health? caller: yes, i do. a pension receiving since 2008. and my pension fund, according actuary, is 92% funded. but if you use a -- it is only about 75% funded. it is running about $1 billion to fair ding, according market value. since the bush tax cuts. host: thank you, sir. guest: well, i'm not an actuary, but the way it works is actuaries, math whizzes -- they figure out how much money to go into plans to figure out how much the money will earn. they have those kind of mathematical competitions. look -- know, when you pension funds should really be looked at over a long-term period, right. because the market goes up and

down. they have been overfunded 10 years ago, maybe underfunded today, but may become overfunded again. that is why when you are looking at it, you're looking at it as a long-term rate. so having some underfunding in is not a lar year problem, it is just what is going on overtime. so, you know, there was a law passed in 2006 that tries to put in more s to money into pension plans. they say that if they put in more money, then that takes away from some of their profits, and other things they could be doing. and there is a balancing act between putting in enough money and putting in too much money. so that is what washington is dealing with. host: we appreciate you coming on. guest: thank you so much.

host: coming up next, the of the attorney general a new states, he has book -- "a conservative and compassionate approach to immigration reform". we'll be talking about that. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. evening at 8:00 pm, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. night at 2, saturday fundraiser olitical lindsay mark lewis on fundraising and politics. sunday, the senior correspondent shane harris on the military's use of cyberspace to wage war. and on "american history tv", 2:00 pm, a panel on

how ronald reagan's career as an actor and spokesman for general electric help honed his communication skills. at 8:00 pm -- cclips with the 83 interview former president about vietnam, watergate, and his resignation. complete television schedule at c-span.org. let us know about the complete programs you are watching. collis, email us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. >> "a conservative and compassionate approach to is the tion reform"

title of his new book, former attorney general alberto gonzales. judge gonzales, we'll get to the book in just a 2nd, but i want to ask a couple of quickly about the cia and the interrogation and what has been going on here in washington. sir, what was your role in terms of approving or knowing about the interrogation techniques used. guest: sure. the kind ure these are of questions that can be discussed very quickly, as you said in your introduction. i was on the council in 2002 about enhanced s techniques began. is the cia t, who director, felt strongly that he information about pending attacks.

they needed to find a way to gather information consistent with the law. the e asked members of national security council -- he h this predicament that was in -- aand presented the option of enhanced techniques. of course, that began a dialogue between the department justice and the cia, in terms of what those techniques and based upon , needs of the cia in determining whether or not it could be done in a way consistent with the law. course, as the white house counsel sat in on these meetings and sat in on the discussions -- at the end of the day, it is up to department of justice to make a decision whether or not it is something that can be done consistent with our loss. obviously, i provide input. day, the e end of the

attorney general has the say and what can be done consistent with the law. have been asked questions about what was the president's involvement. well, i can say that at the beginning of these discussions bush's chief of staff -- what to the president know about these discussions. president of e united states is filled with information every day, every minute. that the president needed to know that we were in discussions about enhanced interrogation techniques. i recall a conversation with president bush fairly early, the rming him that discussions were ongoing and assuring him that we would be focused on ensuring that the techniques for effective. obviously, that would come from the cia. the techniques

were lawful, and that comes from the department of justice. was very, very important for president bush. subsequent to that conversation, aand the years, i was s and conversations with the president where, it was clear to me, that the present had have been ed -- may briefed -- on the specific techniques. i do not know for certain, but clearly there were conversations about the techniques that the president was aware of. you read his book -- there a n points" -- particular conversations in that it was clear that bush knew there was enhanced interrogation techniques. i do not know the level of specificity the information was provided to him, but he understood what was going on.

again, the program moved with a clear directive that they be lawful. of course, it was very and rtant for the agency the white house that key leaders be al informed -- have knowledge of what the agency was doing. and those briefings occurred, as well. so we moved forward. again, with a clear understanding that they were effective and would be useful in protecting america and be consistent with the rule of law. the lawyers worked very hard to a ke sure they provided framework with safeguards to the techniques were consistent with both our domestic and international obligations. host: what you think of john brennan's press conference and the release of the interrogation report? guest: well, i do not see all of john brennan's press conference. perhaps i can respond to specific questions about it. it is a tough situation to be

an agency and of -- and defend or explain the actions of agency for an before that occurred your watch -- that comes with the territory. empathy ome degree of for john brennan in that respect. that what he did is that he said the agency was charged with a mission to gather information and protect america, and that is what they did. his work at upports his agency, as do i, quite frankly. he admitted that in certain instances, the agency -- agents went beyond the guidance provided by the department of justice. and that was unfortunate and should not have happened. and this should be accountability. i think that, in some of these cases, if not most of the cases, there was some accountability put in place. it is a tough chapter and i one of the lessons

from this is that, yyou know, in a time of war, there is extreme pressure. people sometimes do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. and it is very, very important even though d that you may give strong guidance about what is lawful and can be done, sometimes people go beyond that guidance. think it happens, i is appropriate to understand what happens after the accountability, and that we do things that we can to ensure it doesn't happen again. i have heard people say never again. it is easy to say that now, the heat of are in battle -- when there are threats tremendous against our as a country -- it is tough. i think we never need to lose sight of that fact. judge gonzales, your book opens with a forward that says is something for

everyone in this book to hate. how does a conservative compassionate approach immigration reform? guest: well, i think that we a very and that this is important issue. it impacts our economy. it impacts our foreign-policy. it is the very essence of who we are as a country, as a nation of immigrants. we have so many diverse implications at stake here that are implicated by any kind of policy passed by congress and signed into law by the president. it is on the skippable that you have to compromise. people will gain, but they will also have to give on certain issues and certain points. basis of the comment that there are things

that, you know, everyone has a stake in this discussion. and everyone will have to compromise, from my perspective. we have to compromise on something you think is important -- you are going to hit that. but sometimes you will have to make compromises for the common good. in order to be successful, it is absolutely necessary, in my judgment. i think everyone at the table immigration ake policy going forward -- coming to that table with an get rstanding -- i can't everything i want. that is just the nature of this exercise. host: besides being a numbers there are re right substantial consequences related to millions of undocumented immigrants living within the u.s.. and the possible negative consequences of having a basic, undocumented community are many. some of the more tangible issues include fostering the rule of law,

and the potential for security breaches by terrorists. that, judge gonzales, wwhat are 2 changes you would if you could -- to the immigration laws of the united states? i do think that we issues, with ious respect to security in a post-9/11 world. you want to get conservative support for any kind of immigration policy, has to be greater efforts with respect to securing our border. we are much more say, e today than we were, a decade ago because we have put in place additional resources. we are using new technology. we have additional border agents along our southern border. so we have made progress, but it is very important that we have a secure southern border. am afraid to say --

we are not -- i think in some it is a much more dangerous world and it was pre-9/11. i remember my 1st trip to was attorney general -- i visited my counterparts in mexico -- and we had some very candid discussions about the challenge that exist with respect to mexico and immigration coming into america. they were very, very candid and that the nightmare scenario was someone like al across our g southern border and committing another 9/11 scale attack. they knew what the repercussions would be -- that the united states would shut the border off. and that would devastate the economy. so, they were really worried about border security. they were really worried about threats to the united states coming from the southern border. my reaction was -- if they are that worried about it, maybe we should be worried about it as

well. i think securing the border is very, very important. with the economy, i do think that we need to have an that ration policy understands it complements -- that actually promotes commerce within the united states. need to understand that immigrants are very important part of our workforce. legal immigration can improve our economy, can in increased jobs -- which will make it jobs more available for citizens here in this country. so i think there needs to be more of a focus. it should be more focused on our economy. driven by our economic needs. for example, we should have visas for skilled workers where those needs arise. in today's economy and today

situations, i think that is what it should be going forward. host: what about a pathway to citizenship? is becoming extremely politicized, aand one of the it n issues that has made difficult to achieve any kind of legislation to make any kind of progress on this issue. the matter is -- many of the people who come into this country do not come tto this country to obtain citizenship. they come to this country to better life for themselves and their families and their children. not a oming a citizen is primary objective. and, obviously, if the united states were to say we are going to make everyone a citizen, these immigrants would say, yes, great. but that is not why they come here. be a e, that would secondary objective, in terms been here a have

while, if they do not have a pay inal record, if they their taxes -- then i would have no objection to have citizenship in the long run. provided, however, that they not be able to obtain citizenship in front of those people have been waiting patiently outside our borders and have followed the law. i think it would be unfair to them and send a terribly wrong if we provided citizenship to these folks who came to this country unlawfully. if we provided citizenship in advance of those who follow the rules, i think that would be a tremendous mistake. host: in one chapter, you and your co-author right -- the the ican people may resist necessary, but leaders must ccommit to long-term thinking and explain why our efforts with mexico are good for america. additionally, our political have to be will

tactful when dealing with mexico. border neighbor is a sovereign nation and rightfully proud of its heritage and nationality. blatant a matter institutional reform by outsiders will most certainly fall on deaf ears. anything you want to add to that? guest: i am not sure i have anything else to add. come into this country -- migrate into this country because they are in pursuit of a better life -- better economic conditions and better opportunities. the in fact, that was situation in mexico, we would lot of unlawful immigration. but we try to be realistic in our assessment of what can be done. to be cally, we have careful -- for example,

spending dollars in mexico. citizens would rightly say why are we doing that, we have our own problems here in the united states. so we have to deal with that. and, of course, as you just is a proud ico country and has a long history of not resentment, but a great deal of pride in their own country. they would only -- there would only be so much we could do. but we have a great deal of cooperation today. we need to see what we can do to help our economy, tto share to share , intelligence -- which is already ongoing today. i think moore, quite frankly, needs to be done. i think mexican authorities -- you ask them -- they have an are rstanding that there some institutional improvements that should be made -- in terms of the legal system, criminal justice system. things that, i think,

would help improve conditions in mexico. i think we have some progressive leaders forward thinking in mexico that are of king on these kind issues, and certainly when i was in government, these are things we worked on. i am assuming and i hope that those continue today. host: who is your co-author? guest: david strange is a good friend of mine. he is an immigration expert. i am not an immigration experts, in terms of knowing the technical aspects. i felt it important to have me on this project who had that level of expertise. david has that expertise. a is, coincidentally, taking leave of absence from his a actice in texas and is now student at georgetown -- security a national

law degree -- so i have enjoyed working with david and he has provided the appropriate level of expertise on this issue. which when you talk about immigration, you're talking to experts immigration around the country better than i do. i felt it important to have like david on board on this effort. i think we have a fair product. i think it is balanced. and hopefully it will stimulate and make some n progress encumbrance of legislation going forward. host: 202 is the area code. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. former attorney general alberto gonzales is our guest. prior to that, white house counsel. prior to that, secretary of texas, general counsel to governor bush in texas, aand the dean of belmont

school of law in nashville, tennessee. from where he joins us. eric in hagerstown, maryland. the republican line. you are 1st up. caller: i just want to say the immigration law is -- i don't see how you are saying they have to pass a background check and all that. they have already broken the law by coming into this country illegally. if i break a lot, i go to jail. they are going to be awarded with citizenship. it's but in the face of everyone who has gone through the process properly. how it is fair or remotely for to anybody last to sit and wait. they people, because break our law and have artie established income, they get a before everybody else. host: judge gonzales. guest: of course, anybody in law country who breaks the suffers a consequence for it. so a proposal would require some type of

penalty for the fact that they did come into this country unlawfully. i do not know why we are giving them any sort of preference in that situation. the law lse who breaks -- again, they would be required to pay a penalty, pay back taxes. and my preference would be that they not be afforded citizenship before anyone else who got in the line and follow the rules. i don't see how this could be called amnesty because many people say that, well, this is amnesty. sort of blanket forgiveness from his sovereign government to a group of individuals. and that would include granting a pardon. that is not what we are proposing here. people who keep -- who say that proposals like are nothing but

amnesty -- in reality, that is not what we are proposing at all. host: from fiscal years 2002 2009, alberto gonzales writes, many millions of immigrants gain citizenship. a change to the -- to the visa system, so that people cannot overstay their visas. what kind of changes would you like me to that? the issue l, here is -- i think experts will disagree about this -- 30%, 50% came to this country lawfully under a valid visa. what happens is is that they are in this country, their visa expires, and they don't want to go home. so they stay in this country all lawful status -- in

an unlawful status. so, this is a very difficult issue because what it requires there to be equires better communication between universities and the government, between employers and the government. it requires, i think, better interaction between the u.s. government and the home countries. we can identify -- we and better er idea track -- of people who are here on visas and when those pieces are set to expire. make them sort of permanent immiscible status, so that if they do overstay their visas, there is no chance that they can come back into this country once we find them. no chance whatsoever that they can become a u.s. citizen. do is t we have to explore ways to really discourage visa over stayers. because that is a significant part of our problem. that the nt to mention

fact that such a large percentage of people who are here unlawfully ccame here a valid visa means there is limited utility in border security. that people talk about 2000 mile fence -- that may be fine for preventing some people from coming across, but it is not going to do a thing with respect to these over stayers. it is a very important terms of making progress and solving the high here rs of people that are in this country in an unlawful status. is in harrisburg, pennsylvania. democrats line. to ask a would like question. president bush, the cia, and a citizen, i -- as wouldn't care what they did to american that the people are safe. and on immigration -- when you

have 2 professional people that what they're talking about, they will never come to a decision. what i say is net the illegals, illegal. many of them how there are. so let them come in. guest: well, i respect that viewpoint. i'd have to disagree with that. every nation has the authority -- and there is no question under international law -- hhas the authority to determine who is within the country. i think that is perfectly appropriate, particularly when you're talking about how can impact policy your economy. policy w immigration can, quite frankly, affect your security position. so, again, i respectfully

disagree with the caller's viewpoint. i think that if anyone is in the country, they should be here with in a lawful status -- it is a nationalized to this end, whatever. i think one positive offshoot once you are at here in a lawful status, i have problem at that point with a drivers license, having certain benefits. but for me, it is much easier to recognize this notion that entitled to certain benefits if they are, in fact, in some sort of lawful status. would have that you someone not with a lawful status walk into a government a drivers secure license -- to me, that does not square with the american way. i think it is important to have with one in this country

some sort of llawful status. caller: it is not the lives is something we have wrestled with for 20 years. the laws to extend beyond our borders. explain to me se how it works in this country? guest: i have a hard time understanding your comment. i think your question was you have a hard time understanding how he is still imprisoned in this country. quite frankly, i'm not knowledgeable of the specifics. host: let's move on to john in des moines, iowa. the republican line. caller: thank you so much. i look forward to c-span every morning.

he earlier was talking about international law, but my question comes back to -- sshould it ever have happened a high-ranking military officer or a high-ranking cia were to be ghanistan captured, and have to endure these enhanced interrogation techniques -- would you recognize that as being lawful would that be okay? guest: of course, the big -- ference that many people i am hopeful and i think this be the case -- that our people were not have engaged in war crimes. they were not have beheaded people and kill innocent citizens. from my perspective, that would be the main difference. more nk it would give us moral authority to complain to raise objections about the treatment of our citizens. so from my perspective, that

would be one very important of our nce -- in terms legal position, moral position respect to ns with al qaeda, for example, raising objections to the way that i -- someone was treated. in your book te that of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states -- we support placing those who are eligible and without a criminal record into temporary they pay a us after fine and back taxes. oppose their becoming eligible for permanent lawful if they learn english and american civics and pay taxes. a couple of executive orders that the president has signed couple of amers a

years ago, then the recent one -- hhis executive action pretty does that, doesn't it? guest: it does, but of course, part of the challenge or part of the problem of executive action is that it is temporary. it can be undone by the president, of course, and can be undone by the next president. and they can be undone by the congress. and my concern with what obama has done -- this most recent action -- is came following an election, which i think the american people sent a very strong signal aabout what they wanted to see -- the level of cooperation they wanted to see president and the congress, which is not been very good and i think we all understand it and agree with that. so rather than allowing the new congressional leadership to them an h this -- ggive opportunity -- the president comes out immediately and says i'm going to do this through executive action.

think k the timing -- i from that perspective, it was a mistake. the repercussions of taking think ive action -- i many people believe that the up ber of children coming from central america was notions, in part, that here in america we do not take our immigration laws into effect. for that reason, i think it is also mistake. finally, i think the action is shortsighted.

shortsighted from the perspective of democratic lawmakers. because at some point, we are going to have a republican wield ent who is going to the executive pen. may wield the pan on or policy that democratic lawmakers believe is a very important idea. more about h immigration policy. who should get to decide what is our immigration policy? should it be solely the president? or should it be beginning with and signing a law? very important dialogue -- a very important discussion. from my perspective, i think we are much better off if our upon ration policy, based a comprehensive bill passed by the congress and signed into law by the president of united states. host: barbara is in chicago.

hi, barbara. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i am interested in 2 subjects -- host: barbara, i'm going to put you on hold. barbara, do you know the rules? you have to turn the volume down on your tv. someone is going to come on and talk to. nash is on from charleston, south carolina. caller: good morning and think of it taking my call. how are you doing? host: nash, pplease go ahead. are leaving le their country to come here and they children, so that way

can become citizens -- isn't the way of becoming -- i think, as an immigrant, everyone has the right to immigrate. and everyone should be free to come to america. host: what was your process to immigrating to the u.s.? the process that you went through. went through due process. i went to my wife. host: through the family process. thank you, sir. any response to that? guest: i'm not sure i understand all this comment. you are re born here,

an american citizen. i think that is a good policy. if the majority of people don't like it, i think we can move forward and change the constitution. i'm not sure i understood his question. host: i think he was just making a comment that he was going to the process, aand that every country has a right to protect its own borders. guest: no question about that. that is one of the aspects of as i a sovereign nation, said earlier, to determine who is within a country's border. we do have a process, and that is why i do believe it is important that whatever we do who are here s unlawfully, we do not disadvantage those who are waiting in line who are following the rules. this notion of instant citizenship, i think it is not the american way. on the other hand, i think we need to be realistic about the fact that we cannot deport 11 million people. we talked about this during the bush and ministration.

i remember having a a group of n with experts in deciding whether or not that would be realistic. government does other functions. this is not something the government would be capable of doing. even if we were successful, it would devastate certain industries -- farming, construction -- and i do not think that is the right way to go. way is to approach -- determine who, in fact, can contribute to our economy. those kind of folks -- and in this community -- they are not a danger to our country. if you put them in some sort of temporary legal status, i think right way to go. posted barbara, chicago, go ahead. it is interesting that mister gonzalez is interested in law.

if he is so interested, he has absolutely violated the american way and the law. since he wishes to punish anyone who has broken the law, patiently the parade. he is one of the most evil enablers of this whole torture business that is now being widely exposed. host: judge gonzales. respect the i caller's opinion. i worked with a team of dedicated lawyers in the white house, at the department of justice, at the cia, and other working hard to provide a framework so that we do not violate the law. was there a way to collect information that would be consistent with our laws. and the lawyers provided a framework. the agency not decided -- would make a decision whether or not to move forward with that framework.

we know now that the agency, in some cases, exceeded the requirements and guidance given the department of justice. and there have been and should be consequences with respect to that. am i saying that the bush administration was perfect? no. it was not perfect. we have imperfections today with the way that president obama carries forth on the war on terror. this is a tough business, and you are dealing with a brutal, ruthless enemy -- you know -- you have to take strong measures. and those measures should the ys be consistent with judgment of lawyers, with the constitution, and with the law. but sometimes you make mistakes, and that is the very nature of that. i think the cia director, john brennan, acknowledged that yesterday. host: i'm going to read "a ething from your book -- conservative and compassionate

approach to immigration reform" has he republican party hurt itself among hispanics because of the harsh way some have spoken about immigration reform. guest: well, i believe that is true. george w. bush had a way of connecting with people. had a way, especially, of connecting with hispanics. of a the former governor message, ate, but the the messenger, and the tone are very important if you want to successfully reach the hispanic community. that doesn't mean you have total agreement with the someone like george bush was able to somehow connect with the hispanic community. some of the rhetoric that are here from the right i think is very unfortunate. you know, absolutely no compassion whatsoever. treating them as the worst of the worst criminals. and that they should be removed

immediately, even though that is impossible, in my judgment. so i think the rhetoric has been extremely harsh. we need to tone down the rhetoric, from my perspective. we need to acknowledge that these are human beings we are talking about. and that's most of them have families. they came into this country to pursue a better life, jjust like our ancestors did. just like the ancestors of these republicans. we need to not lose sight of that. i'm not suggesting that we simply allow people into this country. that we provide instant citizenship. moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform -- we need to understand that we are a nation of laws, but also a nation of immigrants. host: brian is on our independent line. caller: good morning. i hope i can keep on one subject.

most americans are prejudice. what we have understood about our government and people is seeing, you you're are using the word 70. that word -- sovereignty. that word is not being used anymore. we are trillions of dollars in debt. and we have actually decided our mexico, even though great country -- you look at the demographics and where they terms of latitude goes, they could do a lot more than they are doing -- so they need these fine people. two -- get rid of the corruption in the country so they can be a solid, strong country. that we are say dispassionate and some on the so hard lined -- no.

you were in charge of our law enforcement in this country. a cruise ship ave industry -- and i have sailed these life and see all fine cruise ships that are flagged from liberia and all these other countries -- we this is not right. why don't we ship the cruise just one idea -- ship the cruise ship industry over to mexico with our coast guard. host: that is brine in michigan talking about immigration reform. general gonzales. well, i'm not sure i understood all the points he is getting to. i think that we have to try and find ways to help our neighbors. they are our friends, and we them to be helpful to the extent that improvements can occur in mexico. including the corruption that is rampant there. and, of course, we have our own corruption here in this country. think you will have more

in cessful economic policies mexico come forward, and that will endure to the benefit of not only mexican citizens, but also here in the united states. host: next car comes from in martinsburg, west virginia. caller: yes, thank you. have an enhancement law that forces those who committed misdemeanor crimes -- of the more than 3 times -- into felonies. which kerry state -- carry state prison sentences. i understand that all those who come over here ccome over here more than 3 times. are they still subject to the law? can you explain more of the -- the ion between the federal aspect of it. i understand they want to grant them amnesty. but the separation between the

doj ral and the state regulations and laws for the border states. guest: well, i disagree with one component of what i think you are saying -- banning amnesty. i am not sure who is suggesting not aware of any republicans or democrats were to be ting that we ought granting amnesty. there is a clear division between the federal and state responsibilities. and, obviously, if you commit a state crime in texas, you are going to be subject to state criminal laws. different with respect to being in this country unlawfully. that would be, in fact, a federal offense. a state could pass a state law tthat makes it a crime to be in state as an unlawful, undocumented immigrant. i think that would then raise or not stion whether

that law would be unconstitutional, as having by the federal law, because the courts have been very clear in saying -- in the area of immigration, that area has been preempted by federal law. congress has passed a very a very it become comprehensive -- complicated, very comprehensive law. although, there are certain rights that the state can do. obviously, if you go into texas and you murder someone, that is a violation of state law. and you are subject to state prosecution. host: a treat for you, general gonzales. do you think an attorney general should get involved iin the execution of local law enforcement? this is with regard to ferguson.

guest: right. i think that is a very interesting question. i have been asked this question, of course, whether or not i would have gone into ferguson. this nk on balance -- on particular case -- it was probably the right thing to do. general holder was invited tto come into ferguson. i think it would have been appropriate for the attorney general to come to ferguson. the other reason that i think it was appropriate is that you are there to speak to the are on the ops who ground and involved -- perhaps on the periphery -- but no question involved in the investigation to tell the folks that this is important. let's get it right. we want to work with the state and local folks. we're not taking over the you to gation, i want understand that, but we have an obligation to work with the state and local folks. as the attorney

general, you can deliver a very powerful message to a community that has a large black population. you can deliver the message that we are going to get this right. are not over here to take over the investigation, but we are going to work with the state and locals to find out exactly what happened here. where, i think, i disagree with the actions of the attorney general and the specific case didn't see enough acknowledgment -- maybe 9 to the same degree -- the e not in ferguson to same degree -- that's by a far e, their heroes -- as of the concerned -- effort ongoing and developing strong ties between the law enforcement and the community. i think the attorney general should really emphasize that his t in connection with visit to ferguson. tweet into you --

mister gonzales, is immigration policy intended to primarily serve our economic needs, or to be a form of humanitarian aid? guest: i think both. from my perspective, there are that can be ctives achieved and should drive our immigration policies. i think and i have said on the show -- the economy is, obviously, one. we care about families. i think that is something we care about. you know, reunification. we care about security in a post-9/11 world. that is very, very important. and obviously humanitarian aid, to the extent that people are overseas, that d is appropriate grounds for relief.

there are a number of factors, i think, that should be considered. host: donald. north branch, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. they seem to be placing all the blame on the latin community, but isn't immigration a worldwide problem? including so-called illegals from russia and czechoslovakia, germany, france. i wonder if he has a breakdown of the presenters from other countries? thank you. you the i cannot give exact breakdown, but the majority of the immigration to this country come to mexico and central america. the caller is absolutely right, from ve immigration issues our northern border, and with

respect to immigration from europe and asia. but for magnitude, there is no question that the primary focus our government should be from mexico and central america. because the number there are so overwhelmingly larger in scale, as opposed to unlawful immigration from other parts of the world. from your book -- we believe it is important to state that not all aspects are broken. in the fiscal year 2010 alone, millions of unlawful immigrations into the u.s.. they include temporary workers, students, diplomats, etc., etc. years 2002 to 2009, over 10 million immigrants obtained lawful resident. 2011, they removed 396

individuals. and in 2012 -- jack is in springfield. hi, jack. a best way there i could follow -- that the american public might be able to follow the progress on this issue? host: on the immigration issue? caller: just like we're doing the budget. mister gonzales, you work for the justice department right now? guest:, no, no. i used to work for the justice department. i ended in 2007. host: and that color is gone now. what would you recommend to him? guest: there are many

organizations that track the facts out there. your local congressman, your local senator can get information. a lack of ot information as to what is going on now. writing books about immigration, so i don't think about s a question whether or not there is enough information out there about immigration reform and the progress of immigration reform. there is a lot of information out there. internet to go on the and look up some of the organizations. they are all going to be biased. they all have personal agendas, and i understand that. but perhaps the best source is to talk to your congressman or senator. perhaps even state and local officials. host: and tim is in california. go ahead. caller: good morning, mister gonzales.

just about 2 months ago, i went to a swearing-in ceremony. 1100 people from 110 different countries. our immigration does work, we just have to enforce it. we have to make congress stop about getting the votes -- and just follow the policy that we have had in the united states for some time. i'm sick and tired of people when called undocumented they are iillegal. thank you for your time. happened with at the cia -- all these people have never had to fight a war. they have never been shot at. they have no idea what this is like. you did a great job there. guest: well, i appreciate that. terms of the job, the cia operatives -- i wasn't being shot at. to our system process -- it deals with a large number of individuals currently. but obviously, we have

something that is wrong. 12 man, ave 11 million, 30 million people here -- 12 million, 13 million people here undocumented -- it is not working perfectly. i'm not suggesting that we can achieve a perfect system, but one an certainly achieve than our ore fair current system. you also write -- the democratic party has heard itself by projecting an image that pays lip service to the rule of law and care about those immigrants who have followed the law and are waiting patiently to come to america. guest: well, i do believe that an image that -- a that iis -- i think

more important that -- they are fighting furiously to not see anything happen. i think that is very unfortunate. we are a nation of laws, and i believe in a rule of law is. i know how important that is. come to the ple to country and not suffer any consequences -- to me, i think that is a little disrespectful. that is not the america that i know. that is not the america that i worked to serve at the state level, at the federal level. we are a nation of laws, and there should be result or accountability for those who do not follow the law. host: and we are going to close with the street -- who would you like to see -- tweet -- who you like to see win the presidency in 2016?

guest: wwell, it will not surprise anyone -- i hope a republican wins. host: what about jeb bush? guest: well, i think jeb bush would make a great president. just say this -- i think we need someone to be president actually been an executive -- who has made executive decisions. because being a president is not on-the-job training. it is probably the most difficult job in the world. it is about making decisions. and i think it is important to have someone who has a track record of making decisions, and being accountable for those decisions. that would be the number 1 criteria that i would impose in deciding who i can picture working in the oval office. host: alberto gonzales. of the book cover -- "a conservative and compassionate approach to immigration reform".

we appreciate your time, sir. guest: thank you for having me. host: we are going to turn our cia press to the conference yesterday -- pardon -- responding to the release of the interrogation report. here are the numbers. if you would like to dial-in. you have a comment. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. here is a you but from john brennan's statement yesterday. i have already stated that our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation

program produced useful intelligence that helped the united states for an attack plans. let me be clear. it we have not concluded that it was the use of eit's the allowed us to obtain useful information subjected to them. the cause-and-effect relationship between the use of eit's and useful information is unknowable. irrespective of the role in eit's might play, i believe effective noncoercive methods are available to elicit sus intimation. methods that do not have a counterproductive impact on our national security and honor international standing. it's for these reasons that i support the