you have to confront. "usa today" had this front page story yesterday about the national guard being called up the governor there, and you were quoted as saying "it is the worst scenario." why? guest: said it shames our country because of the failure to confront the underlying issues. i was referencing the collapse of a civic society. that is what that tells you, that the alienation levels are so high and there is such a lack of political will and creativity to engage the underlying issues, we are going in the exact wrong direction, literally militarizing a civic society issue. andre using the military, that 98% of this debate rages on

about the actions of a patrolman, which again, the justice system will hopefully do justice. we need to look the much larger picture, and again, a much larger picture undoubtedly is going to be a trail back to ourselves. host: washington, d.c., democratic calle. caller: good morning. i agree with most of what you're guest said. the police officer in ferguson overreacted. once you saw michael brown's hands in the air, he should've stopped shooting. by understand once you start shooting your gun you can stop. but once his hands were exposed he was no longer a threat. respectfully not get into that issue.

o'donnell, on the facts rolling out slowly, we don't know everything yet, the grand jury is going to be formed today, and from newspaper .eports that will take weeks decisionree with that of having a grand jury, and that people don't know yet and it is not out in public and not transparent? guest: i have concerns about the grand jury. i have worked in front of a as prosecutors and they are controlled by the prosecutor's office. they send has a tough decision making process rather than own a decision that is ultimately made. there will be a claim that it will be an exhaustive receding.

it is not adversarial so it will not be that exhaustive. the political establishment will -- nots binding on the saying it is a bad process. we just need to be aware of its limitations. and hopefully people -- this will be explained to people. one of the things we need to know is that the lease in this country as our surrogate -- police in this country as our surrogates have a terminus menu to use force and in most places in this country it is extremely difficult to prove the on reasonable doubt that an officer is unjustified in an on-duty police shooting if there is no malice. that is not me endorsing an outcome. that is the legal system in this country where we elect people to make that law and that is the law that we have of self-defense in this country, for the police. host: eugene o'donnell, i want

to get your thoughts on the pentagon briefing yesterday. talked aboutsmen this pentagon program that takes this weaponry and other equipment, not just weapons, and passes it down to the police force. [video clip] >> i want to make one point on this. i understand that this is an issue of concern out there. we all push equipment -- we don't push equipment on anybody. this is excess equipment that taxpayers have paid for that we are not using anymore and it is made available to law-enforcement tendencies if they wanted and qualify for it. there is a lot of due diligence here. we are not going to give more equipment or equipment that is inappropriate for use by a law enforcement agency that is small and doesn't need it. just because they ask for helicopter doesn't mean they get a helicopter. we are not militarizing law

enforcement, we are not pushing things on. it is a process by which this equipment is available should they deem that they needed and wanted. -- wanted. host: eugene o'donnell, what do you make of the pentagon's response? it is aou can be sure broken process, you can be sure that legislative officials have not done enough oversight could one of the reasons is that we to realize what can happen in a small town could -- small-town. , newton,, colorado connecticut. a person starts shooting faculty in the kids on the school and elected officials -- why was it that this department stood ile people were being killed and twiddled their thumbs? it is an attempt to have it both ways. this.ss needs to own

it is a serious initial. you have us all rifles in the hands of people who clearly should not have them. it is harder to get them back once they are given out. it requires real focus and it requires saying yes, this agency should get it, this agency shouldn't, this is why. not something handing it off to dod -- as elected officials are actually saying, they don't know how any of this got to the police. host: eugene o'donnell, here is a tweet. guest: police will initially willt and then they embrace it. i'm not sure citizens will like the big brother issue. i'm not sure it will build trust. what areene o'donnell, you watching for next in , missouri?

guest: i am watching for the news cycle to come off this, get back on it, and i'm not hopeful that the root realities of this are going to be part of the conversation. sadly -- i tried to the upper mystic, but this has been going on for a long time, last few days, and it is a festering issue, and the optics provide great cable 24-hour coverage, but the substance of this doesn't, and i don't think we i don't see any indication that much substance is going to take place. maybe the military issue is going to be looked at. the caller from the nypd, the alumnus, when so that the weaponry has been given to the police for years. some of this is new, some of this is just defensive equipment, some of this is helicopters, some of this is scary weaponry we have to reckon

with. now aeugene o'donnell, lecturer at the john jay college of criminal justice, thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: we are switching gears, as we did yesterday on the "washington journal," to take a look at lyndon johnson's vision for a so-called great society. forill look at is push changing immigration laws, and later, the omnibus housing act of 19 66 that authorized providing loan, and middle-class americans affordable housing. we will get that after this news update from c-span radio. >> more on the situation in missouri. from "the new york times," "justice department officials are weighing whether to open up a broader civil rights investigation to look at ferguson possibly's practices at large. it came up after his reports revealed a 2009 case in which a

man said 4 police officers beat him and then charged him with imaging government property by getting blood on their uniforms. under mr. holder, justice is opened nearly two dozen such investigations into police departments, more than twice as many as in the previous five years. c-span is covering any remarks attorney general holder may make images o guest may make in missouri -- may make in missouri. had threatened to kill a journalist james foley to avenge airstrikes in iraq. the president is expected to make a public seminar about the murder of the american journalist. "good morning america" reporting executioner alleged spoke fluent english with a british accent. germany says it is prepared to

battle -- help kurdish fighters .attle sunni insurgents they would closely cordoning britain,ith friends, -- france, britain, and other european countries. those are some the latest headlines from c-span radio. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. c-span, the civil rights movement. saturday at 8:00, the new york ideas forum. q&a," with new york congressman charlie rangel at 8:00 eastern. depth"on c-span2, "in with reza aslan. saturday, "after words" with ben carson. today, the competition

become the dominant name in manned flight. c-span3, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. saturday, the 200 anniversary of the battle of bladensburg. sunday, former white house chiefs of staff discuss how presidents make decisions. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. joined the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: all this week on the "washington journal" we are taking a look at lyndon johnson's great society, his push for legislation on the economy them at the war on poverty, civil rights, voting rights, education, the environment. today we are looking and immigration. joining us is marian smith, the

chief of the historical research branch at the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, formerly the ins, imitation naturalization service. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for inviting me. host: this is october 3, 1965, at the foot of the statue of johnson isd lyndon signing into law the immigration and naturalization act. what did this law do? guest: that law was an amendment , the 19 65 mm and stood immigration and nationality act to the -- 1965 amendment immigration and nationality act of 1952. it ended the national origins quota system that had been in ande since the 1920's, limited immigration from the eastern hemisphere. we will talk about hemispheres. more fairlyed visas

around the world, according to preference categories -- either family-based or skills-based immigration. and for the first time it put a limit on immigration from the western hemisphere. host: we will talk more about this quota system, but this is what the president had to say on that day. "those wishing to emigrate to america shall be omitted on the basis of the skills and their close relationship to those already host: how did the system work before the signing of this law? it was based on the national origins system. i brought you a couple of charts. there is the chart you're looking at -- the table, but there is also another chart that

shows immigration over time, from 1820 to 2012, and i think it could be helpful to us. congress enacted the national origins system in the early 1920's. a lot of charts, i'm sorry -- host: that's ok. let's show this one while you are talking. guest: i marked on the bottom a couple of blocks where the pink is, the great wave of immigration that began in the 1880's, from the moran from different places and then had been in the past -- from more and from different places than had been in the past. of finally, with the act 1924, they used a formula using the u.s. census and they took the number of people -- first they took the 1920 census. later they would settle on the 1890 census. they took the number of people in the census of each different nationality and then they took 3% of that number, and that

would be the quota for each of those countries each year for immigration. draw- so it worked to immigration from those places where people came from before. host: where were those places? guest: those places were europe, primarily northern and western europe. people coming from the same places they came to before -- that would be before ellis island even opened -- and restrict immigration for people from anywhere else. and the quota system is in effect until 1965. the national origins quota system, i should say. host: and then what happened? lbj sends this law, and how does the process change? guest: they have to come up with a different formula on how to distribute immigrant visas. how it changed is they eliminate

and insteadl origin will distribute the visas by country, more evenly distribute them, and not favor one country over another. this is primarily being distributed around the eastern , asia,ere -- europe africa, every place but the americas. the americas under the quota system had not had any numerical restrictions in the 1965 act adding one annual ceiling for the americas, which would later become individual quotas for each country. host: what was going on in the country leading up to the legislation? what was the debate like? guest: well, the debate -- it isn't so much about national origins. in congress and across america,

most people were ready to put the national origins formula behind them. but there are lots of concerns beyond that about immigration, and the question is, if you're not going to use that formula to restrict all the numbers, what formula are you going to use? what are you going to replace it with? are you going to extend numerical limitations to the western hemisphere? is it going to continue to be non-quota, or unrestricted? the premise categories -- traditionally 50-50 family-based versus skills-based -- would that be adjusted? there are lots of people and constituents who are more recent stock, people who came from italy or eastern europe, russia, .oviet union, austria, hungary these people want the system amended so more people can come,

relatives. there are other people who are concerned about the availability of labor and how it would affect the economy. it is not an unfamiliar debate. host: what were the predictions before this act was passed by lyndon johnson? what actually happened? guest: the predictions are that -- nothing was really going to change that much as far as the numbers. they didn't expect -- or most didn't expect it to increase the numbers that much. to they wanted to open it up the whole world and not be so discriminatory. but people did worry about increased immigration, especially if there was no limit put on western hemisphere information -- western hemisphere immigration. sorry about that. host: that's ok. guest: the other thing -- there was some -- i don't know if i

would call it "shortsightedness," or what -- about the countries that had previously been so excluded. if there were no visas available for a certain country under the national origins quota system, or a token quota, maybe only 100 a year, then the applications had always been low because there was nothing to apply for. when someone said look at the application history, nobody there is applying anyway, so we don't expect them to apply in the future, that may have been a little misunderstanding. host: we are talking with marian smith, who is an historian, the chief of the historical research branch at the u.s. citizenship and immigration services about the immigration and naturalization act that president johnson signed into law in 1965. we want to take your questions

and comments, so start dialing in now. host: let me show our viewers this pamphlet. this is from april 1966. you brought this with you. reporter." what is this? guest: a magazine that the immigration and naturalization service published from 1952 into the 1980's. it is a quarterly. it reports to the service and the public about changes, developments, and explains, and they had early article about the 65 amendments, where they talk about the impact expected.

obviously, they had to revise all the forms, they had to rewrite regulations, and coordinate many changes with the department of labor and the department of state, all of whom had roles and immigration, and projecting their workload into the future. the expected lots of applicants. they expected an influx of immigrants. guest: of applications. host: is that what happened? guest: the expected it to start immediately, and that is what he did, and the opportunity had apply, ano opportunity that had not been there for so long for so many people. host: how would people go about applying, then? guest: since 1924, really, with the visa system, a prospective immigrant, someone who wants to immigrate, will apply for a visa, and in 1965 you need to

have someone in the united states apply for an application for a visa and that goes to the state department. they don't come and knock on the door the way they did when they came to ellis island. they knock on the door of the embassy or consulate abroad. host: that procedure is with us today. that is how it works today. guest: yes. host: what other laws put on the books from 1965 are still with us today? guest: the immigration and nationality act from 1952 is the law that governs immigration today, so it is still on the books. and itamended in '65, has been amended or modified in some ways by a series of legislations since. for example, in the visa categories made a small category for conditional entrants, which would allow for the adjustment of refugees who had come in but need a way to

become immigrants, from refugee status. later we had the refugee act of .980, that will amend the law the immigration act of 1990 created the diversity immigrant category. many changes, small, but no significant change to the way the system works. host: even works today? guest: yes. host: what are some of the highlights of that first piece of legislation that the '65 act amended? guest: the '52 act? the '52 act was a codification of prior immigration law. immigration had been governor previously by the immigration act of 1917, which was on the books until 1952, and then the '52 act superseded it and is still on the books today. what more did you -- were you --

host: well, i'm wondering, just because the current debate we are having today about immigration reform, people will say we have got laws on the books now. i'm wondering, when people say that, do they know and does it mean that the laws that are on the books today go back as far as 1952? guest: well, yes, they go back to then and farther. we might want to look at that chart again. host: sure. guest: with the purple. i look at things with a longer view. let's look at it that way. originally -- they are from eight to, and even before our policy in this country was a lack of a policy. it was free and open immigration . we all remember that. it may have been high, but that was the policy.

as we talked about before, with the great wave of immigration, the federal government implemented a system of .xclusion exclusion means pretty much again that everybody is welcome to come unless you meet one of our exclusions -- no criminals, people with dangerous diseases, people who would be a public charge, people who can't support themselves. a long list of exclusions that would be checked for at the immigrant station, like ellis island or another port of entry. there is no limit on the number, just on they would call it the quality of immigration. once we start into the national origins part, we add numerical restriction -- that is, the number of people admitted each year is limited. we use a visa system to do that. you cannot be admitted without a visa.

and there is never going to be as many visas as there are people who want one. all of these laws -- from the immigration act of 1991, 90 to 93, there are many laws that are basic policy and in 1924, they have these provisions i cover admission, exclusion, deportation, and the rest. host: we will talk a little bit later about this spike we are seeing here in 1980 -- looks like around '86. patricia, you are up first in illinois. independent caller. caller: yes come i wonder if the good lady could address the issue of the exclusion of jews season --leeing not

in world war ii and prior to that, and also if she could discuss how coming immigration was exercised at the turn-of-the-century and before for the purpose of building up the american workforce. thank you very much. i wish you all the best. host: thank you, patricia. guest: one is the jewish immigration just prior to and during world war ii. the other was -- host: that the system worked to build up our economy in the united states. guest: if you could make a note of that because i will forget. [laughter] guest: the national origins the system worked against those trying to escape europe, certainly in the 1930's and during the war. , but like sofactor much, we talk about the immigration system and how systems work together in other

countries. it may depend on whether people come from. -- where the people come from. certainly those people in germany who were trying to get german exitject to requirements and at times germany might require you to have so much money to leave. or you couldn't take as much money out of the country i think is a better way to put it. you could not take a certain amount out. u.s. law required you to not be a public charge and required you to show so much money to qualify for a visa. somebody might be caught between a rock a hard place. beyond that, of course, the quota only allowed so many people per year, and if the quota is exhausted, there is no more visas until the next month or next year. host: here is a tweet from a

viewer -- oh, did we address the economy part of this? guest: well, we didn't really. immigration, the to enable the economic growth of our country durin -- during the late 19th and early 20th century, with industrialization. but it is very subject to economics. weekend cd up and down, up and down on the chart like that -- we can see the up and down, up and down on the chart like that. the boom and bust cycle. host: ok, steve on twitter wants to know host: can you address this in a general sense? guest: i can only address this

-- is this the state department question. there are some long waiting periods. to get a really good understanding, i recommend anybody visit the state department website. if you just search their website for immigrant or immigration and visa, you find they have a lot of excellent information that walks you through how the process works and it also links to their visa bulletin, which has tables with waiting times for different countries. i would recommend it to anybody. host: we just put it up on the screen for our viewers. cory in colorado, democratic caller. caller: how you doing? thanks for c-span. can tell,our family my grandparents came from poland and austria in approximately 1915. if the guest could maybe address the situation in europe and in the united states at the time

and exactly what type of hurdles my grandparents may have encountered in immigrating to the united states. thank you. host: ok, cory. guest: well, obviously, we're talking will for one time -- world war i time. lots of people want to get out of the way. from the very beginning we are talking immigration from eastern europe in 1915 -- and their hurdles are going to have to do not with numerical restriction, because it is before that. .irst they need to buy a ticket they need to buy a ticket on a train and a ship to get to the united states, and those carriers -- we think of an airline, but those carriers back companies, after only sell tickets to people they believe are admissible. if they can raise the money and get the ticket and clear any

exit requirements that their country may have, they would apply for entry at a u.s. port of entry -- ellis island or one of the other ports of entry -- undergo inspection, and unless they become inadmissible since they bought the ticket, be admitted now. by 1915 you are traveling in steamships. we don't have months at sea and people dying of starvation or anything like that. it is a pretty quick trip. you can make it with a train and a ship probably within 2 weeks from start to end. host: let's go to 1986 on this graphic you put together. people see, as you said, the added flow of immigration dating -- ebb and flow of immigration dating back to 1820. here we see the spike in '86. what happened in 1986 with the reform legislation? guest: to understand that spike

we need to mention the immigration and reform and control act of 1986. irca had various provisions in andboth legalization verification, but that spike has to do with the adjustment or legalization of a lot of people that were already here. it helps to understand if you were to take that spike and ended over to the left -- and then it over to the left and lay down on top of the previous years, because those people physically arrived in earlier years but they legally were act.ted under the '86 they were here before but they were able to apply legally for citizenship -- guest: they were able to apply legally for immigrant status. host: and that accounts for that spike we are seeing there.

then what happens? level -- normalized does this normalize the level? guest: people who qualified who were not otherwise unmissable. -- not otherwise admissible. host: small window, certain amount of time. that window closed? guest: i would have to go back and check when that closed but it is a wave of workload that would be have to -- that would have to be digested and processed. host: hi, paul, you are on the air. caller: yes, ma'am. politicianshave had and republicans and people on the right saying we should only have white europeans immigrate to this country. was there ever a time in the history of the united states of america -- i'm sorry? host: yeah, we are listening, paul. are you saying is there ever a

time in the history that that happened -- caller: that that was true, because we have these people who think that would solve all of our problems if only white europeans were allowed in this country, emphasizing white, of course. host: ok, historical perspective here. marian smith? guest: was it ever just white immigrants? of course not. we can use the map one or the other one i brought that is much more colorful that talks about this. if we look at that, and it will show the colors, the same chart we have been looking at, just a little different display, the blue is people from europe. we will see through most of our history but i think we have to look at that and -- first of all, it only starts in 1820 so we have a lot of immigration prior to 1820 that doesn't come from europe. it comes from africa, or the caribbean. that is not reflected their.

but we can't forget it. even when we look at the 19th century numbers there, and we -- all the blue, agent 20 1820 coming through, a lot of our statistics for the 19th century, especially the early part, really have to do with where the people got on the ship . if they got on the ship to sail to america and england, they were counted as english and even if they had come from poland. we have to be very careful in looking at our numbers and making sure that we interpret them correctly. but even there you can see that there is immigration from all parts of the world, primarily europe, until the later part of the 20th century. we also didn't count all of the immigration. certainly we were not tony people on our land borders until

the turn-of-the-century. all those numbers on the charts do not include people who came from or through canada or from or through mexico. host: do we start at this point, because you can see the green is immigration from the americas, and you can see how it picks up after the 1930's -- is that when it started to be counted? what is happening here? guest: what is happening there i think is 2 things. one, it is beginning to reflect more accurately what is actually going on. we see some of the green on the down slope on the other side. but it will -- you'll get a change in the '60s. you can see that change, market there.mark it or just befores, the amendments of 1965, only

about one third of immigration was quota immigrants in the those largely coming from europe . two thirds are others -- nonquota, largely -- not "largely" -- a significant portion coming from the americas already. that is where the numbers may not be as reflective of reality. host: what is your office do? the historical research branch -- you are the chief of that. not a lot of agencies have a historian. what purpose to user -- what purpose do you serve? guest: there are not a lot of the federal historians, but several of them are with small programs like mine. our program recently -- last year we celebrated 25 years of a program. the historical research branch is comprised of three parts

could we have the office of the historian, we have the historical reference library, which is a small library that serves about half of our customers within the agency. we help other staff who work with the agency to find information, finances -- find answers. the other half of our customers are public researchers who make an appointment to research policy.of the agency or the third is a fee-for-service genealogy program, which began in 2008, and is a way to try to help family. street -- family history researchers and access to our oldest records. they, too, want access for research purposes. host: how does this program work, the genealogy program work? what is your average request? what are people wanting to know? guest: well, people ask it a little differently.

the way we are set up on the way our program is organized, which kind of confuses some of our customers, for the question first is do you have any records of my immigrant? that is why we set it up with the first step being a search request. it is a request for us to search our index. we have a master index to everything and we can look through and try to find an immigrant and see if we have any record, and if so, what kind of -- what kinde once of record we have? once we have that, we can find a record. we might go through the national archives or we might tell them to come back to us and summit a record request. both of these have fees. teh fee for the record depends on which kind we find. sometimes we tell people to go to the freedom of information program. but do you have a record, and what kind, that is the first question. if they come back to us, please

send me a copy of the start and we find the file and duplicate and send it out. host: how many requests are you getting? guest: 5000 or 6000 a year. people are very interested but i did to newly find people who say they are unaware of our program so they just don't know. host: if people are him interested in the immigration history of this country, specifically their own, their ancestors, where do they go? guest: they can come to our website and learn about our program, because we don't have records for everyone. we have been looking at that timeline a lot. we have records of pretty much a certain demographic, and we describe that on the website, based on the records we have. we have all naturalization since 1906. we have every immigrant admission since 1924, which is the beginning of the visa system. we may have -- we obviously have

records of people who came .efore that, but not all people there is a chart that helps people figure that out on our website. uscis.gov. marian smith, thank you so much for explained to us the '65 act and the history of immigration laws as part of president johnson's push for a so called great society. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. it was fun. piececoming up, another of legislation pushed by president johnson, the omnibus authorizingof '66, providing low-income and middle-income americans with affordable housing. we will get to that after this news update from c-span radio. >> news for consumers this our. there is a new online tool for car recalls.

an online search tool where drivers can find out if a specific car has been recalled and why. the new federal program was launched yesterday. car companies will have to provide at least 15 years of data for the tool and update their information every seven days. the deputy and ministered or says that the tool will give drivers "the peace of mind of knowing that the vehicle they own or are thinking of buying or renting his free of safety defects. you can find the site at safercar.gov. moscow police have detained four people for desecrating a style n-era skyscraper. please are holding 2 young men and 2 young woman on suspicion of vandalism. this is according to a press officer who asked not to be identified.

it carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison according to russia's criminal probe -- criminal code. authorities in ukraine say that fighting around donetsk has killed 34 local residents and one to nine others in the past 24 hours. government troops trying to quell the pro-russia insurgency has been focused on encircling donetsk, the largest city still in rebel hands. we will hear more on ukraine and russia later today when the brookings institution hosts a discussion on the conflict between the 2 countries and the impact on the global community. erlitico editor susan glass and a 2 brookings scholars will lead the discussion. those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> here is a great read to add to your summer reading list -- "sundays at eight," a collection of stories from the most influential people over the past

by five years. -- past 25 years. >> i decided to take it because whether it is an illusion or not -- i don't think it is -- it helped my concentration, it stop me being bored, stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep me awake and allow me to go on longer and have longer compositions and enhance the moment. if i was asked would i do it again, the answer is probably yes. i would've quit earlier, possibly, hoping to goad away from the whole thing -- get away from the holding. not very nice for my children to hear. it sounds irresponsible, if i say i would do that all again to you. it would be hit or critical of me to say -- hypocritical of me to say no, i would not have done it if i don't, because i didn't know. >> the soviet union contained the seeds of its own