king, representative from iowa on a discussion for immigration policy. 9:15 more on immigration with a law professor on how a political refugee will apply for asylum. of dallas ofshot the presidential library of george w. bush. eight years of history will be on display today at the dedication of the 43rd presidential library. president obama and three other former current president will be on hand with president bush on the campus of southern methodist university. we will be there covering that on c-span3 at 11:00 a.m. eastern. you can also listen to the dedication on c-span radio or on your computer at c-span.org.

with the legacy of the former president and get your thoughts on his two terms in office. 3 for all others. send us a tweet it or a facebook comment or send us an e-mail. let me begin with the dallas morning news, courtesy of the newseum.

the washington times report on the price tag for the presidential library. is the cost for the library and museum. it is set on 23 acres of the campus of southern methodist university. the headline for the "washington times" --

next to that is a graphic. s approvalbush' ratings were lower at the end of this time in washington. you can see his overall rating in 2008, 23%.

it has begun to rise over the time. that coincides with a gallup poll that was released this morning. ."istory usually kinder you can see how the president fired over time when they were in office and as they left office. martinsburg, west virginia, independent. toni? caller: i voted for bush both times and obama the first time. i volunteered and said obama my money. and president obama is worth and president bush. i don't know why the democrats keep taking up for president obama when he is clearly in the wrong. when he tells you to get

involved with politics and then will lockpeople that you up if they disagree with anything he's doing with the war. point. think we got your let's focus on george w. bush. has your opinion changed of him since he left office? caller: i miss bush. i will never vote for another democrat for president. host: what do you miss about bush? when the democrats have a president, they all lay down. they don't have any morals or principles, so stop hating the republicans. at least you know what they are. host: republican in indiana now . caller: i think his presidency

was sad. the picture you are showing right now shows that his presidency was marked by the 9/11 attacks. people attack him now because its tax cuts did not solve all the problem. three months after they were enacted, both two buildings were knocked down and the economy not a mess. sandy was a very good governor of texas and had a lot of promise to be president. a lot of it had to be dedicated to keeping us safe before two , for the next seven years. he accomplished that. that was his major focus. too bad the could not have normal times. i think that he had a lot more potential. i think the democrats used their typical approach that they have

used lately called lies, political games, and a demagoguery to attack him. now that they are standing back and staying out of stuff, people feel better about him. host: how have your thoughts evolved since he left office? caller: i liked him in the beginning and i liked him better than i liked his father as a president. so i was pretty sympathetic with him all the way along. host: even on the spending? some in the republican party are critical of the amount of spending he did while in office. caller: the house and senate have some control over the spending, too. i don't have any idea if it's thator not, but i herberard some of the republican senators

or us on spending, we will support you on national defense. so he made the right decision to do national defence. [indiscernible] he certainly was not going to let them play games with our national defense when we had been attacked. host: dave in indiana. he put on the approval ratings. career jobshows the approval of george w. bush. blue is the approval rating and the pink is the disapproval rating. this is march of 2001 at the beginning. and this is september, october, november, and you see the approval ratings going up. 2008, lands around 2008. overall, his approval has risen to about 47% since he left

office. cindy and alabama, a democrat. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. we are still trying to dig out from this country -- this country trying to dig out from bush's policies, try to find out about all the deceit leading up to the iraq war and the fact that him and dick cheney were so involved with big oil and all. deciet,oo much beseech i think it will be a long time before another republican is in office. much deceit. when obama starts out a presidency with the kind of deficit that he had, he has a long road ahead of him.

trust the't government any more. a large part of it has to do with us getting involved in iraq and the weapons of mass destruction and such. i don't think a lot of us will ever get over that period host: all right -- all right. we're taking your calls. states, we united want to hear from you as well. here's a tweet -- if you want to send us a tweet. hamilton,next in montana, independent. caller: how are you doing? , go ahead.

caller: i am still very disturbed over the bush presidency. it has left a long lasting scar. he followed the policies of his father. oil seems to run through the veins of the bush family. ever since we lost john kennedy, it does not seem we have had a legitimate president. the presidents are there now to corral resources for the super rich. i voted for president obama and now i feel very sad about that, because he is carrying on the bush policies. they're going even farther with the drone strikes and things like that. i don't want is a much more, because there's kind of like this statement after saying something bad about the president, you get hung out

pretty fast. we cannot turn back time. we have a new form of government that has taken over. it's not by the people anymore. ands for the super rich having the resources in the world for them. i want to say one more thing. a lady called in the other day from new york and did she said i called in on the democratic line but i'm a republican. right there, you should have told her you cannot do that. that's the policy. then you let her go on and on. it was awful. she had no idea of what she was even saying. host: you're right. we do ask people to respect the alliance -- the lines. i must have missed her say that. but that is something we ask everybody to do. caretaking your phone calls this morning at the beginning of the

washington journal." talking about and george w. bush's president steve ahead of the library dedication that we will cover later this morning on c-span3 at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. you will also be able to listen on c-span radio and c-span.org. with thelly sat down former president and first lady laura bush. we want to show you a little bit. laura bush describing today's dedication and how the gathering of all the living former presidents shows the job of the presidency is larger than just one person. [video clip] >> it's going to be thrilling. we are very excited. we've been to two other library dedications. george was governor when his dad library opened at texas a&m university. of course we lipped -- were there for that. and george was president when president clinton's library opened in low rock and prepare

for that. so we know what the dedication ceremonies will be like with the current president of the u.s. and the former president's joining. there's something so great about that. and something will be american. all of our president regardless of party come together for those sort of dedications. really, the presidency, the whole idea is w greater than the is itho have the job. -- > the people who have the job. the people have a job. host: the 13th presidential library will be dedicated today. our coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern. if you want to see that full interview, we erred it right before the washington journal began. you can go to c-span.org to watch the entire thing.

valerie in hawaii, republican. what you think of george w. bush's presidency? caller: i really miss laura bush. they were so much more humble than who's in the white house now. believe that they believed in people, not like the stars we have been there now. i know that during the bush presidency, until the last two years when the democrats took over the house and senate, i made more money than i have ever made in my life. the unemployment rate was way country and in hawaii, it was the best years i have ever had economically in my life. up until the democrats took over the house and senate, things were pretty good. humility ofs that people that go on vacation at their home in crawford, texas, g

instead, this itala -- instead of this gala we have going on now. the way history has been rewritten as horrible. they crucified to george bush for eight years. it was all wrong. host: we will keep taking your phone calls on this. let me give you some other news in the papers. front page of the washington times --

that's a little about the vote taken last week on background checks. senate majority leader harry reid says they could return to it in may. also on the front page, on the boston bombings -- and data sharing questions. we will talk about that with adam schiff, a member of the intelligence committee. we will get his take on the boston bombings and what we know and what we don't know. the detroit free press this morning on the economy -- the economic news for you from the detroit free press this morning. speaking of the economy and spending, "usa today has this about sequestration --

safety.that, food the fda could also take longer to review and approve new drugs.

and there's this story -- the front page of the washington post -- that comes to almost $1 million

in fees. finally, the irs paid $11 billion in improper refunds in 2012. oklahoma, tulsa, independent. your view of george w. bush's presidency. caller: good morning. first and foremost, in my opinion, this country will never get over having george bush. look what has happened to this country. world, george just bush, dick cheney, rumsfeld, all of those neocons would be brought to justice on the world court. they have destroyed a country that could not have hurt us at all, in iraq. now they have expanded to libya, under the auspices of george bush's father. it started with him. host: you say expanded to libya under this president? caller: what is the difference

between this president and george bush accept for the color? that's exactly where i was going. thanks for interrupting. this country will never get over george bush. and i voted for barack obama. if i had known that he was going annihilation bush of people of color round the world, i would not have voted for him. george bush and all the other , look what they have done to hundreds of thousands of people. regarding boston, we are crying over those three people who died. people aren't dying in iran is -- people are dying every day in afghanistan, it iraq. -- and iraq. host: west virginia, republican, carl.

caller: i would just like to say that george bush is the perfect example of class. this man is a class act of the way. when he left the white house he went home. he did not try to undercut president obama. he kept his mouth shut, unlike jimmy carter. jimmy carter left the white wanted to stay in politics and criticize everything that the bush family was doing. that i just like to say think history will record george bush jr. as being one of the great presidents in a time when we were undergoing some very tough times. thank you. host: also, this tweet --

on facebook -- in detroit, michigan, democrat. go ahead. aller: i'm a democrat and am 66-year-old woman. i voted for president 1964. after each of those elections, i never had disregard or disrespect for any of those presidents, although they were of the republican party. republicans,e themselves, have always made

democratic presidents less than people like george bush. bush was an illegally elected president to start. he ended up being a straw man for dick cheney and donald rumsfeld and all these others. changed theitely office of the presidency of our country. i have never been so ashamed of a president of this country. he did a great job of doing just that. he was a buffoon and still is. this the washington post morning --

the piece goes on to say -- there's a large interactive table. evidence the museum was built in the digital age and it allows visitors to see more details and documents about iraq and afghanistan. a short video narrated by condoleezza rice explains the decision to invade iraq and acknowledges that no weapons of mass destruction were found. a theater focuses on four key moments of the bush presidency. the 2003 invasion of iraq, the decision announcing "--

by the way, it was designed by robert stern, a deal of the yale school of architecture. a complex sits on 23 acres on the smu campus and includes 50 acres of ground. the buildings have received a plan and certification for energy efficiency and sustainable development. i want to show you this picture that will be outside the library, george w. bush presidential center. you can see the statute. the sculptor applies of blacks to his eight-foot bronze statues of george w. bush on the left and george h. w. bush, in the courtyard of the george w. bush

presidential center. the architect also did c-span's presidential portraits more than 10 years ago. those portraits traveling around the country to different areas and are often on display. the qr code, florida, independent. worst: he was one of the president's this country ever had. he should be in federal prison along with dick cheney, condoleezza rice, rumsfeld for high crimes against this nation. was allinto that dwarfwr falsehoods and the weapons of mass destruction was proved .n. and u.s. inspectors. he and tony blair falsified documents. he should be in prison with no

parole, no clemency. the only way he gets out is the natural process of man. features,economic coming into his presidency he had a surplus. he gave it to his buddies. another plundering of the money for the benefit of the few. a continuation of the trickle- down economics of ronald reagan. many things. as far as history going to change anything, a lot of things that he and others do not , they have the thatamming like you have on tape and other programs on tape will show that he should be imprisoned. you don't need a pound of flesh. host: this is the new york times piece this morning by peter

baker -- will be there with our carries for identification, 11:00 a.m. eastern time, on c- span 3, radio, and c-span.org. our cameras are there in dallas,

texas where it is still dark. will be there with our carries for identification, 11:00 a.m. eastern timeearly mor way for the dedication. that sculley also said president andr laura bush for an interview. president talked about his brother and the possibility of him running for president. >> [video clip] if your brother decides to run, what advice would you give him? attention of my first advice would be to run, but he may not decide to take it. my advice would be to surround yourself around good people, create an environment in which they do not feel like they can walk in and pander to you, but give frankan

opinions. audiences, a key component of a leader is someone who understands what he does not know. oftentimes, power often blinds people. jeb audiences, a key component of a leader is someone who understands what he does not know. oftentimes, power often blinds people. jeb does not need my advice on that. he was a great governor of florida. he knows how to run and administration. the former president talking about his brother politically -- potentially running for president. "politico."is in by the way, if you want to watch the whole interview, go to our website, c-span.org give frank opinions. i tell people and. we are getting your thoughts on the george w. bush presidency ahead of the dedication of his library this morning. we will have coverage here on c-

span 3, c-span radio, and c- span.org. that is a pool camera. we will have covered for that and bring it to you at 11:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3. josh, indianapolis. republican caller. morning.ood i have a lot of thoughts on the bush presidency. mention, of the few policies i have seen obama keep in place, for instance, guantanamo bay, drone strikes on peoplests, and i hear voiced disappointment that they thought he would and those things. when bush was president i was suspicious on the war on terror. it seemed like a vague thing, a reason to do whatever they wanted in the world. but obama keeping some of these

has, in somelace ,ays, validated bush's policies knowing that obama is ideologically not the same as bush but must have seen the logic behind his policies in these certain anti-terrorist policies he kept in place. on twitter, it is too soon to judge bush's presidency fairly. my grandfather told me , a candy bar kid was 5 cents. were 10as a kid, they cents.

,he president came into office the price of a candy bar went up to a quarter. when ronald reagan came into office, a candy bars were $1. he did not make the candy bars cheaper, he made them bitter. when george to be bush ran for office, he wanted to start a war for oil. i believe he wanted backing from so, in myan people opinion, he created and starred --the wars to blame on obama excuse me, bin laden, not obama.

they implement policies that will take 10, 20 years to work, but they have eight years to do it. obama took $32 billion from , andare for his obamacare obama basically said you have to buy insurance at an affordable rate or you will be paralyzed. host: i am going to leave it there. rove writes in his column for "the wall street journal" --

more about those that have traveled to texas for the dedication, this from "the baltimore sun" -- as you know, the president was

at a democratic national committee fund-raising event in the state as well. "the wall street journal" reporting about the amount of e- mails that have to be sifted through this presidential library. told you there are other opinion pieces as well. "the washington times" -- and then "the new york post" --

is from "the new york post," some opinions for you. when we come back, we are quoted turn our attention to those boston bombings with adam schiff, democrat of california.

later on we will speak to steve king, republican from iowa, about immigration reform. theublic transportation is topic of this documentary. their message to the president, then look at the financial and environmental benefits of a national high-speed rail system. out of 802 middle school in trees, they are the first prize winners in this year's studentcam competition. obama,, president picture a perfect community. no traffic, no frustrations, just citizens walking and biking and enjoy the fresh air. this community is not a dream, it is a reality. this is a green community in germany. everywhere you look you will see solar panels but no cars. they have taken a step to a

greener community by relying only on public transportation, biking, and walking. even with all this technology, there are some infrastructure issues, like any community. here in the u.s. we have many more train delays. we need financial support to build more train tracks. infrastructure is very old and becoming dilapidated. the interesting is more than 50 years old. 50 years ago, the number of cars was significantly less than today. congestion has a cost. there are lots of studies that have been done about what that cost is. this table details some of those costs, but the takeover is simple.

it costs several billion dollars to our economy. spendsaverage american 36 hours in traffic. >> traffic congestion is causing the economy about $200 billion annually. >> the federal highway administration is working to .liminate congestion >> we are working in a partnership with states to try to alleviate congestion. spends only making 21 cents per gallon of gas, it will take time to develop the resources to help congestion even the most recent estimate says the u.s. needs to invest $2.20 trillion in order to keep pace with the infrastructure needs. transportation, such as buses, subways, ferryboats,

trams, and trolleys survey wide variety of people. >> there are a lot of people that cannot drive and they do not live with their children. they would beid, at war, they could not take their parents around all the time. buseens could take the instead of driving in their own car. onlythis would not only help students above the rest of us in cars. >> when a transit system is being planned, there is also andt emphasis on sidewalks the quality of the walk ability .f the surrounding areas

most people want to the transit stop. >> public transportation can help solve one of the greatest problems of our time. >> we are continuing to burn more and more fossil fuels and go after everything that we can find, tarzan's, shayla, fracking, deep ocean drilling. this guarantees that we will to our children and grandchildren a planet with a climate that is out of their control. >> a large public transit system in the u.s. can really benefit our environment. transit currently costs the u.s. $4.2 billion -- billion gallons of gasoline annually. transportation, because some much of it can be run on electricity, can be run on renewable. you can use wind or solar to generate electricity,

geothermal, and nuclear energy. >> not only the public transportation help the world around us, it is easier on our wallets. everyspend 16 cents for dollar as americans on transportation, largely the cost of owning and operating the vehicle. if you use public transit, you save about $10 a year. to karen massie who works for the california high speed authority and said that it will take a huge amount of money because we spend so much time sitting on the highways. in the end, we can see public transportation benefits the daily livesand the of the common citizen, but there is one mode of public transportation that could change

our country immensely. >> the united states plans to develop a high-speed rail network in order to daily lives of create a sustainable community and ketchup and other developed nations. rail to be-speed economically feasible, you have to have high demand. >> has been rail will also yield economic benefits. >> massachusetts senator john kerry has a similar perspective on the issue. >> this discussion comes at a critical time for our economy

and i happen to believe, have for a long period of time, at high speed rail is absolutely critical to our ability to transform the american economy. >> however, not everyone feels the same way about high-speed rail. expensived be very and would not be worth the cost. >> if nobody believes high speed rail will cover its capital cost, why have 39 states applied for grants? understand they are always looking for money. >> road infrastructure and high- speed rail is a great idea but it will take time and the costly. also, many are apprehensive about riding on the transportation, but it has been shown, if you put more of it, people will come. >> we have seen an increase of

48.1% in the last 10 years. understand they are always looking are 3.6 mill, an increase. >> we can make this country safer by improving the infrastructure. >> if you can convince people to build and use public transportation, we can make this country greener. >> having a high-speed rail network will ensure that the u.s. is a sustainable community. >> to see more winning videos, go to studentcam.org. host: we are back with adam schiff, democrat of california, member of the house select committee on intelligence. also on the ranking member of the technical and tactical subcommittee. let me begin with the front page of "the boston globe" --

what is your reaction to that? do you share that concern? guest: is think it is far too premature to draw that conclusion. based on what i have seen so far, i do not think this is an information-sharing problem at all. intelligence agencies received an inquiry from russia expressing a concern that the brothers have been radicalized. the fbi followed up on that. it would be one thing if they ignored it but they did it a thorough investigation. it did not turn up anything and then they went back to the russians and said we cannot find anything, could you give us more? they did not respond. they went back to the russians a couple of times but got no answers. it is hard to see what more they could have done at their early stage. host: that was the fbi? guest: the fbi.

another agency received an identical request, not sure why it was sent out to another agency. host: the cia? guest: yes. it seems as that there might be some finger-pointing going on, or how would you describe it? guest: i do not think there is any fingerpointing going on the agencies. there has been some public discussion and members of congress have suggested the fbi dropped the ball, and information-sharing problem. i do not know what they are basing that on. when you look at the facts of what information was shared by us, very little from the russians, and the response to it, i do not see any sign that they fail to talk to each other

or that any one of them dropped the ball. frankly, i do not think there is a basis for it. now, the investigation is early and we might find evidence out there and when the fbi did their search, they should have found, but nothing has suggested that yet. there has been some public discussion and members of congress have suggested the fbi dropped the ball, and information-sharing problem. i do not know what they are basing that on. whenhost: another story in "the washington -- the boston globe" -- why are there separate watch lists, what criteria do they use to put somebody on the list and then keep them on the list, and thato they rely on information? it seems for news coverage is improve the lot on the spelling of a person's name. we have several databases, one very large one that will take potential incoming threat information, and then the agencies will go and vet that information. they have a zero tolerance policy, as you can imagine in an area like this.

if they find evidence that somebody has been radicalized, they will move to a more selective data base. concern,ind additional they will take steps even beyond the no-fly list. that may involve continual surveillance. we do not have the resources and probably would not be desirable to surveil everyone that we get an adverse tip on. we have to keep in mind, the agencies may get 20,000 tips like we got from the russians. we just do not have the capacity to be surveiling everyone that comes to our attention. we do have a system where sequentially you are entered into a more select the database based on what kind of threat you pose. host: do they run variations on a person's name? guest: they have software to ensure that if a spelling is buried in one way or another

they will not this person. hear, you have an inquiry from russia from the cyrillic alphabet translated into our alphabet. be multiple ways to spell the name, so the system is designed to catch those things. host: janet napolitano testifying that the fbi was not pinged when he left the country to go to russia. can you explain that? onst: the system did ping the way out and on the way in. host: what does that mean? guest: that there was an alert sent to someone, to alert them that this person is leaving the country, coming back to the country. it depends on what kind of information we have on that person, what the response is. if they are on a no-fly list, they are not allowed to fly back into the country, but he was not

on that list. i thing there is legitimate question about, when he came back, should he have been interviewed, should there have been follow up? still unclear. we did not have anything other this russian tip that we were unable to substantiate. host: in "the baltimore sun" -- what can you tell us about this? guest: again, a premature conclusion. intelligence agencies are going through the evidence, what might have been used to detonate them, going back to see where some of the components were purchased. this is important to to construct what happened and also to figure out if there were others involved in the plot. where did they get information, "inspire" magazine, was it from another place, did the brother receive training when he was in chechnya?

i do not think anyone can say definitively that there had to be outside help. it might have been something that just the two of them were able to do. host: you were not able to say one way or the other. what about the militant group, and can you explain why people are talking and focusing on that? guest: this is a very violent part of the world. they have been in a fight with the russian government for many years. it has been a bloody, disastrous fight that has leveled entire cities and provided fertile ground for radicalism, but one big question is if the older brother while was there was radicalized, would he have been radicalized to attack the united states? it is far more likely, given the people in focus, to radicalize do something to the

russian government. over every lead to find out what occurred nor there. host: questions from u.s. embassy officials, cnn reporting that the father is cooperating, traveling to the united states. what do intelligence officials hope to learn from the father? guest: there is a lot of information that can be gathered to learn about what this older brother when he was in russia, when did the father noticed radicalization? it may have been that the radicalization took place before the trip or that this was the final straw. the father may also be useful in getting the sun to cooperate and provide more information to -- the surviving son. there is a lot of value in

having a father come over. host: the house intelligence committee have been briefed by officials. what agencies have briefed you? tell us what you can out of those briefings. guest: we have been briefed alt times, generally by the fbi -- multiple times, generally by the .bi obviously, our investigation into this is twofold. did we miss some warning signs, problems that we can fix in the future? the other focus is very much who was involved in this? it were there others involved in the radicalization? where did they get the material? where did they get the train to make the bombs? this will be instructed to us in terms of future threats.

frankly, i do not know which is worse, him being radicalized in chechnya, or the chance that he was radicalized love in the united states. we have felt for a long time, removed from the problem that europe has had with much of its immigrant population because people some light so well in the united states. here you have two brothers that assimilated pretty well, but nonetheless, were radicalized. we could be facing a new and different and challenging threat in this self-radicalization we have seen in these brothers. host: peter king from new york put out this statement yesterday --

what is your reaction to that statement? guest: this is really not helpful to throw dispersions on entire community, the muslim community. the muslim community can and is a very powerful resource for us in finding people that are in danger to the country, helping to shed insights on other parts of the world. we should look on the muslim community as a resource. yes, there are terrorists that become radicalized, a program of the islamic faith, but we have terrorists of all religious persuasions, people that do horrible things from all different backgrounds, as we saw with newtown, timothy mcveigh. oneast aspersions on community is very counterproductive, wrong, and ultimately, a bigoted point of

view, which i do not share. the homeland security committee is having a hearing today. we will be covering the hearing. go to c-span.org. stella on twitter -- who are the saudi's that were questioned? why the silence about them now? guest: originally there was suspicion on a saudi scene running from the scene. it was a red herring. lots of people were running from the scene. i do not think there was a saudi connection whatsoever. like many things, that was very early misinformation. all of the insight that we are

getting is changing on a day by day basis. gentleman that was in the hospital, that was misinformation from the very beginning. host: still an individual 1271 government organizations and 1931 private companies working on counterterrorism and they cannot stop terror? guest: unfortunately, you will never be able to stop it completely as long as you have talent -- people willing to kill each other and each other, we will not have a completely terrorist-free nation. the steps we would have to take in becoming a police state are things no one would ever except.

there are things we can do and things we will learn about this and the changing nature of the threat. tore are steps we can take deal with some of these mass killings. i put new town very much in that category. there are plain steps that we have not taken. can takethe steps we to deal with a mass shooting like newtown, connecticut, are far easier conceptually, if not politically, than addressing the facts of the boston bombing. host: emily, california. a republican caller. you are in the air with adam schiff. caller: thank you. i felt much safer under george bush. we did not have any attacks after five or six months after 9/11. that was due to the fact that

the clinton administration had put up an intelligence war between the fbi -- intelligence wall between the fbi and the cia and they were not able to share information. now it seems homeland security knew about these two and the danger they could bring to this country and homeland did not tell the fbi. the fbi, according to records not allowed to ask questions about jihad. all files in the fbi have been urged by the obama administration of anything referring to jihad. if it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck, it is a duck. , and islamic, jihad rebels if you do not start to look for under democrats, they tell us you can not talk about religion. they talk about christians, but

they do not do anything about christians. when it comes to islamic's, we have to make sure that -- host: we have your point. we will have adam schiff respond. guest: i would take issue with a great many things you said. first, the claim that the fbi can not think about or talk about jihad, that is not true, and i am not sure what the basis for the claim is. the argument that the department of homeland security new the brothers posed a threat but the fbi did not do anything about .t, that is not true it was actually the fbi that did the investigation of the brothers. it did not turn up anything, but there is no indication the department of homeland security knew something the fbi did not and did not share the information. that.is no evidence of you are correct that prior to 9/11 there was a problem with

not sharing information. that was one of the main conclusions of the 9/11 commission and one of the main recommendations was to tear down those walls, and they have largely come down. yet, in this investigation that does not seem to have been an issue. none the less, we had a tragic result and we have to recognize the nature of the threat has changed from the early days of george w. bush, and that is we have seriously degraded the core of al qaeda, so we have not had another 9/11, the we have seen the proliferation of these one- off attempts, these al qaeda franchises and self radicalized individuals, that in some respects are much more difficult to deal with than a mass pot that has more communication and a better chance to be disrupted. host: from the washington times , russia never replied to

requests for info on the tsarnaev brothers. "boston bombing shows russia and the u.s. must work together." guest: i think that is correct in the first headline that we did ask for more information from the russians but did not get a response. you would think if they had something substantial, they would come back to us. it is possible because our agencies do not work together closely at the russians did not want to disclose what they knew about the brother because it would have revealed their sources because they keep those close to the vest, but not getting much to work on, you do not get much in response. in terms of vladimir putin calling for us to work together, we would like to have a better buttion with the russians we have serious differences. i do think our national security interests should be much more

closely aligned, but a lot of that responsibility needs to be laid at mr. vladimir putin, who has demonstrated a persistent hostility to the united states and we need to get past that. , cleveland, ohio, democratic caller. caller: i wanted to put a thought out there. there was a guy named misha whose name was put out as if --g to the guy, and could you find out if this was a russian agent? guest: we will certainly be looking into this issue whether there was somebody that helped to radicalize the older brother in particular. that will be a subject of

interest for us. i cannot comment much on that. from the public reports, it is still not clear whether this was someone that merely converted the older brother to islam or gave him a greater interest in the religion, or urged him to become a jihad a. .e do not know that yet absolutely, we will find out. we want to know if there were radical influences on him in the united states that could pose a threat to others, or whether the radicalization took place online, or while he was in chechnya or dog stand -- dagestan. host: and this is a legitimate lead? guest: i do not know at this point. i cannot comment on particular persons of interest that we will be chasing down every lead. int: the youngest brother custody said that they acted

alone. do you believe that to be true? guest: i do not know. it is certainly possible. the bombs were relatively unsophisticated. there were discussions about where they got the resources. did they get the money from selling marijuana? we are not talking about a lot of money. $300, aedients were couple thousand dollars, not a massive amount. it is possible that they could have built this up with public information. it is not necessarily the case they had help, we do not want to exclude the possibility that they did. we are tracking down every lead and every component of these bombs where there is an intersection of data. -- ift tell us where anyone else bought any of the parts? this will produce leads. .ost: margo

texas. independent caller. yaller: my question is me in nd wer for asylum. how can it be possible since the parents are back in russia? i thought it meant if you are asking for asylum, you are running from something, asking for protection, but the parents are back in russia. that does not make sense. host: congressman? guest: that is a good question. what i find appalling is that this country took them in as refugees from violence, gave them a safe haven and a safe home, and to repay the generosity of the american people by attacking the american people is just staggering, appalling and disgusting. there are a lot of things that are hard to understand about this. at one level it is impossible to understand what could have

motivated these brothers, but it is definitely salt in the wounds that these are people that this country took him from a very violent place, and that generosity, all truism, was reported the way it was -- repay the way it was. boston herald"a " piece online at the older brother seat welfare benefits, his family did. am a republican caller heard caller: do you not think it is time to stop muslims from immigrating here? they put them in college, and how do they fly back and forth. host: that is a generalization of an entire group of people. caller: no it is not. i say the only people that should be given asylum is coptic christians.

if you look at what happened at fort hood, that is not workplace violence, that is terrorism, and maybe i do need in a are 50 to protect my family. guest: i agree -- i disagree. individuals pervert to save the way they do and that is appalling, but we should not cast aspersions on an entire people, saying that all the muslims that have immigrated are a threat to the country. not only is that not true, but it is an horrendously bigoted view and it no place in public discourse. host: here is a piece written in usa today" -- could you talk about that radical islamist ideology, and how teenagers become terrorists from your background and expertise in this?

, i think sometimes it is the case when you have immigrants into the country that still feel alienated, i do not feel they are really fit in and they are looking for an identity. they do not feel american. they came to the country young, so they do not feel necessarily that they are chechen or have identity from some other place. they do not belong and in that void they find the allure of this death cult of this militant jihad. it gives them an identity, a perverted reason for existing, and they embrace it and it is very hard to fathom, they do nod in that void that happen -- butoes

obviously it does happen. it is something we will have to understand better. we for a long time felt immune at what -- from what in the -- europe has gone through because we are much better at assimilating our communities. people from parts of europe come to other countries, come to france, lived in an environment where they never assimilate with the general population and have statement economic opportunities. by and large not been the case here, but nonetheless we experience the same albums europe has had an -- problems europe has had. host: barbara, missouri. caller: i wonder why nobody talks about the guns used to kill the police officer. we call them terrorists because they are islamists, but in this country we have thousands of people who hold on to their guns and say they are prepared to fight the government, that we do not call them terrorists. if those guys were american-born

and had done what they did, would we be talking about terrorists today? guest: this points out the tragic irony of these back-to- back tragedies of newtown, connecticut, and boston. it might be that there is very little we can do in the wake of boston. it might be that if these two were self radicalized and from online by and sources were ableo cobble these bombs together, it is tough to deal with. how do you prevent people from being self-radicalized or have access to relatively available material? if you look at newtown, connecticut, a lot more people were killed, and there are things we can do, like universal background checks, making sure that things are not available -- to they ill mentally ill.

and hero, -- here, there are things where it is clear we can do something about it, but politically we have not been able to aspire and it is frustrating because of the two scenarios it is newtown, connecticut, that might have been easier answer. from twitter, does radicalization present itself in other forms? guest: i am sure that it does. the most visible form that we see is in the form of terrorism , that there is probably a spectrum of conduct well before you get to a terrorist act that might demonstrate a hostility to the country or our interests. it might take the form in some of the other theaters around the world are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, facilitating people trying to kill our troops in the field. there are obviously a lot of adverse impact, not the least of which it also makes getting a

peaceful resolution much more difficult, as in the middle east. play of jihad and radicalism is just an incredibly destructive force that takes a lot of forms apart from what we saw in boston. host: pennsylvania. independent caller. caller: i am not sure the congressman believes what he is propagating. when you talk about a police state, approximately one million people were told to shelti in place for 119-year-old. 's atave police pointing ar moms with babies. when the congress and says we are not a police state -- says -- todd whitman says we are not a police state, we were in a police state for boston area once the lockdown ended,

inebody found him in a boat a backyard. it is insane. people put out within -- put up with it for 12 hours. of all of these videos, why is there not video of suspects throwing bombs out of the car? further, this man came out of , and seconds later he had a tracheotomy and even the cash he cannot talk -- and he can not talk? it is very strange. guest: i am not sure that i follow the flow here. , my commente state was that the only way to prevent what could happen would be a police state. yes, the city of boston went into a lockdown for hours while

they were dangerous suspect running around with bombs and guns. that was prudent, but i do not think that will suggest that we somehow become a police state. in terms of other points you are making about the lack of police surveillance, or the fact that he was conveniently wounded in the neck, i am not sure i understand the theory. law enforcement delivery shot him in the neck so he could not speak to law enforcement and give us information? i do not understand the logic and i would not buy the conspiracy. . host: michael, centreville, virginia. republican. caller: i would like to disagree with you pretty much on all fronts. the number one issue that i take with your view is that in your comparison between timothy mcveigh, what happened in newtown, connecticut, and these acts of terrorism in boston,

these are completely different groups of crimes. you should not compare them to one another. wasof them, the boston act, conducted in the name of religion. they are religious acts, motivated by differences in ideology and religion. the other two had nothing to do with religion. it should not be compared with one another. we should not be discussing newtown, connecticut, speaking about timothy mcveigh this morning, because we are discussing the acts of terrorism done by two young muslims. the other issue with your views, in regards to your statements on peter king, we do have to probe the muslim community to get to the bottom of what we are what -- what is happening. as he said, if we are thinking about the mafia, we have to be

thinking about the italian community, and we recruit people can assimilate in the italian community to see what is happening there. it is the same thing. these acts of terror are done in , notame of one religion many religions. we have to be looking at the muslim community. absolutely we can get help from them. i am not labeling every muslim is a terrorist, but we have to look at this community, probing them, and keeping them under close watch to get to the bottom of these acts of terror. nationalityl, what are you? caller: i am an american with each and -- egyptian origins. i am coptic thomas and i grew up among muslims. i know all muslims are not terrorists. i have muslim friends today, that the fact that we are refusing in the name of

political correctness to look at where the problem is -- host: we have that point. can i ask you, what is your religion? .aller: i am coptic christians from the church of alexandria, egypt. host: ok, with that contest -- context, congressman? guest: thank you for your question. i am not saying that the oklahoma city bombing or newtown, connecticut, are part of the same circumstances, but my point is that the claim that all terrorism emanates from islam are simply not the fact. people like to point out that the only terrorism we face is from jihadist, are ignoring important fact in history. my point about newtown, connecticut, is the scary part

of the united states, and some their are things we can readily do. at the same might not be said about boston. look at areas where we can improve the security of the country without sacrificing all of our privacy and we look at areas where we cannot. we have good opportunities in the context of gun violence and some of the gun mass atrocities to really do something. i appreciate the point that you make that you had experience with the muslim community that was positive and you have muslim friends, but i think it's critical at a time like this that we do not cast aspersions on an entire people. does that mean we ignore the role that jihad has in this, that perverted islam has in this? no, it does not. we follow the leads where they

take us, and we will not exclude that from analysis by any means. this widely circulated red herring that somehow the fbi is not able to consider jihad or the role that this perversion of islam plays in motivation, that is just not the case. it might make good currency on the talk shows, but it is not the way the intelligence agencies act and it seems to me it is without basis. host: steve, in manchester, new hampshire. democratic caller. caller: hello, esther schiff. my -- mr. schiff. my daughter, who has a degree in national relations, has studying thatime part of the world and she has was 16at by the time he

years old and was already damaged goods. it was probably the only way he could get schooling over there. the other thing is the mosque he has been thrown out of, hopefully they will use that as an opportunity to say we should have reported him and other mosques will be the same way instead of living in fear. guest: i think it is very illustrative that his conduct is shouting at the mosque, or his disagreement on whether it was appropriate to recognize something like martin luther king day, it sheds a lot of light within was 16 years old the muslim community for the tolerance for the attitudes that he showed. i do not know if he advocated jihad within the mosque. i do not know if there was an advocate -- adequate basis to report him. just on the basis of publicly available information and

comments he made, i do not know if that would have risen to the level of suspicion that would have warned this reporting. again, there is a lot we do not know about what his interaction may have been there, and i am confident we will get the cooperation of those at the mosques to find out answers. host: what role our surveillance cameras playing in intelligence gathering and possibly stopping terrorists before they act? guest: surveillance cameras will have an impact on suppressing crime in the sense that what they are doing will be observed by others. that might discourage them from committing criminal acts. the broader utility is not on the intelligence gathering side , but on the crime solving side , and that is where we saw all of the video footage from boston, in so well and hopeful in the quick apprehension of the suspect. people should not have the

perception because there are cameras in public basis that all of that footage is going into an intelligence database and people are sitting in front of screens watching americans as they go to banks. that is not the case and we do not want it to be the case. host: this is "the baltimore sun" editorial. "time for fireworks control?" worth looking into. i am not sure i would be ready to go to the conclusion. there might be other sources of power that you can gather together aside from fireworks, and i am not sure that would be a successful strategy, but it is certainly worth -- worth cash -- worth looking at. whether we should have a reporting mechanism when people buy large quantities. headlinew york times"

on one time obey -- there is a hunger strike with 93 prisoners allegedly participating, and inside the piece it says a clear consensus emerged. it has become a place where no new prisoners can arise and know one can leave. it makes no sense. on an intelligence level, are we getting anything out of guantanamo bay? guest: i would be surprised that new- if we are getting intelligence out of guantánamo. they have been there so long that any information they might have is probably not usable, but that is not why they are being detained. we are concerned about returning them to their countries of origin, that they will not be

properly monitored or supervised. so, it is a very unhealthy quagmire at the moment. i share the view of the president that guantanamo bay should be closed and we need to find a way to dispose of the detainees while protecting the public. it is not an easy job to do, but the status quo is intolerable, and that problem will have to be addressed. host: another foreign-policy question dealing with intelligence and syria using chemical weapons. serious did not say anything about this. what you know about this? guest: i cannot go into detail, but i have serious concerns that syria and the asad regime might have already used chemical

weapons. there were very disturbing indications, and i think that it calls for the international community to really come together, unite behind a single opposition entity and bring about an end to this conflict in syria because the danger from .l qaeda is growing the number of casualties is multiplying, and it is an intolerable situation. host: one last phone call. ronnie. independent caller. quick question. caller: my question relates to what he said about investigation against criminal control, and timely two together, i was wondering if the fbi did investigate tamerlan tsarnaev, should not have even -- should identified asen

the person that we had investigated? question,t is a good whether we have sufficient photographic evidence that when the photographs came out that the two could have been connected. it is a good question, and i do not know the answer to that. it might have been and we would have gotten to that place over time, but the public beating the intelligence agencies to it once the images were released. host: coming up, we are talking to steve outing -- steve king on immigration reform. here is a poll in "the washington times." guest: actually, immigration reform will ultimately strengthen security because we the be be bringing

undocumented people into the system, we will know more about them. that improves our security and there are a lot of resources and devoted to border security as part of reform. i think the security issue ought to be a motivator to get moving on immigration reform rather than something that holds it up. host: adam schiff, thank you for talking to our viewers. our next guest, steve king of iowa disagrees with the congressman, and thinks we should wait on immigration reform. later, a discussion of political asylum in the united states. first a news update from c-span radio. >> russian president vladimir putin in a radio call in program earlier says moscow and washington should work together more on security. he also says the boston bombing proves the west was wrong in supporting militants in chechnya.

arewhile, u.s. officials expected to brief the senate on the investigation today. the associated press reports that 16 hours after investigators begin interrogating dzhokhar tsarnaev, he went silent. he has just been read his .onstitutional rights your cars aren't, the surviving suspect -- dzhokhar tsarnaev, the surviving suspect, went silent after he was given miranda warnings. this from four officials from both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation and insisted on anonymity because the briefing was quiet. this tweet from chuck todd reports that reverend franklin graham is proposing that the government create a violence tax on movies and video games. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. tell my kids, if two cars

roll up, and one has a stranger, and the other car has dick cheney, you get in the car with a stranger. >> i was thinking about this -- if you took all the money democrats spent two have health care, and all the money publicans had to stop here. -- healthcare, we could have health care. thet is funny to be at hilton. thehis weekend on c-span, white house correspondents dinner. president obama and conan .'brien headline the event our coverage starts with the red carpet arrivals. begins at 6:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. back with steve king, republican of iowa -- host: we

are back with steve king the, the public and of iowa. you have been critical of immigration reform. here is a story from "huffington post." why is that? guest: we have a real reason in front of us to step back and look at all of the means and methods that people come into this country with whatever their motive is. this illustrates the openness of that we have. -- visas. we have multiple bisas -- visas. the 19 hijackers came in on visitor visas that we have. .- we also have student visas that are not. we have people that come in through ports of entry, whether it be land ports or seaports or airports.

there is simply not a means to check and see if they have gone back home again. we only have the entry, not the exit. we need to put the exit in place. host: homeland security secretary janet napolitano testified that the immigration bill put forward by the gang of eight in the senate, that this would help solve the problem. the bill requires the passport to be electronically readable as opposed to be manually input and it is a good job of getting human error out of the process d thousands that have expired. guest: that is true. i would not disagree with that, but we passed a law as far back as 1996. it is not in plummeted. i have stood on the border, where janet a. napolitano has authority, and have watched people drive in from mexico, swipe their card, the identification comes on the screen, and an hour later the

same car would go back into stopping.hout i asked the question, why do they not swipe when they go out? the resources would be there if the administration would put in place. i do not think we need to grant amnesty just to get an entry/ exit system in place. host: you heard from congressman adam schiff stopping. say that he thinks this immigration bill would help bring people into the system, that we would have a better ability to track them then we do have now. guest: we would have a better ability to track them if we put the entry/exit system in place. the law is therefore that. it is not going to bring people out of the shadows that are felons, criminals, terrorists, unless we want to legalize terrorists, and give them easier access rather than more difficult access to our society.

there was a tremendous amount of fraud in amnesty in 1986 and i do not think ronald reagan would do that again if he had the chance. host: here is a headli. it is written that it is uncertain. say that he thinks"now, more ts later -- why do you say that? guest: i think because a number of republicans have bought into it in the senate, so the momentum created will be slowed down by an intense battle in the senate and i do think the boston bombings put a lot more focus on the national security side of the debate and we would have seen otherwise -- than we would have seen otherwise. i am concerned that in the house

any immigration that could be theed could be message to senate, and at that point the leadership in the house and the senate could appoint a conference committee, which might produce the result of the senate amnesty bill, send that back to the house, and if that were put on the floor of the or down,s or no, up all democrats would vote for it , some republicans would vote for it and that is how a bad bill could get to the president. host: you think there are enough republicans that could pass a compromise bill. this is from "the wall street journal." a republican of texas represents a district where hispanics account for nearly 50% of the population. guest: i think those things are a factor. .ne is the hispanic population

107 republicans that 28 months ago were not in congress, they have not and through an immigration debate. this is one of the most complicated issues congress ever faces. there is peace after piece that changes the way you understand this arid we are looking at the future of america. -- of this. we are looking at the future of america. if there is an amnesty bill passed, we cannot undo it. we can undo obama care, but we instanto the legalization. it is an outrageous breach. it is beyond the context anything we could have discussed one year ago, and because the president has said he will not enforce immigration

law, now there are republican could say we must somehow make a deal when the president decides he will not hold the oath of office. let me show you and the viewers i knew add put out by mark zuckerberg of facebook. [video clip] >> anyone who thinks what we ise now is not a problem full of himself. >> conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest enforcement measure in the history of the united states. >> have to pass a background fine. pay a >> border security on steroids, and no for lawbreakers. >> no federal benefits, no food stamps, no obamacare. they have to prove they are gainfully employed and >> bold, conservative, a tough line on immigration. host: steve king?

guest: i cannot call the plan conservative. i will call it old. amnesty plan. it has a promise of a plan to provide order security on the southern border. it handed over to janet napolitano. it says you stop 90% of the people you see. it is not as good of a promise that we had in 1986 or all along. ands a five-year plan, everyone is instantaneously legalize. a background check -- you cannot do a background check on people that do not have legal existence .ven in their own country if they do not show up in the ice system, that is the background check. you must interview people to do a real background check. they will not interview 11 million people read it is an

outrageous reach. i will use the word bold. it is not conservative. people that are for the plan, i do not know how they present themselves as conservative, because what they have really done it is taken the rule of law and said they would sacrifice it on the altar of political expediency. you: does it make concerned that that advertisement helps their cause and could lead to a bill being passed? guest: that does concern me. i wanted to keep my powder on this drive. i was hoping others would step up. over two weeks ago i decided that if i do not step up, nobody will step up. now we have a working group that is carrying this message out through the media and i think a lot of americans are getting a better look at what is really in the bill and when they release the bill, that is when they

become most vulnerable. blows a lot of holes in the advertisement that we just saw. host: the house judiciary ,ommittee, which you serve on will do its own legislation. how will it be different? i think it is likely to come one piece at a time. there has been some discussion about making either by mandatory.- e-verify anything that has bipartisan support actually prohibit employers from using the-verify and current employees, and that puts a big hole in it. i think we are likely to have hearings on a number of different concepts and then likely to consider the idea whether any bill comes forward before the judiciary committee. i continue to make the case that any bill that comes out of the

house that goes to the senate turns it over to something that could conference with the gang of eight bill. if we get that back without amendment, all democrats will vote for it, a handful of republicans will, and we could get a colossal amnesty plan that legalizes everyone in the country instantly and perpetually because the promise could be if you get into the unit states after the bill is after, -- united states, this bill is passed, they will not deport people. the public should know that there was a suit brought against the dream act's residential edict. out of the 10 points that we brought forward on that, the unconstitutional aspects of legislating by executive edict, the court found nine of them in the favor of we, the constitution, the rule of law and an attempt when he sent it

back and said you have to write that better. this very well could be that the president's initiative has been blocked the courts and and that is not hit the news yet. host: surely has been waiting. texas. --ublican caller had republican caller. caller: thank you. mr. king, i cannot tell you how much i admire you. i have watched you through the years. the american people feel that the public -- the government has turned against us. over the last 30 years we have absorbed 20% of the population of mexico. with millions being brought in we will have 100 million people in here from across the mexican border. it is not all mexicans anymore, but we feel like we have been betrayed. we feel like the government is cheapening citizenship so much for political reasons that they

are willing to destroy the country, the very culture of our country. here in texas -- well, the president said they will not have any benefits. well, here in texas, we have been educating children for all of these years at $10,000 a year per child. host: ok. constant? guest: surely, you are. i agree with those numbers. there are numbers that show that a household headed by and he legal is a net cost of around $19,500 a year. they will pay around $9,000 a year in taxes and draw roughly $30,000 in public benefits. that is one piece of this. asm not as troubled by that imd over supply of unskilled labor which drives up unemployment rates all over the country. the numbers you will see is roughly 28 million americans

looking for work that are low skilled do not have those opportunities because somebody is taking the job that cannot lawfully do the work. there is that piece. 80% or 90% of the drugs consumed in america come through mexico. that is a danger. the demand for drugs in america , we have to carry that burden. there is balance we need to be talking about current -- talking about. host: liz, a democrat in texas as well. educator.am an i taught in a school that is 98% hispanic. the children of hispanic backgrounds actually outnumber the other racial groups. i moved out here to texas to teach, and i noticed there is a contrast. first of all, in terms of whether or not the community

actually encourages a group two, you know, give them opportunities to use spanish instead of requiring english for important stuff -- not like butol things, or whatever, just put the spanish option on the phone or on the swiping of the card. that prevents them from actually having to use the language. when we lived in social speakes, they tend to their language, and that prevents them from actually assimilating because they do not understand the nuances of our culture. this is a sad thing, but i'm frustrated with that because in our culture,ding they offend some of my sensibilities and do crimes and

so forth. host: liz, it's we that there. guest: i am pleased to hear what you said, and it is something i have said for a long time. i spent six years establishing english as the official language of iowa because it is a language that is inclusive, and we will not have assimilation unless we are speaking the same language. there has been a lot of success in language immersion, and we've spent a lot of money teaching english as our language, then made -- language of our culture. it does not suppress other cultures. i can live in a neighborhood where i can show you an irish town, a danish town, a swedish town, and they have adopted english as their language, and embraced the culture. they are still german, danish, swedish, but they understand the american public because they brought the language in an incorporated into the culture that they came from.

that is what needs to happen with newly arriving immigrants. i am for assimilation. it seems like the word assimilation has become a bad word among many of the enclaves that you mentioned. that troubles me because if you reject assimilation, you are rejecting one of the most successful components of the melting pot in the united states of america. host: marilou, wellington, new jersey, independent caller. caller: thank you, greta and commerce and king. thank you for fighting for the american people. i want to make comments and i think a lot of people are not aware of. first of all, there were not 11.5 illegal -- 11.5 million illegal aliens. the number is closer to 25 million or 30 million. mexico orse are from

south america. almost half of them are receiving some form of of the consistent. $2 billion a year is being spent on illegal aliens in the medicaid program. , it needs to be done here think, we need to scrap the present bill, and we need to concentrate on securing our border. we need to strengthen our e- verify system, which is 98% effective if it were used across the country, and everyone needs to go online and read senate bill s-seven 44, and after reading this atrocity, they will be calling their representatives and saying no. host: marilou, where did you get the numbers? seek help from a very reliable news source? caller: from a reliable news source. the southern poverty law center , fox news, heritage foundation

-- a lot of different organizations. host: ok. go ahead, commerce and. -- congressman. here, i do noter know if i could anchor that in fact. it could be more. we do not know the answer. but we could stop the bleeding at the border, i agree, and the resource we are spending down there on more than $6 million a mile. if i think about a mile of gravel road in iowa. offered a. napolitano me a 10 year contract, i think i could get entered security out of the border and what we are getting out of their now. yes, we can stop the bleeding at the border. that does need to happen. we can cut of contraband at the same time. we know we have potential terrorists coming across the border. they become classified information.

.-verify is a good tool i also have a bill that is called the new idea act, and it stands for illegal deduction in elimination act. it brings the irs into this. it is the employer's safe butor if they use e-verify denies benefits and wages paid to illegals as a business expense, which results in a taxable income for the employer , which turns your $10 an hour illegal to a $16 an hour illegal, making it a good business decision to clean up and use the tools you have any requires punishment. i have more concern about the irs showing up then ice. host: on twitter -- you cannot deport 12 million people, and if you did, would republicans be

willing to foot the bill? guest: that is an ages old canard, that you cannot deport 12 million people. i would not say that is not possible, nor have i advocated for such a thing. in footing the bill, we know it is cheaper than the cost of funding them while they are here. instead, i say shut off the bleeding at the border, shut off the jobs magnet, and when people are encountered by local law enforcement, they need to be dealt with according to the law. if we can reestablish the rule am ready to have a conversation about what to do with the people that are here. host: let's talk about economics. the former cbo director douglas hope they can recently talked about the economic benefits of immigration reform. [video clip] >> at its core, immigration reform represents an economic policy opportunity to dictate

the evolution of its future population for the united states, and as i emphasized, in the absence of immigration, low fertility rates means the u.s. population declines. it will dictate the labor force and the efforts exerted in our economy. it will have strong influence on entrepreneurship and the small business committee. worknce is immigrants more, and have small businesses at a higher rate. it will increase productivity growth in the u.s. economy, the fundamental building blocks of standards of living and generate higher economic numbers than we have seen in recent years. question markman guest: i really like him, when i agree with him, and in that case

i do not. i see in the report that he has conflated legal immigration and illegal immigration, put that in the same category and disregarded the cost it takes to support those families. i have identified the cost. it is cheaper to sustain any legal family and a legal family because there are more of a benefit. it will cost more money. we know that. he is not talking about the cost. when you conflate the two and extrapolate for rate into the distance, separate out legal from illegal, and put the cost in the situation. i think he is talking about the extract related benefits. -- extrapolated benefits. who will pay the social security and the medicare question that there is no solution in that. host: back to twitter, it says

is e-verify not a de facto federal work herman -- permit? guest: i had not thought about it like that. i like when the terminology comes out. not quite. someone just identify that can legally and lawfully work in the united states. it does not verify that the person who you are considering actually connects. we have the basis of this built where we have pictures attached to a lot of the e-verify documents. i think we will have facial recognition tied to it. at that point i would say it would be a de facto work permit. it is almost that, let's get it to point where we can do facial verification and then we will not have multiple people

working on a single set of social security numbers. host: tony. west bloomfield, michigan, republican caller heard caller: i will go -- republican caller. caller:. i will go through these quickly. i think you are amazing, congress and. congressman. it is a shame you have been disparaged by the pundits and other representatives. saying thereeen is only a small percentage of the muslims that are radicals. do you realize for over -- every one percent, there is over 100 million people? coming here for religious freedom -- they are allowed to trade five times today and wear a burqa. instead, they want us to become sharia compliant? in 1928, before there was a state of israel,

before iraq, the jews that lived there ran to the hospital to hide and they thought they would be protected because the hospital took care of arabs and the jews. host: what does that have to do with this debate today? caller: we are talking about justice and the justice department and why everything is connected today. host: congressman? guest: thank you for what you said. the numbers that i am looking to or susceptible perhaps aligned with radicalism, earlier put out by daniel pipes, . toto 15%, roughly over copulate down to around 100 million or so that you talked it does not mean they are all violent.

try to understand, if you are the same race, ethnicity, religion, you're less likely likely to be critical of people who are of that same race, ethnicity, and religion. so there is that network out there, and they have come into this country. that is easy enough to see. we have not done enough to scrutinize who is coming and who is going. that has been illustrated by the boston bombers. i want to have border security, i want to have rule of law. i want to remind people that there are pillars of american exceptionalism, and you cannot take those pillars out-of-the- way and end up with the united states that we have, and i don't think you can improve it, either comment by backing up and changing some of this. one of the essential pillars of american exceptionalism is the exceptionalism is the rule of law, and if we kick it i the wayside or sacrifice it on the altar of lyrical expediency, we can never become the country that we have the potential to continue to grow to become.

lawe sacrifice the rule of to try to open a conversation up with people that are here illegally, one of the reasons they came here is because everyone is equal under the law, meaning justice is blind. if we change that -- and the president has been changing that and undermining the rule of law -- if we change that, america cannot be as crystal- lit -- country, labia lady liberty and the statue of liberty will not mean the same thing we will let our own principles he wrote. principles your road. we have to adhere to those underlying principles and defend them. gainesville, florida, democratic caller. good morning, representative king. i was concerned about your comments about building an a fence anduilding electrifying it.

i am the grandson of jamaican thing aboutand being a grandson of jamaican immigrants is that they came to this country, and that man that you see with the bowtie margin with dr. king, that is my grandmother's cousin, cleveland robinson. my grandmother marched for rights in this country. when we have immigrants come to this country, that they can add to the value of the country. i think it is an added value. i will also say this, that i am disturbed by your comments about the building of a fence, electrifying it, because those cattle prods were used on black people in this country. i really want to see the republican party come around and become a party that i could vote for because i am a pro-life democrat. but not with that kind of language. the last thing i want to say, i have been threatened with terrorism.

i have been threatened because i lived in the wrong place, which the kkk, i have been threatened after losing a job unjustly by the kkk. i will tell you something else. if you want to really honor the people that died in boston, you should listen to that young man. no more hurting people, no more breaking up families. you cannot deport 12 million millionor however people. who is really benefiting? it is the wealthy business people. they are the ones benefiting. host: we will let the congressman respond. guest: first, when you said that immigrants can improve this country, i would like it if you could list the many things i said about immigration aside from comments on the fence. i have long since -- i have long

said there is an american -- the pillars of american exceptionalism, most of them are in the bill of rights. we also have free enterprise capitalism. and i said the rule of law. one of the most important components of this thing is that i called american vigor. people who had the dream, who had to struggle to get here, they knew they could achieve their potential in america better than anyplace in the world. we did not just get a random sample of the donor countries that send people here, we got the most vigor that each of those civilizations had to offer, and that is part of the american character. you are third generation from that. my grandmother came over here from germany. she raised six boys. four of them back to fight against the fatherland. my father went to the south pacific, and i am proud of what has become pushed from every country that sent illegal -- that sent legal immigrants here.

.his can-do spirit when somebody tells america you cannot do this, it is too hard, we get our back up and we show them. we have gotten people to come here legally from those countries who believed in the can't-do your it. in regard -- in the can't-do -do spirit.n the can let's build a fence, shut off the bleeding on the southern border, but when you have a statement like janet napolitano that says show me a 50-foot fence, i will show you a 51-foot ladder, we have to use sensory devices. if pedal -- if people put up a ladder, on a ground wire, we know exactly where that is. it signals where we can best use our resources. that is all that is.

i have never advocated that we build 2000 miles of fence. up until theyild stop going around the and. we have to shut off the magnet, stop the bleeding of the border, and restore the rule of law. if we do that, i would be ready to sit down and have a conversation about the rest of the issue that remain. people come here he respecting our laws are an asset." caller: good morning, congressman. i am an independent. i have been a longtime democrat, and i am so disenfranchised with both of these parties because they stopped working for the people along time ago. what i want to say is republicans -- you take this immigration issue right now, and because of what happened in boston, you politicize it. democrats and

republicans, a viable third party that work for the people. both parties do not work for the people as we stand right now. you are politicizing this issue, what happened in boston. it is a disgrace to me. people died because of this incident right now that happened. people died, and we are suffering and i live in new york city and i see what happened on nine/11. for politicians to politicize this immigration issue and to take this issue and to make it a political issue is disgusting to me. democrat or republican. thisst seems to me like is a terrible and that situation that happened in our country, and for somebody to politicize it at this time and stage him and in this time when we are going through so much and so many people are suffering through the sequester and whatever is going on, and for republicans particularly to

politicize this issue -- host: we got the point. guest: kenneth, i am sorry that you are angry about this. . just think about new york you are from new york, you saw what happened there and it hit you personally. were9 hijackers immigrants. they overstayed their tourist visas. generally that covers most all of them. the boston bombers were immigrants. that means our ports of entry, border security, was it good enough? i don't think so. if it was good enough, we might not have had september 11. .he question has to be asked it is not a matter of politicization. i have long been concerned about this exposure, and i expected we would have a case like this before now. i think it was inevitable that something like boston might happen. that may say some good things about boston. as i watched that unfold and saw the officers come streaming into

watertown in order to apprehend suspect number two, people finally came out into the streets after they had been sequestered for 24 hours in their homes. they stood on the curve -- on the curb and applauded, waved american flags am a chanted "usa, usa." at the bruins game, the vocalist stopped singing the national anthem to let the crowd finish it because there was such a patriotic wave that rush over boston. and at the opening ceremonies of the red sox game, one of which had been canceled because of the crisis. there was a tremendous opening ceremony. when neil diamond came down and " on theeet caroline grass at fenway park, i am telling you they gave the right attitude that sent the right message around the world, america will not the coward by terrorists. we will bounce back and be stronger than before. and anybody watching the boston

game opening that might have been on colleges or a tv in the ondle east, -- on al jazeera tv in the middle east, they showed us that. that is another way of looking at this. we have a country to hold together, and boston did a lot to help us with that. host: a couple more phone calls for you, commerce men. catherine in minneapolis, republican. caller: i understand all this. i don't know, i am maybe off- the-wall. but i believe everybody should .e checked my parents -- my father came from australia, and then my 's side came from germany.

i think that traditions have changed. host: catherine, we are running out of time with a commitment. do you have a quick question for him? caller: not -- it there and leave go on to marie in mount caramel, pennsylvania. caller: in most cases i disagree with you, but on this one issue i agree with you. the point is, when you have an illegal immigrant, americans will not do this job out of that job at all. but they will pay a legal immigrants to do the job because they pay them off the books. when they get injured, they use the emergency rooms and the taxpayers pay the premiums. i agree with you and we should not be having problems deporting these 12 million people. they should be gone and come back here legally rather than

being here illegally and costing the taxpayers money. guest: thank you. i will give you an example. i live in an area where there is is a large packing industry, the meat industry. -- meatpacking, pork production, turkeys and eggs. used to be that the people that work in that packing plant 25 years ago made about the same amount of money as a teacher did. now they make half that amount of money because there is an oversupply of under skilled labor. tighter labor supply. if we will enforce our laws, it will tighten up the labor supply on the under skilled. an illegal immigrant who graduates from high school, doesn't want to go on to higher education -- everybody is not wired for college. a person can stay home, but the clock, go to work, pay for a

modest home, send their own kids to college. that dream is gone for the under educated americans, and one reason is because we have an oversupply of unskilled and under skilled and uneducated labor. we need a tighter supply, and that means enforce the law. that is 8 million jobs for americans, and i don't think there is a single job in america that americans won't do. anybody that can name a job, i can show you native born americans, naturalized americans doing that job. not true that there are jobs that americans won't do. sneak thise to tweet in. "representative king, are you going to run for senate?" guest: when i make that decision, i will be the happiest person in america, whatever that decision is. we are close to making a decision. when that is done, i am either going to launch forward on a campaign that will be all-out, or i will turn back and go to

running a campaign for reelection in the house. i don't know which, but i hope to be on the ballot in the fall of 2014. host: what kind of data are you looking at, and what is it telling you? guest: anyone who would run for , it isnate race in iowa an uphill climb. a rock obama started his movement in iowa. that makes a difference -- barack obama started his movement in ohio -- in iowa, and that all makes a difference. of obamacareost hits in january of 2014, and there is an inertia to reveal -- to repeal obamacare, that could be an issue as well as a balance budget amendment. those are pluses. you look around to the states, they lean more democrat than iowa does. you have ron johnson is wisconsin, pat toomey in pennsylvania, so that makes it a plausible thing for steve king in iowa. , at: do you have a deadline

and what is it? guest: i have learned that making a deadline is a bad decision. host: in the coming weeks then? guest: yes. ,ost: representative steve king we appreciate it. our washington viewer suggested our next topic, and that his political asylum in the united states. forip schrag will join us more on that. stiff first the news that the firm c-span radio. i am a jobless the number of americans seeking unemployment benefits fell last week to the second lowest level in five years. the decline suggesting hiring is improving from last month's sluggish pace. the labor department says applications for unemployed and eight dropped by 16,000 turning to immigration reform, or more president george w. bush is weighing in and says he's encouraged by signs of progress

in overhauling the immigration system. . in remarks earlier on cbs's "this morning," he says he understands they prospect of fellow republican softening their position, but he also says, "i hope that is not why it happens. i hope it happens because that is the right thing to do." hours ahead of the opening of the george w. bush presidential library and museum, former first lady barbara bush his his mother, is brushing aside talk of a jet bush run for the white house -- of a jeb bush run for the white house. mrs. bush was asked how she felt about jeb bush seeking the presidency in 2016. she replied, "we have had enough bushes." on 11 -- atoverage 11:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span3. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the museum is meant to help a

visitor relive the first years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process that i went through as president. we hope the museum inspires people to serve, who want to serve their community or their country in some way. we really did not want to be a school. i don't knowbe -- if there is a lesson there. i do know that lara and i decided to go in a different direction, apart from the museum, with the component from which programs would emerge. >> watch the day vacation ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library -- watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential 3,brary and museum on c-span c-span radio, and c-span.org.

"washington journal" continues. host: we are back with philip straight -- philip schrag to talk about political asylum in the united states, given what happened in boston. us begin with who can apply for political asylum? guest: back in the 1970's, the united states ratified a treaty, international treaty saying -- putting into force something that we have believed all along, that countries should provide safe haven for people who are persecuted in other countries throughout the world. we agreed that we would do this as well. in 1980, congress passed the refugee act, and it set up two different streams for people to protect people your rent risk of persecution. -- who are at risk of persecution.

75,000 people of year through the state department from refugee camps in, asia, urban refugees being protected by the united nations. in addition to that, there are about 25,000 people who receive asylum in the united states. these are people who get here on their own, and they are entitled to apply for asylum and are granted asylum if they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries based on race thomas religion, nationality, political opinion, or their membership in a particular group such as a labor union and it is threatened. if they can prove that they are threatened on one of these grounds, they can be granted asylum, but it is an arduous process to get there. first they have to file -- they have to identify themselves as being in the united states. 80% of these people have never

been apprehended by immigration authorities, they are just here legally or illegally, most of them undocumented. they identify themselves to the i-589.ent by filing form host: i have it right here. go ahead. very complexa form with a lot of pages and requires a lot of attachments. they have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and then they have to supply all the details of their lives improved their identity, prove how they were persecuted or threatened with persecution, and corroborating evidence, often running to 300 pages of evidence supporting their applications. , theyhe form is filed are interviewed by an officer of the department of homeland security, and that interview usually takes place very quickly am a usually within 45 days. they are subjected to a very

searching examination. the asylum officer checks with ,he fbi, the defense department state department, and the intelligence agencies and so forth to make sure they are not terrorists or criminals or lying on their applications. host: does that mean they have to go through a criminal background check? are guest: they run through the terrorist watch list? guest:yes -- are they run through the terrorist watch list? guest: yes. this did not have before -- this did not happen before 9/11. but after 9/11, there was a lot more help from other agencies, so now there is full coordination with the entire intelligence community to make sure the people coming in are not going to be harming us. in the case of these brothers, they came in as children, so there is no way to predict back in 2002, when their parents brought them into the united states, that 10 years later they would turn out to be bombers. host: what happens to the children of the parents who are

seeking political asylum? run sort of system are they through, or are they just not even part of the process? guest: they are part of the process. they have to be listed on the application, the 589 form. grantedf the parent is asylum, the children are also granted asylum. so they come in as derivative applicants under their parents' application. the examination, the scrutiny that the asylum applicant is put under is so extraordinary, that this would be the last method of entry a terrorist would choose. you would have to be a very stupid terrorist to try to seek asylum in america these days. host: why is that? how long does the process day, days, weeks? guest: it takes about 60 days

before you are given a decision, and the decision is either that you get asylum in the united states, or in most cases you are referred to a deportation hearing. a notice saying you're not getting asylum, a summons to appear for a deportation hearing in deportation court. host: but you are not detained? -- some 80% of the people apply for this process, the other 20% generally are detained. those are people who do not self .dentify via the form they are arrested or apprehended and seek asylum after having been arrested or apprehended. most of those seek asylum from detention. one other category of people, people who come in at the border and at an airport and say to the person at the booth, "i

am afraid, i am seeking asylum." they can seek asylum, but they are detained until they have an interview with an asylum officer who determines whether they have a shot at asylum. long will that take before they see an officer? guest: they see an officer pretty promptly. after they have an interview, if the officer thinks they have a credible fear, they are put into the asylum process and they can go before a judge and ask for asylum. at that point. that may be a few weeks while they are detained before they see a judge. the department has discretion -- if they have not committed a crime, the department has the discretion. host: we are talking about political asylum in the united states, given that the boston bombings were conducted by two men who were children when they came here but brought here by parents who sought and were given political asylum.

i want to get your questions, your thoughts on this. (202) 585-3881. --kratz, (202) 585-3880 democrats, (202) 585-3880. immigrants and others, (202) 585-3882. what evidence do people seeking political asylum have to present? guest: there is a joke that they really need a note from their torturer. since torturers do not provide notes, the asylum-seekers have to do the best -- the next best thing. inrepresent people immigration court who are denied by the department of homeland security and have one last chance to persuade the judge that the department was wrong and they should be granted asylum. in those hearings, we spend

months, the students, working on these cases, spent months gathering evidence such as if ,here has been a jail record the person being imprisoned in their home country. if there has been an arrest warrant served on them. if they have medical evidence -- scars or if they have medical records from their home countries showing that they have been tortured, that is a very helpful piece of evidence for them. and where there is no forensic evidence of that sort, usually the applicant will try to get affidavits and sworn statements from people who know that they were tortured or imprisoned. clients of these ours, the refugee from africa, i wrote a book called "asylum denied." this tells the story of his saga in trying to get asylum in

the united states. in that case, one of the pieces of evidence that we got, corroborating evidence, was an affidavit from the taxi driver who had driven our client home from jail after he was finally released. , "howamerican hero tweets do you do a background check on a guy who says the warlord is after him. what if the warlord says he has committed many crimes?" when you do about ground check in the country is coming from says he is a criminal, don't let him into your country? host: first of all, asylum -- guest: first of all, asylum applicants apply under a cloak of confidentiality. letting the home country no who applies for asylum because if they lose and are sent back home, we don't

want the home government to go after them and kill them on the ground that they applied for asylum in the united states and badmouth their country. so the state department does not check with the warlord. instead, the state department compiles human rights information about the country, what groups in the government is after them. it publishes the human rights reports, and the asylum officers rely for starters on the human rights reports written by the state department. if they need to supplement the information, they do their own research on the internet, and they look at the evidence supplied by the applicant. that the applicant has the burden of proof. the applicant has to prove these things. they don't just take his word for it, they have to believe the applicant and believe his corroborating evidence. host: brian in east sandwich, massachusetts, a republican.

you are on the air. whoops, i have to push the button. sorry about that, start over. i would like to ask mr. schrag how people in foreign countries apply for asylum. for example, i believe in budapest in 1956 a cardinal received asylum in an embassy. what are the logistics? what if a huge amount of people show up at an embassy and ask for asylum? cannotactually, you apply for asylum from abroad. you have to be in the united states or at its border in order to seek asylum. you have to find a way to get here in order to do that. the cardinal when he was imprisoned in hungary was a refugee before we had the refugee act, or if the same thing occurred today, he could apply at the embassy not for

asylum but for refugee status. in highly politicized cases of that sort, the united states government would be likely to grant special refuge. in fact, there was the chinese refugee who sought protection of the united states last year, and he is in the united states now. that are -- those are very high visibility, unusual cases. highly visible or celebrities, they have been persecuted as part of large groups who are being attacked by their own countries and refugee camps in some other country. host: donald from south bend, indiana, a democratic caller. comment is to you, this c-span host. whenever you have somebody like this past representative on, you should have somebody on to counter him, because some of the things he says are questionable.

to the professor, i would like to ask -- i heard this past sunday on one of the sunday shows that the law that allowed this family of the boston bombers in has been tweaked such that today they would not be allowed into this country because i guess the law has been changed. is that true? guest: i don't know of any change that has occurred that would have changed since 2002, that would have changed their status. the law has been tightened a little bit by congress in 2005. imposed aress requirement that people corroborate their claims with so thenal evidence, standards are a little tighter. but even before 2002, in most parts of the country, the officers and judges were requiring corroborating

evidence. i don't think much has changed in that respect. now, there are provisions in the new immigration bill that has been proposed by the eight senators, the bipartisan group of senators, that would probably attacked us even better than now, because they would avoid a waste of time and money by the asylum officers and enable the asylum officers to adjudicate the cases more efficiently and in a a more streamlined manner. the most important of these is that until 1998 you could apply for asylum at any time. since 1998, there has been a provision in the law, passed in 1996, that you must apply for asylum within one year of entering the united states. this is very problematic, and the repeal that has been proposed by the senators is a very good thing on many different ways. one of them is that the asylum

officers now have to do two adjudications in every case, one to see when the person entered, to figure out whether he second,in one year, and whether the person deserves asylum on the merits. so it doubles the work of the asylum officers and wastes the taxpayers money. second, if the person coming in has a strong case, why do this job question mark if he deserves asylum, why do the job of when he entered? and if he has a week case for asylum and is passed the deadline, he is probably not going to apply for asylum. and will remain undocumented in the united states. we want to encourage people who are undocumented to come forward and identify themselves and have their status adjudicated. so any law that deters them from applying to identify themselves in the united states

undocumented is really a bad idea from the public point of view. the senate gang of eight proposal gets rid of that one year deadline? guest: yes, it does. host: this report shows asylum cases filed with the ins, with the government. , going up all3 the way into the 1990's. you talk about that law, around 1988, you can see the dip started around 1996 and continued through 2000. what happened there? guest: that dip was caused by something different. an outstanding reform that the government put into effect with the support of conservatives and liberals. before 1995, the rule was that if you apply for asylum, you could work, while your application was pending. that meant a lot of people were

applying for asylum who did not have a good claim for asylum. they were applying so they can work temporarily and send remittances. so as long as they could do that, a lot of people apply, and the more people who applied, the longer the backlog and the zen ins, now the department of homeland security group. as the backlog grew, the adjudication of these cases grew, and that let people work longer in the united states. the rule was you could no longer work in the united states just by applying for asylum. you had to first get asylum before you could work in the united states. the only exception was if the government could not decide your case within six months. well, the government decides most of these cases within six months, so people no longer have the right to work while applying for asylum, and the a lot of the people who did not --

dr.t: we are talking with philip schrag about asylum, what happened with the two suspects brought here by their powers from russia. from russia.arents we are taking your thoughts on the system we have in the united states with philip schrag. this idea brought to us by julia aurora, a "washington journal" viewer who lives in herndon, virginia. from augusta, georgia, a democratic caller. ask thei would like to professor -- i grew up in miami, florida. now the cubans have what they call a wet-two-dry immigration policy. once they touch the shore, they are automatically granted

asylum in the united states. how does that differ from someone from haiti or another different country? i will take your answer off the air. guest: the distinction is one that congress made a long time ago by passing something called the cuban adjustment act. this is a special law for cubans that allows cubans to come here and get green cards after a year, or whether or not they are threatened by political persecution as individuals. whereas haitians and apply for asylum if they land on our shores, but they have to prove that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. in fact, from haiti, which was true for a long time when katie was close to civil war, although many haitians are still at risk and someone asylum and some don't. that we need some

further adjustment in our law because haitians who are intercepted on the high seas by the coast guard are often turned back without assessment of whether they are fleeing persecution or not. this was a policy that candidates clinton said he would reverse but president clinton did not. host: tony ervine on twitter. recipient should lose their status if they leave here. this is protection, non- normalized immigration here koh and, ""does it make sense -- if you receive asylum and go back to your own country, your asylum will almost certainly be revoked. is it reserved for these parents? guest: the parents i think abandoned their -- we don't

know everything about the parents. i don't think they show any interest in coming back to the united states. --they received green cards any person granted asylum may apply for a ring card after a period of time. if they received green cards and they have a certain degree of freedom to come and go, if they become citizens eventually they are like everybody else. the younger brother here did become a citizen. host: gene in ohio says, "the problem with all federal organs like hud, if a couple applies, only one is investigated, so if a husband has a crime history, the wife applies." , even even the children a baby has to appear in the asylum office and be viewed by the asylum officer adjudicating the case in order to make sure

no fraude is perpetrated as to who these people are. host: marie, from florida, independent caller. -- partyou answered my of my question where the parents went back to russia. but the children were left here. did they get asylum and were the children left here to be indoctrinated in some sort of group or something? do they think that might be why the children are here and the parents are not? host: i don't know if that is a question for our guest, but why do you think that is important? i am not sure our guest can answer that question. why do you pose it? the parentsuse abandoned the children, it seems. host: ok, all right. caller: does the government think that the children were left here in order to be indoctrinated into some group? i am just asking --

host: you are wondering about the parents' influence. it was reported earlier this morning that the father is coming to the united states and cooperating with officials. guest: it is a matter that law enforcement is still investigating. we don't have all the facts on this case yet. they are still dribbling out. host: from twitter, "how do most seeking asylum get here?" aest: let me dispel misperception by members of the public about applicants. we sometimes hear about cases like this boston case involving muslims and think that muslims , or buddhists perhaps from china, are the predominant group of asylum seekers. most asylum seekers by far are christians, actually. host: where are they from, from

what countries predominantly? them come from central america, a lot from southern africa. but how do they get here? there are two ways they get here. one is a lot of them get student visas or tourist visas because that is the easiest way to escape from one's country, to get a visa. then they hope things will get better while they get here, and then when they discover things are not better back home, they apply for asylum. the other way, some, over the mexican border because that is another route by which come -- by which people come into the united states. host: i want to show our viewers some numbers. this chart is from the u.s. center for immigration services, and this one on my right is the office of immigration review,

the department of justice, showing where they have come from. it does say 24% from china, 36% from china from the u.s. center for immigration services, and you can see other countries -- colombia, el salvador, india, haiti, mexico. what do you make of those numbers? guest: what timeframe is that? host: i do not know. this is 2009. does that make a difference? guest: the flows of refugees, would-be refugees, has changed over time. there was very little -- there were very few chinese applying for asylum before about the late 1990's, and there were many chinese after that. there were a great many latin americans applying for asylum in the late 1990's. because peace has broken out in guatemala and el salvador,

which were in wartime conditions back then, there are many fewer applicants from those countries now. but over the long haul, probably the largest single group of applicants over the last 15 years has been chinese. -- amongargest applicants who identify with a particular religion, the largest group are christians. host: ok. stamford, connecticut, a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: the guest on your show made a contradictory statement when he was asked once the asylum seeker goes back to his country, then they lose their asylum. then immediately after that he said unless they have gone through the naturalization immigration and then citizenship. isn't that the attention -- isn't that the intention of every asylum seeker, to come here and get asylum and over a period of time get citizenship?

and then if they go back to the country, isn't that sufficient proof that the person was really a fraud and is not being persecuted over there? i know a number of such cases from india dominate paul, ,angladesh -- from india, nepal and ganesh. the first thing they want to do is go back to the country and visit friends and relatives. you saying that that is a bad thing that they want to go back? caller: i am saying they are cases of fraud because they were not being persecuted, they were just using the system. guest: first of all, not everybody who wins asylum seeks citizenship. many of them do. many of them stop at green card level and never seek to become citizens but retain their own citizenships, and they become permanent residents of the united states. to your second point, the fact that a person goes back eventually to their own country

to see friends and relatives, which is perfectly understandable, does not prove they were a fraud at the time they apply for asylum. it takes at least five years to become a citizen, and conditions back in their home country, have sufficiently changed. i mentioned earlier that the war's intentional had ended. many people from what a model can gosalvador -- many back and not face persecution anymore. on twitter, "are those applying for asylum required to approve -- to prove that they can support themselves financially, and if not, why." guest: the united states has historically been welcoming to people cleaning persecution, whatever their means. so many of the people who founded our country came to the united states in destitute conditions.

in addition, today people seeking asylum often have to flee with little more than the clothing on their back, and they to provele ability that they can support themselves. in fact, they are not allowed to work while seeking asylum, so they have to live on the charity of friends, relatives, or charitable organizations for months or sometimes years while they are here and are applying for asylum. sometimes an asylum applicant does come with some money, but sometimes they are worn down in the process. we represented a woman from sudan who arrived in the united states with $8,000 worth of gold wrapped around her body, but she was represented by a lawyer who apply for asylum for her, did not do a good job, took her $8,000, and by the time he represented her and one asylum for her, she was homeless. carmine from new york. republican caller. caller: good morning. if someone gets to our shores

from cuba, because of our government's hatred of fidel castro, they are given asylum. i have always felt that to be an unfair, unequal application of the law. guest: congress disagreed with you when it passed the cuban adjustment act. host: charlie, new castle, pennsylvania. republican caller. -- oncei wanted to know people are given asylum here, do they check on these people? that evenke sure though they have asylum here that it is ok for them to stay here? do they ever check that out to make sure if they are

meeting all the qualifications and all the things that they need to do so that we do not have another thing happen like we just had? thank you. guest: there are two warm bomb --- those cold war there are two more bumps after asylum. after everything they have said and presented, it has to be checked again, they have to go through another set of screenings by the security agencies. then if they apply for citizenship, naturalization, it gets through another net -- another examination. if they have committed any crimes in the meanwhile, all of that is taken into account and they may be barred from getting a green card or citizenship. in the case of these children, however, they were children. there was nothing anybody could have done about them until almost the last couple of months before they committed these alleged acts. these acts of which they are

accused. , they are like timothy mcveigh. they are like homegrown terrorists. there is not very much that we can do to protect the country against a loan wolf acting alone. our intelligence agencies are very good and they protect us through many plots that they have intercepted from abroad. but there is very little they can do about somebody who is self indoctrinated, self trained, and build a bomb based on something they find on the internet. an asylumhere database, and if so, is it checked against the terrorist watch list? are those two things shared? guest: when a person applies for asylum, the asylum officers and the department of homeland security have access to data from the database from all the different government agencies, and in addition, in every one

of the eight regional asylum offices, their are special fraud officers who are trained in finding fraud and are looking for patterns of fraud, and to educate the other officers as to aat to look for to prevent fraudulent applicant from getting through the system. i am wondering if the reverse happens, and perhaps this is not a question you can answer. but if the older brother was put on the terrorist watch list, would his name, if they had run that, said, this boy, his parents sought asylum and maybe that be some sort of flag? host: at the time -- you mean, many years later, after -- guest: many years later. guest: i don't know the answer to that question. i don't know what happens to a person put on the terrorist list. what is the total

percentage of immigrants made up by asylum grantees on an annualized basis?" guest: about 25,000 of those are asylum grantees. host: this person on twitter says, "is asylum is year to get if a person has sponsorship quest co. --?" there is no sponsorship for a person applying for asylum. caller: i am interested in finding out the informants or translators that work with the troops in war areas. are they on a fast-track to asylum? guest: there is a special law protecting people who work as translators or other assistance for our troops in afghanistan. congress has made special provision for them.

they don't go through this process is all. they go through a streamlined process. host: what does the special law say? guest: they have to be screened. come throughve to the asylum process and apply here and so forth. they apply from abroad, and if they are proved, -- if they are approved, -- for: so special status people who have helped in some sense with the efforts in afghanistan and iraq, for example. guest: there is an iranian here -- there is an irony here. of people togroup whom we give special detriments rather than privileges, and that is anybody who participated or , giving support to an armed conflict with a member of

group that uses guns, is barred from asylum even if the group they were working with was serving united states interests against an enemy of the united states. host: give us an example. guest: there were people fighting against saddam hussein before we overthrew the guerrilla, using tactics and carrillo weapons. because they were fighting against saddam hussein using those weapons, they are considered terrorists and are barred from asylum. similarly, there were people fighting against the communist being in ethiopia until overthrown in 1991. those people are barred from asylum in the united states because even though they were fighting a communist regime. that makes not so much sense to me. that is something congress ought to look at. west warwick, rhode

,sland, face, hello -- faith hello. caller: a question and comment. host: we are listening. caller: my basic question -- how are you? turn down the to television, and then i will come back to you. judy in new haven, connecticut, republican caller. caller: good morning. i was informed that your guest is not responsible for the graph illustration. however, 35% other is a huge chunk out of that pie graph. what is the reason of not putting in the destination of ?he country of origin if you can designate 1.4% from one country, 35% other is just

-- it is strange to me. guest: the answer is that there are not 200 countries in the united states. we receive asylum applicants for most of them, not so much from germany or denmark or one of the european democracies, but all over the world people are applying. the percentage of applicants for a particular country such as sierra leone may be a fraction of one percent, but when you add up that fraction times 150 countries, it is a large group of others. , we go back to you in westworld, rhode island. basically a comment and question and watching all three gentlemen in the last several minutes. a sickly you are talking about political asylum right now, and you are -- a sickly you are talking about political asylum right now and how difficult it is to get here. one of themt here,

has already been investigated by the fbi. there is no investigation on what he is doing out there, and he got to come back here to american soil. one of the suspect's wife she now seems to be radicalized here. basically the point is coming you knew he was going back there, trying to get out of russia, and i feel that the fbi had a lot to do with this. need to go back to a country he was trying to flee from? what was he doing there for such a long put two of time? it should have been more difficult to get back here to begin with. host: philip schrag? guest: those are really questions for the fbi and the cia, and not about the silent -- not about the essilor adjudication process.

-- about the asylum adjudication process. i want to go on what representative keating said about the enforcement. he talked about the benefits that immigrants have brought to the united states, and how the united states has been made richer by having many come a many legal immigrants contribute to our society. i want to encourage you to think about the fact that asylum seekers, a small group of them, are perhaps the most contributing to our society because these are the people who have the get up and go in their own societies to protest against their unjust governments and to stick it out and be persecuted, sometimes be jailed and tortured, and when things got so bad they could not stand it anymore, they come to the united states because their lives were in danger. these are the people who are the activists, the people who are the most ambitious people in their countries, and they have a

lot to offer our country. host:ou touched on this on the top, but remind us of the history. it was kind of an ad hoc process through most of the 20th country, but starting in 1980 congress passed the refugee act, which allowed people to apply for asylum if they have a well- founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, their political opinion, or membership in a particular group. host: what prompted congress to pass that law? guest: one was the united states signed an international treaty to protect refugees. but the underlying premise was the cold war. the soviet union was persecuting people, and the united states wanted to have a statutory basis for giving refuge to those people. schrag, georgetown university law center, thank you for your time. no