arizona immigration law. will join us. an stein [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] host: campaign 2012 continues with primaries in five states. voters in connecticut, delaware, new york, rhode island, and pennsylvania go to the polls to pick party candidates for president and congressional races. we'll bring you mitt romney's comments from new hampshire tonight after all the polls close. the road to the white house is where we'll begin today as "washington journal." how important is the vice-presidential pick to you? you can also send us your comments via twitter, facebook,

and e-mail. former vice-president dick cheney had his first event yesterday since his heart surgery last month. he's at the washington center in an interview with c-span, he was asked about the decision that a vice-presidential -- that a presidential candidate makes, excuse me, when choosing his running mates. here's what he had to say. >> i've been involved in a couple of vice-presidential searches and some more successful than others. the thing that i think is important to remember is that the decision you make as a presidential candidate is the first presidential level decision that the public sees you make. the first time you're making a decision that you're going to have to live with. it gives the public a chance to watch you operate and see what

you think is important and what kind of individuals you choose to serve as your running mate and what are the criteria and the single most important criteria has to be the capacity to be president. host: so we turn to all of you this morning. how important is the vice-presidential pick? this is the washington times bringing us 2012. shows a picture of g.o.p. presidential hopeful mitt romney thanking senator mark rubio of florida after he introduced him in florida. mr. rubio is widely seen as a contender on the g.o.p. ticket. and then the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning has number one contender to be romney's number two, showing the two candidates at yesterday's town hall meeting. and inside the paper this morning, the "wall street journal," it says this. while mr. romney has criticized

mr. obama for inexperience, he faced questions about whether mr. rubio of the florida house of representatives would be qualified to take over as president if necessary. supporters of mr. rubio's argue he could bolster mr. romney's standings with conservatives and hispanics but a poll said mr. romney's head-to-head number would rise by 2% points among hispanic voters if mr. rubio were added to the ticket. so yesterday, the two held a town hall meeting. want to show you what mitt romney had to say when he was asked about his haven'tial pick. >> i don't have any comments or individuals to serve in various positions and governments at this stage. that's something we'll be considering down the road.

host: so who would you like to see mitt romney pick as republican? democrats think back to 2008 and whether or not the v.p. pick was important to you, how has it been important throughout history as well. and the "l.a. times" yesterday had this piece where they said there was a lot riding on romney's veep stakes. they say the importance of vice-president is not for elect roll reasons. the most disastrous choices have been found have negligible impacts. instead, as recent history shows, the top of the ticket is both choosing a crucial member of a policy team and naming his potential successor for the party's nomination from 1836 until 1960, when richard nixon broke the streak, only haven't who is moved up due to the death

were later able to claim the party for presidency -- host: so again, here are phone numbers --

host: nancy says this -- nick says this -- so while we wait for your phone calls to come in, let me show you some other headlines this morning. here is the "hill" newspaper, boehner, the speaker of the house says the house is in play. here's the story. he said monday his party faces a real challenge in holding on to its majority in the house. in an interview on fox news scheduled to air today, he predicted the g.o.p. will keep control of the house but he is less certain than many of his republican colleagues and a number of non-partisans prognosticators. i believe we will but we've got a real challenge. ohio lawmaker put the odds at 2-1 that the g.o.p. will be running the house in 2013.

and then on the senate side, here is the "new york times" this morning with this story. conservative groups spending heavily in bid to win senate majority in states in some of the most competitive races, republican allies are spending more money on advertisements than their democratic counterpart than the candidates themselves combined. there's not only the race for the white house but there is the race for the house and the senate. grace is a democrat in ohio. grace, what do you think? how important is the v.p. pick to you? caller: i feel like -- host: we're listening, grace. caller: i feel like that the vice-president is going to have to tell romney what to do because i'm not sure if he knows either and i'm waiting for the first democrat to say you know, if we can buy beer, wine, whisky, all the toys that we

have, we can surely buy some insurance so my insurance won't be so high. i'm in my 80's and i really -- host: hey, grace, can i have you stick to the topic about the v.p. who do you think of those that have been mentioned for v.p. pick on the republican side, who do you think would be the most -- a stronger team against the democrats? who do you think could pose a real challenge? caller: probably portman from ohio. host: why is that? caller: but the others don't seem to have much experience. but then again, we get into back to the bush era and do we want that? host: ok.

because of rob portman serving in the administration? caller: yes. host: well, the "washington post" yesterday had this piece about an informal survey that was done with republican party insiders. and their top choice would be as you said, rob portman. but they go on to say that romney spent the entirety of his campaign casting himself and smartly as an outsider to washington. and in the early days of the general election, romney is aiming to draw insider vs. outsider contrast against president obama and romney's officials make no attempt to hide their disdain for the way of washington. choosing someone who is seen as a favorite then could erode rather than bolster the contrast romney is trying to drive again. the incumbent john mccain picked sara palin as his running mate in 2008. he self-neutered his strongest argument against obama. that she was not qualified for

the job. goes on to say in a different poll earlier this month showed florida senator mark rubio placed second. george, you're a republican. who would you like to see? caller: well, i favor governor bush, jeb bush of florida, former governor jeb bush. he's indicated and implied pretty strongly in very recent days publicly that he would accept the nomination. there's an old song that those who seek the nomination won't get it and i don't think it would be fair to say he was seeking it. host: george, george will wrote a column that jeb bush is not going to be the v.p. candidate and reuters said he would be a bold choice but he would

overshadow romney? caller: well, he would be a bold choice but he would not overshadow romney in mien. and i have the greatest respect for george will. i read his column for 40 years regularly. but mr. will is not always correct. he may be correct that -- in this case that governor bush is not as likely as some others such senator portman of ohio. he's considered a safe choice in order to carry ohio. i think governor romney could carry ohio without the respect of senator portman could carry ohio without senator portman on the ticket. host: do you think that should be part of a calculation? picking a big state that had more electoral votes or should it be more about experience? caller: that's a good question. i think it should be about both. they're not mutually exclusive goals. host: so then what do you think

of mark rubio? we read from the "wall street journal" that could undermine romney's argument that president obama is in over his head if he chose marco rubio as his running mate. caller: well, marco rubio is very well regarded. a fine young senator. he is young. he's been speaker of the house in florida as i understand which is a position of responsibility. but he is young and his appeal is that he would carry the hispanic vote and carry florida for the ticket because of the hispanic vote in south florida. and that may be the case, but governor bush is married to a hispanic and is known to be moderate on the immigration issue. and i think that florida would be at least as likely to go

republican than on november 6 with governor bush as the nominee for vice-president as would be the case for senator rubio with the nominee host: on that point about the -- nominee. host: on the point about latino vote. obama vs. romney. a toss-up in that state showing a statistical dead heat. 42% said they would vote for mitt romney while 40% said they would support president obama and 18% were undecided. that's in arizona. this comes as the supreme court tomorrow on wednesday, takes up arizona's immigration law. we're going to be talking about that a little bit later here on the "washington journal." we'll have a roundtable discussion for and against that arizona law. but then there's also this headline. here's the "houston chronicle."

mexican migration to u.s. at a standstill. the greatest influx in this country's history has ground to a hat. for the first time since the 1930's, the number of mexican immigrants legal and illegal coming to the u.s. from 2005 to 2010 was less than the number leaving according to a new report released monday by the pew hispanic center. we'll go to mike in chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. well, you know as far as the vice-president pick goes -- hello? host: yeah, we're listening. caller: ok. well, you know, i don't think it really matters on the vice-presidential pick because, you know, the system is kind of rigged up and with corporate

international weasels that have bought and sold us out, you know, nafta, iran contra, the iraq war, profiteering. my vote doesn't count. it's all corporate aimed and that's who runs the show here. host: so you have no thoughts on vice-presidentials? it just doesn't matter? caller: well, ohio is running by a governor that voted for nafta and involved in lehman brothers and attorney general with the kaeding five. so what does that tell you? caller: pick george bush, for example, a murderous coward picked dick cheney and together, they slaughtered a million women

and children. host: all right. caller: so it's very important. host: pam, republican in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: we're listening, pam. what are your thoughts? caller: my thoughts are i am a christian. my choice for president would be newt gingrich and vice-president sara palin. i support romney if he becomes the frontrunner but i believe sara palin was chosen by god and i believe that she is the only one that has the guts and the determination to clear up washington like she did in alaska. >> here is an article in the "wall street journal" --

host: and then the -- on the race for the white house and the battleground that could be new hampshire, the "boston globe" this morning says it could be a decisive battleground on that state. new hampshire offers a mere four electoral votes but president obama and mitt romney are pursuing the hearts and minds of the granite state finicky electorate in a race that could come down to the wire. he plans to make some comments after all the polls close tonight, mitt romney. "washington times," mr. romney at that pennsylvania town hall meeting was joined by.

secretary tom bridge who used to back john hunt. he picked up an endorsement from new york city mayor rudy giuliani who described mr. romney as the kind of man who "will say anything to become president." mr. gingrich has focused his attention on the 17 delegates up for grabs in delaware where he is recently picked up a few endorsements including one from the former speaker of the delaware house and one from kent county republican. and mr. paul continues to draw large crowds to his rally including by his campaign's count, more than 4,000 on hand at an event on independents mall in philadelphia. that's the latest on the other two candidates and still in the presidential primary race. morristown, new jersey, paul, an

independent. we're talking about v.p. pick. is it important? caller: yes, it's very important. the wrong pick can hurt the candidate. the nominee for president if it's the wrong pick. but the right pick can reassure the country, and i think that's very important and could help the person up the nominee carry have a certain state or certain democratic. host: so paul, you're an independent. have you decided how you're going to vote? caller: probably supporting for mr. romney. host: ok who do you want to see him pick? caller: there's no perfect choice but the best choice at least at this point would be the governor in virginia. host: why is that? caller: he would be a reassuring figure. he is the governor. he's attorney general of the state and has a military background. i think reassuring to the country that he's ready to serve. he would be reassuring to republicans that he -- romney

had that issue, he seems to be around the right age. so i think it might be what romney is looking for. but there's no perfect candidate for that role, but he might be the best. host: ok so you're an independent. i mean, is the virginia governor too conservative for you? caller: excuse me? host: you're an independent. is the virginia governor too conservative for you? caller: no, not at all. that's not my issue. host: boston. joe, a democrat up there. go ahead. caller: yes. i like to call myself a harry truman democrat. not a dukakis democrat. but the very much candidate is very important and to -- v.p. candidate is very important and i think marco rubio would be a great choice for romney.

i'm very disappointed the current administration. the country needs someone to bring them together and i think marco rubio would send that message. i'm not going to change. host: so joe, what do you think? should president obama maybe take vice-president joe biden off the ticket for this upcoming election? for somebody else new on there? caller: well, i think it would be too late to be honest with you, but i find him to be a comic relief. he's always put his foot in his mouth. he's the gift that keeps giving according no romney. he's just funny. he's just a funny guy. he probably ought to keep his mouth shut and maybe they ought to keep him in the background. host: the atlanta journal constitution. social security woes deepen.

we're going to be discussing medicare's future coming up here in about 20 minutes or so and talk about the future of the medicare program. one note from the report is that more than 100,000 people -- additional people joined the medicare program in 2011. and then "pittsburgh post gazette" has this story about the john edwards case. ex-edward aide takes stand against former boss. andrew young was much more an aide to john edwards. the linchpin against the ex-presidential candidate spent long hours driving to and from political events with the rising democratic star. that is what came out of yesterday's trial proceedings in greensboro, north carolina, courtesy of the "pittsburgh post

gazette" this morning. and an update on the secret service investigation. "washington times." white house says no staffers involved in the hooker scandal. the white house conducted a brief internal probe of the episode and found that no white house staffers were involved. that's in the washington times this morning. martinsburg, west virginia. eric, a republican there. go ahead, eric. caller: yeah. i just lost a bet with my wife for a steak dinner. i told her you would never find an article this morning about john edwards and you just read one. host: why did you bet that? [laughter] caller: because i just didn't think you would find anything about the democrats to read in the papers. so i think rubio would be a good choice.

because of the affiliation of the tea party. i bet he's sitting there and waiting for his government check. and i will give my wife the dinner. host: well, you better. aspen, tennessee, paul, an independent there. go ahead. caller: yes, i think experience is very important. i don't think experience is a community organizer is very important. i don't think a professional politician's experience is important. i think someone of substance as opposed to their color or whether they could deliver a stake, i think someone like steve forbes with business business would be fine also to get us business experience and our $16 trillion debt. and was that earlier caller a black panther that was calling? host: yeah, we're listening, paul.

caller: i just think we need a person with business sense, maybe a flat tax so that all of us can see that we're paying our fair share. host: ok. caller: thank you very much. host: paul, let me go back to the interview with the former vice-president dick cheney and what he had to say and when he was part of the v.p. process for former president jewish. -- george bush. he talked about how the president came to pick him as the v.p. >> when i became persuaded that in fact what he wanted, he was not worried about a big state. wyoming's the smallest state in terms of population. those three electoral votes was the difference between victory and defeat but that wasn't ordinarily the case. i didn't have any special appeal in terms of ethnicity or gender

or, you know, a lot of reasons people talk about hiring vice-presidents. but he decided that he wanted me and primarily because of my past experience and i would guess also he probably consuled with his father who he might work for and secretary of defense back in the early 1990's when he was president. i think all of those things came together. host: gill, what do you think of the v.p. pick? caller: it's very important. look at president obama's first pick, first major decision he picked joe biden. he passed the violence against women act. very confident gentleman. one of the best vice-presidential picks.

i'm tired of the remarks about vice-president joe biden. he's. he's capable. he's a wonderful man. as far as mitt romney, he should pick himself for vice-president. and he should have himself because he's a self-absorbing self-centered individual. he can ask the old mitt romney about the new mitt romney. then the old mitt romney can say what does the new mitt romney thinking? host: all right, gil -- caller: and the old mitt romney and go back to the new mitt romney -- host: all right. we get your point. who do you think as a v.p. could pose a challenge to the obama-biden ticket? caller: none of it. the candidate that ran for the nomination for the republican party, he said none of them in his estimation was the best that

the republican party could offer. host: here's the "new york times" -- though mr. romney noted the process is just beginning, mr. rubio did seem to be one of the series of potential running mates who had campaigned with mr. romney in recent weeks. these men and women -- k4r host: governor bob mcdonnell flew a small chartered plane in south carolina --

host: mr. romney denied that mr. ryan was one of his sons. that's "new york times" on those that may be picked by the former massachusetts governor. the likely republican nominee. mike, a republican in florida. go ahead. caller: i don't think it's that important but i think bobby would be a good one. marco rubio would be a good one. plenty of good ones out there. i don't really care about mr. mr. etch-a-sketch that we've got but i'm going to vote for him because he's not a communist, he's not a communist like the one we've got up there now. host: well, what would make you

more -- who might make you more enthusiastic about voting for mitt romney? which potential -- >> caller: barack obama makes me enthusiastic for voting for mitt romney. i don't like mitt romney but i can't stand barack obama. he's a communist. host: all right, maryland. richard. independent caller. caller: yes. i have a comment about out in left field. but there's one fellow who's been around a long time and who is sort of counted out in the nomination process from the last election but came back to win it and that's john mccain. and i feel that if romney uses good common sense, he needs that bulldog fighter to help persuade the congress, senate, and so forth. and another out in left field prediction i have is john

huntsman, i think could be a possible candidate for vice-president and for -- with barack obama if joe biden decides to step aside. host: all right. front paint of the "u.s.a. today" this morning. the cost of financial illiteracy. millenials are just the latest generation to struggle with dollars and cents yet this national problem isn't getting any better. here are the numbers -- host: on the student debt issue, here this "baltimore sun" this morning. there is agreement between the two presidential -- the like lip

matchup between president obama and mitt romney. host: look for our coverage this afternoon. go to c-span.org. there it is on your crean for more details. and then we mentioned the supreme court taking up the arizona immigration law tomorrow. hear oral argument and that is decision likely in june.

>> so live coverage of that hearing today at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3. the senate judiciary committee taking a look at the arizona immigration law. senator shurmur heads up the subcommittee that's taking a look at that. we're going to do a round table

discussion and which parts of it the justices will be looking at. cindy, she's a democrat in north richard hills, texas. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: you want to make sure you get someone in there to make sure if something happens to the president. i'm a reagan clinton democrat and what the comments on past democrats has given you is democrats like me are going more independent. but i'm looking at possibly like the guy was mentioning john huntsman, possibly portman but also looking at -- a lot with the governor in new mexico. she is popular. and you want the v.p. to take the swing voters and that someone is going to unite the two parties together and i think she can do that and john huntsman can do that. barack obama, i didn't vote for him in 2008.

he is not a leader. he spends too much time on, you know, making trips, going to party. biden showed more leadership than obama has. this president has divided the country up and it's gotten ridiculous. thank you. host: here's the housing imposed with their deadline -- host: and then also on the website this morning, they have newt hints at dropping out. that's story on the "huffington post" on that.

and daily caller has a story. veep watch, rubio to deliver major speech on foreign policy. he insists he's not angling to be the -- but his schedule this week might indicate otherwise. he will now deliver a major speech on the future of u.s. foreign policy, an event hosted by the brookings institution on wednesday according to a news release from his office. tony, republican in duncan, oklahoma. good morning to you. caller: good morning. yeah, i think it's going to be extremely important to go around. and i think chris christie would be the man for the job. he would energize the base and he will do what the vice-president's supposed to do and that's to sit in over the senate and just bring in with a good set of range and insist they're going to get things done. they're going to be end up dem crasketly controlled.

democratically controlled. host: fort lauderdale, neil, an independent. caller: the vice presidency is crucial when you say not just the position put the purpose and intent. and if i was in the romney campaign house, so to speak, i would strongly consider condoleezza rice. she's an individual who has a thing on the global pulse for many, many, many years. well versed, well experienced. condoleezza rice can market the united states of america globally. first of all, she's a black lady, aside from her wonderful credentials, all right? and it would help the romney campaign greatly selling up a good portion of the black vote and a part of the hispanic vote. but she is well credentialed and

will add great, great crerblet to the campaign. caller: i think hunt man is a good one because he's the one with common sense. host: would that mean that you would switch from voting for president obama? caller: no. i would not switch to one of these crazy republicans in my life. i have voted republican but these republicans are like aliens. they're not for the poor people. we ended up with kasich all the republican governors of the late has been laying off people just to keep the unemployment rate high. if you look at all the states that have been laying off and the statehouse, it's republicans. not democrats. no john huntsman has common commoss. -- common sense. host: all right.

on the pennsylvania primary, congressional races. here's the "washington times" this morning -- host: the "tribune" review survey show he leads by 7% among voters in union households which includes most of the district's democrats. the winner will face off with republican keith rothfus.

mr. altmire beat him by less than 2% in 2010 for the fourth congressional district seat. caller: i want to comment on the vice-presidential race. i think it is extremely important on both sides of the race. mitt romney is going to have to pick running mate that's going to win the trust. the people who are lower income and the people who are minorities in this country. and unfortunately, that's off one and the same. host: james, who represents that -- those characteristics? >> well, i think that right now, best potential choices are marco rubio and condoleezza rice. because i think the country has reached the point of frustration from the lack of fiscal responsibility. the republicans could swing from votes their way if they pick the proper running mate. on the obama side, i think that

he's made some mistakes that if he were to choose a new running mate, that he would have a fall guy in biden and then replacing him may win some votes back. host: on marco rubio --

host: we covered the town hall between the two of those men and the press conference. so if you want to watch the whole thing, go to c-span.org and go to our campaign 2012 road to the white house site where you can see where our cameras have been for the past year, a couple of years, weeks, months, following all the candidates on the road to the white house. james, democrat in flint, michigan. go ahead, james. caller: hi. how are you doing today? host: doing well. what are your thoughts in the v.p. pick? >> it's very important. unfortunately though is all -- to me, it's more politics just like it is politics. caller: it's not for the people. they're picking, you know, they're picking people who's popular, who's going to get them to vote, not for really who's qualified. i feel like it's not like it was founded to be. you get a person.

you want your vice-president to be someone as capable as a president. host: ok. guest: the way things are going now, you get someone that's popular because they can get you the extra votes. not necessarily someone that's going to be able to do the job if you're not there to do the job. host: all right. caller: that's my vote. host: d.w. in seattle writes in -- host: last phone call, ray, independent caller in florida. how important is it, ray? caller: it's very important. it's actually greg, but before i make the comment, let me say how dispoints i am. -- disappointed i am. but why would c-span call the president a communist?

i have been watching c-span since 1979, and this is the first time i've seen the kind of vitriol against a president with the kind of name calling and i know again -- host: hey, ray, can i just jump in? caller: sure. host: you didn't see that when president bush was in the caucus? caller: absolutely not. i watched c-span for 30 years. let me stay on point. i like to thank from a caller you had several days ago is to look at again what c-span stands for in the minds of people like myself who's been a 30-year watcher is there has to be some kind of credibility from the media and c-span is the only venue in the nation that brings that credibility. so i would just politely and respectfully ask that susan and the managers go back and bring some balance and not have the kind of nasty name calling. about the leaders of this

country like president obama. host: and ray, we want to have a civil conversation on this show and the beauty of it is that when a caller says something, you or other people get to call up and challenge them on what you just heard. but let's move on. next here, take a closer look at that trustees report put out yesterday on social security and medicare. we'll focus specifically on medicare. and then later, turn our attention to that arizona immigration law, what the supreme court will hear on wednesday. we'll have a roundtable discussion on that. but first, here is "wall street journal" with this headline -- host: president barack obama made this announcement saying

the mood was part of his effort to make good on the world vow to never again allow a massacre unfold before its eyes. here's a moment from yesterday with the president at the holocaust museum. >> we must tell our children, but more than that, we must teach them because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. we're in this -- awareness without action changes nothing. and the sense never again is a challenge to us all. to pause. and to look within. so the holocaust may have reaped its barbaric climax, but it started in the hearts of ordinary men and women. and we have seen it again.

madness that can sweep through people, sweep through nations, embed itself. the killings in cambodia, the killings in rowanda. the killings in bosnia. the killings in darfur. they shock our conscience. but they are the awful extreme of a spectrum of ignorance and intolerance that we see every day. the bigotry that says another person is less than my equal, less than human. these three seeds of hate that we cannot let take root in our heart. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to the table margot sanger-katz. she's a health care correspondent with "national journal." the trustees report put out yesterday by the treasury

department on social security and medicare. we want to focus specifically on the medicare's future part of it. what's the headline from it? guest: so the headline is not very much news. they said the same thing they said last year which is that the hospital trust fund which is the medicare trust fund that we thick about is going to start being unable to pay its bill and other part of medicare that pays for doctor's visits and for prescription drugs is also rising. so the overall message is that this program is getting very expensive. host: and it's getting expensive why? guest: the big reason is because the babyboomers are retiring. huge democratic pressure. fewer people taking page into -- but the other problem is and this is the problem in health care generally is that health care prices just rise faster than inflation and as we're spending more and more per person, and the number of people is growing, it becomes a bigger

burden on the overall budget. host: and for our viewers who are watching on our crean is a number -- screen is a number put out on our screen. 100,000 more americans. these the baby boomers? guest: that's right. the program is going to get a lot bigger than it's been. host: what do they say on medicare? guest: you know, they were not very specific about what they want congress to do but they just pointed out this is an unsustainable path and they pointed out even with the projections that they've given that there are some unrealistic policy expectations that are kind of baked into those numbers so it could be a lot worse than it is. host: yeah. guest: and better for congress to act sooner so everyone can adjust to the new reality and you can have good policy and

providers can adjust instead of waiting until a crisis moment and trying to do something dramatic at once. host: here's one report. the trustees did offer one proposed changes being made by congress -- guest: the hospital trust fund is paid for the payroll tax. and certainly historically, there have been many predictions over the years that the trust fund is going to run out of money and congress has taxed in order to make up for that shortfall and it never has gone into default before. host: and you say there are some presumptions in the trustees report. what are those presumptions based on current law? guest: the big one is that the health care reform law passed in 2010 did a lot of things to constrain the growth of medicare .

and one of the things is it lowered the rates at which hospitals get pay rates each year on the assumption that productivity is going to improve and the report says productivity gains are unprecedented in health care. who knows if they're going to be able to achieve them? and on the doctor's side, a couple of things. one is this thing called the sustainable growth rate that we talked about every year. it was the program that congress had to try to make doctors more efficient. host: i'll just save the language. the doc fix. guest: right. the doc fix is what -- cut doctor's pay rates. so congress put in a patch. the assumptions in the medicare trustees report assume that next year, that doctors are going to get a 30% pay cut and they're going to continue to get cuts every year. that probably won't happen. there's also in the law, there is a board that is supposed to be appointed that will try to constrain the cost growth in the

future by a set target and there's been some pushback in congress against that and there's been possibility that congress will try to roll that back. if they do, then you could see the rates of increase growing faster also. host: all right. we're talking about the future in medicare. john a republican in florida. go ahead. caller: don't hang up before i get done with you. the reason our social security is going broke, they've got almost a million illegal aliens -- are you on the phone? host: yeah. what do you mean? caller: they've let a million illegal aliens in our social security and medicare and please don't say they're not because they flipped their way in. host: well, john, where is the evidence of that? caller: well, y'all have on your show here, i don't know, maybe a year ago and i heard it through the congress and all these lawyers advertising on tv come on down, sign up and we'll get you on disability, social security. i mean, it's all over the tv.

judge judy, all you have to do is watch her and see these people come on there and they're not disabled. host: all right, john. we're going to be talking about the issue of immigration, illegal. the law coming up in a roundtable discussion. but first, who is eligible for medicare? guest: medicare is eligible to u.s. citizens over the age of 65. it's a real entitlement program. it's age based. once you're 65, you can sign up for medicare. everyone gets involved with the hospital program. and then the other parts which deal with doctors and prescription drugs, you can sign up and pay a preep and get into that part too. host: carolyn from mississippi. you're up. caller: yes. i feel like we're just being suckered marine corps by our politicians -- more or less by our politicians.

i have a three-pronged idea that i think could solve a will lot of our problems. we could put it into medicaid and social security. first of all the wealthiest of americans should pay their fair share. secondly, even you should not get more money back on your income tax than you pay in. and third, our churches are the biggest welfare recipients involved. everything their petitioners pay in is tax deductible. they don't pay taxes. they should pay their 10 fokt the federal government for the medicare and social security. it should be targeted for that and that would go a long way ensuring that our citizens have health care and the poors of our american social security is secured. so i'm waiting. i'm challenging at least one religious leader to come out and say that they should do that. they should pay taxes at least

10%. host: ok, caroline, we've got your point. yesterday during the briefing by the treasure department and health and human services secretary about this trustees report, she talked about medicare and its current situation. here's what she had to say. >> today's trusty report confirms that medicare is in a much stronger position than it was a few years ago thanks to the affordable health care act. without the health care law, the hospital insurance trust fund would be exhausted in 2016, just four years from now. but as a result of the law, we've added another eight years to its life, putting medicare on much more solid ground. the law does this through a range of reforms, from cracking down on fraud to helping providers prevent costly medical errors to reducing excess payments to medicare advantage plans. as a report our department released today shows this first

wave of reforms will save medicare more than $200 billion by 2016. host: margot sanger-katz. what number is she pointing to to show that medicare is stronger than it was four years ago because of the health care law? guest: the health care law sets a budget for the future. it says that the independent payment advisory board is going to have to do things to influence what providers are paid in order to keep the program on a budget no more than 1% greater than g.d.p. growth per person in the program. and so because of that, and because of some of these other adjustments to the payment rates that hospitals get, and some reductions to the medicare advantage plans, comes to about $500 billion in savings. host: so it is true that -- guest: it is true that it saves the medicare some money. i think she makes an argument that this policy is going to be lead to long-term sustainable

for the -- sustainability for the program and it's a stretch. host: yeah. then there's this headline in the "washington times." medicare bonuses are bogus. investigators say the administration is wasting billons on extra bonuses for health plans and should cancel them right away funneling complaints that it is unpopular until after the election. what is this all about? guest: this is about this program called medicare advantage which is instead of being a regular medicare, you have a choice of joining a private plan instead and the government pays those plans more if those seniors were enrolled in normal medicare. one of the ways that was achieved is they cut the extra amount they we are going to pay those programs and it was going to be a big cut and there were projections people were going to leave those programs so what the government did, what the

adjuster department did is created the payment pilot program where they put some more money back. the idea was to have incentives for those programs to hit certain quality targets. they improve their quality, they would get a bonus payment but what the report said is this was just a way of shifting money around and giving them back what they had lost. it wasn't sort of really that sort of thing that they should have been doing with that money. host: gary is an independent in georgia. you're on the air. we're talking about the future of medicare. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i have a question i tried to find on the internet. i see that, you know, we've got 48 million people that are old last year. how many people left because they died? all i have is the internet on my phone. [laughter] host: we'll ask our guest here. do we know that number?

is that something that they track? guest: yeah. the number of people who are entering that program, it's many more people than people who are leaving the program. host: deborah, a republican in cincinnati, ohio. caller: my main question is it seems like all of this i a bit of fear mongering. we tell people every year or every six months we're going to end medicare. but i don't really see that being feasible or possible. these people have to be take care of. i'm hoping that in 20 years from now when i'm at retirement age, you know, that medicare will still be for me. we need to stop talking about ending medicare, start talking about how we're going to fund it and actually what the laws that are affected. you keep talking about all these numbers and the budget and billons of dollars and this and people don't -- i don't understand it. i try to follow c-span and news and listen to things, but could you really explain what this means for individual people's

lives and what it means if we don't have it? and i feel like it's all about scaring people not really about what we need to do to fund of this and really help people. guest: i feel like the first thing i should say is not to give the trusties to heart of a time. they are required by law to check up on the health of the program. i think those are good questions. i think that is part of the reason why we have a system where there's a report to congress every year. congress is really the body that has the ability to decide how they are going to make medicare work better in the future. they have to make these decisions. some of that could be increasing taxes. some could be cuts to benefits. some could be asking people who receive medicare to pay a larger share. republicans have proposed changing the format so more people go into private plans.

the hope is that those private plans will do a better job. host: who serves on the social security and medicare trustees' committee? guest: the secretary of health and human services, the secretary of the treasury, secretary of labor, and the secretary of the social security. there are a couple of independent economists, too. host: these reports state that to 1970. reportein's goes through every year's report. 1997, the years of the trustees' report year of insolvency, 2001. what keeps happening?

guest: congress does raise this tax, the payroll tax, which pays for medicare. something worth noting is, yes, there has been a lot of crying wolf in the past. i will say that the demographic pressure on medicare is different from what we've seen in the past. the number of people entering the program has increased. host: the baby boomers. entitlement growing as a share of gdp. the green line represents both medicare and social security combined. the red line is medicare. the percentage of gdp by 2085 goes to almost 15% of gdp. john, democratic caller in missouri. good morning to you. caller: good morning. when is congress going to start questioning these hospitals and

doctors about their charges and their fees? i am on blood thinners. i've had a heart attack and open-heart surgery. i am all kinds of blood thinners. a few weeks ago, 40 miles from home, i got a bloody nose from sneezing, stop that the emergency room. i was there for an hour. aid,minutes with a nurse's five minutes with a nurse, five minutes with a doctor. two weeks later, i got a hospital bill for $1,400 for one hour in the hospital to get gauze stuffed in my nose. $250,000 for open heart surgery. $29,000 for a one-night stay in the hospital. somebody has got to hold some

hearings and questioned why these hospitals are charging as much and medicare is paying for it all. host: we will take that question. the cost of medicare. guest: i think it is a huge question. there is a debate all the time about how fast health-care costs are rising and what we can do to control them. it's true that medicare pays less than other pairs. if you have private insurance, the private insurance pays higher rates. medicare has been able to hold down its costs rose, in some ways, just by price-fixing. a lot of what's the affordable care act took account of is are there ways that we can change the system that encourage better care and more efficient care that change the way doctors are paid so they can do things differently to keep people out of the hospital even more. the jury is out on whether or not those things work. there is some hope that some of those payment pilots might come

up with some ideas. host: talking about the future of medicare and the trustees' report that came out yesterday. let me give you some numbers from "the wall street journal." in 2000, it was 3.4 workers. the estimate in 2012 is 2.8 workers paying for each beneficiary. guest: this is demographics. this is the main driver of why we see difficulties in these funds. we have a lot of people aging and these programs and not as many people in the work force to support them. caller: i think she just partially answered my question. i retired in april at age 765. all of these hundreds of thousands of people who have retired or are going to retire -- why are these jobs not being

filled so there is a continuation of the payroll tax that supports medicare? it seems that these jobs are going up in the air. i understand that a lot of people are not qualified to take the positions, but there are so many kids coming out of college now that are qualified. i do not understand why our unemployment rate is as high as it is. people are retiring. replace them with the people that are younger and can sustain these jobs, as well as social security. can you give me an answer? guest: that is a really complicated question. it gets out what's going on in the larger economy and why we're having a recession and why there is difficulty in replacing the job growth that we used to have. host: the issue of health care and the cost of health care and the law came up last week when we had charles, who has served

.n the medicare trustees repor he is a gop trust the. he came out with a number. i want to show our viewers what he had to say. >> it is the fact that the new cost commitments substantially exceed the cost savings. there's a lot of parts of this law. many of them costing a lot of money. there's a substantial increase in medicaid and chip. there is the creation of the new health exchanges. the subsidies also cost hundreds of billions of dollars. there's an expansion of the medicare authority. that is also a new commitment that cost real money. you add all of those things together and compare them to cost savings and the new cost

exceeds $300 billion, even in a best case scenario. host: margot sanger-katz. guest: it is true that many of them are very expensive. it sets up a system where -- the affordable care act in 2010. it also brings a big expansion of the medicaid program. a lot more people will be taking care of using the program. that's a big commitment of federal funds. medicare is where most of the savings have been achieved in the law. as he points out, those savings were used to pay for some of these other new programs. host: clifford, a republican in jacksonville, florida. go ahead. caller: yes, my question is about the numbers.

you showed it was $509 billion in 2010. sebelius was trying to say there were savings of $530 billion. it made it sound like it was going to sustain it. that is only a one-year savings, if you look at it. i was also wondering about the number of people. do they useful employment to figure out how many people are in the work force? do they use the current workforce numbers? host: do you know? guest: i do not know the answer to that. host: what about his first question, about the numbers that sebelius gave? guest: one thing that's important to know, when they say in 2020 for the trust fund is going to be in trouble, they do not mean there will be $0 to pay for medicare. it means the amount of money coming in will be less than the amount of money going out. what sebelius said is that it

buys the trust fund some time to pay all its bills. host: here is an e-mail. guest: there have been big changes in the way hospitals are organized in this country. there have been a lot of consolidations. there has been growth in some of these private, for growth hospitals. overall, i think the growth of these big hospitals has more to do with what people who have private insurance are paying. as i said, medicare has the ability to set prices and hospitals have to except that. host: part of medicare coverage -- it covers the full cost of hospitalization.

medigap is private insurance covering costs not paid by medicare. can you explain that a little bit more? guest: there are some limits on how much it will pay. a lot of people go out and buy a private plan that covers that gap. that's why it's called medigap. host: joyce says in this e- mail -- host: brian, democrat in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: hi. i was watching on the news that a country -- i do not know if it was taiwan's or indonesia --

they looked around the world for the best health-care system for the country. they found one where the government owns all the hospitals and the doctor gets $25 per patient. they work 12 hours per day. they see about 60 patients per day. they pay 7% of gdp. we are paying 70% of gdp for our health care. i think we need to do that. thank you. guest: it is true, if you look around the othecountry and other modern countries, the united states pays about twice as much per person. we do not have the best health outcomes. some of the major measures you would think would be really good if we had a really great health care system. our system is very expensive compared to other countries.

if you look at how other countries run their health care systems, they have programs that i think would be politically difficult to achieve in this country. host: to any other countries have a medicare type system? guest: they have a medicare type system, but it is for everyone. host: there is not another country that just has a program for the elderly? guest: i do not believe so, no. host: mark, independent, bellaire, ohio. caller: good morning. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i am 55 years old. i have been disabled since i was 45. i worked for 32 years. i had a full-time job. i am a veteran. i've applied for social security and cannot get it. they talk about how social security is going bankrupt and medicaid is going to fall out

from under us, but yet, our government lets these people that are 18 years old up to 35, 40 years old, have never had a job in their life and they're getting their ssi. they've never paid taxes and yet they can go to a doctor and say that they cannot work, they are bipolar, and they get their disability. we have people in the country that are 55, 60 years old that are disabled and cannot get anything. all our money is paying these people that have never really worked and never paid into the system. these numbers just grow on a daily basis. guest: our social security system is set up to provide

benefits to people who are disabled. it is true that if you have a disability, you can qualify for social security, even if you have not worked. often if you have not worked, it's because you have a disability. host: what did the trustees' report have to say about that yesterday? guest: compared to last year, they said social security has three years left. host: what were the reasons why? one of them, i believe, they have added another year on to their outlook for their prediction. guest: again, some of this is demographics. because of the economy, people are paying less into the fund. we've had the payroll tax. that has met some people are not paying into the social security fund. host: ohio, marck, you are on the air. good morning to you. is this a joan, a republican?

caller: it is. host: go ahead. caller: whenever the government gets involved in anything, it is not going to be waste and fraud, but what percentage of waste and fraud it is going to be. it is in student loans. it is in medicare. it is in whatever they do. my question is, why can't we think more of privatization? i know that is a naughty word, but it works. take for example social security, which is sort of related. if you want to give up medicare, but you have a better plan for your employment -- retirement -- you have to give up social security. i do not think seniors know that. the obamacare. has taken half of $1 trillion

out of medicare. it is going to be destroyed. host: let's take her figure. if she correct? guest: $500 million -- $500 billion. host: issue correct on that? guest: she is. that enables castling sebelius to say you get eight more years. host: the caller also brought up fraud. was that in the report? guest: it was not a major factor. it is something the obama administration has taken on a very aggressively. fraud is a problem and i think it is one they are trying to address better. as to were point about

privatization, that is very much on the table. the republicans have called for a partial privatization of the medicaid program. leading republicans said yesterday that this report is evidence that we need to consider that approach. host: what the democrats say about the report yesterday? guest: they said things we heard from kathleen sebelius. host: and when the supreme court rules in june on the health care law, could that ruling affect medicare? guest: it depends on what they do. there are a lot of choices before the supreme court. if they overrule the whole thing, it could be problematic for medicare. there are a lot of changes to medicare that are a part of that law. nobody is sure what that means. pride and that is a very big unknown -- i think that it's a

very big unknown. overturning the whole lot is a possibility. host: crystal, a democrat in oklahoma city. caller: good morning. she just said something that hits on something i was wanting to talk about. one of the provisions of the health care reform bill that they were going to attack fraud, which takes up probably a lot more than what the other caller was talking about in terms of people who are just getting ssi for this and that. also, to get rid of this massive fraud -- one of the doctors in the state of texas was prosecuted for $350 million in

fraud and he was a supporter of the tea party, and also donating part of his proceeds to the tea party movement. the beneficiaries of this massive fraud, who have joined in forces of people who are against obama because of his race. i wish democrats would be more forthright in the information and not hold back. the republicans are not winning their argument because they are telling the truth. they're winning their argument because the democrats are not being forceful and correct. there been so slow in coming out with information. thank you. host: carol, independent in philadelphia. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have recently been approved for rehab in philadelphia for a head injury. in consultations with the case

management person at the hospital, i was told the level of care is not dictated by medicaid. we cannot get services we used to be able to get for things like a knee replacement and hip replacement. medicare no longer pays for it. guest: the medicaid program varies by state. every state has their own way. there hasn't been a movement to a privatisation of medicaid -- there has been a movement to privatization. host: quickly, the differences between medicaid and medicare. guest: medicare is for all people. it is completely paid for by the government. medicaid is administered half and half by the federal

government and individual states. there is flexibility on who qualifies for it and what kinds of benefits they get. part of what the 2010 health care reform law did was it standardize that to some degree. said it would cover everybody who is below 133% of the federal poverty limit. right now, it is really a hodgepodge. host: debra, a republican in richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. i almost worked 30 years and i had to have an emergency operation on my back. ok, now, what i'm seeing is there are almost three times the amount of people that do not even get a chance to use their medicare and social security because they died before that time, compared to the number of people that you claim are growing older and older.

what happens to all that money? what happens to all the money that immigrants, who have to use false social security numbers, with taxes taken out of those checks? they do not have a chance to use that? and the people who choose to get married. because they get married, one of them have to give it up. what happens to all that money? host: margot sanger-katz, do we know? guest: that money goes back into the system. that is accounted for and recorded. there is still on going to be enough. host: hollywood, florida. reid, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i fear that this desire for mass frightening. anis there is a word that i think

reflects the republican party. that is fascism. the growing fascism in the republican party -- they are not conservative. they will not be happy until they have privatize everything in god's creation. they frighten me. this is exactly what hitler wanted to do, had they won the war. thank god they did not. these people, these republicans, are ruthless. it is neo-conservatism, which is nothing but fascism. host: mickey, an independent in new jersey. go ahead. caller: by think this. i think the shortfalls of social security are because the politicians have used the money for other purposes. to solve it, they ought to tax

political donations and put it back in social security. host: margot sanger-katz is a health care reporter, but two phone calls about congress and what they have or have not done. what do you think happens with this trustees' report that came out yesterday? guest: i think we'll hear from both sides and will continue to say what we heard yesterday. republicans, especially republicans in the house, and also gov. romney, are in favor of these privatization plans for medicare. it will use this data as evidence that this is the way to go. democrats will continue to say, there are still some problems with medicare, but it's better that it was before. host: in the gop-led house, any plans to bring up specific legislation in dealing with medicare or with dealing with

the president's the affordable care act. guest: the house has passed a bill, the bryan budget, that would have included this transformation of the medicare program. that's not going anywhere in the senate. there of an attempt on the house side to pare back smaller parts of the affordable care act. one of them is the independent pimm advisory board, which is supposed to hold down the price increases in medicare in the future. the trustees said it's a real possibility that board will be overruled. they did a separate projection on what will happen. the program is expected to get a lot more expensive without that. host: ron, republican in stillwater, oklahoma. caller: what happened to the forlions of dollars in iou's money that was borrowed by our government and then taken away from the social security fund

and medicare fund? guest: a good question. we talk about these trust funds like they are real trust funds. it is not really true. they are kind of an accounting tool. we count how much money we are paying in and pay it out. we know that there have been reserves in the past that will pay for the shortfalls in the next few years. the truth is, all this money is in the budget. the government spend money that's coming in, or they have to raise more or borrow to make up the difference in the future. in the universe we are in now, money is coming from other places to pay for social security and medicare. host: the money goes into the general treasury? guest: as a practical matter, it the money gets shifted around, as long as there is this separate accounting. host: by calling it a trust fund, it is legally binding that

this money has to be paid out. guest: exactly. host: democratic caller in new york. caller: good morning. medicare is really great, but the only real problem is not you, but the doctors. my brother-in-law had cancer. they take advantage of you. they knew he was going to die. every time he went for radiation, only for half an hour, they charged him $3,000 per visit. if that's not a rip-off -- and a oit seems like the doctors realy take advantage of this. when you are really sick, they get away with charging you anything they want. we need to concentrate on these doctors and make sure they are not ripping off the system. this whole thing about 2024, it seems like everything is 2024. they say all this money wasted in afghanistan, all the troops going over there -- if we stopped that, we would have plenty of money for medicare. host: doctors and their role in

all of this. guest: there. that widely acknowledged there is unnecessary spending. people are not getting primary care. they have to be hospitalized. they're getting two drugs that interact and cause a reaction and nobody notices until it's too late. there are things we can do to make our health care system less expensive and make sure we are not spending on things that are unnecessary. medicare does have set prices that they pay for things. most private insurers do, too. host: 1 last phone call for you. mike is an independent in lagrange, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. that 48.7 million joined in 2011 -- that is 12.5% of the population. i do not think that's a correct number.

i think that would probably be the total number of persons in medicare. guest: you are right. caller: that is pretty misleading. two, the great governor of florida was fined 1 billion eight thousand dollars for overcharging medicare. his defense was, "i did it because everybody else was." he probably got a lot more than $1.8 billion. there are many other health s we should go after. host: margot sanger-katz, anything there to respond to? guest: there has been an increase in investigations of people scam in the medicare system pierced it is a big problem. it is a big program. i think there's an

acknowledgement, both by democrats and republicans that there is a problem. i think they're both trying to make a little bit better. host: margot sanger-katz with the national journal. thank you to talking to our viewers about this report. next, a roundtable discussion on arizona's immigration law, which goes before the supreme court tomorrow. later on, we will open the phone lines and get your thoughts on anything you've heard in the news. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> a senate aide says democrats are considering making changes to s corporations as a way to increase taxes on what they call better of americans. it would make it harder for owners to avoid paying social security and medicare payroll taxes. president obama focuses on the cost of college loans today, speaking to students at universities in north carolina and colorado. the same theme was addressed

yesterday by republican presidential candidate mitt romney. both men favor freezing the current interest rates on federal loans for poorer and middle-class students. former and his news international chief james murdoch in testimony earlier said he knew little about the scale of phone hacking by people working for "the news of the world." an independent inquiry has led to dozens of arrests. james murdoch is continuing his testimony before the inquiry committee. his father, rupert murdoch', is expected to appear tomorrow and friday. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> one of the things that i always remember, because my

office overlooked the building, was the day care center in the plaza. some of the children were killed. others, injured. during the recess period, they would always come play out here in the plaza. that left a lasting impression, of course, when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school -- she had just graduated and was working in the social security office. her father was a good friend of mine. that morning, i had three different messages. first of all, wanting to know what he could find out about his daughter. secondly, it did not look good. the third message was when he was crying. >> what our local content vehicle's next up, exploring oklahoma city.

>> i seem to have burned a certain place where people will listen to me. i have always cared about my country. they gave me a type of platform that was completely unanticipated. i thought i ought not squander that. i ought to step up as not just a citizen and as a journalist, but as a father, husband, and a grandfather. if i see these things, i ought to write about them and try to start this dialogue, which is what i'm trying to do with this book, about where we need to get to next. >> tom brokaw urges americans to redefine the american dream. sunday, may 6, your questions for the former anchor and managing editor of nbc nightly news. he has written about the greatest generation, the 1960's, and today.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: arizona's immigration law goes before the supreme court on wednesday. we want to talk about that and what the supreme court might decide. joining us on the phone is daniel gonzalez, an immigration and border reporter for "the arizona republic." daniel gonzalez, you wrote a story yesterday about this law. your headline is "the impact on the state's economy is debated." since this law was passed in 2010, what has happened in arizona? guest: there have been a lot of remarkable changes here. one of the biggest changes is that the undocumented population in arizona, which had been

proportionally the highest of any state in the nation, during the peak, it was estimated we had about 500,000 illegal immigrants living in arizona. the population, according to the government, has plummeted by about 200,000 people. we've also seen a very sharp decrease in the number of border patrol apprehensions, which is a measure of how many people are trying to cross the border illegally. back in 2000, the border patrol was apprehending over 600,000 people a year. last year, that number fell down to 123,000. there was a huge drop in traffic at the southern border. host: what are the reasons for that drop? guest: the main one is the economy.

most people who are crossing the border are coming here for jobs. a lot of the jobs people were coming in for, in things like construction, hotel hospitality, those kinds of things have dried up during the economic downturn in the united states. it has also become much more difficult to cross the border. there has been a tremendous increase in the number of border patrol agents. a lot of new technology that makes it a lot more difficult to cross. it also makes it a lot more dangerous and a lot more expensive to cross. those are some of the main factors why so many fewer people are crossing. host: what is the reaction in arizona both from the business community and voters at large to senate bill 1070? guest: when that bill passed two years ago, immigration was still a very hot topic in arizona. it was on a lot of people's

minds. we still have people crossing the border. we had this large undocumented population. there had been a rancher that was shot and killed near the border. the murder is still unsolved. there were a lot of things coming together at the same time. since then, on the political front, things have really cooled down. there has not been a single immigration bill passed in the state since that. up until senate bill 1070, the state had passed a number of laws that was kind of the granddaddy of all immigration laws. since then, not a single bill has been passed. there have been bills proposed. they have not moved forward. one of the main reasons -- the business community has been very vocal in their opposition to these laws. right after the bill, there

were a lot of protests in arizona and across the country opposing that law. there were a number of national boycotts that really hurt the tourism and convention business, which is a very big part of the arizona economy. host: daniel gonzalez, arizona's immigration law, the most contentious part of it says what? guest: the most contentious part, it would allow for direct the police to question people they suspected are in the country illegally during routine duties about their status and then arrested them. host: daniel gonzalez, thank you for getting up very early and joining us on the phone. let me turn to our two guests to debate the immigration law. let me begin with ali noorani

daniel stein.nzal dan stein, what do you like about the immigration law? guest: it's important for the american people to get clear on what congress and the state's heavily out in terms of their role in immigration. arizona has set out some provisions that we feel, and i think arizona does, are entirely consistent with immigration laws passed by congress. part of the reason why we have seen some delay in other states acting is because they want to see what the supreme court is going to do here. arizona has made it clear it's not try to make its own immigration laws, but trying to assist the executive branch in what is required to do. the executive branch is taking the position that congress has said they can do whatever they want as long as they are not

enforcing the law. therefore, they do not want to enforce the law. therefore, they are not going to enforce the law. this is what they told the american people. arizona and other states are pressuring the obama administration to carry out the letter of immigration law that congress had passed. if you read the executive branch brief, they are trying to make the argument that congress has not required the executive branch -- it allows the executive branch to create classifications without review or any public inspection and turn around and rewrite the immigration law for its own reasons. at stake is the integrity of our entire system. the executive, the legislative, and states in insisting in that. host: why should the supreme court overturned the arizona immigration law?

guest: dan is right. this is about the integrity of our federal government and the integrity of our constitution. it is clear that it is up to congress to determine laws around naturalization. senate bill 1070 put into motion a state law that creates state for example, a person who is not carrying their papers. therein lies our concern. when a local lot official in arizona stop somebody on the sidewalk because they look or sound like an immigrant and ask them for their papers, we are starting to violate our basic rights as americans. that is the important part about this law. at the end of the day, we have rights as americans to be innocent until proven guilty, to not be discriminated against, to not be profiled. this impending decision by the supreme court could take us down a very scary path.

host: what is at the heart of this issue? guest: at the heart of this issue is the frustration within the american public that congress has not acted to fix our immigration system. arizona and four other states have taken it into their own hands to pass immigration laws. clearly, they are unconstitutional. at the heart of the issue is that congress has failed. the administration has supported 1.2 million people in the last four years, more than any administration. it has rattled societies across the country. at heart of this issue is frustration. host: dan, what do you think is at the heart of it? guest: congressional intent. the supreme court is going to try to figure out whether congress intended for the federal government to preempt any state involved in assisting in immigration law enforcement. of course, we know that's not true.

we are hoping the supreme court will find that there's broad latitude for states assist theely to six executive branch. the obama administration's brief creates an untenable situation saying the executive branch can ignore the congressional mandate and no state can tell them they have to enforce the immigration laws. american people want the immigration laws enforced. the obama administration does not. the they're really doing, administration, is jeopardize in any chance of convincing the american people that if congress were to pass an amnesty, there would be real enforcement down the line. host: let me show our viewers what the justices will be looking at when oral arguments

begin wednesday. the ninth circuit court has blocked for parts of arizona's law. one of them, the requirement for police to verify immigration status of anyone stopped and suspected of being illegal. police can address any foreign citizens who may have committed an offense. those are the four parts of the arizona law the justices will be looking at. the ninth circuit court blocked those parts. arizona challenged that. that is why we are to the supreme court. i think there are about five other states with similar laws. alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah. dan stein says they are holding off because they want to see what's the supreme court is going to do. guest: they've all seen arizona's economy struggle as a

result of senate bill 1070. $140 million in lost convention and tourism revenue. we saw story after story of farmers who have been there for generations -- emirates and workforce is part of their family. -- immigrant workforce is part of their family. they do not know how they're going to survive. i think it's a goal of s.b. 1070 -- to put the family farmer out of business -- then they have succeeded. host: oral arguments arguments will air on friday night at 8:00 p.m. tom, a republican in arizona, you are first. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. the first thing that comes to mind -- on the one hand, we have an ultraconservative probably

taking marching orders from rush limbaugh. on the other side, if you get people are looking to make the country and opened funnel for anybody who wants to run in here. i am a 46-year of republican who always votes democratically. we in the middle have nobody representing us. we want to see the immigration laws in force. if they cannot do it through the federal system, then they should be helped out by the state systems, period. host: ali noorani, what do you think? guest: there's a growing consensus in the middle about the need for immigration reform. i'm sure we will hear that the majority of americans support senate bill 1070. if you ask the same group

whether or not they want to require people to legalize status, requires them to learn english, requires them to pass a criminal background check, the majority of the group says yes, that's what we want. at the end of the day, the caller is correct. we need a middle that says we need rational, humane immigration reform that protect our borders, and serves each and every american and his or her family. guest: federation for american immigration reform. erie is a great place. arizona is not trying to make its own immigration law. arizona is not trying to set up borders deciding who can live in arizona or not based on immigration status. they are simply trying to assist the federal government in carrying out the terms of the

law as congress has laid it out. why this case is so important next week -- if the obama administration gets its way, they will turn it on its head, giving the executive branch unfettered authority to define which classes will be removed and which will not. there is as much involved in this case involving the role of the federal level, as well as the role of the states. if charles schumer says he is going to rewrite the law -- if congress acts -- if the obama administration says we can do what ever we want -- we can let in millions and millions of people who have no right to be in this country and ignore the stipulations of congress. that is what is at issue in this case.

host: dan stein brings up chuck schumer's plans, which is the headline in "the washington post" this morning. "the legislation would have little chance of passing, but he wants to bring it to the floor of the senate." they will be talking about the role of state immigration laws. the state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as well jan brewer. we will have coverage beginning span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. billy is an independent. good morning. caller: first of all, let me qualify it might call as a gay

american who fought in vietnam as a combat medic. first of all, i would like to say that the american immigration policy does work. it just is not so the people who want to change it and come across our borders. immigration policy, as i understand it, allows a few of these people into the country, a few of those people into the country, and a few of those people into the country -- all different walks of life. if you allow people who are here illegally to come across the borders at their will, you change the outlook of america. like we see so many mexicans coming across the board of you cannot go to los angeles and certain parts of the country and get a job if you do not speak spanish. host: billy, can i jump in? the headlines today, all the newspapers have this headline, "mexican migration to the u.s.

at a standstill." more people returning to mexico and then come into the united states since the 1930's. caller: the country neil down to pick up these people with the ronald reagan and saying that is the last time we will do it. that's like coming to the train station after the train left and arguing that there should be another train. host: ali noorani, go ahead. guest: first of all, we are not advocating for open borders. we are advocating for a rational immigration system that meets the needs of our economy and workforce. currently, our immigration system does not do that. we have 5000 low skill immigration visas per year. when you talk to the

agricultural sector from washington to florida to california to new york, it is clear that the agricultural sector is looking for labor. these are hard jobs. they are difficult jobs. we also need to make sure we are investing in the work force that was born in america. this is a kind of solution we need. s.b. 1070 does not meet those goals. when you look at the court briefs, when 44 former state ag's say it would require racial profiling and make our jobs harder -- these are statewide democrats and republican law enforcement experts. when they say s.b. 1070 makes their job harder, it's clear that it makes our job harder on the other side. host: dan stein? guest: there are doing that --izona is allowing

including passing criminal statutes that are complementary to the federal immigration scheme. the supreme court will be taking a look at this law. the political forces that drive illegal immigration are powerful. the forces of greed and exploitation. no economic apology for the system of immigration. westphalia -- the spirit of the democratically established rule of law, not an allegiance to one person who can arbitrarily decide who has to obey the law and who does not. there's an entire class of people here illegally who broke our laws and now basically say they get to play by a different rule book that everybody else. naturally, s.b. 1070, arizona's bill, is enormously popular. nit is very important for

mitt romney to be consistent in his for that state's need to be able to enact these laws. it is the obama administration's position that it is simply out of step with our system of federalism and the four principals, respect for the rule of law. host: let me add this tweet to the conversation. angelo, a democrat a caller, go ahead. caller: can you tell me why democrats and the black democrats in congress somehow think it's ok to let all these people into the country when they do not go to their communities and neighborhoods? the niemans' big english, always coming around speaking different languages -- they don't even speak english, and we are

supposed to continue to want to vote for democrats ignore -- that the black people in their community have rights. we're tired of people coming into our communities who do not even speak the language and that app all bold and everything else like they belong there. we have been there longer. we are losing our rights. democrats think we're supposed to like this because they are supposed to say that they stand up for everybody when they are ignoring their black constituents. what are we supposed to do about that? host: let me get daniel involved, a republican in ohio. good morning, daniel. caller: good morning. mr., noorani, your argument is facetious at best an.

you can smile all you want. in 2004, the united states supreme court ruled that the police do not have to have a reason to stop you and ask to see your papers. on the web page of the immigration, i.c.e., it clearly states under federal law, you are required to carry your papers with you at all times and present them if asked for. that includes a naturalized citizen. i am member of the cherokee nation. i was here long before the mexicans, the aztecs, etc. if you take a look, they are descended from us, not the other way around. what is this big deal with us making these laws when they came

back up from mexico and stole our land and enslaved us? host: ali noorani? guest: you bring up a good point. the federal government has not acted. the federal government has failed to fix our immigration system. as a result, you have people waiting in line to learn english. you have incredible tension in the labor market. you have an incredible amount of confusion and chaos when local police are trying to enforce immigration law. let me put a clear example on the ground here. let's say dan and i live in arizona and we are mowing are blunt on a saturday morning. how are you this morning? a cop drives by in arizona. the cop sees dan mowing the lawn and sees me mowing the lawn. we are both wearing saturday

morning gear. there is dan and and this other person. the other person may be here illegally. according to s.b. 1070, as soon as the thought enters the police officer's mind, he must ask me for my immigration papers. i was born in the united states. i speak english. i own this house. if the cop does not ask that question, he will be fined $5,000. that's the kind of pressure local law enforcement is under. that cop would rather be going down the street and tried to solve a public safety crime, making sure our communities are safe. s.b. 1070 is such an incredible distraction for local law enforcement. basic rights as americans are put into question. guest: the officer has to have reasonable suspicion. the person getting arrested

would be meat for using the word "groovy" down the arizona . the obama administration will not enforce the law with respect to millions of illegal aliens. arizona -- we heard angela talking about this situation -- what are the american people supposed to do to get immigration laws enforced? if congress can be ignored by the executive branch, states cannot enact laws consistent with federal immigration policy. the right of the american people to decide who comes, who does not come under what conditions, to have a fair labor market, at will be jeopardized forever. there is a tremendous amount at stake in this case this week, and everybody should listen to these moral arguments later this week because this is a fascinating example of how the netherworld between federal and state sovereignty could create an earthquake-type fisher in our

governance -- in our fisher -- host: we will be airing them here friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. larry, go ahead. caller: i agree with what governor brewer did. i live in texas. i worked in arizona for eight years, and i was born and raised in southern california. the problem is that the federal government has dropped the ball on everything, and, mr. noorani, talking about the jobs for the farmers and everything, it is not their job to help the farmers out, it is their job to kelp -- to help keep the borders safe. my daughter graduated from high school last year, and there had to be 25 to 30 kids last year that did not -- had to be 25 to

30 kids there that did not speak english but got a high school diploma. whether arizona wins in court this week or not, at its a great chance to say, hey, we are not doing this because you are not doing your job. you're shaking your boots because you don't know what is coming across the border in el paso. it is a zoo. there are people living in that area, it is pretty scary sometimes. they are doing it because arizona used to be number one in kidnapping. they had so many drugs coming across the border. they did not do it because there were a bunch of people trying to reach a better life. the one-percenters are the ones making it bad for everybody else. host: let's have ali noorani respond. guest: al passcode is one of the safest cities, if not number 3,

number one now. it is across the border from one of the most dangerous cities in the world. clearly all tasso is doing right. you know what they're doing right -- clearly, el paso is doing something right. and in beakers brief was signed at its -- and aeneas brief -- he has the safest city in the country. if he is saying that it does not work for him as a law- enforcement official, clearly he knows what he is doing. host: but hear from john, a democrat, in longview, texas. first caller:, a comment. these -- first, a comment. these immigrants do not want citizenship. if they did, they would have applied from their own country. that is number one. number two. if you want to solve immigration, hit the employers by a statute and use the word

"must." make everyone of them pay a $100,000 fine for every illegal. guest: you are putting your finger on this question of the rule of law and citizenship and sovereignty. the administration position that says we can suspend the rule of law from millions of people who have broken our immigration law strikes at the core of the cornerstone of citizenship, respect for the rules of law. that is part of the reason why this case has become so important. the administration itself, for political reasons, apparently to garner what it believes is losing the latino vote, is trying to pander to an ethnic group by saying we do not enforce the law that every american has the right to expect be enforced. we know that republicans have done very well on immigration control positions. we know governor brewer is an extremely popular politician, and we want to applaud her. russell pearce has made a

sacrifice and a highly political election. ultimately, the question of state action, in insisting on immigration law enforcement, will be an issue for the american people over the next 25 or 30 years. illegal immigration in mexico has slowed. why? our economy is in the tank. we are overburdened with debt, taxes are going to be increasing, and the demographics in mexico suggest we are seeing a diminution in the mexican labor force. the sooner we get our house in order and figure out what we need to do to enforce our immigration laws effectively and meaningfully, the better off we will be as a nation. host: i will have you respond to janet from st. elsewhere -- from st. albans, west virginia, a republican. caller: this country has been

invaded by people coming over here is legal. obama is doing that to get a vote without any identification. when i had my driver's license, i had to have my birth certificate, my marriage certificate to my social security, and a bill. they will not let you in their country, and as one teacher said, they had to be sure in mexico that he was well educated before they let him in. i tell you, obama is trying to change all of our laws, our constitution, and everything. host: ali noorani? guest: obama administration has deported 1.2 million people in its first term. more people than ever before. they have spent more money than any other administration in enforcing immigration law. we as an organization think they have gone too far, but they have enforced the law like no

other executive branch has in the past. in the history of immigration reform, it has been a bipartisan issue, an issue that has brought together democrats and republicans for a solution from the "middle." what is the risk is the establishment of 50 degree -- 50 different immigration laws passed across the country, just like the state of arizona is making it a state crime to not carry immigration papers. we will see laws like that across the country. we do not have 50 different foreign policies, we have one. our constitution says we should have one immigration policy. host: john, an independent from indiana. caller: the federal government has all this opportunity to enforce the law and they have not done it. arizona, they got sick and tired of it, and they came up with their own law. that is what the government of a

state is for, for people who got tired dealing with this issue. i am from a farm state, and you know what we do? we go to work. we go to the farm to work. these immigrants, we do not have a problem with emigrants' right now where i'm at in my state -- with immigrants right now where i'm at in my state. but they're getting up this way. host: he mentioned his state. here are the states with the largest mexican-born populations in 2010. california, 1.3 million. texas, 2.4 million. illinois, 700,000. arizona, 525,000. georgia, 293,000. guest: but keep in mind this is not a mexico issue but a worldwide problem we are facing. i want to reiterate that arizona

has not passed an immigration policy law. there is no patchwork of the minute -- different immigration policies. the foreign policy now is not correct. arizona has a passed laws and a fairly consistent with our overarching immigration -- obama's administration has told everybody around the world if you come here on a visitor's visa, enter without inspection and secure entry and get past border control -- border patrol and you are identified, you will never be removed. the president's uncle, his aunt, have the president's family would probably be deported if we and forced emigration law, so this administration is not interested in enforcing immigration law. the accelerated deportations, which have been brought to a halt practically, were carried over from the last two years of

the bush administration. the >> administration is going after the last -- the obama administration is going after the last -- secure communities, they're dialing that back, eliminating the 287-g cooperative agreement. no matter how well-meaning their motives may sound, it actually opposes all immigration enforcement. host: mary, democratic caller from florida. caller: republican caller claimed president obama for illegal immigration. i do not understand how the elephant is the symbol for republicans because they have short memories. after we were attacked on 9/11, a confident president would have immediately secured our open borders, ok? president obama has secured all nuclear material in mexico

recently. a lot of people do not find this important and do not know about it. all of the drug cartels in mexico, had that not been removed under president obama's leadership, just imagine if one of the drug cartels had gotten hold of the nuclear material. here in florida, illegals have taken our low-wage jobs for years. and retirement community called lady lake were thousands of rich retirees live was built completely by illegal mexicans. governor rick scott, here in florida, does not force florida companies to crack down on hiring illegals because he says it is too expensive for the state, too costly to enforce that law. obama is doing everything right. host: monday have you respond to that, and then ollie noorani, you can jump in. guest: we applaud the notion of

people wanting to come here legally and work hard and do well. secondly, if there truly is in the middle because republicans have been as a party the holders of -- beholden to cheap labor interests. part of the reason why it is hard to get the immigration issue solved is because there is pressure on what is called the left and the right working together. business groups and ideologues on the far left, working together to impose and undermine immigration law enforcement. neither party is virtuous on this broad question. the circle of virtue, as my colleague once observed, is totally virtuous on this question because the forces of greed, power and money. that is why it is so hard to get things done and that is why we need people to be involved. host: ali noorani? guest: let's look at it from a

different perspective. dan mentioned earlier that our deficits are out of control, that we're spending beyond our means. he is right. our immigration enforcement system is costing us tens of billions of dollars. if we are going to spend tens of billions on a solution, that has not worked at a federal level because we do not have a functioning immigration system, clearly we have to make taxpayers out of every undocumented immigrants and their employer to make sure the tax revenue is coming in. to make sure immigrants and their employers are going to the right background immigration checks and we have a system that will bring revenue in. we talked about the medicare trust fund. that will depend on tax revenue. tax revenue comes from workers, employers who are getting right with the system. that is what immigration reform does. therefore, we do not have to spend tens of billions of dollars chasing a landscaper. we can make sure that that landscaper and his employer pays

taxes. that is a solution that meets our needs as a country. host: larry, republican in new york. caller: how are you? i feel that the state should have the rights to enforce immigration laws. when i moved from connecticut back to new york, i had to show my birth certificate to motor vehicles, my driver's license from connecticut, my social security number, to get a driver's license. how do they get driver's licenses when they are here illegally? the middle class people are paying for all of this. i feel that every state should have their rights and the federal government should be doing what they're supposed to be doing. host: john, an independent from clay bird, new york. caller: these federal laws were given to the federal government by the states. they were given to them with the expectation that they would enforce these laws.

without enforcement, it is the same as not having it. if they do not have it, that means we revert back to the states. if the states do not do it, it reverts back to the people. you have farmers that are being killed by illegal immigrants. they are common across the border, stealing stuff out of the barnes, the farms. they are even killing the owners of these lands. if you do not do something about it, the people will do it, and you do not want this mess on your hands. guest: clearly something needs to be done and that means immigration enforcement. there is legislation pending -- congress is to be focusing on and paying attention to. by the same token, the administration needs to be dealing with securing drivers licenses. it's funny, interest groups that

have opposed the average on a bill are more than happy for states to provide in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. they're really saying they do not want immigration law enforcement. we need leadership from congress as well, not leadership pre- empting arizona because congress has made it abundantly clear that states have this authority within the zone of state sovereignty to do things consistent with federal law. but rather to empower states to complement the executive branch so that if you break our immigration laws and streamline the removal process, that we get some deterrence back in the system. host: ali noorani, the polls show that a majority of americans, 55%, supported arizona's effort surely after the law was passed. guest: u.s. that same group with

a one federal solution for taxpayers to learn english, pass a criminal background check, a majority says yes, we want the federal government to act. the core of the problem is that the federal government, congress, has not fixed our immigration situation. host: sounds like you both agree on that one. guest: the executive, in this case the obama administration, has deported 1.2 million people. if they were not enforcing the immigration law, we would not have 1.2 million deportations. the administration, the executive branch, is enforcing immigration law. sp-1070 requires a law enforcement officer to learn immigration law, and reasonable suspicion is based on what a person looks like or wears. >> what we always hear is you

cannot do this, you cannot do that. why are there millions of people here illegally? there have been efforts to litigate states into not cooperating with the federal government, and therefore states have been giving out benefits to illegal emigrants without checking -- to illegal immigrants without checking status. now they are back at it again, the same players with the foundation money, and they say we like the idea of secure borders but week -- but we oppose every form of immigration reform that you can name. racial profiling, asking the federal government for verification of a person's status, it criminalizes not carrying identification, lays out a portion measures that can make it easy for the executive to pick up a deportable alien and put him or her through removal will -- through removal

proceedings. if you want to take the states completely out of the field, at the same time try to corral the executive branch into submission on the amnesty position, you will get a lot more emigration is legally because everybody will know you are not enforcing the law. guest: 44 state attorneys general, a huge number of police chiefs, such as the sheriff of el paso and a former republican governor of arizona, all say that -- this is not an advocate speaking, this is a law enforcement official, a statewide law enforcement enforcer who is saying this is wrong. host: we have about 10 minutes left of this roundtable discussion. arizona's immigration law is our discussion.

jackie, democratic caller from california. caller: good morning, everybody. my thoughts on this is that since the constitution mandates the federal government to deal with immigration, that is its job to do. mr. stein keeps telling us some falsehoods about the obama administration. the obama administration has indeed deported 1.2 million people while he has been there. way more than president bush started out reporting. we need to enforce the verify laws. i used to do this. you call social security, give a social security number of the person applying. they tell you whether it is a legitimate number for somebody that age to be applying for a

job. employers are fine, then these people would not be working. there would be no reason for them to be here. host: daniel stein? guest: we agree with you on everything you say. we have been trying to convince congress for 30 years that this is a system that is to be in place. states are mandating that employers use the everify system. i am not here to draw comparisons between what the president has done and what president bush has done. my point was that president bush and accelerated enforcement. many aliens went into deportation proceedings but they were not deported until president obama took over, so he is getting credit for that. the reality, the department of homeland security issued a memo,

the morton memo, that lays out classifications of aliens who will not be enforcement priorities, including virtually every illegal alien who has not committed a serious felony or is a terror threat. therefore, most people here illegally are no longer in fear of being removed. that is not what i would call -- guest: smart government is about focusing your law enforcement resources. dan, thank you for pointing this out. prioritizing terrorists, drug smugglers, people who are here that could harm the american public. the person who is a landscaper, a nanny, somebody trying to make a go of it and serving our economic needs, that person is lower on the law enforcement priority. this is smart montforts been by the administration, who still has been able to deport -- this

is smart on the part of the administration, who still has been able to deport 1.2 million illegal immigrants. guest: justice kennedy seems to be the key point on all this. the supreme court reaches a decision, it will be kicked back to the ninth circuit. it will go through another set of processes. host: and justice elena kagan is reducing herself, why? guest: she was involved in the case when she was an attorney general. host: dan, who are you watching tomorrow? guest: this kennedy. i am also interested in what john roberts has to say because of his analysis projecting a more conservative thinking on this issue. we were encouraged by an earlier supreme court decision on the whiting case.

remember, my colleague here, who have a tremendous amount of respect for, continues to make economic points. if the supreme court takes the right of states to assist in enforcing immigration law is -- n away host: justice kagan is recused herself. what do you think happens next? guest: if it is a 4-4 decision, the injunction remains. but we are very optimistic that one of these will survive. in the end, this goes to the core of our federal system and the states' federal relationship. sp-1070 are in the zone of what

we consider state sovereignty to enforce these laws. the obama administration has not sued utah on its guest worker program. they are being selective. the issue is enforcement. the obama administration wants to control who gets deported. they want to decide who has to go into deportation did proceedings. host: we were showing our viewers the four parts of the arizona law that the ninth circuit court has blocked. you said if it is a 4-4 decision, the junction would remain by the ninth circuit court. the republican in columbia, maryland. caller: so many thoughts go through my head, but the first that goes to my mind is the gentleman arguing for this law -- host: dan stein. caller: mr. stein is asking if

the american people and these immigrants to trust the police across this country who have a history of abusing, killing, and many people of color, period. i would not trust any law enforcement against anybody. you are saying anybody who looks latino, you do not have any problem with them being approached and identified for whatever reason, legal or illegal. host: let's go to that point. guest: you sound like you want to abolish the police. we are clear that profiling is not a basis for a stop. the arizona law requires at least a stop independent of the immigration question. the inquiry into immigration status only follows after some

kind of behavior that reflect reasonable suspicion, like providing a fraudulent driver's license that prompt further inquiry. this has been carefully crafted. the misinformation that is out there about the arizona law has been astounding because this law has been incredibly carefully crafted. has been no case of racial profiling. you can have no involvement at all. in assisting, you will have massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. host: colton is our last caller from manchester, new hampshire. caller: yes, i would like to reiterate what has happened in our area. we have a significant french- canadian population, and originally they did sheet rock and that kind of thing, which

is semi still there. now that is all done by hispanics. the wages are down. that is a direct impact of not enforcing the law. if you are here illegally, we are a nation of laws and we need to enforce the laws. host: we will leave it there. eileen noorani? guest: -- ali noorani? guest: colton is right. we do feel like e-verify would work if every worker or employer would pay their taxes. it only pushes workers into the hands of corporate employers, there for only the cricket employers would -- the crooked employers -- i was in phoenix last summer

during -- driving downtown for a baseball game. this hispanic man was walking on the sidewalk with his daughter, going to the baseball game. there was no traffic, and they walked across the street. they did not wait for the crosswalk. a hispanic man and his hispanic daughter are walking through to a baseball game, how much more american can you be? that person broke the law by jaywalking. a police officer, if he suspects that person was here illegally because of the way they look, he would have to stop him to task for their papers. here is a family going to the baseball game who crossed the street. guest: that is not a legally sufficient basis for the inquiry. that is not legal under the arizona law. guest: said in order for a police officer to ask the question, that person has to do something that is unlawful. guest: has to do something that

is on the basis of him possibly entering the country illegally such as having a fake driver's license. you cannot name something because it has not happened. what the caller is articulating has been the destruction of the american middle class by massive uncontrolled influx of lower-skilled labor outside our laws are the american people. we will retake control our borders when we start getting political leaders who articulate what is needed to enforce the laws of this country. that includes loss like arizona. host: we could go around and around, but thank you both for this round table discussion. the intent of the arizona immigration law, that is for the supreme court tomorrow when they begin arguments tomorrow. a decision is expected in late june. we will air those arguments at friday -- on friday at 8:00 p.m.

eastern time. up next, we will open our phone lines and let you weigh in on anything you have heard from the news are on our show this morning. we will be right back. and that for this the year -- >> for this year passed studentcan competition, we asked the constitution and you, what is important and why to you. good morning, andy. the topic of your video was article 5. can you explain what article five is? and that article 5 is basically the constitution's process for changing it. so what article 5 does, it says that whenever congress deems it necessary, congress may change the constitution in order to fit the current needs of the society. so whenever that thought is necessary, either the congress

or 2/3 of the states proposed an amendment, and then the states are required to ratify it, 3/4 of the states are required to ratify it for that change to come into the constitution. >> how did you come to choose this as your topic? >> i think article 5 is really exemplifies the american values. i think within the american dream is this idea of progress, and what better way to show progress than through the change that has been made, the changes that have been made to the constitution over the last few hundred years. through the amendment process, we have had an enormous expansion of suffrage for women, for african-americans, for people outside of, you know,

the continental united states. i think it is important to remember that we started as a very different mission than what we are today. i think i chose the topic because it really is the most american article in our constitution. >> you mentioned the genius of the framers, including article 5 in the constitution. what did you mean? >> they were not going to get it all right, so they built in the process for change so that as a country evolves, so can the documents by which we live by. i think that really, aside from some of the great things that they wrote down -- bicameral legislature, other things like that -- i think that was the real genius of the framers. >> how did the experts further

your understanding on article 5? >> i think more than anything they provided a round view a very controversial topic. they obviously have very different views on it. but i think the importance of being objective in a documentary is exemplified by the very different experts that we interviewed. >> what would you like others to take away after watching the documentary? >> more than anything i would like people to understand what i have been saying. the framers did not get it all right, and the framers knew they would not get it all right. we have this view of the framers in our society that they were angelic beings that knew all. and i think that is somewhat irresponsible because they

really did not, and they knew it. so they built in this system for change so that america would last, and for the last few hundred years it has. >> thank you for joining us, andy, and congratulations again on your win. >> thank you so much. >> here is a portion of his video. [video clip] >> over the past to madrid years, we have stumbled, but the power of the constitution is its ability to live within the society it serves, warranted by the cut in -- by the inclusion of the amendment process. >> many of the leading citizens, foremost among them, thomas jefferson, would not have supported the constitution

without article 5. >> i know also laws and institutions must go hand in hand. the progress of the human mind, as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, a new truce disclosed, manners and opinions changed with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times. but provide in our constitution a provision. >> you can watch the video in its entirety at studentcam.org. and on our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal) continues. host: where back for open phones for the remainder of "washington journal." and me give you a flavor of the headlines on the front pages. "the washington post."

"pentagon revamps its spying program. the new unit is to work closely with the cia as the military moves to expand its reach. this new unit is called the defense service, would work with the cia, creating two organizations that have -- two organizations that have often seen each other as rivals. the new agency being formed at the pentagon." "the financial times" has this headline, "leader to face austerity backlash," both in germany, france, and the netherlands. and "usa today" has this had lied about financial illiteracy. millen deals are the latest generation to struggle with dollars at -- "miller anneals are the latest generation to struggle with dollars and

cents." $1,800 is the average credit card debt for those 20-29. 13 states require high school students to take a personal financial class. 60% of 18 to 34-year olds are not keeping a budget. president obama will talk about it later today, at 1:00 p.m. eastern time at the university of north carolina. look for coverage at c-span.org. both president obama and former massachusetts governor mitt romney agree that the loan rates should not double in july as it is set to do. within 7 million students will take out new loans this year, unless congress votes to keep current rates in place, some republicans have been reluctant to extend the current loan rates because of the cost to taxpayers.

roughly $6 billion a year. that is the latest on student loans. "los angeles times," their front page, they had a picture here of the former senator from north carolina, john edwards, and former vice presidential pick. john edwards r roz with his daughter for the first day of his -- john edwards' arrives with his daughter for the first day of his trial. first to testify was a former edwards a who is now the prosecution's chief witness. then "wall street journal," "stress rises on social security." "paid disability benefits would be exhausted by 2016, two years

earlier than suggested. all reserves will be exhausted by 2033." anything else you have seen on the show -- patrick, a republican from shawnee, oklahoma, go ahead. caller: go ahead. my main thing is if obamacare gets approved, the reason why the states like arizona are enforcing a law now, you think they are common across the border now, with until they can go across the border to get free health care. they will come by the millions. they are going to cross the border, get free health care because of obamacare in 2014. that is why the states are going broke. you think they will not go broke after obamacare brings mexicans free health care after 2014? i think they will come by the millions and we will go broke overnight. host: roberta, a democratic

caller, go ahead. roberta, you are on the air. caller: thank you, and thank you for c-span. i would like to say that i think there is too much total, 85% or 90% of the people who call in say, "obama," and the total disrespect they have for our president is appalling. we do not have a chance to even have the respect we should have for the president. when they say -- host: i think we got your point, roberta. let's move to diana, an independent from san diego. caller: i would like to say, in regards to the gentlemen who spoke previously on your

segment -- the gentlemen who spoke previously on your segment, an immigrant illegally jaywalking -- i'm caucasian, on acrossmigrant's s the street illegally. he was not asked to show his documents, but he did have to go to court. there will be targeting. it will happen to everyone. i do not think we can exclude people simply because of their color and say they are going to be targeted. host: all right, haley, a republican from philadelphia. we lost them. from florida, a democratic caller. harold, are you there? good morning, harold. caller: good morning.

my first comment would be concerning the gentle man -- the gentlemen who were just on. i do not know what they mean by "person who looks suspicious picco a person with a mustache, dark skin, dark hair. if a police officer stopped me and said he wanted to see my identification papers, the first thing i would say to him is, "i would like to see yours." i want to make sure you are a policeman and not someone simply dressed in a uniform. host: on campaign 2012, "boston globe," "new hampshire could be decisive battle ground." "president obama and mitt romney are fiercely pursuing the finicky electorate in a race that could come down to the wire in november. the only one in new england. obama visited the state twice in

the last five months. michelle obama was in concord last month, and vice-president joe biden has been to the state three times this year. for romney, the significance of new hampshire is personal as well as political. the state is home to his summer residence and was the launch pad in his candidacy last summer. he was a regular visitor before the hotly contested primary in january. romney is returning to the granite state for a speech and the victory party that his campaign considers his official to visit to the general election. we will have former massachusetts governor's comments after all the polls close in the five primary states today. go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. also, the presidential race, a new poll in arizona. done at the arizona state university. romney and obama in a tossup.

42% said they would vote for mitt romney, 40% said they would vote for barack obama. 18 were undecided in that state. in the congressional races, speaker john boehner, in an interview with fox news that will air today, said the house is in play. the ohio lawmaker put to august 2-1 that somebody else would be running the house in 2013. and this story, "conservative groups are spending money to win a senate majority in that chamber." groups like the chamber of commerce, spending more money on their incumbent candidates. pennsylvania holding -- one of the five states holding a primary. the pennsylvania map shows two democrats, jason altmire and

mark critz. john, a republican from chantilly, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. the problem is no one wants to stand up for what is right. i am an immigrant who came to this country. there are a lot of good things that immigrants can bring this country, but the problem is those who are breaking the laws, they should be punished. if they commit a crime, they should be dealt with immediately. but the republicans want to use them when they are cutting the grass or building the houses come all these things. -- building the houses, all these things. this country needs to stand up.

the problem we have our politicians using both sides -- the problem we have are our politicians using both sides to gain votes. they look at the issues than they solve the problems of the country has? host: paul is next, from greenwood, arkansas, an independent. caller: on social security and medicare, the problems could be easily fixed. all they need to do is increase the cap. that might solve it forever. the politicians want to borrow money for medicare. take it off budget and make it separate. they want to borrow money, that is fine. as far as illegal immigration, find it employers -- find employers.

government workers would have to e-verify for government benefits. and if both parents are illegal, you are illegal. you have to be born of legal immigrants or legal citizens. host: gracie, democratic caught from richmond, virginia. , iler: just don't understand never hear about any other group that is deported except mexicans and people look like them. i do not understand that. it also for one of the guys that called earlier, medicare has never been free. i pay $140 a month for my medicare, and i do not understand why people cannot get that in their heads that medicare has never, ever been free. addis four times how much i was paying when i was working. host: freeport, indiana.

caller: god bless c-span. the first topic is, this is a very simple election. obama is going to give them amnesty, period. obama will give them amnesty if he is elected. this is a crucial election in our lives. second comment -- the fast and furious. when all this comes out, nixon was impeached for burglarizing office buildings. there was a border agent killed, and when fast and furious all comes out, and it will, somebody's heads are going to roll. host: another topic, afghanistan. "afghanistan bands u.s. lawmaker from visiting." "hamid karzai was effectively blocked from visiting

afghanistan over the weekend. an afghan official said representative dan a rocker -- dana rohrabacher was prohibited. "the president making a stop in north carolina is expected to sidestep the debate over the state's marriage and then it. he will -- the state's marriage and amendment." kalamazoo, michigan, independent, go ahead. caller: one quick comment. i support the states taking the initiative. good on them.

host: we are listening. go ahead. you have to turn that television down. caller: one thing you cannot do too much about is morals. when i was a kid, americans did not want to work anymore, be in fields for long hours. americans do not want to work anymore, they do not want to take those hard jobs. the other side is, big business, they need to be held responsible for their actions, undercutting wages in situations to develop. host: a democrat in d.c. go ahead. caller: i have got a couple of comments to me. when it comes to immigration, there are lawmakers in all groups. lawmakers -- there are lawbreakers in all groups.

lawbreakers should be taking care of, whoever they are. first of all, have we forgotten that we all are immigrants? some of the statements that i hear about immigrants are very sensitive to me. i am an african-american, and i heard the same type -- the same type stuff about us. secondly, in terms of the respect for the office of the president, i do have a problem with people referring to the president as "obama." he is the president. he should be referred to as "president." also, the affordable care act. you newspeople have a responsibility to correct people. it's not obamacare preferred is the affordable care act. we need to -- it is not obamacare. it is the affordable care act. host: things we are covering today on c-span3 there's a hearing this morning before the

senate banking committee, live coverage -- things we are covering today on c-span. there is a hearing this morning before the senate banking committee on the an f global bankruptcy investigation. a couple of committees taking a look at the mf global bankruptcy. and looking at the impact of all immigration laws done by states ahead of the supreme court taking up the oral arguments on the arizona supreme court case. coverage on c-span3 of that hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. and the phone hacking scandal with the murdoch's, set to testify before a judicial panel. that is the headline this morning in the paper. live coverage on c-span2 today. look for -- go to our website, c-span.org, for more details.

here is the headline in "the new york times," "murdochs set to testify." "there have been few episodes more challenging for rupert murdoch and his sun, james -- and his son, james. we will have coverage of that. also on booktv. a new book is out by rodney king, recounting his life in the days and years following the court case of -- after his beating. he calls the riots recovers the riots following his acquittal, alcohol addiction. he is speaking in harlem, new york city. again, that is on booktv.org.

molly, a republican from california. you're up next. caller: yes, this is all ball laws, right, the immigration thing. my girlfriend called me and i went to court with her. she wanted to see what was going on there. there were 37 cases on the docket. 36 were about domestic violence. none of them spoke english. they had an interpreter in the court. 36 were illegals, and their wives were watching. they had black eyes, injured faces, and every single one of those men were told about all the programs they had to join, all these programs there were in place for them. everyone is released after being told about these programs available to them in california.

they were released on their own recognizance. of course, none of them show up and this is what we have on our courts in california. i speak italian so i understood a lot of what is being said, and it's all garbage. we have over 11% unemployment in california. we are falling apart and we have a court system that cannot -- just the domestic abuse going on in the spanish community. host: rick in asheville, dennis a. -- rick in nashville, tennessee. caller: on one hand you here we need to battle -- balance the federal and state budgets, but on the other hand you hear corporate america is taking jobs overseas, thousands of them. the manufacturing industry, they will become a service-oriented nation. how do we balance our state and federal budgets if we have more

jobs leaving and more people -- and more people coming in? my point is, i would stop the immigration, period, and get a hold on it as far as corporate america and america itself. host: when the house comes into session in the morning time, it is opened with a prayer. today when the house comes into session at 2:00 p.m., televangelist joel osteen will be opening the house session with a prayer for the house of representatives and our nation. he has been invited to serve as guest chaplain, according to her chief of staff. the senior pastor at the lake wood mega church in houston will call the house to order at 2:00 p.m. tuesday eastern time. caller: good morning. everybody has all kinds of things to say this morning.

i am a union plumber by trade. i just want to say that i hope everybody has a good day. i hope everybody is going to play nice. i'm an old air force veteran, and i want to encourage all employers to hire some veterans. thank you very much, and have a great day. host: nashville, tennessee. michael, a republican. caller: i'm calling about the immigration law and everything. i was just thinking, i have had the privilege to be around a lot of countries around the world, and they -- you know, i have been stopped, ask for papers, and i say, yeah, sure. but it seems like they do not have problems over there. here people are not understanding, this is happening on these borders. it's a big issue, whether black,

mexican, whatever. the laws need to be -- law- enforcement needs to do their job because that is what they are therefore, to protect us. host: you and the majority of phone calls here on open funds have been about the immigration issue. how interested are you about the supreme court oral arguments about the arizona law? caller: very much so. i'm a full-time parent and everything. i am always cautious. i am thinking about not only my child and everything but people around me, the good people around me. i do not see why people are making this a big deal. it is done all over the world. they check your papers. i say, yeah, sure. but if you did not have your papers, you go right to jail. host: were