the heritage foundation. the tour of the historically black universities and colleges continues. host: good morning. here are your morning headlines. as the islamic state -- the battlefield, president obama will hold a summit on combating terrorism with community leaders in this country as well as foreign ministers from 60 nations. raking last night, a judge blocked the executive actions on immigration. we will begin there this morning with your thoughts on the debate over president obama's executive

action on immigration. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can join the conversation on twitter. you can go to face the.com/c-span -- you can go to facebook.com/c-span. we will get your thoughts and a minute. at of texas, this is cbs' story. a judge blocked president obama 's executive action on immigration. the decision comes after a hearing in brownsville, texas. it puts on hold mr. obama's orders that could spare as many as 5 million people who are in

the u.s. illegally from deportation. the judge wrote that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction, the states would suffer irreparable harm in this case. in the white house in a statement defended the orders issued in november, as within the president's legal authority, saying the supreme court and congress can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws. the department of justice has indicated it will appeal the decision. it would be healed -- it would be heard by the fifth u.s. circuit court of appeals in new orleans.

john, what you make of this? caller: i think illegal aliens are a net drain on the u.s. tax base and the u.s. economy because of the socioeconomic input. they send money out of the u.s. while a u.s. service and would keep the money to stimulate the economy. they lower the wages of u.s. workers and replace u.s. workers in what were once good paying jobs with benefits. they are a disaster for u.s. citizens, middle-class and working class u.s. citizens. it is a shame that obama is trying to increase their numbers in the u.s. host: giving your perspective on this, what to you make of republicans holding up funding for the homeland security agency over this action?

do you think that is a good move? deadline for funding the agency is february 27. without it, they could shut down the security department. caller: i agree with the move, but the shutting down of the government would be the fault of the democrats in this particular case. they need to oppose this executive order made by the president. host: let's listen to what the speaker of the house had to say. here is what he said about republicans in the house and their decision to hold up funding. [video clip] >> the deadline is less than two weeks from now. the fact is, you in congress, are going to be out on recess for the next week. can you promise the people, with

the terror threat growing, that you are not going to allow funding for the department of homeland security to run on? >> the house has acted. we have done our job. democrats are putting us in this position. it is up to senate democrats to get their act together. chris, one more time. the house has done its job under the constitution. it is time for the senate to do their job. senate democrats are the ones standing in the way. they are the ones of jeopardizing funding. let's see what the senate can do. >> what if funding runs out? >> senate democrats should be to blame. >> you are prepared to let that happen? >> certainly.

we have done our job. host: he is putting the onus on the senate democrats to amend this bill. the president said he will veto any action that does not fund the decision he made. caller: i do not think immigration -- we should have a law on that. many americans is out of work. if he allows that, that's less jobs for us. host: do you do's agree -- do you disagree with the president on this? caller: i disagree. a lot of us is looking for jobs. if they allow that, how can we look for jobs? host: do you agree with republicans, that the homeland

security department should be shut down over this? caller: no. host: why not? caller: and they would have to lay off the federal employees that have to work for the homeland security. host: blame would fall to the gop. republicans in congress would shoulder the blame for the shut down if they are unable to enact a spending bill to keep the agency running. the survey finds 53% of americans would blame republicans in congress if the department must shutdown. 30% would blame president barack obama. 13% say both deserve blame. if a bill is not passed by

fedora 28th, the funding will run out. this takes place as a texas judge decided to put an injunction on president obama's executive action. here are some tweets, reaction and thoughts. phone numbers are on your screen. a congressman tweeted i am proud to stand with texas governor greg abbott. senator ted cruz saying it is a huge victory for rule of law. sheila jackson lee saying this is a sad day for families trying to remain together under the law. the doj needs to appeal this decision. the white house saying that they will, that the justice department will appeal the decision by the judge.

mike, go ahead. caller: to begin with, the president is supposed to be the chief enforcement officer of the land. he has turned his back on not maintaining the law, everything from immigration to drugs, to quite a few other things. however, he can pick and choose what laws to enforce and who to employing -- and who to appoint to oversee these situations. any time you have these situations occurring and you turn around and justify and turn around and try to use situational ethics to break the law, that is why people try to come to the united states. we do have laws we enforce. he needs to step back and let congress support the homeland security, but carve out the money he wants to legalize those

illegal people. we can handle that in a bit by bit peace with different pieces of legislation. the same thing with the marijuana and everything else. host: separate out the funding? caller: definitely. host: vern, your take? caller: the proposed legislation does what the past gentleman just said. it is not defunding the entire department. it is only that part that supports this illegal immigration effort. host: let's listen to what the chief of staff had to say. dennis mcdonagh asked -- when asked how this gets resolved.

[video clip] >> unfortunately, i do not see how congress is going to resolve this. it is important that we do not take the path they suggest we take. congress continues to get paid. defending our airports and making sure the airline and aviation's charity is upheld. that is something we should not do. congress should come back and get that done. host: saying congress needs to get this funding done. you could jeopardize homeland security. the deadline is february 27. lawmakers back in their home states for the president's day week.

they have just a few days to get this resolved. cbs writes the first of the orders to expand a program from deportation was set to start taking effect tomorrow. the other major part of the action was not expected to begin until may 19. the coalition fighting the president's action, led by texas , argue that mr. obama has violated the take care clause of the u.s. constitution which limits the scope of presidential power. the order will force increased investment in law enforcement health care, and education. the coalition says it will be

necessary because it would be difficult or impossible to undo the president's lawlessness after the defendants start granting applications for deferred action. sheila, oklahoma. all caller: i disagree the republicans are the ones causing the homeland security to lose their jobs. the democrats need to vote on this. they need to offer an amendment, like they said. republicans would send the things over and they would not let it be heard. they blame the republicans. i am tired of that. as far as security, no one wants anyone not to get paid. they want them to do their job. we are in difficult times. i appreciate what they do.

the immigration felt tied in with this bill. it should be decided at another time. host: zach, harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: i find the whole thing laughable. reagan and other presidents did the same thing and there was no problem. whatever this guy does is going to be a problem. he gave these guys a year and a half to get this done. he told them what he was going to do if they did not get it done. they went on vacation, went back to their home states, they did not do their job. we could be talking about citizens united. you talk about losing jobs, big businesses employ these people.

it is not the little guy who is maybe here illegally they suppress the wages by hiring them. i am concerned when these girls and boys who are here legally come home to find kitchens unattended but the whole family was deported. where does that leave these children. it is not their fault they are here. everything we have done has shown no compassion. host: albert, fort wayne, indiana. go ahead. caller: i praise god this injunction has come down. this man is nothing but an emissary from hell. host: all right, alberta, fort

wayne indiana, and indiana -- an independent caller. host:earlier this year, the republican-controlled house passed a spending bill to fund the department through the end of the year. it attached language to undo mr. obama's executive actions. the sate of that house-passed bill is unclear. those supporting mr. obama's executive order including washington and california, they filed a motion with the job in support -- with the judge in support of mr. obama. the group of law enforcement officials and more than 20

police chiefs also filed a motion in support. they argue the action will improve public safety. we are getting your thoughts this morning. weigh in on the debate. what should happen next? a texas judge has made this step. congress, republicans in control. joining us on the phone is -- johnson to talk with us a little bit about this. what you think the decision does? it is temporary, but what does it do to the debate? guest: it is a good question.

because it is new, it is hard to know. it is going to give some weight to the republicans who are very angry with the president about his executive actions and want to see them stopped. when i left the capital as measured -- as members were leaving, it was clear they were not sure what was going to happen with the department of security. saying they did not want to relent and funded the department because they were angry. whether this will give fuel to the fire and causation of town of the department is uncertain. it is possible, kind of like obamacare, they may be able to say a judge is supporting our

decision and the judge will stop this from happening. honestly, i have no idea how this is going to go. it has gone farther than i would have thought already. host: when they return next week, are there republican saying we need to fund of this agency? guest: i am sure there are. i have not heard anyone say, at least to me, there have been some who have sent to a few reporters, this is a dangerous game for us to be playing and we need to be funding the agency without -- or we will be blamed. the question is, what can be done to satisfy the people? ted cruz is the perfect example.

i have not heard of a compromised type of situation that would take the hardliners out of the picture. the decision could do that, especially if it looks like it is going to move forward. it is not entirely clear what happens to the executive actions with the temporary decision. particularly the deferred action for --. we are waking up to this decision by this judge and waiting to get reaction from

members on capitol hill as well as the administration. the justice department is going to try to appeal this. before congress comes back to washington what is the administration's tactic? guest: this is something they have been very clear about the dangers of not funding the administration. they have brought out local officials who talked about the difficulties they would face if the department is not funded. a sizable chunk of the employees would still have to work without being paid, which is not fair. i think having watched them over

the last couple of weeks, the dire consequences is going to be a continual message coming from them. they do not seem afraid that they will be blamed if something happens. the rhetoric is on their side. it is a complicated situation depending on where the public stands on president obama and non-immigration, i can see some of them feeling like this is an appropriate fight to have. in light of the snow that is hitting the northeast today and any number of natural disasters that are happening, the kinds of things that had to do with immigration, they can stand on firm ground that this is no

place to play games. host: font johnson, thank you. -- fawn johnson, thank you. we turn to you to get your thoughts on immigration, what the president has done on it, the decision to put an injunction on an and the debate in washington about whether or not to fund the executive action. this is what the speaker of the house beat it out. democrats blocking funding for security. he wants you to reach wheat if you agree -- he wants you to retweet if you agree with that. chuck grassley, saying every senator but one wants to debate

homeland security bill that will block obama immigration, but democrats filibuster. from the wall street journal the white house plans to play up the role of the homeland security department. they will try to keep the heat on lawmakers by keeping up the department's role in combating terrorism and violent extremism. the event comes after executions by islamic state militants and attacks in paris and copenhagen.

with congress having left town, lawmakers have a handful of days to resolve the funding impasse before the department runs out of money. back to your calls. paul, california. caller: i watch every day and i watch every day, your program. you are doing a good job. i am trying to explain to people, what is executive order? he only takes executive order when republicans refuse the immigration reform. almost two years, maybe more than two years, immigration is broken in this country. republicans do not want it solved. i do not know why they are fighting for not funding for dhs.

host: the gop's hot potato, they say mitch mcconnell is up to the house to pass a bill that can clear the upper chamber. the house could have used its time more constructively by passing a bill to deal with the underlying issue of 11 million undocumented immigrants. when we were given the honor of the majority, we have to govern wisely. shutdowns are not wise policy. hunter, an independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am from an air force family. yesterday i had the privilege of speaking with retired air force men. this bill is going to be dangerous to america.

we are not just talking mexicans. we are talking mexican, korean haitians, jamaican, any illegal aliens that have come into this country, they get a social security card and a $24,000 check. yesterday, you had gentlemen on talking about how they are cutting assets. this cut across the board, this money will go into these illegal alien's pockets. host: where did you read that? caller: i got this strictly from the military. the military is in tune with what this man is doing and barack obama, he is here to dismantle america. host: we will go on to jean

louisiana. caller: good morning. instead of the republicans trying to bring the president down, why don't they work on an immigration bill? this is a game the republicans play all the time. they had a bill and boehner refused to bring it to the floor. president obama said pass a bill and my executive order would be rescinded. they don't care about the people. they care about bringing people down. he is a very smart man and he beat them at every game they tried to play with him. they do not care about the american people. not to fund homeland security, that is unimaginable. host: allen, go ahead. caller: the immigration here,

they had that funding and they did not pass it. everything is going to be paid for? if the president and the democrats put that in there they put it in the funding for that into homeland security. it has nothing to do with republicans. everything else is going to be paid for. is that what i understand? host: is that what you heard from the speaker? caller: right. everything else is going to be paid for. host: joe fayetteville, north carolina. caller: it's like they are messing with the infrastructure

again. after a debbie a child -- after a while, it is almost as important as picking up the garbage. we are already in trouble. when are they going to stop playing games? it is ridiculous. host: lisa, kansas city missouri. caller: i live in an immigrant neighborhood. i am one of three white families in this immigrant neighborhood. i am surrounded by illegal immigrants that live here. in my neighborhood, you cannot speak to anybody because no one speaks english. everybody speaks spanish. they drive better cars than we

do. they have fancier equipment that we do. we go to the store, i see a lot of them have food stamps and they cash their checks and they send their money home. how come the money is not left here to help people here? host: how do you know the money is sent home? caller: i see them get in line to wire the money home. host: we are going to keep getting your thoughts. continue to dial in. the white house is holding a summit and there will be foreign ministers from 60 nations attending. the egyptian president urges --

to follow his lead and take measures to that the -- in libya. in response to the call, a defense officials said the u.s. has a long-standing military to military relationship with the egyptians. and highlights one aspect of the debate over the new authority president obama seeks from congress to wage military action . several prominent lawmakers have said authorization should restrict operations to prevent a u.s. president from expanding american's involvement. the headline egypt is bombing the state for those beheadings.

land, providence, rhode island. -- lynn, providence, rhode island. are you with us? you are on the air now. go ahead. caller: i am an independent. i am upset you cut people off the way you do. i do not understand why you allow democrats to ramble on, but anyone who speaks against the president and his policies, which are proving to be illegal time after time, you cut them off. it is wrong. people are fed up with what this man did. they voted in november and he is refusing to listen. you and he need to get the

message. we do not want illegal immigrants taking our tax dollars anymore. thank you. host: manny, independent caller. caller: good morning. i am getting fed up with the republicans on this issue. the last congress they passed an immigration bill with more than 70% of the vote. speaker boehner refused to bring it to the house for a vote. now is not the time to play games with isil. they should fund the immigration bill fully. when george bush was in power he did a similar thing.

why should this be an issue? we need people to join the workforce. instead of people, if you look at the rich family, it is only about one. we need more people to join the workforce. host: we will get to more of your calls in a minute. joining us on the phone is bart janssen. he is talking about the faa unveiling over the weekend new rules for drones. what did they put out there? guest: they put out a proposal for how they would like to regulate commercial drones. the drones people might want to use for wedding photography and for real estate to show houses.

all states of commercial uses. they are asking for comment and they will be chewing over those comments. it runs for 60 days and they will be analyzing those comments before coming up with a final rule. host: who does this impact? caller: all sorts of folks would like to use commercial drones for bridge inspections or moviemaking, realtors, anybody that might want to see things from the sky but is cheaper and less dangerous by drones them by helicopters or by regular aircraft. it is a cheaper a more safe way to do aerial views of things then standard aircraft. host: what is the faa saying

about how they are flown? guest: the big concerns, how do you prevent them from colliding with other aircraft and hurting anybody on the ground. the proposal is to say you can fly the drone, but you have to keep the aircraft within sight of the pilot on the ground , you can only fly during daylight hours, you have to avoid flying over people who are not associated with you. if everybody in a wedding knows there is going to be a drone flying overhead, that is ok, but they do not want you flying over a sporting event. those are the most important parameters of what they have proposed. host: what about the high lives

flying the drones? do they have to go through any sort of certification to be able to fly these commercial drones? guest: yes, they do. they would create, people who have flown recreationally, that is still allowed they do not have to have licenses, but for commercial off raiders, people using drugs for businesses, they would have to get a new certificate, that shows they know stuff about aeronautics how you need to avoid other planes, and they would have to go through a setting by the transportation security administration to check their criminal background and there is a certificate required.

it would not require a full pilots license, like the folks who fly a says. -- who fly a cessna. host: what is next from the faa? are they going to way into these other areas of drone use? guest: congress ordered them three years ago this month, to try to come up with rules so drones could fly in the same skies with all other aircraft. they were supposed to come up with all of the rules by this september. only coming up with this proposal for drones that way up to 55 pounds, they have a ways to go. they have not even begun to deal

with larger drones. these are the ones you are familiar with, the smaller ones, flying around with hobbyists today. they have to develop and analyze the comments about this proposal . it beyond that, they will have to come up with the rules for bigger drones. drones can be as big as regular aircraft. a drone just means it is flown by somebody not aboard the aircraft. another aspect is delivery folks, such as amazon, they would like to fly drones to deliver their books and there is concern about having drones fly the faa would like to have one pilots were ever drone. you watch it is flying safely. in order to do deliveries, they have to fly automatic flight

paths. that is not part of this proposal. the amazons of the world may ask congress to say you should let us to deliveries. host: thank you. back to our question for all of you, having you weigh in on the debate in washington over the executive action. a judge in texas putting an injunction on the president's move, as the court will consider a case brought to court by republican governors against the president. you have this debate about whether or not to fund the homeland security department. here is a statement about the judge's decision. it reinforces what we have been saying for a long time.

president obama acted outside the law when he changed the immigration laws. the fight to reverse the president's unconstitutional overreach is not over. he must respect the rule of law and obey the court's ruling. [video clip] >> will congress reach an agreement to avoid a shutdown? >> i expect there will be a short cr if necessary. i think the only way it will work is to split it into two bills. the president is happy to blame republicans and the republicans will not be able to sustain not paying for border security and things like that. if they split the bills, i believe the republicans can win and the shutdown would be on the

administrative side because the president could not win. the fact is, no one would care. host: another quick story for you in the papers this morning about the affordable care act. the deadline was sunday. the sign a window -- the sign up window is open another week for those who had problems signing up and other special circumstances. democrat seeking more time to buy health care. the penalty kicked in on sunday. preston, beaumont, texas. what do you think? caller: i would like to say, everyone keep putting everything obama, when all of the other

presidents we had most of the campaign was about immigration and what they would do, how they would bring together canada, united states, and mexico. as far as the border thing going on with the homeland security, i feel like they are not doing their jobs anyway. when you have these haitians trying to come over here, they block to them anyway whatsoever. why can't they do that with the border in mexico? reagan his campaign in 1980 the whole thing, republicans thought it was great. everything he had to say. everything the republicans do is all right. when democrats try to do everything, they shut them out on everything simply because they are a democrat. host: bill, go ahead. caller: i do not remember

agreeing with [indiscernible] homeland security should not be tied to something else. we will not defend the border unless you do what we want you to do? we will not defend the country? that makes no sense, whatsoever. it needs to be a standalone bill. host: we will and the conversation on the immigration issue for now. next, what happens in the fight against isis and the authority to fight that terrorist group. daniel newshauser will be here. later, two different perspectives on the legal the blade -- the legal debate to battle the terrorist group. first, a summit held at stanford