russia. >> week spect russia will continue to wage its information war -- we expect russia to continue to wait its information war against democracies and use social media to divide society. russia's attack against ukrainian naval vessels is the latest example of the kremlin's willingness to violate international norms, to coerce neighbors and accomplish goals. will usexpect russia cyber techniques to influence ukraine's upcoming presidential election. the kremlin has outlined russia -- has aligned russia with oppressive regimes in cuba, venezuela, and iran. and moscow's relationship with beijing is closer than it has been in decades. the kremlin is also stacked up engagement in the middle east and south asia using web it sales, private security firms, and energy deals to advance global influence. host: your reaction to hearing that from the director of

national intelligence? caller: those are pretty strong work -- guest: that's a pretty stark assessment of where russia is trying to go in the world. what i think what is most noticeable is that he implicitly makes the connection between the election interference, which can seem puzzling. why do this? america or european countries by meddling in their elections? he connects that with russia's intervention abroad. that's what it's designed to do, to force a country like america inward, to divide and polarize and allow what russia wants to do abroad to be unchecked. i think that's an important connection. zach, welcome. caller: i hear a lot about, it's -- comments about russian but as far as i know

all the wikileaks emails were true, so they were not trying to influence us, they're informing us. and this information comes from companies owning 90% of the media. that is where we really get our misinformation from. and i think that's the side josh was on. host: two points there, wikileaks was emails that were written, some people feel that that leak was informing the american people about what was happening with the democratic party. caller: i see it somewhat differently. hacking private information is against domestic law. it may be against international law. but it's also not like these were leases were provided -- releases to clarify, they were provided to distract. they were tied in a way that took away development from the campaigns of both candidates, and they were taken out of context, edited in ways that did not educate the american public.

host: and the second point, that there is a manipulation by media companies because they are corporations, multinational corporations that own media companies. do you have concerns that media companies are being manipulated by others? or are they biased and manipulated by their corporate leaders? guest: i think media companies have a challenge. when an actor like wikileaks or others associated with them put out information like this, there's a 10 tatian to cover that as a story. -- there is a temp tatian -- to tatian -- temptation put that out as a story. it's difficult to not amplify what should not be amplified and cover news. i think they're much more eyes wide open about the challenge and i'm interested to see how they will handle it. indiana, on the

democrats line. caller: mr. geltzer. i take it you are familiar with the plot to destroy democracy am i correct? host: what is the book? toler: it's called the plot destroy democracy by malcolm x. guest: i have heard of it. caller: russia is playing this guy like a videogame. they look at us like we are a bunch of weenies. democracy is a brittle concept. live and let live, head coach of the the patriots, it's like i'm complaining that i don't like the way the rams run their team. you do your things, we will do ours. and one more thing i would like to say, i have been living under

a dark cloud of scandal, i'm --dering if we will have this is disconcerting. people trust the next election? so, elections are the cornerstone of democracy and i think we want to push the current government to explain what they are doing and what they are doing beyond what was done in 2016 to get the public confidence back. what's the alternative? we need people to vote, we need people to have a vote that they can rely on. so to have more public communication in the build up to 2020 from the department of homeland security, from the states who are responsible for election security on the ground, that i think is part of restoring the american confidence that information is trusted and the votes that are cast get counted. host: let's go back to the

hearing between the national security officials and the senate foreign relations -- the senate intelligence committee, there was an exchange between senator kamala harris and the director of national intelligence, dan coats, on combating foreign influence on social media. ofdo you have any intention having a written strategy that will be agreed to and understood by all members of the ic as it relates to the collective responsibilities and individual responsibilities for addressing foreign influence on social media in the united states? i have said, it's a fluid situation. we are making significant oneress on that in terms of specific written strategy, something that will have to be looked at in a continuum of change. why at exactly sure

written strategy would give us anything more, a single strategy would that would have to be modified daily. you can be assured that it is a top priority as we have talked about before, it is something we are working on and we have seen significant progress. when you go back and read the transcript of what we have talked about you will understand that. >> i have the transcript from february 13 through of 2018 when we had this discussion. when i asked you then, would you provide us a written strategy for how the ic is dealing with these threats. has there been any advancement on that point since february of 2018 russian mark --? -- 2018? >> i will get back to you on that. host: do you think a written strategy is necessary?

guest: i think senator harris is getting at something important, when you have a really difficult multifaceted national security problem, and i think foreign interference or meddling in our democracy definitely qualifies, it helps to have the white house driving the government response. different parts of the government have different authorities in different tools at their disposal. the white house can coordinate that into one strategy and that does not seem to be happening. the trumpet ministration has put out written strategy -- the trump administration has put out written strategy on counterterrorism, it does not actually reflect what he does which tend to limit their value. host: when his interference in act of war? is it ever -- when is interference an act of war? is it ever? . guest: an armed attack is considered an act of war under international law.

applying that to cyber terrorism has consumed a lot of academic papers. we have seen some cyber attacks that may have reached that threshold, where you actually destroy a main frame, or a hard drive. the type of things happening on social media, posting videos and threats probably don't seem to meet that standard but that does not mean there is not an appropriate response. coral, in mississippi, republican. in 2013 i was on the mississippi river, i saw putin at a visit. reach the other president and they ignored my call. host: let's talk to robert, in greenville, north carolina, a democrat. caller: our problem with this russian interference, the biggest problem is that 90% of the republicans are allowing

this to go on. they are putting up with an unfit president who lies to us every single day, and they are doing nothing. and also voter suppression. that's what they're working on. all republican party is 90% -- our republican party is 90% going along with the country. -- against the country. host: any thoughts? i think it's an important point that this is not a partisan issue. the russians favored one party last time, they may choose to intervene another party next time. it they may even intervene in the primaries. this should not be a -- they may not even -- they may intervene in the primaries. this should not be a partisan issue. host: do you think the president listens and takes seriously the information he is getting from

the intelligence community? caller: it doesn't seem that way -- guest: it doesn't seem that way. you have the intelligence chiefs -- at anir best at and important annual event to provide information. and the president publicly lambaste them and undercuts their testimony. that on twitter, but yesterday in the oval office this is what he had to say. >> [indiscernible] www.c-span.org -- [indiscernible] >> they said they were misquoted, and it was taken out of context. and i suggest that you call them. they said it was fake news. >> [indiscernible] >> it didn't surprise me, but were here to talk about china. >> [indiscernible] it didn't undermine anything.

we need a wall. host: the president is saying they were totally misquoted. what do you make of him saying are you hearing about his relationship with the intelligence community and those that serve? caller: the president seems to be the only one from the government claiming that the intelligence community's presentations to congress were misrepresented. a number of journalist said that we have not received any complaints from these organizations about our coverage. and we can all read the written testimony. that is what the -- host: and you can watch the entire hearing on c-span.org, we covered the entire thing. guest: it's worth doing. this is a rare glimpse at intelligence chiefs working in this open setting to share with the american public their sense posed by iran, and

north korea in terms of their trajectories on the nuclear front, for example. host: why should the american people touch the -- trust the intelligence chiefs? traditionre is a long of the intelligence community giving their best nonpartisan advice to policymakers and saying over to you when it comes to figuring out the policies that flow from that. the intelligence community doesn't always get it right, their job is very difficult. they are asked to figure out things that foreign adversaries are trying to hide from us and others. it they try their best, and is up to the leadership to keep that from politics. host: let's go to chip, in colorado, on the democrat line. caller: i want to remind folks that used to have a policy called a fairness doctrine. president reagan got rid of that

, it was stated that if opinionated shows were on public airwaves that they had to offer amount ofll opposition points, that helped people stay on the same page. i started monitoring right wing radio in 1995 with the rush limbaugh show and hannity. and it has been said many times, club if look past this we had not gotten rid of the fairness doctrine. it would have messed everything up. thank goodness reagan got rid of sayingt's what they were on the radio. ,hat led to shows like limbaugh hannity, and others. they have people brainwashed. all you need is a five dollar a.m. radio and a battery and you can listen to limbaugh forever.

it's really just brainwashing, and they lead to trump getting elected. i just think we need to have something like the fairness doctrine to get out the information on public airwaves. host: was there ever concerned when you worked at the obama administration and counterterrorism about the influence of domestic actors and the effects they could have on dissidents and division within our country? caller: -- guest: there was a sense of a domestic component to terrorism. it's not just something that happens from abroad. host: not saying that rush limbaugh is acting as a terrorist. guest: no, real terrorists out there. and there are those that consider whether they want to go down that road, whether they are so politically agitated that violence becomes an option. closedppens in these ecosystems that we have now, rather than what we had decades

ago, is that if you are on that radicalization path, it's much easier to hear things that confirm where you are already headed. we have seen that with some folks who went down this path and thought pipe bomb's might be the answer to what they saw as a bad political situation. that's dangerous. brad, a will go to republican in minnesota. morning.ood this is an interesting conversation. i think a lot of people don't realize how our country is being manipulated by the media. it starts way back in 1950 with operation mockingbird, and the young gentleman you have on probably has no idea what this is about. but our country has been manipulated by the media, and with operation mockingbird, that was the cia. they got koch. caught.here were at --

that's where were at. when i think about manipulation and people influencing an election, you think about sending paul begala to out netanyahu and they don't even think of it. they just think that's what we should be doing. the sad reality, i don't think your guest -- think like your guest, party first, that there's something wrong with me. no nothing is wrong with me. what's wrong is that he put the party first and i think that's what's so wrong with today's world. in the media is controlling the minds of so many people -- and the media is controlling the minds of so many people. host: let's get a response. forced -- not a party first sort of guy. i've served in the obama administration and in the trump administration because it was important to me to see

counterterrorism serve -- worked .gainst i would like to see national security done more and more outside of partisan politics, instead driven by intelligence and the intelligence community and their assessments. that should be the beginning of policy. host: matt, on the independent line in baltimore. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i would like to ask mr. geltzer some questions. i'm 92 years old. a world war ii veteran. i first voted for harry truman. i can't remember any election that there wasn't external influence trying to get me to vote one way or the other. i tended -- i'm a new yorker, you can tell from my accent. i was almost naturally a democrat until i went to ross

perot. i would like to ask about a particular point that your previous caller had asked, how in activeyou involved influence peddling in the in rate -- in the israeli election for netanyahu? were you concerned? did you counter it? did you try to get it put away? and also the election in the , we tried to influence that. it's more a case of the cop -- the pot calling the kettle black , if that's appropriate. host: ok. guest: from one new yorker to another i want to thank the caller for his service. he raises an important point. the digital era is not the advent of countries trying to sway foreign elections.

it happened before, and the u.s. has been a part of that. i'm not sure that's a happy history. i think at times it has undermined fragile democracies and i think countries are not very good at pointing other countries domestically in the direction they may want to go. what my co-author and i propose in the pc mentioned before is to take that away, per -- bind their own hands, and decide that this is not a tool for russia or even the version we engage in, which i do think is different from russia, but it's worth pulling back to be clear about where the line is. host: what is happening in venezuela and our role in venezuela? guest: it's difficult to know that, because it's difficult to figure out what is happening in venezuela. i have been wondering about this through this lens. we have this instinct as americans to see another country and trying to figure out where the path might look better for it.

government could be urged on one path or the other. i have no problem with the united states supporting democracy and denouncing leaders that are not really allowing their countries to engage in free and fair elections. and the tough part is figuring out when that is happening versus when we are just choosing between two candidates between a democratic system. host: gary, a republican in kentucky. hello. caller: what i want to ask about, you know the mueller investigation, it goes back with trump and wikileaks. that the server, the server from the d&c and -- dnc, and hillary, they were not examined by the fbi, they hired serverthat examined the

and related this back to the fbi. so why didn't the fbi examine those servers so they know exactly if they were leaked by russia -- dnc, or that manipulated it? that's my question. host: are you familiar? guest: this is ground that has been covered. the investigation by the fbi as well as the inspector general's look at that investigation has been covered pretty extensively. but the comments get to an important point, we want to know more about the 2016 election, at least as far as i'm concerned we want to know how foreign actors may have tried to influence this. the caller mentioned the investigation is ongoing. the sense that he must have learned things that will help us defend ourselves in the future seems strong. and there's a fight brewing now as to how much of the american public and the u.s. congress

gets told by the special counsel. that's important to understand the president and any contacts campaign had. but it's also important as a matter of national security. host: rupert, in texas, a democrat. win an democrats can't election until they stop protecting each other. it's as simple as that. host: what do you mean by that? wrench withave a bill clinton meeting on the tarmac. [indiscernible] back with aomes deal he needs to talk about --, or the american people won't believe it. host: ok, any thoughts about that? guest: i was actually heading in this direction, people want to know how the investigation wraps up.

that's complicated. this is a criminal investigation, it was at one point a counterintelligence investigation. this is not usually something we think of as appropriate to open up to the country. that's part of the criticism of director comey when he was not charging hillary clinton, he publicly lambasted her. this has been going on and it's important to our country. we learned a lot from mueller's indictment already. but in a sense of key findings that have not made their way into those charges, i think people will be interested to learn this. host: rachel, in tennessee, you are next. russia the whole narrative, from my point of view, is totally insulting. any major external influence on u.s. politics, it's israel, saudi arabia, the u.k.

dishonestlly it's from our political establishment. there has been multiple documentaries with evidence from undercover reporters showing how aipac funneled money into different think tanks and campaigns. it's all on video. it's being totally ignored by our media. host: where did you see the documentary? can you give us a name? was an the documentary undercover reporter from al , there, it's available are four parts and it shows the foundation for defensive democracy is working directly with the is rayleigh internal affairs to target not only

americans, but college students. rachel's point, do our allies try to influence our democracy as well? whether it's a lobbying effort or otherwise? guest: there are other forms of influence, the caller pointed at them. and jake and i acknowledged that. there is a threat posed by this dense information campaign, we now see other countries replicating -- disinformation campaign. we now see other countries replicating this. there are other forms of influence and we point out the way in which money is funneled into research, and trying to shift discourse and conversation, especially in washington through universities and think tanks. and those things are worth looking at. discourse and debate in the united states should be free

from foreigners manipulating us and pointing us in directions. transparency may secure that, but there's something there that needs further work. on the independent line from ohio. caller: i think it's ridiculous that you think that the russians tricked me to vote for donald trump. i voted for him because the other candidates were just terrible candidates, especially hillary clinton. it's just untrustworthy. point, want to take your is the intelligence community saying that this investigation that robert mueller is doing is looking into people getting tricked into voting for president trump? guest: i don't think so. that is something that some have tried to correlate between certain things at spreading online and polling, particularly in geographic areas, but that's

not an answer i expect we will get from robert mueller. he's interested primarily in people breaking the law. he has found some, he has brought charges and he has convictions and guilty pleas. in whethernterested there's untoward collaboration and election interference than sunday night on q and a. >> washington journal continues. immigration policy analyst from the cato institute, david bier, is here to talk about e-verify. this is a topic we get a lot of calls on. this is something people say needs to be on the table. what is going on with e-verify as the two sides try to avoid another government shutdown and come to a deal over border security. let's begin with a history. you need to back up to 1986 eve ironfire -- e-verify came from.

congress made it illegal for employers to hire people, and this is important, without documents proving their authorization to work. i 1996 it became clear to everyone that this requirement -- by 1996 it became clear to everyone this requirement had no effect on illegal hiring because people could easily get a fake id that would theoretically prove their authorization to work and employers could hire , unlessh no consequence there was an audit and everyone was fired. but they wouldn't be sanctioned, because they followed the procedures that were in place. in 1990 six congress had a choice, they could create a national id card, that everyone would have to carry and they would have to go to the state department or the federal government in order to acquire it to work in the united states,

or they could create what amounts to a national id registry, that includes everyone in the united states who is legally present in this country. that is really the route that congress went with. they created a pilot program that allowed employers to call up the federal government and asked, is this information that was provided to me by my employee matching what you have in your records? initially it was done by telephone, now it is done online. e-verify is a web-based portal that employers can put in the information of their employee, and that checks against with the federal government has either at the department of homeland security or the social security administration. these checks are done for all americans, whether they are legal residents, or u.s.

citizens. if there is a mismatch between what is in the federal government database and what has been submitted by the employer, then the system will issue a tentative nonconfirmation. and you as an employee are supposed to be notified that you have not been confirmed by the system. your employer is supposed to tell you that. and you have eight business days, a little less than a week -- a little less than two weeks to go and check in with the social security administration or department of homeland security and say hey, i'm a legal resident, here's my identification. at that point they either confirm you are not. -- you or not. and the issues -- in the system issues a final nonconfirmation if you do not challenge or you failed to prove that you are here legally. morning have lines this

for employers that use the e-verify system, we would like to hear from you on how it works and what your experience has been. as well as the democrats, republicans, and independents lines. you said an employer can call up, do they have to? guest: it depends, some employers are required to use e-verify. those are determined by what state you live in. there are state mandates, arizona was the first to mandate it for all employers. 20, now have some type of requirement for e-verify . mainly for government contractors and government agencies are required to use e-verify. jumpederal government started the process in 2008 and 2009 by requiring federal contactors to use e-verify to qualify for contracts with the federal government.

that really jumpstarted the program. before 2008, virtually no employers in the united states used the system voluntarily. then 2000 eight came, arizona required it as the first state to do so, and the federal contractor regulation came out. and they also required some private employers to use them. host: let's take a look at the numbers from 2006, from 2006 to 2018 the number of employers over 800,000.to the increase led to nearly 30 5 million e-verify checks in 2017 covering more than half of all of the jobs in the u.s.. is this a good number? what should the numbers be? guest: it depends on who you should ask. the census bureau has a significantly higher number of hires, so it's really only a third according to the census bureau. it's hard to know exactly because we don't record every

throughhrough -- hire the system now. if you look at the percentage of employers who are enrolled in of system, that's just 13% all employers in the united states. they are disproportionately employers, about 60% of employers in the united states employ less than 10 people, but a little more than 10% of e-verify employers have less than 10 employees. it is skewed towards the high-end employer, the small businesses are less likely to use e-verify than the ones that are working across state lines. many jobsites may mandate e-verify. pete, in's hear from virginia, and independent. caller: good morning. i am more of an independent

libertarian then a communist, socialist, democrat that once open borders. i lived in san diego, you could get false documents at a middle school or high school fair at the end of the year. the doorke closing after the horses got out of the barn. there were so many fake documents out there, the federal government and the employers could care less. back to this situation, i hope we talk about the yale finding about how there are three to four times as many illegal immigrants working in this , and finding jobs. jobs are out there, but they're being taken by people from the rest of the world that has snuck into this country and overstayed their visas. immigration is number two on my list for things this country

needs to take care of. host: ok. guest: most people in the economy right now are employed, unemployment is at near record lows. you're talking about more than 96% of people looking for a job last month finding a job. that includes u.s. citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. the economy is growing, job growth is growing. and many of the jobs that americans are employed in actually depend on jobs done at the lower end by immigrant workers, whether they are in the country legally or illegally. the question for e-verify is whether e-verify has actually done much in terms of deterring illegal hiring. if you look at the rate at which you have final nonconfirmation's, that you were determined ineligible to work and the employer wants to fire

you. thathare of total queries resulted in a nonconfirmation declined from 5% to 1%. the workforce, the share of the workforce that is here illegally , is about 5%. when e-verify first came out it was about matching what we would expect. now it is declined by 80%. ist is a sign that e-verify not catching much of the problem in terms of illegal hiring. host: why wouldn't it? guest: the reason is the same as what went on before we had e-verify. people borrow their friends or thetives identities, and information checks out according to the federal government. it matches the information provided a -- according to the employer. is not checking you, it

is checking your information, and if the information matches, you will be approved, and that is what we have seen in states that have mandated it, employers that have used it, they thought, i used it and i will get a legal workforce, but the federal government will audit their records, physically check, ok, this person matching what we have, and it turns out, it is very easy to evade the e-verify system. host: these are the states that mandate e-verify for private employers. they have to use this system and these states. all employers in the lighter shaded scullers are in these states. .emocrats call 202-748-8000 republicans call 202-748-8001. and independents, call

202-748-8002. and if you have lost your e-verify as an employer, your linus 202-748-8003 -- your line is 202-748-8002. rob is next. caller: i think your guest's previous comments, all that would mean our areas where the airfare -- where e-verify can be fooled. ifir system could be tweaked there are multiple uses of the same identification, but i hate to disappoint your previous caller. i'm not a communist. i'm a capitalist, but i don't want to disappoint any republicans out there, thinking democrats are somehow communist. but here is an idea for you. congress should pass a law that requires all business liability insurers operating in the united

states to provide an exclusion of coverage when it comes to worker's compensations in general liability, an exclusion of coverage for any non-documented employees. incidentident or occurs, involving a person, employers will not take the chance to hire someone who could wind up suing them when their -- when they are excluded coverage. host: what do you think? guest: you have to understand these workers are documented. the employer is checking documents. they may not the documents of the employee, but they are so the employer is

going through the so the employs going through the process of the federal government has established. [no audio] -- illegal employment. is e-verify the answer? we really have more than a decade of experience in arizona where there is a full mandate, and it hasn't solved the issue of illegal employment. they have done some of the things that have been suggested in terms of looking at multiple use of the same social security number. they have even included driver's license -- driver's information from the state, including the photo that is provided as part of the driver's licensed application, so there is an extensive amount of information in the database. it really concerns a lot of privacy advocates of how much information is now part of this national registry, but the issue thely is, has this cured

problem of illegal hiring? is there a better way? i would argue, there is a better way, and that better ways providing people an opportunity to get legal status in the united states, go through a process of getting right with the law, and once they get right with the law, they will be paying taxes on the books, going through the proper procedures, and that is really a way to deal with the illegal problem, that is good for americans, but also restores respect to the rule of law. host: in your report, you put together this graphic looking at wage gains before and after e-verify's mandate in arizona. what are you saying here? guest: this is looking from the perspective of a person in mexico who is deciding to

immigrate illegally from mexico. how much of a wage gain will they expect to get before or after the e-verify mandate? very slightly,e mainly for male workers, but they did not reduce nearly enough to make it any different -- to make any difference for the illegal alien's and on whether or not to immigrate to the united states illegally, and that is the point. if this is supposed to turn off the job magnet, which is tracking people to come illegally to the country, it hasn't reduced the value of immigrating illegally nearly to a point that it would make any impact on someone's evaluation about whether or not to do that. the interesting thing about the ,rizona case study on this is

while he did reduce the wages of illegal immigrants on average, actually, the number, the share of illegal workers, who were looking for work, and the employees in that state, actually increased because you had wages for the primary worker decline, and then you had the wife enter the labor force in order to make up the difference. so, you actually had more people being employed as a result of the e-verify mandate illegally then before it. so, it actually backfired in a way that many proponents of the idea did not expect. host: let's hear from samuel in georgia, a democrat. caller: yes. i am concerned about the portrait industry. the construction industry, and the livestock because the

construction should do 1099, so they use subcontractors. in 40 years and social services, no one could come in and verify this. the immigration authority could not get food stamps, or assistance, unless there was an anrgency -- unless there was emergency, so they are coming over the border and gathering up the funds. and 99 personfort of us who dedicate our lives to social services ensure that everybody qualifies for the benefits they receive. host: ok. guest: that is a great point. e-verify doesn't apply for federal benefits or welfare benefits. there is a different system that verifies the legal status for

people in that arena. this is really for employment, but the caller is absolutely correct that people who are applying for welfare benefits do need to go through that process. what he was saying with respect to contractors is an important point, and that is, contract -- is nottor relationship an employee relationship, so they would not be subject to the e-verify mandate. so, you don't have to run your plumber through e-verify in order to hire him. that is a contract relationship, not an employee relationship, so there are many people who are self-employed that are in the country illegally. you would not know that by checking the e-verify record. host: russell in massachusetts, independent. caller: hi, how are you? host: we are good, russell, go ahead. is that i comment

firmly believe, the e-verify is a very small part of it, but it is in the right direction. if we are going to start summer, it has got to be small. in the same aspect of it, i can take that immigration on the highest level has always been political. runningghly used to be a presidential campaign. just like health care. not to go off subject, but there are two subjects that will always be around. it makes up the majority of the presidential election. as a native american, i don't see any form of immigration -- if you look at the reality of how we allow people in this country, and it doesn't make me better than anyone else, but as native american status, indigenous people have seen this

immigration process has changed at the highest level. the employment part is why they are coming here because england, france, and germany have the same freedom we do. for immigration here. i can assure you, we have a lot of immigrants in massachusetts alone. we have a republican governor, charles baker, and a democratic mayor of boston, just shows you republicans and democrats could work together if they choose to work for the people. and they were sent there and ,orgot that they worked for us so the immigration status is broken on every level, but it has to be maintained. they are not just coming here for the jobs. they are coming here for the welfare system. i don't deny them, but come the legal way. host: ok. guest: a lot to unpack their.

-- unpack there. even if e-verify isn't working well, we might as well do it because it is something. the issue i would take to that to it is really harmful legal workers in a way that it is not reported. the number of workers, who are wrongfully erroneously targeted by the system, or these tentative, non-confirmations that they have to sort out with the federal government over weeks or months, even years, to figure out what the problem was, why did they not get -- then you have to prove there was an error when your information was put in. that can be a very costly process for the employer and employee. they are losing wages, losing productivity. there were 58,000 of those last year alone. so, you're talking about a half a million more over a decade

where americans, legal residence, are being hit with these erroneous, tentative non-confirmations. you are actually losing opportunity for a job, and the main reason for that is many employees -- employers will run you through the system and say, i don't want to deal with this tentative non-confirmation, so i will drop this application in the trash. and then you have another 10,000 or so of those every year. so, there are problems with the system that harm legal residents without any of these benefits that you hear about in terms of preventing illegal employment. with respect to other countries, if you look at germany, france, canada, these countries all allow a rate of legal immigration far greater than what we allow as a share of our population in the united states. of course, the united states

residentse illegal than the absolute number, but the size of our country is so much greater. for example, the united states allowed about a third of a percentage increase in its population due to legal immigration last year. compare that with canada, which was 2.5 times greater as a percentage of their population. so, there are other countries allowing a lot more legal immigration as a share of the population. we could allow more legal immigration, and that would reduce the incentive for people to come illegally. illegalshave 200,000 coming into our country at a cost of $15,000 per person. that is about $3 billion more. our the numbers right? -- are those numbers right? guest: you can't just look at

maybe the benefits. i am not sure how that number -- where that number came from, but there will always be some cost anytime you have a person in the country, they will impose some cost of the infrastructure of the country. will use some benefit somewhere along the line, and certainly, their children will end up in public schools and that is a real expense, but you have to also factor in the benefits that a child will grow up, they will work over the course of their life in the united states most likely, and they will be paying taxes throughout that time. according to a study on this issue, the second-generation, the children of immigrants, are the most disproportionately positive of any group of people and the united states, so there are a lot of fiscal benefits in allowing google to immigrate to the united states -- to allowing people to immigrate into the

united states. eligible for benefits or social security, even though they are paying social security taxes through their employment. their employers are paying their social security taxes into an account. citizen'ss a u.s. social security number, but they are paying into that account. so the benefits received by americans through their payments through social security accounts should be taken into consideration when we are talking about getting rid of immigrants and not letting them come in the future. host: let's talk to mary in louisiana, a republican. caller: hello, greta and david. good morning. ok, david, i want to make two truths to you. first of all, the businesses that hire illegal immigrants, they do not care because they

know that they are not going to get punished for doing it. ok? host: ok. caller: and greed has something to do with it. they don't have to worry about paying paid vacation, sick leave, ok? they don't have to worry about paying unemployment, insurance, ok? and they don't get no consequences behind it, it will continue. ,ext, now, the politicians republicans and democrats, they don't care because of the simple reason, when they run for office, either they are getting reelected, those businesses have found out all they got to do is put up enough money in that campaign, and then that is when they can get away with it because our elected officials don't do anything about it because, hey, all they are looking for is the next

election. host: mary, let me jump in. did you see the news reports that president trump's organization, golf clubs, did not use the e-verify system when it was hiring workers for its various golf resorts? caller: let me tell you about that. donald trump is the ceo. donald trump did not personally hire those people. they were people working for him that did that. i am 73 years old. it was the people under him that did that. sure all ofm pretty the big corporations he owns, he doesn't go around and hire those people who do cleaning and stuff like that. host: ok. what about businesses not caring? caller: well, i think businesses

want more workers. i think that is the fact of the economy. her point about the world running on self interests, i agree with that wholeheartedly. and i look at the system, and i look at the reality of the world, which is, people run on self interests, whether they are politicians, private businesses, we are all in this to make the best life we can. reality, thet question is, how do we best deal with the problem of illegal immigration, people crossing the border illegally, which we don't want to see happening? there are two different approaches, one is totally contrary to self-interest, to the politician to the employer, or you try to align self interests with the law, and that is where the illegal immigration problem begins, allowing that illegal pathway, and that is

really the answer to the problem, not these types of proposals that the caller correctly identifies are totally contrary to the self interests of everyone in the system. independents an from lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. this is history, folks. america, historically, has benefited from unscrupulous labor. let's use that term. and that is what it does. we have lost on the books -- we laws on the books that they do not enforce. i don't even like that word, e-verify. like we have a war on drugs, we need a war on jobs, and we need someone going into enforce the law. the losses if you hire someone pergal, you can get fined

illegal person, and if you get caught again, you lose your business license. billion ofr 30 whatever the illegals that are here, and they keep coming in record numbers. how come i have not seen one business person lose their license? i am not see one person in the headlines being fined. ? go into your home and eat all of your cheese, and your responses, oh no, let me plug up this hole with a little patch. well,, since tells you, -- well, common sense to you to get the cheese off the floor. guest: arizona does have what they call the business guest and multi-. if you get -- business guest penalty. hiringget caught twice

illegals, they will shut you down completely. if you want to know why that hasn't almost happened at all in that state, the reason is what the last caller said. it is self interest. no one wants to shut down american businesses because that will result in not just the hiring of illegal workers, but all the american workers who are employed there as well, and how is a good for the economy, or for the state? fines andk at enforcements, south carolina issues a lot of fines for missed e-verify checks. it doesn't mean that the employer hired someone illegally, it just means they missed the check, so you are imposing new costs on employers are hiring as part of the hiring process. that is a regulation on business , and a regulation on hiring, and the more you increase the risk of hiring, the more, the less hiring will go on -- the

less hiring will go on, so if you want the best answer to this problem, you want to go with a free market direction, which is less employees/employers match up on their own, increase the cost of hiring overall, and that will result in more hiring. host: who runs the e-verify system? caller: the agency within the department of homeland security called u.s. citizenship. enforcements' enforce the system and audit employers who use the system, and ones who do not use the system. the trump administration has done the most audits of any administration so far. we get to see whether that will result in no more illegal hiring, but the obama administration set records before the trump administration now broke them, and we have not seen any change in the number of immigrant workers in the labor

declines, butght nothing really substantial in terms of turning off that job magnet. host: next caller in tennessee. a democrat. caller: good morning. it seems to me we are putting a lot of obstacles in our own way. this is america, and why is it that e-verify would not work as well as a passport? recognition,ial biological factors put into the e-verify document? or is it a lack of political formats that precludes this kind of arrangement in america, where we can do everything else? host: david bier? caller: well, we are incorporating photo id's from the state level. really, the problem with biometric identification, fingerprints in this sort of thing is that it creates

backlash among the american people. want to go to the federal government in register my fingerprint. i'm not a criminal, so stop treating the asset. cap point when you are really are -- i'm not a criminal, so such. treating me as when you are at that point, they are concerned about what is next for this program? right now, it is being used to monitor hiring and monitor gun purchases next? many gun groups are very concerned about that actually happening because gun control is always on the table, and using biometric identification processes would allow for the creation of a record of every single gun purchase in the united states with identification of that individual. that is really what happens now through the e-verify program. you can have a record of a random employer who has done a

check on you, where it was, and who did the check. this is the concern from the privacy standpoint about having a national id, biometric system that can be used by really anyone to check out who you are, and look at your history. host: what is the flow of migration into the high-stakes, illegal migration every year? catof they were to do what 's advocate and have a pathway to citizenship for people entering the u.s., with that number increased? caller: if you look at the net number of people, the number of illegal immigrants who entered, as well as a number who left, minus the number who died, we have seen a net decline of one million people sense 2007 -- one million people since 2007. a large number went back to mexico when the economy crashed.

even in the last couple of years, we have seen a decline of 300,000 from 2014 the 2016 decline in the population. so, it is between 11 -- 11 million and 12 million, but the trend are largely the same. host: in total? guest: total living here. the number who is entering minus the number of meeting. the number entering is not known precisely, but you're talking about a couple hundred thousand people who enter, and a couple hundred thousand, a little bit more, who leave every year. in newe will go to mike york, and he independent. caller: yes, i have a question regarding the tax consequences. if you illegals are coming in, are they not using names or information of current employees? how would a w-2 work? is no ban on having

multiple jobs. there is nothing preventing you from being employed at multiple obviously,or -- but if it is the same employer, it would look odd to have the same employee employed multiple times by the same employer, so you would have to use the identification of someone who is probably not employed at that worker's site or business, which is generally the case. the employer is actually paying taxes. they are paying into the social security system. they are doing withholding and all the rest they are required to do. they don't realize or don't care that the person is not exactly who they say they are. host: lynette, clearly, california, good morning to you. caller: good morning.

i am very nervous. please excuse me. [laughter] caller: i do this every time i call. [laughter] caller: e-verify is no longer useful. it is obsolete. this is what the illegals are doing in california. they come here, they have their babies, that is their little american citizen, and then, that little baby gets a social security card, so that baby is entitled to welfare. taking food, housing, clothing, schools, then the parents can use your social security number to get a job. so, that is growing us here. usso, that is just screwing right in left. host: and you know that is happening? caller: oh yes. guest: i completely agree with the caller on the point about using the child's social security number. there is actually nothing preventing that from happening, you know?

you can use that social security number. double check out what the government databases. -- that would check out with the government databases. host: but would not state how old the person is -- but wouldn't that state health old the person is? guest: well, you would have to verify in the system that the person is of working age. you could have a child that is 16 or 17, and could be using their authorization. in terms of the welfare costs, like i said before, the poverty level among these illegal immigrants and they united states is quite high -- these illegal immigrants in the united states is quite high, and use benefits more than others. adulthood, they are high achievers, so the rate at which their poverty goes down, actually to a level below that of the entire u.s.-born population.

like i said before, the national academy of sciences study on the fiscal impact of immigration shows that the second generation of immigrants are fiscally-positive of any generation. host: we will go to tom in new york, our last caller, an independent. caller: thank you very much. thank you for your time. i want to tell you that your guest is truly uninformed. i am shocked that the way you are talking in the way your treating people calling in. destroyed myration company. i had 25 tax paying citizens working for me. they were paying their taxes and doing their job. in one night, my entire company was relieved of their jobs and told that the people who were going to take their jobs will be doing their jobs and next day.

my company was put out of business. my guy did not have a job -- my guys did not have a job anymore. they were not able to feed their kids. who is monitoring this show? i thought this was america. this is nonsense. was: tom, where these jobs, your company -- were the jobs lost to people in the country illegally, or lost to people overseas? caller: they were not allowed to be in this country. 25 american citizens lost their jobs. host: ok. guest: i would ask the caller hubby knows whether these people were american citizens are not? did he go through the e-verify process? did he check their identification himself? if so, why did he hire them? question i wish ,he caller could answer because

you know, just profiling people based on the fact they speak looksh, or you know, non-white, that does not mean they are in the country illegally. at the end of the day, the bottom line is this -- unemployment -- the unemployment rate in the u.s. is a near all-time low. 96% of everyone wanted a job last month, found a job. that means that you have illegal workers finding jobs and american workers are finding jobs. if you look at the market overall, there is always going to be exceptions, always instances where things don't work out exactly right, but overall, you have illegal workers, these low-skilled immigrants doing jobs that most americans don't want to do. they do them in agriculture, construction, and that is

providing job opportunities at higher wage levels for oversight and management. host: let me add to the conversation because the unemployment rate came out for january and it is sad for percent for january, and jobs added were 304,000. what do you make of those numbers? guest: like i said, 96% of those looking for a job found one. the economy is growing in need workers in this country, and more workers really adds to economic growth. if you limit the number of workers in your economy and put a hard cap on that, you are putting a hard cap on economic growth. economic growth is the thing we need if you want to reduce that deficit, want to reduce the debt , you need to have a growing economy, and the faster we can grow that economy, the more we can reduce that debt and deficit. host: david bier's immigration policy analyst with the cato institute. you can go onl

announcer: c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, we discuss cash bail reform efforts with someone from the lawyers committee for civil , and also from the american bail coalition. about theorter talks national rifle association and it influence in washington. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. joined the discussion. >> over the last year, the world has seen what we always knew, that no people on earth are so fearless or daring, or determined as americans. if there's is a mountain, we climate.

and there is a frontier, we cross it. and there is a challenge, we tame it. if there is an opportunity, we seize it. so let's begin tonight to recognizing that the state of our union is strong, because our people are strong. [applause] the state of the union, first postponed because of the shutdown, will not take place tuesday night. watch as president trump delivers his address live from the house chamber beginning get 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, followed by the democratic response by former georgia gubernatorial candidate stacy abrams. life tuesday at 9:00 eastern on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >>