about how the trump administration immigration policy impact children and families. cold -- eddie: 40 5 a.m., michael faron ♪ "washington journal" for july 5. chinese government announced tariffs to start taking place just after midnight on friday. the moves, and response to terrorist placed on chinese goods. secretary of state mike pompeo heads back to north korea to resume talks with its leader. hopes to develop a plan for dismantlement of the nuclear program after reports that that plan continues. we want to get your thoughts on what the u.s. should do in dealing with north korea over

its nuclear program, and the confidence you have in this administration to make something happen. (202) 748-8000, democrats. republicans and independents, >> -- (202) 748-8002. you can post on our twitter and facebook. a couple of responses on well my jones saying -- stay strong and do not give an inch. they will take advantage. -- i'm all berg says for diplomacy that our they played proves 45. those are some of the responses on our facebook feed. also on twitter, we will read some of those. if you want to call on the phone

line, continue to do so. we will talk with jonathan chang of "the wall street journal" about this meeting between secretary of state mike pompeo and kim jong-un. guest: hi, there. host: can you let us know what the state of north korea is on their willingness to dismantle, especially after reports that they continue their program? guest: those questions are ones that people who watch north the expectation has been that there is very little desire on their part to part with their nuclear weapons. they spent decades working on them, some reports suggesting all the way back to the 1960's. that is a lot of time and money for a country to invest but does not have a whole lot of it. for them to get to this point, it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.

it is possible the right inducements and some sanctions and military threats could change the equation. that is what we are trying to find out, and everything we have seen including the summit in singapore has all been pointing toward this ultimate question of denuclearization. we still have not really gotten anything concrete from the north koreans yet, and that is what we really need to see happen next. host: are they just waiting to see how far the u.s. will go in following through on threats about sanctions and otherwise before they realize how far they are willing to go? guest: that is definitely a possibility, and there have been reports about the prospect of this maximum pressure campaign starting to lose steam because there has been so much progress for china, russia, and other countries who were not 100% on board with sanctions to begin

with, you could argue for them to loosen things a little bit. some people have rightly argued was unrealistic to expect that north korea would suddenly stop and reverse things , that even after the summit they would continue business until -- business as usual until they sign something. if you look at the singapore agreement, they did not actually agree to stop any development and they did not agree to immediate denuclearization. that wellite images have seen of them continuing to expand their nuclear site and missiles facility, that would be consistent. host: could you go through the mechanics of what we know about this meeting that will take place with the secretary of state? type of meetings, who will be talking to whom? guest: the expectation is that kim jong-un will be there, but we do not know that for sure.

made a, mike pompeo reference that even in his first meeting he was not sure he would be meeting with kim until he appeared. summit, he knew that kim jong-un would be there. that would be the expectation given that that has been the case in the last two meetings in pyongyang. north korea does not really show his hand much before it happens. one thing to watch for on the protocol front would be whether or not mike pompeo's counterpart orld be the foreign minister the general in charge of inter-korean relations. has played a more prominent role. he went to the olympics and delivered that letter to president trump in the oval office.

that has been some chatter it might be the foreign minister who appears this time and if that happens, that is potentially an indication that the two korea's may be working towards a tree's -- peace treaty , because that is the sort of position you would need a foreign minister to sign that document. that has not been the case but there has been talk of this peace treaty. talkingnathan cheng about the meetings between the secretary of state and members of the north korean government over this nuclear program. thank you for your time today. guest: my pleasure. mind, yourthat in thoughts on the best way of dealing with north korea in light of these meetings and in light of the nuclear program, you can let us know on the phone lines. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and

independents, (202) 748-8002. eric is at first from virginia beach on our independent line. what is the best way to go forward? caller: please don't cut me off. these give me a chance to explain my thoughts. this whole situation with north is about north korea, south korea, and china. the united states has nothing to do with this. trump is being for old and trump and trumpeing fooled is weak. just like potent in russia, he will not stand -- putin in russia, he will not stand up to him. they did not go along with nothing with obama with the iran deal, and they killed the iran deal. host: when it comes to this

meeting that you have both sides talking, what is the significance of that? caller: both sides talked during the iran agreement. kim jong-un still had all his weapons. pompeo has done nothing to help. plus, he has protection now. host: mike in sun city, california, republican line. caller: that last caller, my goodness. .e are to stay the course president trump is doing a great job. .e is substantive can you imagine if the local media was actually fair to this guy? host: what does stay the course mean? caller: can i finish before you interrupt me. i know you are left of center. i know you are liberal. host: those are assumptions. caller: we get what your leanings are. host: lacey, bristol, tennessee,

democrats line. caller: when i think about that situation, he is lifting no sanctions, not anything at all until they have let us go in and check and see if they have done anything. i think just like the other caller, but i think it is a wasted trip. host: so you say more than inspections regime or program needs to be in place before we go further? caller: absolutely. host: why do you think that will prove effective? caller: it would prove effective if kim goes along with that, but i bet he will not go along with it at all. host: why do you say that? caller: i say that because he never has in all the years and why would mr. trump make any difference in the fact that he would do that? he has never done it. thoughtsse are three

on this meeting that will take place between the secretary of state and the north korean leader on their nuclear program. you can add yours to the conversation, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. john in hawaii, go ahead on the republican line. caller: history shows that you cannot trust north korea on anything they say. john macarthur, president truman found out about that back at the starting of the korean war. president truman said, we are in negotiations. the next thing that happened was macarthur told president truman day word [indiscernible] . trump has to verify everything he says and does.

host: if history has told us that, are you saying that nothing can change this time, or certain things have to happen before things change? caller: we need to send people over there to make sure he says he is doing what he says he is doing. he is not taking his missile program and hiding it someplace. it is just a proven fact. if you look at history, and i was in the military, that north korea cannot be trusted. i want to say also, people are always talking about trump and vladimir putin. russia is not our enemy. host: that is john in hawaii, republican line. the best way to deal with north korea, on twitter couple of thoughts. blue horseshoe says -- history

shows you cannot trust north korea. if you believe north korea, you are a fool. then it talks about general macarthur as well. -- we shoulding not deal directly with north korea, we should let the united nations handle it. isn't that the reason why it was formed? some other thoughts leading up to this meeting, the undersecretary at the state department talked about the upcoming trip with the secretary of state, talked about relations as it stands with north korea now, as it was a year ago. >> i think back to where we were one year ago today, actually one year ago tomorrow. many of you will remember the fourth of july. many of you were contacted to have to return to work. i was in new york planning to go to fireworks with my family, had

to hop on a flight. why? there was an icbm in north korea. from one year ago, we are in a better position. very concerned about what would happen between the united states and north korea, and the fact that our secretary is getting ready to have his fourth meeting with the north koreans in less than three months, i think is a testament to how far we have come. host: the phone lines, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. reuters looks at the role that south korea plays, saying the south korean president who held highly publicized summits with the north korean leader has described the piece as crucial because kim will not give up his nuclear weapons unless he feels

his security is assured. the south's unification minister said last week they will try to facilitate civilian level exchanges in the coming months and promote exchanges between the north and south korean media. he downplayed concerns that improved relations will be accompanied by the easing of sanctions and pressure on north korea, saying the progress in the inter-korean objects will depend on whether appropriate conditions are created. acknowledging sanctions, soul has refrained from offering joint economic projects, which pyongyang wants the most, and built its engagements around sports, cultural, and humanitarian programs. "the new york times" taking a look at the administration's stance on this, saying -- trump eases hostile tone toward kim, saying when north koreans were shooting off missile tests last

year, the president responded with threats of "fire and fury." summit meetingay last month in singapore, mr. trump has done an about-face and the nuclear program has continued. many good conversations with north korea, it is going well," he wrote. even recent relegation's that seemingly modest north korean progress on missile technology and the production of nuclear weapons -- fuel, have not dimmed mr. trump's and dizzy as a. his critics have argued he was taken in by mr. kim. that is "the new york times" this morning. twitter is available if you want to post thoughts at twitter wj.

kathleen from chicago, democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: we should treat each and every country likely one of the treated. we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. trump told this man, mine is bigger than yours. north korea is only doing what any country, as the united states would do, to protect itself. he is not bothering us. he only said he will use those weapons if we attack him. what does the united states think people are supposed to do, be unprepared? those people have the right to be protected just like the united states. if we leave other people alone, we would not have to worry about that because no one comes over here to attack us. host: so the current meetings

with the secretary of state are not needed? caller: now, because president trump wants to do what he wants. he got his picture. we spent millions of dollars to go over there. this young boy is just like trump, he is stubborn and will not give his weapons up. where were in a country they are getting ready to drop bombs on you, when you want to be able to put -- wouldn't you want to be able to protect your country? host: earnie on the independent line, go ahead. caller: when we talk about denuclearization, we are not talking about one person. it is the whole people of north korea. libya,ountries like where the government stops all

their military industry, a lot of people have become jobless. what happens to the soldiers and generals who know nothing except to fire a gun? what happens? do, theye guys basically overpower the government and go back to doing what they used to do, which is firing a gun. there is no industry that replaces them. host: so when it comes to them, these talks, and you are relating it to the people in north korea, what connection are you trying to make question mark -- trying to make? caller: people talk about just one person. it is not just one person who will decide. even if it is him, he will be overturned, because the life of the people that are working all ,he time for these industries they have a different kind of industry.

well probably replace the government will probably replace the government, either drastically or peacefully. int: our democrat line chattanooga, tennessee, ted. caller: good morning. i just had a comment. they were saying the united states bombed the north koreans back to the stone age that led to the stoppage of the combat. these people have taught their children for generations and generations that the united states was the enemy, even going so far as to say the united states was cannibals and have committed all kinds of war atrocities. the whole country has been brainwashed into believing that all we want to do is destroy them. i just do not see where kim will

give up his nuclear weapons after they have gone through so much to acquire these weapons. that they areeve pulling the wool over trump's eyes. host: do you find these talks valuable at all? caller: when you can open a dialogue with your enemy, yeah. i do feel that to a certain extent, that you need to talk to your enemy if you possibly can, to keep from going to war. but in the process of doing that , you have got to become -- got to be coming from a position of common sense an agreement with everyone around you, and with this administration, you have so many people on different pages that they actually wind up being in different books. this is the most chaotic and ridiculous administration we have seen. they are short people.

they do not have enough ambassadors. they do not have enough people who actually know what they are doing. for trump to think that he knows games, is doing, their the reason why conmen get caught is because their con games are not real. sooner or later, they run out of steam. host: what about the fact that this administration has gotten this far with talks with north korean leadership, compared to previous administrations? caller: everybody is subject in all the countries to brainwashing, to propaganda. we are no different than anywhere else. our propaganda is propped up with the ability to make money, to open businesses. you are granted some perks with the propaganda you get here that you are not allowed to get in other countries because they do not have the strength of the economy.

you are still subject to the same propaganda. host: let's go to tom in baltimore, maryland, democrats line. caller: i just have a couple of quick points. 90% of all the trade that north korea has goes through china. we all know that. the only way you can put pressure on north korea is through china. way, you look at it that they have completely mishandled this. the only way you can put pressure on china, you have got to have a united front with the other countries that he has already offended and alienated. the european union, he pulled out of tpp. he has offended the canadians mexicans. these are the countries you would need to present and in desperate united front against china to put pressure on north korea -- a united front against china to put pressure on north

korea. if the united states preemptively attacks korea, china said they will side with north korea. you cannot have a military option because then you will have a world war. he has put himself in a position where he has alienated the very countries he needs in order to put pressure on north korea. host: that is tom in baltimore, maryland. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. -- the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independents. joel from polaski georgia, independent line. caller: what could possibly be wrong with talking with north korea? the better part of half of the century, we have totally cut them off, totally isolated them, called the folks in north korea

a cult of personality where folks act unrealistically. they have a picture of their leader and we have basically disparaged that country and their system for all the years since the korean war. now out of the blue, we get a summit. i tend to think dialogue is a much better thing than aiming weapons that folks. is there a larger game at play? i am certain there is. maybe, perhaps the koreans and chinese are taking the approach, why don't we just play along with trump? he will be gone soon, someone else will be there, and we can go back to business as usual. could it be that, or a genuine effort on the part of north korea? on the face value of it, talk to the folks. what could possibly hurt with this dialogue.

op-ed piece on the fox news website concerning this piece and the discussions that go on, saying another mission impossible starring tom cruise will hit the leaders later this month but what looks like a real life mission impossible takes place friday and saturday when the secretary of state meets with north korean officials to agree to a plan to get rid of their nuclear weapons. e has a much easier mission then pompeo. korean dictator kim jong-un made the commitment on his june 12 summit in singapore with president trump. in anagreed to a summit effort to show kim the future if he gives up his nukes.

since the much publicized summit, there has been no progress at all toward any sort of atomic disarmament. things like north koreans are andng to their nuclear missile capabilities, each will lead to starving turn of events that seems to underscore what many have always feared. striving fors nuclear acceptance, not nuclear disarmament. fromis from the center dust for natural -- the national interest. on the independent line in ohio, dave is next. months inspent 13 korea. i still talk to a bunch of south korean marines. north korea has a philosophy that means "self-reliance." this country really does not understand north korea.

north korea is not as impoverished as what this country tells us. tell mee in south korea they are more worried about what mr. trump is going to do than what they are about mr. un, because they know the north koreans. this is new for them with trump. so the state of the north korean people, what would they described as examples of not being impoverished as what is reported? caller: we talked about north korea about where they had salmon. --famine. salmon the problem they had in the 1970's was basically because of the weather and the train they had. we listen to american propaganda. howd not understand propaganda worked in this country until i went to south korea. looking from this country from the outside in is a different

perspective. host: that is dave in ohio. about the first half-hour of on what to dont with north korea. going to develop a timetable on their nuclear program. you can call (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can post on facebook and twitter. this was posted a couple of days ago -- hold the champagne on north korea. some of the arguments they make, piece, the in the key questions about an adversary always come down to capabilities and intentions. mr. kim's capabilities must be exposed. mr. trump ought to wake up to

the fact that he is at the beginning of a process, not the end. here is an idea with a nice ring: distrust and verify. the editors go on to say, about this disclosure from the defense intelligence agency that north korea intends to deceive the united states about this true , the of its program assessment reportedly concludes that north korea believes it can hide most -- some of its most sensitive activities, such as a second underground uranium enrichment factory. dale in irving, texas, republican line. caller: hi, mi on? host: yes. caller: i just have a comment. it was on fox news, they had kim jong-un standing in front of a military mobile rocket launcher.

those tires are like six foot tall in real life. coward -- cowered a vote of those -- towered above those tires. i remember seeing him in that pose in one of his parades. , they hadhis superimposed him in front of another video. host: all of that meeting what in light of these meetings to take place? caller: i believe, it is kind of obvious that a lot of the stuff we are being told is false. from willis, texas, democrat line. caller: hello there. a guy who was listening to fox news saying he is being lied to. i am shocked. north korea is never, ever going to give up a single thing.

you cannot negotiate with dictators. this entire show has been nothing but a photo op. it is incredible that we are even buying any of this stuff. host: that is pat in texas. the world section of "newsweek" yesterday, this is tom o'connor koreahe headline -- north celebrates the fourth of july, 2018 with peace, last year they launched an icbm "gift." north korea launched its first missile on the fourth of july in 2017, praising that as a gift for american pastors. --bastards. the official korean central news agency's published an article in memory of the signing of the july 4 south-north joint communique in 1972.

the document was the first to be signed by communist backed north korea and western backed south korea since they were split by the soviet union and the u.s. after world war ii and went to war in the early 1950's. three principles for the eventual reunification of the -- theeas -- peace ruling korean workers party called it a great, historical event and dispelled the confrontation that gave countrymen optimism and hope for national reunification. an epoch-making event that provided a basic cornerstone of inter-korean ties and the national reunification movement.

the lines are on the screen if you want to give your comments on the efforts by the united --tes to give north korea for north korea to give up its nuclear program. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent. elaine, you are up. caller: i really appreciate the service. i think that earlier, a caller stated that north korea has rights. i believe that too. i believe every country should provide for safety for their people. i think we need to be patient. we are scrambling all the time, what did he say, what did he do? we need to be patient. there is proof in the pudding. what i would like for the

country to begin to talk about and begin to work on much harder , is the schools, the prisons. i think we need to address that. int: let's go to brenda indiana, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: i think we should just leave north korea alone. george bush said that iran, iraq, and north korea were the axis of evil and then we invaded iraq. we made an agreement with iran and backed out, so why should north korea trust us for anything? a previous caller said north korea has the right to defend himself just like any other nation, and i believe that -- i agree with that. we should leave the guy alone. mike pompeo said when the detainees were released, he

could not confirm or deny if any money had changed hands for that release. like i say, north korea has a right to defend itself. like i said, george bush said they were part of the axis of evil. i think we should just leave them alone. host: since you said what president bush said about that, you are not concerned the weapons program could be turned on other countries including the united states? caller: they have not done anything so far. they have had plenty of opportunities to do that and i think they are testing their rockets and stuff. they are not doing anything more than what we do. don't we do military exercises and testing? they have done nothing so far. i wonder, is mike pompeo using a private email server as secretary of state? host: the former secretary of state appeared at a hearing last week talking about issues with north korea.

if you go to our website, c-span.org, you can find that hearing. the whole hearing available to you on the website to hear the secretary's thoughts. george is next in west virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. 1968,: let's go back to when the north koreans took the pueblo. it is still sitting over there. they tore it all to pieces. the year that i was in korea, we lost 11 infantrymen. this guy is no different from his dad. his dad would kill his own son if he thought his son did not agree with him. host: what do you think that means for these talks going on between the two countries? caller: these talks, this guy is

a master of deception. he can look you in the eye and swear and be darned that he is going to do everything that is possible, but he has his fingers crossed behind his back. he will not do what needs to be done. host: are these current conversations a waste of time? caller: it is a waste of time. if you look at the little guy, he is about 5'5". suits and his0 people are eating dirt and grass and rice fertilized with human waste. he does not care about nobody but his little old self. recentlyme magazine" published efforts between north and south korea, this issue on the basketball court. "north and south korea meet in pyongyang for a goodwill

basketball game." the rival koreas began two days of friendly basketball games in pyongyang in their latest goodwell gesture. players for north and south korea were next into two teams to compete against each other at the north korean capital gymnasium. in two women's teams dressed white jerseys that read "peace" and granger's is that read "prosperity" held hands. the men's and women's teams will play thursday before returning home on friday. the games precede that visit by the secretary of state pompeo for meetings over the future of the nuclear program. catherine from minnesota, independent line. caller: i feel that what we are

seeing with north korea and leastent trump at demonstrating positive goodwell, dwill is al -- goo positive step. i think we have to be skeptical faced on history, but the start of the step with the bringing together with the olympic games and opening that dialogue, i think is a hopeful sign that perhaps this is a positive step. we can arrive -- it looks like some progress. nota long time, there has been a lot of progress and there has been a lot of anger. they make such hideous statements on our independence day, it is really a positive sign. however we achieve that, i think people are a little shocked president trump might be able to achieve that because the

dialogue with other countries has not been seropositive. it is -- has not been so positive. it is at least hopeful. to view this in a long-term process rather than a short-term process? caller: it is certainly a long-term process, because peace, look at all these countries who have been warring for so long. wars do not resolve anything. people have to come to the table to figure out how to achieve some sort of sustainable government for all those countries and places that have been warring in the middle east and everything. at the very least, at the end of the day, this is how pieces achieved, through dialogue. i think the fact that we are having positive dialogue is a positive step. i do not know if people want to give president trump credit

because in a lot of other areas his dialogue is not so positive. in this case, he should be given some credit because it is at least hopeful. host: that is catherine in minnesota. you can continue to call in on the phone lines and post on facebook and twitter. as we continue to discuss the topic of north korea, this is from "the wall street journal" concerning china as it is now on the edge of putting new sanctions. as the u.s. and china gear up to slap each other with tariffs, beijing's leadership faced questions of whether to go first or let a u.s. -- the u.s. take the lead. china pledged to retaliate with levees of the same at the same time, but since beijing is 12 time zones ahead of washington,

china planned to put its tariffs into effect at 12:01 a.m. friday in beijing, which is new thursday in washington. said wednesday reflected beijing's determination to start its tariffs on july 6, the same date set by the u.s. for its levees. side, exports of auto parts and medical instruments, the looming trade battle between the worlds two largest economies has rattled global markets, businesses, and investors. they called a brief truce and may. mr. trump stepped up to reduce the trade imbalance and to punish beijing for what the uss pressure tactics on u.s. businesses to transfer technology to chinese companies.

we will hear from eric. caller: thanks for taking my call. there is a number of issues the u.s. media does not bring up. it is estimated that under the ground of north korea, there are trillions of dollars worth of mineral wealth. that is one of the motivations here, the bankers who finance most of the economic activities, most of the wars around the world, they want to get their hands on this wealth. threatexaggerate the that comes out of north korea. the united states could easily , but thereretaliate is a lot of wealth that is untapped in north korea. north korea has not allowed the bankers to get in there. you have to look at some of the recent examples. qaddafi wanted to

start trading his oil in euros instead of dollars and he was done away with. saddam hussein wanted to do the same thing. he was done away with. there are imperialistic economic interests at work here. i just wanted to make that point. host: mark is next in ohio, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. korea, ip and north believe this is the first time a u.s. president has ever had a leader of north korea sit down and have conversation. i know before that, they were having a big twitter spat and mine is bigger. i do believe that north korea's knows that america has a different leader that is not a pushover. i think that if kim jong-un

pulls out or embarrasses trump on this stage, he will retaliate with sanctions or other things that will hurt north korea. i do not think trump is a pushover and i believe he has seen that and he knows, the north korean leader knows that trump will not be pushed around. this whole thing of pompeo being out there talking, i think north korea is not going to turn their backs around. host: so you think something substantial will, from all of this? caller: yes. i believe that trump, our president is not a pushover. they both have egos. we know donald trump has an ego and we all know the north korean leader has an ego. i believe that donald trump can pull that ego away to court -- hurt the north korean leader more than sanctions.

journal"e wall street reporting on that nato alliance meeting next week, including the u.s.. a story taking a look at the u.s. relations with nato countries. may onlyd the u.s. defend nato allies that met their military spending obligations. to dispellater sought the allies' unease during a visit to warsaw by endorsing article five, which stipulates allies will come to each other's defense if attacked. some european officials expressed hope that the trump administration would build on that approach by backing a summit meeting that hailed the making the alliance was

on military spending and adapting in the face of the neutron -- threats. if allies don't spend more to defend their alliance, the u.s. may do less. --you go to this morning "the wall street journal" this morning, there is an aside. that, then top of greece, u.k., and estonia. it is available to you at "the wall street journal." fromom orlando -- edie orlando, florida. caller: unfortunately, i do not think anything will come from these talks. is saying one thing to your face and behind your

back, he will say what he wants. i think china is kind of smiling at cam. -- kim. host: why? caller: i think they approve of what he is doing. china is not really a friend of the united states. we are like trading with them and now with the tariffs, they are getting a little annoyed. i do not think we are really allies. everything i am wearing and my friends where is made in china. host: what about the fact that we are at the stage of these talks as they are? is that an accomplishment? caller: i don't know. some people could say yes, sure, he is going to do it. when it is all said and done, he has all those missiles. i do not think you can trust him. in orlando,s edie florida giving thoughts.

you can do so for the next 10 minutes or so. it was on twitter even before, this was back earlier last month, saying, president trump saying -- everyone can feel much safer, there is no longer a threat from news korea. -- north korea. needing with kim jong on was an interesting and very positive experience. north korea has great potential for the future. as you heard our guest talk about earlier today, if you want to give comment on that, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can also post on our twitter feed. john is next from columbia heights, maryland.

, in 2018, etc.l america last year spent $1.6 trillion in military defense. russia spent $66 billion. china spent $29 billion. add are getting ready to another $716 billion to the military judgment -- budget. when people of the world see america beefing up its military, it has got to be some reason. host: your thoughts on the talks between the united states and north korea. caller: they get news from all over the world about what this nation is doing. they can talk all they want, that nobody trusts this nation anymore. we are supposed to be a nation of laws. host: you do not think these talks will be productive? caller: we can talk all you want, but when you know the

person you are talking to you cannot trust, you cannot trust anything he is saying because you see the nation he represents is hypocritical, you can sit and talk all you want to. you better not trust him beyond the talks. host: in mclean, vienna, stacy on the independent line. caller: i agree with tom from baltimore and the previous caller. we will need our allies to apply pressure with anything. that is what the u.n. is for. two other points, russia has threatened to nuke the entire east coast. russia is a bigger threat to us, and they have nukes and they can attack us and have threatened to attack us, not only our elections but our nuclear plans, our electric grid, water, aviation. host: back to north korea, when

you say "the allies," you mentioned the united nation but are you talking about china or other nations? am talking about france, germany, everyone in the ron deal and the tpp. i am talking about our friends that have been there from the beginning of the founding of this country. host: how does that apply to the north korea situation? caller: it takes pressure. we cannot take on the world. it is best when we work together as a team, as a united front. it is important that we have our allies work with us instead of against us. host: we will go to marry in the louisiana, republican line. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: trump is not a coward. he is a fighter. and fighters win.

that, trump did not get to be a billionaire by not knowing what he is doing. trump know how to make deals. trump is using this adage, speak softly but carry a big stick. you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. host: you think all of that will produce something positive with north korea? caller: yes. the problem is this, the democrats says all these things because they scared that trump will succeed. they don't want that. host: that is mary in the louisiana. off of facebook, a simple do not look at them, make your economy great, abandon all products to be cell in the u.s. if there is

not a manufacturer production who give jobs to the americans. wilson says -- there is no real way to deal with north korea. they won't even listen to president trump. that is about 500 people on ,acebook this morning posting this idea of their best thoughts on dealing with north korea. that is on the c-span facebook page at facebook. c-span.org. there or postost on our twitter feed. robert joins us and he is in michigan, independent line. you are next. caller: i got a couple things to point out. i think you better look in the bible, ezekiel 38. north korea is not even mentioned in the bible. god is going to take care of this whole thing. as far as north korea, they are

just a thorn in our side and i am not really concerned over them that much. watch them, keep an eye on them, and do not take nothing from them, but you have china, russia. you have germany. you also have a ron. -- iran. host: is it worth the time to talk to north korea? caller: sure, you should. you talk with them but do not give away the farm. host: what does that mean? caller: be tough with them but talk with them and work with them. they are not going to do nothing much. they may do something to them small countries but not us. host: anthony on the independent line, good morning. caller: i lived in south korea for about five years so i have a bit of a different perspective. in my opinion, the best way to deal with north korea is to

improve our relations with south korea, japan, and other allies in the pacific. strengthen those relationships -- strengthening those relationships will put pressure on north korea. host: you said you lived in south korea. how long? caller: i was they are just under five years. host: we had a previous caller who said he lived in north korea and said-- south korea the north korean people do not live as impoverished as we are told. caller: are you referring to north or south korea? host: people in north korea. caller: they definitely live in poverty. it is very bad for sure, yes. host: baltimore, maryland, matthew is next, independent line. caller: i just wanted to give a

reminder that it is not just trump and cam -- kim. there are many other americans and north koreans involved. we need to support fellow americans. host: do you support this effort overall? caller: i do. host: why so? caller: i think it is good for the world in general. host: do you think anything will come as a result? caller: i have high hopes, yes. host: what leads you to believe that? caller: i have faith in americans and north koreans. and kim, iast trump think that will make a difference. andrew,e more call from democrats line, white plains, new york. caller: good morning, c-span. i do not think we will do anything differently than what has happened in the past with

the cam family. -- kim family. they will not give up their nukes because they have spent so much money investing in it. they got what they wanted. trump gave them legitimacy with this state summit in singapore. they are not going to change. the scary part is what happens when mr. trump realizes he has been played? does he try to go military and show what a tough guy he is before the midterm elections? i hope not. i wish mr. pompeo all the luck in the world, but they are not going to change anything from a country that has been doing this for 40 years. host: so you see nothing positive coming out of these efforts? caller: the only positive thing is that trump has been delayed in a military strike against korea, which would create a disaster.

i do not think anything will change in the status quo. host: two guests joining us this morning, the first will be olivia golden discussing her report on how trump's immigration policies impact immigrant children. will be joined by michael farren of george mason university with the topic of the middle wage, with several states putting in higher minimum wages even this year. what that end result, at least .o him, will be those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal." which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] --♪ >>

sunday night on "afterwards," mohammed al samawi is interviewed by washington post religious editor. >> you pointed out all of these strangers that helped you in small and large ways. there are people whose names you metioned that you one time in bosnia years ago and never met them again. you are so aware of the role strangers play in others' lives. you have advice on be a good strangers to people around us? i have hundreds of emails from people i have never met saying i will pray for you. when you read the book, you will see i was in a very hard situation. i was strong because

i know people have faith in me and were trying to help me out. one time i was waiting for the fishing boats and thought, should i go back to the hotel? should i stay at the port? but i've got to have face-to-face people -- i've got to have faith in these people -- i've got to has faith in these people. without having faith in humanity, there's no hope. i asked one of the people why , and he said my grandfather was trapped because of the holocaust. they want anyone to say yes. asust remember your story should i say no or should i say yes, and that is an amazing thing. the human story is not about we are different. we are actually similar. announcer: watch "afterwards"

sunday night atlantic clock p.m. eastern on c-span2 -- night at 9:00 eastern on c-span2's booktv. formerur guest is the health and human services director, olivia golden. thank you for joining us. nonprofit are a advocacy organization. we've been around almost 50 years, and we focus on reducing party, improving the lives -- reducing poverty, improving the lives of low income people, and tearing down the barriers that keep people from economic security. host: a lot in the recent days about immigration because of what is going on at the border. at -- guest: we focus a lot on children,

families and we focus on low income people. we started about a year ago being really worried about the consequences for children, including u.s. citizen children and immigrant families. we've been really working a lot on the consequences on children and what we should do to fix that. host: the pc but i yesterday in light of independence day, "celebrate independence day by fighting back," what kind of argument are you trying to pose? guest: the values the country aspires to, a we certainly never achieve them all, but the values we think about on independence day like liberty and justice for and the motto on the statue of liberty, those are under ateat right now from our clasp. people of color and immigrant families, the policy threats have been very great over this past year, so this is a moment

to think about what we can all do to change that and have a vision of the country that will take us to where we want to be. the specific example i give in that piece is about a next ordinary fourth of july i spent when i was assistant secretary for children and families and the united states intervened in the former yugoslavia to help people in kosovo, a largely muslim country where people were being killed and threatened, and i had the chance to spend a few with refugees who talks to me about what it meant to than the united states offered opportunity regardless of religion. host: the piece is available online if you want to talk to our guest about that and immigration related issues. you can tweak us that you can @cspanwj. tweet us

we've all heard the news stories. what is the specific policy would like to address, or at least would like the administration to address? guest: keep giver cannot in march about the effects of immigration on young children across the whole united states living in families that have been here for decades. it was about the damage they are experiencing and what we should do about that, which i can come back to. of the last month about the separation, tearing children and young children from ,heir parents at the border what is truly devastating as the consequences of separation on children. really what we have to do about that is reverse it. the judge has told the and ministration to reunify those families, and it is not clear they have a plan.

the human reaction to hearing those children cry and seen because it wants is also the right reaction based on research. host: so if families and children are kept together, is that satisfactory to you, then? thinking about those families that are coming in on the border, what is important also is that they not be jailed. we know a lot about imaging -- about how damaging detention is for young children. it is really important that families be in the community while they are waiting for their asylum cases to be heard. thepaper, which talks about cumulative impact of a lot of different things the administration has done over its first year, finds that young children all over this country, we get about 150 interviews with childcare providers and parents in six states, that young children, most of whom are american citizens not newly coming here, are living in fear.

it is affecting their behavior, harming themselves, affecting their learning and their schooling, they are experiencing instability in their housing and economic situation. we know a lot from child developed research about what that does in the long term to their life chances. recentf you are a evidence or asylum seeker and you want to give your -748-8003.e, it is 202 the --reports of on along the border saying in many cases they are well fed, they have people to take care of them. is that satisfactory? guest: when children are taken from their parents, that is devastating no matter what, no matter the quality of the care. because -- again, you can hear it when you read the

interviews and when you listen to that tape of children cry and -- particularly for young children, being torn away creates a level of stress that just has very dangerous consequences for the child's health. reuniting the families is number and makingeating sure you're not jailing families is number two. that is for families coming in on the border. we do have recommendations about what to do for these threats that have been going on for a year that are affecting young children in immigrant families, which is a very large number. about 9 million children under age eight have at least one immigrant parent. about 1/4 of all children. it has consequences for all of us if we create long-term damage in those kids' ability to learn.

what we should be doing there, we have a lot of recommendations in the report that include much more positive policies so parents aren't afraid to get their children the care they -- andnd which improved which include improvements a lot of different aspects. host:'s families are kept together when they come to ports entry, what ports of happens if they do not come back for their asylum case? isn't that a legitimate concern? guest: this clear research which suggests families do appear for .heir asylum cases there's lots of different strategies that include electronic monitoring or telephone check ends. when families are in the community, they are a lot more able to get a lawyer, and just getting a lawyer means people show up.

they want to have their cases adjudicated. --re's not evidence that there's clear evidence of how damaging it is when you do it. host: again, olivia golden of the center for law and policy. our first call is on a republican line. carl from west virginia, you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. the words you people used to describe the situation like they are ripping kids right out of the arms of parents, even ripping babies away from nursing mothers, you know, this is inflammatory. this is what turns people like me against people like you is the words you use. you know it is not true. these kids get three hot meals a day.

that's a lot more that a lot of kids in this country get. and you know what? isonder if your organization just spun off from the southern poverty lost her that designates all conservative organizations as evil -- poverty law center that designates all conservative organizations as evil. guest: let me put your views in the context of views of americans in general. , which isof americans really gone up over the past several decades, see immigration is positive. that sort of important context suggests that for most people, the evidence about what does work for children and families and what immigrants do they come into a community, the way they contribute to economic success, is really powerful. specifics about children's conditions, the circumstances on the border are documented in lots of both legal testimonies and eyewitness, as well as video and audio we've all been hearing.

the part that we at clasp documented ourselves by visiting early childhood programs, doing focus groups with parents, those circumstances we researched ourselves, and what we found their was the consequences that i've been telling you about in people's own words. for example, a preschool teacher in georgia who said to us a federal child was -- a five-year-old child was in so much fear and stress he was biting his hands to the point of bleeding. preschool teacher who said i've never before seen classrooms with this much stress and this difficulty learning. preschool teachers and home visitors talking about the level of fear they saw in children, but also parents who were withdrawing the children from a childcare program, perhaps because of fear of enforcement, but also the fear for the millions of children in the

united states includes children with documented, as well as undocumented, parents because of the administration's threats to all of those groups. parents taking their children out of health care and nutrition programs. 'srt of what we do at clasp work hard to document in a lot of detail, and this paper reflects about 150 people that we talk to interviews and focus groups on the ground in california, georgia, north carolina, new mexico, and pennsylvania. host: including direct conversations with parents and/or children? guest: was parents and early childhood teachers. we didn't talk to very young children. we didn't talk to babies were three-year-olds. there was one school we visited where we were visiting because it had an early childhood program, but some of the elementary school children really insisted on talking to my colleagues who was there, and one of the saddest stories for

me was a little boy about eight years old talking about what he was doing was trying to focus on what he could cook, peanut butter chant which is -- peanut butter sandwiches and cheese sandwiches, so he could make them for his sister if his parents were taken. children should not begin with that level of fear. host: on the independent line, joe is next. caller: yes, madam. we are talking about black letter law, and i'm sure you are intelligent enough to know what black letter law means. these children and their families, cross our borders. crime.e committing a according to black letter law, they should be deported. how do you know how they vet , wherevermala, chile they are coming from, even from asia? we must come as your parents taught you, if you want to go out inside -- if you want to go outside and play, you must clean

your room. you must eat everything in front of you. if you want to change it, change the constitution. i far as the child being born in the united states causes automatic citizens, that is wrong. guest: a couple points. let me start with the law and then go to what i think is right beyond that and what my parents tommy, since you raised that. i'm sure that is important -- parents taught me, since he raised that. i'm sure that is important to all of us. come to find safety for their children are following the law. being able to arrive in the united states and claim asylum is legal under that it's a slaw and is -- under united states law and is internationally protected, so that is legal. children andon of families that have lived in the united states a long time for parents who are documented, who are not documented, and the millions of children who have an

immigrant parent, i would say couple of things about why we should care about how they are doing. one is just at a personal basis, for most americans, how children are doing, how u.s. citizen children are doing, is a key measure of us as a country. i don't have my own children, ,ut i have nieces and nephews and i never want to see them in the kind of fear and stress and the consequences for them that we saw. my parents are both immigrants. one fled from germany at the time when hillary was in power, and the other came -- when hitler was in power, and the other came from europe. they told me about the theaordinary opportunity

united states inspires to offer, and the fact that trying to make the country better is a key part of who we are. host: from our democrats line, don in maryland. caller: good morning. first of all, i just want to thank ms. goldman for her courage and express gratitude for standing up. many of us in the united states feel the way she does. she's touched on trauma that affects young children. thed you talk about what trauma is for these young kids? these kids are going to grow up. what lasting effects might there be, and how does that affect the foster care system? i work with foster care kids in the courts. the system is taxed already. i wonder if you could talk about the long-term effects. guest: thank you for your comments. the long-term effects are deeply documented.

there's a long history of child develop and research that talks weut the lovers of all, think about children from the border, the consequence the having a level of toxic stress that creates lifelong impact, potentially. for the children we interviewed, the millions of children who are fearntly being affected by , stress, the lack of access to health and nutrition that they need, by uncertainty in their housing and their parents' jobs, for those children there is also a powerful body of research about the individual consequences of each of those things. the toxic stress they are experiencing, not having access to health care and food that they need. there is also research showing all of those together have even greater effects. what did the consequences look

like? i should note that these are consequences that can happen. there is a chance to remedy this , that is partly why we feel such a sense of urgency. substantial can be consequences on learning, the toxic stress, the other kinds of insecurity and instability, children's lives being more isolated, not being able to have a stable home. all of those things have effects on learning, health, and effects that can go to adulthood. what i want to say to all of the caller is that in addition to the moral reasons for caring, to me there's a very practical reason. about 9 million children under /4 of all and about 1 children have at least one immigrant parent. while because it was his for children are greatest when those children have seen -- while the consequences for children are greatest when those children have seen the effects of deportation, they affect the

whole community. in 20 years may need help from a doctor or nurse or home care, i really want these children to grow up and thrive and be able to move into all of the different jobs that we need from them and to be successful citizens. to meet the long-term effects are really important. you mentioned the foster care system. i did run the child welfare system in the district of columbia. for me, the most powerful even inthere is that cases where children come into foster care, which means there was something really wrong or the courts found that were something dangerous in their home environment, there is a very high standard for separating kids from their parents. a judge has to say it is in their best interest. if you think about just willy-nilly and casually taking kids from their parents at the border, that is terrifying and

very different from the law that governs how we do think about children in the united states and how we ought to think about them. host: cnn reporting this morning that one of the means to reunite families with children is a dna test. what you think about that as a process to help reunite families? guest: i am not an expert on the details of what the process should be. i guess what is striking about that, if that turns out to be the case, is it does suggest the administration didn't put in place good tracking systems to be able to reunify children easily. that is consistent with other reporting, suggesting they don't have other plans. from my perspective, that is frightening. quickly ashem as possible is a crucial next step. host: the previous administrations have this policy? guest: this administration is the pursed that is the first two

separate children from their families at the border. no one else has thought that was a good idea. host: our guest, if you want to ask her questions. our next caller is from wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. the dialogue this woman presents, let me ask you a couple things. you are saying that if they came through a port of entry, that the treatment is no different than if they come across the border illegally? what: i am saying that exactly the in ministration is doing now, i don't know. , which wasolicy was to celebrate children from families, and newspaper reports notested difficulty obstructing people from entering at a port of entry, i don't know the current status of. what i would highlight is that coming to the united states to issent a claim of asylum

something i think we all hope we would have the courage to do for our children. caller: that if i came to your house and knocked on your door and you let me end, that seems like a reasonable thing. but if i break into your house through a window and bring a child with me, there should be no consequent is for that? he's got a child with him, so let's just let him go back out? i don't think you'd like it if that was the way it was treated for your own home. guest: let me go back to both the children on the border and the children that we studied and our research because i do think that the key here is that parents who love their children and are caring for them are doing the right thing. there not doing the wrong thing. supportpolicies that people to do the right thing. at the border, that means processing people, giving them the chance to make their asylum claim. it means having them live in the

community and use one of a lot of proven strategies. to make sure they show up in court. in the country, people who have been here for decades, many of whom are documented, many who are undocumented, and some of administration's attacks on both documented and undocumented families, some were documented and it got taken away with them at the stroke of a pen. for example, many people who's been in the united states for 15 or 20 years from haiti, el salvador, people who had status to work under the dream act, under the dock a provision -- under the daca provision, they did have documentation and the administration has sought to take it away. whatever the circumstances, their children and their children's future should be very precious to us. host: on the independent line,

david in north carolina. i went through a thing were my son has been taken from me. i have not been criminally charged with anything. you was talking about stresses. what about stresses caused by questioning redundantly? if they do come to the port of entry, they should be considered legally migrating, correct? guest: they should have the chance to offer their case, that's right. caller: all right. guest: thank you for sharing what i'm sure is a very difficult situation. i just want to underline something you said, which is the stress on you as well as on the child. you can certainly hear that in the case of families at the border, some of the interviews with parents where a mother will say i felt as though my life is over when a child was taken from her and she doesn't know where

that child is going to be. in the case of the families that we studied, parents who've been here, families who've been here for many decades, communities that are affected, we did find a lot of stress on parents. thelso found a lot about stress on early childhood teachers and caregivers themselves. they are the ones trying to teach the class, trying to respond to the family's needs for the children can succeed. the one other thing i want to underline is that the threat to these families, there are of difficultnumber ones ahead that the administration has said they are going to propose some additional ofeats targeted at parents citizen children and particularly documented parents seeking to move towards long-term status.

those threats have been signaled. we can talk about them in more detail. they are part of the big picture. host: part of the report dealt with the plight of the dreamers, as they are known, and talked about what should be done for them, specifically what does it call for -- which be done for them. specifically what is a call for? guest: part of it is assuring the dream act, essentially. the administration fought to eliminate the administrative protections for them, and congress should pass the dream act. i want to note that the dreamers , and case viewers don't know that shorthand, those who came to the u.s. as children and and havether country been here for 15 years or more. they came up in our research, young adults in their 20's and 30's. not surprisingly, many who have american citizen children.

many dreamers are contributing to their communities as teachers, health care workers, and in the case of our research, early childhood providers. having them not be able to contribute, not be able to work, damages our whole community. host: the arizona republican marco met sally -- republican martha mcnally says she supports helping the daca population, incentivize more and findmmigration ourselves in the same situation in the future." guest: these are american children, young people, and

particularly as our population ages, we can't afford to not give them security. exactly what is the right level to invest in border security, we are not experts in that class, having lots ofat dollars spent on something that is not working is obviously not a great thing to do. i think the point that i would from ouris that perspective, it isn't clear why you would want a trade-off for something that is a win-win for all of us. having young people who are contributing to the community, raising kids, working, paying taxes, going to school, serving in the military. having them be able to contribute to the united states is a net positive. george.mocrats line, you are on with olivia golden for the center for law and policy -- law and social policy.

, have youwant to know done anything on immigrants that kill americans? my sister was raped and murdered by an immigrant. what am i supposed to about it? i can't have her no more. at the age of 14 years old. look on the other side of the fence. through this whole thing i was a democrat. i can't do it no more. i'm done. and i think you're a phony. see you. host: apologize for that. go ahead. guest: i'm very sorry to hear about your family tragedy. certainly one of the things that we do work on is criminal justice and the ways in which our system can fail us in all kinds of ways. i'm very sorry to hear about your tragedy.

i think it is a time when we are all the about the tragedies of violence here in the district. there's just been violence in maryland, which had nothing to do with immigration, but the shooting of a group of reporters. i think this is a moment when we are all taking about the tragedies of violence, and i am sorry to hear about your sister. host: georgia, republican line is next. caller: good morning. i just have a couple of questions. -- you like to know know, i've never been able to find this information -- what can the infrastructure of the united states support as far as immigration? right now the population is 330 million. what can the united states support? farher question i have, as as your organization, are you concerned with human trafficking when the children come, especially when the parents come through illegally?

from what i understand, they have to verify that the adults with the children are actually their parents. you are focusing on the -- from, but what about what i understand, 80% of the children come without any adults with them? what about those children? host: ok, we will let her answer them. guest: the first question was united states infrastructure, how many immigrants we should be looking for. i would highlight a couple of things. the first is that if you look at our population in the united states, those 300 plus million you mentioned, we have an aging population. we have many people of our generation, baby boomers, and we are getting older, and we really need young adults for the country's future. that is one reason why the children of immigrants we are focusing on are so important to

our future. they are americans. they grew up here. they are here at just the right moment for us as a country because they are actually contribute into that infrastructure. i guess i would say this is a moment in our time were not just new immigration, but the contributions of immigrant families who have been here for decades are really especially important to us. i would say that is a big positive. again, one of the things that is striking in public opinion surveys is that support for levelation is at a higher than it has been for a couple decades. i think it may reflect that, communities where people really want families because they are thinking about their future. that is number one about the infrastructure. on human trafficking, i would recommend for you and actually a forof the people looking more detailed information specifically on this situation at the border, the women's there aremmission --

a number of organizations doing great work -- but if you go to the website for the women's refugee commission, they have a lot of detailed information on all of these topics. we at c.l.a.s.p. know a lot soe in the united states, for detailed information about the policies, about what you can do, about the practices, i would recommend their website. your last question, which was about children who arrived here unaccompanied, yes, children do arrive at the border unaccompanied and have for a number of years, and for those isldren what is important for their asylum request to be handled appropriately and for them to be in the community, not in jail. host: a follow-up paper that your organization produced out with something called the public charge. what is that, and how does it apply to immigrant families?

guest: thank you for asking. i mentioned earlier on that the threats that we are seeing that are affecting children, that there are more to come. this is one of the threat the administration has been saying it was going to issue as a proposed regulation. in ait would do is put prince in general, but a lot of the impact would be on parents, and the position of choosing between getting health care for their citizen children or the long-term stability of a family. specifically, it takes what has been a very narrow piece of immigration law and widens it out to say that if you have kids, if you or anybody in your household uses, for example, health care assistance, that counts against you when you want to become a long-term permanent resident. it is targeted at documented residents, not undocumented, and on having its

greatest impact on citizen children. when you look at all of the provisions in the proposal that has been leaked -- it has not --n proposed officially yet it really makes the argument that only the wealthy really can contribute to the united states. host: so under the current policy, it says any reports that -- that thosef that benefit from government-funded long-term care come over the changes? one is that there is a very narrow definition of who to become move ahead an american citizen, and this broadens it widely. for example, if a child gets health care with help from the medicaid program or the

children's health insurance program, that would count against you. right now about half of all american children get help because parents income, even if they are working a lot of hours, isn't enough for paid -- and to pay for health care. it extends it to anyone in the household, and that it has some other provisions. counts against ,ou, having a health condition being under 250% of poverty counts against you. that is really a very wide range of working families who we've been used to thinking about who i would say are at the core of what makes a good american being excluded. host: these are available at the organization's website, clasp.o rg. we will go next to ruslan in inginia -- to roslyn

virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you so much. i have a potentially strange problem. i've been in the united states since i was five years old, and , brought over here from canada by my grandparents. went to school here all my life. in 1998, they gave up my permanent residence here in the united states. had a green card. firsts news to me because finding out i was not a united states citizen, i was down in oklahoma taking care of my granddad, and to make a long story short, shortly after 1998 i went to oklahoma and got my first green card issued to me.

that was after this incident. i had the card 10 years. when i went to get it renewed because it was expiring, they said you gave it up at the border in 1998. host: i apologize. for the sake of time, what would you like our guest to specifically address? caller: what i qualify for asylum? i'm still here. i never went anywhere. is i need to know how i can change my status or to getcan do to be able this resolved and get my status back so i can finally become an american citizen after all these years. guest: wow. i am not a lawyer or qualified to give advice. specifics, if you don't have another immigration lawyer that you can talk to, i would

suggest the website of the national immigration law center as a place to look for referrals and ideas. first of all, thank you for telling your story. i'm sure it took courage. i want to draw out two points for others who are watching. one is how many decades of contribution to the country, to your community, to your family and you say that that is who we are talking about when we talk about immigrants in the united states. the second thing i want to draw out is how people's documentation status can change. that thereinly true have been situations where adoptions, which are supposed to lead to citizenship of the baby, didn't happen. i do want to also headline for people that we should be thinking about immigrant families and the children who

have been in the united states and made major contributions as all of our friends, neighbors, with stories that can be as obligated as yours. host: in georgia, bill. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank goodness for your center that you are the executive director of. my comment is that as been in the united states all of my life. duringwas 14 years old the civil rights movement, there was a large cry to send black people back to africa. we have a president that is in the white house who had russians in the white house without any american news people in the oval office. this idea about people saying that people shouldn't be allowed , in the their kids

middle of the night taking them to different locations around the country, it is just the same plan that could -- that putin probably has to disrupt not only the election, but take over the american people. you have people calling the city really hate someone -- that say they really hate someone that is a liberal. host: what question are you looking to ask? guest: i wanted to get all of their kids back with their parents and send them through an amulet -- through an amnesty program. guest: thank you very much, and thank you for him because the core humanity of the children and contributions of the families. i don't have very much to add except to say the reports i have been talking about, we felt as though we needed a lot of detailed information because not

everybody lives in a community where their child is going to school with another child whose parents are immigrants and who is fearful of the time, so we wanted to share those stories and that experience, and thank you for doing that as well. host: there are some democrats who would call for the abolish the office of immigration and customs enforcement. would you agree with that? are a lot of things right now that a really causing risks to immigrant families and their children. some of those are about enforcement away immigration and customs enforcement doesn't thatw its own rules describe sensitive locations and say you shouldn't take it parent away, deport them in front of a school, and so forth. there are a lot of things that are about policy is the policy i described that would threaten parents if they get health care for their children. there are issues of rhetoric.

i think the last caller talked about that. our perspective is that we really need to focus on the family's, that the issues are a lot broader than ice, and if you abolished ice that wouldn't solve everything. you have to keep your focus on the overture. host: william in north carolina will be the last caller on the topic come republican line. go ahead. caller: i want to point out that our president has offered 1.8 million and misty card for people who are here now. the point i want to make -- million amnesty cards for people who are here now. deploy want to make is that focused on how this rubbed his it is to the families. that's how disruptive it is to the families. not -- how disruptive it is to the families. not one has said how many times here in america we split families up.

social services take them up. but that is not what the media wants to harp on. the media was to harp on emotional tickets. the viewpoint right now the media is if you come across the border, the democrats want that, and they are actually seeking future voters with this policy. so yes, come to our country illegally, vote for democrats, and that is the way it works. unfortunately there's a million things i want to talk about on this immigration policy. this lady here, she keeps with the rhetoric. host: you've made your point. we will let our guest respond to it. guest: let me talk very briefly about the border and in turn to your comment about what happens whene united states families in the child welfare system are separated. i do know a lot about that personally, as well as through having written a book about child welfare. starting with reports on the border, i would note that entry is at a low point.

the volume is in some of the issue right now. it is the choice to separate families. there was a piece in i think "the new york times" this morning talking about the media very much focused on day-to-day life at the border and that in border communities, there is not an issue of fear of people who cross. there's an issue of believing it is wrong to separate children from families. those are some of the points people are concentrating on. try we do at c.l.a.s.p. is to really delve in deep, to do research and use the research of others, and so our reports are filled with interviews, footnotes, data. we make sure that what we do reflects accurately what is going on. your question about how should we think about children who are separated from their families in the united states is a very good

question. having run an agency that dealt with abuse and neglect, there is quite a lot of media coverage when families involved child why chrysostom -- with the child welfare system. i would share your view that it is not always deep or thoughtful coverage. for me, the headline is even though child welfare agencies around the country don't always live up to the standards, what the law says about removing a child from a home, even when there are allegations of abuse and neglect, is that there has to be a serious process that pays attention to the trauma a child experiences when they are separated, and a judge has to decide is in the best interest of a child, and in most circumstances the agency has to be working really hard to reunify that child.

that,'t always live up to but that is what the law says, that is the framework we should be a plan on the border. host: olivia golden, executive director of the center for law and social policy, also known as c.l.a.s.p. thank you for your time. sanng up this week francisco became the first city to institute a $15 minimum wage citywide. up next, george mason onversity's michael farren what he sees as a result of that effort. that's coming up next on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: this week coming you're watching c-span programs in primetime. at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight him a "racism in america." >> black fears of white people

are totally justified. white fears of black people are not. actor and friday, activist kirk cameron, attorney general jeff sessions, and republican senator cory gardner speaking at this year's western conservative summit in colorado. ag sessions: we in the department are hammering the criminals and violent groups, especially in a 13, one of the 13t violent -- especially ms , one of the most violent in the world, their motto is kill, rape and control. announcer: available on c-span, c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app. sunday at 4:00 p.m. astern on "reel america," film detailing the tumultuous of june 1968 through the camera lens of the white house naval photographic unit covering

the activities of president lyndon b. johnson. >> at three: 30 a.m., the president was awakened with the news that senator robert hannity, and the midst of victory in the california presidential primary, had been shot and critically wounded by an assassin. the day of the senator's death, president johnson sent letters to the speakers of the senate and house to implore congress to enact meaningful gun control laws. much of the president's attention was centered on the and aneace talks apparent impasse at those meetings. from vietnam, the reports were far from optimistic. instead of a slowdown in hostilities as a result of peace negotiations, the communists had launched a massive new wave of assaults throughout the south to erode resolve and grasp heightened leverage in the diplomatic struggle.

at a news conference on june 26, the president announced that supreme court chief justice earl warren was retiring. in making his third and fourth appointment to the high court out of the president's new that his choices would affect the destiny of the nation long after he himself had left office. america": watch "reel this weekend on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. farren joins us onm george mason university studies of american capitalism. this week san francisco became the first city to institute a $15 in wage. guest: san francisco already has a major problem facing low-wage workers in that it is already an amazingly expensive place to live, one of the most expensive

in the u.s. the additional cost of $15 an hour minimum wage and the effect that is going to have on prices isn't going to help low-wage workers in that city very much. host: is it just low-wage workers that are going to be directly affected by this? guest: everyone is going to be affected by rising prices this is going to cause, but low-wage workers are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of the shock because, essentially, a higher restaurant bill impacts the income of a low-wage worker more because they earn less money. or fast a restaurant food services, the kind of businesses? or is this a larger issue of other businesses affect? guest: 60% to 70% of people who make underneath the federal minimum or at the federal and wage our restaurant industry workers. ,here are others such as retail but the majority of people affected by the minimum wage are in the restaurant industry. host: when it comes to the

minimum wage case overall, what is the typical arguments that are posed? guest: typical argument made is , someoneone can't live can't raise a family, on the wage.t minimum i would completely agree with that. but the difference is that no one would ever expect that the minimum wage would be the same thing as a living wage. the argument is that we should make the absolute minimum wage a living wage. iat is a moral argument and am very sympathetic to it, but i think there are better policy tools to help low income people. the earned income tax credit already addresses whether or not a worker has dependents, and he essentially tailors itself according to family size. you can also argue for other types of policies aren't in effect yet like a negative income tax, which is essentially what the earned income tax credit is.

it is just a lump sum version. host: we will talk about more of these efforts on the minimum wage. if you want to ask our guest questions about it, if you make (202)m wage it is 748-8000, all others (202) 748-8001. you can post your thoughts on facebook.com/c-spanwj. but listen to this argument and get your thoughts on it. >> louisiana has the highest wage inequity in the country. everyone in this room and listening wherever you are should be offended that a woman makes only $.66 for every dollar a man makes. she doesn't get charged less when she goes to bright groceries for her family best to buy groceries for her family, and she should -- buy groceries for her family, and she

shouldn't get paid less. [applause] this should be easy. 91% of the people of louisiana support the louisiana equal pay act. and why? because it is the right thing to do. it is just that simple. same goes for raising the minimum wage. raise their minimum wage at the beginning of 2018, and yet louisiana remains one of only five states not to have adopted a statement on wage at all -- state minimum wage at all. $7.25 in 2018 is not a fair wage. so let's raise the minimum wage. [applause] wage toise the minimum $8.50 per hour over two years. host: a lot of arguments posed

there by the governor. bring goes down for us. guest: again, he's making the argument that someone can't live on the minimum wage and you can't raise a family on minimum-wage. that is definitely true, but the problem is i think we are constantly going through a one-size-fits-all policy, which is what the minimum wages, but it is not just a one-size-fits-all policy we are adopting. it is a one policy is the only way to solve this problem. i think everyone, conservatives and liberals, everyone across the political spectrum, would agree that they want a prosperous nation that helps people live good lives. but the fact of the matter is there are other ways to do it any minimum wage. the cost of the minimum wage are not worth the benefits it gives to poor people. we should do a better job serving poor people through key policies. host: the governor said it is the right thing to do. guest: absolutely.

the idea of addressing poverty is the right thing to do. the question is, how do we address poverty? our argument would be that, from my studies of the minimum wage, we need to do a better job addressing it. for many years the minimum wage has not solved poverty, and there are many justifications for why it is not capable of solving property -- solving poverty. host: what in your mind is the purpose of the minimum wage? guest: the purpose in modern terms is fairly different than what it existed in old terms, but modern terms is essentially we think that it is improper, immoral for someone to earn less than a given amount at a job. the problem is there is a wide variety of workers, so we might say it is not right for a family , a bread earner to earn less

than $15 an hour, but at the same time the idea of a teenager, especially say a suburban teenager from a relative you that's a relatively affluent family, the idea -- a relatively affluent family, the idea of them earning a $15 an hour wage, maybe they don't need to have the same minimum wage. we need to have policies that serve poor people rather than a one-size-fits-all that we constantly spend time arguing about. we should spend more time figuring out a situation together than arguing about the same thing. host: other states and cities have raised the minimum wage. have we learned anything from them with data that tells us what happens to those states and cities that already have done that? guest: there's a pretty good study done by the university of washington last year that looked at seattle's increase of its minimum wage and found that

although employment itself didn't necessarily decline come a actually declined was the number of hours that minimum-wage workers were scheduled. a 9% drop in hours on average resulted in workers, on average, taking home $125 less a week. that is completely in line with economic reasoning for what is going to happen as a result of minimum wage. even worse, as the enamel wage -- as the minimum wage increases, the types of jobs that are available for poor people now that are a first rung up to get to better jobs later on are going to be increasingly scarce as companies turn to automation to solve the higher cost of labor they are facing. host: our guest will be with us until mental and 30. if you have questions for him -- until 9:30. if you have question for him, the phone lines are open. go ahead. caller: hello.

how are you? is i am very interested in the studies he is presenting. ,owever, living on minimum wage it is not logical to assume, it's not logical to assume that a person living on minimum wage would in fact be better off making less money. even implementing new policies through the government which are weeady very restrictive all are really doing is increasing social programs and i have never seen that address in economic studies. social programs versus minimum wage. host: ok. guest: are actually have been studies on social programs versus minimum wage. with the godfathers of the minimum wage research has done research looking at the effect of the earned income tax credit versus minimum wage. finding that the earned income tax credit generally does a better job raising people out of

poverty as opposed to raising the minimum wage. i agree it's very difficult for a low income person making the minimum wage to actually make ends meet. the point is we should be supporting those people with programs perhaps to increase training or skills or other things that make them more productive in the workplace that allow them to earn higher wage or to subsidize their wages in an appropriate way through these sort of social programs that constantly fighting over the same thing for the last 80 plus years is not the same -- right way to help poor people. oft: a newspaper calculate the minimum wage worker in san francisco would need to work at 171 hours in a week to afford a fair market rental. there's only 168 hours in a week. that's a lot of hours. there was a study that came out recently. you have to actually dig beneath the headline in the basic

results of the study into the methodology of the study to understand what it really means. is afair market rent means term of the art for economists. 40% of theal that is rental spectrum within the area. there are 40% of apartments are apartment thate is quoted in the article and furthermore that study was looking at two bedroom apartments. ofin, it's this confusion concepts and we should disambiguate it. the minimum wage should not be considered a living wage. the argument is we need to make sure that people are making a living wage. we need to have policy that specifically addresses that rather than a one-size-fits-all one policy is the only way to go. host: detroit michigan on the line for others. hello. pedro andod morning

michael farren. i have a question. let me ask you this. there are lots of moving parts to this discussion. i want to take it from a point of view -- we talked about economies of scale. let's talk about economies of scope. we know that corporate america, we know that shareholder value is at the center. aside from shareholder value let's talk about economies of scale. that all of these companies have scale.d economies of understanding the dynamics and the economic phenomena behind economies of scale, they could easily -- the discussion should pricehow do we reduce the and the cost -- we can't impact the cost. that the cost of goods could be far cheaper.

this linear -- what do i want to say. host: i think we get your point. thank you. guest: i raised this point in -a blog post the other day. the best way to help low income people is actually to enact policies that reduce the cost of thatg rather than policies are essentially aiming at increasing their income. that's one way to do it. the other way to do it is to address cost of living housing policies that are overly .estrictive washington, d.c. is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. but there is extremely restricting house of -- housing policies regarding how much housing can be built in an area. by doing that the owners of that property that are trying to keep out high-rise apartments and increasing densification that would lower the cost of housing

are implicitly hurting poor people in the process. host: a viewer says perhaps minimum wage could be indexed to cost of living for specific localities. guest: if i could do one thing with the minimum wage that would probably be the best thing to do. i agree. host: from shaker heights, ohio. a business owner. this is todd. caller: the cost of doing business when the government mandates a minimum wage to employees -- do you have any opinion on how to address that when a business owner is required to pay a minimum wage to an employee and or a business manager who works for the owner has a budget and have to pay a minimum-wage to an employee how that affects their ability to make a profit including taking into consideration insurance cost which is going to be transferred over to somebody if

profits are compromised in a negative way. host: tell us about your business. how many minimum-wage workers do you employ? caller: i pay better than minimum wage. i'm not in this dilemma. i would like you to address it just in general. you have to take into consideration that people have franchises that have not been paid off and then there's people that don't have franchises that are competing against them. they have fluctuating profits. mandatory minimum wage does increase the absolute cost in business. and i'm not against the minimum wage. just give me what your thoughts are on that. i know you have to consider it. guest: that is probably the best way we should be thinking about this. the minimum-wage increases don't come about as a result of nothing. they increased cost of business

and business has to accommodate that somehow either by lower-cost in otherlower-cost iy for example encouraging their employees to work harder. that's one of the major channels of adjustment that research has shown. but employers lower the cost or incorporate the higher cost minimum-wage or by lowering profits. in general especially in the restaurant industry profits are already at a razor thin margin. about 4% is profit versus 9% for other industries. restaurants can generally increase their prices and people are relatively unresponsive to increase restaurant prices especially in fast food. small mom-and-pop businesses that are competing against walmart or home depot and things like that have a much harder time raising their costs so essentially we should be focusing on a particular employees -- employers who are

unable to increase prices or find other economies of scale that incorporate the effect of the minimum wage. host: there's another story about the restaurant perspective saying this is a catch 22. people need to live and businesses need to survive. you can only charge so much for a burger before people are willing to go for a better value. you can only charge so much for a burger. that's absolutely true. you can probably charge more for a burger then you can for a hammer or another kind of service. the real people that are hurt by this are essentially the small mom-and-pop type businesses that are already struggling to with the giants that already have the economies of scale and scope that have the more advanced processes to lower their own cost. this burden of the minimum wage is borne disproportionately by

entrepreneurs and by the people that they employ. host: what happens to people who get up to $15 -- people who are already making that rate anyway? guest: there is a knock on effect. saw that your coworker was all of a sudden making the same amount as you are you had been making more than your coworker previously and you knew that you are doing a better job and nothing had changed in terms of your productivity or their productivity you immediately would say this isn't fair. humans have a fairness kind of gene built into them. psychological research has shown that part of the thing that is driving this moral imperative that people have for the minimum wage for a living wage. it also results in the fact that when you raise the minimum wage to 10% or 20% of people making more than the minimum wage also see their wages rise as a result

here in which again links -- as a result. which again leads to passing the cost along to the customers. host: in california, hello. caller: our students are actually debating the minimum wage right now. i was wondering if you could give comment on -- i know erin duby has contested the seattle research -- the outcomes are theng them -- raising minimum wage. could you address whether that's even at -- a typical example like seattle, how does it compare to the rest of the country and how other regions would compare. question.t's a great they don't find an employment impact. what the university of washington research found is that better than employment or how much labor is cost of used in the

doing business or producing things for customers. finding that it's a 9% drop meaning it's about $125 less per the average employee. your point is i think the most accurate that a lot of minimum-wage advocates and detractors mess. the effect of the minimum wage is probably unique to time and place. there are some places where the minimum-wage has a very large impact on employment and there are other places where it has less of an impact. san francisco and seattle and washington, d.c. already have a high cost of living so wages are likely above the level of the minimum wage. you'd have to raise the minimum wage substantially higher in those places in order to have an effect. that is not true for places like fresno. fresno is not likely to have the

same kind of market wage that san francisco has and so a $15 minimum wage is going to have a much stronger impact in fresno. --h higher disappointment impact. in the hill last week there was an op-ed illustrating that in puerto rico over three different wageions when the minimum was raised a soft major impacts of the minimum-wage were employment dropped by up to 10%. overall employment. motivatedat partly the migration of people out of puerto rico in the 1950's. american samoa and the northern mariana islands also some major impacts of the minimum-wage. american samoa lost about 11% of overall employment because one of two tuna canneries closed on the island. -- northern mariana armie

islands, the garment industry completely exited the island and overall employment dropped by 45%. we know that the minimum-wage does have an impact in certain situations. what research should be doing now is identifying when does it have an impact and when not. is there any reason we should not just let the market set wages? guest: i would argue that is definitely what we should do. just a faith-based approach to the market. it is a mathematical-based approach that if we allow the supply and demand for goods and services to equilibrium or attempt to find equilibrium because it's always chasing equilibrium as we gain new knowledge about the state of reality and the economy and we're going to reduce cost and we are going to increase efficiency. way thate major results in economic growth going forward which is reducing more

for less cost. societye unhappy as a with the living wage or the wage that people get as a result that it's not a living wage then we can start to say what can we do as a community to address that rather than try to twist the market to do what we want which only reduces long-term economic growth. host: another tweet, what you think of business profits sharing with employees where ceos earn 300 times that of workers who make less than the living wage? that is not my major area of research. if seniors are making 300 times more maybe they are contributed 300 times more value than the ordinary minimum-wage worker. if you get something wrong as a ceo it has major major impact. not only for the investors and the bottom line but for the people working for the company.

so the value of having the right decision might be worth it. host: from south carolina, carol. go ahead. definitely believe the minimum wage has to go way up. when i started waitressing back $1.05 anschool i got hour plus tips. has not met the cost-of-living increase overall these years. whove a disabled husband has hospice and nurses that come in. i know they are not getting paid what i get billed. so-called right to work state which i think is right to work for less. the nurses were changing diapers and giving tender love and care to patients should get more money. i also want to say at the same time that you can't -- give different minimum-wage to different people.

if there's a poverty area that they get a certain amount, the affluent family doesn't get the minimum-wage. put twoer-in-law has to boys through college in california where the cost of living is high and those boys an hour and then they can put it away in a savings account or investments. host: thanks, caller. guest: that's an extremely difficult situation. i'm very sorry to hear that you are going through all of that. i hope that things get better for you. is that when we have a $15 an hour minimum wage what we don't see as the people that don't get jobs as a result of that. especially in the case for younger workers you might see that essentially affluent teens, whenever the minimum-wage goes

up, affluent teens enter the workforce more. teenst point lower income are than competing with the more .ffluent teens the lower income teens don't get experience that creates the soft skills that makes you more employable later on. you can end up having much worse effects down the road. effect of the minimum wage is not in the here and now. tripactually down the road there's been good research that has shown that over the course of a person's life and their career that if you entered the workforce at the point that the minimum-wage had just been increased that you are in general less likely to earn more down the road and more likely to be unemployed. essentially asking for a minimum-wage to apply to everyone is exactly the problem

that causes most of the problems of the minimum wage. host: let's hear from a business owner from georgia. hello. caller: hi. i've got up -- a couple of problems with our economy. the minimum wage plus any kind of social program plus earned income credit is sort of a subsidy for businesses. workers lessmy than it costs them to work for me and then the government picks up that part that i didn't pay them. a dollars ans them hour to work for me to buy clothes to have transportation -- whatever they need to actually do 40 hours for me. if i don't pay themif i don't pn the government picks it up through earned income tax credits or whatever.

if my business was suffering and i'm in horrible shape maybe that's a good thing. walmartsomebody like and other companies who have ,ecord profits year after year why should the government be subsidizing their ability to make record profits? host: we believe it there. guest: i'm actually glad you asked that. this is a problem a lot of people have in terms of understanding and analyzing the minimum wage. the minimum-wage itself is not a subsidy. essentially people are not being subsidized by the government. the earned income tax credit most certainly is a subsidy that essentially the employers get to capture a piece of that because workers are willing to work for less than they would otherwise because they know by working

that they will actually get the earned income tax credit. to the extent that government programs help out workers who are not making very much money those workers if they suddenly quit their jobs or were fired those programs would still exist and might become even more generous taste on the fact that that worker had less income. if it was a subsidy than you would expect it to go away once the person lost their job. because it doesn't. it's obviously not a subsidy. credit is income tax a wage subsidy. that is a question that we as a society need to address. is it worthwhile to subsidize low-wage workers knowing that essentially employers are going to get to capture a little bit of that. i would argue the more important thing is to help people get theoyed to not inhibit

growth of employment over time by having a higher minimum wage results in more incentive to automate and cut people out of your process. because employment is so much better for people in terms of higher income but also building the kind of skills that lead to higher income jobs over time. research been good that illustrates that someone who is making the minimum-wage today is very unlikely to be making the minimum-wage later on. it's an introductory wage. it fades away as they increase wage later on. host: this is john from new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. with the trump tax cuts which is supposed to boost pretty much all companies restaurants included. my family owns a restaurant. we pay our employees higher than the minimum wage.

$10 an hour. we get a better quality employee first of all. second of all we have seen our profits rise because of the better quality employee. plus with the tax cuts that we received my family actually can compensate that for the wages. when you mentioned business you mentioned automation. automation non matter what. minimum wages are not. with the tax cut the whole basis of that based on what trump has said is to increase wages for the lower income. guest: i think that also is a great point. regarding automation it is coming without a doubt. raising the cost of labor simply accelerates the day that automation gets here and essentially forces lower skilled people into that future before they have had time to adjust for

it. regarding the idea of paying in order to essentially incentivize the best workers to stay that is actually exactly what has been happening in some major employers over the last few years. walmart and target are essentially involved in a wage war to try to get the best retail employees and they keep raising their starting wage and the wages along their spectrum year-by-year and costco just the other day stated they will be raising their wage and they specifically addressed that it was because of the tax credit. take that with a grain of salt. they said that because their effective tax percentage went from 35 to 28 that they were putting bad about what hundred $10 million into higher wages for their employees.

host: what does technology look like for this future? guest: mcdonald's already announced earlier this year it is moving to a different kind of process where people engage their restaurants and get their food where it's going to be mostly automated. they will have ipads i your table to order from and you will have someone actually bring your food to you so it's actually moving toward a more automated service. you don't have to stand there at the counter waiting for your food because they have determined that people don't like standing there waiting for their food. mixedoing to be more of a between quick service and full service. walmart is also experimenting with automating the checkout procedure even more so they might not have to have cash is -- cashiers at all. -- people are going

to need to have that increased savvy with technology if they are going to be working in those jobs to be able to integrate with the new technology that's being used. good morning. thank you for c-span. when -- asked for $750 billion to save the economy. that was spread out. there were giving it to the rich and businessmen were supposed to put it back in. all kinds of ways to help them out. seems to me if you were given the low income worker eight dollars an hour is purple working hours -- -- these people work in average of 60 hours a week and they don't get a vacation. that's 52 weeks and year. 3120 hours that

they work for year. -- per year. you got 30 million people, 35 million people who are in the minimum wage. give them eight dollars an hour and you -- that is $870 billion into the economy. what would $870 billion in the economy do? it would stimulate because it would create demands because they've got money to spend. that's an interesting debate over how do you stimulate the economy. to address the numbers there's only about 2 million people that are in the minimum wage.

about 60% to 70% of them as of the last tally are in the restaurant industry. they're making less than the federal minimum wage. that indicates they are probably servers who are making the tip to minimum and then making tips on top of that that take them in theory over the minimum-wage and if they don't go over the minimum-wage the employer is supposed to by law increase their wage so they are making the minimum wage. host: the district of columbia just passed something along those lines. guest: absolutely. the next probably big area in the minimum-wage other than the fight for 15 is probably the fight for increasing the tipped minimum-wage and or eliminating paid atat everybody is the minimum wage. the tipped minimum-wage is generally around -- in deep-sea it is rising to five dollars by 2020. it is generally much less than the full minimum wage with the idea that someone who is earning

tips as part of the compensation. the advocates want that to sort of tollway and the waitresses and servers to make the normal minimum. that would end up having major weather restaurant industry works. you would probably see a lot of full-service restaurants shift more toward the model mcdonald's is moving to where you have counter service but you don't necessarily have cable service. a lot of people that are currently earning tips that are able to earn a lot more on tips are against this. it's a very interesting area that we are going into. given that the research shows the more you increase the minimum-wage the higher impact it is going to have on employment and employment growth the fact that you might be raising the minimum wage by several hundred percent for waitstaff indicates that you are

going to be seeing much less waitstaff jobs in the future. host: let's hear from john in mechanicsburg pennsylvania. you are on. go ahead. the guest keeps citing the seattle study. since this is his area of expertise i'm certain he is aware there have an multiple answers to the study. the gentleman who was the chief saidrcher has actually that his research was flawed. that the studies he has seen, the rebuttals underscore what whenrs to be the fact that you increase the minimum wage and he has looked at studies over 137 cities. that every social -- it improves -- steam out on social services

goes down through the poverty level drops. the uninsured level drops. studyd the flaws in the are in excludes 40% of the weight force. it has a sample size of one. n=1. happened isally that because the minimum-wage increase occurred very rapidly and the study overrepresented people working in large big-box retail stores. there was already an allocation of payroll. there was a lag time between the increasing wages and the increase in economic growth. obviously payroll had to be -- how to conform to what was already laid out. host: we will let our guest respond. i think you might be

confusing the authors. i don't believe david alter was the author of the seattle study that you are discussing. or if he was he authored a different seattle study than on that i have been quoting. regardless the argument against the university of washington study was that it focused on like you said just one particular jurisdiction in essentiallythat iny look at retail employees a limited slot. that is worthwhile. most minimum-wage studies and outlook at either teenagers who are essentially a proxy for low skill workers because they are at the beginning of their career or at restaurant workers because they are the ones who generally make the minimum wage. the largest proportion. however the largest proportion. however problem with looking at whichrant workers alone is what the ucla study -- berkeley study that came out

around the same time is that restaurants are the best candidates for raising their to compensate for the minimum wage. where is retail has much less ability to do that especially ande retail computer in-store retail computer with amazon and online stores as well. the fact of the matter is you can look at multiple different sections of the workforce and pieces of the country in terms of the minimum-wage and find different effects. the overall effect is what we should be looking at while understanding the specific effect. it is one of the situations of shouldn't miss the forest for the trees. you shouldn't also overly concentrate on the trees and this forest at the same time. host: a minimum-wage worker from north carolina. hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i think basically what's going on is that you all are

confusing the cart before the horse. ok? minimum-wage -- you have to keep going and stop listening to your television, please. caller: the minimum wage is not the problem. the problem is that well over four years ago we made a big mistake. we got rid of mandatory retirement. as a result you have the labor market flooded with a lot of people who are incompetent. it's not justify that they are receiving minimum wage. there's a social issue involved that nobody wants to address. i think we are skirting the issue but it's going to come up. we are going to combine the department of labor with the department of education. exactly sure what the caller was referring to so i'm not sure how to reply. host: if it's the fight for 15 now do you see that threshold

going higher in future years? absolutely. the next thing is going to be the fight for 25 by 2025. that's the next catchy slogan. it was 15 by 2015. fightingem is we keep over the same thing over and over and over rather than actually doing something that is going to help low income for people and greeting policy that we all can agree on the results in helping those people achieve a standard of living that we think is good. we have been fighting about the minimum wage for over 80 years and it's time for us to actually work together to actually serve poor people because they aren't served when talking heads on tv simply fight about this over and over. host: michael farren with george mason university. thanks for your time today. for the remainder of our program we will go to open phones.

(202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents. we'll be right back. >> this weekend c-span cities tour takes you to lubbock texas with the help of our cable partners as we exploit the literary scene and history. saturday at noon eastern on book tv. author sean cunningham with his book american politics in the postwar sunbelt. conservative growth in a battleground region. of dollars of federal resources are being poured into the south and the newhwest to create this development defense oriented society that is both fighting

communism abroad and pursuing free-market dreams at home. of mail youhis kind in the american southwest that reinforces a lot of these ideas of just american ingenuity and hard work and a commitment to fighting. on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. we visited the buddy holly center. the city is very proud of the fact that he was born and raised here and that the center is here to keep his story alive, to keep his musical life. >> then a visit to the vietnam center. the center is home to the largest collection of the anomalous material outside of the national archives. >> we've got a lot of the different types of equipment

that veterans would carry. the things they carried if you will. the first aid kits, the rations, the radios. the helmet that veterans would wear. the steel pot that would protect them from shrapnel. c-span cities tour of lubbock, texas. sunday at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> washington journal continues. this open phones you can call us on the phone lines. you can post on twitter and our facebook feed to let you know about events coming up today. at 6:00 tonight you can see on c-span a rally by president trump in great falls montana. tilt is a midterm elections rally. you can see that for yourself as part of our campaign 2018

coverage. from new york, timothy is up first this morning on open phones. go ahead. caller: yes. i want to say that inflation and the cost of living is -- host: go ahead. caller: is much higher than minimum-wage and stuff like that. it's going up. minimum-wage goes up. the inflation goes up. are you saying that minimum-wage should be tied to inflation? caller: yes i do. because you can embrace

minimum-wage but the inflation not measuring out with the minimum wage at all. allen in washington, d.c., independent line. employers do everything they can regardless of what minimum wage is to keep their employment pool as low as possible. so it is pretty tragic that we are even having a discussion about the minimum-wage because the employers are treating their employees so horribly. i don't know what the minimum wage would be if you paid it to inflation since the 50's. i suspect it would be well over five dollars an hour. the fact that the guys like your previous guest have been able to mute this conversation for so many years, the fight for 15

should be over. it should between dollars or $25 and we should have a congress with the balls to actually get something pushed through. rubber in long island city, new york. republican line. caller: good morning sir. how are you? basically a lot of people seem to ignore this. the ones that make money without having fundamental education from basic education. i work for the government and i don't even make more than 24 hours in our and i went to two colleges and i'm working on my mba. what's wrong with this picture? that's the most important thing. people expect to make bundles of money without having nothing to produce to the employer. that's basically what it is. if you go to the pages of the wall street journal and the new york times this morning, stories about the role that private industry is playing when it comes to the situation at the border.

more detentions boost private prisons. course civiced incorporated have already been helped by higher federal spending. the trump administration is seeking 2.8 le and for the budget to increase the beds from to 500 adult and 2500 family bets. that's about 4000 now according to the spokeswoman. that's the wall street journal's take on it. if you go to the new york times more about these groups saying the private prison companies are run family centers among the politically connected contractors. each donated 250,000 mr. trump's .naugural fund it allocates many of its biggest donations to republicans. those include 170,000 to a joint fundraising committee set up by the republican party and the trump campaign manager 50,000 to

a super pac supporting the president and more recently donations to the republican party organizations focusing on the house and the senate. the geo group also adding that they hired a lobbyist who lobbies for mr. trump's golf courses in florida before he became president. a recent disclosure form shows that on behalf of the geo group is for morse registered to lobby about immigration regulation. again though stories in the new , you can find them online. rick, beaverton oregon. democrat line. problem ie primary see with this is there is a lack of transparency. these are things that i think deserve to be brought forward into the public in some way. it's good that the wall street journal and also the new york times have brought these stories out. know about it than

we can't fully investigate to see if there is wrongdoing. either ethically or is there a criminal element to these kinds of things. it certainly feels like there is. they are donating $4 million to his inaugural campaign with the expectation of some type of quid pro quo. it does smack of something that should be investigated to determine whether or not it breaks some kind of law or some type of tenet. host: marshall is in illinois. independent line. caller: i'm an employer. i think this minimum-wage debate has been skewed. i support the minimum-wage increase in the reason why, we have to think about this. the market was supposed to what thegauge minimum-wage page was. but what happened was people decided to lobby to prevent the wage from going up and companies decided if we can get money from the government and suppress

wages that would work. but the problem right now is anybody that's for smaller government should be for increases in the minimum-wage because it reduces the burden on government. minimum wages being low reduces morel which reduces productivity and it doesn't increase demand. if the wages were higher that would increase demand. the reason companies are afraid of minimum wages sometimes is we have to make it talents. if you put words on certain companies and not the other companies you get what we have now are the mega companies can take advantage of both sides and the smaller companies are put in a position where they can benefit from it. host: let me ask you, what's your business? caller: i work for a company called dollar frenetic.

we sell discount products. the dollar industry is very strong. we want higher demand. issue how didn all of a sudden 40 years ago everybody went up. you had the professor on. his salary went up. every single segment of the market went up. productivity. everything went up except for the worker. you can't have that. host: are using for the business that you are in if you raise the wages somehow your business is going to be affected negatively like the professor talked about? less people working? those kinds of things won't happen? caller: pedro. if everyone raises the wages remember that increases demand. host: i understand that. in your isolated business there wouldn't be changes because of an increased wage? caller: in my -- once again -- pedro -- you can't -- this is business. you can't take this away.

we actually pay higher because morale.morel -- that decreases productivity tremendously. just getting your point. i just wanted to expand on that because you made your point. in minneapolis, minnesota. democrat line. caller: what i wanted to speak to is just to your point. i just wanted to expand on that because you made your point. minorities and white americans. when we are talking about merit-based immigration we have to think that at one time a lot of times back then a lot of people couldn't get into this country with their grandparents jobs and everything. bothered when i hear minorities screaming about trying to keep people out. we have something like 20 million jobs that aren't filled. we need those people. like they were saying earlier

you have baby boomers that are retiring. we need people to come in. we can't just want people from europe coming in. if you're going to base it on terrorism and all of that type of stuff, europe is having more problems with terrorism than anyplace else outside the middle east. -- trying to so forget about everybody else. with derek cho at is the executive vice president of the german marshall fund. also served as the former secretary of defense during the obama administration. an op-ed piece in the washington post this morning takes look at the future of nato. the victory trump isn't claiming. and natod states partners have continued to bolster collective capabilities allied against the russian threat, increasing defense resources in developing new initiatives. there's a lot to commend.

the allies will formalize the agreement at the summit took a big step toward expanding and strengthening their reinforcement capabilities. the alliance will also augment its ability to make decisions in critical areas by establishing two new military command. states and journey focusing on maritime security in the atlantic and mobility in europe so forces can get to the fight with fewer logistical hurdles. nato will elevate for threats in planning and operation. there's also good news on defense spending. almost every ally is doing more. more of his thoughts this morning in the washington post if you want to read that for yourself. william is next in florida. republican line. caller: yes. i had a restaurant. i employ 60 people. the thing they don't mention is if you get a $15 an hour minimum

wage you have to add 20% for your other taxes. withholding, unemployment, workmen's compensation. and if you have a health benefit that costs extra. i had 60 employees. 59 were partners. i set of cameras. -- set up cameras. in one week they were all broken. overpaid. everybody is underpaid. shrimp, itake a doesn't cost you that item. it cost you double because now you have to find other raw materials. elizabeth in washington state. independent line. one thing i haven't heard addressed and when the professor was on and he was speaking of how much it costs to run an apartment in this and

that. a 16-year-old and then you had that lady on that had her husband that was in hospice and everything else. minimum-wageold's what i understand is why would a 16-year-old minimum-wage be the same as somebody like a mother of three children over, you know. i just don't know why that is not addressed because a 16-year-old's minimum-wage is going to be the same as cost for living going to be the same as an adult. host: ok. glenn from susanville, california. democrat line. caller: thank you for c-span. the problem with businesses are large businessmen are taught in business school that ethics and morality are not welcome in the business community. it is taught out of them so they don't have any feelings or they don't care about the employees

that serve their business. wish everybody a happy birthday. this is the greatest nation on matter if donald trump is in the office or not. have a good day. highlightsork times of those supporters of donald trump known as angel families. next to the platform now afforded by president trump a group that he called those angel families, those are relatives of people killed by undocumented immigrants and have grown into a political force helping him justify the most popular -- unpopular aspects of his immigration crackdown and championing other candidates. the rotating group of families who have appeared at times with the president totaling more than provide ae dozen powerful rejoinder to criticism of mr. trump hard-line approach to immigration as heartless in some ways embodying his gift for creating narratives that resonate more with his base and concrete policy proposals or statistics undermining his

argument that unauthorized immigration leads to increases in crime. says that these families tout his signing of an executive order five days into the presidency with some family members by his side. that led to the creation of into office within the federal immigrations and customs enforcement agency called the victims of immigration crime engagement which for the families had advocated the voice office which is an annual budget of nearly $4 million and employs 24 community relations officers to assist victims of immigration related crimes arranged and paid for the families travel less month to washington. thesen find more about angel families. that's the website version of it. in new jersey, democrat line. i does want to discuss the minimum-wage issue. i think that we need to tax the 1% a lot more. andhat we can go ahead

raise the minimum wage. host: how do you think one will affect the other? caller: if we tax them more we will have more money to distribute to the people who work so hard and that minimum-wage obviously we can't old.afford -- i'm 40 years i have had to reduce myself to minimum-wage job. to putarely afford clothes on my back. jeffrey is in st. petersburg, florida. republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would just like to comment that when we have professors and the other speakers i would like to thank them. it seems like they are insulated from the real world when it comes to things like minimum-wage and how that sets the bar in the culture on how the traits are perceived.

a lot of kids today don't even want to work at a mcdonald's or take minimum-wage because our culture has gotten to the point where they don't respect the working class whether they are doing well or at a minimum wage level. should take ay look at what's happening around them. if people pay a lot more attention to what's happening in their communities they will get a much better understanding of how these things affect our quality of life. laura in a tweet this morning that fox news is reporting. when it comes to the next pick by the president to sit on the supreme court to replace anthony kennedy that announcement set to be made at 8:00 on monday night. there's a story about the people who are lobbying for the various picks and who they're lobbying particularly susan collins of maine. one of the groups mentioned is the judicial crisis network.

advertisingmoting campaign on democratic senators that the president won in 2016 are facing reelection in the fall. care and support the president's choices. they will be the focus of our newsmakers program. we will have the head of that network on our newsmakers programs. you can see that sunday right after the washington journal. mickey in new jersey. independent line. hello. i would like to address a misstatement on yesterday's show by the host. he asked the question about what rights are granted within the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. our rights are not granted. our rights are declared. they have been fought for and defended. and the rights and declaration of independence and the bill of

rights, they are not granted. they are declared. and when the american people lose the courage to defend those rights that's when you lose those rights. larry in florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: yeah. i was listening to the one talking about the minimum-wage and what it should be in everything. when i started working in 1960 the minimum wage was one dollar an hour. and the cpi inflation calculator today by using that same token it would be eight dollars and $.59 an hour now. so i do know where they are getting this my five dollars an hour now. everybody would like to get -- compared to what has always been t. host: sam in washington, d.c.,

go ahead. good morning. there's nothing i want to say about immigration for the people .n cages donald trump is throwing away all the values that we care and he must step down immediately print i don't know. just people have to put pressure on him to step down. he's testing the limits of our democracy. i think no president should ever be so. also i noticed somebody else in the morning as you drink your tea right now u.s. bombs have been dropped on poori think no r be so. also i people of yemen which i really i demanded many times on c-span to have a program on this particular issue which is a huge concern to people like me to thousands of others. thank you. host: in tampa, florida. democrat line. go ahead. caller: i'm just calling about

the man who said he was making a dollar in 1960. the cost of living would bring your salary up to to what you it to spend in life and made feasible for you to live but they don't have that now. cap, florida. last call on open phones. the president holding a rally tonight. you can see that on c-span.org. perhaps he will ease on that future supreme court nomination. watch it at 6:00 tonight on this network. another edition of this program comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we thank you for watching today. we will see you then.

c-span, lloyd blankfein find, the chair and ceo of goldman sachs, talks about the u.s. economy, tariffs and wall street. that's followed by a forum on the spread of full information on social media. later we take you to the western conservative summit in denver. president trump holds a campaign rally today in great falls, montana. he is there to support republican candidates in the november six midterm elections. state auditor republican matt rosen dale and several third-party candidates are facing democratic senator jon tester who is running for a third term. republican greg g and forte is seeking reelection after winning a special election to fill the house seat vacated by ryan zinke

. watch that rally live on c-span. this week you're watching c-span programs in prime time. at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight. racism in america. >> black fears of white people are totally justified. white fears of black people are not. friday, actor and activist kirk cameron. attorney general jeff sessions. and republican senator cory summit in colorado. we in the department are hammering the criminals and violent groups, especially ms 13, that vicious gang. it is one of the most violent and inhumane groups in the world. their motto -- get this -- kill, rape, and control. primetime,kend on c-span.org, and the free c-span

radio app. with we will be talking jonathan cheng of the wall street journal. he serves as their seoul bureau chief, here to talk about this meeting between secretary of state mike pompeo and kim jong-un. mr. cheng, good morning. guest: hi there. host: could you let us know exactly what the state of north korea is when it comes to their willingness to dismantle, especially with reports about the continuation of their program? guest: well, i think those questions are ones that people who watched north korea closely, the expectation here has been there is very little desire on their part to part with their nuclear weapons. they have spent decades working on them. some reports now suggest all the way back to the 1960's. that is a long time and a lot of money to invest for a country that does not have a whole lot of it. and so for them to get to this point and then want to give them up is, just you know, in the face of it, it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. now, is is possible that a combination of the right