unions, the middle class is falling lower and lower. they are making more money and paying the workers less because it helps the union to bargain effectively with pay. host: that is all we have time for. guest: median wage stagnation. it has been flat over the last decade. there was an exception of a time in the 1990's. joblessness. once it goes down to more normal levels, incomes are stagnant but prices are rising. that is central to be structural problems facing the u.s. economy. the cyclical ones have been sorted out. host: ed luce is the washington

bureau chief for a "financial times." thank you for joining us of "washington journal." we hope you can come back. the weekend here on c-span. 48 hours of books. a live show on sunday. pat buchanan will be our guest from noont to 3:00 p.m. the white house correspondents' dinner will be live on c-span saturday night. otherwise, enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> couple of live events to tell you about today. we will go live to a conference hosted by the american jewish committee on iraq nuclear program and israel's relations with other middle east countries that is live here on c-span at 10:30 per it live right now discussion on job creation. speakers include several economic professors from around the country. it is going on c-span3. tonight, a tribute to dorothy height, who died last week at the age of 98. we will hear remarks from bill clinton and hillary clinton, among others. what did tonight at 8:00. -- watch it tonight at 8:00. there are nearly 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our late

read it -- video library. you'll find lots of interesting programs online. for contemporary perspective in print, there is the c-span book. now is in paperback at your favorite book seller. >> what i think -- in 2000, he wrote about the taliban and the rise of osama bin laden. he looks at what is next. sunday night, on c-span. >> yesterday's senate democratic leaders laid out their agenda for the future of immigration policy from the capital. this is half an hour.

>> what i say to my republican colleagues, work with us to fix this broken system and secure our borders and the other things that we have to do. we agree the system is broken, so let's work together to fix it in a bipartisan way. i'm joined here by a a number of my democratic colleagues who worked on this issue for many, many years. this framework is based on the bipartisan negotiations that our colleague senator schumer has been engaged in for months. those negotiations have been built on the bipartisan work bill.

and of course, the work of senator kennedy. we recognized his input in everything that we do on this issue. we're offering this framework as an indication, an invitation for republican colleagues to work with us to solve this problem that has plagued our country for too long. this proposal will do a number of things. it will take care of our northern and southern borders, require those who are here illegally to register with the government. stay at a troubled and even then -- stay out of trouble, and even then, they do not move up ahead of anyone else. tit will impose tough sanctions

on employers to break the law. in arizona, they passed a very draconian a lot and immigration. because they're upset that the federal government is not acting. in nevada, a republican governor sent a letter to president obama calling for action, federal action on immigration. i find the position of the republicans in arizona and nevada who say the problem is one of the federal government's to now say, we're not going to let you work on it. that is why we are here this afternoon, inviting them to help us work on this issue. take a look at our proposal. i do not direct this to lindsey gramm, only. there are 40 other republicans.

take a look at this proposal. it is a good-faith effort to move forward. we say, come and talk with us. work with us. you say the problem is broken. we said the problem is broken. let's work together to fix it. >> we're facing the reality of the controversial law in arizona, which is going to be challenged as to whether it meets the most basic and fundamental test under our constitution and test of fairness. we come here with the reality that we know it is our obligation to act and move forward. senator schumer has helped us move to this moment, establishing a framework for a

bill that will bring about comprehensive immigration reform. all eyes are focused on arizona at this moment. their focus on the law enforcement officials in arizona who are charged with implementing and enforcing the new law. it is worth quoting what they have said, "we strongly urge the u.s. congress to immediately initiate the necessary steps to begin the process of comprehensively addressing the immigration issue to provide solutions that are fair, logical, ethical." not just an invitation to congress, but a challenge to congress to rise to the occasion and to pass comprehensive immigration reform. i could not agree more. when a comprehensive approach that is tough, fair, and practical. way to secure our borders, crack

down on employers to hire illegal immigrants, and require those who came down -- came here illegally to register with the government, learn english, and pay back their taxes before they can go to the back of the line to work towards becoming taxpaying american citizens. failure to take up immigration reform will mean that are broken system and ineffective laws will continue to weaken our national security, hurt or workers and fall short of the most basic standard of justice. i want to say a word about a provision in this framework. i feel a special obligation to the children who were brought to this country and grew up as americans, but are prevented from pursuing their dreams under our current immigration law. these young people are the reason that i introduced the dream act nine years ago.

the republican senator from indiana is my co-sponsor and i want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for stepping up and shown the courage to help me on this important issue. yesterday, i met with four young people who would qualify for the dream act. they walked all the way from miami, fla., to washington d.c. 1,500 miles in order to bring attention to the situation. we owe it to these children. we owe it to the people of arizona and illinois. we are inviting our republican colleagues from states like arizona, where the law enforcement officials have invited them to join us in this effort, is to step forward, show the political courage to work with us to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. >> thank you. i want to thank all of my

colleagues for joining us in submitting this bill for comprehensive reform. for the past several weeks, reporters, columnists, have all been saying that the prospects for comprehensive reform looked bleak. i completely disagree. if i did not believe we could accomplish immigration reform, i never would have chosen to accept the immigration subcommittee chairmanship. people ask me all the time, why are you doing this? why did you take on this assignment? i tell them, because the urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so long overdue. our immigration system is badly broken.

the broken system has produced dysfunctional outcomes for millions of people and for this entire country. it has created an unsustainable situation where thousands of people across our southern borders -- across our southern borders illegally each day. we continue to see shortages in much-needed occupations, but doctors and engineers and agricultural workers. on the flip side, the fact that we do not have a good strong federal immigration law has now engendered a disproportionate and counterproductive response in arizona, which has passed a new law that is both effective and wrong hearted. that is why we must act now. we need to repair our broken immigration system. the american people have been clear. americans overwhelmingly opposed illegal immigration and support legal immigration and that is what our proposal does.

the latter history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and more economically dynamic. once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the sector of another 11 million people coming here illegally, americans will embrace and be more welcoming to immigration policy. that is a tenet of our bill. a public of immigration reform effectively say, secure the border first. then we can talk about what to do about the people already here. that is a talking point. not a serious policy proposal. that will not improve the situation in arizona or anywhere else. our framework is fix the border first, but do not just fix the border. our bill, our framework is a fix the border first bill. it is not a fix the border only

bill. we clearly state to the american people, our proposal will require the government to secure the border first before we adjust the status of a single person who is here illegally. just what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying. our bill is actually tougher on border security than the proposal recently offered by arizona senators. unlike the border only approach, our proposal recognizes that no matter what we do on the border, we will only succeed in dramatically reducing future illegal immigration by creating employment verification system that holds employees accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. our framework create a bulletproof high-tech version of a social security card that everyone of us has. new hires must show this card to

their employers and. the system will ensure that employers will no longer be able to hire illegal immigrants without facing stiff fines and jail time for repeat fat offenders -- for repeat offenders. no government database with everybody's information will exist. nor will the card contain any trapping do -- tracking devices, medical records, or other private information. we want to maximize america's prosperity. our failure to act is perpetuating a broken system that discourages the world's best and brightest to come here and contribute to our economy. we will attract the world's best and brightest to america because our framework will award a green card to immigrants to get a ph.d. or master's degree in science and technology,

engineering, or math from american university. finally, the american people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation. our framework says, if you've been working hard, kept your nose clean and be productive, you'll be able to get right with the law if you come forward, register with the government come to admit you are here illegally, pay the taxes you owe, and pass background checks bridge are framework creates a way to let people live upright lives after paying the penalties for illegal action. in conclusion, immigration reform is a morally complex and politically explosive challenge. there is no more important and difficult task than defining the american community and determining how we treat those who wish to join it. we're asking our republican colleagues to come join with us in this difficult work. the time for talking points is over.

we know we cannot pass reform, comprehensive reform, unless it is bipartisan. we welcome our republican colleagues to take a look at our proposal, see where they want to make changes, and join with us. that is the way to pass this bill. at the weekend. we must. it is time to work -- and we can. we must bring it is a critical component to achieving improved security, a vibrant economy, and a nation that continues to live up to the values that we -- that were so eloquently enshrined on the statue of liberty. >> thank you very much. i remember three years ago, when we voted on an immigration bill. there is no question that it is contentious. there's also no question that it is necessary. i remember when senator kennedy,

senator mccain, and about six- eight others of us sat in a hot room over many hours to try to negotiate what might be a good bill that could get bipartisan support. it came out on the floor and it did not get the necessary 60 votes. there was a lot of talk -- at that time that we had to do first to strengthen the border. in fact, a lot of that work has been done. the border is actually better staffed today than at any time in its 85 year history. the number of border patrol agents have been doubled since that time. from 10,000 to 20,000. the number of federal agents has increased 26%. almost all the fencing mandated by the congress has been completed. 645 miles outof 655 miles that

was mandated. the results have been a 23% decrease in illegal immigration in one year alone. all this amounts to a substantial progress. the question is, what should the next that be done? did this fix the system itself? in know. the system is still broken. -- know. the system is still broken. substantial progress has been made. the framework proposed -- it is not bill language, is just a framework. it can be changed in any way people work in good faith. what we have in mind is not amnesty. it is a tough and fair pass forward for those who have contributed to american society, not for those who have not. for those who have contributed

to, who work hard, who pay their taxes, learn english, who do not commit crimes, and you are willing to go to the back of a very long line to earned the right to be legal in this country and citizenship. to the back of what is today a very long line. the bipartisan agricultural bill is included in this proposal. there is a reason. the broken immigration system has been devastated -- devastating to a major industry, and that is agriculture. farmers cannot farm. growers cannot harvest. packer's cannot pack. 90,000 acres have gone to mexico. 20,000 mexicans have been hired and nothing is better than

american produce. if you cannot farm, you have to import from others. that is exactly what is happening. i have story after story of farmers whose crops like on the ground because there is no one to work in the hot sun with the skill to harvest crops or pick citrus or pears or any other thing. that is where we are today. the system is broken. farmer after farmer comes to us and says, please help us secure a legal work force. this bill would do that. i think that is important. we know today that we have got to do this. the question is, to the people of america want us to do it? one of the ways we have to look at this is to polls. every poll that i have seen indicates what people -- that people want a comprehensive

immigration bill. they want the system fixed. they want the borders strong. they want our laws kept. i also understand that the economy prospers based on having people who are not in the shadows, who are not hiding, who are not. , but you are contributing legitimately -- legitimately to parts of our society. i think enough work has been done on the border to satisfy what was said three years ago as missing from the immigration bill. would the chairman of the immigration subcommittee's leadership, myself as a loyal member of this committee, we need to reach out. the time has come to be constructive, not destructive. the time has come to build a system that will be workable. the time has come not to walk

into houses and deport families at 2:00 a.m. and leave their american children behind. the time has come to make sense of this system. >> thank you. i join my colleagues here in rolling out this frame mark with the view that this is an invitation to our republican colleagues to join us in something that is critical to the national security of the united states and critical to the economy of the united states and critical so that american citizens and legal permanent residents do not become second-class citizens of this country. on national security, this framework, which incorporates many of the views of those republicans that have given input to senator schumer, deals

with national security by going beyond and makes for an even robust border enforcement process. combined with other informational uses that would inshore -- ensure that the nation is controlled at its borders in a way that deals with national security. at the same time, i can never have national security if i do not know who is here to pursue the american dream versus who is here to do harm to it. by having people come fourth at the law becomes a reality, and being able to register in a temporary status, i bring people out of the darkness into light. i treat an opportunity to do criminal background checks to make sure that they have been law-abiding and that they are here to pursue the dream that millions of others immigrants

have come to this country and contributed to the vitality of this country enormously. but i will never know who is here to pursue that dream vs two is here to do harm to it if they stay in the shadows. this is the national security of the united states. it is also about the national economy of our country. americans want undocumented aliens to come forth pay their fair share of taxes. we want them to come forth and pay their fair share of taxes. many of them use taxpayer id numbers to do exactly that. many of them do not. ultimately, by giving them the opportunity to contribute to our economy, by being able to come forth and to participate in a temporary status as they wait a long process to maybe become a permanent resident, we not only pursue the national security, we contribute to the economy of the country.

speaking of that economy, i hope that all americans will be honest with ourselves. this morning, if you had breakfast and you had for breakfast, it was probably picked by the bench back of an immigrant worker. if you had shaken -- if you have someone who is in your family, their daily needs are being attended to by an immigrant worker. if you look at the industries that are so important to the revival of our economy, tourism, the restaurant industry, agriculture industry, even in this economy cannot get people to go into the field and pulled the crops that ultimately feed our families, they are being done by immigrant workers. it is amazing to me that when we have someone like lance corporal

who is not even a citizen of the united states, but was the first soldier with the united states uniform to die in iraq, that we can say that individuals are worthy of fighting for and dying for america, but not ultimately having the opportunity to have a chance to become a permanent resident. finally, ariz. is the ultimate coordination of the challenge we have before us. the epicenter of a great concern in immigrant communities. there are over 200 cases of u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents who have been caught up in in the grant -- immigration rates and have been detained unlawfully. many detained for months,

months. who among us would be happy if we were detained simply because of the way we look for the manner in which we speak or the color of our skin? who among us would be waiting for the council's patients? i have nothing in my possession that proves i am made yet as a citizen. i did not carry my birds certificate. i did not carry my passport -- i do not carry my birth certificate. i do not carry my passport. we understand the history of not only this country, but the history of the world, when one group of people become a suspect class, when one group of people are blamed for the ills of the nation, and that always has a sad ending. we cannot have -- we cannot

allow that to happen on the greatest country on earth. it is not who we are as a people or a nation. our friends on the other side of the aisle, i beseech you to join us. this framework has a lot of your ideas. i understand what is necessary in order to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. we cannot have two different classes of citizens in this country. we cannot have those two are detained unlawfully because they're caught up in this greater class of people who somehow become suspect. that is what is at stake here. this is not a partisan question. this is about the national security of the united states. it is about the national economy of this country. it is ultimately about the preservation of the constitution. when i can become a second-class citizen, there is a road in which you become a second-class

citizen. that is not something we can accept. >> i do not think it would be wise for us to set an arbitrary deadline. we are patient. hispanics in nevada have been very, very patient. we do not want to set an arbitrary deadline. we just think that it is time that we stop the nonsense. what i mean by nonsense is this -- how can you reasonably answer people around the country who are saying, fix the system. and then they will not let us fix the system. we're saying to our republican colleagues, we are inviting them to work with us.

it is simply an invitation. one that we think is very timely and we think they should step over and help us. >> [inaudible] >> i have not spoken to the president about this recently. i do know that heat is -- he has given us a heavy load here. we finished health care. we're working on financial reform. we're working on national service legislation. i could give you a whole list. we lot to do. i say to the president and all the people around him, this is an issue that he will join us. this is an issue he thinks is very important. i do not know what in context the state was in last night.

we can do a lot of things here. >> they are saying that he is committed to having a bipartisan solution this very year. if your proposal incorporates republican ideas, why not move forward as a national bill and put it into congress? >> my conversation with the president has been similar to what you were to stating. every time i have ever talked to him or people closely associated with him in the white house, he recognizes that this is an issue. he talked about in the campaign. i know that he will work with us on this issue. as i said, we're reaching out to our republican friends. this is an issue that they need to help us with. we are willing to compromise, but you cannot compromise with yourself. you have to have somebody to

compromise with. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know about the san francisco boycott of arizona. i do not know anything about that. >> san francisco is an island unto itself. [laughter] the question was, do i support its boycott? there is a resolution for the city to boycott any business with which the city carries out with any firm in arizona. i do not think that is a smart thing to do. i think the way we handle this is the way it has to be handled, which is a comprehensive bill passed by the federal government. i do not think that boycotts or things of that nature really help. they just polarize people.

>> thank you, mayor. >> you are welcome. >> [inaudible] >> there is no one in this country -- and this congress, the house or the senate, but believes that something doing -- doing something about our environment than i do. we need to do comprehensive energy legislation as soon as we can. i did not know how my friend can say that this kills energy. it is up to him. that is why today, i specifically said, the questions we are directing, the statement here directing are not directed

toward centigram. there 40 other republicans. he cannot logically use immigration as an excuse to not help with energy. >> are you committed to this bill on the floor this year, and forcing a cloture vote? >> we are looking for republican support. all of you know the rules around here. they have been pushed into my mind. you have to be able to count to 60 around here. talk about getting a bill on the floor. unless we get republican help, we will not have a bill floor. >> you have been talking to republicans? what is their reaction? >> i was with judd gregg today

and he was very interested today in parts of the bill about the labor force. the republicans i have talked to this week, when i have laid out what happened, they say, send me some details. now we have details. we have a framework. what we tried to do in this proposal is to be true to our democratic principles. not everyone would agree with each specific provision in the bill. we want to show our part republican colleagues that we're willing to negotiate. a lot that is in this bill came from republican ideas. this is a proposal. it says that we welcome you to negotiate and talk with us to get a comprehensive bill. the conversations i had today, people were listening. >> thank you, everybody.

>> shortly, we hope to take you to a conference here in washington hosted by the american -- the american jewish committee. having a little bit of technical difficulty with their signal from the live event. we hope to carry it live for you shortly here on c-span. expecting some comments from president obama. he will be in the rose garden shortly. remarks about the 2010 first gdp numbers. the associated press reporting that the economy is growing at a 3.2% pace during the first quarter.

we expect to have live coverage, comments from the president in just a few minutes on c-span. in the meantime, it looked at that immigration bill -- a look at that immigration bill. times" this morning. joining us on the phone is chris strohm of congress daley who covers national security issues. what did the democrats proposed yesterday? guest: thanks for having me this morning. essentially, democrats are putting out a 26 page proposal that lays out immigration reform. these are the tenants that have been around for years. this would -- the tenants that have been around for years -- the tenets that have been around for years. it creates a framework for

illegal immigrants to have a path to legalization and ultimately citizenship if they desire it. it creates a framework within which business can get access to foreign workers. it is a visa program under which low-skilled, nonagricultural workers can come into the approach -- into the country. all of these things have been in play for a number of years. this is the reform that has not been able to be achieved in congress for various reasons.hoe hill yesterday, not a chance it will pass this year. guest: are is absolutely a chance. even people who have been wanting to do an immigration reform bill in the past are now saying that this year it is not possible in their view, and that includes senator lyndsey gramm

from south carolina, senator john mccain from arizona, and senator john cobb from arizona. these are three key republicans who have supported during immigration reform in the past. -- during immigration reform in the past. but this year they are saying that government should just focus on border security. the democrats do not agree. they put forward a proposal hadera usain is -- but they are saying is out there for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate. they are trying to invite republicans back to the table. of course, you cannot escape the politics of this. it is an election year. majority leader read is facing a and collection battle back in nevada. senator john mccain is facing

reelection battle in arizona and he is being attacked on the right for not being strong enough on border security. his position is to go forward with border security bill even though he supported comprehensive reform in the past. host: to this story from yahoo!, obama takes immigration reform of the agenda. this is something he said last night on air force one. guest: yes, he said he does not see an avenue for doing health care reform. that sent a shock on capitol hill, especially for lobbyist groups who are for immigration reform. the view that as being counterproductive. however, yesterday the white house kind of walked back those comments. the white house put out a

statement where by president obama said the outline looks good and he looks forward to working with members of congress in order to advance the bill. i think president obama's initial comments were viewed(9s not being very productive, but since then the white house has kind of walked back and they are referring -- reaffirming that he does supported, but not giving a time line. -- does support it, but not giving a time line. host: what is the extent that we will see in congress on this issue? -- what is the next step that we will see in congress on this issue? guest: that is a good question. the next logical step would be for an actual legislative bill to be put together.

the framework that was introduced is only 26 pages and there were a lot of general provisions put in there. the question becomes, what are the details of the legislative proposal that the democrats want to advance? harry reid was asked yesterday if he would commit to a timeline on va bill to the senate floor. he was asked if he would commit -- on bringing a bill to the senate floor. he was asked if he would commit to a time line on bringing republicans on board and he would not commit to a time line on that either. house lawmakers have said they are waiting for the senate to act. everybody is looking at the senate for the next step. senator harry reid has also said he will go forward with climate and energy changeia

>> president obama began his day today with an event in the rose garden. comments on the economic numbers on gdp. the president will be -- we will have his comments shortly when they get under way. the president will tour the secret service training unit there. we're having some satellite difficulties and some technical difficulties with that. we will cover that event and show it to you later in our program scheduled. while we wait for the president, we will go back to this morning's "washington journal." he is opposed to the immigration

law as passed by arizona. this map in the "washington post" shows where people live, where illegal immigrants live. the states in the black have the highest number of illegal immigrants. in fact, nevada has the highest percentage, 8.8% is estimated. 7.3% are illegal in california. 8% in arizona. 6% in taxes. 5.9% in florida a and 6% in new jersey. this is in the politico newspaper. 51% favor arizona law, just more than half the country is in favor of a tough new immigration law in arizona according to a new gallup poll out thursday.

51% of those polled nationwide was said they have heard about the new law favor the measure that grants the right to ask to see proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. 39% say they are opposed to it. this story also from the politico. major league baseball should yank the all-star game from arizona. rep serrano from the bronx will ask a baseball commissioner bud selig to move the all-star game from phoenix. our first phone call comes from miguel in washington d.c. tell us your story. caller: i am here from cuba. i have been here almost 10 years. i feel that we've have been here first -- that we have been here first. caucasians were last on the

planet. host: you have been here 10 years illegally? cubans have a special policy in this country. in my caller: case, i did not go through the challenge -- caller: in my case, i did not go through the channels. i just came and stayed. and as far as i'm concerned, we were here first. host: did you get here by boat? caller: yes. host: what did that cost you and who did you pay? caller: i tried to go as an illegal stowaway, but i paid an american in cuba to stowe me away. i paid $3,000. host: how long did it take you to pay -- to save the $3,000? caller: probably a year. host: down in cuba. caller: right. host: and when you landed here,

did you speak english? caller: yes, i learned and down in cuba. host: where did you go when you landed? caller: key west and then later on to d.c. host: when you see a lot like arizona passed, what do think? caller: i think is pressuring the minorities, the so-called minorities when the occasion is the minority in the world. and we were here first. i think that what should be repealed and we should stand up and revolt and fight against it because people of color are the majority on a planet. the caucasian is the minority. host: row hawn in pensacola florida, your on c-span. caller: immigrants are the ones

that are the major working americans. we're the ones that do work. [unintelligible] host: where are you from originally? caller: jamaica. host: how did you get to the u.s.? caller: i came here on navy said. -- on a visa. host: is your life scary to be here illegally? do you worry about it? caller: i am not worried because i am trying to get myself legal.

one, i'd be my taxes. -- i pay my taxes. i want to be legal. i love my kids and the like to go back home and see my kids and come back and work. host: next call is from atlantic city. where are you from originally? caller: i am from ghana. host: how long did q -- how long have you been in the u.s. and how did you get in? caller: i got here in 2003.

i came for visiting. host: and you just stayed. caller: yeah. do you work -- host: do you work? caller: yes, but the little money i get by send for righteous to go to school. -- i send for my kids to go to school. i cannot continue to do this. it is very bad. host: what do you think about u.s. immigration policy in general. -- in general? caller: [unintelligible] host: we appreciate you calling in. we appreciate you watching c-

span. the couple of other headlines in the news this morning -- this is in the hill newspaper. host: and this is also in the hill. reed is still trailing in nevada, majority harry -- majority leader harry reid continues to trail his opponents in a matchup with gop sen -- gop chairwoman sue loudoun. he trails with a 51% to 41% deficit. next call is from bill who tells us his wife is illegal. host: i am a u.s. citizen.

my wife is from mexico and has been here since 1994. we have been married for seven years and there is nothing we can do to get her legal. -- caller: my wife is from mexico and has been here since 1994. we have been married for seven years and there's nothing we can do to get her legal. host: i thought marriage was automatic. caller: there are over 100,000 people in my position right now. there is a web of the as-a web site called in a greatfuss -- called immigrateus.org. contrary to the myths out there, i take care of her. i make close to six figures. i am a professional. this is my wife. she is not a burden to society.

there needs to reassure something that can be done -- needs to be something that can be done to keep from tearing families apart. host: when you see a lot like what passed in arizona, your thoughts? caller: it scares us to death. we drove through there just a couple of months ago, but i will not drive back to their again. it would make me a criminal to transport her through this day. host: david in new york city, where you from originally? caller: thank you for c-span. i come here from ecuador. çi came to study in the university. but my visa --

host: expired? caller: yeah, expired. at this time, ecuador had problems. this was 10 years ago. now it is very difficult for me to come back because my life no is what i do here. -- my life now is what i do here. a lot of people depend on me. my kids, my wife, my father, my mother, my father-in-law. host: david, you do work in new york city? you do have a job? caller: yes i do. host: you are paying taxes? caller: yes, i have a number.

but weekly pay taxes when we buy a soda, we pay taxes. host: david, if you could make one change to u.s. immigration law, what would it be? caller: a change of what? [unintelligible] host: we appreciate you calling in. another call from manhattan. go ahead, manhattan. where are you from? caller: i am from guinea. i came by the mexico border, so i came directly through immigration. they asked me why i came into this country and i said i want

to work. they kept me for five months and now i'm here and immigration, when they ask me for documents for working, they refused to give me the actual money like $340. so now, i'm not working. host: you were held in immigration for five months? caller: 5 months, yes. host: and when they released to you, did they release you back to mexico or to guinea or into the u.s.? caller: they released me in the u.s. host: so, they said you were approved to come into the country? caller: no, they released me

under supervision. host: are you working today? caller: i am not working because now to get a job is not easy. host: lancaster, calif., you are on the air. caller: it is lancaster, south carolina. host: sorry about that, please tell us your story. caller: i am married to a man from mexico. we have been together 15 years and married for our -- married for nine. he recently got deported and i had to scrape together $2,500 to bring him back into the country. he finally found a new job and he is only making $7.50 an hour and he was making $17 an hour before.

host: you are married? caller: yes, but because he is not legal i cannot get his papers right now. he got deported because he was speeding. he did not have a driver's license and they checked his senses and he was deported. host: you paid $2,500 to u.s. immigration? caller: i paid $2,500 to get him back into the country illegally. host: really? who did you pay the money to? caller: a coyote. host: end -- and he is back in the country? caller: yes. host: when you see the arizona law, what do you think about that? caller: i think it is ridiculous because they do now realize how many children they leave with our parents when they do this.

-- they do not realize how many children they leave with our parents when they do this. the children are not illegal. they do not understand. who is going to explain it to them? host: he crossed on a train link on to the underneath part of it? caller: correct. host: how long did take him to get back to your home? caller: it was three weeks in the bush in mexico trying to cross over. they have very little water. they went for five days with no food, just trying to get back to us. host: do you understand the concerns of people in arizona have expressed regarding immigration policy and people sneaking across the border? caller: yes, but i also understand they do a job that a lot of white people refuse to

do, a lot of americans refuse to do. they think they're too good to get out there and pick watermelons and lettuce and work in a blueberry field and play and pine trees. my husband has done all of that. i have worked with him in a tobacco field from some of to sun down for $5 an hour. i do not see anyone else out there doing that. host: have you tried to get him legally get him since he is your husband and been married for nine years? caller: we have been trying to work on it, but it is hard since 9/11. a lot of the laws changed and now it is not as easy as it was. but we are working on its end the lawyers are out -- on its and the lawyers are outrageously expensive. host: willie in york, pa., tell us your story. caller: i am a united states --

it is a war to speak. i have a brain injury and this is confusing to me. i was born as a united states citizen had john hopkins hospital in baltimore -- at johns hopkins hospital in baltimore. i moved to pennsylvania, tried to comply with pennsylvania law that says if you are a resident of the state of pennsylvania for 15 days, get a photo id if you do not drive. host: hey, you were born in the u.s.? caller: yes, i am a citizen. even though i am a u.s. citizen, according to pennsylvania law, it is -- host: tell you what, i'm going to leave it there.

we appreciate you calling in, but we are talking about u.s. citizens in this case. jordan in buffalo, new york. where are you from originally? caller: i am from africa. host: ok, and how did you get to the u.s. and how long have you been here illegally? caller: i have been here for 10 years. pohick host: have you% -- host: have you pursued trying to get citizenship? caller: i have tried, but i do not think i want to be a service and no more. host: -- i do not want to be a citizen no more. host: why not? caller: when people come to africa, they do not get citizenship.

we have a lot of white people saying go back to your country, we do not need you. you cannot come to africa and just take over everything and think you are jesus christ. you are not. .net is my home. -- that is my home. i love it. you come to my home, you take our resources. guess what, we're coming back, simple as that. everybody has to read. -- got to eat. host: ralph in portland, ore., what is your story?

caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. by may mexican american born in fresno, california. and i married to an illegal alien. i have for 30 years been in the restaurant hotel business. i have had the great opportunity to work with so many people from different countries. this arizona lot is just ludicrous. our country was the established by immigration -- was an established by immigration. to now be able to say jo white is here and now and going to pull up the ladder because i do not like you, you know, i have friends out of a job and they need your job. in the hotel industry as a director and in certain

departments made it point to legally hire hispanics, anglo's. it is amazing who will do what and who will not there are entire sections of this country that will fail if we do not have a particular kind of worker. is it a bias? yeah, it is, but it is a necessary bias because just as delores from lancaster said earlier, there are just people that will not do specific jobs. host: if your wife is illegal, how did she get into the country? caller: she got in crossing the border illegally. host: walking across? caller: no, she was transported in a van across the border. it was carrying a couple of people that were illegal in compartments. this is something that has happened forever. back in the depression in the

1920's, this same kind of thing happened where the country was at a loss for jobs, economic stress, and mexicans were rounded up and sent down to south america. the u.s. government actually paid at that time to have people paid -- transported back to south america. host: how you adjust your lifestyle to your wife as an illegal? caller: the publication get worse because i have always been the one to provide -- the complication gets worse because i've always been the one to provide as the director of hotel chains and like us. now i am going through some health issues. i have lost my vision. i am dealing with some medical conditions like congestive heart failure, kidney failure, things like that. i cannot work. host: how long have you been married?

caller: about nine years. host: did the law changes after 9/11 affect you? caller: absolutely, and there was nothing you could do. it is not like we are here breaking any laws. this is one of the things that we talk about your -- here at my house and around the family. these people come in and they work, and it is not just the hispanics, but in the hotel industry we hire a lot of european, russian, ukrainian, romanian people to come over to work. they're blond, blue-eyed and they are here just as it illegally. and i doubt they will it stop on the streets of phoenix because of their appearance. host: jose in reno, nev., good morning to you. tell us your story. caller: i am 24 years old and i have been in the u.s. my whole

life. i was brought over when i was 2 years old by my parents and i have lived here my whole life. i have adapted to this. i am illegal, but because of this arizona law, i think it is racial. i think it to be removed. host: in so many ways you are an american since you were two years old. but at the same time, are there limitations because of your legal status? caller: yeah, like driving, jobs, things like that. you cannot fly in an airplane. you cannot go in and out of the u.s. whenever you want. you cannot miss your family back in mexico. stuff like that. host: you do not have a driver's license? caller: no, i do not. host: and what kind of jobs do you work?

caller: right now, i'm out of a job. host: do you worry about your status? caller: i think about it a lot. i would like to be legal, you know, make everything the right way, pay taxes. i would very much like to be legal. host: did you go through high school and everything? caller: yeah, i went to high school year in nevada and i graduated. i had great grades, four. know. i just did not have the -- i have great grades, 4.0. i just did not have the money to go to university. host: thanks for calling in. next call is drawn from alexandria, virginia. john, are you with us? we will move on to tammy in georgia. caller: i'm actually not have

gone, but i had to call in. i am a u.s. citizen and my husband came to this country illegally from nigeria on a foul -- false passports. he was originally deported but i paid thousands of dollars to try to bring him back. host: who have you paid the money to? caller: this is going through the legal process at this point where you have to file the waivers, the 212 and the 601. i have twins, a boy and girl that are only two months old. we have to go through the legal process and we 10 years after his deportation. the real problem with this is that many people are not going to leave this country because they know once they leave america the hell they're going to go through like my family is going through trying to bring

him back. that is issue number one. my grievance with the immigration law is, what is going to happen to people like me, people whose spouses have already been deported? are they going to give everybody here amnesty because they were lucky enough to make it here and leave people like my husband out of the country? that is my question to the senate. host: how did your husband get caught? caller: we tried to do things the right way. we went on to the federal building in the immigration office and they found out that the people work he had was false and he had overstayed in the country. he was deported back. i had my 2-year-old daughter in my arms. we stood down there for eight hours and eventually they told me that he was being deported. my life has been devastated. i mean, totally devastated since

then. host: how long has he been out of the country? caller: 60 years. host: tammy, thank you for shoring -- sharing your story. next call is john. where you from? caller: i am here from africa. from sierra leone. host: how did you get here? caller: i came here on a visit. host: a tourist visa? caller: yes. i was caught with one in the car and i cannot go out with immigration anymore. but i understand the frustration with the american people, but

the same time the law itself, there is a racial issue within the law. the amount of illegal aliens from canada, they are white and they will not be stopped. i think we have more threat from china that we have a threat from illegal aliens, economically speaking. i support the reform by the democrats. host: if you got stopped with pot in your car, how come you did not get deported at that point? caller: at that time it was 10 years ago. host: were you still under tourist visa at the time? caller: yes. host: do you work?

we just talked to tammy and found art she tried to do the legal route and her husband got deported. have you ever tried to do the legal route? caller: yes, i see you talking on the screen but i cannot hear you. host: you listen through your phone. ignore the tv. caller: i did not hear you. host: well, we will leave it there. we will move on to lisa from arizona. caller: i am so angry about what is happening out here and i'm in the middle of it. i am married to a mexican illegal alien. we have a daughter who is 3 years old. i live every day not knowing why my husband is lake, did they get him?

-- not knowing why if my husband is played, did they get him? -- if my husband is late, did they get him? they are stopping these hispanic laborers and taking them from family. we have been here for years and there was not a problem. and whether they have a family or not, they just take them and that is it. and you pay thousands of dollars if they are deported and while you're waiting, they have no chance of reentry. they are barred from reentry for 10 years.

host: how far do you live from phoenix? caller: it is about three hours. host: and how many years did your husband caller: come over he came over -- how many years did your husband come over? caller: he came over about 2001. everything depends on both of our incomes and his schedule and my schedule. he works in the morning and take my daughter to day care. if he were taken away tomorrow, god forbid, i would have nobody to watch my daughter. i would not be able to continue my job because i work overnight. he is my family. host: is there a network of people who are illegal there and you know each other? and you work with each other? caller: oh, yeah.

where i live, in the apartment complex where i live, everybody there is from mexico and they help each other around. -- help each other out. i do not even see my parents. i do not even really talk to them. i am doing things in my life that are good and positive. my husband and i are trying to come out ahead. it is amazing, all the protesters and things that are going on, they do not understand that they need to do something now, not tomorrow, not in november, but now. host: and this article in the usa today --

host: our next call comes from trenton, new jersey. you are on the air. caller: i came over here in 2003. host: from? caller: liberia. and liberian history, it was funded by three american slaves. -- founded by three american slaves. host: right. caller: my documents expired and i was told to go back to liberia and refiled. how many people will do that? this process of reapplying in takes more time than the documents filing. it takes about six months to get

a receipt. in that process, they do not look up the date that you filed. they look at the date that they read it. they do not tell you when it expires and that is why most immigrants get in the position that they are in. they cannot go back and they cannot do anything because of the weighting process. -- of the weighting proceswaiti. that is one of the main reasons why people turned out to be illegal. you file, you follow the rules and have documents

>> we are live in the white house rose garden way for president obama waiting for it to comment on the gdp numbers. consumers boosted their spending by the most in three years. the president is expected to be joined by representatives and workers from two u.s. manufacturers. we will have the speech live. we're covering debates and the candidates and here's a look at some of the national broadcast by the candidates. paid political advertisements are not permitted on to

television. they are required to air them on the main national radio and television channels. c-span spoke with eight british journalists. >> there is a legal ban on advertising. they spend money on direct mail, posters, things like that. much more nowadays than direct mail campaigns. e-mail, too. it has a profound affect on the amount of money. there are tight limits on spending. there is a limit of about $30 million on spending by each of the main parties leading up to

the campaign and the campaign itself. this is peanuts in comparison to the presidential campaign. >> the campaign lasts about four weeks. there is one that bears each day except -- there is one that bears each day except sunday. here's a look at the labor party's broadcast released earlier this week. >> 5:00. [doorbell rings] >> i will get that. [durable rings] >> eat up. she wants that. yes? >> it is congress.

they have a tax credit. >> that is not fair. but you not have kids? we work hard for our money. >> hundreds of thousands of families and middle and modest incomes. >> what are you doing this? we need to make some changes. -- why are you doing this? [laughter] >> is that being used? can we go in? >> you have it. >> within a few weeks of being elected, the conservatives would stop baby bond payments for families over 16,000 pounds.

>> don't worry. >> how can i help you? " what you been? " the conservatives would end the right to see a cancer specialist by your gp. >> you have it wrong. >> they do not want you to know what they would cut if they went on may 6. there is only one way to protect your tax credit, your child trust fund, and your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks.

vote labour on may 6. >> you are watching the british political party selection process. paid political ads are not permitted on tv. they have an allocation of air time that is free. this broadcast was released earlier this week by david cameron. > >> today sees the dawn of a new era in britain. we paint to change the very face of politics spirit we have listened -- we aim to change the very face of politics. we want to do away with the old

convention and set out a new vision. it is time for change. we will bring in behind closed doors politics. no public allowed. we want an end to transparency. under the table deals will be the order of the day. party political wrangling will dominate. those more interested in serving their careers than their countries. indecision and weak government. our country is crying out for clear leadership. we promise to provide indecision, in action, and half measures. we guarantee more dithering more politics. >> there's more election campaign on line. we now go to the white house for

president obama. >> the ongoing federal response to the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. i have dispatched secretaries of interior and homeland security as well as the epa, and the noaa administrator to the gulf coast to make sure we cannot seem to do everything necessary to respond to this event. i expect reports from the ground today. bp is ultimately responsible paying the cost for the cleanup operations. we are fully prepared to meet our responsibilities to any of the communities. we have been working close with the authorities since the day of the explosion. there are now five staging areas. 1900 federal response personnel are in the area. more than 300 response vessels

and aircraft are on the scenes. we have to wonder 17,000 feet of protected -- we have to wonder 17,000217,000 of boon and more n the way. we will make sure that any of these is going forward have those safeguards. we have dispatched teams to the gulf. all rigs and platforms to address safety security. but it seems to believe domestic oil production is an important part of our overall strategy. it must be done responsibly for the safety of our workers and our environment. local economies of the people of the gulf coast as well as the ecology are at stake.

we will can see to update the american people going forward. i would like to say a few words about the economy. the federal government measures the total output of goods and services our businesses and government produced. it determines whether our economy shrinking or growing. these single broadest measure of economic health. that measure all too often was delivering grim news. today is a different story. in the first quarter of last year our economy shrank at a rate of 6.4%. our economy grew 3.2% in the first quarter of this year. our economy as a whole is in a much better shape than it was one year ago. the economy that shrank has now grown for three quarters in a

row. that growth has been a condition for job growth. the comet that was losing jobs a year ago is -- the economy that was losing jobs a year ago is growing today. we are moving forward. our economy is stronger. the economic half a measure progress by a different polls. -- by a different pulse. i visited with folks in small towns of the midwest. the damage there is profound. they are trying to recover from it shock wave of lost homes and more than 8 million lost jobs. the tragedy has families too often feeling like they are on life-support. today's gdp report is an important milepost, it does not

mean much to an american who has lost his job. for millions of americans, our friends and fellow citizens ready and willing to get back to work, "you were hireare hired" e only news bit want to hear. government cannot replace every job that has been lost. is not the role of the government. it is america's business all across the country, private- sector, businesses that have always been and will be the engine of our job creation. our task is to create the conditions necessary for those businesses to open their doors and hire more workers. that is what we have tried to do. by cutting taxes for small business, by backing thousands of loans, and by making targeted

investments in areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest. there is likely energy. i have visited workers at a plant in iowa. a few short years ago, that plant was dark. today is live alive and matching blades for wind turbines. that facility capitalize on its growth by taking advantage of advanced energy tax credits in the recovery that was passed last year. they ended equipment and hire new workers at that plant. -- they added equipment and hired new workers. i call for an additional $5 billion into these projects to accelerate clean energy jobs.

every time a new factory or plant opens or expands, it becomes important to mo the economy. the ceo's and the workers we have here today kentucky the same thing. malcolm is a ceo. where did he go? there he is. this is a company that produces smart meters to help consumers analyze real-time data about how they use energy. they improve energy efficiency and save consumers money. they are part of the smart grid of tomorrow. the investment the recovery act made for the smart grid help increase demand for their product. they got their own advanced

energy manufacturing tax credit. their meeting the new demand and getting production lines at its plants in minnesota, where it has hired 40 new workers. james morris is here. he is one of the workers that has been hired. james is a native and recently found himself laid off after punching in fort 28 years. today he and his wife both work their. david over here is president and ceo of a-123 systems. they produce batteries for energy storage. last august, vice president biden announced that they want a

recovery grant for advanced battery technology. that helped them hire 44 new workers. it is supported the construction of three new plant in the state of michigan. they will hire more than 1000 workers by the end of this year. two of those workers, james and another are here today. they lost their previous jobs in the recession and that a-123 hired them to halt manufacture the batteries of tomorrow. a-123 has already begun construction of one new facility which is scheduled to go online july. they have announced plans to build a first pipe-bomb factory. -- the first -- there were

hoping to build that factory in asia. that plant will be one of 30 new plants to go fully operational over the next six years manufactured electrical batteries right here in the united states of america. this is what is possible in a clean energy economy. these folks right here doing extraordinary work. this is what happens when we placed our bets on american workers and american business. we will help them manufacture more success stories. we still have been a long way to go on our road to recovery. but today's news is another sign that we are on the right track. we'll keep doing everything we can to help our businesses power of our recovered and lead us to a more prosperous set of days in the future. thank you very much, everybody.

good job. >> are there solar panels going on the roof? >> president obama talking about the economy and jobs in a ceremony at the rose garden. we were talking about jobs or tand there is a forum going underway and we will cover it for you live on c-span3. it should be to dorothy height. we'll hear remarks from bill clinton and hillary clinton at the service from washington d.c. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. a c-span video library lincoln fact. there are nearly 6000 references

to abraham lincoln in art video library. you'll find lots of interesting programs online. there is c-span book, "abraham lincoln." >> the americans agreed to talk to the taliban and leadership. >> the taliban was written about and the rise of osama bin laden. he looks at what is next on "q &a," sunday night on c-span. >> we got reaction from former bush administration commerce secretary carlos gutierrez. the law that these questions do not have to be asked if it will hinder an investigation. host: on your screen now is carlos gutierrez, former commerce secretary.

you were listening during the first segment we were taking from illegal immigrants. and what are your thoughts? guest: it is all anecdotal, but if you have all of the anecdotes of, what you get is a very complex situation and there is always a tendency to believe it is actually very simple. it is not. it is very complex. it gets down to individual families, children who were born here, children who are on the high school little league team or high school football team and do not even know that they are here without papers, that their -- that they are here illegally. it sort of demand a solution that recognizes the human dynamic, in addition to the fact that it should recognize our economic necessities. we need immigrants. what we do not have is an immigration system and policy

and law. we are forcing employers to either close their businesses, move their family farms to mexico, or hire illegal workers. it is kind of a lose/lose situation. host: let's go ahead and put the numbers up and we will divide this by political affiliation. and if you happen to be watching this from outside the country, if you are outside the u.s. today and you want to call into you can call in and 202-628- 0184. again, that is for people outside the country. mr. secretary, you served in the commerce department. was immigration something you had to deal with? guest: absolutely, this probably

was my biggest issue i dealt with in 2006, 2007. host: why? guest: president bush wanted immigration reform passed. he asked the senate to come up with a bipartisan bill and i was in those meetings, literally every single day. with a group of senators, bipartisan, who were interested in getting this through. i can tell you, it was jon kyl on one hand and ted kennedy on the other. it was a bipartisan group and we have a 700-page bill, as comprehensive as you can imagine. any question you want known about immigration was in that bill, but it was dismissed by opponents by one word, amnesty. it was not amnesty because you needed, i believe it was 12 years, 12 to 18 years to get in line and eventually get a green card.

there was nothing automatic about it, or nothing that smacked of amnesty, but again, in a world of sound bites, people dismiss it in a word and is gone. but we still have this problem. host: arizona's new law, what are your thoughts? guest: as a managerial analysis, i think it is a poor use of resources. i think is bad law. but to put the police department' of arizona looking for people who are doing nothing more than working 12 to 16 hours a day and taking your eye off the ball from people who really do want to do us harm, i think it is very inefficient. i do not think it is representative of the kind of nation we are. host: do you think that eric

holder should pursue a lawsuit against arizona? guest: it is a legal question. i do not know. i do not know if that is the way it works. i do not know if that is the way it can work. i can imagine that there will be lawsuits coming from everywhere. and perhaps the only thing that this will change is that arizona will become a haven for lawyers. because lawsuits will be coming from everywhere. but eric holder, that is much -- is as much as a legal question as a policy question. host: you served as commerce secretary, ceo for a long time of kelloggs, and you are currently chairman of global strategies, which is what? guest: we have a group of 22 former officials from around the world. we're a part of a pr firm called

apco, very much affiliated with apco. we provide consulting services to companies going overseas, in some instances companies coming to the u.s. and the whole idea is that they have access to this group of people who work all over the world and have great experience and insight and judgment. and we also have the best of both worlds in the sense that we have the resources of a pr firm, in public affairs firm, to be able to use with customers. host: let's take some calls. the first call comes from tom in michigan. caller: everybody is up in arms about immigrants coming over to the u.s. and you really cannot blame them. basically, they're coming from a purple country and they want to better themselves, which is anybody's idea of -- coming from

a third world country and they want to better themselves, which is anybody's idea. instead of making their lives harder, has anyone thought about a kind of buyout to get into the united states? the united states is in trouble at times, but they want to get into it. have them by into getting here, or pay extra taxes. guest: that is a great point. in the bill that we had in 2007, the whole idea was that people would go forward and register and undergo a background check and it would have to pay a fine. and we talked about what the fine should be, but eventthat fe will eventually be agreed to and there will be a fine. and as you said, they will have to pay for the fact that they breached law.

it should be a fine commensurate with the crime. and that is the kind of thing that i hope we can get into a bill and it should be able to agree with. but i think you're absolutely right, these folks came here for very good and noble reason. they came here for the same reason that so many millions of people came here over the last to under 30 or 300 years. host: next call from newcastle, pa., lorraine, republican. caller: hello, my name is lorraine. i thank you for permitting me to be on c-span this morning. my grandparents did it come from italy and i understand the upheaval. but my question -- host: turned on the volume on your television. just listen to your telephone. go ahead with your question.

caller: my name is lorraine. thank you for having me on. host: we got all of that. and what is your question? caller: you were saying that these children are on baseball teams and what not, but don't you think that as a bold we -- as adults we should be responsible for the burdens we put on our children and the things they have to deal with by pulling them off their teams and having to be deported? this is more wrenching for me to hear what we are doing to these young children. guest: i agree with what you're saying. mass deportation is not an option. we have said that all along. in fact, the way we had approached the 2007 bill under president bush was to say, look, mass deportation, to round up 12 million people who have worked hard, contributed, the great

majority have stayed out of trouble, simply wanted to provide for their family, we are not going to round up and put them on buses and kick them out of the country. but we are also not going to hand them a passport. there is a compromise in between and that is exactly what we are looking for. i am so pleased that your report -- you are a republican. i am a republican, too, he proud republican, but very pro- immigration reform. host: and jeb bush has also come out against this bill. but it was an arizona legislature and republican governor who signed it. guest: that is right, and they have the right, constitutionally, to do that. i think it comes down to a very poor resources from a management standpoint. turning their police department toward people who come to be

gardners and working hospitality instead of going after people who are here to do as harm. host: california, jerome, independent. and we are talking u.s. immigration policy. caller: mr. gutierrez, i have a question for you. during your stay with the government working for the bush administration, did you ever consider placing immigration point across the border? in other words, where people leaving this country would possibly be searched and the things they are taking into mexico would be questioned? this is particularly relative to the arms being moved into mexico supplying the gains. these arms are not available in mexico. i have travelled extensively into mexico over the past 10 years and when i do travel i always keep in my possession a photocopy of my passport and my driver's license and i've been stopped numerous times by

mexican police both state and federal and never had any trouble. obviously, knock on wood. most of my mexican friends in southern mexican -- southern mexico are wonderful people and very hard working in family oriented. host: what is your question? caller: during your stay with president bush, have you ever considered whether people moving out of this country should be possibly searched or question? guest: i'm not sure if, and security would have done that. i can tell you in the concept of sharing responsibility for the mexican drug cartels and the drugs that are flowing into our country from mexico, and the violence, that we do see it as a shared responsibility. what they have asked us to do is to help with the inflow of weaponry that is going into forming this illegal army at our own borders. for our own national security.

i think you make a good point. but i do not know if that is being done. as people go into mexico, it becomes the accountability, the responsibility of the mexican customs officials to search who is coming in and make sure they are not bring in weapons. . . caller: there is a big effect from people who have not been to mexico and their families have been here for generations and generations. my family is from texas and they were there when it was a r laredo, mexico. i groped and remember the 1950's per week -- i grew up and remember the 1950's. my father would be interrogate

it on the way back. he hated it. on occasion, he would give the guy some grief or answer back in spanish. my mother would say, stop it. host: what is your question? caller: there is a big effect on all kinds of people who have never been to mexico and who suddenly will have to carry identification and who will be subject -- host: we appreciate the story. i do not know if you want to respond. what is the corporation level between the u.s. and mexico? guest: i think is probably the best it has been an on one hand, that is due to a strong, determined presence in the

mexican president. and the continuity of having worked with president bush and now with president obama, there is continuity of policy on our end. we want to get this problem fixed. we have the best shot today than we have had to work together and tackle and confront this problem. host: virginia beach, dan, republican. caller: i am not certain we know the number of people that we are calling illegal. did they start out that way? did they come here with work permits? i am not clear. i would ask your guest to provide us with some clarity. thank you. uest to provide us with some clarity on that. guest: the best estimate -- and these are all estimate -- we

typically use the number 12 million. now, i have to tell you 12 million was a number that we used three years ago. but this moves every year because of the work situation, the availability of jobs. it probably has stayed about 12 million. of those 12 million, three million are children who were born here. so they will never understand that somehow their parents have to be deported or they are not u.s. citizens or they are any less americans than any others. they probably don't speak spanish. so, it is tremendously complex. once you get into family by family you find that the disruption is quite remarkable. some people use 20 million. i don't think it is that high so i would stick with 12. host: we had several callers talk about their spouse being

illegal. what changed after 9/11? i thaought getting married was n automatic to citizenship. no? guest: i don't believe that that has changed. i don't know what their specific circumstances are. it could be different if he is a naturalized citizen as opposed to born in the u.s. there are different laws and regulations. i couldn't containing -- i couldn't tell if you that changed. host: are children born of illegals automatic citizens? guest: yes. host: pittsburgh, democrat, mark. you are on. mark is gone so we will move on to jan in mesa, arizona. republican. caller: yes. mr. guttierrez, i live here in arizona and it is so funny to

hear these people tell us what to do because we are in a war zone here. everybody can just make light of it, but it is horrible. when reagan promised us in 1986 or whatever that this would never happen again and that was three million, not 20 million. and nobody else covers our borders. we don't know what to do. and what nobody is telling everybody that wants to do all of this, you know, pathway to citizenship, these illegals will automatically get the same healthcare we get so we will put another 20 million on our healthcare. they will get all of our social services that we can't keep up with now. and you are talking about jobs people don't want. you know, it used to be that carpenters and roofers and pa t painters, we did do tease jobs but we can't do them any more. they are given to the low-ball workers. so, please -- but i don't think

they should talk about anything until they have prove our borders can be closed because not even my politicians have been able to close our borders. host: so, jan, you are supportive of the arizona law? caller: you bet. host: called it a war zone. what do you mean? caller: you don't know what our neighborhoods are like. like 20 years ago our mayor at the time tried to get where you couldn't have -- willis our law -- all these families in a room apartment. 20 people in a wuone-bedroom apartment. it is destroying neighborhoods and it is something we can't fight because the aclu, you say one thing and the aclu is there and the government, we are paying, our federal dollars are going for it and all the prot t protesters that they are showing in the capital in phoenix, they have pussed them in from texas and california.

those aren't our citizens. it is getting -- you don't know what it is like. we don't know who is in our state. some of the stories are touching but isn't it scary when who is in our country? how do we know? guest: it is a great point. and, listen, i don't live in arizo arizona, but i will say that from the sound of it here in d.c., it feels like we are putting a lot of resources, as you say, behind the problem that wae are not really sure if everyone we are after are the people who come to this country to hurt us. it is interesting, but as you say, we don't know who is living in the country, we don't know who is here. one of the benefits of

comprehensive immigration reform is that we will know who is in the country and we will know of those people who shouldn't be here. because they have to come forward and register and come forward and admit i am here illegally. that is when they go through a background check and go tkpwget fine and eventually get a legalization card, not a passport, a legalization card. and if they want to one day have a green card and passport they have to get in line. that will take them a long time to do. but with that legalization card that has biometrics on it and we can get to a stage where if someone doesn't have that card they should not even show up for a job because they are not going to get it. but in that whole process we will find out who is in our country. so, from a national security standpoint, immigration reform can help us understand how big a problem we have and who is here

who shouldn't be here, which is another frustration that national security is often used as an argument against imtkpwreugs reform whereas actually having a good workable immigration system would do wonders for our national security. host: she also talked about the drain which she called the drain on social services. guest: it is interesting that as a country, as we all know we are getting older and there are fewer people paying for more people to get their social security, to get their medicare. so we need to grow ourselves out of it. but one solution as we grow ourselves out and as we grow ourselves into an economy that can pay for these unbelievable liabilities or debts that we

have for future generations, immigrants can do that. they can help us because typically they are young, they work very hard. and as soon as they arrive, some of them are already contributing to medicare, social security and that stays here and is part of the price they pay. but that is one very viable strategy to help us deal with this tremendous tsunami we have coming at us, which is our entitlement programs and who will pay and how are we going to pay for that. host: john kavanaugh on yesterday the arizona legislator who helped craft the arizona bill, said that mexican towns are suffering greatly because young men and middle aged men are coming here so they are bereft of that labor force. guest: that is true. there was an article recently about how mexico's population

growth has declined over the hrlast 20 or 30 years. what is true is that what we get here is what we've always gotten, the most adventurous, the most ambitious, the most industrious, the people who are willing to risk it all for a better life. those are a country's finest in many ways. they may not have schooling but they have all the determination in the world to get a job, to work hard and make sure that their children go to school. so, yes, these are very industrious, adventurous, ambitious people. now the reality is we need them important mexico does because the jobs are here. again, family farms are going to move to mexico and r&d centers

will open in india because we can't find the people here. i wish people would understand that immigration is first and foremost pretty much an economic issue. if we want to grow and if we want to prosper we need immigrants. and we have never prospered without immigrants. and i just want to remind everyone that the last time we put a ban on immigration and declared war on immigration was in the 1920's, right before the great depression. i'm not linking one to the other, but it had -- it was one of those variables that led to this economic downturn. host: prior to becoming c.e.o. of kellogg how long did you live in mexico and when did you come to the u.s. from cuba? guest: we came out of cuba in 1960 and went to miami for a

little while, two years, where we stayed in a hotel. my father thought it was going to be a vacation because this man cannot stay. then we moved to new york and became u.s. citizens. then he got a job in mexico with heinz company, food company. that is how we ended up in mexico. i went to junior high school and high school in mexico. but the interesting thing is, because i was naturalized, when my son was born -- it just highlights the plight of an immigrant and refugee. when my son was born i needed to be in in the u.s. 10 years after the date of my 16th birthday. so i took his application to the desk at the embassy and said i want my son to be a u.s. citizen. i only had eight years. so i walked out without a pass support. it took me 14 years to eventually make my son a u.s. citizen. because of the little quirk in the law.

my other daughter was born in the u.s., then my other daughter, we went back to mexico, she was born in mexico but by that time i had the 10 years because i spent some time in the u.s. so it is very complicated and everybody has their story. but the great thing is that this country attracts the best people in the world, not including myself but people come here to do things. host: just on a practical level, do you think as, if you had been c.e.o. of kellogg's at the time and you went through it it would have been easier for you when your son was born? guest: well, no, i don't think so. what i noticed is when my son became a u.s. citizen, i was i guess by that time must have been in the u.s. company, i was

a corporate vice president, the c.e.o. had an interest in me. no, i had to stand in line with the rest of them and wait my turn and we had to do the exams and when i walked out of that courthouse in grand rafpdz, michigan, with my son -- my son and my wife -- i can't tell you how relieved i was that after 14 years they became u.s. citizens. so i understand this idea of free citizenship. citizenship cost and takes time and something you really want to have. the other myth here is that every person who is here who is not appropriately documented and is working wants to be a citizen. and in many cases they just want to be legal so they can work and one day go back to their hometown, be a hero, take back some dollars, and build a nice house and retire.

that is their vision of the future. it is not to become a u.s. citizen. some do want to be u.s. citizens but it is a multidimensional problem. host: next call for carlos guttierrez is from rochester, new york, shonda, independent line. caller: hi. i called independently but i'm a democrat and i'm an african-american and live in upstate new york. host: what is your question? caller: i was listening to your guest and he saeid men came illegally. that is all we want. i agree with the arizonans. i attend new york state and if i get stopped by the police i have to have i.d. that is the law. everyone in this country should have i.d. they should not have a problem showing the i.d. whether they are illegal or legally here.

i don't understand what the problem is. you keep saying these people ar coming over here because they are such hard workers. it is kind of senseless to me as a citizen because we have citizens that can do the same thing they are doing. they are prisoners. we can make our prisoners do the same thing if they are going to say they are hard workers. they can wait in line the same way you and your son waited. my problem is the word "illegal." we need to enforce our laws. guest: and we need to have a penalty or punishment that is consistent with the crime, with the action. i get the impression that no one will be satisfied until there is massive deportation. and i don't think that is the kind of stain that we want on our history.

the interesting thing is that the jobs that are supposed to be available for americans to do are not being filled by america americans. the only reason these folks can stay here is because they are making money. it is because they are doing work. and they are doing any type of wo work. i -- look, i look around places and i see a lot of people working very, very hard. i don't know what their status is. but there are jobs that will not go filled. someone mentioned to me the other day jobs, construction jobs are very manual jobs. we need to recognize 50 years ago about only 10% of our population had a high school degree. now we are talking about 30%,

close to 40%. host: you mean college. guest: no, high school. but think about that. 40 or 50 years ago it was 10%. so, a lot of people were looking -- would get into manual work saying this is not what i want to do but this is good for my family. we have a new generation of people who don't necessarily want to do that, who don't necessarily want to pick lettuce even though it is a job. so, i think that we can make a big mistake by assuming that this tag line that americans will do the job is real and if it turns out not to be real we are in deep trouble. two numbers for you. the number of h-2-a visas, for

farm workers, the quota is 10,000. i have seen estimates, depending on how fast the economy will grow and how fast the exports will grow, that we need hundreds of thousands of workers every year to be coming in to work. we can talk about whether they come in and leave and are temporary, but we need an influx to keep our farms alive. so, since there are only 10,000 allowed legally, we are forcing farmers to either hire illegals or go out of business. and i think that we should give our businesses a pwbetter alternative than that. and that is the federal government's role. on the high school side, this is not just about low skilled. on the high school guide our quota of 75,000 h-1-b visas

which is for students to work here, graduates to work here, are not -- they are filled by the month of january. so, every high tech company and every company is in need of foreign scientists, kids who come here to get a p.h.d. in the best university in the world and then have to go home with the . p.l.d. and join a company that can compete with a u.s. company. we have this wrong. and every country in europe has this problem. russia has this problem, china, japan, all getting older, don't have enough people. their workforce isn't growing fast enough to grow their economy at 3% or 4% or 5%. and they are having a real tough time with immigration. we have all heard the european stories. it is not working, they don't understand it, they don't have a history with it. russia, china, we understand it. we know000 deal with -- we know

how to deal with it. if we get a good comprehensive immigration reform system right that gives us all of the maybe we need, we could have a competitive advantage for the next centuriment host: on our republican line estelle from memphis, tennessee. you are on the air. caller: good morning. with all due respect, mr. guttierrez, i must disagree with you. i think it is people like you that don't understand the system. i work directly with the illegal problem. what they were doing is getting social security numbers. there was a system that existed. they said in there that they could not speak english. i just witnessed it on a daily

basis. my friend works for the social security office. she is absolutely up sent -- of set. this is the system. they use these illegal social security numbers and they apply for a green card. when the green card gets approved, these people who are legal, breaking the law, go into the social security administration and tell them, i was working under this number. now i have my green card. i want all of my credit transferred over to my legal number. they change it. they've been doing it for years. host: when it comes to u.s. immigration policy, what changes would you like to see? caller: i would like to see them deported.

i would like to see the system that we have in place the respected and followed. guest: if we deport all the people who are here without appropriate documents, we will suffer for it we will suffer economically. we paying a heavy price. -- we will be paying a heavy price. the points that you are making are good ones. good. social security numbers and being falsified. that will have to come out and we are going to have to figure out a way of dealing with that and dealing with that in a legal fashion. but until we address it, until we confront it, we still don't know who is in the country.

we still don't have a way of keeping track. and we still don't know who we should be looking into in terminals of their background -- in terms of their background. but for me as a republican, i think our party has always been about growth, prosperity, entrepreneurship, small business, free enterprise. and without immigration we will have none of that. we need immigration to grow, we need immigration to prosper, we need immigration to continue our free enterprise system. we should do it in a legal way. we should set up a system that allows us to do it legally. host: time for two more calls with our guest former commerce secretary carlos guttierrez. manhattan, new york, craig, democrat. caller: good morning, c-span, good morning mr. guttierrez. any time you pass a law you

might get 70 people to agree with it, you might get 30 people who don't agree with it. since some of these people have some problems following the law, what do do you remember with the people who decide i have been doing ok, why should i turn myself in? i will stay under the wire like i have been doing and things are going all right for me now. guest: that is a good question. we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those biometric cards with a thumb print or something like that, that belongs to each person, that essentially is this legalization card, we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those you shouldn't even try to get a job because those are the people who we should be looking for, the people who didn't come forward,

the people who didn't register, who did say fine, i came in here legally but i want to work, i haven't committed crimes, i just need to do it legally. the people who don't come forward, that is who we should be trying to stop and not the people who are here to work, which is essentially why i call the arizona law a very inefficient law. host: our last call for our guest is from linda in lorena, texas. caller: i am glad to talk to you with your background and view of the subject. i have a practical solution that could be employed with a system as you are speaking that would be fair and take the police out of the idea of illegals in this

country to american citizens. and that is addressing the drain on our social services system, our hospital systems, school syste systems, and driving without licenses and insurance. my mother was hit by somebody with an unlicensed person and no insurance and he was deported. she had a broken back as a result. no insurance to cover that. they can't afford to pay into the insurance pool even if they could get insurance. guest: that is a great point because once these workers who are here who have a job, who we ne need, have a form of legal station -- legalization, a card that allows them to work in the u.s., then they have to be part of the system. that system means taxes, it means medicare, social security.

it means being part of our system and being part of the legal system. so, instead of being deported before the trial they would stay here for the trial because they would be subject to u.s. laws. so, it is a way of integrating these folks. a and, look, i'm convinced this discrimination a lot of people criticize that they haven't integrated into society. very hard to integrate into society when you are paranoid. but i can tell you this, they don't speak english but their children will speak english and their children will go on to school and will become scientists and engineers and lawyers and business people and they will help our society grow the way immigrants have always done. so, for me this is a matter of economic prosperity and viability of our country. if we stop immigration, we are

going to stop growing. and that should be a concern for every american because i don't think anyone wants to give up our standards of living. host: politically both president obama and the republicans on capitol hill seem to have taken immigration off the table. guest: the president said last night he feels that congress doesn't have an appetite for this. and i have heard other members say that. what people are worried about, republicans an democrats in -- and democrats in the congress, is that some members of congress want to use this to pick a political fight. not to get reform but to pick a political fight in an election year. so, for example, we all heard and it was all over the papers that senator reid went to nevada for a campaign, he got an earful from business people, from groups about the need for immigration reform. he game back saying we are going to have immigration reform this

year. so a lot of people see that as tactical. and i believe we have one shot at this, one more shot. we didn't get it in 2007, we failed. if we don't get it the next time we could be waiting another five years. so, we have to do it right. and if anyone is talking about immigration and just, you know, throwing out the rhetoric on immigration but isn't really serious about passing a bill, then they are doing a tremendous disservice to the country and to the people who are hoping that they will help themm eventually >> just over 35 minutes, up

we'll be live at the national press club for navy secretary. he'll be asked about the navy's efforts to assist in the gulf oil spill. until then, back to the issue of immigration. he joined us on yesterday's "washington journal." screen is state representative john kavanagh, republican of arizona, a major proponent of the new immigration law. are you surprised by the reactions after your assigned in by the governor? guest: not at all. anything that has to do with illegal immigration get to a lot of attention, raises a lot of passion. this was totally expected. what was not expected was the great amount of misinformation that is being thrown around. that is causing a lot of unnecessary alarm. host: we are giving you the opportunity to talk about that

misinformation. i am just going to let you describe it. there are many points that people have heard, whether or not it will cause racial profiling, whether or not it will upset relations between the citizens and police department. make your case, please. guest: there are a lot of moving parts to the law, but let us focus on the ones that are getting attention. no city can tell it's police officers that they cannot inquiry into the immigration status of somebody that they lawfully contact. we make a few exceptions, but that was the problem. we also require police officers now, when they reasonably suspect that someone they are lawfully contacting is an illegal alien, that they question that person. this is simply extending a

policed tool called stop and question, created by the supreme court in 1968. the court says any time a police officer reasonably suspects that a person may be, it is about to become or had just committed a crime, they may detain them and question them about the activity. we are now doing this with immigration. as this went through the committee hearing process, we had a lot of input. civil-rights advocates were concerned about racial profiling. we thought that their case was reasonable, so we wrote into the law that a police officer may not use race or ethnicity as the sole person is -- purpose for the reasonable suspicion. and to the extent that they do use it, only one is allowed by federal law. we had a police chiefs saying that we do not want our men doing these things when there

are other things occurring. so we wrote into the law, this reasonable suspicion only has to be done when it is practical to do so. so if an officer is doing one of the stop and question, and over the radio a robbery in progress alarm comes up, the officer would let that person go and respond to the more urgent crime. it is a matter of practicality. i am a retired detective sgt. we are concerned that this may scare away crime witnesses. we wrote into law, these questions do not need to be asked if they hinder an investigation. so we took care of those concerns. would you like to go into depth on that section? host: i would like to move on.

our callers will ask more. guest: another part deals with day laborers. we have a big problem where day laborers stand on the street corners and potential employers drive up to hire them. it causes traffic problems, disruptions in communities, demonstrations, littering -- it is a very negative thing. in addition, this streetcorner labor pickup is bad for the state. most of these people work off the books, so they work off the books, you do not get fair labor laws. many of the people that do they labor are illegal immigrants. so we put into the law, if you stand by the roadside to get work, it is illegal if it impede

traffic. we had to include that to make it constitutional. we also have sections that say if you knowingly transport an illegal alien or harbor them, or concealed them, you are also guilty of the state offense. with respect to that law, you also have to be doing another offense. religious people, clergy, social service agencies, were concerned that perhaps somebody driving an illegal alien to work through they did not know could be arrested. of course, it is only nominally when you know when the transport and illegal where you are guilty. but to go the extra month to take care of the concerns, we added that not only must you know that they are illegal, but you must be committing another crime. we are really trying to focus humans smugglers here. also, if you are picking up

people for work. your vehicle can be impounded. we also made a state crime to be in the u.s. illegally. in the u.s. illegally. so those are democracy work. as he went to the committee process, as different groups raised these concerns, we address them, we change the law. we think it is a good law. host: i want to pick up on that. we here in washington that there will be challenges in the court, but one of those coming from the government itself. the justice department is weighing suing arizona to block the immigration law and they suggest -- there is a debate going on and that the white house will make the final call giving that the issue is fraught with legal implications. we talk about the fact that it will survive those challenges? guest: it will. it is scary when washington just

does not talk about the legal issues and our law, we're talking about the political issues. when you talk about litigation, that is scary. that is part of the problem. the obama administration is clearly not enthusiastic about illegal immigration enforcement. the bush administration dropped the ball on security -- on border security. the obama administration cannot even find the ball. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a virtual fence because the people who were sympathetic to illegals did not like the idea of the real fence that actually keeps people out. we did not think the virtual fence would work. now two weeks ago they scrapped the whole idea. the obama administration is cutting back on border patrol agents. it became obvious to arizona

that the federal government was not going to protect us. in fact, they are going backwards. that is why we are going to uphold law ourselves. now they want to invalidate our law. the justice department and white house showed really read their own prosecutors manual. in fact, i have a couple pages from the manual. section 19-18 from the criminal manual. this is the manual that u.s. attorney's work from. let me read you a bit of it. this section deals with an arrested illegal aliens by state and local officers. specifically authorize the state and local offices to "enforce criminal laws and make arrests for violations." there was also a general federal

statute which authorizes certain authorities to make arrests for violations of federal statutes. the fifth circuit of appeals has held that this authorizes local officials to issue processes of the arrests to be executed by law enforcement. rule four provides an arrest warrant shall be executed by a martial or some other authorized by law, which includes state and local offices. section 439. also mentions local offices being able to pick up illegal aliens. here is the best one of all. the u.s. versus holiness calderon, a 10th circuit case. it persons appeared to be illegal aliens, the u.s. court of appeals held as follows. a state trooper had general investigative authority to inquire into illegal immigration

status. it goes on to the ninth circuit court. their own prosecuting manual mentioned multiple federal statutes, multiple court rulings, all that say the same thing. local law enforcement can make arrests. we have been doing it for decades. this whole new thing that we cannot is wishful thinking on the part of opponents of the bill that fly in the face of case law and rulings from the attorney general's office. host: we have said from the beginning that this has got a lot of attention. doug on the independent line. california. caller: i am kind of nervous, if you could bear with me. there is a simple way to take care of this. that is punishing the employers. if they were fined $10,000 for

any illegal found on their work place, first time, every time, from this point forward, across the country, there would not be an illegal alien working anywhere. i am not against people coming here, but it has to be legally. they should use e-verify, and that way the employers would not have any excuse about their status. the reason we have the problem that we have is because of lobbyists. you have 10 million different laws, but if you put the employee responsible first, because they are the ones hiring, and you put a mandatory jail term on them, just like you would for anybody -- host: i am going to jump in

because we understand your point. john kavanagh, your response? guest: the government does have some internal border enforcement. i do not think it is strong enough, not done often enough. there was just a case in arizona where instead of making an arrest, they said a letter to the company saying that these employees may be illegal. we addressed this issue in arizona two years ago by passing an employer's sanction law. an employer who knowingly employers and the illegal alien, on the second offense, the company loses their business license. i agree, this is an important tool. anti-illegal immigration activity has to be multifaceted. you have to secure the border, go after the illegal aliens, go after those who employ them,

take away their benefits, and you take other measures to make it as uncomfortable as possible to live in this country. then rather than having immigration sweeps, disturbed people, and rightfully so, these people will leave on their own as the jobs are no longer there. host: from an economic standpoint, you say to make it as uncomfortable as possible, but many believe that they are doing the jobs that americans do not want to do. what is your response to that? guest: we have 9.7% unemployment in arizona. i do not think these people are sitting by idly. i think that is a bogus argument. granted, there could be some backbreaking, cheap jobs that americans do not want to do. i was in the yuma observing the

vegetable packing. but we have a guest worker program. we bring in workers across the border to do this work. they do it the right way. they do not let these people stay here for ever. they do not let them bring their families so we are burdened with education and other social costs. they only come in a few months at a time, and then they go back home. so they reestablished that connection with their families. immigration is this going mexico and other countries that send large numbers of their young, healthy man up here. i read in the "new york times" that there are villages in mexico that are devoid of young men because they are all here working. they do not come back to visit, they are lonely, they abandon their families. there are a lot of victims of illegal immigration, and many of

them are in mexico, but they will not admit it because they want the money. host: next phone call. caller: i want to commend you for what you are doing down there in arizona. what you have to understand is, here again, the politicians are behind this. if you check out every working person in america, the vast majority are opposed to making 30 million -- and it is not 11 million, those are lies. 30 million illegal citizens. just like here in washington yesterday, somebody said that he wants to pass a resolution in a council where our city will not do business with arizona. who the hell is he to speak for washingtonians? this is the kind of thing that we have to be mindful of i am glad that you are taking a stance down there.

mr. obama needs to be working on jobs instead of immigration. that is what he needs to be working on. before this is over with, we might all have to be working in strawberry fields and chicken factories because it is going to be a long time before jobs come back to america. even before the great depression, gas did not come back until the war. these jobs that people say americans do not want, and i do not believe that. i never see anyone jumping up and down in the streets for legalizing. host: he talked about washington, d.c. council actions. i have heard about other areas discussing economic reprisals. it is arizona concerned about that? guest: not at all. first of all, there is a full-

court pressure on public relations-wise to kill this bill. it was started by the governor -- it was started to intimidate the governor. she held her ground and has signed it. now you have people claiming both accounts. the bottom line is, these politicians do not represent american opinion. they may represent it in a few areas, like san francisco. we had the mayor of phoenix oppose this bill and said that the knicks would sue. you went back to the city council and then said that we are not going to do anything. in arizona, rasmussen poll, three-one of supporters support the bill. hispanic supporters -- voters support this bill. maybe a couple of councilmen in washington will boycott, but the

people of america support this bill. after we get rid of a large number of these illegals and our streets become safer, because they cause a lot of crime, more people will come to arizona. host: critics say that you envision a country where we all carry papers to prove our citizenship. what do you think of that? guest: i appreciate your bringing that myth up. as if we were going back to nazi germany. there is no law that requires anyone to carry documents. this mistaken belief, mistakenly put forward, is based on a section of the law that actually does the reverse. if you are being stopped and questioned because of reasonable suspicion, and you have certain government-issued documents, you

are presumed to be here illegally. if you voluntary show the police officer those documents, you are on your way, like an arizona driver's license, tribal identification card, birth certificate. so if you do it, if it is the right document, you have proven legal residence, you can walk away free. host: new york city. beverly, democrat's line. caller: sir, you started off by reading the federal laws against illegal immigration. since you read them, it is quite similar to what you enacted. why do you have to make new laws? why not just follow federal law? also, you just mentioned documents.

if a person is picked up and he voluntarily gives documents, he is off the hook. what happens if he does not have the documents? how does he prove that he is legal? does he go to jail first? i am not saying i am against it, but there are a lot of questions, a lot of things in the federal government that can take care of this, so why enact this law? why not just follow the federal government? government? guest: we are incorporating the federal laws into arizona laws. that is all we're doing. people are saying, you are printing federal law. we're not. we are incorporating federal law. all of the of that -- objections to all of these laws -- these

laws are already in place. it is already a federal law for anybody who is not a citizen of the u.s. to have to carry documents in this country. that is a federal law that already exist. we did not even adopt that one completely. if you have these documents and you voluntarily give them, you're proving that you are here legally. police officers cannot stop anybody and say, are you you're legally? -- are you here legally? under this law, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is here illegally. this will only occur after the person has been lawfully stopped for some other offense, maybe a traffic offense. if a police officer polls over somebody who rolls to a stop sign and the individual says the

did not have a driver's license. the officer says, why not? the driver said, it is suspended. the officer goes to his radio, checks the records, discovers that there is no issued license. he goes back to the driver, there is no license issued in your name. have a mexican license. i came from over there. when did you come, how did you get here illegally? did they give you paperwork? do you have document? you have a green card. what color is it? you know green cards are not green. that is how you build reasonable suspicion. when there are independent, observable facts and that creates suspicion. all that does is allow a brief questioning about immigration status.

during the questioning, police will be looking for lies, conflicting answers, or evasive answers. as the person gives those and as he observes, each response is another grain of sand. it all goes on a scale. the stock occurred because there was reasonable suspicion. if it does not go beyond that, they will not be detained for immigration status. but as the law is, as evasive answers continue, that will probably tip the scales over. but if questioning does not yield the additional information to go to probable cause, this person will be released. it is a half century-year-old

tool that police are used to working with, and every police officer in arizona is being updated with this training which will give him good and bad reasons to suspect the legal status in this country. . 20 years as a police officer with the port authority of new york and the new jersey police department retiring as a protective sgt. in addition to serving in the state legislature, he teaches criminal justice at scottsdale community college bridge prior to that, arizona state university. we are talking about arizona's

new immigration law. tcaller: good morning. caller: i want to preface this to say caller: i want to preface this the guy has been here for centuries. outrageous. i have a friend whose family has been here since before there was a united states of america. he speaks spanish. the was walking down the street -- if he is walking down the street with his wife or his kid saw and he just wants to speak spanish to the officer, on face

value it looks like the south african apartheid. guest: under those circumstances there is no grounds to do any kind of even questioning about the person's immigration status. this law requires reasonable subsume division based on how observable facts -- reasonable suspicion based on observable facts. speaking spanish, being spanish, that is not browns for someone to report -- for some to suspect -- that is not browns for someone to suspect that you are here illegally. host: what would be grounds? guest: there is one situation that i can think of, you are near a federal detention center

and you see someone running away from it in an orange jumpsuit. other than that, nobody is going to be pulled over or question it simply because they speak spanish, they look spanish. that is racial profiling and we specifically put in a bill that you cannot use race and ethnicity alone. and you can only use it to the extent prohibited by federal law -- allowed by federal law. if an officer stops and question someone because they are spanish, the officer is in violation of civil rights and this new law. that is the case of about officer, not a bad law.

nobody is coming out and saying because a few rogue cops racially profiled in traffic stops -- a few cops racially profiled in traffic stops, nobody should make traffic stops a draw. you get rid of the few bad cops, not a good law. host: on the federal law versus state law, let me have you respond to a headline in the "washington post." the arizona law does not merely mirror federal law has its defenders insists, it broadens and usurps it. we do guest: not broaden the federal law guest:.

we do not broadened -- guest: we do not broadened federal law. we did not create our own immigration law. the we did not even change immigration law. in a couple of areas we made it more difficult -- in the case of transporting and concealing. in federal law, merely transporting and concealing makes you guilty. we added that there should be another crime because we did not want its passers to be concerned. now they say that we are doing the wrong thing. it makes no sense. we are not requiring documentation to be carried. federal law does. why is the "washington post" not complaining about federal what? we have more safety is to prevent people from being inadvertently arrested. i have the prosecutors manual.

it clearly states multiple court decisions that law-enforcement locally has and can enforce these laws. host: republican line from arizona. thank caller: you. you have been very -- caller: thank you. you have been very direct, sir. i appreciate your knowledge and you have answered most of my questions. this is a sovereign country and we exist without chaos with laws. my husband was stopped coming on because his right front headlight had garnered and the first thing an american citizen or anyone is s is for your -- is asked is for your driver's license and registration. if he did not produce those he would be in trouble because it

is the law. people are worried are hurting people's feelings. illegal immigration is hurting our feelings and causing us a lot of problems. a police officer has the right to say, what is your name and what are you doing. if you are here, you should have your documents just like we have to provide our driver's license and proving shirt -- proof of insurance. if they are here illegally, first of all, they do not have a driver's license and insurance information, that is suspect. every illegal, from canada, mexico, the middle east, wherever -- we cannot afford it economically and this is a political situation.

they want a blanket amnesty again so they can get 14 million votes to stay in office to usurp our laws. if we citizens have to observe them, everybody else house to and it is not -- past two and it is not a civil-rights issue. and -- if we have to observe them, everybody else has to and it is not is a rights issue. guest: thank you for the compliment. prior to my years in june -- in new jersey, i spent years in new york. that is where my directness comes from. i will stop going westward because the next area would be california and they pretty much messed up their stayed with immigration. but the caller does raise an excellent point about the cost of illegal immigration. in arizona, the cost of -- the costs are backbreaking.

millions of dollars. the when you talk about the cost of educating their, children, medical care and other government services, it runs into probably $2 billion a year. add to that the more expansive benefits that the legal children of illegals because they were born here and you are pushing pro with $3 million or $4 million a year. -- probably $3 billion or $4 billion a year. the 5 cents you save on a hamburger is not all wilthe who. those that work on the books under false i.d., their salaries are usually so low that they pay virtually no income taxes. they draw more benefits and dollars than they contribute.

this should be replaced with a guest worker program to the extent that we need additional labor. and those immigrants that we allow in -- and we will need a lot of immigrants coming into the future as us baby boomers retire -- i would rather draw the law-abiding foreigners who are in their countries on waiting lists doing it the right way to be screened coming into this country. i do not want launderers who pushed ahead of these good people. -- ahman jumperlawn jumpers whod of these people. host: there is a piece with the headline "y arizona?" he writes the immigration statute is legal.

it gives police officers on another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens when they're in their normal enforcement the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of america with more than two under 40 incidents in 2008. -- 240 incidents in 2008. next telephone call for john kavanaugh, who is with us for about five more minutes is from new york city, paul arm the democrats line. -- bahaulah on the democrats line. caller: my name is paulick. if i agree with this bill of 100%. wish we had this in new york city. across the street were there during