of the wilson center discusses us-mexico relations and what is being done to address the mexican drug cartel. host: good morning. the headline in today's "new york times," iran meets terms of nuclear deal, ending sanctions. "washington post" calling this a relations.nationa americansf two other still believe to be inside the country remain in question. it is sunday morning on january 17. we expect to hear from the president clinton today on this agreement.he is in the white house this morning . meanwhile in charleston, s.c., later tonight, a democratic

presidential debate on nbc. it is the only one prior to next month iowa caucuses in new hampshire primary. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues today in new hampshire with senator ted cruz. he is kicking off a bus tour. talking presidential politics and the capture of el chapo. we begin with the implication of this deal and the present swap between the two countries and this question, in the world of trust iran? our phone lines are open. send us a tweet and also join us on facebook. good sunday morning to you. thank you very much for being with us. a lot to talk about. this is the editorial this morning from the "washington post."

iran releases jason, another american, ending a gross abuse objective. possibly because of interest in completing the prisoner swap, the obama administration response has been weak. the post and the family will celebrate his safe return and that of other americans, but the absence of a firmer u.s. policy and vital u.s. interests which really continue. that if this morning from today's op-ed in the "washington post." joining us on the phone is tom, one of the few western reporters in tehran. thank you very much for being with us. guest: sure. thank you for having me. host: let me begin with today's photograph on the front page of the "new york times" showing 10 hran's grand bazaar. what is the reaction today?

guest: people are extremely happy, but they are not showing the happiness by driving around and have extreme parties because there have been so many milestones in the last 2.5 years . some people are cynical. they say sure, these sanctions are now lifted but what will it mean? will i see more money in my pockets? promises ofy improvement of the situation, they are now taking more of a wait-and-see approach. we heard from secretary of state john kerry in vienna, austria, yesterday. you made a point that the sanctions in negotiations and the release of these five but very was on a dual separate track. can you elaborate on how this all transpired? guest: i have been covering the

negotiations that took place in geneva over the past couple of find it hard to believe these are two separate things. a separate track during the negotiations sort of what was established in which some of whom the u.s. state department included people behind the cia were in direct negotiations with iranian intelligence officials over the release of the five. it must have been very complicated. mr. kerry would say this is something separate. if you look at the seven prisoners that have been released or are being released by the u.s., you can see they

are all people involved in what we would call section breaking. the iranians are specifically asking for these people because they have helped and survived the section period, and the stations are now of course lifted as of last night. make sure that the people that have public over the years are released. host: we are hearing now that before americans still inside iran are now leaving the country, although they were not detained, but they didn't stay at the swiss embassy overnight. why the delay in their initial release? early reports yesterday said they were leaving on saturday. they are now leaving at this hour. guest: actually, there have been a lot of conflicting reports, including some from the "washington post" that have been saying he was out of the country, that he was flying out of the country, that he left

iranian airspace, the people in germany were waiting for him. people said he was going to switzerland. it turned out he his wife were still here inside iran. even as we speak now, an iranian thatial confirms to us , the jason has left iran other four iranian american american prisoners still remain that --american iranian prisoners still remain in a iran. we are getting the latest developments from inside te hran with thomas r erdbrink.

assets now being released to the country. what will this mean for them? are you still with us? he was joining us on his cell ehran.from inside th we may have lost his signal, but we want to thank you for joining us. the question we're asking you is can the world -- iran? your reaction to all of this. caller: i very disappointed but not surprised considering this incompetent president. first of all, we cannot trust iran. the middle east will be one hellhole as far as nuclear weapons. they will try to destroy israel. the bigger question is what is america benefit from this? actually it is nothing. prisoners were released, but what else do we get in return? absolutely nothing. iran has $150 billion to build up the economy, destroying other

economie countries in the middlt that don't agree with them. in the long run, we are in trouble. this president shows he is more for the iranians than the american people because our safety is now at risk. take care, god bless. host: from chicago. the prime minister of iran is during this suite yesterday -- tweet yesterday. tweet from one of our viewers . we are joined from columbus, georgia. good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. host: go ahead please. .aller: i am old enough i remember iran for many years ago as a young teenager to

today. i have never known iran to keep their word about one thing. million that they insisted on having before they would release the american prisoners is not going to be spent to rebuild the economy. they will put it into their military and beginnin be even to terrorists. it would not surprise me in the least to find out our american citizens will not be released from tehran. host: can the world trust iran? that is our question. join in on the conversation on facebook. some are already waiting in -- weighing in.

carol is joining us from minneapolis. good morning to you. caller: good morning to you. no, obviously you cannot trust them. bush said it was , theof the axis of evil leaders in iran got credit. right now, they are putting cement into their nuclear reactors. materialsdy shipped to russia. netanyahu and the republicans come if they had their way, we would be bombing them. you cannot bomb inside of a mountain. i wonder how many americans really realize that this is $150 billion of iran's money.

the united states displaying is paying zero. this is the money that had been seized from iranian banks. i heard several times already this morning donald trump said we are giving them $150 billion. no we are not. we are releasing their own money. lies are all over the place. host: thank you. appreciate the call. jason one of those held from july 2014. he was a "washington post" reporter. we are hearing from cnn and other news reports that those who have been held are now leaving iranian airspace and heading to a u.s. military base in germany before returning to the united states. carol talking about money. david has been writing about that this morning on the front page of the "new york times." he points out the following.

we have a tweet from jody. let's hear from brian joining us from washington state. good morning from the republic . -- republican line. caller: yes, good morning. listening to the comments coming in, and i think this is another failure in the obama administration's policy with iran and the united states in general. i see it as probably going to be one of the worst possible deals

in the history of the united states. that wean is a country have ever been able to trust -- i don't think iran is a country that we have ever been able to trust. i think the media and the government in the united states is kind of naive to this. they want to create this better friendlier kinder building between the two countries, but giving them money and access to creating powerful weapons, i don't think they are going to tell us the truth about anything. i think they are involved in literally just taking over the middle east. naive to think

that somehow they are going to be friends of the world now because they have these on frozen assets, which the people of iran are never going to see any of that money. it will only be used to sponsor more state terrorism and probably take thousands more lives. eventually kill christians and use. -- jews. host: thank you for adding your voice. we appreciate. this is from another viewer. here is how the story is playing out in great britain. the guardian newspaper.

the president hailing it as a golden page in the country's history and a turning in the economy. this morning from the guardian newspaper. five americans have been released including "washington post" reporter jason was . from california on the independent line, good morning. caller: hi. i am calling from alameda. i used to work from peace action west. i worked closely and personally with these activists across the state. i actually think this question animating, kind of in a meeti g

especially because there are countries we could see as our adversary for a variety of reasons. there has been a whole ploy to toate a third world war create more military spending in this country. it is actually a victory for diplomacy. it is a standing of america at its best. it invokes peas and enters diplomacy and conversation is a way that we can move on to a better world. why do we need to be bombing? why do we need to be hurting one another when conversations can be had? what i would actually posed to c-span is to provoke a better question or more intrinsic

questions about why we holding some countries accountable and not others? what is going on with saudi arabia right now? where we now also questioning other countries that actually way more human rights violations than iran has? was saudik at arabia has been recently, they have done more ill in this world than we can imagine, and yet we give them so much of our financial aid. what i would ask right now is look at who are the peacemakers. who are the people willing to come to the table and have a conversation? take all of your points and friend into a single question. how would you do it? caller: if i could ask you a question, i would ask you to ask

who are our peacemakers at the table? who are the people willing to try to create solutions with us? host: thank you for the call. the recently asked the question today is because the trust is one of the big criticisms against the deal. but some people say we can now trust iran. certainly a lot more to talk about on this issue in the days and weeks ahead. we appreciate your observations. with thick that into account as we look at other questions down the road. thank you very much. this is from steve. thank you for sharing your thoughts with us as well. we will hear from matthew joining us from minerva, new york, on the democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine thank you. how are you? caller: fine. all the surplus that we cannot

trust iran are the same people that trusted george bush and said we had to search for weapons of mass destruction. that never happened. the same people that don't trust iran are the same people that don't realize we overthrew the elected government in the 1950's, put in somebody let him run rampant for 20 years so that we would be with standard oil and make a fortune. we would take our hostages. did they kill any of them? no. did they let them go? yes. people just talk about history they way they want to talk about it. they don't understand it. host: matthew, thank you for the call. another viewer on whether or not we can trust iran. meanwhile, to americans still in iran are among those not coming

home. that is the story from this morning from the "washington ."st they have reportedly now that i ran and going to a military base in germany before returning to the united states. paul ryan issued a statement yesterday saying iran is likely to use the cash infusion, more than $100 billion in total, to finance terrorists. this comes weeks after iran's most recent illegal ballistics test and days after the iranian government and its religious leaders detained 10 american sailors. those pictures of those 10 sailors who moved into iranian waters space and were detained for about 24 hours and a photograph and video of them

with the hands up continue to dominate the political dialogue in this country. this is what it looks like this past week. we listen to johnny joining us from tennessee on the republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning to you. regime this president's trades i haveine treatie followed since 2009, and i think ted cruz is probably more of an american than the one in the white house. i had to guess, george bush did not drop loans on iran. host: thank you for the call. the weekly standard is talking about this.

former secretary of state hillary clinton, the headline on iran. the statement by the former secretary saying -- another american is still not home with his family and the treatment of our navy this week was offensive, putting the release of a demeaning and provocative video. the program should be met with new section designations and firm resolve. the statement was published this morning on the weekly standard website. the three democratic candidates, including a lucrative and bernie sanders facing off in the final debate before the iowa caucuses .nd the new hampshire

welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a few points. time, americat will miss barack obama so much, and i will tell you why. people say america cannot win conventional wars anymore because it can bomb places, and then they have to occupy it, and that is th where the problem comes in. i heard michael savage talking about donald trump, that he would use tactical nuclear weapons on syria. israel is right next to syria. when you drop a nuclear bomb, the radiation doesn't just stay in syria. it goes all over. i remember as a child of an

accident in russia at chernobyl. people felt the effects in england. i don't know if they think logically about what they are saying. host: thank you for the call. jody to this point, and again you can share your comments on twitter. this program is carried live on c-span radio and also on sirius 124.hannel if you're listening on the radio, the question we're asking, can the world trust iran? the lifting of the sanctions in the release of the americans who have been held in that country, including the "washington post" reporter who have been held since the summer of 2014. secretary of state john kerry in vienna, austria yesterday.

i am happy toy: say that as we speak we have received confirmation as five americans who had been unjustly detained in iran have been released from custody, and they should be on their way home to their families before long, shortly. the president will have more to say about their release later. but i can tell you one thing. while the two tracks of negotiations were not directly related, and they were not, there is no question the pace of the progress of the humanitarian talks accelerated in light of the relationships forged and the diplomatic channels unlocked over the course of the nuclear talks. certainly and the time since we have reached an agreement last july, there was a significant pickup in that dialogue.

we have also reached a critical and auspicious milestone on the nuclear issue as well. today, more than four years after i first traveled to oman at the request of president obama to discreetly explore whether the kind of nuclear talks that we ultimately entered into with iran were even possible. for more than 2.5 years of intense multilateral negotiations, the international agency is not verified that iran has honored is commitments to menta dismantlementis of its nuclear program in compliance with the agreement we reached last july. andnt to thank the iea their director for their significant efforts in this regard, and i know he will go n to begin thehra process of full implementation.

to get to this point, ladies and gentlemen, iran has undertaken significant steps that many, and ideai doany, -- and mean many people surpassed. we can assure continued compliance in following years. in this that's iran has taken, the united states and the eu will immediately lift nuclear related sanctions, expanding the horizon of opportunity for the iranian people, and i have even tonight before coming over here signed a number of documents over those sanctions that the state department has jurisdiction over in order to affect that lifting. host: secretary of state john

kerry john kerry in austria yesterday announcing the terms of this agreement and the lifting of the sanctions. reaction from the republicans's presidential candidate. this is a story inside the "washington post." president swap makes the u.s. look weak, calling it capitulation. donald trump on the campaign trail yesterday in th new hampshire saying this should 2, 3, 4 years ago 3, and it is a horrible deal. in the world trust iran? caller: sure they can. listen to what has happened over the years. theou take the fact that have control over exactly what they were doing in the nuclear program because her husband would not lie for the administration. things like that is what gets us into trouble.

is all they have in iraq, bombing. you have to sometimes come off and sit down with a deal in a peaceful manner because we can no longer afford these mistakes. host: thank you for the call for minnesota. a lot of you weighing in on our facebook page. this is from tom. he says iran has offloaded their uranium and nuclear reactor capable of making nuclear grade plutonium has been filled with concrete.

michael crowley of politico is writing now the hard part begins. the piece is available online at politico.com. i will share with you a portion of what he writes. sections are listed and president obama's nuclear deal with iran is now a fact on the ground, but managing the deals aftermath in obama's final year could be nearly as hard as the process of striking it. that according to current and former administrators. republicans will push for new sanctions and issued threats of war. israel and saudi arabia will pounce on any hint of iranian misbehavior. hillary clinton took partial credit for the deal.

called for new sanctions to punish for its recent whistle test. that again this morning from politico.com from michael crowley. joseph is joining us from connecticut on the republican line. caller: thank you for having me. host: sure. caller: a lot of people are forgetting two things. i am listening to the conversations, i listening to everything. people are forgetting that iran hates us. i am 26 years old. i lived in the middle east for over five years before i moved back to the states. host: why did you live there? caller: might have got a job there and i lived there. -- my dad got a job there and i lived there. iread the koran in arabic and converted to christianity. the question is why should we trust iran? where we making deals with them?

iran openly recognizes america as the big satan and israel as the little satan. if that is their general mentality, where we negotiating with them? is their main goal is to kill their main goal is to kill people, especially american citizens, and kill whatever they want to kill, why are we talking to them? they already have nuclear capability. thethat's not the goal right now. they have had the technology before iraq did to hit us. everyone who has had a brain should know that by now. i truthfully do not understand why we are even talking about dealing with them. bombing is not the answer. we made a mistake when we invaded iraq under george w. bush. we should have honestly gone after iran.

leaves iran in check because they were fighting each other. now that there is no iraq and saddam hussein, would cause a problem, we caused isis -- we caused a problem, we caused isis. host: let's take your point. now that this deal has been put in place by the u.s. and other world countries, where do we go next? what should happen? because the sections will be lifted. caller: we should honestly add sanctions. we should add inspections. they say they are filling one centrifuge one day. they are replacing this and getting rid of this one day, but how many do we not know about. host: thank you for the call from connecticut. this is the headline this morning from the "new york times."

again, those americans have now cnn, atn, according to 7:33 a.m. eastern time. what has iran done? get your head out of the sand. joining us now is tom from vermont on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i tell you, are used to live out in the midwest in the 1970's. there were a lot of iranians going to college out there. they all had american girlfriends, and they all have pictures of iranian women on their dressers and the bedrooms. iranians,n o about the it were all told it was resistance. they impregnated the american women. when their schooling was done,

they went back to iran. some of them to children with them, left the american women, and it turned out the women in the pictures were actually their wives picked for them at birth by the parents. parents. these were college students back in the 1970's. now in the 2000, they are the leaders of iran. they like to us and the women they told they loved and trusted and had children with -- they lied two of us and the women they had told they loved and trusted and had children with. iran tells them it is perfectly ok for them to lie and deceive us because we are the great satan. their bible instructs them to lie to us. how can you trust someone whose bible that they prayed to five times a day strikes them to lie

to us? host: thank you. we have a few more minutes with your calls and comments. this is from another viewer saying the televangelist cheering in afghanistan this morning. i ran their friends, have be in the u.s. -- have beaten the u.s.. directly from page inside the "new york times." continue to talk about the deal and giving away too much, that according to nicholas burns, the number three official in the state department, but the fact is iran's nuclear department will be frozen in the next 10 to 15 years.

that is inside the "new york times" this morning. the neck collar is from melbourne, australia. good morning. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. yes, look, i was listening to the program. iere were a couple of issues thought i have to mention. one is that i am watching this on epic and i thought it was where youdent line could say what you believe. i was very surprised listening to you when you're mentioning the dual nationalities released

as hostages. i don't know. i am not familiar with iranian news,cs, but i follow the and i don't understand why whenever an iranian or american or dual nationality of these two countries is held, the american media, especially the conservative republicans call them hostages. fact, from when i watched, there was one person who was released who is not even in american media. mentionedm has been in media, especially in foxnews for religious belief.

again, i am just a person who .ollows the news of his country i take issue with it when there people mention that religious and oppositeerica of it in iran. host: what is your nationality if i might ask, by the way? caller: i am iranian. by a major one national -- but i am dual national. i studied in america. i love america. the culture, the people.

i like president obama's foreign think that is the chance of a lifetime to somehow happened and gave both nations a chance to get rid of the hostilities over the years. host: thank you. i will move on. this is the headline the new hampshire union leader in the sunday news as jeb bush is blasting the president and the administration on this iran nuclear deal. we are hearing the president is expected to have some remarks at some point today. he is at the white house. there is a conference call late yesterday afternoon outlining the details of this agreement. we will hear from president obama. of course if that happens anytime today, we will carry it live. james from fort worth, texas, democrats line. can the world trust iran?

caller: good morning. i don't know if trust is the issue. are so thorough that i don't think we have to worry about trusting them any more than they have to worry about trusting us. from the political point of view, i have never heard such unpatriotic hateful comments by people that really have no idea what is going on inside these negotiations, coming up with all of these wild conspiracy theories about iran doing this and that and how awful the president is and how week we are -- weak we are. sailors with their votes were released were within a day when i took so long for bush to get soldiers out of china and they kept the plane. rhetoricul especially from the republicans cannot give the president any

credit. this was trying to make peace, trying to de-escalate the hostility. it shows you how strong the jim crow vote is in america, and i am ashamed. i am a 70-year-old man, a vietnam veteran, and i can understand how this goes. if you don't know what is going on to call in and all the president names and say he is weak and all of this stuff, the bush administration destroy the balance of power in the middle east. the palestinians are suffering genocide, and you have to take that into consideration. it is a sad day in political america. it barack obama took a deep breath, i spread it republicans would accuse him of holding natural resources. host: do you think it is an issue of race or just polarized politics in our country today? it reveals just how racist america is. 40% of republicans that still

refuse to admit the man is an american or christian, they are still playing this race car d the everything he does is horrible. 99% of what is being said is factually untrue. what we want to establish is a peaceful relationship and reestablish a balance of power.as far as the money goes , everybody says it is going to terrorism. it has been reported by the iea that the money is not enough to turn oil spigot back on, nonetheless come to america and chicago. it is said. have a good day. host: james from fort worth , texas. the sections are lifted. jason who has been held since july of 2014, is been released. good morning to kim. caller: good morning. trust iran. let's see.

i listened to the last gentleman on the air picking about republicans. this is not a republican. this is not a democrat. this is not an independent. this is an american issue. this is a free people around the world issue. they released the hostages they took on a navy boat. why? because they want our money. it back to us just like they did in world war ii. everybody that believes they can trust this country when just a few months ago they were saying they were going to kill us all and blow israel off the face of the earth, yes, we are fools. we are idiots. $150 billion of our tax money? that is our money. the president has no money. host: let me be clear about this because we want to make sure of the facts. is not u.s. money. it is iranian money that was held by the u.s. and other world countries. is not taxpayer money. guest: thacaller: that is stillr

money. they are terrorists. they released the navy boat people? what about the other two hostages. the previous caller that said back in the 1970's when they thisthe hostages, the anybody remember terry wake? you know how they treated those hostages? do you see how they treat women? children are born windows because they are watching a -- children are thrown out of windows because they are watching suffragans. host: gas prices now below two dollars a gallon. what this means for the economy and for those who distribute the oil.

there is a piece in time magazine, made in china, the next global recession. ons as a another down day friday. markets closed tomorrow because of the martin luther king holiday. all eyes on tuesday to see what happens next. on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say a question out there anybody knows. is president obama's father, is he a shiite race ior a sunni? if he is picking sides and he is jumping on the shiite side, this is very bad. we don't need to get into that. someday in the future, the is and shiitessunn will have a major war and hopefully it is before the get nuclear weapons as of the nuclear weapons, we are all toast.

i would like to say that while president obama is in office, all these countries are taking advantage and trying to force their agenda while he is still in office because they know they can do it. this is a bad thing. host: thank you for the call, edward from colorado. another viewers saying we have a long way to go with iran and the iran deal. continue to share your comments on our facebook page or tweet. a tweet -- us a we will continue on other topics including what is a natural born citizen? the debate that took place last week on the fox business channel between senator cruz and donald trump. randy barnett will talk about what it means to be a natural born citizen, a professor at georgetown university.

several days to go until the iowa caucuses. we will be joined to talk about campaign to thousand 16, including tonight's debate -- campaign 2016, including tonight's debate. leon rodriguez joins us. vetting the about applicants and what it means for american-born individuals with roots in for example pakistan. here is a portion of the program that airs at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> we should take national security seriously across these categories. one thing we talk about this as we should avoid is focus on one category to worry about more than any other, we need to be paying attention everywhere. the questions raised by the case, and sometimes cases raise questions that do not apply to that case, they are still

questions we need to answer. certainly one of the big ones is about how we use social media for screening. you have certainly heard discussions. turns out conversations were private, so not once we would have been able to see in that case, was still a point for the importance of efforts that have been ongoing for a while now. we have been in the process of building our social media vetting capacity. we are ramping up basically toward using social media vetting across the entire area of activity for us. clearly, there are benefits to using the same kind of vetting regardless of whether it is a fiancee visa, somebody here on a work visa, whether it is a family visa. there are reasons to be thinking about how we use those tools at least in those cases where there is a flag of concern.

that is one of the most of our and issues that has been brought to the forefront and made public discussion. processou envision this will go through some sort of social media vetting? >> i think that is an issue we are going through right now. we have 8 million transactions a year, 8 million cases that are reviewed a year. the feasibility of reviewing social media postings for each and every case may or may not make sense, but clearly there are areas where we would want to be focusing either on particular countries or inclusion criteria of who gets sorted. those are things we are starting to as we speak. >> as of now, you have syrian refugees. what percent of those applicants are having a social media presence reviewed? know the specific number, but we are moving to more and more of the applicants and a majority of those applicants before long will have a social media check done on

their cases, syrians and iraqis. host: even watch the full program, newsmakers with leon rodriguez. newsmakers airs every sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can listen to it on c-span radio. if you are in the baltimore, xm.ington area and also on we want to welcome regular net, a professor from -- randy barnett, a professor from georgetown university. guest: great to be here. host: let me read part of the constitution. " no person except a natural born citizen -- in light of the debate that we are seeing today with ted cruz born in canada to a cuban father

and an american mother. guest: you must be natural born citizen and historically and at the time of the founding, there were two ways to be a natural born citizen. it meant you had a natural allegiance to the state, to the sovereign, and the two ways you can do it is my place of birth or land or blood to whom you were born. were you born to another citizen? is a two ways you can do it. at the time of the founding, the common law was basically mostly surrounded through british, law that the americans would know about basically about place of birth. by the time of the founding, the founders realized the title added that citizens or subjects of the king who were brought and had children, they themselves could be subject of the king. were in thend birth definition of natural born citizen at the time of the founding. host: you wrote a recent op-ed for the "washington post," white

ted cruz is a natural born citizen. explain. guest: this is a shift between natural born subject, which is the term used in england, and natural born citizen, which was invented for the united states. the term natural born subject place had a major requirements and that is that children are offspring of the king, no matter where the king was and where his children were born. there were subject of the king. it doesn't matter where because of his blood.in the united states, we have no king . the people who are sovereign. we are the sovereign. you are the sovereign, i am the sovereign. my book is based on the idea that we are a group of sovereigns as individuals. as a result of that, where we go, our children are also citizens. they are our blood just as the chosen of the king because we are essentially the kings and queens of the united states. the very same principle by which

becameg's offsprings subject of the king is why our children become citizens of the united states because we are citizens of the united states. host: who is professor laurence tribe? guest: a constitutional law professor at harvard law school. professor cruz's law in constitutional law and my professor in constitutional law. host: this part of debate in the comments by donald trump and others as the polls taking aim at senator cruz. the professor describe the following, the kind of judge ted cruz says he admired appointed to the supreme court is an originalist.

explain what he is writing about. guest: first of all, professor lawrence is not an originalist. he does not believe the constitution ought to be interpreted according to its original meeting. he is what you might call a living constitutionalist. for those of you out there this morning and c-span audience who are living constitutionalist scalia no objection to ted cruz being a natural one citizen, because citizen at birth by law has been accepted as a natural born citizen for all of these years. constitution is a living document to you cannot object. in fact, the professor does not object. tedimself says he thinks

cruz is a natural born citizen. he is just making a jibe at people like ted and myself who believe the constitution should be interpreted to the original meeting. -- meaning. way of looking at the constitution, ted cruz is not a natural born citizen. this is wrong. someone who is not an originalist is not doing the originalist research because he is engaging in a got you exercise. as i already explained to you, by the time of the founding, you can be a citizen at birth because of land or blood. here is the most important thing. there is another clause of the constitution operates here and at is congress's power over naturalization, which is in article one, section eight. it says congress should have power to make uniform rules of naturalization.

models included but the power to make aliens citizens, which is what we associate with naturalization, and also the power to define who is a natural born citizen. parliament had been doing that for 100 years. congress has the power to define who is a natural born citizen under its naturalization power at the time of the founding, and it has defined citizens like ted, who are born to one american overseas as a citizen at birth, not a foreigner who becomes a citizen, was someone who is a citizen at birth or a natural born citizen. host: we discussed the debate over what it means to be a natural born citizen. our guest is randy barnett. he has a constitutional law professor at georgetown university. our phone lines are open. republicans. for you can also send us a tweet or join the conversation on facebook.

citizenshipl. guest: people can qualify as citizens in two different countries, and many people do. there are many people from these -- from at least the middle east. i am a citizen of great britain and the united states. that would make me eligible to be a citizen of the european union. i thought about actually doing it. i decided not to, buy could do if i wanted to. host: live look into your calls and comments in a minute. we,ase you missed it last nig t the debate from the fox business channel. >> the facts and the law here are really quite clear. under long-standing u.s. law, the child of a u.s. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen. if a soldier as a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen.

that is why john mccain, even though he was born in panama, was eligible to run for president. romney's dadeorge even know he was born in mexico. the legal issue is quite straightforward, but the birther theories that donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist you must not only be born on u.s. soil, but have two paris born on u.s. soil. under that theory, not only what i disqualified, marco rubio and bobby jindal biggest qualified and interestingly enough, donald trump would be disqualified. because donald's mother was born in scotland. she was naturalized. donald, -- >> by was born here. -- but i was born here.

big difference. senator cruz: i will not use your mother's birth against you. host: from the debate last thursday on the fox business channel. this is a headline from bloomberg politics. has -- ted cruz does have a birther problem. as ted pointed out, donald trump was having no difficulties with ted cruz's citizenship until he became competitive with him in the polls. it's not as though you can't say anything about this. the history is actually rather complicated. some questions are absolutely easy and some questions are confusing and there have an constitutional scholars who have come confused by the evidence. but there is a wonderful article that was published recently by mike ramsey at the university of san diego law school.

he lays this out in crystal clarity. host: let me read to you the 14th amendment. naturalized born or in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. " lots of people are citizens of the united states and they are not eligible to be president because they are not a natural born citizen. what many people have missed in this debate is by the time that the founders used term natural born citizen, it was well accepted that parliament could define what natural born citizen was within limits. there had to be a significant connection to the company before somebody could be eligible. parliament had that power and that means that congress under

its enumerated power to make rules for naturalization had the power to take aliens and naturalize them as american citizens and also to define what a natural born citizen is. it's interesting that the power of naturalization includes the word nature. these two concepts are currently connected -- highly connected. an originalist. i believe the meaning of the constitution should remain the same until it is properly changed. theway you properly change meaning of the constitution is by an amendment. that's what i am. notice that professor larry tribe is not an originalist. he believes ted cruz is perfectly ok and a citizen. view wouldhat ted's lead to a negative result and he is having a little fun at his expense. but i don't think he's right.

law: randy barnett teaches and constitutional issues. he earned his law degree from harvard university. one other headline you could explain. senator john mccain was torn in the panama canal zone. this headline, mitt romney's dad havee romney also could been president under the framework under the constitution. guest: can we talk about why natural born citizen is there? is reason it was put there because the founders wanted a president or the commander-in-chief to be somebody who had loyalty to the united states. they were concerned about foreign-born princes coming over and becoming president. princesre foreign-born who became kings of england, so

the founders were concerned about this. wanted somebody with ties to the united states. you can have ties to the united andes in a number of ways pickups constitution also requires that the president live here for 14 years. the fact that congress gets a chance to decide this -- as i was saying, even before the founding, english subjects started traveling a lot more. at the time the rule was made that you had to live there to be a subject of the king, people didn't move around that much. they didn't travel that much. by the time of our founding, people were moving around. that's why parliament continued to have to make exceptions for subjects born abroad. because armies were abroad. the king himself was abroad. merchants were abroad. they made exceptions for these

people because all of a sudden people were mobile. today people are highly mobile. the rule that congress has that you are a citizen of the united states would mean that the offspring of military can rent for president, the offspring of n run fories ca president. host: which explains why mitt romney's dad was eligible. let's get to the phones. deborah, you are on the phone with randy barnett. caller: good morning. just picking up on what you are saying about people being highly mobile. so,thinking back in 1960 or about the president's mother being mobile at that time. does this settle the argument, according to your criteria? guest: about president obama? host: yes. guest: president obama was a

citizen at birth because he was born in the united states. thee would qualify under place connection to the united states rather than the blood connection. he was clearly a u.s. citizen. host: bob is next on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. curious if you could explain a little bit about the verification process that a candidate needs the qualifications. i've always wondered if it was maybe the supreme court's responsibility. to the best of my knowledge, it is secretary of state and the various states that decide if any candidate for office is eligible for office. secretaries of state make that determination and it can be somebody who might

have standing to challenge it. i think if is secretary of state cap to a candidate off a valid, that candidate would have standing to challenge that. -- i think if a secretary of state kept a candidate off a lot, that candidate would have standing to challenge that. the swift in which these complaints would be dismissed and they would be -- it would be swift in which these complaints would be dismissed and they would be ordered onto the ballot. i would probably not take my legal advice from a real estate developer named donald trump. host: when he says you need a declarative judgment, what is that? guest: you can get declaratory judgments in a number of issues if you have a rights judgment.

when he's actually asking for is what's called an advisory opinion in which you go to court and get a court to rule on a constitutional question. ever since the george washington administration, the supreme court has refused to give it advisory opinions in the absence of a case or controversy. what he has said ted ought to get, the supreme court has refused to give for 200 years. guest: do you know ted cruz? did you advise his campaign? guest: actually i advised senator paul's campaign. caller: good morning. -- i is a little problem think cruz's mother was an american citizen. even obama, although i don't much care for him. he was a citizen being born in hawaii.

the only problem i get is with marco rubio. mother and father were not citizens until long after he was born. they came to the country in 1956. wouldn't that make marco rubio and anchor baby and not eligible to run for president? guest: before we get to the timer baby issue, at the of the founding, many people were born in the united states whose parents were not get citizens who were born elsewhere. that was the norm at the time of the founding. if that criteria stop someone from running for president, we would have had several presidents who were ineligible and certainly people who ran for president ineligible. marco rubio's connection to the country that makes him a natural born citizen is his place of birth as opposed to the blood. so there's place of birth and blood. and going back to congress's of naturalization, congress can clarify who exactly is born a citizen at birth and

they have. and marco rubio would qualify as well. do anchor baby issue has to with whether someone who comes to the united states and has very few connections and gives birth to a baby and maybe removes that baby and go somewhere else, whether that is enough to get that person -- get the baby citizenship, that is really a separate controversy. it's not about natural born citizen's. it's about whether that baby is a citizen at all under the 14th amendment. a separate controversy. it's not about the concept of natural born citizen. host: your newest book, our republican constitution: securing the liberty and sovereignty of we the people. guest: the thesis behind it is that there are two different views of we the people. the people as a group. and the will of the people can only be expressed by the

majority of the people. the republican conception of the constitution -- that leads to, by the way, a democratic conception, because it is based on voting. the republican conception is we the people as individuals. each and every one of us has rights. we are sovereign as individuals and then judges protect the rights of individuals from their agents. relates to this thesis because under the individual conception of popular sovereignty, just as offspring of the king were subjects of the king no matter where they were , we are the kings and queens of the united states and wherever we travel, arab spring -- our offspring are subjects of the united states. yahoo! news is reporting

on a reuters poll that says a quarter of republicans think that ted cruz and his birth place disqualifies him from the presidency. because eventing today people question the president's legitimacy as somebody who was born in hawaii even though they distribute his birth certificate. it didn't stop him from being president of the united states. i think he has been president for a while now. so i suspect this is going to have as much effect on ted cruz's candidacy as it did on president obama's. host: let's hear from lee on the independent line. . googood morning. caller: i read a report that ted cruz's mother renounced her healthship to receive

care. should that have any bearing on his citizenship? guest: i have no knowledge of this and i would have to think about it. one of the problems with the new lawyer is you really have to know something about what you are talking about before you say it. ans a big problem with being originalist. you actually have to know something about history before opine on what the meaning of the constitution is. i don't know the answer to that question and i have not heard that before. later,ore than 200 years why does the constitution still work in this country? guest: because it was extremely well-designed. it was well designed a republican constitution that was designed to protect the liberties of each and every one of us rather than as a democratic constitution designed to reflect majority will at the expense of the minority.

becauseorks very well the structures that the founders put in place were good structures. federalism, separation of powers. is onlyding behind you one branch of government and it is divided between does code different bodies. -- the building behind you is only one branch of government and it is divided between two different bodies. people have wanted to turn our republican constitution into a democratic constitution. the only way you do that is get rid of certain parts of texts. it would work much better if it actually were followed fully and it hasn't been for quite some time. host: if they came back and saw the gridlock, the checks and balances, how the system worked, they were watching the debate, do you think the founding fathers would be pleased with where we are in the country?

or would they be dissatisfied? guest: i think they would be dissatisfied. i think they would be happy to framework has still existed. i think they would be surprised it has lasted this long. they would be dissatisfied by ress delegating so much to the executive branch. because now they have to -- instead of passing a law to make something happen, they have to pass a law to repeal and make something not happen. that's hard to do. the executive branch has all kinds of discretionary powers. they basically have the prerogative powers of the king. to pass a bill signed by the president before they can stop it. balancesry checks and put in place to stop that also

disable congress from controlling the administrative state is under the control of the president. tony isom tennessee, next. democrats line. caller: good morning. you mentioned earlier about ted cruz's mother being a citizen. she was out of the country for a long period of time before his birth. my question is, what she still a citizen at the time of birth? guest: she was in the country for the requisite amount of time to be a citizen of the united states under the existing statutes. host: valerie from new hampshire on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. cruz's birth certificate is issued, he is a natural born citizen, and i will reference my husband who was born in montreal. he was born with a canadian adopted, andcate,

the naturalized in the united states. he would not qualified to be president. but as far as ted cruz -- i'm not a republican and i'm not voting for him -- he's definitely a natural born citizen. to the constitution, interpretation has been the biggest issue. i didn't understand the last part. host: are you still on the line? we lost you. caller: as far as the constitution, there are gray areas. everybody interprets the constitution the way they read it. that's just the way they operate. guest: right. there are gray areas. the fact that there are gray areas should not stop us from realizing there are clear areas as well. one of the reasons congress has the power to make uniform rules of naturalization is to settle some of those gray areas by statute and that is what they

have done. it doesn't matter where senator cruz is birth certificate was issued. what matters is, was he the offspring of a united states citizen? and that would make him a birth. at so he is a natural born citizen. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio and those listening on serious xm channel xm channel 124. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i'm always amazed at how we do these gymnastics with words. i have this webster dictionary if under the word "natural," you go down to the 11th entry,

it's as related by blood rather than adoption. if you flip the page, you can look up naturalized. , it we naturalized somebody means they are from a foreign country. naturalized regretful citizenship to one of foreign birth. hasn't know what natural anything to do with the land you are born on. i think that's the most ridiculous thing in the world. winston churchill had an american mother and when he was born, she couldn't be a citizen. but they changed the law in 1994. winston churchill would now be an american citizen. and to me, i think blood is so much more important than having one foot across the line in texas like a lot of these anchor baby mothers do from mexico that it is having a parent that is actually citizen. host: we will get a response.

why natural ison there -- you are right, by the way. if you just rely on dictionary definitions, you will have multiple meanings. the phrase natural born citizen is what you call a legal term of art. it always was. we have to look to authorities to see what does natural born subject mean, what does natural born citizen mean under civil law. that is the way we resolve issues about legal terms of art. the reason the term natural is there is because of the concept that you have to have a natural connection with the sovereign. a natural connection with the sovereign. historically the most important way you got that is why where you were. governede in a country by the sovereign, the sovereign would give you protection and in return you owed the sovereign allegiance. simply because of where you were. however, that situation involved.

when people started to move around, there were other ways you can become a natural born subject of the sovereign. or being born to someone who himself was a subject of the king. that is what got translated into the united states. two ways. soil as well as blood. in case you just tuning in, let me reread what is in the u.s. constitution. "no person except a natural born citizen or citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president." expatriate?next patrio guest: this goes to renouncing one's citizenship. i would suggest possibly you wouldn't be eligible.

congress has an enumerated power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. and unlike now, to naturalized someone -- when parliament naturalized someone, they could make individual foreign-born people into english subjects, but they could also define what the concept of natural born citizen was. of thesed do both things and that is the power of naturalization the congress got. nichols putr john forth legislation to define this term. senator orrin hatch took one step further introducing legislation called the equal right to govern amendment. it would have allowed immigrants who had the naturalized and lived here for at least 20 years to run for president. ruth marcus in the washington post pointing out that there are many people who come to this country through adoptions or

immigrate and become citizens including the former governor of who would not qualify. it's time to change it. guest: first of all, if you -- i like the constitution don't deny that it's part of the constitution. the appropriate way of getting rid of the power of congress to tax our incomes is to repeal the 16th amendment. i don't think congress can change the constitution or make someone who is not a natural born citizen at birth later on a natural citizen. they can make that rule prospectively for the future. rules are changed, at that point it's when you are eligible as a natural born citizen at the time you are born. i don't think they can after-the-fact make somebody natural born citizen and they can define who is one at earth. -- at birth. "our the book is called

republican constitution." randy barnett, georgetown law professor. debbie, good morning. caller: good morning. answered the question about his mother giving up her citizenship for medical in canada. which evidently, it's all over the blogs that she did. you said you never thought about it. you said you know crews so i uz so i don't believe you haven't thought about it. you're a law professor. you would cover all angles. guest: i hadn't heard about it until the last caller mentioned it. i apologize to the caller. i keep up with the blogs. i hadn't seen that one. caller: if the supreme court decides to take this up and says no, that's going to be the law of the land. they make decisions that

andress says this is law, they say, it's not law. so the idea that this is settled law, not exactly. as long as we have a supreme court, that's never settled. guest: that's always true. i don't think this is going to be a difficult decision for the court to make. i don't think this will get to the supreme court. the supreme court will deny to hear the case. earliero back to the point. if you are not an originalist, if you don't believe in following the original meaning of the constitution, you are a living constitutionalist, you have no objection to ted cruz being a natural born citizen because the laws have been and you believe the constitution should change with the times. that is actually what larry tribe leaves. -- believes. pat from new jersey,

republican line. caller: good morning. my question is the status of the children of citizens born abroad. mccain, mitt romney, but their parents were american citizens. he said the children of military born abroad are u.s. citizens. but are they natural born? what about the american soldiers who fathered children in vietnam? those children's may be citizens, but are they not report? -- natural born? guest: under the existing rules, the offspring of american citizens who are overseas are american citizens themselves and their natural born american citizens. the caller was correct. is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. under the existing concept of

blood as opposed to place, and under the statutes that regulate what those concepts mean and how they apply, yes. if you travel overseas, notwithstanding the fact that senator mccain's parents were stationed overseas, he was born to them and that made him both a citizen of the united states as well as a natural born citizen and the concept of natural born citizen really only matters with respect to eligibility for president. it doesn't have any other legal effect on any other thing. that's the reason it is seldom litigated. it's the reason people don't think deeply about it. ,t just reflects this one thing can you run for president. and so few people do that we don't have much opportunity to consider it. host: if you are with this tweet. shouldn't there be a way to resolve this so that the voters could not be thwarted after-the-fact? -- a viewer with this tweet.

shouldn't there be a way to resolve this so that the voters could not be thwarted after-the-fact? ballotif ted cruz's access were denied, his campaign would challenge that and there would be a court determination. right now there is a challenge to marco rubio's status in florida. i think there are many reasons that challenger does not have standing. secretary of state acted, that secretary would be challenged and there would be a ruling. host: you are talking about congressman grayson in florida. guest: i don't know. i did read the complaint but i don't know who filed the suit. grayson from florida. guest: well anyway, there has been a motion to dismiss. host: joe from new york on the

democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. like to ask your guest, where was the full throated conservative defense of president obama's citizenship when that was a problem? it seems to me that they just kind of let that slide. i heard crickets. guest: well -- i don't know of any conservative or libertarian pundit or constitutional expert who questioned president obama's citizenship. i certainly didn't. blog obama on the conspiracy, there were other members of that blog who defended president obama's citizenship. you haven't heard objections from any of us. you did hear objections from donald trump and people who have come to be derisively called birthers. i don't think there is any member of republican

questionedsia who president obama's citizenship. host: do you think this issue is settled? -- in nothing is settled the united states, nothing is ever settled anyway. as long as donald trump wants to talk about it, the press are going to cover it because they cover everything he says. so now guys like me and up on c-span early on sunday morning talking about something -- i , that's whyre, i sir they want me on c-span. it's kind of an archaic topic for sunday morning. as long as donald trump is talking about something, we will be talking about it until he's no longer a candidate. host: we appreciate you being with us here. , with the center for the constitution. a constitutional law professor

at georgetown university. thank you for being with us. guest: i should mention that my book is on preorder. you can order it in april. host: thank you. appreciate that plug. back, we are just a few weeks away from the iowa caucuses and the new hampshire primary. we will check in with charlie cook, the editor and publisher of the cup article report and the congressional agenda is moving ahead. for thes means candidates. and later with the recapture of the mexican drug kingpin el chapo. od hears talk about what it means for us-mexico relations and the war on drugs. tos weekend, we traveled hartford, connecticut on c-span3's american history tv. including a visit to the home of journalist and writer mark twain. here's a preview. moved toark twain

hartford, it was a very wealthy town. it was the richest city in the nation per capita. mark twain's legacy here today tracks people from everywhere. they get to come inside his house and time travel to a different time. the family dined in this beautiful room and would come in to the library after dinner in the evenings. this is a very special spot. the paintings across the top of the walls and the things on the antle, they would have to start with a story. he had to start with the cap. t. from there he had to go across antle and he could not

repeat himself and he had to include everything. it was wonderful storytime with their father. you tune in this 3'send on c-span american history tv. we want to welcome back charlie cook, the editor and publisher of the cook political report. thank you for being with us. i want to talk about tonight's debate. the file debate before democrats ote -- the final debate before democrats vote in iowa and new hampshire. guest: people say, isn't this exciting? aren't you having a lot of fun? not really.

if you believe that the political process is important, if you believe that the presidency is an important thing and this is an important process , some of the aspects of this campaign have not -- you are seeing some folks running that aren't necessarily qualified for the job. yt is something of a parod of a presidential race in a lot of ways. it's not as much fun as the others. you deal with what you got. there is a front-page story that advises to hillary -- advisers to hillary clinton believe her campaign made serious miscalculations when it came to the challenge made by senator bernie sanders. they will meet tonight along with martin o'malley in charleston. let's talk strategy. guest: i think perhaps the

clinton folks didn't take sanders as seriously early on as they should have. time, i think it would be a horrible mistake to go after him really hard now. because she is going to need his youthful enthusiastic supporters in a general election. is not going to naturally get the kind of enthusiasm that a 47-year-old barack obama got into thousand eight. she's going to need these folks. got in barack obama 2008. she's going to need these folks. sanders is very strong in the caucus states and new hampshire and new england. once you get further down into the schedule of primary states, sanders is not very strong. his support is fairly narrow. of a't think there's much danger for losing the nomination

to bernie sanders. you told me hillary clinton was not going to be the democratic nominee, my money would be that meant that the justice department moved ahead and things got messy and democrats looked for the little red box on the wall that says in case of fire break the glass and inside it has joe biden's phone number. i don't think sanders can realistically -- he is sure going to call for a lot of -- cause her a lot of heartache. host: can clinton turn the tables on senator sanders in tonight's debate? i want to read what he says. hillary clinton arrived in the middle of a rocky stretch all of a sudden on the wrong side of a new narrative that suggest that senator sanders is surging. she is facing possible defeat in the first two contests of the year. she has to explain her rationale for running. guest: yes.

if you move the debate to national security, sanders doesn't have a whole lot to say. he's sort of -- it's economic inequality and free college tuition, things like that. he makes a very eloquent argument in that narrow scope. once the debate broadens out, he gets a little thinner. we have to remember that february -- that is iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, nevada. i know that 6% of all the delegates on the democratic side are pretty similar to that. iowa, new hampshire, how is sanders going to do in south carolina? not very good. in nevada? probably not very good. into the fcc primary states. other than massachusetts, there is no place he is going to do well. his good places are frontloaded. host: what is the rationale for

hillary clinton? guest: i think she says, i'm tested, i know the job. i've been around. i'm ready for it. true thatble -- is it the democratic party doesn't have a real big bench right now? yes. i think she's -- i know the job. i've been around it. i can do it. that's basically it. host: you mentioned joe biden. he says he regrets every day that he's not in the race but added, it's the right decision. guest: i think that's right. people are looking at all kinds of other things. i think he was still in the mo urning process and you have to throw your heart and soul into it. i think if democrats need to turn to him and it wouldn't be a long involved process, he might

make a different decision then he made last fall. than heferent decision made last fall. host: let's talk about the republican race. ted cruz glad to finish the fight with donald trump. george will. is christie on the cusp? and governor john kasich of the ohio. this follows the endorsement by the union leader last year. way i look at the republican nomination, you've got the mainstream conventional old-fashioned establishment. badly split between jeb bush, chris christie, marco rubio, and john kasich. and you have the most conservative lane which is ted cruz, huckabee, santorum.

and ted cruz is just dominating. clearly. and then you have the new lane that we didn't really expect , the populist side, which is donald trump. ted cruz has consolidated the right and trump has consolidated the populist lane. this other conventional lane is badly split and that is what new hampshire is going to do. it's going to narrow that group of four to two or even want. one. wide-open.utely host: our phone lines are open. our guest is charlie cook of the cook political report. let's go to william joining us from arizona, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to ask charlie cook theestion concerning contestants and their comments sailors on their knees with their hands behind their heads. i am a navy brat. i know what you do -- i know that you do what you are told to do. calabrois it -- the uss 1868 iss captured in being used as a tourist attraction in north korea? that's the question i would like to ask. i have sent e-mails to john mccain's office and lindsey graham's office and i have not received a response. thank you.

the video of those sailors, their hands behind their backs. chris matthews said that is going to show up in a campaign ad pretty soon. guest: i think it will. if you are an american, you winced at what you saw. but the outcome turned out to be as good as it could possibly be. so i doubt if it has a huge impact on the trajectory of this race. i think what's important is that the american sailors were not harmed, or returned immediately -- were returned immediately. pueblo, that's not my lane. host: the release of those five americans including a washington post reporter and the lifting of sanctions already meeting criticisms from republicans. will this be a factor? guest: i don't think so.

it looks like the iranians are living up to their part of the deal. this was going to be a major factor in the presidential race in either direction. host: let's go to tim in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been calling in for a while. about 25 years or so. i would just like to take a minute to thank the guests you have such as charlie for coming in and giving us their expertise . people see more of these in nonelection years. charlie, you look pretty good yourself right now. [laughter] host: is this a relative? anyt: i don't have relatives except in pittsburgh. thank you. keep talking. i want to hear more. the more that donald trump looks like he has some

ability to really become president or the republican that frames the outlook for bernie sanders -- he starts to look more reasonable and more productive against donald trump. and if mr. trump is not the nominee, what do you think about his potential being president summer down the line? -- somewhere down the line? thank you very much c-span. you guys are great. i wish you would go back to the format where you had multiple guests at the same time like you did many years ago. host: we still do that quite often. but thanks. i'm sure charlie cook appreciates your kind words. guest: thank you, tim. scarborough called me a trump denier. i'm still very skeptical about donald trump winning the republican nomination. i know there is an enormous amount of anger out there in

general. there is specifically a lot of anger among conservatives on the republican side and the feeling of wanting to send the career politicians in washington and congress a message. i completely get that. i see trump as more of a vehicle than in the end, someone who is likely to get the republican nomination. i think at some point along the way, even these very angry populist and conservative folks will at some point along the way start thinking about temperament, judgment, and really visualize trump in these situations surrounded by the joint chiefs and the director of national intelligence with his finger on the button. i suspect that a lot of these trump people are going to at some point, maybe after i was were new hampshire -- iowa or new hampshire, start looking for

a more plausible vehicle for their anger. a lot of those people are going to end up over in the ted cruz camp. which is why i expect to see him in the final two along with probably one of the mainstream candidates. there is an enormous amount of power to donald trump's cause. he moved up further, faster, higher than anybody thought. a lot of the things that people thought would bring him down have obviously not. i think at some point, temperament and judgment and familiarity with matters of public policy more than just sort of what you see on television -- i think that is going to win out in the end. host: the new york times sunday magazine has a piece called "left turn." i want to ask you about what is next for the republicans. national journal has a piece

about speaker paul ryan. he met with reporters just after the republican retreat that took place in baltimore saying the focus this year is going to be on five policy areas. national security, jobs and economic growth, health care, poverty and opportunity, and restored me constitutional balance of powers. how will that play out in an election year? what speaker ryan said should be the priorities -- i agree with them completely, but i think in an election year, congress will end up just responding to the mosust-dos. what do they have to do to keep the government-funded, renew statutes that are expiring. it will probably be a little bit more of a reactive one. there is not a lot of history in a presidential election year of

congress moving forward and taking affirmative action on big things. i think he is steering things in a direction where down the road once we have a new president, maybe there can be some movement in some of these areas. the iowa republican caucuses have not picked a republican nominee since george w. bush in 1988. the question is, why is iowa still relevant? guest: whoever comes first, it could be utah. whatever comes first is going to get a lot of attention. my hunch is that, when we are in , iowa and newons hampshire might be less important than they used to be. think if scientists are right that observation changes

behavior, iowa and new hampshire have been watched way too closely for way too long and behaved in a somewhat unusual way. and they have sort of been focus, tootoo much much coddling. too many special-interests trying to pull public opinion one way or the other. it has gotten a little exotic. 4% of thee guiding republican delegates are picked after the month of february. this may be wishful thinking for those who love politics -- we haven't had a question as to who the nominee would be on the republican side since 1970 six when ronald reagan challenged all the way to the convention jerry ford. what would the scenario likely be if that were to happen in 2016? guest: the term i use, and i'm

glad you didn't use the other one, i don't use the term brokered convention is i don't think our political process has brokers anymore. to have brokers suggests adults in the room. adult supervision. which i don't think is the case. there is a higher chance in modern times of having a contested convention i think what you would see happen is that ted cruz continues to the mostte conservative section of the republican party. conventional's, more likely rubio, possibly jeb bush but probably not, or to consolidate the conventional side. and then donald trump is subsiding but still has enough that you have three people to in and nobody is anywhere near a majority. -- that's where the fight that's where it gets really interesting. ynn in news go to l

york. caller: good morning, steve. nice tocook, it is speak to someone -- in the loud voice of how you all think things are going. in my opinion, the previous of the is an example power of the donald trump candidacy. say, hei mean, people has brought up the citizenship issue out of cynicism. he is trying to take down ted cruz because he is suddenly the highest guy. i see it differently. as an independent, i am just enthralled that we have an outsider. and i'm not motivated by anger. i am motivated that he has the ability to put a spotlight on certain issues. and i take it naively. maybe i'm a woman and i give people the benefit of the doubt. valid it that it was a

subject to say hey, what is this thing blew up after we having on e a nominee? i come from a certain amount of experience on this issue because we as people start the country we work for ibm and we lived in holland in the 1970's. our first child was born over there. we are long-term generation americans. werehe people in the hague in the diplomatic corps. all their babies could become president. with, years, we've lived our oldest son cannot be president. we got our passport from the embassy of the consulate. but all of a sudden, donald trump is the outsider is just kind of -- he has the ability to spotlight issues. and if you're not a party politician, i don't want to have one more push or one more click

-- one more bush or one more clinton. -- i thinkhe concept the president should be a civilian person. granted, this is brand-new for us to have a guide who has so little pull little -- a guy who has so little political experience. the constitution says you have to be 35 and you need a high school education. it doesn't even say you have to go to college. the citizenship issue, i think we should have a discussion. and i hope the lawyers are right. could become president. no president has ever focused on this issue. point -- youher brought up the message of donald trump. i'm curious what you think of that message and can you repeat with the slogan or messages of any of the other candidates? caller: i do respect jeb bush.

earnestly has his finger on so much of the reality of the job. that is for sure. but it is still this revolving door. the cynicism involved in the political class -- it's not out of anger. i don't think the country -- we are not an oligarchy. i do not want to have this revolving power structure. a wife and a husband in. we keep turning the page and it is exciting that a civilian a real -- granted, he is estate developer, granted, there are lots of flaws. i wish he would in a big-time cleanup his filthy language. the $19 exciting -- trillion in debt, i can quote that. he has said, i don't approve of a wall.

host: you put a lot of issues on the table. this is a piece this morning from the washington post. voters are not feeling the love for bush three. the word that continues to come up his dynasty. -- is dynasty. jeb bush is like the younger brother whose older brother wrecked the car just before he needed it for prom. it's not a bush grant his brother inherited in 2000 -- it's not the bush brand his brother inherited in 2000. person to best president clinton i don't really care what their last name is or who they were born to or they were married to. this is somebody that is qualified, that is smart, and that has good judgment.

but i'm not deciding this. there an enormous amount of discontent. people want change. you look at the people that are for bernie sanders, the change their looking for is very different from the change that the folks that are for ted cruz or donald trump. so that's why we don't know how this thing is going to sort itself out. i suspect you are going to see nominees for each side that are people that have served in government in some way, shape, or form. i think all 44 presidents until now have had some kind of governmental and/or military experience. i don't think we have ever had one that had none whatsoever. i think that that pattern will hold up in the end. host: and the message of donald trump and why he is resonating? guest: i said earlier, there is

a lot of anger. there is a lot of discontent. they are tired of the way things have been going in washington. it's one thing to have a vehicle for the anger. it is something else -- who do you decide to hold that job in the variant? -- in the very end? once they start thinking about temperament and judgment and things like that, you will see the republican nomination go to very likely that an angry outsider, but maybe one that is a little bit more plausible in terms of president of the united states the donald trump. host: our guest is charlie cook of the cook political report. his column is available online at nationaljournal.com. welcome all of your twitter comments.

this one says, i use the term bback convention." how are you doing? i want to ask you about things going on in the united kingdom. there's going to be a vote tomorrow going on because of a petition signed by half a million people asking for donald trump to be banned from the u.k. if donald trump is voted to be banned from the country -- does he take that as a positive or a negative? is there a way that you can spin that -- is there a way that he can spin that? host: we are going to be covering that debate here on c-span tomorrow. curious, how big of a story is this in great britain?

caller: plenty of people are talking about it. the fact that it is the most signed u.k. petition since the opening of the u.k. petition website is what is causing people to talk about it at the moment. i think what's going to happen is the politicians are just going to go into the chamber and then eventually just vote to allow him into the country. jeremy corbyn has already invited donald trump to his constituency. he has also said he should go up to my place in central manchester and check out the muslims and how mexicans get along with each other in this country. talking point, both going to happen is the politicians are going to get together. and then they're going to say,

host: about 573,000 people have signed the petition. that well i can say is spend a lot of time meeting with people from ambassadors, foreign governments, embassies, foreign ministries and business leaders from around the world. collectiontching our ranging from amusement to being appalled or concerned because the rest of the world looks to the united states for leadership. turmoil, and there is considerable concern about what in the world is going on over here? , i don'the petition

know what will come of it, but it is a manifestation of a lot of concern around the world about what is going on in our country. host: you can watch the debate live tomorrow morning as recovered in great britain between the parliament and the issue of donald trump. there is a tweet from carol that says, people also want someone they can trust to tell the truth. experience is reaped and poor outcome is not a plus. we are at a time went on the republican side, experience or expertise in public policy seems to be a disqualifier. if you look at putting trump aside, but a couple of the major and tedes, marco rubio cruz, they are freshmen senators. a lot of republicans,

conservatives said back in 2008 that week we should -- that we should not have young freshmen senators running for president, but people were so unhappy that experience as essential qualification has gone out the window. democrats turned away from it back in 2008 and republicans seem like there is a fair chance to do that again. saying,other view were it is not donald trump's language that bothers me, it is his ability to encourage those hateful ideas in others. fascism is scary. guest: i will not call him by name. i think he is a vehicle, the manifestation of a lot of anger, resentment, frustration, and a to shake things up. whether they go his direction, i am skeptical. host: first, let's hear from

gala joining us from texas on the republican line. good morning. good morning. we just saw -- my family just saw the 13th hour about benghazi in yesterday, and i wanted to see how you thought it would resonate with the voters. i also wanted to make a comment that my dad was in vietnam twice, and i would never vote because ofablishment the democrats or who did this, and i understand that, but this is the way our country is going. this is the reason with the scandal with the e-mails, the reason that we no longer trust the establishment. a donald trump supporter, even though i do not like everything he says, i think he makes old statements to bring attention to him and then he says what he says. off and that you

answer my question. host: thank you for the call. in iowarump opening up to show that film that came out this weekend. guest: i have not seen the movie. i know there is considerable debate about whether everything in the movie is entirely accurate and i was not there, so i do not know and the cia chief has objected to part of it. i know the former secretary of defense, bob gates, was left off six months earlier, but pretty much knew the situation and he said there was nothing he would have done differently. clearly, a horrible tragedy occurred. clearly, security was not what it should have been. resourcesere were the for us to go in and help those people out in real time, there is a lot of debate about whether that is exactly to or not.

tends to, a hollywood take things in a direction that ands certain conclusions sometimes it is not always entirely true. i would not take it as the god's honest truth necessarily. a lot of time, there are a lot of proofs. want to share with the one number this morning from "the washington post," and available online at washington post.com. , the percent of american families, 158 families total out of 120 million potential families, that have donated nearly half the money that's been spent in the 20 16th presidential campaign. guest: i think once the supreme court ruled that spending was a

form of speech, therefore, protected, the citizens united decision basically flows from that. am not really comfortable with the assumption, but if that is the way it was going to be interpreted and clearly it is, and i think it will be for the future, this is what we are at. you have some really wealthy people on the left and on the this isnd i don't think the way it ought to be, but i don't think congress will be able to do anything about it. future point, 20 years or 30 years from now, the supreme court reinterprets the constitution in a different way, this is where we are. host: let's go to sean from pennsylvania. you have family there and not sure if you are related. [laughter] caller: pleasure to speak to

you. my question is -- i have been listening since the beginning of the segment and my question is to charlie. who are you? host: what is your background. guest: i was born and raised in shreveport, louisiana, and to washington to go to georgetown, worked on capitol hill while i was on college, worked on campaigns, a polling firm, the hill, a trade association, and in 1984, i started this newsletter because i had a previous job sort of watching campaigns and analyzing who was up, down, winning or losing, and i started the business in 1984 as a one-man shop, and now there are several. independent.ered host: we welcome you on this

sunday morning. thank you. let's share some of the latest ads. with bernie sanders, senator from vermont and hillary clinton, former secretary of state. >> there are two democratic visions for regulating wall street. one says it is ok to take millions for big banks and tell them what to do. up the bigbreak banks, close the tax loophole, and make them pay their fair share. then we can expand health care to all and provide universal college education. will they like me? no. will they begin to play by the rules of our president? better believe it. i am bernie sanders and i approve the message. >> an average of 90 people are killed by guns in this country every single day. it has to stop. president obama wants to make universal background checks the law of the land, and he wants to make sure gun manufacturers can be held accountable when their guns are used to kill our children.

it is time to pick a side. either we stand with the gun lobby only join the president and stand up to them. i am with them. please, join us. i am hillary clinton and i approve this message. holding within the democratic party and sanders going after clinton in terms of the money she has proceed from big corporations and hillary clinton tried to draw divide on the issue of guns. guest: it is useful to think about what has happened to the two parties. you go back 50 years, and if you ,ake the conservative democrats whether from the south, border south, small town, whatever, and if you suck about 80% out of the conservatives from the democratic party, it may be at the moderates and they would move over to the left. that is what has happened, and the same on the republican side. if you sucked out 80% of the

liberals in the moderates, that party would move to the right. political scientists follow haveogical sorting, so we a democratic party with the far left center of gravity and the republican party with a far this center of gravity and bushy middle is people who do not feel comfortable with either side. is by mostnton, who hand of, on the left her husband's administration, is scrambling to keep up with a party that has moved to her left, just as jeb bush was one of the most conservative governors from 1998 to 2000 sex and now finds himself speaking on the left of the republican party. the party moved out from under it. host: here is the campaign from the george bush -- year as an ad from the george bush campaign -- the jeb bush campaign. >> donald trump is a jerk. >> last night in south carolina,

he appeared to mock a reporter with a disability. >> you have to see this guy, i do not remember what i said. son whoe a 12-year-old has cerebral palsy and that made me angry. something to make sure donald trump was not the nominee for the republican party. >> i believe life is precious. i think life is a gift of god and we are all under -- people under god's eye. when anybody, anybody disparages people with disabilities, it sets me off. called him ai jerk. what kind of person would you want to have those president -- have as a president who does that? at what point do we say, enough of this? let's start solving problems. i am jeb bush and i approve this message. host: charlie cook, you have often said the right candidate with the right message and at the right time wins elections, is this the right time -- is

this the wrong time? guest: i think jeb bush would have been better off if he had started to run a few months ago, estate within real location, it is timing with politics. the bush name is sort of consistent with establishing normal and traditional republican politics and service, and this is a time when none of those are being held in high regards among a lot of republicans. could say fairly that may be jeb bush is not quite as gregarious as his brother, george w, and may not be the natural campaigner, and that is probably true, but at the same time, a lot of these problems are really related to the last name and the brand and not really to him specifically. also, to help the parties change. host: let's go to chris from

jamaica, new york, republican line. caller: good morning. you are for taking my call. mr. cook, my question concerns iran deal leading to nuclear weapon for iran. if one of the republican nominees were elected president, what actions you think they would take or could take to change or delay or terminate the deal with iran? and what kind of timeline would we be looking at? and what actions do you perceive -- do you foresee, specific actions? thank you. guest: thank you. this is a little out of my lane, but my understanding is the key were removedials from the country within the last days, and that yes, there were a lot of fears that the iranians

would not do that, but they had done that. i do not see this as a deal that would really be -- i think it counterproductive for us to undo the deal because it would mean that nuclear materials would go back into iran. materials that had already left for replaced with others. i think there are a lot of people that were extremely suspicious about this deal and whether it would work, but i that it has early signs the iranians are living up to what they said that they would do and was brought the united states and western countries to the deal work, pushing. host: tomorrow, daryl kimball, executive arms control committee, he will be here and talk about the deal and what iran must continue to do to meet

the terms of the agreement. this tweet from karen says, the media -- if the media had given as much time to all the candidates as they had to trump, perhaps the others's messages would be heard. guest: donald trump is sort of running against the media even though he is a product of the media. there is television shows have say thatt if they can donald trump is going to be on the show, ratings go sky high. donald trump will be calling in, ratings go sky high. they talk about donald trump and eyes remained glued to this grain and the ratings go up, so that ironically, the media is absolutely delighted with the

donald trump story because it is gathering eyeballs that are not normally paying attention to politics. obviously one of the most skilled real estate developers in the world. been livingas also in new york, a student of the media, how it works and it has been affected that manipulating the media to his own benefits. it is a free country, so it is obviously fair and legal. i am still a little skeptical at the end of the day when republicans get to cleveland and if they will nominate him. host: thank you for all your calls and tweets. we welcome our listeners on thean radio and sirius xm potus channel 124. it also carries this program every sunday morning. it begins at iowa and new hampshire and that is what our next to callers are from. --st, republican mike,

republican line,ken caller:. i was calling about expanding on the female caller who called and i thinkvernment that is what is scared of the initial constitution [indiscernible] as i have been around and going to different town halls, i get to get a feeling of what the people are thinking. when you were talking about making america great again, one carly fiorina, her motto is to take our country back. i see people warming up so that, and i also see the crowd that she has been getting. she is getting enormous crowds in the state as opposed to other candidates.

i have not been to a donald trump town hall, but i can imagine the crowds. i have not had that experience. wanted to get your thoughts on that part of the citizen government. how do we get to where we are and how do we get back to where we are supposed to be to make this country or take it back again? thank you. host: we were at a donald trump rally yesterday and you can check out our coverage at www.c-span.org. we will get a response. clearly, from the debate, carly fiorina is very bright, talented. i think she is tapping into the anger, restoration that is out there -- frustration that is out there. i have doubts about whether there is enough of a campaign apparatus underneath her to sort of help her take full advantage of this. , i think hasy

muscled their way into the top -- i debates and into the think you may very well see her name pop-up on a lot of the running mate lists. i have been seeing some of the i am sure he is right. she is having problems getting traction in some of the key states operationally. i am not sure that will happen. the think nobody has ever been elected president without having and theehind them, presidency, the elected officials we have, they did not get appointed there, they got elected. i think americans have distorted look ande to sort of see the balance of who was expressing their feelings, emotions and share their values

on one side and you has the qualifications and it was prepared to do the job. , difficultifficult job, and if you do not understand sort of the magnitude , ande job and the issues would not be effective dealing with the other party, members of congress, world leaders, then i think people will start getting second thoughts about it. -- a lot of people complain about how unfair presidential campaigns are, but i think it is a good thing that this is a marathon and not a sprint, and people get to take a really long and good look at these candidates before a final decision is made. host: with regard to media coverage, one of our viewers saying, see an end has -- cnn has devoted their entire programming to trump, and he

should be receiving royalties. bernie sanders prepares for this evening's debate on nbc with lester holt as moderator. this is practice that took place in vermont with staffers. we'll go to mike from iowa, independent line. caller: good morning. listening to this guy, he seems all right, but he has to understand that he is underestimating the trunk factor. term for when i was, new hampshire, and he will go on. all the polls show it. host: mike, tell us why you think that. caller: look at the momentum. americans are pissed. we have had enough, eight years of obama. we want a guy who will go up there and has the balls to tell china that is too bad if you don't like it or if you don't like it, get with it. not somebody who will negotiate a backward or backdoor deal that

really does not help the united states in any way whatsoever and puts $150 million in iran's hands to go launching terrorist and attacks against our country. that is what they are going to do with the money, and if you do not think so, you are fool. we cannot afford years of hillary. she lied to families at the air force when they were bringing bodies back to benghazi. -- back from benghazi and she did not allow anyone to rescue them. this is the woman? we want running our country not to mention the foreign money -- not to mention all the foreign money. people are pissed and that is why trump will win it all. when trump wins it all, we will be a great america again. that is the way it is. host: mike, are you going to caucus on february?

caller: absolutely. host: have you participated in the past? caller: yes. host: who did you support four years ago? caller: i don't even remember. that is how bad the candidates were. i think we had mitt romney, we were not going to win with him, everybody knew that. host: two are for the call from iowa. guest: i think donald trump is going to do very, very well in iowa and new hampshire, first or second in each one. although, i do think ted cruz is coming on strong in iowa. the march primary. to me, if donald trump has the numbers in the polls in march myt he has right now, then opinion will change, but i think right now, people are still anding their anger, venting

that at some point, i think there will be a slight deviation and not in the direction, but in the midcourse direction where they had another way. is ted cruz will have a more plausible alternative to some of those trump ben carson supporters as they fall apart. mike may be right and he will go all the way and win the republican nomination, but i am a skeptic for now. did you watch the debate last thursday? what was your thoughts on ted cruz? guest: i thought he was very good. i am a registered independent but i don't great -- so i don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but i think he is one of

the smartest politicians i have never met -- i have ever met. you just sort of see wheels turning in his head. i think he is a very, very formidable candidate and he has clearly the best campaign on the republican side and the strategy that makes sense. i don't completely agree with them, but that is not important. i think this will come down to cruz and a more conventional candidate and i have no idea what to republican -- what republicans are going to pick. host: let's go to the democrat line. caller: good morning. i am calling to say that i am going to vote for hillary. about how many thousands of people [indiscernible] we need to take care of home first.

i understand all this stuff, but take care of us. do you realize that so many all the people -- that there are so many older people and they should be going after our votes. how did theytate, let the rate of friend go up and up and we did not get money to help us this year at all? host: other issues in this campaign. your response. guest: where was she from? host: colorado. guest: your vote would count a lot more than most everybody else who is watching. one of the facts of realities of modern politics is that the flow in florida, north carolina, virginia, new hampshire, ohio, iowa, colorado and nevada, those of the people who decide this election because the other

states, we pretty much know which way does other states are going to go. it is going to be a fairly small and they willes be making the decision, so this caller, her vote will count a lot more than most other people. the rest of us are outside and looking in. host: let's talk about the senate. with regard to republicans keeping control of the senate, the openan in ohio, seat with marco rubio running for the presidency in florida, where does all of this stand now and what are you looking for in the months ahead? guest: republicans have 854-46 majority, so democrats say before seat gain if they hold

the white house and the new vice president breaks the type of many delphi seat gain if they do not. the challenge republicans have is not the environment. it is wrong numbers. we have to keep in mind, six-year terms and whatever is up and any given election is a product of what happens six years earlier. this year, republicans have four seats up and democrats only had 10. of the 24 republican seats that are up, seven are in states that president obama carries and there are zero republican seats up in states that mitt romney carried. of the seven republican seats up in obama states, one is chuck grassley in iowa and he will get reelected, but the other six, whether you are talking about illinois, ron johnson in in newin, kelly ayotte hampshire, rob portman in ohio, the open seat in florida, oh and

pennsylvania, those six republican seats are in real danger and conversely, harry reid's open seat in nevada is the only democratic state that is incomparable damage. there are three states or for other states were each side is trying to make it competitive, but right now, this is the playing field. if i had to bet right now, i would bet on republicans losing three seats and the senate goes 51-40 nine, but could it be to seats, four seats? absolutely. we will have some really close senate races and it is important to remember that some of these closest senate races are some of the closest presidential races. presidential states, new hampshire, by heart -- ohio, florida, nevada, so that whichever presidential whichever side the presidential race has a little bit of wind at their backs in the final stretch in the key states, that is the way to senate seats could go as well. the senate will be a close call,

but then it flips around next time in 2000 18 when democrats have a huge number of seats up and republicans have very little. host: we will have you back often to talk about that. always gracious for your time on the c-span network. your work available online at the national journal.com. thank you for being with us. when we come back, we talk about u.s.-mexicond relations and the fight to keep drugs out of the u.s. our guest is duncan wood, the director of the wilson center's mexican institute for review are watching and listening to "washington journal" on this sunday morning, january 17. back in a moment. ♪ >> you know, we have college

covered here in alabama, but it is really the kids in the elementary school that are struggling. the african-american kids are getting horrible buildings and it is separate and not equal. >> tonight, on "q&a," a film about julius rosenwald and his partnership with booker t. washington and the african-american communities in the south to build schools and bring elementary education to children in rural america. first, they put together these houses and why don't we use these houses? the best thing booker t. washington ever did was say, no. i want the communities to build these six were built and that is amazing. from that, in moved to 5000

all over the south, including maryland. monday night on "the communicators," republican fcc commissioner discusses key topics being considered by the fcc, including the speed of broadband equipment across the u.s. he is joined by "the washington post" technology reporter. is a key driver of economic growth. one of the things i found striking is that in the 21st century, there has been entrepreneurship and everything falls to those in montana. broadband are using a connection to build businesses in the previous era, it would have had to migrate to the coast or it would with it on the fine, but because of that connection, they're able to innovate. i think that is powerful, especially in rural america. >> "the communicators" monday

night on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome duncan wood, the mexican institute director at the wilson center. thank you. i asked the question earlier, why is he called "el chapo?" >>'s guest: someone -- guest: someone who is "el chap"" in mexico is a short the, and -- shorty and that is the alias pizza can't. all of those bosses have a great nickname like that. host: he was captured over one week ago. what was the significance? guest: very important for the mexican government. the mexican government has been humiliated since july of last years since he escaped from prison. they had announced his first capture and the drape of last year as being a sort of landmark event and that they had done what other governments had been

unable to do. because of that, they had announced that they would put him in prison and keep them there and refuse to exit that came the united states. they said that it would be unforgivable if you would escape from prison and he escaped. in the six months or seven months since he has escaped, they have been trying to save face and they managed to do it and that is important at this time, to show they do have the capacity, of course, working alongside u.s. security forces, to bring people back to justice. host: and also involving sean penn, but right now, the headline -- mexico's new blood politics, forget "el chapo" with another generation of druglords killing the country's mayor. how is this spreading throughout the country? guest: we have seen almost 100 elected officials taken out by organized crime. there is constant intimidation

at the local level. aat we see is that there is bribe from organized crime or they come after you and your family. this is not true at the federal government and in all states, but at the local level in mexico, it is a widespread phenomenon. party aer of this new couple of weeks ago, it is one more event that highlights how far organized crime has infiltrated politics. host: what is the level of cooperation between the u.s. and mexico with regard to the cartels? an extraordinary transformation has taken place. prior to 2000 seven, the two countries worked in a very kind of informal way. there was some exchange of information, but we cannot say it was institutionalized security relationship. we are seeing right now that since the initiative was signed

back in 2007, the two countries have developed a new corporation. there is the intelligence the sharing of technology and equipment with mexican security forces, and the two sides have come to understand each other in a way that was not the case 10 years ago. at the escape of "el chapo" in july of last year, they had brought the two countries even closer, despite the risk that caused at the beginning because u.s. intelligence security forces were curious that "el chapo" have been allowed to escape. host: sean penn will be on "if the minutes" this evening with charlie rose and he will -- "60 minutes" this evening with charlie rose and he was about his meeting with "el chapo" and the reaction. >> we had met with him many weeks earlier on october 2. in the place nowhere near where he was captured. >> as far as you know, you had

nothing to do with his recapture? >> here are the things we know -- we know that the mexican government, they were clearly very humiliated by the notion that someone found him before they did. nobody found in before they did. we are not smarter than the dea or mexican intelligence. we had a contact upon which you were able to facilitate an invitation. >> to you believe the mexican government released this in part because they wanted to see you blamed and to put you at risk? >> yes. >> they wanted to encourage the cartel to put you in the crosshairs? >> yes. host: your reaction to sean penn's comments? >> first of -- achievedrst of all, he

what other people have been trying to achieve, and i don't mean the u.s. and mexican governments, but other journalists. hollywood producers were reaching out to "el chapo" and trying to get some way to learn about his life story and get the rights to his life story. who waso" is a man thinking about his legacy as much as anything, and he reached out to the mexican actress kate castillo, who knows sean penn, and worked out with "el chapo" that this would be the right kind of person to bring been to meet with "el chapo" and to begin to write down the story. whether or not that second part has any truth in it, is the mexican government tried to put him in danger? i would doubt that, but are they trying to discredit him and save face and say? they knew about the meeting -- they knew about the meeting? maybe but we will never know. host: this is from the post, about how mexico launched a

crackdown after the meeting with sean penn. they described him shooting from helicopters and all in the belief that "el chapo" was in that location. had mobilized enormous resources since july of last year. they covered most of mexican territory and they have focused on this area known as the golden triangle in the northwest of mexico. that is where "el chapo" would have or what he did had to, because that is his home state and where he had the networks, local communities to protect him. going after the local communities, intimidating weaponryng high against them, that is something which is an extraordinary story and not the first time it has happened. havean security forces overreached in the past, but it

does not fit with what they have done in the sense of looking for drug kingpin's. that has been much more about isolated gunbattles in specific locations. host: our guest is duncan wood. our phone lines are open. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. for republicans. our guest is part of the wilson center. should we be focused more on the public health issues of drugs versus the ongoing battle we have to keep drugs out of this country? guest: i think there are a couple of issues, the first is the classic sovereignty argument that the united states has the right to determine who comes and crosses borders and what products. of terminalquestion justice. ande are illegal substances you want to try to stop the use and to stop those organizations ringing them to the country.

the third one is the public health, and that is where you want to focus on the united states side of the argument, which is that there is enormous demand for the products here. in mexico, countries of central america, and the southern americas, they are really providing product for a u.s. consumer. something on the public health side is one way to go. a lot of researchers suggested that the advantage we made in tobacco use, it is not enough to say no and it is about educating people about alternatives and how they can use this. host: what do you think the mexican government should be doing that it is not doing, if anything? guest: the mexican government has delayed the implementation of a justice reform that has been pending since 2008. june of this year, the deadline for implementation and they

think they will not meet the deadline. if you do not have a functioning justice system, it is ethical to make serious roads for crime. of course, the prison system. it does not work, it is corrupt and it needs to be fixed. lastly, you have to deal with policing. police at the local level across the country, we talked about infiltration in local politics, but local police are subject to this also. gary int's hear from new jersey, line for independent. good morning. this?you with go ahead. caller: what are the obstacles in extraditing "el chapo" to the united states? guest: the question of exhibition has been on everybody's mind this week. it turns out that it is a complicated legal process in

mexico. the is interesting is that legal system in mexico works in his favor. it is a multi step process texted back someone from mexico to the united states. the steps that we just reach is that "el chapo" has been informed by mexican authorities that they have begun the procedure. this now has to go through a series of legal steps, in particular, ending up in the courts. that is where his lawyers will play a big role. because he is a man of significant resources, he was on the forbes list and probably has one point $2 billion, he can afford fancy lawyers. those lawyers will know what to do to slow down the process because it is the last thing that he wants, to be extradited. he learned that there was a chance of being extradited last year and it was shortly after that first request was made by the united states that he

escaped. he knows that if he has a chance of getting free again, he needs to stay in the mexican prison to work his way out again. we are expecting this will last anywhere from a few months to maybe one year. some people saying he will not be extradited before the end of this year. last time, it took them slightly less than five months to actually escape from a mexican prison. if it is over 12 months, the mexican government will have to take all your cautions needed to make sure he stays. host: steve has this point on will the cartels bring their wild gunplay to the usa if "el chapo" is in a fed pen? guest: we have noticed over the past decade, intense grunt -- intense gun violence in mexico has not spread across the border. we have had isolated incidents in the southern border of the

united states where we seem some presence of organized crime and a little violence now and then, but it has not spread across in the same way. of el is the twin city paso, texas, and it was one of the most dangerous places at the end of the last decade. el paso is the second place in the united states. that reflects the importance of much stronger policing and judicial institutions in the united states. the fact that organized crime in the u.s. as an important market, it does not operate the same way in u.s. cities as it doesn't mexican cities. host: another viewer same, it is not our business. mexico should handle "el chapo" and stop wasting our money on a non-us citizen. that's go to market, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. do you have any idea of what

drug industry far as a percentage of our gdp? a good question. so many analysts are trying to work out what this is. i assume you are talking about illegal drugs. that forome estimates mexico, there is somewhere between sort of 20 and perhaps $4 billion and $50 billion that goes back to mexico from the sale of illegal drugs in the united states. we imagine that most of the drugs that get here come through mexico, so it is mexican cartels that are receiving that. we can put the overall year 55, $60e between 25 and billion. that is how much it is worth. of course, some of those drugs have much better markups than others. you begin to see that cocaine,

for example, has been one of the most profitable drugs for cartels. marijuana much less so. into an interesting conversation about we have seen with to criminalize nation in the united states -- decriminalization in the united states. a lot of them are moving out of the marijuana and cocaine business because cocaine is seen as a drug out of fashion. other drugs are rising in popularity. we have seen her wind, a very dangerous drug, has become the main thing of crime groups and in particular, "el chapo" and his organization grow a lot of hair went in the northwest part of the country and export that. that is a very high profit export for them. they have been reached -- wreaking havoc in u.s. cities because of that. host: our conversation is with

duncan wood of the wilson center. this is from a gene in ohio and he says, you must be kidding. mexican drug cartels and gangs have been operating in ohio cities for years. guest: we have to drop a distinction between organized crime groups from mexico and this to be should networks they have in u.s. cities. often, what happens is that mexican organized crime groups and a deal with local gangs local distributors. this can be quite the close relationship. it is a question of semantics. are these people part of a different organized crime group or are they individuals trying to make money by so -- by selling the goods? we have interesting transcripts from a few years ago of "el chapo" speaking to distributors in the united states. distancehat it is the

relationship and they are not part of his organized crime group and he is not commanding them, but he is quite close to them because he recognizes the important business relationship between them. whether you consider them to be part of the same cartel or part of criminals associated with the cartel is something we leave to you to decide. host: we are talking about the capture of "el chapo" and we welcome duncan wood. we welcome our listeners on the potus channel, 124. allen joining us, good morning. caller: good morning -- you are particular call. it is not about the drugs, it is about the money. drug war ins in the the mid-1990's and let me tell you what i saw. i thought the former chairman of through $50s, billion into the mexican financial market because goldman sachs had lots of mexican stocks

and bonds. salt, -- commander of southwest all the same intelligence reports that i did that you'd the mexican government was up to their ears, and he was the clinton drug source that certified mexico was full of partners in the drug war. host: we will get a response. guest: first of all, following the money is an important element of the equation. you are talking about the money that u.s. financial institutions of the u.s. government is pumping into the mexican economy or lending to the mexican government. part of an important the bilateral economic relationship for the past 25 years. it is clear that the two countries have a highly interdependent economic relationship and that makes it a necessity at a certain point in time. in terms of drug money and stopping the laundering of money

and sending back of money from the united states to mexico, that is something the two countries are working together on perry to be honest, they have not had an enormous success because the money gets across the border. sometimes through electronic is bolds and mostly it cash transfers with people driving south of the united states. but we have not seen is a concerted effort on the part of mexican authorities to stop that .oney going into mexico we have not seen an effective approach from u.s. authorities trying to stop the money going out and work moving that many. when you have this kind of interdependent relationship and you see all kinds of legal trade, which supports thousands, thousands of u.s. jobs, it is difficult to work out if it is illegal or an illicit movement. host: to alex's point, this is a piece in the huffington post --

the u.s. trial for "el chapo" could expose more than some americans wanted. let's go to shane, new hampshire, democrat line. haser: my statement is, drug education programs over there worked? it is the rhetorical question i have to ask. i see the curiosity in our young is pretty much like a daredevil aspect, where you tell a kid not to jump off from bridges, and a lot of those young people are going to jump off into the water because they want to be daredevils. guest: good point. the question that i guess we come down to is, do we go for prohibition, which has really failed, or do we find a better

way of educating, not just young people, but people in general about the dangers and the social cost of consuming drugs? of large and lot successful approaches to that. we know that prohibition, incarceration has not worked. certainly, health treatments dealing with addicts in a different weight may be one way to go about it. all of these options are incredibly expensive. they will probably not reap the rewards in the short term because they take a long time, but this is something we have had to accept over the past 10 years. is a shared responsibility between mexico and the united states because mexico is sending the drugs or should be the drugs in many cases to be united states, but it is american citizens who are consuming them, and u.s. governments have to play a much more active role in trying to reduce that consumption.

host: there is a story online about the recapture of "el chapo" and what it means for u.s.-mexico relations. lewis is joining us from alabama. good morning. haver: here in alabama, we medical marijuana, and i am 66 years old and we take oxycontin and other drugs like that, and i wondered, if a person is 66 and they tell me my kidneys are going back from taking these drugs, should i be able to have an option of using marijuana for medical purposes if i don't want to take these drugs like this to keep on lesson with my liver and kidneys? host: that is a little different than the topic, but we will get a response. guest: i wish i was that kind of doctor to help you, but you have to talk to your medical position to try to work out what the best

alternative would be for you. unfortunately, what you are seen with the drugs you are using, samely, are some of the health issues defined with illegal drugs. what we do know is that all of these substances have their health consequences. no differently than alcohol, of course, so you can limit your consumption of those drugs without damaging your health, that is an option you have to pursue. host: christopher joins us from england. this is carried on the bbc parliament channel. good morning. caller: good afternoon. i hope you are very well. host: fine, thanks. quick question. caller: i will keep it brief. here is an idea. drugs,out legalizing the knock it out for next to nothing , to get rid of the capacity of the cartels because within a

decade of doing such, you could and ithe cartels out would alter the mexican economy theificantly and help with potential illegal immigration issue into the united states because mexico would have a lot more money and people would benefit and they would therefore stay in mexico, and then you wouldn't have a more even trade -- between the train the united states and mexico people and you could even have some sort of facebook free -- visa work system. so you would have a win-win situation by getting rid of the money trade and what would you think on that premise? a really interesting suggestion. we are beginning to see how that plays out with the legalization thedecriminalization of united states.

x can organized crime groups have moved away from marijuana into other substances. were to legalize everything, nothing is off the table, you allowed heroine, crystal meth, etc., what other public health consequences? honestly, i don't know the answer, but would be "see -- testing the wave of drug addiction throughout the society? would receive a huge jump? we do not know, but we would probably see a temporary spike and everything would be just the same as before. your question is, would we make money for this? if the state could tax it, that would be a source of income, and it could be but i don't think that will be the silver bullet for mexican development. remember, this is an anonymous economic relation and more than half $1 trillion a year, more than $1 billion a day flows

between the two countries already, so it legalizing the traded illegal drugs will not make that much of a difference for the trade relationship. host: tom from florida, about one minute left. the heroine problem is so dramatic and inner cities, under this president, why would he not enforce that more? wouldn't that be the most immediate and cost-effective way to limit some of the drugs coming in and making it harder? it seems the president is working against the will of the inner cities that are getting affected the most. guest: the border is always brought up in connection with the movement of illegal drugs. one of the questions, what would you do at the border differently? if you build a fence, people go under and over it and there are many ways to get drugs into the country. the best thing to do is apply

technology in a more proficient with border crossings, so that you allow the things that you want to come in the country to come in and those that we do not, out. host: our guest is duncan wood of the wilson center. us.k you for being with tomorrow, we talked politics and hillary clinton and e-mails. rachel bade, reporter for "politico," add some of the details on the nuclear agreement with iran announced over the weekend with daryl kimball. that is tomorrow morning. "newsmakers" is up next. enjoy the rest of your weekend. thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> next, newsmakers with leon rodriguez, director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services. then, president obama's final state of the union address, followed by the republican response by south carolina governor nikki haley. host: "newsmakers" welcomes to the c-span studios this week leon rodriguez, who is the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services. thank you for being with us. leon: great to be here. >> let me introduce our to reporters. brian is from the "los angeles markon is fromy the "washington post." brian: your agency was in the news