>> and wednesday night, we want to hear what you think about code hank's mission and tactics. how protest movements fit into the political discussions. we will take your calls, tweets, and facebook comments. we will hear from david meyer, the author of "the politics of protest." that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, the latest on negotiations concerning immigration legislation. after that, a discussion on china's relationship with north korea. then a former obama administration treasury official discusses the dodd- frank regulation locke and part -- law and tarp. >> monday night, and a harrison, whose husband died one month after office, and letitia tyler,

who becomes first lady as her husband john tyler assumes the presidency, she passes away one year later. then julia tyler becomes the president second wife. >> julia is the madonna of first ladies. she had posed as a model at a time when that was frowned upon. waswas knows as -- she known as the rows of long island. by all accounts, she was bewitching. she certainly bewitched 57-year- old john tyler. he married her. being first lady. she had the job for less than the year, but it was julia tyler who ordered the marine band to play "hail to the chief ." it was also julia tyler who greeted her guests sitting on a throne, a raised platform with purple plumes in her hair. it was almost as if she reseeded

to that more queenly role of martha washington and deliberately rejected. >> we will take your questions and comments about these three first ladies by phone, facebook, and twitter at 9:00 on monday night on c-span. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> now the latest on negotiations on immigration legislation. from today's "washington journal," this is about 50 minutes. host: we're back with rebecca talent, the immigration policy advisor for the immigration policy center. rebecca, let me show you the headlines from this morning's papers. this is breaking over the weekend --

the chamber of commerce, unions, supposedly coming to some sort of resolution, however, they are cautioning, this is not set in stone. how will this work? what are the negotiating? guest: it is complicated. right before the senate went to their april recess, it came out in the press. three people that were involved in negotiations, they were struggling to reach an agreement related to wage rates for temporary workers and would be included in the program. whether or not construction workers would be included, that was a specific sticking point. also, where the wage rate would fall in the tiers of wages. like, as of the recess, afl-cio was running one way and the chamber was running

the other way. the spinning was happening in the press, which is never a good sign when we are negotiating a bill. as of friday night, senator schumer got on the phone with the heads of both the afl-cio and the chamber, and it sounds like to reach an agreement on the cap, how many temporary workers would be like in every year, and how the wage rates would be calculated, which is a huge step forward. in our previous negotiations, we never had afl-cio on board. this is incredibly significant. however, marco rubio five minutes go out release saying that they have not reached a deal, that he is encouraged by where they are, but a deal is not set in stone he also thinks that no matter what the proposal that comes out of the gang of eight is, he really feels it needs to go through a full process in the senate judiciary committee and it needs to have extended process on the senate floor. i think this is incredibly

encouraging, but a lot of headlines indicate we are now down and moving forward. i think that is a little bit of a step too far. there are a number of things that still need to be fleshed out, including the actual legislative text. we're waiting to see that still. host: here is the daily caller -- we still do not know what is clear to happen. however, on this issue of the guest worker program and wages, "the washington post" reports -- under the senate proposal, businesses would be allowed to hire 20,000 foreign workers for low-skilled jobs in avenue program. the number could rise in 2019.

it would take many years before it would approach the annual proposed cap of 200,000 foreign workers. construction industries would be limited to no more than 15,000. what do you make of these numbers? four hundrediginal thousand was part of our proposal in 2007. that was based on the estimate there were approximately 375,000 people crossing the border every year to work. the idea was to use a temporary worker program or the number would replace those that were coming here illegally. however, in both debates, we lost that amendment on the floor, it cut the number down to 200,000. those are the bases for the 400,200 thousand members. 0 and 200,000 numbers.

we need to recognize the economy now is in a different place than it was in 2006-2007. it is possible our economy will not need as many workers as it did back then and cannot tolerate the influx of that number. however, it is key to point out that probably the best thing we can do for our border security is to have a realistic temporary worker program that reflects the people want to come in every year. to shortchange the number is going to cause us to repeat the same cycle of people try to find a way to come into the country. in ascendingkers find jobstrying to that americans are unlikely to fell, many of them, and you're still going to have people overstaying their visas and finding a way to get into this country. the idea that we can do a temporary comprehensive immigration proposal and have a

secure border and to deal with this across the board without a realistic temporary worker program is not possible. guest, immigration policy director at a bipartisan policy center. you have experience in drafting immigration legislation. you worked for senator mccain. you drafted a couple pieces of legislation for what congressional session? guest: i helped draft the mccain-kennedy proposal in 2006, which passed the senate, and not a house. i held with what is being called the kennedy-kyl proposal that was in 2007 while mccain was getting ready for his presidential bid. took no -- took the negotiations over. they're based on a fundamental draft was put together in 2005- 2006 known as mccain-kennedy which went through the committee process and became hodgepodge on the floor.

biggest sticking point during those negotiations? guest: that is a good question. i would say the temporary worker program was definitely the point in 2007 where we really hit a wall. if you look back at the floor debate, there was a crucial amendment that sunset did the temporary worker program after five years. once that passed by one vote, the whole process teleport. aboutteresting part drafting immigration legislation, involves a lot of labor law. you have a whole different set of staffers that to come in and help out with that. it's very complicated. luckily, i have never been a labor lawyer. it would be a difficult job. it is very complicated, intricate law that requires a lot of expertise. host: what about border security? guest: back then, it was not a major issue.

we were all in agreement that a border need to be secure. now they have an interesting conversation going on about how we've made such strides in the border security, how much more can be done? that is kind of a political sticking point with the administration because they have been insisting that the border so much more secure, but there is an agreement that there needs to be something done on border security in order to the public on board. how you write that ship? ship?ht that host: there are republicans cajon who have said, the border has to be secure first before we move forward. here's homeland security janet napolitano at a christian science monitor breakfast talking about the border. [video clip] >> that is a very difficult thing to do it in any kind of

sense -- statistically significant way. in terms of how we measure border security or what we look for, is a combination of the manpower, the technology we have, the aerial coverage, and infrastructure. for example, we now have aerial coverage over the entire southwest border. we did not have that before. we can now take things to our forces on the ground. the technology part is absolutely critical. we have station more border patrol agents down at the border than ever before. to numbers have been driven 40 year lows, if you just look .t things like apprehensions we know we are achieving success there. our real measure is more qualitative. when you step back and think about the border, what you want is the ability to spot illegal traffic, particularly in the highly trafficked areas and

then the ability to respond to what is seen and using that measure and the plans we have, confident that the border is as secure as it's ever been. >> but do you have -- >> but there's no one number that captures that. that is the problem if you're looking for just one number. host: rebecca tallent, the border's secure but no proof. guest: right, right. that is your sticking point, what is your border security matrix. how do you decide what border security means? does that mean you have zero crossers every year? even if you have a free flow of traffic across the border, people will always try to get across the border. what does border security mean. she referenced there are are

certain sections of the border that are deemed secure, as in yuma and del rio and they had a definition at that point, border patrol had a definition at that point of what a secure border looks like. however, they have moved away from that matrix and are looking for something else and i think that's going to be a huge, huge part of this debate. the more conservative republicans like somebody like tom coburn, chuck grassley, jeff sessions, are really zeroing in on this issue for the debate. they're moving away from the claim -- i think we'll still hear some of it but they're moving away from the amnesty charges and welfare charges and zeroing in on the border security piece so if the gang of eight or the democratic leadership doesn't have a good response for them, that could derail the whole conversation because it's a hard talking point to argue against. how do you say, i know our border is not quite secure

because people in southern arizona will tell you the border is not secure. apprehensions were up 9% this year and anticipated to be the same this year so people are continuing to cross. host: and the "arizona republic" reports on friday, "tight border discourages migrants from going home" so because ofet across, all these strict penalties, tougher penalties, all of that, crossing has become more dangerous, people are discouraged from going back home. guest: that is true. one of the pieces of the temporary worker program or legalization program has always been the ability for people to travel in and out of the country. that's one of the interesting parts of our immigration system is that often we've put ourselves in a place of discouraging people to travel back home to continue ties with families and friends there that would encourage them to return or leaving the country for any

significant amount of time due to the possibility of them losing their eligibility so that's one of the smaller parts of the debate that people don't talk about a lot but has been part of the conversation, we need to facilitate that flow and maybe one of the things we're looking at at the bipartisan policy center is a way for the united states to work with mexico to help facilitate that flow of people back and forth across the border and help build infrastructure back in sending countries that would lessen the need for people to push north if that wasn't what they desired to do so that's a piece of the debate we haven't had a lot of conversation about in the past but we're hoping to dig into a little bit at the bipartisan policy center. host: four of the eight senators part of the so-called gang of eight working on this legislation visited the border last week. john mccain, lindsey graham and chuck flake. and chuck schumer become on "meet the press" this morning. fred bingham said, "you can't too wonky on c-span."

democratic caller, hi, catherine. caller: i have a comment on situation. with 20 million unemployed american citizens, some of them returning vets, a lot of them college students not being able to find jobs, the parties to fall all over each other to pander to a group of people who should not be in this country. host: rebecca tallent? guest: there are two pieces here. the unemployment rate which you are mentioning amongst a lot -- especially college graduates and veterans -- i know is a significant concern society proposal that the gang of eight is putting together basis much of the cap off of unemployment rate in certain areas and certain sectors so you're not

flooding the market in places with a high unemployment rate with temporary workers where they might have the possibility of having american workers fill those jobs, too. the second piece you mentioned was the pandering to people who shouldn't be here and i think there's -- that people are looking at the situation more in a practical way. you have these people here. most of them are working in the economy and we are now in a position where we have to address that population and deal with it in a realistic manner. one of the worst things we could do for our economy now is force people out of jobs they're working in and helping to grow the economy so assuming there are 11 to 12 million people here illegally, you're talking about six to seven million of those currently filling jobs in some sector or another, do we really want to cause more upheaval in our economic structure by forcing them to go home and there's a question as to what kind of sector we're talking about and what types of jobs these

individuals are filling and where the high unemployment rates are amongst the american workers so i think -- i think there are different aspects of this proposal that will be flushed out once we see the gang of eight response but i do think they are going to be very respectful of the concept of unemployment amongst american workers and that's one of the very things they're trying to address with the new proposal. host: twitter, mark williams asks this of you -- "i would like to know what lobbyist groups are protecting these low paying jobs for immigrant workers." you would put afl-cio in that? who are the players? guest: ok, i understand. afl-cio is very, very, probably the lead labor organization right now that's working on -- that's protecting, i guess you could say, low-skilled american workers but you also have groups like seiu and teamsters, part of afl, a lot of labor involved in the

conversation. construction labor is very concerned, there's a high unemployment of american workers in construction at the moment but we have to look forward so if our housing market starts to boom again, where are those people to fill those jobs once the americans have also gone back to work and i think there is tension there amongst employers, where our economy might be 10 to 15 years from now. ofst: newsmakers at the top the hour is with afl-cio richard trumka, he sat down with us earlier this week before aere was an announcement of reported deal. we have no details on whether or not the gang of eight, all eight of them agree to whatever labor leaders and business leaders have come up with but in that interview, mr. trumka talks about wages for low- skilled workers and he said business leaders wanted 25% minimum wage and not what minimum wage that we know.

can you explain what he's talking about? host: a little bit. i'm not a labor expert. but there's an issue over, the labor department tiers wages so there are different levels of wages and different tiers and there was a question over what tier level immigrants who are coming into the country should be paid at. i think business would argue that labor was saying that if somebody was a tier one employee, which is an entry level, basic skill set job, that they were asking them to be paid at a tier two or tier three or tier four which could negatively impact an american worker still paid at the tier one wage level so businesses were arguing that laborers were asking employers pay up to 110% of current wage rates for individual workers to immigrant workers so i think everybody will put their spin on it but

what's important is they've come to agreement and what's ironic is their agreement is everybody should be paid what everybody should be paid and everybody should be made equal and it got very complicated in formulas and how to calculate that but at the end of the day, that's what they've agreed upon. host: in the politics of this, mr. trumka says republicans are not going to walk away, republicans need to do immigration reform, basically, implying that labor -- and you said this, they haven't negotiated before -- implying that labor had leverage here. guest: labor absolutely has leverage here. the democrats find them in a win-win situation on immigration reform. they get a bill done, president obama will get credit and democratic leadership will get credit on delivering a promise they've made for many years in

many people's eyes. orrepublicans kill the bill if it's perceived republicans are going to kill a bill, that's the political win for democrats, too. y is it's interesting that democrats are even willing to come to the table in a lot of ways if you're looking that the from a political standpoint because they're in a win-win- win situation on this. we're talking about the senate but when this gets complicated politically is when you look at the house. 2014 is a midterm election. people tend to be focused on their districts and with redistricting, there are house members in safe seats that don't really depend on immigrant voters or high levels of latino population within their district so people are going to be -- tend to be more insularly focused. looking at 2016 is when it gets interesting because you have a presidential election coming up, you've got president obama

at the end of his term feeling the need you have to deliver on one of these big promises. somebody like marco rubio who may be looking at a presidential bid and needing to have a win on this issue because this is the one he's focused in on so i think there is an argument that can be made that it's less likely for the house to move on a bill this congress but perhaps next congress when they're looking more nationally and they'll all be up for re- election at that point, too, but also with their eye on winning the white house back so you could argue that maybe this is going to happen not this year but maybe in 2015 if there isn't momentum to get it through the house this time around and talking with individuals in the house, there is still a lot of confusion about what they want to do. house leadership has not agreed if they want to move small piecemeal bills, maybe like a dream act or act jobs or border security bill. they've already done the stem bill. they did that last congress. if they want to do that way and kind of drop these little pieces at the feet of the senate

and say ok we've done part of our deal, you can either rectify the situation for four or five million people or leave them in limbo and hold out for a comprehensive bill. that's the point where we get into a really interesting political dynamic and as somebody who enjoys the game of politics i'd be interested to see how that would play out. host: rebecca tallent, our guest, immigration policy directors at the bipartisan policy center and former chief of staff for senator john mccain from 2012 through 2013 and worked with him in previous years, as well, and helped draft immigration legislation reform in 2006 and 2007. mike in miami, republican, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. listen. i'm calling from miami but i live and work on the southwest border, particularly el paso, with schools, public schools being closed down, even catholic private schools being closed down in this country and the major cities, how do we justify having kids -- and i see this every day -- kids coming

from -- living in mexico and crossing the bridge of america in el paso every day going to schools? going to public schools and the people and the residents of el paso, they're paying for this education through this property taxes. how do you justify? how do you justify that? you know, that's one question. and the second question is, how do you, you know, does an immigration bill even covers those that -- those -- and i'm going to be frank -- mostly mexicans, there are a lot of other nationalities that the immigration bill has to cover but specifically mexicans, how do you justify -- not justify -- but how does this bill cover or does it cover situations where parents come over here

illegally or legally and conveniently have kids, give birth to kids on this side of the border. host: i think we got your point. rebecca tallent? guest: i'll start with the second point. what mike is referring to is this issue of birth right citizenship which has been an issue on and off for the last few years as part of this debate. i think there would be many that would argue that birth right citizenship, while some could say the system is being abused currently in the kind of situation mike is talking about, it's also a constitutional matter that i believe is part of the fabric of the united states, is that we're not france, we don't require a blood test to prove our citizenship. we are a welcoming country. we're a country where anybody can come and be prosperous and can earn the right to be a citizen and can contribute to our nation. there are others that would

definitely argue on the other side of this and say that our citizenship is precious and we shouldn't be giving it away for free and especially a situation in which you talk about where parents are here illegally, this that it shouldn't defer citizenship to a child because they're born here. it's a complicated issue. i don't believe it will be addressed in the base legislation on what we're working on. i'muldn't be surprised -- not working on it, what they're working on -- i would not be surprised if it comes up as part of an amendment process on the floor. it usually does and it's divisive. it speaks to what is the heart of our country and it is a very tough issue to address but i do not believe it's in the base bill the gang of eight is working on. the other issue is education in schools along the border.

theously that's not how system should be working. we can't argue with that, people should not be crossing the border to go to schools in the united states. however, it speaks to the nature of individuals who want to improve circumstances for their children and the fact that they see the opportunities in the united states for children as tremendous and they are trying to be part of that dream, too. so it isn't a perfect system and it isn't the way it should be working right now but maybe if we improve the system for people to come here legally, they can contribute to our society and pay taxes and partake in the resources that our state and local governments, our federal government provide for individuals. that might be the best way for us to address the system like this. host: joe in macon, georgia, independent caller. caller: yeah. i don't think we need work programs for immigrants. what we need is work programs for american citizens and i'll give you an example. whenever somebody goes to court for writing bad checks or

nonpayment of child support, just, you know, nonviolent crimes, a lot of times the judge will give them community service. well, that community service should also include private businesses that need dish washers, somebody to clean floors or whatever they want them to do and put american citizens to work that way and that could also give them a small wage but it would also give them -- that could give them a little bit money for gas money and lunch money and the rest of the money would go to pay the court system, pay their fines and that, that and the other. host: rebecca tallent? guest: i think what we're hearing here with this caller and a previous caller, too, is this issue of putting immigrant workers before american and that's really what makes this temporary worker program tricky is absolutely having to find that balance where american workers are put first and that is one of the requirements -- i