pot or civil war. conversation on facebook or twitter. "washington journal" is next. 25,: it is sunday, november 2018. welcome to washington journal. congress returns this week with plenty to do in a lame-duck session. the president returns to mar-a-lago. thisthe midterms over, first hour, we thought we would focus on 2020, looking ahead to the 2020 presidential race. asking you in particular, what democrat would you like to see run? here is how to join the conversation, if you are a

democrat (202) 748-8000. republicans, we would like to hear who is the toughest candidate donald trump would likely face, (202) 748-8001. .or independents (202) 748-8002 .end us a tweet we will read some of those. your comments welcome on facebook as well. some comments from potential candidates in 2020, a number you have heard of, some perhaps you have it. who is your democratic candidate for 2020? we will get to your comments momentarily. comments already on twitter, from steve, anybody but hillary clinton and senator sanders. republicans will show socialist regardless of who gets the nomination.

just after the 2018 midterm elections, this opinion piece in the wall street journal caught our attention from former advisor mark penn, hillary will run again, reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand. hillary clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination, that is their view. more than 30 years in the making, this new version of hillary clinton will come full circle back to the universal health care promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. hillary clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. she will not let a little thing like to stunning defeats stand in her way of her claim to the white house. who do you think will make the best candidate? who would you like to see run for the democrats in 2020.

if you are a republican, that line (202) 748-8001. donald trump would face. -- the toughest candidate donald trump would face. [video clip] >> do you want to run again? >> no. >> why? >> well, i would like to be president. [cheers and applause] >> look, i think hopefully when we have a democrat in the oval office in january 2021, there will be so much work to be done. we have confused everybody, including ourselves. we have confused our friends and enemies. they have no idea what the united states stands for. the work would be work i feel very well prepared for having been in the senate, a diplomat in the state department. it is going to be a lot of heavy lifting.

>> will you be doing any of that heavy lifting? >> i have no idea. i will not even think about it until after we get through this november 6 election. i will do everything in my power to make sure we have a democrat in the white house in 2020. host: who would you like to see run in 2020? which democrat would you like to see run? if you are a democrat, (202) 748-8000. others,blicans and (202) 748-8002. the scope to sandra. good morning. host: -- caller: good morning. i like joe biden. he is extremely intelligent. he is such a decent man. i would like to see him run. i cannot think of anybody else that i like more than joe biden. host: does it seem to you that

joe biden is keeping himself in the news, keeping himself visible in order to run in 2020? caller: i would hope that he would be. that is what i would like to see. i have not seen that much of him lately. what really bothers me is it seems like so many people do not know the difference between a republican and democrat. how anyone that believes in social security, medicare, medicaid, pre-existing conditions can any social , if they vote for any republican, it does not make sense because the republican party is totally against all programs. they would get rid of them today if they could. you: does it sound like think the democrats need to distinguish themselves as a party regardless of who

runs? caller: exactly. i have heard so many people call in on c-span and say they were democrats and voted for trump. it blows my mind. if they are for these programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, how they could vote for any republican upsets me. the number one thing that people were worried about are the yet people don't know the difference. people that if have spoken to did not know. they did not know. i think this last election, they did talk more about pre-existing security, andcial these programs. i think that is one of the reasons they want.

-- won. host: sandra calling from michigan, her candidate of choice joe biden. ahead of the midterm elections can joe biden was on the elections, jill biden was on the campaign trail, including in iowa. [video clip] >> nothing is beyond our capacity. we have to bring this country together. the only thing strong enough to tear america apart is america itself. we have seen it start. we have to make it stop. we have to make it clear that we choose hope over fear, unity over division, allies over lies, a truth over brighter future. if we do that, we can still own

the 21st century. this country has to come together. it is time to get up, remember who we are. this is america. we can do anything. take it back. biden ahead of the midterm election. now that the midterms are over, which democrat would you like to see run against likely president trump in the 2020 presidential race? caller,re a republican we would like to hear from you as well. we will go to our independent line, (202) 748-8002. george in maine, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. i am no supporter of donald trump. he was right when he said the system is rigged. when hillary clinton was

anointed with their system -- i think joe biden, even though he is older, he would make a good president. hillary clinton should not run. i think some of these people think it is just -- what is the word i want to use? they deserve that. it, thatthey deserve they are entitled. that is the word i want to use. hillary clinton is entitled. host: let's hear from our republican line. this is brenda from arkansas. welcome. caller: thank you very much.

i am definitely for hillary clinton. i want her to run so that donald trump beats her so bad that she crawls away never to be seen again. it would be a piece of cake. or joe biden. either one of them. trumps economy is fabulous. i could put up with a little silliness once in a while. the man is turning the economy around. everybody keeps crying that he is ruining our international friends. he is making our international associations better, not worse. those you think would be the easiest candidates to beat. who do you think the toughest candidates donald trump could face would be? caller: i don't see anybody. you have people like kamala harris, they are all socialists. nobody wants socialists. we can meet in the middle of the road.

think they are going to get free health care, you don't even know what it is. they think medicare is free. you pay about $300 a month for that. it is still not free. they are screaming medicare for all, they don't have any idea what they are talking about. the republicans are not taking away your pre-existing conditions. the democrats use this all the time to scare people. it is ridiculous. they have to scare people because that is the only way they can get people to vote for them. you have to have a sound policy with your government. trump is doing that. in northe is gail carolina, democrats line. caller: thank you for letting me voice my opinion regarding who i would like to see as the democratic nominee. jayuld like to suggest inslee, the governor of washington state. since 2012.governor

he represented the fourth congressional district. he was the chair of the democratic governors association. he would be amenable opponent idablet -- from opponent against donald trump. he is pro-business. he has have executive experience. i would like to see patrick duval run. he was former governor of very well.ts who has through romney care, the forerunner of the aca. he cooperated with the federal government, the fbi to capture the boston bombers. he would be a very excellent candidate as well.

as far as some of the other names that are being mentioned in the promoted by the media, such as kirsten gillibrand, kamala harris, cory booker, elizabeth warren, i think they could all serve as the nominees for vice president on the ticket . of jayith your choice inslee, it seems like you are keeping on top of the likely candidates. what are you following to keep you abreast of what some of these folks are talking about? caller: are you talking about the names i just mentioned? host: yes. caller: the media is pumping them up. the media wants them to run. i am talking about jay inslee. host: where are you reading about him and following what he is doing? caller: i am doing research on him.

i see his comments against trump, the positions he has taken against this administration. i read the sinuously -- assiduously. i think joe biden was one of the greatest vice presidents. i think joe biden's role will be to honor the legacy of his son beau and continue with the cancer moonshot. i think he will do more in the area of cancer in raising funds and the like. i would like to see him there. as far as hillary clinton, she had her chance, she blew her chance. no for hillary. he spoke about deval patrick, who was featured a week ago with the headline, after trump, can an obama acolyte be

elected? of patrick has no illusion the challenge of distinguishing himself in 2020. he is little known outside of knowing what it not spoken much in public since. compared with joe biden, elizabeth warren, and bernie sanders, he is a relative nobody. he is an african-american, but so is kamala harris and cory booker. one significant distinction, he ir tokind of political he barack obama and enjoyed close from people close to the president. as would you like to see run the democrat in 2020 in the presidential election? illinois, steve, good morning. caller: i really don't know as

far as candidates, and i don't keep up with that. will we need is jobs -- what we need is jobs in america. i remember when unions were unions, and the worker would go to work from 7:00 to 8:00 at night. you could make a living. the republicans want to get rid of social security and medicare. at least the unions would take care of you. it, barack obama allowed a lot of our large companies to go to germany, on santa -- monsanto. it is a shame that this

happened. i know it was under the republican congress. it is really confusing now. , and itunderstand upsets me that these were american businesses. trump is being told to take the pan off the hand grenade to move the economy. i think it is going to have consequences. i think interest rates are going fast.to high too i think we are to go into that recession. host: let's go to our republican line and hear from diane. before you make your comment, you are calling from massachusetts. we had a caller suggest deval patrick from your state. what do you think? caller: i don't like him.

host: who would you like to see in 2020? go ahead. caller: the first caller you had off because she is talking about how republicans want to get rid of social security and all this crack. never gotck obama, i an increase in my social security. the first time i got increase in social security was donald trump. he has changed the economy. i don't know what people want from him. you want to put a democrat against him, you want to talk about black and white problems blacks country, even should be up in arms because the only people that get breaks in this country now are illegal immigrants. even in the court system, i have seen it in massachusetts, it is disgusting.

put up anybody you want. if you want to throw this president away, you live with the consequences because at least he is turning this economy around when no other president has been able to do this. host: diane in massachusetts. she mentioned immigration. it is making the news this morning. the headline this morning on the washington post talks about mexico. the trump administration has won the support of the incoming mexican administration to allow asylum-seekers to wait in mexico. reporters,o president trump weekly described in tweetsement wednesday. no releasing into the u.s., all

will stay in mexico. the post writes that the president issued a threat that if for any reason it becomes necessary, we will close our southern borders. there is no way the united states will put up with this costly and dangerous situation anymore. president trump have developed a strong relationship with the incoming administration. we look forward to working with them on a wide range of issues the agreement would break with long-standing asylum rules in place a fermentable barrier the path of central american migrants attempting to reach the united states. just details of what we know of the plan so far announced last night. according to outlines of the plan, known as the remaining in

a silent applicants will have to stay in mexico while their cases are being processed, potentially ending the system that trump calls catch and release, which is generally allowed those seeking refuge to wait on u.s. soil. back to your calls and comments on a potential democratic 2020 candidate. caller: good morning. i am really partial to deval patrick of massachusetts. i think he has the intelligence. he has the demeanor. he would have the wherewithal to take on trump in any debate. i think he would be a great candidate. he has been governor. he knows how government works.

i am all for him. get ad like to see him shot at the primaries and to debate donald trump, who constantly has told, the lady talked about the are mongering. a caravanalk about invading borders, and you send troops that cost us $200 million, that was all a political stunt. donald trump is all about donald trump and his reelection. he is not in it for the people of this country, only for a certain number of sick states in the middle of the country. he is not a uniter. he is a divider. host: thank you. california, independent line, david. caller: thank you, c-span. i have a couple of comments. , trump might get

primary. i know you did not bring that up, but there is a possibility. also, he inherited the economy .hat he has from obama a lot of people don't want to give obama credit, but we were losing it hundred thousand jobs a month when obama took over. i don't understand why everybody wants to give trump all this credit. i will get to your answer. i think the person that runs against him, we have not seen him yet. i like patrick of all. he is a great guy. he is a good candidate, but he is the wrong color. host: did you say he was the wrong color? he is the wrong color for what the country needs right now. we need a caucasian that is young, relatively young. we need a man. we need somebody that can come in headfirst and go

head-to-head, and yes this is a racist country still. we need somebody that is not black at this point. you arest to be clear, calling from compton, a predominantly black neighborhood in los angeles. are you yourself african-american? i am african american. that is why we got from, because of the backlash of obama. we still live in a racist country. let's be real about it. at this point, we basically need john kennedy were a prototype of clinton. but not saying clinton, that is the prototype, a person that we need to go head-to-head with trump, who may get primary. host: i was intrigued by your first comment on that that you said donald trump may get primary. could take onnk

donald trump in the republican primary? guy, the governor, i cannot think of his name. he is not against him, but he did not like the way -- i cannot .hink of his name the governor from massachusetts, baker? caller: no. the skies are republican. host: from ohio, john kasich? caller: yes. if we had a guy in there even like romney, i could kind of, we could roll with it. trunk is off the chain. they are talking about they did not vote for the affordable care act. ity voted 70 times to kill

along with pre-existing conditions. host: david, i appreciate your perspective this morning. more of that on twitter. hillary clinton already defeated trump wants, talking about the popular vote, she could do it again. i would like to see michelle obama run, but i think that is not likely. time will tell if they can build their momentum. this headline from the hill, talking about a conversation between senator bernie sanders and al sharpton. he said just a week ago that his team is looking at it. here is what he said to al sharpton on msnbc. [video clip] >> we are looking at it. very -- ity, it is a is a decision that impacts your family. i want to make sure that when i make that decision, if i decide to run, but i have concluded

that i am the strongest candidate who can defeat donald trump it we have some great people out there who are thinking of running. they are my friends. i have to make that decision based on my background, my past, my ideas, that i am the candidate that can defeat trump. >> you are not ruling it out? you are saying you are seriously considering it? >> that is correct. host: we're asking you for your choice for the 2020 democratic candidate. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. .ndependent line (202) 748-8002 we go to that line now. caller: just one sentence before i tell you my choice. i asked god to give mike sb the senate victory.

he has helped for farmers around the world. my choice for president is sherrod brown. love elizabeth warren, cory booker. win.nk sherrod brown can nobody would know he is a rhodes scholar because he has such a way of getting along with everybody. he'd ever carries his intellect on his sleeve. he is a genuine populist. i don't understand why people call donald trump a populist. there is nothing populist about him. i don't support biden or bloomberg because they have been silent about the immoral, illegal wars in which our country has been involved. thank you very much. host: thank you. you talked about the runoff senate race in mississippi on

redday, could deep mississippi turn blue? elections are always decided by who turns up. that will be true on november 27, when mississippians decide who will fill the rest of that conference -- thad cochran's senate seat. state rules require the winner to have a majority, and turnout will likely be much lower for the runoff. tooklican chris mcdaniel 16.5% of the november 6 vote. if his voters turn out for hyde smith, and hers are willing to go to the polls, she will win. 2016 the senate race in

went to iraq, turnout dropped by half. the black voters that form espy 's base are motivated after wouldhyde-smith said she attend a public hanging if she was invited. writing thistimes morning that southern democrats still have a problem among rural, white voters. deep losses this year among whol and observant whites are not just confined to seven states, where they nominated unabashed progressives with midterm transforming elections. their strength in cities was not

enough to overcome deficits in less densely populated areas. party strategists fear this could cement the gop's ripped on the senate. there is a baseline percent of the white vote you have to get to win. you cannot get to it just through young and progressive excitement set a florida-based democratic strategist who worked on president obama's campaigns and wrote a memo urging his party to grapple with why they got " lost. the path from 48 to 50 is like climbing mount everest without oxygen. let's hear from our republican line next. tom is in north carolina. thank you. go ahead. caller: i want to make a comment. the gentleman from california was talking about this is the obama economy. let me tell you how the economy

is for me. i am middle class. i get paid once a month. my federal income taxes went from 900 and $75 a month -- $975 a month down to $650 a month. i cannot recall any democrat that has ever cut my taxes. i hope hillary runs. trump has made a difference in my paycheck per month. that is not being talked about anywhere. the democrats will raise. if anybody can give me an example of where the democrats have cut taxes, i would be willing to hear it. 2020?your thoughts on from your position, donald trump a strong candidate, who would be the toughest candidate for him to face in 2020? caller: probably joe biden

he talks to normal people. i think biden would give him the toughest run. host: appreciate that. we go to florida next on the independent line. caller: good morning. good morning. i'm just so excited to get through, but anyway. davidy in california, kind of stole my thunder. as far ase my comment who should run against trump, i believe the guy that ran against one of the texas and hispanic guys, cortez i believe, i believe that would be a good team. booker as it is not cory .

just like the gentleman from california said, we don't need no black man running for no president, especially in america after obama. host: let me ask you, i asked david, david was black, are you african-american as well? caller: 100% black. 100%. the reason why black folks are so confused is we had our identity changed for the last 40 years. first we were need grows, colored, black, african-american. i am black. we don't even know where we came from. we don't know our history. as far as what comes to republicans, they have lost all their morals. the have lost all of it. them other than the guy said, kasich is still standing tall.

i can't remember the other guy. one request i would like for 435 housedo, we have of representatives, 100 senators. i hope in 2019 that you guys do a show once a month as far as reading these senators and these house of representatives people. i would like to say, what are they doing? there is a number one guy in the senate who is always in the news. what is the guide rated at 99 doing? why is his state still reelecting him? there are 435 house of representatives. what is the number one person doing because paul ryan did nothing. who is sitting there and just collecting a check? who isn't doing nothing except sitting there and collecting money?

we would love to see a rating system on our government. host: it is a great idea. we are always inviting members of congress. that is one of the reasons we are here, to bring members of congress on this program, other forms as well. we reach out to all of them over the course of the year. some of them choose to come on. many of them choose to come on. some of them don't. great idea. he was talking about beto o'rourke, who lost in that race against ted cruz, senate race in texas, maybe giving a hint of what could be had for beto o'rourke. here is his concession speech after that loss. [video clip] >> to build a campaign like this one, solely comprised of people like this, people from all walks ,f life coming together deciding what unites us is far

stronger than the color of our skin, how many generations we can count ourselves an american, or whether we just got here yesterday, who we love, who we pray to, whether we pray at all, whether we voted last time, none of that small stuff matters now. it is the work we are willing to put in to achieve and what we will be known by going forward. this campaign holds a very special place in the history of this country every day going forward. .ou have made that possible o'rourkegressman that in his loss to ted cruz, we are asking you your choice for 2020 for democratic candidates. democrats use (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001.

independents and all others (202) 748-8002. ken is on our independent line. caller: i like to say over is probably the -- beto o'rourke is probably the future of the democratic party. i don't think he is right right now. this last election, everyone was saying how the 2018 election was the most important election of our lives. the real election is the next one because i truly believe if trump is reelected, this country will never be the same. my candidate who i think would stand the best chance of reading trump would be michael bloomberg. next on ours republican line in eden, north carolina. this is jeff. i would like this commentator to ask yourself two questions from

and that i will give you my opinion on who should run. are there anybody voting in our country who is illegal? the answer is yes. if they are voting, do they ever vote republican? the answer is no. donald trump will have an executive order in 2020 that all the ballots should be accompanied and have to have an idea. id, state issued id. when hillary clinton runs again, all the illegal votes she got last time will not be included. this time donald trump, like last time he beat her various were, this time the supposedly popular vote that the democrats tried to trumpet will be erased because america knows people

vote that do not have citizenship. they never vote republican. this is a fact that you on this tv show, mr. whoever your name is, you know that there are illegal voters. if people vote illegally, they don't vote republican. once donald trump signs an executive order making it to where you cannot vote without id . host: let me ask you something, how widespread the you think the problem of illegal voting is? you say they all vote republican. where do you know that? caller: my information is public perception. democrats vote to give out freebies. republicans vote where you have to work to get those food stamps on a monthly basis. is the fact is

that everybody knows that every state has laborers. cheapw contractors hired labor. it is happening in every state. a lot of the workers are hispanic, and they come here, and they don't have citizenship. when they vote, and they do, they don't have id. they are informed by republicans don't go out and ask people who don't have id to vote. host: that is not my question. you say it is widespread among laborers, how widespread is that? one in 10, one in 100? caller: that percentage would be hard for me to figure. we can both agree it happens. everybody knows that every state has illegal votes. it is true. if they are illegal, none of them are voting for republicans.

a good way for america to trust the ballot box is to have to have an id. it is going to happen. that is jeff in north carolina. this is one more midterm race to be decided, the race in mississippi. runoff race between cindy spye-smith and mike e former, clinton official. president trump will be rallying in mississippi on monday. gulfport onn monday, rallying for senator highsmith. -- hyde-smith. let's hear from the independent line, edward in new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i get so fired up listening to c-span. this morning especially, it is like thanksgiving dinner. [laughter] caller: quickly, before my comment, a couple colors are calling in, and we are like having dinner talk around the table. it is such a shame saying that we don't need another blackface running for president. that is such a shame. after our civil war, the civil rights movement, and president elections,ng two that is disgusting. we disagree. election,e 2020 bernie sanders should run and be the nominee. if not him, someone as progressive as bernie sanders. i say no to moderates. there is no war authorization, so no to moderates. aggressive's only for democrats.

progressives only for democrats. host: one of those people who has been called a progressive, senator from california kamala harris. here is what she has had to say. [video clip] the leading cause of bankruptcy in our country is the inability to pay a hospital bill. that is worth fighting for, economic justice. let's talk about another economic justice issue worth fighting for. can you pay the rent? we have had great songs about that. that rent needs to get paid. county's in the united states, if you are a worker working , you cannot afford market rate for a one-bedroom apartment.

proposes is that if you are paying over 30% of your income in rent plus utilities, you get a tax credit of up to $6,000. we know that is one of the biggest issues facing working families, which is their ability to pay that rent at the end of the month to keep a roof over their head so they can send their children to school so they can work that job to live a life of dignity. economic justice is worth fighting for. my final point is this. when we look at where we are as a country, we know that we have a lot of work to do. this is an inflection moment in the history of our country. iss is a moment in time that requiring us to ask the question who are we? what we know, national action

network is that part of the answer to that question is we are better than this. harris attor kamala the recent gathering of the national action network. prefer joe biden and sanders over a crowded primaries heal. they write that democrats are falling back on some old names. the new poll found that former president joe biden was the first choice of 26% for the nomination followed by vermont senator bernie sanders, preferred by 19% of democrats. of of democrats listed one 18 potential candidates pulled as their top choice will 21% said they did not know or had no opinion. assigned that the fight to be the next standardbearer is wide open if

neither biden or sanders run. twitter.tion on as wounded as trump is and is going to get, most any democrat will beat him in 2020. from victor, we had a collar mention michael bloomberg. victor says this about the former new york city mayor and businessman, democrats have no chance if they run a liberal raisessive who wants to taxes to pay for big government programs at the federal level. kathleen on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just want to go over some of the things that i have heard that have incensed me. it makes me extremely sad that african-americans are saying we don't need another african-american president. obama did an incredible job with

the economy he was given. he created more jobs than trump has in an environment that was near recession. said he hadallers $300 taken office taxes, and he is willing to do that and explode the deficit. that is a model citizen. i think our sleeper candidate is mitch landrieu from louisiana. i think he is progressive enough and moderate enough to get some of the white college-educated women on board. ost: drew is currently still the mayor of new orleans?] -- is mitch landrieu currently still the mayor of new orleans? caller: i don't know that he is. host:

. caller: i would vote for joe biden. i would have voted for him last time. i am a republican. joe biden is the heart of what we really are. sometimes.assed he said in one of his speeches that this is not who we are. this is not the we are. this is not the ym. i am a republican. this is not we are. host: you said he is the heart of who we are. describe that a little bit, defined that a little bit more. caller: i am a public school teacher. he does the hard things. schooles teaching public is a hard thing. biden goes to the hospital and sees the wounded. biden holds his tongue when

other people cannot hold her tongue. biden is one of these people that is inviting and loving and as a schoolteacher, that is the way it should be. our children to love and accept each other and help each other instead of castigate and judge. persons the kind of who's family is that kind of people. i would have voted for him last time. i am a republican. i do go by the republican platform, but i will cross party lines and a time to vote for some man that loves veterans, goes and does hard things. host: cindy, what grade do you teach? caller: i taught first grade for 30 years. now i teach part-time. i do intervention for children

who need to bring up their scores. america as these little people i teach. i see them, no reason not to love anyone of them. i see no reason to judge anyone of them. they are our future. they are to be loved. i feel like if we could all just love each other and help each is, i cannotr it doesfor a president that not love people, that does not reach out to the needy, that does not include everyone. host: thank you for chiming in this morning. appreciate your input. is next, this is cherie. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i would like to see chris van hollen run for president. i have watched him in the house of representatives and now as a senator. i think he would be a really good president. host: i think he may be up for reelection in 2020. he was not up for reelection this time. chris van hollen from maryland is your choice. thank you. news from the eu and the brexit vote. here is the headline in the washington times. deal,roves the brexit this is from the washington times, associated press story. in a bittersweet landmark, european union leaders on sunday britain'sgreement on departure next year, the first time a member country will have left the 28th member bloc. it settles britain's divorce

bill, protects the rights of u.k. and eu citizens hit by brexit, and keeps the irish border open. they approved a 26 page document laying out their aims for future relations after brinley's in march. -- britain leaves in march. prime minister theresa may has tweeted her statement, my letter to the nation, and you can see the #backthebrexitdeal. from the washington post this morning, what happens after brexit. on whom with the u.s. rely after britain leaves the eu is the headline. britain continues to hash out the terms of its divorce deal, americans are already feeling the loss. indispensable proxy in europe no longer has clout they can exercise on washington's

behalf. britain's exit from the eu will force a broad realignment on europe and will put in play a number of issues from sanctions on russia to free-trade and other strategies critical to the u.s. having the u.k. in made it easy for us, on the phone almost all the time and aligned ideologically. that was our go to country. between the united states and europe have been strained in the era of president trump, who has departed from many long-standing tenets of american foreign-policy. in areas where interests remain aligned, diplomats and leaders say americans will find it harder to exert their will thate a 27 nation bloc will be among the richest in the world.

to washington state, charlene on the independent line. go ahead. hi.er: that is effrata. host: i'm putting a constant in their that it did not deserve. go ahead. caller: tom stier. i am looking for someone that has integrity first of all. our president now does not have that. he is all for himself and his family. it will come out one day how corrupt he really is. watched a program ago ksps had two weeks about the making of hiller, how he got started and mussolini, it was very interesting. trump is following that playbook. host: what got you interested in

tom stier, democratic fundraiser, to begin with? he is on quite a bit talking about our democracy, which is very important to us. can,n see, like most of us that this resident chipping away at it he started chipping away at it are starting running. as far as hillary, she was a great candidate until from started -- trump started chipping away at her, demeaning her. he did the same thing to elizabeth warren. host: whether it is tom syre hillary can, how does a candidate keep that from happening to them in 2020 president uses the same strategy. how do you keep them chipping

away at that candidate. host: clinton did not --caller: clinton did not defend herself. she pretty much took it. there were people that believe me much every word he said he i know you said democrat, but i have been watching some republican candidates that have integrity. who do you like on the side? -- republican caller: i just lost my thought. what's his name from ohio. host: john kasich. caller: i like it. i also like jeff flake. the barragen take he will get if he comes up against trump. host: there is an indication

that jeff flake will continue to speak out on the issues after he finishes his term in the 115th congress. tom syre, it looks like he is leaning towards running. the california best known for his campaign to impeach president trump is launching town halls he primary states on the platform of five rights. he announced the move this week on his website. education, focuso n th environment,, the economy, rights.are, and voting troy is in detroit. good morning. caller: good morning.

sandersvote for either or steyer. i like what he has to say. he has integrity. it is irritating to think a person has integrity and then you realize you voted for the wrong person. one thing about senator, i voted for himw hen -- when he lost to hillary. i don't like recently he was on a show. these politicians go on like saturday night live. he was talking to sarah silverman, and she's a racist.

sanders had even did some marching with martin luther king. what she has that, it is the ony time he has ever done anything that was questionable. like i would vote for another black candidate but i can only speak for me. ist bothered me with obama the national defense authorization act. african-americans are getting also byone another but police and people just out on the street. that is the defense authorization act, but it would do, whoever knows about it, it would allow the military to -- host: one more thought on this

from fort washington on our independent line. 2020 democratic candidate, who should be? caller: there is a guy named andrew yang. not sure how many people are familiar with him. him running to see for office. been too big and the politics -- big into politics. this is the first candidate that no ever got my attention and one seemed really relevant to me . he has the most comprehensive organized and detailed policy outline at this stage of the toward the 2020 election

that any candidate has and i can really understand him. andrew yang. i would check -- i would encourage anyone to check out his website. host: what is he doing now? caller: he is doing a tour. to the first -- it was my first i'm going to anything political. it was in baltimore. host: thank you for sharing the name with us. thank you for the calls. we continue here on washington journal. up next we are speaking with navin nayak from the center for american progress about house democrats when they take over in january and also potential challengers to president trump in 2020. later on in the program, national review's reihan salam

on the immigration issue with his book, "melting pot or civil war?" first up on newsmakers this week, you as a middle strata mark green talks about the trumpet administration's foreign policy and he takes reporter questions about his goal to eliminate the need for foreign aid. >> a lot of time talking about how the goal should be to eliminate the need for foreign aid by encouraging resiliency so that countries can weather disasters. can you give a concrete example of where he has made the most progress? internally, we have made a ton of progress in terms of reshaping ourselves around that vision. took the opportunity of that executive order to redesign government to embrace that. we have 850 staff members from all across the agency including 300 from overseas.

in terms of concrete results, i would point to somewhere like if the lpl -- like ethiopia. if you take out look -- if you take a look at a place like ethiopia which has endured four years of drought but has not fallen into full famine. to help them to withstand the challenges there, that would be one concrete example. i could point to other things like the country of peru and the work we are doing with the government to fight cocoa production. we have built internal support and capacity to provide alternative economics for cocoa farmers. funding are doing the

and we are helping with technical assistance and connecting them to markets. in that part of peru and on that score, their capacity is developing. every country is in a different place in their journey to self-reliance and we know that in some cases, it is going to be a long time but there are countries like peru and india which are largely -- which are largely self-reliant. host: catch that entire interview with mark green sunday, today, 10:00 a.m. and six at 5 p.m. eastern and you can watch it online at c-span.org. and you:00 p.m. eastern can watch it online at c-span.org. with the center for american progress, here to talk short-term about the future of the democratic party in the 116th congress, and may be

looking ahead to 2020. tell us about the action fund. what do you focus on? guest: we are a multi-issue progressive things -- progressive think tank. criminal justice, national security, we are looking to advance progressive ideas in solutions. what makes us unique is our goal is not to just generate ideas but to make sure they get injected into the public conversation and that they ultimately become law. host: we are here to talk about what is ahead in congress for democrats, the democratic agenda but we noted something you wrote before the election about what democrats should be doing after the election, presuming they would take power in the house. you wrote that democrats must be the party that works to rebuild the public's trust in government and political leaders by showing the public the government can help solve many of the mounting economic challenges families are facing.

but for voters to have trust in those policies, they must first believe the politicians creating them are serving the public's and not the lobbyist's interests. put that into the context of the current debate on what democrats might do in the 116th. legislation or investigation of the trump administration? guest: i think the big lesson from trump dick kaegel election in 2016 -- trump's election in 2016 is we hit rock bottom and peoples trust in the government and trump was able to take it vantage of that. he was an outsider who promised to blow up the whole system and for a lot of americans, it felt like politics had done nothing for them and their families, even of they had a lot of concerns about donald trump. i think that was a wake-up call for democrats, which is we have to start from the perspective that too many americans don't trust government to do the right thing.

they believe politicians are there to look out for their own self-interest or for the interest of their donors and of corporate interests. that, we have a real concern that everything ,hat comes out of washington people think is tainted and has been corrupted by the political process. it is one of the things we have thispushing for, is that movement -- there is this movement in the democratic party that has gotten little attention, rejecting corporate pac money. it is the first step in the process, a way to signal that they get how big a problem the public trust is an that people think politicians are being corrupted by money. there was a record number of democratic candidates in the 2018 midterms who pledged to refuse corporate pac money. more than 100 candidates. a huge sea change from where we

have been. -- seek change from where we have been. change from where we have been. host: we are getting a hint of that with this reported bill, hr-1, based on a house resolution introduced in 2018, cosponsored by 165 democrats, talking about campaign reform, saying that reform is going to be the first thing out of the gate. the bill will include the creation of a small donor public financing system for congressional elections, the restoration of the voting rights act nationwide automatic voter registration, nonpartisan voting register -- redistricting reforms. you talked about the campaign donation side of that. what about the voting rights?

why does that need to be restored? package tos a larger fight corruption and restore , toidence in our government make people feel like we have clean and fair elections. the reality is there are a lot of problems with elections. it is too hard for people to vote. people don't know who is spending money and on whose behalf. that is one big passage they are trying to address. equally important is strengthening antibribery laws and making sure that politicians are held more accountable when they break public trust as well as actually giving average citizens more of a say in our democracy. right now there is an overwhelming sense that large wealthy donors and corporations have much more of a voice in our democracy because of the amount of money they can spend. things thismportant

legislation does is incentivize small contributions to people spend less time at fundraisers with large donors and lobbyists and spend more time trying to raise money from constituents. host: in terms of oversight investigation, how important will that be? if you had a scale and balance how much should democrats focus on that or on practical legislation such as what we are talking about. guest: i think that the story is being told around oversight. to does not have to be a partisan, political fight which is how the media gets excited about it. there is a lot of oversight that has been really harmful to the public's day-to-day life. that is the oversight we need to focus on. for example, drug prices. this is something that voters can talk about as one of their biggest concerns. thanks to the affordable care

act, more americans have health care but americans still struggle with the cost of prescription drugs and have to make tough choices on whether they can avoid -- a ford the drug -- a ford -- afford the drug. a price change by $500 overnight. there is that kind of oversight that should be done by the democratic congress to figure out how is the government acting , in the public interest versus the private interest in trying to expose that many of the rules that are set are actually benefiting corporations and lobbyists. that is a huge part of what the democratic oversight has to be. russia, italk about is important, and there are concerns about whether trump is compromised because of his financial situation but there is a whole set of oversight whether it is immigration, health care, climate change, wages, that the

democratic congress should prioritize. (202)-748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. republicans use (202)-748-8001. independents and all others use (202)-748-8002. was your fund active in campaigns around the country? guest: sometimes, yes. we don't endorse candidates. we don't fund candidates. we don't raise money. we do a lot of message research and analysis. out initial we put data showing how much premiums were going to go up as a result of republican health care on a district by district level. we look at how many people had and howting conditions much the sabotage of health care would cause people to lose protections they had.

a variety of things on wages. as the new congress comes in, what is your organization's role in terms of legislation development and assisting new members? historically, the center for american progress was built to fill a gap in progressive infrastructure. for decades have invested heavily in creating the intellectual and political muscle to be able to help conservative candidates push their agenda forward. like for the -- nothing like the center for american progress existed, so we want to play a significant role in working with new members and leadership and make sure they are advancing an agenda that does serve the public and holds special interests accountable. ahead, many items challenges ahead.

you mentioned drug prices. ,ne of the issues democrats drug prices a central part of rare -- ign in a democrats want to give medicare more power to negotiate with drug companies but republicans are reluctant to allow that. do you see other areas where of theay be alignment democratic leadership in the house and president trump? guest: democrats have to hold true to what they promised voters and what they ran on. i mentioned prescription drugs. that is a huge pain point for families in this country. i think democrats have to advance a serious agenda and then it comes down to president trump. are we going to get the president trump who promised when he was campaigning to give

everyone fantastic wonderful health care, or we going to get from thedent trump last two years who has been trying to take away health care? he has a congress that would have completely bent to his will. i think it is going to be up to democrats to force the issue. host: we have plenty of calls. let's go first to our democrat line, delaware, elizabeth. caller: good morning. i love the center for american progress and i am so happy that progressives have made a great deal of change. here is my question. i ama senior citizen and living on social security and i know it is an aberration. we are not making it out here. most of us are living on less , with drug0 a year

prices in the cost of living. i want to know what is the democratic party going to do for us? every time we get a raise in social security, medicare takes it. i am hoping that the progressives, i love the progressives. i believe they are the majority of this country. the trumpsters out there are in a minority. they do not speak for us. we need medicare for all. in medicarencrease and social security. we need to get the blue dog democrats out of office. too many of them are center-right. i would like to hear your opinion on that. guest: i really appreciate the call and the vote of confidence. i think that these elections gave democrats an opportunity to

demonstrate to the american people who they are actually going to be fighting for, and you raise many issues and i think health care wasn't of the biggest issues in this election. democrats are poised to make it a huge priority in this congress , from reining in prescription drug prices and making sure howle have protections and we finally get to universal health care in this country. that is an area where i do not hold out a ton of hope, given who runs the senate and the president's priorities. i think on areas like prescription drugs and protecting people with pre-existing conditions, after voting to take away pre-existing conditions, a lot of promised they are going to protect those. it is unclear whether they are actually going to hold to that promise. you raised a lot of important

issues that are not even part of the conversation, like increasing protections for elderly, under social security. i am hoping we start the conversation and have a more expansive conversation on what democrat -- on what government can be doing. host: we go to new york next. republican line. caller: hello. i want to comment to this gentleman about hillary clinton and the clinton foundation because all i hear is democrats constantly complaining about corporate money, money from foreign governments that the republicans are supposedly taking. clinton was the queen of that. the clinton foundation had arc money, corporate billions. it had foreign government, millions and billions and nobody ever wants to talk about that and she did not get arrested for it either. if you want to know who -- if you want to know why we voted

for donald trump, that is the reason. get your act together because democrats have a problem. they are backing the dark money, the clinton foundation. you are probably poised to do it again. host: just an update on that, a headline from the new york post, donations to the clinton foundation plunged after hillary's defeat. the foundation getting nearly 58% after the election. it has come to light as republican legislatures hold hearings on the result of the federal corruption investigation. guest: i appreciate the call and i think she made the point i made at the start of this conversation, which is i think a lot of people in 2016 felt that donald trump represented something different. self-funder to be a , never been in politics, he was going to be untied to lobbyists

and special interests. i think that was very appealing to a lot of people. goot of people do feel that clinton and the democratic party overall, and i worked on the hillary clinton campaign and i came out learning that it did not matter what she said or how she spent her life fighting for children and working in the public interest, an overwhelming majority of americans believed ship been corrupted by the money she had taken. that is something the democratic party has to take seriously, which is they may be there for the right reasons and think they are there to do the public interest, but a lot of americans now view all politicians who take corporate money, dark money as corrupted. this is one of the things we're going to have to hold donald trump accountable for because he ran on a pledge not to take that kind of money and yet handover

fist he is raising that money from corporate special interests into his super pac and campaign reelection fund. it is a real break of his promise. host: what did you do on the clinton campaign? guest: i was the director of opinion research. host: we read an opinion piece from the washington journal and another writer saying she is going to run in 2020 as the progressive we knew her in 1994, with the health care plan she has and retooling yourself as a progressive. what do you think? guest: i have no insight. pence that more as mike trying to insert himself into a conversation he is no longer a part of. video the ticket -- that there is a place for her seems hard to believe for me but this is a democracy and every buddy has that right. host: david in north carolina on

our independent line. caller: your discussion prompted me to call. i unregistered for the vote. i don't want to be automatically registered, i don't want to be affiliated because it always seemed like they are putting themselves more and more money and propertyry taxes are forcing the cost of living and everything to go up because they are breaking up all the farms across the country. second, i had a question about the freedom of speech you might be able to speak to. foxx is a sitting representative and her social media facebook page, i thought facebook was the answer years ago to be able to finally get to get the discussion we need regarding all of my grievances and she has blocked me on her

social media platform. host: this is representative virginia foxx of carolina. caller: yes sir. i have been blocked off. i did not say anything threatening or vocal but my opinions were very crisp and condescending. what do you think? i have written the department of justice about it and they have not even responded. host: let's get a couple comments. guest: do your overarching point, i think you speak to the frustration that millions of americans around the country feel right now, which is politicians do not field responses to them. people feel very frustrated that there are clear things that there could be done to help working people in this country and it is not what congress is focused on, so it leads people to feel frustrated and cynical

about politics. they feel like politicians are only listening to their donors and that they refused to even meet with their constituents. a majority of republicans in congress have not held a town hall since president trump had been elected. i do hope that when the democrats take control, that there is a commitment to being responsive to their constituents in every way that they can, holding town halls, trying to meet with constituents, and feeling much more connected to them and rejecting corporate pack money -- corporate pac money and fundraising from lobbyists and find a way to convince the american people they are there to do the public business. host: this question was asked on twitter. why do progressives abandoned the antiwar platform in 2008? why did they join forces with the neocon movement? i am not sure what he is

referring to. it is not like the democrats have necessarily been at the forefront of advancing new wars. president obama ran aggressively on a platform and did pull back the war in iraq and afghanistan. there are ongoing challenges around these issues. national security is not my area of expertise. host: we will go to our democrat line in baltimore. james, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel like democrats are their own worst enemy. points,'t emphasize trump keeps saying the same thing over and over again. [indiscernible]

caller: what is the future of those 10%? values, whatthe are republican values? now, they value tax cuts more than everything else. give me tax cuts and i can throw away all of my values.

guest: i think that election a few weeks ago in this country was a significant rebuke of the republican party and its priorities. of peoplemp and a lot refused to accept that but i hope republicans are going to grapple with what their party actually stands for. they spent two years in complete control of washington, the senate, the house, the presidency, and they had does go over arching priorities, one was to take health care away from 20 million americans and to end protections for pre-existing conditions. a kid with cancer at 11 can a longer have those protections. that was something they made a huge priority out of and there was no alternative. there is nothing there to help people with health care. the second big priority they had was passing massive tax cuts, running up the deficit to do so.

83% of the tax cuts went to the corporationsto already seeing record profits and the wealthiest among us already doing just fine. been a pillar of the republican agenda for the last decade or more. some would argue 30 or 40 years. it was soundly rebuked by voters at the polls and i think they have a lot of soul-searching to figure out what they stand for. host: what do you see house for democrats -- house democrats doing on taxes? guest: they are trying to figure out how they increase wages or afford prescription drugs, to make sure kids get a good education and a good job. i think the overarching theory is to figure out how to address the problems people are really concerned about and to use some

of the tax cuts that republicans passed to pay for it. we don't need to give corporations a massive tax cut. donald trump gave himself a massive tax cut with some of the provisions in that bill. they are not a family in need of that help right now and we could be doing things to address wages and prescription drugs and health care costs. at all know that there is a need right now for an overarching tax plan. ohio.independent line in caller: first of all, that young man there, i think the reason that president trump has been so because he is upholding the constitution. , there is no --

for people who hate god. we are a republic, not a -- crat and the democrats [indiscernible] -- he hated president trump. he had his own party go against them -- against him because he is jealous because he has been successful and he has protected us and there is illegal votes and the democrats represent communism. they will never win again. the seats they won they illegally stole. host: that is debbie on our --

debbie in ohio. the president announcing a potential plan with mexico in terms of keeping some of the migrants applying for asylum in mexico. do you think immigration will continue to be a big issue for democrats, and how do you think democrats should align themselves on addressing border security and immigration reform? guest: as long as this president is in charge, immigration will continue to be a major issue because he wants it to be. i hate to be that cynical about it, but the reality is democrats have -- republicans have control of washington and do not even attempt to solve what everyone agrees is a legitimate challenge. president trump ran aggressively on immigration. he did nothing for two years, yet republicans who advance any solutions to that problem and the party does not know where it stands on those issues. i think it is time for democrats

to not shy away from this and to be really clear about where they stand, which is increased border security, strong enforcement of existing laws and a pathway to citizenship for the people who are here. time and time again, the american people have shown they do support that kind of comprehensive package that tries to solve this problem from start to finish and is not just play politics. i really do think that americans are fed up with the fact that both sides seem to just be blaming each other and no one is talking about how to solve the problem. host: president trump tweeting about the issue this morning, saying it would be smart if mexico would stop the caravans long before they get to the burgeoningrder or if countries would not let them come in so they can get people out of the country. the issue of the border wall could come up in the wrapping up

of the 115th congress, the funding bill needs to be passed by december 7. your organization put out a memo to members of congress about that. you say that in terms of that spending bill, members of congress should not vote for any spending bill that does not include provisions protecting the mueller investigation. house leader pelosi and the -- why is leaders that such an important issue? guest: i think in all of this back and forth going on around russia, we lost sight of what this is all about, which is that there is a real concern about whether or elections -- whether our elections were compromised by campaign working directly with a foreign adversary. no one is questioning that russia got involved, the question is how closely.

you do have bipartisan support for the mueller investigation. a lot of republicans on capitol hill who stand by what robert mueller is trying to do with his investigation, and the integrity of it. that president trump is trying to hold himself appointingaw, by acting attorney general whitaker , there is a sense that not only is that not constitutional because the principal has to be approved by the senate under the constitution, but there is a broader concern that he has at every turn tried to undermine a legitimate investigation and tried to hold himself above the law. that should be a concern for all americans. host: steve next in massachusetts on our republican line. caller: good morning. i am actually a former democrat

and i switched over to the republican party. i would like to move forward and talk about health care in this nation. we have health care. the problem is the cost. country $500his urllion per year on fo self-inflicted wounds, tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse and obesity. what i would like to see is leveraging our public education system. i was nine credits short of a masters in education. i separated my shoulder, went into the army, paid off the bill , long story. back to the education, i think we should make health education in this nation a core curriculum issue and focus our moneys toward educating people, rather than social justice. we need a move toward social

responsibility and better educational system will foster a culture of health and that is what we need because right now, we can throw all this money at it and try and get medicare for all and it is just going to collapse. appreciate the thrust of his call, which is that thanks to the affordable care act, fewer americans are going .ithout health care progresse are making toward universal coverage but that is still a challenge but to your core point, the real challenge is the cost of it. a lot of people have health care, but premiums keep going up or they cannot afford prescription drugs. there are so many different barriers that people face to getting just affordable health care when they need it and that should be a right that every american has.

other countries have done it and there is no reason we are lagging so far behind. host: we will go to the independent line and hear from peter in florida. caller: good morning and thank you for having this guy on. the green party because the democrats are more interested in donors than they are in voters. i wanted to point out three things. you're just mentioned that trump is going to be held accountable. the house is going to be held accountable and i can tell you how bill nelson in the senate lost. you better put up votes for medicare for all americans. a vote this year for raising the minimum wage, and these democrats better stop funding the $650 billion a year war budget. amendment that

passed by 64%, but some donor got to bill nelson and told him right away from medicare for all, run away from it, don't talk about it and my guess is a minimum of 20% of the republicans who voted would have if he saidill nelson he would go back to washington and fight for medicare for all because republicans are in this mess just like democrats. peter on the bill nason -- on the bill nelson case and medicare for all. guest: that was a complicated of race in florida. bill nelson was dramatically outspent and only lost by 12,000 votes in the end. it is hard to say any one single

issue made the difference. the core of his point is people are looking for democrats to distinguish themselves in a lot of ways, not just in town but in a set of priorities and trying to convince people that there is a home for a lot of people in this country who feel like both parties have been corrupted by the political process and showing them that there is a party but is not going to be influenced by their donors or by campaign contributions and is going to continue to fight what is in the public interest and not what the special interests want. -- election again of nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. this is from the cover of this week's sunday new york times magazine. no one gives you power, you have to take it from them. guest: that is interesting about the debate happening around her push to be speaker again. nobody is raising substantive

concerns with the agenda she is trying to advance. people look back to what she did when she was speaker and i think it is hard to say she won't be viewed by history or even my current times as one of the most effective speakers in the last hundred years in terms of what she was able to get done in those four years when democrats had the majority. no one is raising concerns about the agenda she has put forward, really clear in the election around lowering the cost of health care, increasing wages and cleaning up corruption. if they follow through on those priorities, the fast majority of the caucus is going to be pretty happy. , of the centerak for american progress. thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will open up our phones

for the next 20 minutes. any topic you would like to talk about. political discussions on the 116th, 2020 candidates, your numbers are on the screen. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. all others, (202)-748-8002. later on, we will speak with the national review's right-hand salaam on the future -- reihan salam on the future of the republican party and his new book "melting pot or civil war?" . ♪ >> what does it mean to be american? that is this year's c-span studentcam video competition question. students and teachers from around the country are posting on social media about it.

tweeted what does it mean to be in america? studentsudies researching the bill of rights and important events of the nation. students brainstormed ideas for c-span studentcam. indiana senator todd young tweeted visited fischer high school today to speak with our government class and i was interviewed by students participating in c-span's studentcam scholarship program. we discussed freedom of speech and the first amendment. 2019, at c-span classroom is project-based learning at its finest. this year we are asking middle and high school students to produce a five to six minute

documentary answering the question what does it mean to be american? we are a warning $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline for entry is january 20. for more information, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is open phones for the next 15 minutes or so. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents and others, (202)-748-8002. you can send us a tweet and we will get to your calls shortly. any topic we have talked about this morning or night in of the news you are reading. we welcome your calls. happening overseas in europe, the headline in the washington post online, eu leaders approve

brexit plans, setting up a vote in british parliament where it faces stiff opposition. they write that the european leaders today signed off on their split from britain, approving a deal that would send the united kingdom on a new road independent from the european union after four decades of membership. will cut britain out of the european union, marking the first time a nation has ever sought to depart. the deal must still whether britain's political storms ahead of the official march 29 exit date with the key test next month when the u.k. parliament puts it to a vote amid violent opposition. look for live coverage of a lot of that debate on the c-span networks. our first caller here, then us in indiana on the -- dennis in the -- in indiana on the republican line. -- i would like

to know why did not call your previous guest out on a lie he told. he said immigration -- he said republicans did not try to do anything on immigration. they did try to do something on immigration and schumer and pelosi walked away from the table. he lied and you said nothing. host: we appreciate that. we go next to new york, on our democrats line. caller: i would like to make a comment. i have not chosen anyone yet but not hillary at this point. certainly not hillary clinton. that is it. host: no candidate as of yet in the race. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans and independents and all others, (202)-748-8002. back to cq weekly and this week's edition, what is ahead

for the 116th congress. many challenges ahead. at the top of their list is data privacy. they write in may, europe again implement a be general data thatction regulation governs the privacy of european citizens' data and imposes penalties on companies for failing to notify country -- notify come -- failing to notify customers of data loss. both parties have signaled they are ready to craft legislation governing data privacy and reciprocation. executives from at&t, apple, twitter and google have told the science committee that congress needs to pass legislation on the matter. to mississippi, richard on the independent line. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. i keep hearing all of this about the tax breaks and the cost of

medication. it seems like we never hear anything from the seniors. everyt believed that raise the of gotten on social security the last eight or 10 years has been taken away from us by the cost of medicare. president trump two weeks ago how he hasg about lowered medicine costs. that is not true at all. salve i used to take used to cost $14. last week, i went to get my prescription refilled and it was $226. just being completely forgotten about. we don't get raises. medicare keeps going up.

all seniors are pretty much medicare secondary insurance and it has just gotten to be so expensive. friends have had to let it go because we just premiums.ord the $326 nothing is being said at all about the help seniors need. that is all i have to say. i appreciate you taking my call. williehis is really -- in texas, republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. to talk to the gentleman and he talked about the democrat priorities and i wanted to shed some light on that.

our democrats for open borders ,ecause it seems like democrats when the president says anything he could do to protect the borders of this country, and i noticed that what they do, what progressives do is they try to make the -- they find ways to fool their constituents into thinking that what their agenda is is constitutional and i am curious about this. i think and most conservatives think that progressives are for open borders simply because of the way they tried to hide --

you. host: we will hear next from maine, democrats line. caller: i love listening to your show. that theking for 2020 democrats should consider coming out of the box and going for a man like jon huntsman. i think john has the experience in china and working with the democrats and in russia, dealing with republicans. china, he mastered mandarin language. if he is going to unite a democrat with a republican, as well as two of our pretty stiff competitors in the world, i think he is the man to look at. i think he ran out of money last time that he tried to run and he was honest enough to admit it and get out of the race rather

than succumb to outside engineering or however you want to put it. he could pick up a democrat along the way whether it be a bernie sanders. i think hillary clinton would muddy the water and poison the atmosphere. i think she is toxic. host: thank you for that, weighing in on a topic we started, your choice for a democratic candidate in 2020. this is julie who tweets we need joe biden, after the corruption of this president. d.c. a solid man who knows and is relatable to people and has a rural backing. a couple more calls here. in, bruce on our independent indianapolis, bruce on our independent line. caller: i want to make a comment.

all ofbeen listening to these republicans calling in and saying how great the economy is and this and that, nonstop. i am looking at everybody saying that do you know that every time you made this year in your 401(k) was wiped out before thanksgiving? you cannot blame it on democrats because republicans control the house, the senate and the white house. everyone saying how great the economy is, just remember you lost a lot of money real quick. ohio,richard next in democrats line. planr: remember the tax republicans told us? what was the trade-off for corporate tax paid -- corporate tax breaks? it was closing loopholes wasn't it? i have not seen any loopholes closed have you?

host: independent line, george, good morning. caller: i think it is time for the white house press corps to begin to step up confrontation with the president. the notion that the koran commands that they not follow up on questions and confront him with his obvious lies is a false application of what their position is all about in the first place. we have a president who has demonstrated over 3000 lies in the last couple of years and it is time to start being a little more aggressive with following up on the questions. one last point. the president holds rallies. how hard is it to get into a rally with 15 people who will confront him and shout out questions for him at these rallies? i realize that puts them in physical danger but consider the public relations benefits of watching somebody getting beat up by a crowd of rednecks at a trump rally.

maybe the next time around, it will motivate 45 or 50 people to do it. host: what they ask you, would you yourself volunteer to do something like that? caller: if the president ever showed up in new jersey, i would but the likelihood he would show up in new jersey, he would maybe get 12 people at his rally. we are not the states in the south or the west so we are not going to see that kind of presence. host: we have seen some protesters and we have covered a number of his rallies in the lead up to the midterm election on c-span. we have seen protesters at those rallies. do you think that might instead the frenzyowd and that may create instead of the point you are trying to make, as a protest? caller: i think it benefits

itself in the public relations aspect. two orr cnn covering three protesters being dragged out of a trump rally for standing up and asking the president what he plans to do about global warming. then being dragged out by half a dozen people wearing make america great again hats. consider the benefit of that in terms of the public finally seeing what this administration is all about. host: we will go to a republican line, sandy in ohio. caller: good morning. i would like to vote for trump again because the democrats call themselves progressives and most people don't understand what progressive means. andressive means socialist a lot of democrats don't understand that that is what it means. host: and what does socialist

mean to you in terms of the practical meaning? socialist is like one step away from communism. we had bill de blasio talking about what he wanted to do. he went the communist cuba. he wants to tell you what size land you can live on, what you can eat. total control over your life. that is what socialism is. that is what tom stier is. that is what the majority of the democrats are now. that is where their party is, but the democrats don't understand that. texas democrats won 47 -- 41% of votes in congressional

races. should they have more than 13 seats? flippedafter democrats to districts, toppling gop veterans in dallas and houston, republicans will control 23 of the state seat. the dallas morning news writing it is the definition of gerrymandering, demographically and politically, the state is evolving faster in some places than others. facedexans in congress surprisingly close calls in the 2018 midterms. massachusetts, good morning to james on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have listened to a few of the comments made by different folks and the primary one was the idea of a wall. democrats are not for open

borders, wide open with mayhem. walls have not worked throughout history. they did not work in china, for the romans, people get over them or under them or around them. what works is your brains, not bricks. you stop people coming through because the person who hires them should be fine horribly. -- fined horribly. as for some of the other comments here, progressive does not mean socialism. socialism means socialism. progressive means you believe in progress and changing to fit the times and understanding and learning you get. that is what progressive means. socialism does not mean communism. socialism means for the society which differentiates the society of people from thedifferentiatef

people from the government. you are running it that way, not for the top end or for the government employees, directing people themselves, the top end of the government. host: james in massachusetts, thank you for your call. there is more "washington journal" ahead. coming up, national review's reihan salam is joining us to talk about his new book "melting pot or civil war?" that is coming up here on "washington journal." ♪ >> who was martin van buren? a good question. a lot of people probably need to ask that question. martin van buren was the eighth president of the united states,

forgotten during his presidency was only four years long. widmerght on "weekly standar "d on his biography of martin van buren. he spent a lot of time with a member, and there were persistent rumors throughout the life of martin van buren, so persistent that corporat glorifd vidal planted them in his novel, that martin van buren may be the son of aaron were. -- burr. he looks a lot like aaron burr, he acts a lot like aaron burr. he spends time trying to organize factions and get southerners and northerners in political alliances together. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a."

>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from a work morning as reihan salam, author of the new book "melting pot or civil war?" a son of immigrants make the case against open borders. -- reihan salam, thank you for joining us. guest: my parents were immigrants from bangladesh.

i was born in 1979 in a community that was very heavily immigrants-oriented. i grew up in brooklyn, new york. i still live in brooklyn, new york today. i see the way immigration hasn't reached the role come up and i see some of the complications aroundficulties immigration as well. i like to think i have a unique perspective relative to others who take part in the debate. host: you write about one of the inspirations for your debate, and attempted terrorists in new york, and you wrote "why did he i find his crime so effective> ? we shared the same stretch of sidewalk and probably frequented the same stores. by green card was sponsored

a family member or it i saw his face, i saw someone who might have been a cousin or someone who might have helped my mother kerry an -- carry an armful of groceries." tell us about what made you start the idea for this book. guest: this is an incident not long ago and was a young man in wantede 20's decided he to swear allegiance to the islamic state. these are all allegations, of course. but he is a young man who decided he was going to blow himself up in a suicide attack at the port authority. here with the guy who was angry and alienated. thinking to the united states perhaps hoping for a better life, and what he found instead frustration. i do not believe there are many people who come to this country looking to do americans harm. i think it is vanishingly rare. but someone like ullah, there are aspects that are more common.

the fact that he struggled as much as he did. the immigration system we have right now is not setting people up for success. in some cases, it is really setting people up to struggle and to pass on their struggles for the next generation. thee the story was awkward, story was unusual in the sense that it is very rare for immigrants to be violent. there were other aspects of the story that told a story about immigration that americans cannot hear, about how much the skills are blind, i but how must we do not get people in guiding hand when we first come to the country. -- about how much we do not get ive people in guiding hand when we first comes the country. is --rashaan salaam reihan salam is an editor for national review. this is his second book.

it sounds like you agree with president trump. what is president trump get right on the immigration issue? guest: first, i think president trump get something's right and some things wrong. thing he isure right if americans want an immigration system that is controlled, managed, and serves the national interest. will find is there are a lot of republican primary voters back in 2016 who felt that they do not necessarily agree with donald trump in every detail, but they did get the wanted a system that worked for all americans, particularly working americans. they felt as though other candidates do not necessarily get. the prioritized other things. they took more cosmopolitan perspective is not adequately take into account america's own national interests and its long-term interests. that the american immigration system needs to work

in the american national interest is a really important thing donald trump gets right, but there are other things he gets wrong. our callers to join become rescissions are here is that we are breaking up the phone lines for this hour, this conversation on immigration. if you are a recent immigration to the u.s., use (202) 748-8000. and by that, that can be in the last five years, whether a legal or illegal immigrant, if you are going to immigrant parents, that is fine, too. all others, (202) 748-8001. -- the term "melting book, not useyour that much in recent years. the idea is that america should be about infusing together of different groups, that we might want a society where people might celebrate different origins, so those

ethnic origins do not constrain your life. you are ultimately becoming a part of the larger american whole. but you are right, it has fallen out of favor partly because people are more likely to celebrate the idea of cultural , --alism, multilateralism multiculturalism, and what have you, where people maintain their separate identity, but my idea is a melting part is important if we want to have some measure of civic solidarity, a society that we feeling we have a common purpose, that we make sacrifices for our fellow citizens. and also the idea that we do not want americans to the ghettoized or marginalized. we want all americans to feel at the they can be -- as if they can be full participants in american life, that they can climb the social ladder, that they will not be excluded. that is why the idea of melting pot is so important and will be more important in the decades to come. host: to you think the current

against, inshes terms of helping people melt into society or help them melt into one and help them embrace some of the cultural aspects of american life? i believe there are many things that are preventing the melting pot from doing its work. part of it is economic. part of it is the fact that we live in which you really do have some polls, low income, working-class folks, who really struggle to find the ladder, so they do not feeling they are included in this middle-class melting pot. that some of that list some marginalized groups make it even harder to climb the economic ladder, and then you have a problem that will get worse as you go from one generation to the next. it is one thing if you have poor, struggling parents, but you can climb the ladder. it is another thing when you have poor, struggling parents,

and then you yourself find it really hard to enter the american mainstream. that is the experience that awful lot of people, including second-generation like me, are having. it will introduce a really big political, social difficulties going forward for the country. host: you look at a lot of historical data in your book, is for middle -- historic data on immigration. has there been a time period like we are seeing right now with the border crisis issues and immigration issues? guest: yes and no. a really important thing to understand is we have had period immigrationelemen levels than we do now. ist is unusual, however, that americans have much smaller families now than they did before. if you are looking at the mid-19th century, we have an awful lot of immigration, but

your typical family had more than six children. when you have much smaller american families, what it means is immigration represents a much bigger component of population growth, and also when you are looking at young people, when you are looking at children in youic schools, for example, have a higher share, a higher proportion of the children of immigrants than the children of natives than you would have in those periods when native families were much bigger than they are today. that sounds like a minor thing, but it has a very big effect because it means that older generations and younger generations are in some ways further apart. that can introduce some political complications as well. host: let's get to your calls. (202) 748-8000, the number to call if you are a recent immigrant to the u.s. we welcome you on outline. all others, (202) 748-8001. isaac, gooint, ohio, ahead. caller: i am calling you from

self point, ohio. i really do not think that americans want an immigration system where people are brought in from other countries that are suffering and are tortured or stripped from their mothers, child separated from their mother. we want a smart immigration system to mark these people and come up we definitely want them in. office who is in totally not in sync with the majority of americans, and i think that in the long run, he is going to find out real quick the majority of americans are going to make sure that our immigration system is the type that is, you know, not barbaric, that it welcomes people in in an orderly way. it is just ridiculous that he gets on and does all and says all the stuff that he says, the lies, dem and i think these people -- demonizing these people, and it is just wrong. host: reihan salam.

guest: i agree that you definitely do not want to demonize people. however, there isn't a fundamental challenge we face as a country which is the demand for living in the united surpasses the number of post we americans are willing to incorporate into the country in any given year in any serious way. when you look at the border crisis we are dealing with right now, in a way, it is very challenging because you have a surge ofge -- big people who are presenting themselves as silenc asylum-see. a challenge in their native country, but there is also an economic dimensions what is happening. people may be granted work visas in mexico where they may be safer, but they want to come to the united states, and they want to come to the united states because they already have relatives living in the united

states, or because of the economic opportunities available to. if you want to do with this in any humane, sensible way, you want to create economic opportunities in central america and elsewhere. here is another challenge. there are huge numbers of people around the world who are just as desperate as the folks from central america, but they cannot come to the united states over land. they would only be able to come if they were granted a visa, if they were playing in an airplane, they live in sub-saharan africa or other places. there are hundreds of millions of people who fall in that circumstance. we need to have strategies to better the lives of people all over the world rather than happy kind of chaotic system in which ,f you just across the system -- cross the border, you are admitted. it has to become as you said earlier, it has to be a humane and orderly system, and that is

not what we have right now. we need to make sure that the system works for everyone. host: a question for you on twitter -- what, in your opinion, was wrong or went wrong with previous efforts at comprehensive immigration reform? big,: this is a very complicated question, but there are a few things that work. if you look in 1986 under president ronald reagan, we rka, immigration legislation designed to grant amnesty to authorized immigrants. it was meant to increase enforcement. one big problem with it is enforcement measures were not partly because the provision of the law set we do not want employees to hire unauthorized immigrants, and that led to a cottage industry of basically

fraudulent documents and what have you that basically led to a surge in unauthorized immigration. when you are looking more recently under president bush and president obama, there were big efforts to pass bipartisan immigration reform legislation. the problem with those proposals, in my opinion, if they do not represent a real compromised. you have a much larger amnesty 1986.ou had in on the other hand, you have provisions to greatly increase guest worker migration or temporary migration. in the public, what you really had people who said we want a control system, we might want to keep the levels the same or even reduce those levels. it is not a compromise to say we will have amnesty on the one hand and we will increase temporary migration on the other

hand. a real compromise would say let's have some kind of have to earned legal status, some kind of amnesty as well as creating a system that is not drastically increase immigration levels but keeps them the same or maybe modestly reduces them, but that does it in a more skills-oriented way that will serve the national interest a bit better. that was not in either of those proposals. incident, you wind up getting a big, complicated grab bag that did not speak to the concern of folks who wanted an immigration system that was a bit more national interest oriented and a bit more integration friendly, a bit more melting pot friendly. host: here is anthony in flint, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. what is your name mean, and then go to my question? guest: my name is reihan salam, and the first man, reihan, i believe it means basil, but i

cannot tell you for sure. it is an air arabic . host: why does that matter, anthony? caller: that is cool. i was just trying to make sense of it. in 1846, we had some kind of order between utah and mexico and all that, and then as our -- statesogress, that toed, we passed the mexico border, which they did through war or whatever. what does that say to anybody, any entity, whether native americans or myth in americans that mexican-americans they cannot come back across the border that we put in place over the hundreds of years that we have been here? what right do we have to tell people that were here before us that they cannot come to the land that they had before we can

hear? host: all right, anthony, thank you. guest: this is an asterisk question. ? do we have rights at all the other is a particular historical question about the mexican war and what the nature of that was. if you are looking at us lies of mexico, what were the northern about 2/3 of mexico, that is a very lightly populated region. there was not a large mexican population. hispanos got settled there, then you have the sort of texicans, the anglo settlers, then you have the indigenous population as well. that is why it was vulnerable to an expansionist united states. when you are talking about the borders, it is not quite right to save that border was drawn

over this or that group of people. looking at the immigration issue now, immigration from mexico has actually slowed down considerably. if you look at net migration from mexico, some people say it might even gone into negative territory. partly because mexico is a more affluent country than it was before. it is also a much older country than it was before. the migration we are getting to the united states right now across the u.s.-mexico border is chiefly coming from central america, and that war you are describing was not actually a war between the united aids and centralstate and america but rather between the united states and mexico. does the united states have any right to control its borders given that united states is a country that has engaged in expansionary conflict and what have you, the truth is that is true of many countries. we are a country that has a kind of physics compact. when you become part of the united states, we, as citizens,

have a sort of obligation to you. that also means we have a tactical limit. when you consider the earned income tax credit, medicaid, social security, a wide variety of other benefits, we offer those two citizens on the part that you are a social compact, a member of the society. is you have an unlimited number of people internet compact, the nature of the contract would have to change. that is simply just a fact of life. when you have 325 million people, you can be generous to the most vulnerable among them in certain ways. when you have 7 billion people, again, you would need to change terms of the contract, a different set of taxes, a different set of benefits. it needs to change in response to the set of citizenry. that is why every single country that had some kind of immigration policy also has some

policy about the kind of benefits that you extend to newcomers into your society. some of those societies are more open but a lot less generous to newcomers. other societies are a bit less a lot more generous to newcomers. that is just a simple fact of life. host: just an update on the story on asylum secrets of u.s.-mexico border, this is thisth "new york post" morning, they say mexico may be backing out of the deal to host asylum-seekers. they appear to be on the brink of solving the crisis on their shared border until an apparent last-minute retreat by the incoming mexican government. mexico's president elect hadn't rajoy trump administration plant that would make central american asylum-seekers stay on the mexican side of the border. by saturday night, mexico's incoming government was denying

that any such plan had been finalized. we go to ahmed in sterling, virginia. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. it is really the problem, the immigration, is congress' problem. we need to go to the bottom of the problem because the reality is this is the heaven of the earth. this country is one of the greatest countries in the world. everybody wants to come to this country to do their life better. aw isg said that, if the l not very clear, i think the immigrants, if they say they can come, they will ask asylum, those who think they will deserve to get asylum, they should do it that way. but the problem is it becomes a politics between the democrats and the republicans. people, when they need help, it

is not a matter of -- this is between life and death. if we do not have rules that we say every year we will hire 13 immigrants, this is the number that we accepted, whether we like it or not, these are the people that we will bring of them here, and we help them, that is how you go by. election,come every we talk about immigration, immigration, immigration every election. needs to go to the congress, and patients of the will of all of the country, and every country asking for immigration, we will tell them this is our law, this is how we handle it. furthermore, the 12 million euros m of the children who have weway out in this situation, need to legalize them and move forward. thank you. host: thank you, ahmed. guest: there are many different aspects to ahmed's question and statement.

i agree we need a rule of law, a sensible system. the problem is if you look at the laws of 1980, the laws regarding asylum-seekers, there are many ambiguities. when you are looking at a silence that is, there are many things that would give you credible fear, that would allow you to claim asylum status that are very broad and ill-defined. when you think about classic asylums tha status, in decades pas, you thought about thoughtl refugees, you about people who were persecuted because they belong to a different ethnic religious group, for example. group,think of a social a social group can be anything. being a victim of domestic violence, being a woman, being a child, being a member of a social group is very

ambiguous. there are a lot of ambiguities in our laws. to address some of those an ambiguities. would be difficult. . to ahmed's larger point, i think americans want an orderly system. this is especially true for full to want green cards themselves, people who want to navigate the system and find that it is actually very hard to do so because, partly there is a lack of coherence to the system. there are over 4 million people on the wait list for a green card, who otherwise successfully petitioned for a green card but are waiting. there is no way to gain priority on that list by, for example, mastering the english language, by securing a lucrative job offer. the irony is there are a lot of folks who would love to apply for a green card, who would love

to better their chances, who would really welcome a more coherent set of guidelines to how they go about bettering their chances. we do not have that in their system right now. comeee we need legislation up with the truth is people are very far apart on what that legislation would look like. reihanur guest is wrong so "melting pot or guest 1 civil war?: a son of immigrants makes the case against open borders." part of what he writes here -- should admit immigrants only towe are fully committed andr integration assimilation. our number one priority should be ensuring that new arrivals

and their loved ones can flourish as part of the american mainstream, not turning a blind eye as millions language in poverty-stricken ghettos. that means fostering economic opportunity and a more inclusive ."erican identity host: let's go to suzy. africanas an american female, i have been through a lot, but the same time, i was afforded a lot of opportunities, as an african-american woman, as a child, i grew up in the hood or the ghetto or whatever, but also in the suburbs. as americans, we have a certain level of freedom. we are immigrants. -- bad was built on

things happen, you know what i am saying? but that is the past, but it has become. a melting pot. host: i will move on to los angeles. michelle. listening to just the woman in front of me. i'm in los angeles. she is in inglewood. we talk about this from the perspective how it impacts immigrants. another thing that is misleading, using people who are here illegally are not immigrants. in the legislation, they are illegal alien. an immigrant is someone who is not subject to deportation. we are not all immigrants. black americans have been in this country 460 years. we are the direct descendents of slaves that is not an immigrant. the settlers were not an immigrant. getting back to all the black folks who call -- i am a black woman -- listen, since the

1800's, we have talked about how immigration had adversely impacted black americans. in los angeles, 40% of the homeless are black americans. 80% of the construction jobs are becauseillegal aliens, i have had the building inspector for los angeles stake on my radio show -- stake on my radio show. nowese people coming illegally do not speak english. when you have millions of people who do not speak english, they are saying now americans must speak spanish. host: let's get a reaction from reihan salam. yous point out in your book write a little bit about this, saying the "melting pot of gold with whites only, and most white americans embrace racial segregation and the broader

objection of african-americans americans and other minorities to an inferior status. i think that was absolutely true in the past and one reason why people are so skeptical of the idea. we have a great historical gravey we need to -- historical legacy we need to reckon with. we did not do right by african-americans. you can think of immigration policies as early a kind of evasion. in fact rather dealing with our justic,d in let's find a willing labor force from elsewhere and turn our attention in that direction. i think a lot of people really resent it. i do not believe that you have to pit the interests of newcomers to america against those who have been in the country for a long time. i do not think that is the right thing to do. but i also think it is really important for america as a

country to really address those historical injustices and to see to it that people who suffer from multigenerational povert, where generation after generation, you have people who have been excluded from opportunity, i want to make sure that we do something about that. when you look at immigration policy, one big danger is we might repeat the mistakes of the past. that is we might welcome people as workers but then not do the things we need to do to ensure that their children can enter the middle-class. and what happens when you do not take the steps to ensure that the children of poor immigrants become part of the middle-class mainstream, what happens is you create a new group that is excluded, a new ethnic underclass, potentially, and that is what you might have to deal with in the future. so my thinking is we really want to make the country a middle-class melting pot that works for everyone, including the people who have been excluded for generation after generation. host: let's hear from john next

in florida. good morning. caller: hello. host: hi, john, you are on the air. caller: yes. i want to complement c-span. this gentleman you have here is very well-versed on the situation. but the one problem that we have to face first is the law is the law, ok? these people pushing number one.laws, you know, the problem with the language. and these people when they come over, they do not have any money. they do not have anything. how are they going to survive? when they cannot survive, they start crime. host: let's talk about language for a moment. how important is it, and given your own experience, how important was it for immigrants to learn the english language?

you are looking at public opinion data, the bipartisan policy center, for example, released a study that found some 66% of americans want to make sure that new immigrants speak at least conversational english. now, in practice, that is not actually how the system works, and it does create some problems and obligations down the road. there are 1.5 billion people around the world who are learning english as a second language. it is not as though there is some terrible shortage of people who speak the language, but it's really true that speaking the language reasonably well, having a comfortable command of it, is tough for people as they enter the country, as they try .o climb the economic ladder you have some people, refugees, asylum speakers, for example, who have good reason to not language, and it is the job of those who sponsor the migrants

to help them learn the language to get differen their footin. i think it is extremely important, because when you do not speak the language, you have to be limited to an enclave. you cannot enter the wider world. when you are entering of a child, perhaps you can learn the language, provided you're in a community that is somewhat diverse that includes many people that speak english as a first language, let's say. but if you are in an area with concentrated and what flows of migration, that could complicate matters. people do learn english over time, but i do think it is the link which will not mastering the land which, that is important to ensure people cap decent lives in america. to the previous caller's point, i think this is a fundamental issue. there are many people who believe that we need immigration enforcement. it is about the role of law. generous.e quite

they may think we need to have a decent and humane immigration policy, but it is very that the orderly. you have heard that from more than one caller today. because we is now did not enforce our immigration laws very effectively for a long time, you now have a lot of people, over 60%, who have been in the country without legal status for over 10 years. you also have a large number of people who have citizens thousands and citizen children -- citizen spouses and citizen children who are in the country. that is what happens when you do not enforce the law after you need to do something about that. i understand where you're caller was coming from. it is incredibly frustrating to feel like we just constantly keep having this problem, and it constantly keeps getting bigger, because people refuse to put in place effective enforcement. host: what is your best sense of the number of people either here

illegally, they have overstated visa or what have you? what do you think that number is? the consensus estimate seems to be in the range of 11% or 12%, and it is a fluctuated over time, partly because you have people who have left, some people with return migration. some speculate it is much higher. one group recently said the group could be over 20 million. but that seems somewhat unlikely. it seems the methodology they were using was flawed. it does seem that somewhere between 10 million and 12 million is more likely. that that number is not stat. i think it is important to note we need to think about recent violators. you mentioned visa overstayers. then you have those workplan to

sign border cross her stash who are -- then you have those who clandestine border crossers. the truth is that we really do need some kind of reset to make the process more transparent and orderly and sensibly. host: the reminder for our viewers and the listeners, a line from recent immigrants, (202) 748-8000.all others , (202) 748-8001. to muskegon, michigan. good morning to john. caller: yes, hello? host: h, john, you are on the air. go ahead. caller: ok, my question is what , his pastmr. salam ancestry, tod his speak in such detail regarding this particular issue, the civil war and melting pot?

i am a multigenerational american, and i was born in the south. i have always trusted in god, an d i am concerned that we have aree individuals who first-generation americans ruining our country, speaking to our history. john, we talked about mr. salam's background of it, but reihan salam, if you would like to expand on that, go ahead. guest: i appreciate the question. i am fundamentally just an american citizen. york. up in brooklyn, new i care about the country, just like other folks. ist qualifies me, honestly, i am someone who is thinking about the future. i have read a lot about the issues. i have talked to a lot of people, multigenerational americans like you.

i have talked to recent arrivals. i have talked to a whole lot of people about what frustrates them about the system, what do they like about the system, what do they want for the american future? when i hear from a lot of people if they feel like our country is very divided. there is almost a rancorous set of disagreements. there is a way in which we almost feel like we are not a single country anymore. we are pulling apart straight immigration is just one of many issues. it is certainly not the only issue, but it is one issue that has contributed to this fierce divide. by try to do in this -- what i tried to do in this book as i tried to reconcile the divine, people who do not naturally, normally agree with each other, and i tried to find some common ground. , that as you can imagine, is really difficult. did my best, but that is what i am going for, because i really believe that what matters most is where we as a country will be in 50 years, in 100 years.

are we going to be a peaceful, harmonious society in which you r children and grandchildren and my children and grandchildren and live together in harmony? i worry about an immigration system that is not working very well, that does not speak to the natural interest, that a lot of people just do not believe in, that that might make things worse than better. that really is my qualification. that i will like you, and american that really -- that i, like you, am an american that really cares about the country. --t: a tweet we go to dayton, ohio. caller: hi. first of all, i do not know if i should call on the recent

immigration line. most of my people came from sicily about 100 years ago. recent, be considered when you think of the history of time, that is a drop in the bucket. i am an english teacher at a high school. so the language thing is bunk. people who come to this country, their children will lose the language. 20 years of cartoon network, and it is gone. secondly, the social contract. immigration needs to be the next . just use the gang of a compromise. there needs to be better security enforce. the wall is ridiculous. the great wall in china is case in point. better border security and use the gain of a compromise. our country was founded on a great compromise. compromise is not a dirty word. secondly, leona's onus on the people hiring the people in

paying them under the table, because then they pay nothing into the social compact, as you call it. s,t the onus on the employer not on the people trying to better themselves. guest: i have a few thoughts. one is that a really was not a compromise. is sharply increased immigration levels. low-skillcreased immigration, which increase the contention in the debate. enormous surge in temporary guest worker migration. there were many elements of a that were really bitterly opposed by people who wanted some kind of sensible, humane immigration compromise. i do not think it was much of a compromise that all. i am actually kind of sympathetic to the idea that you have to have workplace enforcement. i think that is absolutely right. but again, a lot of folks are fighting against workplace enforcement, partly because they

do think it would be i effectie. on the language point, i explicitly set of the children of immigrants are learning immigrants. tolso said people do tend learned over time however, that is differentiated. people who are working in at enclaves, they tend to learn it at a slower level. that is also true of the person who came into the country in the 1900's. if you look at italian migrants into the united states in the early 1900's, about half of them actually went back to italy. the other big thing is when the communities were being replenished, they were more likely to sustain enclaves. those communities changed. the children and grandchildren in those communities at different experiences. they intermarried after the immigration restriction of the 1920's. i am not saying immigration restrictions or a good thing,

but it was a reality that when you had lower inflows of new migrants in areas communities, that is when you have people moved to the suburbs, you had a lot of folks of italian origin mary people of irish origin, english origi, and what have you, but that did not happen in the 1900's. it happened later after you have return migration, after you saw replenishment. you see a similar pattern today where you have other groups were replenishment has slowed down, and those groups are also more likely to integrate and intermarry. that is not a question about whether people are good people are bad people, it is just reality that replenishment tends to work against intermarriage, and intends to reinforce ethnic enclaves. that is just a reality to how these things work. host: let's go to our line for recent immigrants. yao is calling from silver spring, maryland. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine thank you,.

caller: i am going to be brief. i keep hearing people talking about coming to this country and they cannot speak our language. that is crap, and i can prove it. i came here five years ago from a country in south africa, and we speak only french. when i graduated, i spoke more words in english -- i had to learn english. working a 40-our job a week. i am going to school full-time, and the time that americans go to class and have fun, i sleep, like, five or six hours a day. -- i am going to school for international studies. when i am done, i will have a job, and somebody will say "no, he is taking my job."

while i am struggling, where are you? host: yao, do you feel like your work ethic is stronger than your american counterparts? caller: exactly, that is what i am saying. to reason why we come here this country and we succeed is because we work harder than normal americans. host: i appreciate your call this morning. we will get a response from reihan salam. guest: one thing that is really important to keep in mind is that immigrants are enormously diverse. not all immigrants are the same. if you look at recent data, if you are looking at old between 18 and 61, i believe the numbers are somewhere between 30% and 40% of folks who do not state conversational english. they have a pretty low level of fluency, or they do not speak the language at all. that does not mean you are a bad person. it is just the reality that are some people who master the language quickly.

that is a very good and valuable thing. and there are other people who struggle with it. when you look at illegal immigration in the united states, there is a large number that come in as a parent of u.s. citizens. these are folks that often find it very hard to master the language. this is a definite heterogeneous category. there is a great deal of diversity. ya has had an impressive experienceo, but he does not speak for everyone. immigrants who are drawn from the uppermost strata of their native country. they have certain class-specific resources and advantages that they can then bring to the united states. there are other folks who do not necessarily have those classified in specific resources and advantages, and they often have a much harder time finding the latter. we can all be from our experience, but there is danger in generalizing too much from

our individual experiences. you want to give a broader sense as well, and there are absolutely some immigrants flourishing in american life. there are others who are not. if you look at a survey, americans are not especially -- they are more concerned about benefits than they are jobs and wages. why is that? when is she was sponsoring relative, the premise is you will provide for the relative. in practice, there are many. but in the country -- again, not because they are not that people, but because they are not earning high income, they must rely on safety net benefits. that creates some tension and some source of resentment. i am not saying that is a good thing, but that is a reality. when you look at someone who earns low wages, they are in the country legally, they are working incredibly hard, but through no part of their own, their skills are not such that they can find high wage employment.

one thing we do other countries we say ok, particularly if you have children, we will provide you with the earned income tax credit, we will provide you with an affordable benefit. if you cannot for afford medical care, and you have been in the country long enough, and you have children, we will see to it that they are provided. or. i think that is a good thing -- are provided for. i think that is a good thing, but we have to be cautious. it is about whether the whole system is sustainable, whether or not people believe in, whether or not we can keep this going forward. host: reihan salam, educated at cornell and harvard, executive editor of the national review. he is also a national review policy fellow and intriguing editor to the atlantic and national affairs and author of the new book "melting pot or civil war?: a son of immigrants makes the case against open borders." a few more minutes of calls. we go to richmond, virginia. solomon, good morning. caller: good morning.

i am agreeing with mr. salam. sometimes you do not like anchor 80's, people come over here and give birth so the child can become citizens. i was not born here, but i can hear 30 five years ago from west africa. what i saw is not what i see today. people need to wake up. i am a taxpayer. i have never been on welfare. i have never received foodstamps. when people come over here and give birth on purpose, the address they are using to give birth, and for the child to become a citizen, and they will take those social

security numbers, and get into those people who live in the house, even if the child went back to africa, those people who live in that house, they use that social security number and file for taxes, and the irs will pay thousands of dollars. and the people over here, even and theyal or legal, have two children or three children between husband and the wife will protect the two children, the husband will take the schoolchildren, and they will file taxes separately. the husband save $7,000, the y $7,000 that is. $14,000. over hereat i brought five years ago, all of the money all she can make, she took of my children from richmond,

virginia and moved to new york city, got on welfare, and in welfare is taking care of the children. i went out there, and the new york city tells me i have to pay all of the money that they have paid for the children. host: i will let you go there, solomon, and hear from reihan salam. complicatedcated situation with his immigration status. he talked about so-called anchor hid his experience withnd after guest: this is a situation that a lot of passion, and it is hard to get to the bottom of these stories. somewhere around 8% of all children on in the united states were born into people who were not in the country lawfully or authorized migrants. it is a pretty complicated phenomenon, because you

some folks who are literally what they call for tourists. significant, but they are people who come here specifically for the purpose of having children. then you have people who are long residence to have children as well. those are two pretty different phenomenon. then you have people who hir surrogatese. it is complicated. we as a country, to all children born on american soil, we make a pledge to that -- you are a citizen. you are part of our body politics. we owe something to you. is whyn my opinion, immigration is such an important issue. if immigration was just about a single generation to not have children, that were temporary, it would not be such a big deal. the reason it is such a big deal if it is really about america's future and what kind of country we want to be. i want to be sure that we are an inclusive country that sees to it that people of all colors and

creeds can really become part of the american mainstream. but in order to do that, you have to have a sensible, controlled, and managed system in the national interest. you cannot have a free-for-all. you have to have a system that american citizens believe in and have faith in. they believe it is looking after their interests, and we do not have that right now. that is why i wrote this book, and that is why i am so passionate about this issue. host: a couple of quick comments on twitter. "pandering totes pandering --eball to his base while pandering to raise his behavior. " let them return and make their own countries better. we owe them nothing. let's get another call or two here.

we hear from linda in ohio. welcome. caller: thank you. i have a few questions about the economic impact. have you looked at that? when you start suffering families from their children, that creates money. you are creating more centers to hold children. you are funneling money into adoptions, american homes for adoptions. children's services also increases. brown has now become the new black. detention centers are increasing over prison. why are we not enforcing the border as hard as we are in canada? canada is recreational for drugs vs. the southern border. usually it occurs because the economy is bad. right now.

is it over nativism? is that what we are going back to. does it has to do with money and the attitudes? what will happen to the children raised in the environment that are being separated and have to say here because their parents are in mexico and do not have papers to come back. this is a really confusing time for people. host: linda, we will let you go. in the last minutes or so, reihan salam, your thoughts on the i economi impact that she raised. there are a lot presented by economic impacts, and i would love to come back on the show at a later date to talk about that. it is about how our country adapts to it. particularly to the issues she was raising, if you are a migrant from honduras, seeking to be a clandestine border crossing, and you have to pay a coyote between $7,000 and $9,000.

that has served as a kind of invisible wall. there has been effectively a barrier that people overcome by or by receiving money from relatives in the united states and what have you. when that number goes from roughly $7,000 to zero dollars -- and out of the big concern with the migrant caravan, that the idea for the barrier will be much lower -- you will have a much lower flow of migration. when you have a flow of 50,000 people, then society can adapt to it. when the flow becomes much larger than that, you might see what has happened in europe in 2015, when you had a large surge of regular, unauthorized migration, and a massive political backlash that caused a umult and turmoil across the continent, you have to have dramatic and drastic changes in policy. you have to think about cascades.

you have to think about how migration patterns might change when other things change, when you have much larger flows of migration. i think it is not used to not think those things can change very quickly if you do not have proper enforcement. so again, lots of issues in the last, that i would be happy to talk about at greater length in the future. host: we look forward to that. thank you, reihan salam, author of the new book "melting pot or civil war?: a son of immigrants makes the case against open borders." joining us from new york this morning, thank you so much. guest: thank you very much for having me. host: that will wrap it up for program, buts there is more ahead tomorrow morning, beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will be joined by bloomberg news national political reporter's developer -- sahil kapur and ayesha rascoe of npr. todd harrison looks at defense spending, the pentagon's first ever audit coming up in the segment "your money" on monday morning. "washington journal" live

beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span and c-span radio. in joining rest of this thanksgiving weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" with mark green, with the usaid. after that, nebraska senator ben sasse talks about political stability. then, a reporters roundtable on how media outlets are covering news. on c-span's "newsmakers" this we