cover and you'll see in the store the green carpets and sometimes brass fixtures and the dark wood, the original barnes & noble superstores were modeled on this. so we're four locations. we have three large format and one tiny store in union station. and we also, in a partnership with another company, have three stores out at the airport. the location we're in now is our largest. this is our flagship. our offices are here, our receiving is here. the selling space is on the order of 18,000 to 20,000 square feet, and the total pace is, you know, plus another 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. and we have depending on the time of year and counting all of the what we call per diem staff, folks who sort of work on call, about 150 employees. >> so i recently learned that every time i give a tour i say if there's ever an apocalypse in denver, you want to be in this building. and in the last couple days, i

learned that this building was built in 1950, and this whole level was actually built as a fallout nuclear bomb shelter. so this is the best place to come. all of our main offices are in this bottom level as well as we have central receiving. so everything, all of our books come in here, and they get taken out to the different stores. we have our computer team is down here, financial team, and this open area is where we do all our returns. once the books have been on the shelves for a while and haven't sold, we can send some of them back to the publisher, and that's where this happens. these are all ready to go.

we have books that aren't ready to be on sale yet. we wait for -- tuesday is the release day, so sometimes we have carts waiting to go out. and then this is where all the books with come into first and be are received, entered into the computer and divided up to the different stores and where they're going. down in this corner we actually have a working, functioning workshop. it has power tools and saws where we'll fix lamps, we'll build new book shelves, fix old book shelves, stain wood. lots of tinkering happens here. and this area over here, this room in here is opposite the door that leads right out to our events area. so we can bring the author right out this door. we have the chairs for the set-up, the microphones, the books for the event, so it's an easy in and out.

very accessible. >> every day is another challenge that's often not connected to selling books. it's, you know, whether you're dealing with a staffing issue or something with the physical space goes wrong and, you know, you have a pipe burst or, you know, you might be dealing with different kinds of customer issues, and, you know, we spend so little of our time at the ownership level dealing with the books, and i think we kind of knew that coming in. but it's there are days when i'm like, boy, i just want to sell books today, because that's really the most fun part of the job, is talking about books. i'm really a biased person to talk about tattered cover's importance to the literary life of denver, but i would say we're kind of the beating heart of literary denver. we are a gathering place for writers' groups. they meet here. we are a gathering place for publishers. so i really believe that we are vital to denver's literary scene, and i feel loo, as i said, we're the beating heart of

it. i'm biased. >> booktv is in the mile high city of denver, colorado, to learn more about its literary culture. up next, we speak with author derek everett on his book, "creating the american west." >> boundaries are phenomenally important to american life. we interact with boundaries every moment of every day. and oftentimes don't even think about it. but you're driving your car, there's boundaries on the road, there's boundaries in the parking lot, and when you mow the lawn, you get to stop at a certain point, and your neighbor's in charge of the next one or shoveling the sidewalk, whatever. there are these boundaries that we interact with constantly. and you think about them, especially when they are violated, when you see someone

who's parked the way they're not supposed to park at the grocery store, you get mad. so there's this sense of enforcement, of the need for these definitions for how we organize our space, how we organize our society. and whether we're talking about parking lots or whether we're talking about states and countries, boundaries are exceptionally important. one of the points that i argue in my book is the evolution of national boundaries. people talk about the treaty of paris and the louisiana purchase and texas and the war with mexico and oregon and so on. and there's a lot of attention paid to the development of the nation's boundaries, but it's almost as if state boundaries were always sort of hiding in the background because we talk about, you know, this area became colorado or california or wyoming or wherever, and it's as if that was predetermined, it was predestined. and that was one of the reasons i wrote the book, was to look at how these lines within the country evolved just as often and often just as controversially, just as

contentious as boundaries between the united states and american indian groups, between the u.s. and european empires as well. there's a great deal of frustration and negotiation and diplomacy and sometimes often even outright battles between communities over where their boundaries are going to be, whether it's between countries or between states. the decision for where boundaries are going to be comes from a number of factors. of course, there's general guidelines that congress had set down about where a state's boundaries will be or a territory before it becomes a state, and yet there's also often contribution from people who lived in the region. mining groups, farming groups, people who wanted to make sure that their communities were embraced in one place and not in another, and there's a fine line to walk between who has the most say, do the locals have the most say, does congress have the most say?

it was a incredibly diverse tapestry of how these boundaries are going to come about. because of the 48 state lines west of the mississippi river, all of them were fought over at the national level, at the local level. everybody had a big stake in the game. you look at the map, and you think, you know, that's where nebraska is supposed to be, and where else would we put nevada? it was supposed to be right there. and yet those lines changed and evolved a great deal over the span of much of the 19th century. there was a major debate in the 19th century about using geometry or geography for state boundaries. and the idea of geography was to use rivers, mountains, maybe river basins, water basins as a sensible, predetermined limit for states and for these future political communities. the idea behind geometry was to

get the divisions made as quickly as possible and to define them as clearly as possible so that you knew exactly where your authority stopped and the next place's authority began. and that was important for landowners, it was important for law enforcement. you wanted to make sure that you knew exactly where your authority existed, and you didn't want it to be vague. and rivers tend to move unless they're deep in a canyon somewhere. it's difficult to point out exactly on a mountain range where the water flows from one side or another. so it's difficult to use, for example, the continental divide. it's hard to mark it, it's hard to enforce it. and so the idea of using geometry over geography was simply a practical way to make sure that laws were enforced as clearly, as quickly as possible.

and the oregon-washington border is a good example of this geography versus geometry approach because there were a number of debates as to how a state should be formed north of california. and for a long time, there was talk -- and to this day remains talk about putting the boundary along the cascade mountains. so you'd have oregon and washington essentially about half as big as they are today, and then another state on the east side of the cascades in what's now the upper columbia river region for both washington and oregon. and so there was a lot of talk initially about just using the cascades going from california all the way up to the canadian border or and having one long, skinny state on the pacific coast and then sort of a no- man's land behind that until, you know, such time as as they thought it was worth bringing the rest of the pacific northwest in. you had others who advocated for using the columbia river as a boundary.

it was a major geographical divide, certainly. it makes it difficult to interact from one side of the river to another. but when many of these boundaries were created, rivers were not seen as dividers, they were seen as uniters. a river was a highway. and so that was the core of a community rather than something that split it in half. so you wanted major rivers at the center. and, for example, that's why missouri is the shape that it is, arkansas the shape that it is with the missouri and arkansas rivers right at the core. you wanted those as the heart of your community and not as its limits because that's where your commerce was. that's where your settlement was. and the columbia river was big enough that it made sense certainly down toward the mouth, toward portland and that area, it made sense for the columbia river to be used as a boundary there. once you got upstream, the

boundary between oregon and washington shifts from the columbia river to 46 degrees north. and that was a point of contention all the way up until the 1950's, because oregon's constitution said that their border followed the columbia and the snake all the way up into what's now the idaho state line. and washington said, no, we have that little corner of southeast washington where walla walla, washington, is today. that's a part of our community. and it was defined in two different ways. oregon's state constitution had one boundary, federal law had a different boundary, washington state had a different boundary. and finally, oregon accepted that it was not going to take walla walla away in the late 1950's. but it took a century for oregon to decide that it was going to finally relinquish its claim to that little chunk of the pacific northwest. the california and nevada

boundary is a bizarre fight that has gone on ever since the california gold rush. when california was admitted to the union in 1850, it had the mostly geometric boundaries that we see today with the accidental hinge in the middle of lake tahoe between its vertical line and the diagonal one that goes from lake tahoe to the colorado river. and that was twined for california -- defined for california as usual because geometry was simple, easy, clear to mark so that everybody knew exactly where their authority was. there were a lot of people in california who thought that the crest of the sierra nevadas made more sense. it is a major, forbidding mountain range. if you don't get over the mountain range, you have the eat your relatives when you're stuck with the donner party, so it's a

major mental and physical block. and when nevada was organized in the 1860's, nevada's boundary was declared to be the crest of the sierras. it just seemed to be an obvious place to have a limit. the problem with that was that nevada's boundary then overlapped california's territory, and there were a number of feuds between the territory of nevada and the state of california, and residents living in that region would often elect members to both the state and territorial legislatures, in some cases the same person would serve in sacramento and in carson city. and nevada asked repeatedly for california to give up its claim west -- or east of the sierra nevadas, and california refused in large part because if that's your territory, you don't want to give it up. you've got your claim to it, so you're not going to surrender it willingly. and california politicians also pointed out that if the crest of the sierra nevadas was defined as a boundary, it would take a

thousand years before they could figure out exactly what that meant, where precisely is the border if it's along the crest of the sierra nevadas? and it's not just some pedantic little legalese point. this is a heavily mined area. you need to make sure that your property is protected. you need to know what state or territory's laws you fall under. and so having that vague idea, well, am i in nevada right now, am i in california right now? -- that's exceptionally disconcerting to someone who wants to make sure that they're following the rules, that they're getting all of the benefit, all of the profit out of the land that they claim. the most contentious of any western state boundary must be the missouri-iowa line because when it was defined for missouri in the 1820's, it ended on a series of rapids called the rapids of the river des moines.

nobody is it that is and the des moines river in disintegrating -- are you in a you mississippi river area will a territory is the federal government. and ignore the sovereignty of missouri. missouri got to pick where the boundary would be a -- would be. there was a great deal of confusion about where exactly in the between the state of missouri territory of iowa should be. it was made more complicated by of which hadnors militaristic reputations. the governor of missouri had ordered an open season policy on

mormon residents of the territory, and it was a horrifying situation. the governor of the iowa territory had been the governor bullied and basically michigan to give a shame -- a chunk of land around the toledo area. now this quote by every square inch of his territory. the state and territory going up against one another, and the territory is that creation of the federal government, and missouri play the federal government to been like a protective mother to keep an eye on iowa, and the sovereignty of missouri. you had the issue of slavery playing in as well because misery was a slave state and iowa intended to be a free territory. so both sides solve this competition as a way to get more land easier for slave plantations or free-soil farms.

oflate 1839, the governors iowa and missouri ordered their militias to go to the common line and defend that territory for which ever side claimed at the moment. and tenses that was for people who live in that border area, it was the greatest thing ever because there was a group that called themselves the harry nation. apparently, heavily people. and they would claim to live in whatever opposite territory or state when the local sheriff came to collect the taxes. showedmissouri sheriff up, we are in iowa, so we will not play that pay taxes to you. we are sorry, we live in iowa so we can't pay taxes to you, and iowa claimed they were in missouri. and they would host parties with the sheriffs sheriff's from both sides so when they called their

malicious into the reason there into the reason there was a chance that you would have a minor civil war. in large part over the same situation that the ultimate civil war it would take place at a quarter century later. free territory, whose authority is where. this was a major concern for the governors. it was a major concern for congress. they were called out in december of 1839. it was a miserable situation. and ultimately the leaders simply declared peace on their own without consulting their governors and to show their true feelings to the iowa governor, two deer were shot.

one of the deer representing the governor of missouri. the other deer representing the governor of the iowa territory. and everybody went home to where the fire was. this was a sort of farce of insanity that goes on. and this feud was known as the were veryecause there valuable honeybee treat in the region, everyone wanted control of the honey produced in the trees. the honey wars were portrayed as precious,able, little and it says a big deal about the impact of they boundaries. not only of who controls the territory how much you want to be in charge over your neighbor,

but it also says a great deal about identity, because the governors at least were willing to fight for the idea that this is missouri soil and this is iowa territory soil. it is essentially a part of our community. there was a joke that went around region along the time that when the boundary was clarified, there was a farmer who lived in the region and was delighted to hear that his farm had been defined as being in iowa. because he had heard that the climate of the soil of missouri was terrible, and he did not to be part of that. it is the article balance of implications real of identity, legal authority, military power. the missouri-iowa line meant

everything to the people of the 1830's/ has been little change to hundreds after please became states. in large part because if a state changes its boundaries, that change has to be accepted by the state, by federal government, and if it involves more than one state, modifying its lines, both state have to approve it sometimes with the legislature, governor, and popular vote because boundaries are often defined in the constitutions. when you modify constitution, the voters have to approve it. it had been a few examples of state who have might've five -- modified its boundaries. missouri work out deals with kansas and nebraska to move pieces that the missouri river as shifted and even though the river moved him the boundary does not.

so you are left with these tiny little pieces of missouri on the breast decide or the kansas side advice of her second in those areas become problematic. seems like some wasteland along the river. of yet that is a piece misery on the other side of the river and there is no bridge within 50 miles, hundred miles, people can do whatever the in that little piece of territory and missouri can't really stop that, and though it is attached to kansas, nebraska, they have no authority or jurisdiction. so some state alternated parcels, answering the what -- have surrendered one piece of land here or there. that is an ongoing thing because unless you're talking about hells canyon or that grand canyon workers will move and that is one of the reasons they make horrible boundaries. you cannot have a boundary moved.

it needs to be clear and defined forever and ever, amen. it's everybody legal authority. the last time there was any major state boundary change was in 18 -- 1863 when west virginia broke away from virginia, and that was during the civil war, when virginia was not play nice with federal parenchyma so that was a vessel -- federal government, so that was a special case. another time was in 1820, when aine joined the union. that last time there has been any peacetime changes of a state boundaries. that is 200 years ago now. i do not ever happening because if it happens once, it is never going to stop. if you let one place start to change its boundaries in any

significant way, everybody is going to do it. every county is going to want to become its own state, and i do not anybody and any part in washington, d.c., saying we're going to start stars microscopic so they fit on the fly, because we are going to have so many eggs, it is just not going to happen. -- so manyy states, states, it is not going to. here once aome down month. you could not see his will the cigarette and cigar smoke, and you could not hear anybody from the sound of ice hitting cocktail glasses. that's where journalists from competing papers or the occasional radio personality or television personality would be here exchanging idea, meeting local business people,

politicians, that it was a place to get things off the record perhaps and to establish relationships that would lead to stories down the road. the denver post club has been the only tenant of this building, erected in 1925. 91 years. the initial purpose with a gap local journalists and politicians, perhaps businesspeople. the original footprint down there's included room for 4 iard tables. it was the point of being a member of the press club. duringmy favorites that the eisenhower administration, as most people know, he married a woman from colorado, so she wanted a summer white house in colorado. pictured be in air force base.

much at the time, without entourage as we see today, president eisenhower wanted to stop by for lunch and the story was related to me. he came to the back door, jimmy would be waiting. the small number of people would just wait for him. members were inclined to stay in the bar area and let him have some privacy can and then he would leave, probably go play golf. behind you be a coat closet. i have been told that was the place to be interviewed, but did not want to be seen, that was originally purpose of the coat closet. you will step in here, mr. dignitary or mrs. to terri, and we will interview you in quite. this is a place to take visitors because nobody have seen that nobody had seen a pulitzer

prize. but the local press such a good job, they were honored with a pulitzer reporting. across the room is another pulitzer for columbine. this one is for photography. therenly that image right has quite a bit thing that meeting right any words to go with it. another pulitzer he for photography was a word to craig walker who did an entire series veteran.ing iraqi war if you would walk into the lobby --"dinner for her post " today, you would see it is very powerful. these are commercial airline passengers.

very powerful lead. the story is told by the fortzers we get to recant visitors who have never seen a pulitzer and will probably never go someplace else where they might be one. it makes the press club special. from my perspective, when things start change, it was when readership both locals started to dwindle. and the digital age at some impact on people picking up a paper and reading it. so when the rocky mountains news closed, with a sad day for everybody. there went a number of jobs that were never to be recovered, and post" hasnver continued to shrink, that is when things began to get tough, especially for the press club, and other places where they used to meet.

other clubs that have felt the effect. that is when things changed here. look ata local's budget some things, maybe offer some advice, said in a denigrating him is a nice little see them, but he made a good point, because these days while i'm at it much more positively than he did, this is a museum in the love waits, but it is a great place for people who typically are not going to be able to experience the essence of a pulitzer prize history of presidential history to come to be around that for an event, yes, it makes a good museum. it is at important as it can be at any point in time if you truly honor the past and you want future to be as positive as it possibly could be. press" to goer

away would be tragic because for whatever reason all the history would be lost. every time someone new walks by the time they leave, they want to return. i don't know how many places you can find like that. this place is always like that. >> in many ways, water was one of the central factors in colorado development. almost everything except perhaps the buffalo. things youe of those cannot live without. colorado'sal to lifestyle and existence. ways, water defines what

is colorado and the west. colorado was essentially a desert area. americans started to come out to the west. 1821, colonel stephen long came up to this area where we are standing and down to the arkansas river. in his report, he coined the term the great american desert. they read for days without seeing water. of streamsttle bits along the creek. eastern colorado, things like the arkansas and the south dry andor dry -- were had very little water. they realized there was no possibility for agriculture, or so they thought. said thatort, he even the possibility for civilization

did not exist. in eastern colorado, they were coming up from places like council bluffs or the missouri river. miles, many days on horseback on high plains, the water coming out of the mountains would soak into the ground leaving a dry riverbed. here, at the foot of the mountains, many of those creeks for still flowing. --were still flowing. he started to change. beene 1840's, there had beaver trapping that has gone on extensively. also, they started to hunt buffalo. here, where we are standing, there would be heard to buffalo. brown bear. grizzly bears.

and other wild animals. gray wolves. a lot of animals like that. when fremont came up in the 1840's, he saw how green this area was and in his report, he said, i think there is potential for development here. shifting this gradual and perception from a heartless desert to one that had some potential for agriculture. everything changed, almost overnight in 1858. just behind where we are standing at the junction of cherry creek in the south platte river, they started to find some flanks of gold. the gold rush was on. within a matter of a couple of years, tens of thousands of settlers started to move into colorado. createdwhy denver was

right where we are standing. colorado,. all in rapid succession. people started to come in with the gold. that, simultaneously with some of the people looking for gold realized that money was not to be made in the mountains, it was to be made and growing food to self to the minors. takata -- to cut hay to get to the meals and they started to grow vegetables and sell it to the miners. almost overnight, concurrently with the gold rush was a rush to appropriate and utilize colorado's water. in thinking about appropriation, it was very different from what occurred in the eastern united states. in the east, they incorporated

ideas from england called the riparian doctrine. landsaid if you own the next to a river or lake, you can access it. you can use the water. what they got out to the west -- once they got up to the west, they realized that if any individual or corporation was to buy up the land along the river, you can effectively shut out everyone else from using that water. idea developed in colorado. that is the riparian appropriations. rather, the doctrine of appropriations that occurred here. it stated that whoever says of the land first would have the first right to water. the earliest court cases recognized that the eastern doctrine would not work in

colorado. could buildat you the across other people's land. tches across other people's land. imagine putting that to the constitution that would say i can condemn a right-of-way against your private property to .uild a ditch that is almost unheard of. yet that was one of the things that was done in colorado. they said we need to be able to access water. without accessing water, there was no possibility of a future for the state. elites,hat were the perhaps people that would have benefited from privatizing the core doors along the river realized that even been, if they had the most diverse and you don't carry in use of water --

alitarian use- eg of water, it would create the biggest benefit for the people. and colorado's constitution, it says that water is the property of the people. it also says that you shall not deny the right to water. it also goes on to say that you can condemn rights-of-way across other people's land to access water. it did cause problems when they started to do that. there were different perspectives on how that should occur. some people thought that the riparian doctrine should prevail. others thought that the colorado system made more sense. was after the colorado constitution was had thein 1876, they skeletal outlines -- outlines of what the provision doctrine looked like.

all they needed was a cortes -- court test to figure out more of the details and confirm that that is the constitutional way of going forward. storynteresting little occurs up on left-hand creek in boulder county. in 1878people up there that were living down below left-hand creek on the south side noticed that it was a very dry year. they were not getting water. realized that a little higher up settlers were diverting water and using it to the head of the settlers on the south side, the head was a civil war veteran it was in some of the worst battles of the civil war, he got together another 8-9 men and went up left-hand creek and all the way to the mountains where there was a diversion.

was taking water from the south side and bring it down to their farms. he did not like the idea that they were getting their water and he was not. he went up there with his men and four of the diversion dam. they took matters into their own hands. the left-handed skies were not happy. -- uys were not happy about that. uys were not happy about that. they had a trial and the company one. -- won. he appealed to the supreme court and the supreme court justice, a former territorial governor heard the case and was buried intent on making the rider appropriation doctrine the law -- prior appropriation doctrine the law of the land. he wrote the decision that affirmed the prior appropriation

doctrine as the legal doctrine governing water used in colorado. that was a supreme court decision that was been replicated around the american west. grow, state began to people started to claim more and more water. foreign capital would come in. there were companies that started to build 100 mile-long ditches. others would build bigger and bigger ditches. here in denver, private industrialist realized that the city's growth depended on water. they started to develop water systems on cherry creek and the south platte river. eventually building big water systems and water dams and the mountains to supply colorado. by about the turn of the 20th century, the rise of private capital and the use of water became so many intensive that it became hard for private

individuals and corporations to build ditches. then we started to see governments getting into the action. the reclamation act was passed in congress. big cities like denver started to build reservoirs. there was this shift from private capital to large governmental institutions built into the system. the state of the water appropriation in the american west is still a bigger system. -- vigorous system. it has changed the basic ideas of prior appropriation but it has remained. other things have muscle their way to the table. you have rights for fish. rights for recreation.

behind us is the fish area. waterssibility of having for recreationists. . those things were never imagined when the water system was originally created. starting with the environment movement in the 60's and 70's, there was a shift in perception about how water would be used. that water was critical for environmental services. that water was needed for fish and wildlife. that it was needed for recreation. people started to do things that would get more water into rivers to protect riparian corridor doors. and redevelopments to improve the landscape. appropriation is still there, but it is sort of the infrastructure in the background

that gets things moving. it is these other things that people say today like this -- fish passages and kayak runs back at people's attention. that get people's attentions. flowing rivers are a lifestyle amenity and an environment amenity. juste visit colorado not to eat and grow crops, people in colorado because our natural environment is so wonderful that it is something that is this really important to coloradans and visitors here. having the free-flowing rivers is one of the essential features in the west. challenged and how to

balance our uses of water between prehistoric things like agriculture, water for cities and industry and those values that bring us to colorado. corridors, riparian canoeing, fishing, swimming. there have been challenges over the years as to how do we integrate and manage our water so that the quality of life things are maintained. after all, why would you want to live out here if it was just an urban desert? it is central to our character to have these rivers as something that is a gem in a thing of beauty. -- and a thing of beauty. >> next from a recent trip to denver, we talk with author helen thorpe who shares the story of four mexican girls who

grew up in america without legal status. in her book, just like us. usa! usa! > >> i wanted to write this book because i felt that there was a conversation around immigration happening in this country that wasn't yet at a deep level. we kept talking about an issue but we did not understand it very well. i think there is a lot of fear and prejudice that comes along with the subject of immigration. i think when people hear the word immigration they think of a stranger or somebody who is coming to the country from somewhere else and maybe wants to take something from them. take their job or the national identity. i found myself intensely curious about people who are moving here without legal status. people who were entering the country as illegal immigrants or

undocumented immigrants. why were they choosing to live here? why were they not getting documents? how hard was it to find work if you did not have documents? what was life like if you're growing up in a family or your parents had made the choice and life as ann run to undocumented student and a have the same opportunities that your friends and peers had? at the outset of the project, i found for students who are all topight a students earning grifters making all the right choices. succeeding in school. volunteering. playing sports. as for students had grown up close friends and yet they were divided in terms of their legal status. o did nott have -- tw have legal document and the other two had the legal

documents you need to live in the country. the division between them meant that two students could work legally, to could drive legally, to could get scholarships and the other two cannot do any of those things. all of the inequality in fulton being undocumented was playing out among these four friends that may be issued incredibly painful for the two without legal status. they were watching their best friends have all kinds of opportunities and rights that they did not possess. when they went home, at the end of the day, each of them had siblings that were born in this country so the same inequality was plain out without their -- within their household. they were watching younger brothers and sisters have all the rights and opportunities that they did not have. it was incredibly painful for them. it was very personal being undocumented. it was not like it was just a

missing piece of paper they did not have. every day it meant they were watching their best friends or younger siblings have opportunities that they felt they were equal to or could have taken advantage of but did not have legal status. i think a lot of times they would hear things in the media illegal immigrants would get documents. if only they would get papers. why did they not fill out the forms? they knew that their parents had gone to visit attorneys, had tried to figure out how to become legal if you walked across the border without legal permission. what can you do to rectify that situation. every case, they have been told that you cannot change the legal status while you are on u.s. soil. enter the country illegally, you would have to return to your country of origin to change her legal status. there is a -- your legal status.

as a specific than that prevents anyone with a document the status from becoming the gulf while they remain on u.s. soil. if you enter the country the runway, you must leave -- wrong way, he must leave to change the status. people would speak about the issue as if they were just lift a finger or were not lazy, they could change their status. nobody seemed to understand how hard it was. how their parents would have to leave their jobs they had secured, give up their economic livelihood, do without wages for travel back to mexico and risk the possibility of getting stuck there again tohout good jobs in order take the gamble that they would get legal status. it was a big thing to change the status. you would give up a lot that you had gained. people did not seem to understand that at all. the four students i was writing

about them all for families had immigrated from mexico. when thearrived students were really young, anywhere from 3-7 years old. the students had grown up with in denver, colorado and had always gone to school in denver. their families were originally from farming communities in mexico. parents students had were spanish-speaking, for doing menial work here, who really wanted to see the children have a different kind of life. they were equipped differently to lead a different light. the two students who had documents were well on a path to college. the two students who did not have documents really cannot figure out how to pay for college. they were considered international students.

if they try to qualify for a scholarship, they had to pay international student rates. they cannot qualify for -- could not qualify -- if they apply for community college, they did not qualify for the same rate of tuition that their best friends would pay. they had to pay the international student rate which was three or four times as much money. my talk talked to a students about their future, i remember one conversation i had with a student who was one of the students who was undocumented. she was watching her father worked as a janitor at night. he was cleaning the floors of a supermarket and putting wax on the floor. her mom was working as a maid cleaning houses. what she said to me was her father really wanted for her not to have to do that work. it was important to him that she has a chance to do a

different kind of work. he had made that clear to her on many occasions. she was saddened and frustrated that she was so stuck and cannot figure out a way to pay for college. she could only envision a light that would lead to the same kind of work he was doing. the hopes were for a different kind of work. the link which her parents used was that they -- language her parents used for that they wanted her to be on a desk. they wanted her to use her intelligence and have the opportunity to create a career for herself that would take advantage of how smart she was. the great obstacle was not been able to pay for college given her lack of legal status. i have kept in touch with all four students. we got to know each other very well because i spent six years following them as they were growing up. i met them when they were

seniors in high school. i followed them all the way through the point when they were about 21-22 years old and had finished college. i'm still in touch with them today. since the book was published, the two undocumented students, both have acquired the ability to work legally. one of them chose to return to mexico and apply for legal status from their. because she was married to a u.s. citizen and the parent of a u.s. citizen at that time, she was granted permission to reenter the country. the other student who did not for legal status qualified deferred action for children. it is an executive order that president obama passed. it allows her the chance to work she's not a though

citizen of the united states nor a legal resident. in a knowledge is that her parents brought her to this country when she was a young child and did not have a choice in the matter. she was given the legal status al status but not their choice of her own. it is a peppery fix to a big problem -- temporary fix to a big problem. she does not have a path to citizenship or a right to vote. she can work legally but she only has permission to do so for two years and then she has to reapply for that work permission. very and permanent solution. rmanent solution. if someone else is elected to office, she could lose that right to work legally. it could be taken away from her with a pen stroke.

she does not go secure in her position in society. cute longs for a more permanent she longshat would -- for a more permanent solution that would acknowledge that she made her home here. by spending six years with the students, i think what i learned lacking legal status is something that a person struggle with -- struggles with on a daily fashion. a person without legal status, they are dying to change their circumstance. they would change their circumstance and a heartbeat if i society made it easy to them. we have made it very hard. it is almost impossible for them to change their circumstances while remaining within this country. conversation about immigration and we say things like, if only people would

change their circumstances. but we forget that we need to make it logistically easy and worthwhile for people to do so. we really have not. as long as we have the debate, we have not created a real path to citizenship for anybody who wishes to have that right to join our society. the other thing that people should keep in mind as they debate immigration is that generally, people long to join our society. they do not want to live in the shadows. they don't want to because i quazi members of society. but they are holding onto the jobs they have secured here. as long as the path involves eating up the jobs they have and needing to return to their country of origin, they

generally will choose to stay here because they have just a little toehold. it is precarious but it is better than what they had. to bring people out of the shadows, we would have to allow a path that would let them hold onto the jobs that have and create a path to citizenship. >> our visit to denver is a book to be exclusive. we showed it today to introduce you to c-span cities tour. for five years now, we have traveled to u.s. cities bringing the book seem to our viewers. you can watch more of our visits /citiestour.g journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, washington examiner commentary writer and billy carpenter will join us to

talk about the latest tempe in 2016 developments. then they will talk about the recent 1.2. dollars to iran to billion to iran. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal the game live at 7:00 eastern on saturday morning. sunday march the 15th anniversary of september 11. c-span's live coverage of the day's events begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern during washington journal where you can join the conversation. at 8:30, we join president obama lie from the white house to observe a moment of silence. then we are from new york city for a ceremony at the national september 11 memorial to at 9:30, we go to the pentagon. at 10:00, we will be in shanksville, pennsylvania at the flight 93 national memorial.

we will then return to new york. the 15th anniversary of september 11. with congress back from its august recess, one item that members are pushing to include on the continued resolution that would fund the government pass up to 30 is a pay raise for the military. whip putrity with -- out a video on twitter today calling for the biggest raise in six years. let's take a look at that. can never fully repay the men and women who serve in our may united states will carry. -- our united states military. that is why house republicans voted to give the military the biggest pay raise since 2010. this much-deserved praise will help give peace of mind to tens of thousands of louisiana

military families who sacrificed so much to defend our freedoms. god bless our troops and god bless america. ♪ decided toident has racerrays at 1.6% -- the at 1.6%. it is not a done deal yet what the house pushing for a higher keep servicemember pay in step with the private sector. the article also the effort a long shot noting that it lost the fight last year for a 2.3% pay hike amid senate opposition and in order last summer by president obama to limit the increase to 1.3%. that is from stars and stripes. sunday is the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attack. c-span will have live coverage of a number of