the excuse that we do not want to take a tough vote because there is an election coming up.

the one other thing, as part of comprehensive immigration reform, there is something called the dream act. for young people, if they go to college, joined the military, they can become americans, and that is a bill that you will continue to see highlighted. president obama was at a citizenship ceremony for individuals who served in the military and are now becoming citizens. to me, people talk about immigrants as some sort of criminal class. the vast majority are just hard working people who want nothing other than to become americans. the problem is, there is no system that will allow them to properly get in line. host: allen.

republican phone call. caller: both of these people have good ideas. first of all, up 1/2 to blame mr. obama. -- first of all, we have to blame mr. obama. we have to seal the border off before we do anything. with 10% unemployment, people losing homes, companies going bankrupt, do we really need to give the these people and our jobs? there are all sorts of things that we can do. just like you say, this is all political. it is all about who is going to be elected.

i am not part of the tea party people, but i am thinking about it because i have the same feeling. it is just like this health-care thing. the american people do not want it. my question is, if you are a foreigner, and you have a baby, how come it automatically becomes an american citizen? guest: that is what people call birth of touristourism. we need to clarify the 14th amendment or update it to update how people move around the world. in the end, we need an immigration system that can serve the broad interest, and it needs to be affordable. we need less immigration, more

highly skilled. ultimately, it has to serve our broad national interest. it needs to correspond to our employer, environmental, energy goals. today, we are headed to 1 billion people. if we were to pass amnesty, like the obama administration wants to do, we could have over 1 billion in the country by the end of the century. nobody is talking about that. host: i want to get a response to that. we are running short on time. this idea of people coming into the country, having babies. guest: the 14th amendment says that if you are born in the country, you are a citizen.

the idea of messing with the constitution on such a principle does not make sense to me. the solution is not dealing with these anchor babies, which by the way, is an offensive term. we have to broaden our understanding of the issues, that we can solve it correctly. you can only do so much at the border. the way to cut off the illegal hiring is to make sure that people here are legal. that is the combination that will turn us into a legal system. it will give us control and reduce it to a minor irritant. this is not about giving special interests here, it is about solving problems. it has to be done on a bipartisan basis, and should be done this year. host: maria from minnesota.

democrat line. caller: we are losing the point. i am an american. i am mexican. i was born in the united states. personally, i think it would be a wonderful idea if we could have a system like arizona where we could directly ask people about their citizenship. there is nothing wrong about that. guest: in arizona, someone of your background is much more likely to be passed, compared to someone like me. if police do not aggressively enforce this law, they are subject to a lawsuit. they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. i do not know who you cahow youo

this without asking everybody for their papers. host: we have to an e tweet -- guest: the major purpose of this is to ensure when someone is brought in to arrest procedures, that there is verification of their immigration status. that has an indication of how they are processed, ultimately, questions for deportation, other things. the initial contact, and if you have a van going along with 15 people inside, and the police stopped them, that person may be asked if they have the right to be in the country. all permanent alien to in the country are required by law to

have their alien registration documents on them at all times. we do not carry our birth record all the time, but these are immigration documents. this is not particularly onerous. state need to have the full support of the federal government. we got into this mess because of years of litigation by mexican groups who crowned state into not cooperating with the federal government. that is how we wound up with all this immigration getting help of control. in the end, what you find is a every solution that we tried to propose to bring our borders under control, -- frank opposes everything that we say.

there are threats, thuggery, political intimidation. isn't that right, frrank? rank? guest: we know that your organization, daniel, is extremely controversial. i have made it clear what our organization stands for. you can call us names all you want to. what the american people want is what you do not want. they say that it is impractical and unamerican to drive 11 million people out of the country. we do have respect for the law by having laws that are enforceable. you do not like the idea of of all these hispanics getting citizenship, let us be honest.

host: thank you. obviously, you have talked about this a lot together. we will continue the conversation. we will be back to speak to trudy rubin from philadelphia, about afghanistan and iraq. first, an update from c-span radio. >> in the wake of weak and tornadoes in the south, arizong an armed man who was spotted at an asheville, north carolina parking lot at the airport just after air force one departed and said who wanted to see the president, appeared before a judge today. he was charged with going armed in terror. police say he had a car

equipped with police equipment although he does not work with law enforcement. the israeli government has imposed a defect code freeze on new jewish construction in the eastern sector of the country. middle east watchers say the apparent freeze likely reflects mr. netanyahu's need to mend a serious rift with the u.s. over construction of land. toyota says despite the recall of some 10 million vehicles in recent months, production soared more than 80% in march compared to one year ago. cars and trucks have been the subject of at least three separate recalls in the past year. the national association for business economics is painting a somewhat picture of future

growth. a new survey of economists find more optimism about growth and this year as industry report increasing profits and jobs. those are some of the latest headlines. >> sunday on "in death" -depth"- three hours with pat buchanan. host: trudy rubin is with us from philadelphia, a foreign affairs columnist for "the little bit enquirer." tell us about your most recent trip to the middle east. where were you and what did you see? guest: i was on a three-week

trip to afghanistan, pakistan, and the iraq. i started with admiral mullen and we traveled to canada are -- kandahar, where a big offensive is about to start, and then i went on to kabul and other cities to talk to afghan officials. then i continued on to pakistan to look at the other side of the border, how much cooperation is there between our military and pakistani agencies? i was in the northwest frontier province. then i continued on to iraq, in part for personal reasons, to see what is happening in the post-election period where there

are still not final results. my driver was arrested 16 months ago. he has been in prison all that time. his crime was trying to help u.s. troops fight to carry militias. when the u.s. troops withdrew, relatives of some of the people who helped finger got him arrested because they have connections. this is a kind of story that encompasses everything that we have done in iraq, what is left, and what is the situation now. host: how did you first meet this individual, what is the situation now? guest: i first met salaam after my first trip to iraq. i was staying in a small hotel where a lot of journalists

stayed outside of the green zone. he came up and asked if anyone was looking for a driver, someone to help them make appointments. that started the french ship. i would work with him every time i came to iraq. i would come two, three times a year. in between, i would talk to him on the phone. he was in a bully and character with a big belly. his uncle had been hung by saddam hussein, had been thrilled that the americans had come. he thought that things were going to change for the better. we went all over the country. we interviewed muqtada al-sadr. we went through all the neighborhoods. his neighborhood was a mixed

sunni, shiite neighborhood. that would become my bellwether. i used to go there every trip to see whether or not a civil war was still on going, whether or not it had improved. in december 2008, he proudly took me to his neighborhood to show me how much better things were. the reason was because there was an american for operating base there. he was tipping them off on the worst families and was helping to bring back sudanese who were displaced. the reason he did that is because his neighbors were being murdered, and he did not want to take it anymore. basically, one family of this radical shiite militia, the mahdi army, the lady folks in

that family were angry that their son had been arrested, they have connections, and they got him arrested december 28. when i saw him in jail and a couple of weeks ago, he had lost 50 pounds, had been tortured, and was in despair. i was trying to get him out of jail. host: what does this say about the great issues in iraq right now? guest: when we came into iraq after messing up the occupation for several years, which helped to facilitate a hideous civil war, that several more spiked, and was in part, stalked by general petraeus' surge. part of that was to set up for

operating basis. that is what happened anin salaam's neighborhood. and i talked to people who knew him and they said that his work was vital. as we withdraw, these tensions fester again. our influence is waning. some of these sectarian militias have penetrated the military and security services, or they have friends inside. they are shiite, the military is heavily shiite. it does not mean that the military is sectarian, but there are probably thousands of cases like salaam's, where for reasons of vengeance, people are thrown into jail on flimsy charges.

and a civilian judge courageously freed him and said, he is not guilty. the men and then he walked out, two iraqi army humvees took him to an airbase where there was a secret prison that was tortured people. "the los angeles times" just broke this story. he was tortured for eight days and then sent back to jail. the civilian justice system is still weak. there are still sectarian tensions that are barely under control, and people like salaam become the victims. they are the ones trying to get past sectarianism. but the system is still so weak

, and as we pulled back, a lot of people will become victims, if not by direct killing, then from the suffering being inflicted. host: we are speaking with a foreign affairs columnist at the "philadelphia inquirer." she recently returned from a trip to the middle east. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. reports today looking at what happened in iraq, that the sunni and shiite groups in al qaeda acknowledged in a statement that two leaders were recently slain -- how significant is that, what kind of a blow does that do to the organization, how is the iraqi public taking this?

guest: as you know, leaders of al qaeda have been killed before. i was in iraq when the infamous [pause] carly was killed with a 500- pound bomb pound -- al-zarqawi was killed with a 500-pound bomb. things have improved, however. the organization has been decimated. what is frustrating, however, is that even a few hard-core militants, and these people do not represent iraqi nationalism. there was a point where sunni iraqis supported al kea and mesopotamia, because they were a

vehicle to fight against their shiite enemies -- that phase is over. they found that al qaeda was so vicious, so monstrous, and that it was killing the very sunni that supported them. so the broad base is gone. when leaders are killed like this, it helps to an extent. but what we see is a few leaders with suicide bomber candidates who mostly, it is not entirely,, from outside of iraq -- you can still recall lot of damage. what al qaeda in iraq is trying to do is to restart the civil war. they are deliberately targeting shiites, hoping that they will start killing sumy's again and

the civil war will start over. while getting these leaders is in good stead, it is not going to stop the risk of these people setting of suicide bombers. it means that u.s. forces will still have to work with the iraqis to improve their security so that they can ferret these people out. host: dan, independent phone call. massachusetts. caller: thank you for having me on. just going back to the beginning of the war in iraq, apparently, a lot of people were rounded up on minimal information, people were given reward for turning people in. it is my feeling people were

gathered up just to get some numbers in prison to say that we are hard on terror, fighting terror. in the beginning of 2009, the 9/11 report, there was an article in the "new york times" where they had gone down to guantanamo for interviews. people were curious about where information had come from. those cia tapes were lost. people in the commission report, this report, was relying

on information gathered from guantanamo, which we know was it coercive interrogation. the two leaders of the commission admitted to lying about the intermission. host: let's get a response. guest: i am not sure -- i think you're are trying to say that we do not know who did 9/11. i just do not buy into that. there is tons of the evidence. not least of which is a usama bin laden taking credit for his organization. there is a lot that needs to be revisited, in terms of guantanamo, books will be written, but when it comes to

bit 9/11, i think the evidence is pretty clear. host: michael in sterling heights, michigan. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and i am not opposed to war, but what i'm concerned about is the reason the u.s. is over there is because of the heavy dominance of jewish interest groups that have a great influence over our government. i would also like to say, your guest on today is in no position to be objective in her position because she is jewish herself. guest: could i say, is a shame that a call like that is on c- span. those are the anti-semantic remarks. i would not even answer.

again, books have been written about why we went into iraq. there is plenty of information out there. george bush was not jewish, neither was richard cheney, but the idea of a jewish conspiracy belongs in the nazi history books. host: let us look at exactly when you are talking about. your latest column in the "philadelphia inquirer" -- tell us more about the discussions between the taliban, president karzai. guest: one of the great hopes that is consistently discussed

with afghanistan is that talks with the taliban will inevitably presented a political solution to the conflict. and general mcchrystal has repeatedly said, and he is correct, that the solution will be political, not military. but there is a misunderstanding of what that means, premature hope that president karzai can sit down with mullah omar, the commander of the taliban, and strike a deal which will allow the government to continue to allow the taliban to take part. many afghanistan's your in for some type of all-inclusive deal. i do believe something like that could happen, we're afghans of

all political persuasions it together, but it is premature to say -- and newspapers have speculated -- that we are on the verge of direct talks between president karzai hand omar. -- karzai and omar. the u.s. military hopes middle of all officials can be peeled off. they talk about reintegration. there is going to be a peace conference in may led by president karzai that will focus on reconciliation, bringing taliban factions back into the government. but the rumors that there have been direct or indirect contact between karzai and taliban

leaders are not true. one of these rumors took on strong force when mullen omar -- mullah omar's #two had been arrested. it is true, and that messages were sent between the two, but there were no arrests. usually, there is a kernel of truth, but the rumor is often exaggerated. i think we have allowed to go before there is the possibility to talk with any senior taliban leaders. there is one man who is close to the taliban who may be able to be bought into the afghan

political system. whether or not that is a good thing is another question. he had committed terrific crimes in the 1990's, and was unfortunately backed by u.s. and saudi arabian money. that is another story. the bottom line is, there is a long way to go, and it is not clear if the afghan leader will be talking directly to the top taliban leaders. host: a mark on the democrat's line. las vegas, nevada. caller: i am not up to speed on this really. i get thdisgusted waters some of these things. i think talking is very good. i do not know how much you can

trust those leaders, but i do not know how much we can trust our own as well. host: after coming back from a trip like this, do you get a sense of how engaged the american public is with issues like this? do you sense that americans have reached a critique point? guest: absolutely, yes. i have been reporting on iraq since 2002, and i can see that people have already wiped it off of their radar screens. we signed an agreement with the iraqi government that we will have combat troops outsi by the end of the summer. we will still have the economic aid programs, diplomatic context, but i think people have

said it is over. i do not think people have engaged in the afghan issue, for better or worse. u.s. casualties are going to climb as our search troops, in. -- troops come in. the u.s. strategy is civilian- oriented. over and over, officials say that the focus needs to be on economic aid and political associations. there is encouragement to be shorers of elders, which is the traditional way in afghanistan, to look at these issues. but the bottom line is, there is not much u.s. interest in this. for understandable reasons, the american public is focused on domestic issues.

so unless casualty's spike tremendously -- the afghan war still goes on under their radar and president obama says that there will be the beginning of a troop drawdown in the beginning of 2011. i think they will be there for a longer period i am more focused on afghanistan, but that is later on. host: mike on the independent line. conn. caller: thank you for your hard work, ms. rubin. i also want to think c-span for their service. my question is about iraqi refugees. i know that there are something like 2 million in the areas of syria, jordan when you went back

last, were they starting to come back? was there a process of reintegration for those refugees which would allow iraq to hopefully we stabilize? guest: that is a very important question. you may have read a book from one of my colleagues about the iraqi refugee problem, largely in syria, which has the bulk of refugees. the tragedy of that story is that many of them are the middle class, educated people that the country needs to get back to full functionality. a lot of the immigration was due to the sectarian war in 2006, 2007.

i forget the actual breakdown, but the largest number is sonny, although there are a substantial number of shiites as well spirit christian refugees as well. religious extremists have targeted churches. to get the people back, you would need a much more concerted government effort. sadly, there is not one. there has not been any real effort to figure out, for example, housing. many were driven out of their neighborhoods from the ethnic cleansing. it may be impossible to go back to those neighborhoods. the neighborhoods may have changed, it still may not be safe. nobody has addressed the issue of housing. many have left government jobs, can they go back to them? there is a trickle going back,

but you are more likely to find internal being displaced moving around. on the other hand, extern of displacement, in countries like syria, many of them are living on savings. eventually, you have to have more of they moved back, but there needs to be a concerted government effort to resettle them. possibly after this new government is formed, which will hopefully have it stronger sunni representation in the government, you may have a body of parliamentarians who pushed for a fund that can help cities and shiites -- sunnis and shiites resettle. it creates a problem for neighboring arab countries to

have this huge refugee population that will never be fully part of their population.

guest: as far as the iraq war goes, mainstream media covered the hell out of it. as far as coverage in the "washington post," or the "new york times" -- god knows i spent a lot of time in iraq writing about these things. what is happening now, is going to affect afghan coverage in the long run and iraq coverage in the short run, most newspapers are shrinking, their foreign coverage. the problem is that advertising has moved to the internet and to young readers do not read newspapers, so newspapers cannot afford any more to cover the way they did cover at the beginning

of the iraq war. now, coverage of afghanistan is extremely difficult. however, there was just a big expose a of torture chambers run by the iraqi government. member, the u.s. is on the way out of iraq. in afghanistan, general mcchrystal has a mantra that he repeated over and over that is rolled down through the lower ranks. the message is, if you kill civilians, you are creating more enemies. and that is the message that general david patraeus brought in when he came into iraq -- i'm trying to remember when he became commander, late 2006. the military is trying very hard to reverse some of the errors that were committed in the early years of the iraq war. of course, now the iraq government is now fully -- more

fully sovereign and their practices are not at this point something to write home about. there is less possibility for us to intervene. as for the media, i think the media has done the best job that it could under the circumstances, but if there is going to be less coverage, it is going to be because newspapers are shrinking for economic reasons. host: our guest house 30 years covering the middle east and is the author of "willful administration" a book about iraq. you have an article talking about kandahar. speaking of insurgent leaders to begin the taliban posey

insurgent operations. it is shaping up of the -- as the -- the taliban's in certain operations. the shaving of to be the pivotal test of the obama administration. can you talk about a sense that you may have into that, how crucial kandahar is and how the philosophy has changed in afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of people there? guest: yes, kenkandahar is a fascinating study of the military trying to do things differently and having great trouble doing things directly because there is very little afghan government to rely on, either locally in canada arkandr centrally in kabul. what they do not want to do is

colusa. what was that? -- was fallujah. and what was that? basically, we had ordered civilians of the city and flattened it because it had become the home base of every radical militants, including al qaeda. in kandahar , the effort is to do it differently in the hope is that u.s. soldiers will not even go into kandahar. taliban bases on the outskirts of kandahar may be areas where they have strong concentration, but the city itself, only afghan soldiers or police will go in and there will be a blanket in of the city with checkpoints and sometimes the u.s. soldiers will

take the lead and other times the afghans will. and the key to the whole thing is that they're trying to change the dynamics. there are huge meetings with the tribal leaders, you know, what kind of economic aid 91 do you want. -- economic aid to do you want. there is one leader that is repeatedly involved in drug money. the other tried to feel left out and they are far more sympathetic -- other tribes feel left out and they are far more sympathetic to the terrorists. karzai has to be more open- minded trying to funnel economic aid into the city. now the taliban is targeting aid to afghan. -- to afghans.

general mcchrystal is trying to do the right thing, i believe, but it is a very hard road. i cannot predict the result. i think the key is going to be whether the political and economic element work, and the verdict is out. host: victor on the democrats line, could morning. caller: i have always felt that -- and nobody speaks about it -- that the inept government that we had a the time, j. brenner who automatically dismiss hundreds of thousands of people who are not shiites and epperson spend that country has been in chaos. guest: there is no question about it -- and every since then

the country has been in chaos. guest: there is no question about it. i was sitting in the room when paul bremer, who was the u.s. viceroy in iraq from 2003, for the next to a bull of years -- couple of years, he disbanded the iraqi army without pension. i went afterwards to a neighborhood of baghdad for army officers lived and everyone said the same thing. you told us not to fight and we send our soldiers home and now you are kicking us out and we are going to fight you. i think the insurgency was born right there on may 23, 2003 when brawner made that announcement. there has always been a lot of controversy on who gave him the green light from on high. i think there just was not attention paid. i do not think secretary of

state rumsfeld paid attention to this huge decision one way or another and brenner went forward with it. also, you mentioned the sudanese, and there is a de- bathification -- you mentioned the sunnis, and there is a de- bathification commission of people very top level with blood on their hands who were not allowed to have government jobs again. but unfortunately, anyone in a position of authority, even high school teachers and principals, had to be members of the party even to will their positions. the widespread de-bathification hawes resulted in whole faculties being fired, all kinds of senior bureaucrats who were technocrats' being fired. a lot of that was remedied, but the problem exists today. in fact, this de-bathification committee that exist today was

disbanded and disbarred about 500 sunni candidates from running. this is still a problem and it dates back to the early days when there was no concept of what we were going to do after we toppled said on the same. -- toppled saddam. caller: i would like to know what you know about the natural gas pipeline in afghanistan that is being built. and also, if what you know about hamid karzai, sitting on the board of trustees court sent gas and unocal. guest: the unocal pipeline pipeline is an old story. as far as i know, unocal is out of this picture. it was an issue in the mid-1990s when unocal wanted to build a

pipeline from turkistan -- turkmenistan, which sits to the north. right now, they have to, all of their gas from russia, which pays low prices. if you build the pipeline, it would go down into pakistan and then into india, where there is a huge market for the gas. and there was interest by the u.s. embassy. and there was a brief willingness to deal with the taliban government, which had then just come to power, in the hope of stabilizing the country, enabling the pipeline to be built. the u.s. interest in stabilizing afghanistan at that point, it was minimal. everything was not driven about this -- by this gas pipeline, which never got into the ground, but there was certainly interest in having the pipeline built.

the project when aware and the u.s. relations with the taliban deteriorated long before osama bin laden. the whole issue was moot. there is a new pipeline being built now. certainly, there is an interest in pakistan in having it come through central asia. but certainly, things are still unstable, war is being fought, as you know. the pipeline would have to go through troubled areas and i'm sure there are companies exploring in the most preliminary way the possibility of a future pipeline. i do not know. i tend to doubt unocal is one of them. but that is a way in the future project that is not under way today. host: republican caller from north carolina, good morning, john.

caller: the united states are looking overseas at whatever one else is doing and formulating our world view has to u.s. policy and what not. i wanted to get your perspective, your take on what the middle east's perception of us looking at the united states. i know that the head -- the media is pretty much taken over by the obama administration. i'm just curious what they're getting on the internet, what they're getting for mainstream media. guest: i do not know that they are getting a biased take. i will assure you that our media has not "been taken over by the obama administration." but as far as the perceptions, let me focus on afghanistan because i think it is an

interesting question and in some ways is similar to iraq, although in iraq there has always been more information available to people than there is in afghanistan. in afghanistan, when the u.s. troops came in and when afghan forces essentially did much of the groundwork -- the u.s. was mostly from the air -- and overthrew the taliban, the population was not unhappy. the taliban have been welcomed in the mid-1990s because there was a chaotic civil war going on and the taliban and established a rough justice. the people could at least travel ramat.com but they became sick of the taliban -- they at least could travel the roads, but they became sick of the taliban because they were sort brokerage what people want simply -- and it is a largely rural country --

they wanted to be able to live, to form, send their children to school toto farm, to send their -- to farm, to send their kids to school. you can talk to any military man who has served in afghanistan and they will tell you that critical assets, including intelligence assets were switched to iraq. afghanistan was left to its own deserts and what happened was the country gradually saw the resurgence of the taliban because the world saw no change in their life. the economy was dead, the irrigation system was broken, they had no money for feed, they were forced to turn to drug lords and plant poppy because

that was the only place they could get loans for crops. that was in the south of afghanistan. the situation deteriorated. there are polls that are taken to date -- and i do not know how fully reliable they are, but they all seem to show the same thing, that the afghans do not look at the international community and the u.s. today as they did at the soviets. the soviets napalmed of them, they bombed them, they killed hundreds of thousands of afghans. no, they look at the american forces in bewilderment because they look at america as powerful and they cannot understand why their lives have not improved. a component is that their central government has been corrupt, but they look at the external forces that have come in and they know lots of money was spent, and they say, why has this not benefited us? they create conspiracy theories

and say, if the u.s. forces and international forces are here and they have not improved our lives, then there must be an ulterior motive. they think of the americans are supporting the taliban or that they want to stay here to build a gas pipeline, or any reason you want to come up with. ironically, the negative attitudes toward the international forces are not because of what they did, but because of what they did not do. and the taliban is still not popular, but the international forces are not either. and of course, in the background there are also civilian casualties when the international forces and the u.s. were bombing more. there was a lot of collateral damage. general mcchrystal has tried mightily to limit that, although there are still episodes. but the overwhelming reason for the negative attitude toward international forces is his appointment that people's lives have not in -- have not improved that they don'-- have not improe

way they hoped they would. host: trudy rubin, thank you for being with us. coming up, we will talk about diversity with our guest, christopher metzler of georgetown university. we will also need one of our winters of studentcam this year. >> is 9:19 a.m. here in washington d.c.. the lead republican in negotiations with democratic senator christopher dodd on pledges -- on financial overall legislation says no vote is likely before a key meeting this afternoon. richard shelby of alabama said "i do not believe we will have a deal today" although, he says the two sides have setup a meeting for early afternoon. shelby also says ultimately measure will be passed because

both republicans and democrats understand the agitation among voters for something to be done a among high risk business practices. the senate will be in for an hour of morning business and then begins consideration of the overall. it is always live on c-span2 television and radio. president obama is appealing to the n n n n n n n n n n n n n n. [no audio] and voters who helped propel mr. obama to the white house. the u.s. treasury department is saying that its first sales of citigroup stock will cover up to 1.5 billion shares, amounting --

the treasury department receive their shares as compensation for the mass of support it gave citigroup during the height of the financial crisis. on the 24th anniversary of the world's worst a atomic accident, you -- ukraine's president is warning that the chernobyl nuclear reactor is still a serious threat to europe. servia or health problems persist over -- severe health problems persist over a quarter century later. 2 million people still suffered no losses caused by the radiation. the exploding reactor is encased in a shell that is deteriorating and internationally funded work to replace the show is behind -- and replace that shell is behind schedule. and finally, stephen hawkings says we earthlings should be careful about who we try to talk

to out there. in a new documentary, dr. hawking claims that intelligent in the life almost certainly exist, but warns that communicating with them could be "to risky." he speculates the extracurricular -- extra terrestrial life could be closer to microbes and cilia. >> "washington journal" continues. host: coming up in a moment, a discussion about diversity in the united states and in your community. our first prize high school studentcam winner but that this issue. >> america's strength is in its diversity of its people. >> when you're in school and you do not really fit in with everyone, it gives me a place where i always belong.

>> i guess people's always say, whoa, that is a different mix. no one has ever heard of a jewish chinese guy. >> when a person comes to the united states and they're not a native-born american, they bring a lot more than just the color of their skin. they bring a completely different outlook, in a different way of celebrating. >> it does not matter what coulter you come from, if you are in america, you are what makes up america. it does not matter where you are from. you do not have to be in america to make up america. without the people in america from different cultures, america would be lifeless. host: we would like to introduce you to this year's first place prize winner, krista kayiza -- mcchrystal kayiza. we really enjoyed your

submission. tell us about why diversity was something to focus of in your video. guest: my parents immigrated to the united states in 1991 from uganda and i've always had to balance the american society and american culture with my parents traditional culture. i've always been fascinated with how students balance their family values and the values they learn in school and the education in other areas of the community. i was thinking about the topic and i figured that because a lot of things are going on in the nation right now that are not necessarily positive, that would be a good reflection of america by choosing something that goes to its founding values. host: crystal kayiza joins us from oklahoma this morning. and what is your high school like that do you think is very diverse? guest: i think it is pretty diverse. our school is very big.

our graduating class has a couple hundred people in it and i think they do a good job of making sure that all students are involved and not just one segment of the committee has the advantage of the school. host: did you learn anything new about your classmates, you're a a teachers, your peers, your community at large as you did this project? guest: i did not -- i do not think i realize how different cultures affect american society. teachers always say that we are the american melting pot and you learn in history the pilgrims came over to start a new kind of revolutionary idea of having freedom of religion and freedom of thought and everything, but you do not realize how our diplomacy and education and everything that we do, there is a culture. everything that is the original about america is -- it is not

just one definition of america. host: how did you get people involved? was it hard to tell their personal stories? you really got them to tell their own life experiences with you. guest: lot of the people in the video our friends that i have. we have a club where a bunch of different kids come together and share their cultures. at one of the meetings i just had a bunch of them sit around and discuss how their culture affects american life and what are the advantages and disadvantages. it was not necessarily hard to find the people, but it was difficult to understand what the goal would be because there are all these different sides to coulter -- what the angle would be because they're all these different sides to american culture. it was hard to get the response that was the truth, but at the

same time i think that the in deeper and try to get people to give positive answers was the thing that helped us this most -- the most. host: do you want to keep learning about this issue? guest: yes, i am interested in how our bertran it is built and are different cultures -- how our government is built and how different cultures -- the school that i go to end the committee i live in, regardless of how i use it, it is going to be a part of my life. host: we have another guest in the city of this morning, christopher metzler from georgetown university. we want you to join our discussion about diversity. seeing that clip about her world, what was in guest: your mind it is always -- what was in your mind? guest: it is always interesting to see the different

perspectives. i think the older definition -- the older generation had a different definition of diversity. i was absolutely impressed with the amount of time and effort that she has put into place to produce the video. host: kristcrystal kayiza, can u reflect on the experiences review or one of the people in your video did not have a good experience? guest: it was not necessarily difficult to get people to speak about their culture, but it was hard for people to speak about the negative effects that it has on them, like discrimination and everything. one of the people in my piece, david villepin, was talking about how there is a lot of ignorance american communities

because people -- in american communities because people are afraid of what they do not know and assume that stereotypes are true. i think it was difficult to get people not to just be honest with me and the people around them because it was a comfortable environment because everyone was the reverse, but they knew that the people watching would not necessarily -- everyone was diverse, but they knew that the people watching on necessarily agree with them. host: can you talk about hot the pike position of -- about the accusation of playing the race card? guest: the interesting thing about that conversation with harry reid is that it turned into a big political discussion. i keep in mind also when trent lott said things that people thought were discriminatory. we did not have as much hoopla

as we did in this particular instance. that was part of the peace and was inspired by what majority leader reed said. host: crystal is a junior in high school. when you hear about her experiences or other students' experiences, what do you think that is going to be like in 20 years? guest: i think we are having discussions and not focusing so much on issues of color, issues of race, etc. i think as we look at it, we will find is that this new generation will move past all of this discussion of race, discrimination, exclusion and all those kinds of things. we have the conditions in america where folks are actually able to do well despite race, color, etc. and it seems to me that there has been some discussion about that. hopefully in 20 years we will not be having these kinds of content -- discussions.

host: let's go to the phone lines now. welcome, we are talking about diversity. caller: i just wanted to tell crystal -- i happened to catch her speaking, and she is just a beautiful gun lady -- a young lady and she will never be slumming in this society. and she will always be a shining star. i'm so glad i got to say that to her. host: ok, thank you for your call. christo, do you feel that people in your committee have gone to watch your video? you have talked to a lot of your students, your peers who are doing interesting things to change their culture reader through cooking or they are wearing their native regatta -- regalia.

news invisible affect your community? -- do you think this will affect your community? guest: a lot of people that have watched my peas have realized how diverse our school actually is -- have watched it have realize how covers our school actually is. i think it opened people's eyes to how much people want to say they are american, or if they're born in america that is automatically what they are, but it has helped people. i have friends that have wanted to investigate what their culture is because it opened their eyes to how different we all are. nobody is exactly the same. host: dr. metzler, what are some of the biggest challenges that you see with the and regeneration with diversity and blending into the culture of march?

guest: you are going -- the culture at large? guest: you are going to have to blend into the culture at large. we are a democracy whereaboutwhf each culture does not necessarily out its own religion and identity. i think it will be important for each culture represented to look at its identity and also be american. for this generation, the challenge will be to and politicize the issue. i think it's -- to unpoliticize that issue. host: let's take another phone call. caller: the real issue of hand

as we talk about the state of inclusion. in the state of texas they are excluding the history of african americans and native americans and mexican americans in the history books and in the teachings to all the students. in order to have a real conversation about diversity we have to get to the grassroots of the issue at hand. most people think that immigrants came through ellis island. i know a group of people who came through galveston, texas and they came to labor and build the wealth of this country. we're not saying that one group of people are to blame for this. and you had different people involved in maintaining that institution.

to me, there is no such thing as an american culture. guest: there has been this discussion that there is no such thing as american culture. but quite frankly, we do live in america and certainly, there are different aspects of american culture, but i think if we're going to have an inclusive society that necessarily means we cannot nessus' -- we cannot separate ourselves along those lines continuously. the fabric of democracy is people who live together, work together, all for one common good. i understand the historical aspects and i understand this discussion in texas about the history books, but at the end of the day there is this issue about the fact that we are in america and we need to live as americans. host: crystal, what sort of costs is to take in your high school? do you feel you get a wide range of american history? guest: absolutely, i think that

history glasses today are more experian -- more geared to experiences -- history classes are more geared to diversity. it is not just the american point of view, but the asian perspective, the african perspective, the hispanic perspective and the european perspective. compared to decades ago, american students have more opportunities to know the truth and not just be fed the generalized american culture that people are on the world might assume we have. host: we have a special phone line set up for students who want to call in and talked to mcchrystal or dr. metzler. 202-618-0804 for students.

mr. jones, how will -- we wanted to find up from you -- we have a guest joining us from the census bureau, nicolas jones. how did you find the results of the senses? guest: we have data that provides information on many of the similarities and differences between a number of major groups in the united states, american indians, alaska natives, asians, blacks, hispanics, native americans and others. host: why is this a significant aspect of the census? guest: the data and not only give us the ethnic makeup of our

committees, but it also helps with the redistricting principles and is critical in assessing racial and ethnic disparities in the country. host: what has changed in the way that the questions might be phrased than in the past? guest: the question on hispanic origin has changed throughout the history of the country, but if you look at the 2010 census and the previous census, they are similar. but we recognize that american diversity continues to change. the 2010 census, the results show that things may be changing. host: we're looking at the 2006, 2008 estimates of race in the united states.

what will the data that you discover in this sense as to go toward? how quickly can we find out the results and what do we expect to learn from that? guest: this will provide us with the next portrait of the racial and ethnic diversity in our country. we need to understand who we are right now in order to write another chapter in american history. we recognize that there are growing proportions of children and young adults who may be reporting different identities then perhaps generations in the past did. we may see increasing diversity within the country. it is reasonable to say that there is the potential for the 2010 results to provide us with information on a wide variety of groups as well as people reporting of a a identities are

changing. host: nicholas jones, thank you for joining us. let's get back to questions for dr. metzler of the georgetown university and crystal kayiza, winner of the studentcam competition this year. caller: i would like to comment to christo. i would like to say congratulations, i'm very proud of her. i want to know what her future plans are for college and former career. i would also like to say that i am a student of history. it is not until we get to college that there is a comprehensive perspective of history. the high school version is basically explored further. i wanted to know if in her school they were exploring the different cultures, contributions more so than the,

say, the regular american cricketer -- curricular. guest: thank you for the congratulations and after our azko i'm planning to go to film school, probably nyu, and not just focus on film, but also political history. i think my high school does a really good job of making sure that we get every perspective and not limiting us to american society. it is really important, in education in general to enforce a non biased, or to be leaning on one side and give kids because of leftist view or rightist view and me in the middle. i think at my high school they give us an opportunity not just to learn inside the classroom, but to expose us to other

avenues and resources that might not necessarily be in front of us. host: david is calling for massachusetts on our democrats line. caller: my name is steve, but i'm happy to hear that kristol is thinking of going to nyu. it is a great college, a great university. the area that it is located in is a -- an incredible mix of people from all over the world and you will definitely learned a lot there. i am 53 years old and i made born new yorker, a political science major. i am at 53 years old still not sure what american culture is and what an american is. i was sitting red school not that long ago and somebody who was an ally -- sitting in grad

school not that long ago when somebody was an elected person t-- i believe the times that we are in now, people like crystal, it is so awesome. in my lifetime, even though we came from the generation of the 1960's, there was still so much to do to open up people's minds. i sit in coffeehouses today in the boston area and i hear things that are incredibly ugly on an everyday basis. host: dr. metzler, reflecting on steve's comments, talk about how you think american culture or diversity has been changing abroad? has that been affected by the accounting of the first african- american president? guest: i think it has. i spent a great deal abroad and what i get from others -- a

number of societies are broad and have basically said that it shows america is coming into the kind of enlightenment timeframe. of course, the question is, in the majority of countries across the world, we still do not see the election of someone who is multi-cultural or multiracial. but in the context of that, you know, we keep going into this thing of what is american culture? i think it is a combination of people who come to america and bring their different perspectives. i do not think we need to get stuck as much on the definition of american culture, but focus on how people who are americans are living here. how do we work together as a society? for me, that is the issue. host: easton, texas, john on the

independent line. caller: the issue is, i wish c- span would put on "washington journal" later at night because we need another point of view other than talk shows and things of that nature. host: thanks for your comment. you have any comments for your best? caller: basically, this is what we need. people need to see the diversity of our nation. if we really need that. i hope "washington journal" or c-span will consider coming on around the same time that they come on. i know you also want to show things like what is going on in congress. that is very important, but

we're in a time now where we need the positive things about diversification to drown out some of these negative things. people are inundated with them. host: let's go to our next caller in indiana, walter on the republicans line. caller: i found that being born in raised in new york city, it was basically a lot -- born and raised in new york city, it was basically irish and italian, a lot of white neighborhoods. they did lowell -- affordable income and brought in minorities. it was like an experiment, forcing the blacks and whites to be together. with that, i noticed there was a lot of racial violence, a lot of racial tension. there were actually race riots. it seems like the government wanting to jam their reporting next to each other, whether it

is schooling or education or in communities. why can't you let people there that-be where they want to be -- why can't you let people be where they want to be? and i'm proud of being a part of the white race and heritage and i want to stay with white people to keep that going. guest: i think the caller has his own perspective of what he would like to do and that is often the discussion. this issue of forced segregation causes a lot of people to feel a level of discomfort. i think part of the issue in america is being open to a different -- to a number of perspectives. the caller has indicated what his perspective is. host: kristol, what is your idea

of diversity? you talk about your own perspectives in your film as well. guest: i do not think that one sector of the committee is necessarily better than the other. a lot of things were inspired by what my parents have told me. it is always coming back to the idea that -- where they grew up it was kind of a homogenous society, but coming to america the realize there were other issues contributing to the government, the education system. and now the sisterly that it is a bad thing that people want to be with -- not necessarily that it is a bad thing that people want to be with those people that they look like and have the same traditions, but at the same time, one coulter in america is

always influenced -- one culture in america is always influenced by another one. host: to see her winning entry to the studentcam competition, you can go to studentcam.org. and students, there is a line that you can call if you would like to talk to them, 202-628- 0184. let's go to the democrats line. jim, good morning. caller: i am also from oklahoma. i am 67 and i grew up in a town that i have always been proud of. i thought it was a racially sensitive town, but i remember a

12 years old going to boy scouts and rubin, who eventually became one of my best friends, and showed up with patients that i've never seen before -- i think our town turned 100 years old. i bought a book about the history of our town and found out that it was built on what used to be an indian reservation. we apparently have stolen their land or broken some kind of treaty with native americans. i was glad to have a crystacrys say that she included their diversity in the discussion. i think working to improve our

sense of oneness as a nation is going to be a long struggle for america. host: i want to get dr. metzler's response. guest: it goes back to this notion of american culture. we have to have won this. -- oneness. it is a complicated answer, but that has to be the and gold -- the end goal. host: kristol, tell us about your experience at your school. is there a teacher there that teaches film? guest: when i was in intro last year from a lot of the kids there were about me enter the competition and did very well. my teacher, mr. raley field, runs the tv production costs.

-- mr. rayfield, runs the tv production class. and he emphasizes that our film should be a well-rounded story and has really helped us understand what filmmaking is and how it is not just the technical side, but the artistic side and getting us to be storytellers. i think that within the house will ring up, that the arts are really important and my high school does emphasize not just athletics or just being generally in the classroom, but that the arts are very important to helping develop the host: students -- developed the students. host: dr. metzler, do you have a sense of how young people are allowed to tell their own story now? does that help educate the rest

of us about diversity? guest: i think it does because the use of social media, whether it be facebook, twitter, etc., i think that helps. rather than have adults can determine what the story is, students talk about their own perspectives and experiences. i think absolutely enriches the dialogue on all sides of the discussion. host: but go to richard, democratic caller in massachusetts. caller: i am 70 years old and i grew up in the jim crow era. when i hear people at rallies, especially during the campaign about barack obama about "i want my country back," well, they are a dying breed. people i've got to remember in 2040, or 2050 -- somewhere in

that area -- the caucasian race is going to be the minority in this country. i love the diversity of cultures. young people today are much more often much more susceptible and i just think it is great. -- much morand young kristol, iu have a wonderful career. -- crystal, i hope you have a wonderful career. guest: i talked at the beginning about how this issue of race has become politicized and there is all this discussion about whether that is code for racism, etc. i do not think that we can assume that just because someone says "i want my country back"

that is necessarily racism. what they are indicating is that there is a frustration in the country. part of diversity is, after all, listening to everybody's perspective. no one, left, right, center -- whatever your persuasion -- does not have an opposite -- a monopoly on the discussion and we ought to respect that. host: crystal, in 10 or 20 years, do you have an idea about diversity, or something you would like to see happen? guest: i think that with the election of barack obama, there will be a lot more discussion about not just immigration, but involving different cultures in the government. and i think in the next couple of years we will see more openness to electing people that do not look the same, this kind of stereotypical white male that you see in politics or the

senate or the house of representatives. i think it will be not just with race, but with people that are raised in the community, but are from somewhere else. one of the things that barack obama has done is that he has not hidden the fact that he is from different cultures, but he recognizes the fact that he is an american and that is where his core values come from host: let's go to -- that is where his core values come from. host: let's go to new orleans, good morning, william. caller: people talk about they want their country back, but you know, the first person to die for this country was a black

man. that was in the revolution. and the second man to die was at lexington and he was a black man. how can people say we want our country back? guest: this issue of defining who our country is and what in our country back, again, i would simply say on the question of wanting your country back, i do not think that is necessarily code for racism. in some respects, we have seen a number of people who have basically said they do not like the direction of the -- the direction the country is going. that is one perspective. and then you have other people who say that they would not have said that but for the fact that there is a black president. i think both perspectives have to be examined, but i do not think we can make a conclusion based on those words. host: crystal kayiza, what do

you plan to do with the prize money that you have been awarded as a studentcam winner? guest: most of it will go to my college education, about $2,500. the other $500, i'm going to spend on myself. i will definitely get my sister something for helping me with the peace. host: tell us about your sister's role in it. guest: i was looking for someone in a different age group and i wanted diversity in the people of were speaking in peace. and as you can see, it is really articulate and -- you can see in this piece that my sister is really are to give it and opinionated. i did not realize how strong our opinion is, but she is only 12 and i guess that is how we were raised in our house. host: you will be a senior next

year. you plan to enter the studentcam contest again? guest: yes, depending on the prompt. i always try to do something that is not necessarily going to be assumed. when we have the choice this year to choose a weakness or strength from i thought that people would choose a witness because there are a lot of obvious weaknesses that people like to talk about. but i wanted to do something that reflects my values, but also show different perspectives. host: crystal kayiza is a junior at jinx high school in oklahoma and she is the winner of the high school studentcam 2010 prize. congratulations. guest: thank you. host: and you can see her work at studentcam.org. and we still have