are doing is zero. they are not going to city hall. they are not going to school board meetings. they are not covering the president. they rely on delivering our content and monetizing around that content. if you don't do that anymore, you don't have local journalism. the question is not whether or not we want a strong environment in the journalism industry, the question is out do we get there? whenied in the 1970's newspapers were last in the median. it did not work. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. will talkrning, we with joseph from the peterson institute of national economics and about the g20 summit and the future of u.s.-china trade. on hisstephen hawkins

group's new report and the perception gap between partisans. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, july 1. congress is away from capitol hill for the fourth of july break. we begin with vice president mike pence from over the weekend on the morality of border security. the vice president told a gathering of conservative activists there is "nothing compassionate about open borders." phone lines as usual. democrats, 202-748-8000, is the number. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

special line for border state residents. that number, 202-748-8003. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. you can start calling in now as we show you the vice president saturday night speaking at the conservative faith and freedom coalition's annual dinner in washington, d.c. here is what he had to say. [video clip] majors week, every democrat candidate for president promised a toff or free taxpayer-funded health care to illegal immigrants. many even promised to decriminalize illegal in from -- immigration altogether. after spending the last 6 months denying there was a crisis at our southern border and doing nothing while our courageous and compassionate customs and border

patrol personnel were overwhelmed by the crisis. some democrats want to lecture us about their moral concern for the people caught up in this crisis. let me be clear on this point. there is nothing compassionate about open borders. there is nothing compassionate about refusing to change the laws that traffickers use to take advantage of poor families. those who would advocate open borders, free health care for illegal immigrants and making illegal immigration legal are making it easier for human traffickers to mistreat poor and vulnerable families. that is morally wrong and that has to stop. [applause]

do, and ithing to believe in my heart of hearts, the compassionate thing to do is providee our border, humanitarian support to families being exploited by these criminal syndicates. sendm our asylum laws and a deafening message south of the border that if you want to come to the united states of america, you must come legally or not at all. [applause] and i will make you a promise. whatever democrats want to do -- to do to continue to deny and , we are going to keep

working. we are going to keep telling the story. we will keep finding allies in congress and across this country and we will face -- fix this broken immigration system once and for all. pencevice president mike in washington, d.c. making those comments on the same day president trump said traveling overseas that he is intent on beginning a new round of deportation for immigrant families in the u.s. illegally. president trump imposed a two-week delay on the round of deportations and sponsored a request from nancy pelosi. lawmakers should use the two weeks to strike a deal on u.s. policy that entices immigrants to make the journey. he will begin removing large numbers of people sometimes act -- sometime after july 4.

concerns onceing again about that policy of deportation. on cnn'sulian castro state of the union. [video clip] >> the president plans to start raids next week on migrant families that have been court ordered to leave the country. chicago and los angeles will direct police departments to not assist i.c.e. would you encourage police department to follow suit in other cities? >> yes, i would. i believe local law enforcement should do its job and federal law enforcement has its own job to do. to see los angeles and chicago are doing that. the other thing is what is clear is this president likes to terrorize immigrant families. he likes to scare them. he likes to use this issue as a political weapon to draw fear

and paranoia in his base and he thinks this will help him get reelected with a narrow electoral college victory in and the way he got in 2016 i draw a very straight line between these types of actions by the president or at least the talk, the threat, and the proposal to have a citizenship question on the u.s. census. immigranto scare families, self deportation, and chill the others from participating in american life. our immigrant community, whether documented or undocumented, add a lot to this country. they help us move forward. time, he all of a sudden said he is going to postpone these rates. -- raids.

he talks so much, you don't know what to believe. i am glad police department's are pushing back. yesterday.n castro this morning on the washington journal, a conversation about .he morality of border security morning,bers this 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we are keeping that special line open for border state residents. we will begin in pennsylvania. rod up first, independent. caller: good morning, c-span. a lot of these people coming across the border want to come to the united states of america. -- since they wanted

to come to america, they -- there are sparsely populated why not put them on a plane and send them to alaska? that is the united states, isn't it? host: if you did that, would you allow them to have citizenship in alaska to vote and be part of this country legally? maybe 10 years down the road. host: this is patricia, republican. good morning. support vice president pence and president trump's immigration policies and i get tired of people mixing immigrants with illegal aliens. any other country in the world, you cross their border, you are subject to their laws. you are thrown in jail or

deported immediately. i am tired of people thinking just because we are all immigrants and all of that -- my mother came from columbia in the 1950's. she married my dad and did it the proper way. i want people to start worrying about american citizens first. -- nolth care illegals benefit. they came here illegally, what part do people not understand? you can have a compassionate heart and all of that, but you have a nation of laws and i believe the people in this country are bleeding heart liberals that are globalist and want to destroy america and i don't understand it because there is a lot of people like me that have a mixed heritage like a colombian mother and american dad, but i am still proud to be an american first, so i do support president trump and i

think he will win by a landslide. host: this is glenn out of mississippi, line for democrats. good morning. are you with us this morning? try., one more go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i want to lock donald trump off for going across the north korean line. host: we will try keith out of wisconsin. an independent, go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. am i on? host: yes, sir. caller: i am not from mississippi. any discussion of immigration ought to include the proxy wars the u.s. fought in the 1980's and how we destroyed their

government and installed right wing dictators. this ought to be front and center to any discussion. i believe any person that comes whose government we overthrew, they should be .ade a citizen immediately we have more obligation to provide and care for the people whose government we overthrew. this ought to be front and center. i don't hear any discussion about this. at the democratic debate, i think one person mentioned it, 1 of all the candidates. host: we are talking about the compassionate way to deal with the crisis on the southern border, you think that is the compassionate way of doing it? caller: mike pence's way is not compassionate. his bossamn liar and

is, too. it is not about human trafficking, that is a red herring and he should know this. host: why do you think it is a red herring? caller: if you took away the monetary incentive for human trafficking, there would be no human trafficking. there should be open borders. especially because we overthrew their government. anyone who does not mention this is being dishonest. read gnome chomsky, he has am chomsky, he has written book after book after book about it. host: more of your phone calls coming up as we continue this first hour of the washington journal talking about the morality of border security. democrats, as usual, republicans, independents, and that special line for border state residents, 202-748-8003. as you are calling in, want to

turn to the hill newspaper, following the immigration debate over the past several weeks and months on capitol hill. first, the latest on that emergency border aid passage passed by the house and senate, is the president going to be signing that bill soon? : he should-- guest be signing it. he praised it, but there was pushback from the progressive side of democrats. 95% of them -- 95 of them voted against the bill. they will go visit the border today. i think the work is hardly over on the border. i think it will continue to be a big issue on capitol hill. host: how soon does it take for that money to get to the agency and the money -- the number is $4.6 billion.

can you talk about what agencies will get and where the money is going? guest: roughly $1 billion will go toward shelter and feed immigrants and another $3 billion for unaccompanied migrant children turned over by hhs. the timeline on when exactly they will receive that money should be shortly after, but i am not sure the exact timeline on that. host: what sort of timeline do you have on the visits from earlier and what members are headed down to the border during this july 4 recess week on capitol hill? guest: the congressional spanish caucus is supposed to head down today. there is two dozen members that will be down there. there has been a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle on the condition of these facilities, heart wrenching -- diedf the scene

trying to cross the border. i think talks will continue how to get -- how to navigate that going forward. host: concerns about access for members of congress when they visit these facilities. has any more advanced on that front ensuring members of congress can get in when they go to these areas to visit? guest: i know that was a big thing, there was definitely language in the house bill, i don't believe it made it into the final language that is supposed to be signed by the president. i am sure there will continue to be work done on that front. as of now, i don't think anything has been signed -- i am sure the push will continue on the progressive side to have that access. host: there was a department of homeland security report out late on friday that border crossings in june expected to be

perhaps 25% lower than they were the month before. what do we know about what dhs is crediting for that drop in crossings? guest: i would have to check in with sources, i have not seen that report yet. juliegrace brufke follows it all. thank you so much for the time. guest: thanks for having me. host: taking your phone calls, talking about the morality of border security and mike pence saying there is nothing compassionate about open borders. want to get your thoughts on that topic. special line for border state residents, 202-748-8003. robin has been waiting on the line for democrats from cleveland, tennessee. good morning. caller: yes. first of all i would like to say mike pence is lying.

host: you have to turn down your television and talk through your phone. you think mike pence is lying? caller: he is lying because it is not against the law to apply for asylum. he is standing in front of a bunch of christians telling a lie. it is not compassionate to let little kids be in squalor. there innding right front of that podium, he starts with a lie. these people are liars. they are amoral. they have twisted the words of the bible. this is the same people whose and centers -- ancestors would go to lynchings on a sunday afternoon. illegal said making immigration legal is making it easier for human traffickers to mistreat poor people and vulnerable families, do you disagree with that? guest: i disagree with that

because the human trafficking problem is in america. it is a small percentage of the people going on in america. they are trafficking humans coming across the border, but it is not as many as what is going on in the united states of america. he is telling another lie. that is two. he is standing in front of that podium speaking to christians, telling them ally. are christian, liars dangerous. host: this is john out of florida, independent. the morning. caller: good morning and let me say we all appreciate c-span giving us a voice. one of the biggest things, first of all, i live in an hoa in florida and i have several friends who are immigrants and they are astonished and upset people can walk across the border and think they are going

to become citizens. the main issue here is law. you comegration act, here, you have a sponsor. you want to sponsor someone, maybe these hollywood people need to sponsor? obama used to say i have people on my side. if you do, change the law. we have laws and the left does not believe in law. host: you bring up former president obama, what were your thoughts on the daca program? the deferred action for childhood arrival program affecting some nearly 700,000 children brought here over the border when they were children? compassion inis that and everything, but at the same time, we have to go with what the law is. basically, they have to learn english. they have to get those things

going, but they don't. the bottom line is i will use the rule of law as a guideline and as far as the vice president, he does not lie. you want a liar, look at obama. keep your insurance and your doctors, he is a liar. i don't think they believe in the law or even know it. have a great day. host: in terms of the rule of law, it will be up to the supreme court when it comes to the future of the daca program. they will hear a series of challenging -- cases challenging president trump's attempt to cancel the obama era, daca deportation amnesty. justice department lawyers asked the court to speed the case to be heard in front of the court, this term that ended on friday. the court declined to do that.

it was back in september 2017 president trump announced he was canceling the daca program. a republican out of chicago, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i want to comment, this accusation about open borders, open borders, no one has ever come out to say -- no democrat or republican had -- to say they are for open borders. the only people for open borders are the employers who keep hiring undocumented immigrants. those migrants presenting themselves at checkpoints are doing nothing illegal, it is completely legal to go up to a point of entry and request asylum. all those people being the 10 -- the taint have broken no laws. human traffickers are the people coming through illegal entry points, getting snuck through throughrt and courts

ships, those are the illegal entries. everyone walking up to check points on the southern border are following our laws. who is not following our laws is dhs. everyone wants to dismiss the drowning of oscar martinez. he had humanitarian visa. he had permission to come in, but dhs for two months kept lying to him that the bridge was closed. his entry should have been processed. people talk about a huge round crossing over, he never crossed over, he was in this country legally. his visa should have been processed under the law. int: what should republicans congress be doing about these issues? stop lyingy should

about open borders and start whosting people like trump -- the driving force of all these migrants. the people coming through the checkpoints are breaking laws and republicans should stop vilifying them and lying about them. host: immigration policy and border security certainly important, one of the top priorities for republicans. what makes you a republican? what are your top value readies as a republican? caller: as a republican, i would like to see them stand up to their principles. these fiscalng me conservatives, -- spent almost $800 a day per detainee. these are people that legally presented to the border and checkpoints. why are we spending $300,000 per

year per detainee for what? for a non-crime. aya out of is y chicago. you mentioned that picture of the father and daughter who drowned while attempting to cross the rio grande. bernie sanders tweeting out that picture last week amid the controversy that stemmed from it aying these deaths are what broken system is all about. trump should be meeting with central american leaders to find ways to end the violence and poverty causing people to flee their homeland. that is bernie sanders last week . we will show you more reaction from members of congress and getting your reaction as we talk about the morality of border security in light of the vice president saying there is nothing compassion -- compassionate about open borders. good morning, thank you for taking my call. i really enjoy the show.

years ago when i was doing a study in congress -- college, part of the funding we sent to mexico and part of it was we have done for years was to help the mexican government as far as controlling their borders. it seems to me if we are getting an abundance of immigrants coming looking for political asylum, this should be handled south of the border by mexican and american government combining forces to find out and weed out are you coming here for political reasons? this would probably help the cause -- all these people coming across. at least we can do something that way. i am not for just open borders,

you cannot put the resources of the american people and the states with that kind of financial responsibility to take care of all these people. you also have to consider the people already living here and that is all i have got to say. host: bob is next out of texas, a republican. good morning. caller: did mike pence swear to be- an oath compassionate? he was talking at that conference about being moral and there is nothing moral and compassionate about what we are doing. he did not swear an oath to be compassionate. he swore an oath to support our constitution. -- shallsupreme law protect each state against invasion and they are not doing

it. i was on tv -- your show months ago with ken cuccinelli and he was saying the federal government does not follow the constitution and protect the borders, it is up to our state governor, craig abbott to do it and he is not doing it. if we don't follow the law, the law of our founding, there is nothing compassionate and moral. fors what gets me worked up 6 months. there is not one person in washington, d.c. or any state capitol in the united states following their oath of office and they should not be in office according to the 14th amendment, section 3. host: you said you called when ken cuccinelli was on this program. in the time since, he has become the acting director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services.

what do you think about that move and what he can do in that role? caller: if he specifically abides by the constitution as written by our founders, the reason we wrote the constitution was for 13 week colonies to unite to protect themselves against invasion and i don't tonk he is really committed specifically following the constitution. i don't think anybody is and i have called over 150 represented them ontors as i see c-span talking on the floor and ask them why are they not following article numeral for section 4? host: do you think donald trump is following the constitution? caller: no, he does not know it. he is trying to do the right thing, but he is going here and

there and this last thing he did about obamacare and exposing what the costs are at the time of service, that is unconstitutional, too. it is really time to set back and make sure these people are qualified to hold office by giving them the same test we give immigrants, legal immigrants that spent five years or more trying to become americans. host: this is benny out of missouri, independent. good morning. caller: yes, hello? host: go ahead. caller: i would like to thank c-span first for the opportunity. republican, caller, california, texas, they gave some really good explanations on so view, but it seemed to be confusing now because of how it

has morphed into a lot with this immigration. first i would like to say i have first generation immigrants and they have a daughter that is right about 19, she has been to school and everything. she would be qualified for daca if they had a. if i knew the language better, i could communicate better with all of them. what i wanted to say was a lot of them have learned their skills here. they are very hard-working people, he is a mechanic and they have a lot of different crafts of the families i have met and who is employing them? who is educating them and if we the civil 1965 when rights act, that is when they opened the door because they i am ato suppress --

black man and they wanted to suppress that because the blacks .ere asking for civil rights they can enjoy civil rights and they open the door. about to run down labor and not let the american blacks prosper. that is what i wanted to say and i hope it is not derogatory in any kind of way. the illinois caller, the republican, she gave a good answer. california republican and texas, i think it was a democrat, they gave a good answer. host: we have a lot more callers waiting, including calvin. go ahead, it is your turn. caller: good morning, c-span. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: okay.

there is nothing compassionate about open borders, this country has had open borders for some time. i don't understand where this concept is coming from. we have had people coming across the border for years and years and years. if we go back in our country's been decadese has and decades of people coming across the border. i don't see how he figures this. host: vivian out of alabama, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i have 4 quick comment. first of all, we need to have a passport to go into canada. second of all, democrats want

all these immigrants to come here, but they are willing to kill our american babies. thirdly, our brave men and women fought in world war i, world war ii, korea to protect and preserve our country. why don't these third world countries do the same? lastly, we sent all these countries money to help them, so i don't know why they have to come here when we are sending them money already to help their countries. it is getting to the point where it does not matter what the american people want. problemunderstand the the democrats are having. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast having a conversation in the first hour of the washington journal about the morality of border security. the vice president saying at a gathering of conservatives in washington, d.c. saturday night

there is nothing compassionate about open borders. we are getting your response to those statements and here is a few thoughts from our twitter and facebook feeds including rebecca saying dems don't want open borders, republicans are trying to hang a tag on democrats and republicans are letting them do it. julie saying i am a strong border democrat. we are a sovereign nation with our own citizens to take care of, these people can stand in line. democratic callers almost invariably turn to race or any other handy identity group. republican callers most commonly discuss the rule of law. we would not have people mass migrating if employers were not hiring them. what is the vice president's view on these employers and how many have been held accountable under the trump administration? what person is suggesting open borders? is changing the process for accepting refugees considered open borders and how many times

do we have to say this, the u.s. does not have open borders and that is not what liberals want or think. a few of your comments in response to the vice president's comments. this is bobby out of california, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning, john. i would like to make everybody aware of something about mr. pence. is a person who has abandoned, in college, his catholic, christian faith. that faith and freedom coalition is nothing more than a hootenanny for hard-core taliban evangelical anti-catholic protestants. we are seeing what dr. arthur's lessons are, a famed harvard professor called the oldest and the original form of bigotry in the united states of america and that is anti-catholicism.

these immigrants from these latin catholic north american nations, these people are majority roman catholic and everybody knows this. what they want to put on the census, they want to add what is your faith? the majority are roman catholic and they are good, hard-core believing roman catholic christians. mike pence in college went on a three day trip to a protestant woodstock concert and with him was his future wife. host: where do you see the anti-catholicism in this country? give me an example. caller: when these faith and freedom type coalitions are called for by the white house, we are seeing jerry falwell's son. franklin graham, billy graham's

son, ralph reed, these are the people called to the front row as speakers. these people are notoriously anti-catholic in their promoting of their hard-core right-wing protestant beliefs. they never miss an opportunity sh atke a snide, catty sla catholics and catholic beliefs. host: are you catholic? caller: of course. host: what do you think the catholic church? response should be to the immigration crisis in this country? caller: we have seen it and thank you, that is a great question. we are seeing it all over the country and the borders, we are seeing catholic bishops, the holy father, cardinals calling for exactly what pence is using as a misnomer. we are seeing catholic cardinals

and bishops, seeing them reach out on the border in texas, roman catholic archdiocese is clothing, feeding, performing with the attitudes christ called us to perform for these immigrant people, bringing in mothers who have been beaten and draped along the way -- raped along the way. they are helping these people beaten by coyotes, raped. taking the children and teaching them english, nursing them. the catholic church is at the forefront of helping these people. mike pence should have called roman catholic bishops for that meeting and have them on the front. they are discriminating against the goodness the roman catholic church is doing in this nation. host: we mentioned that now viral photo of the father and his 23-month-old daughter who died trying to cross the rio grande. the pope put out a response to

that image saying he was profoundly saddened by the deaths of oscar roberto martinez ramirez and his daughter. the statement the pope putting out from the office of the vatican's spokesman, the holy father has seen the images of the father and baby daughter who drowned in the rio grande while trying to cross the board between the united states and mexico. the pope is praying for them and all migrants who have lost their lives while seeking to flee war and misery. that statement from wednesday last week. bill is next out of cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. don't have toos much of a leg to stand on anymore. to the devil so god can hear your prayers. as far as immigration, my

grandfather got off the boat right around the time of that movie with leo dicaprio and they told him irish need not even apply and after us irish was here for a while, my grandpa and grandma told me about the late curtain irish. they made two or three more dollars than the poor irish and --y bought lace curtains unless you got a red tinge deerskin, you are an immigrant. out of new hampshire, line for democrats, good morning. want to make the he is saying there is nothing compassionate about open borders. okay, that is what we

are. since day 1, pretty much. we bring people in from other countrys to build our and tok in our economy we are better than them is wrong. host: that is christopher out of new hampshire. we have talked quite a bit about that photo of the father and his 23-month-old daughter who died crossing the border, but they are not the only ones who died in the attempt. here is a story from today's wall street journal focusing on the state of arizona, looking at the past five years.

624 migrants have been found dead in arizona, mostly in the desert where limited access to water and infrequent patrols make crossing especially dangerous. death byots, the red exhaustion and the black, death by other causes. you can see the dots along the border. 12 children have died crossing the border. just this year, more than any full year since 2014 according to the international organization for migration and they point out some have died in the rio grande as the father and daughter did in that picture. others in the desert heat. the story focusing on an elite border patrol unit that has gone out to try to save those who are in trouble as they are coming across the border. that picture that goes along with the story points to members of the border patrol search and rescue team treating a migrant for dehydration after a phone

call was made from the desert asking for help. aat migrant was taken to detention facility. carol is next out of west virginia, independent. good morning. .aller: good morning the picture that was used, it is sad. i find it quite funny, not funny, it is sad that any news media or anybody would use it as a political -- to score political points and that is what was done. as you said a while ago, illegal immigrants, we need to separate the difference between illegal and legal, have been dying for .ears

where has compassion been for years? as, we need to start holding the companies or the employer's accountable for hiring illegals. we need to do mandatory e-verify. we do send money to the triangle countries, but what we need to ask is is our funding that we are sending being used for what we are sending it therefore? if it is not being used for what we are sending it there for, we need to go to those countries and tell them look, you either use the money for what we are sending it for or we will cut your funding. we have been helping those triangle countries for years. host: you said we need to separate legal immigration from illegal immigration.

on legal immigration, how do you feel about current legal immigration levels? do you think they should be lowered or raised or it is about right right now? caller: i think it is about right right now and i think that is the problem, everybody is putting -- they call them immigrants, but first of all, we need to distinguish the difference between legal and illegal. i don't have a problem with cutting funding. i don't want to because i don't have a problem with cutting funding. -- do we want to keep basically it is like rewarding them with funding and they are not doing anything to correct the issues they have in their country. host: on the issue of legal anigration, a poll out from

economist poll from mid june of some 1500 u.s. citizens looking at the issue of legal immigration. 28% overall said the federal government should decrease the level of legal immigration, 45% of republicans who responded to independents.% of 28% said the government should increase the level of illegal immigration. 23% of independents and 43% of democrats and 28% also saying the government should not change the level of immigrate -- illegal immigration. 38% of democrats. that is from the pole does your part of the inside the beltway column that appears every day in the washington times by jennifer harper. out of alabama, republican. good morning. morning.es, good

first of all, before i make a comment on mike pence, the guy from ohio, him attacking questions is not getting --thing done my comment about mike pence, i think he is on the right track. i hold mike pence in the greatest respect. the picture of the man and his daughter that drowned in the water, yes, that is a bad situation. what is even sadder is put that child's life in danger by bringing her over here. abortion,uphold either way, it is not right.

it is not okay for us not to want all of these people over here. you tell me which is right and which is wrong. either way, the children are dead. host: james, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. go -- as immigrants host: yes, sir? caller: people came here as immigrants who are illegal. these so-called super christians who call in talking about how great mike pence is --

god told you you were the only people on the planet. that is james out of tennessee. this is linda out of california, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. immigrant. i really think people are using that term incorrectly. wasate sister-in-law japanese and she married my brother while he was in the navy and served in japan. when she came over here, she did not know one word of english except hello and it took her over four years. they lived in louisiana. she proudly waved her flag and said the pledge to our flag in her country and state. she had japanese and english and

cajun louisiana accent. she was a wonderful person and i dearly. daily -- aca.d a friend that was a d and he is gay. he finally married an american person and he has been working for 14 years. he has like a green card and he is working and it is very, very expensive to become an american citizen. i know what he is going through. he came through with his parents and he knows what is right and he is trying to become an american citizen. i live in california. theme to california late in 70's from ohio, pennsylvania area. i wish people would really see

what is going on. i worked at a hospital in medical records back when they did not have computers and we had card decks during reagan's time. we did nothing for eight hours a day but look up names of people trying to prove that they existed in our united states from a certain time to a certain time. naturally, we knew they were lying about what their social security number was. we knew they were lying about names, but you could not turn them in because we were treating them, taking care of them. that was a hassle. over thembassies all place, places where if you need asylum, you can go. people say canada does this and canada does that.

i have people that live in canada, i know what it is like to go through the border. when i went up there with my grandkids and my daughter, we had passports and birth certificates and they wanted to make sure the child we brought over into canada and brought back into canada and brought back to the united states, they checked, birth certificates, et cetera if you did not have it, you did not get your kid back. why can't we do that? we are trying to do that. it is very frustrating. a farmer when he first gets his land, he builds a barn, a fence in order to put the animals in to protect them and keep them where they belong. we need to build the wall to complete and then let's go through and say you have this amount of time to come to your local areas to apply for citizenship.

come after you and you will have to go back. host: the president saying he will come after those who have been defying judges orders to leave the country. the president saying those deforestation -- deportation raids expected to happen after july 4. he still intends that new round of deportations to start. the president originally promising millions being deported under those procedures, those who have been already asked to leave the country and defying deportation orders. congressman alan lowenthal tweeting about the president's threats to launch deportation actions saying while those actions might have been postponed, it is important to know your rights regardless of immigration status. frequently asked

question from the states attorney generals about those in the country and their rights when asked to identify themselves by federal officials, that from his twitter page over the weekend. rita is next, independent. good morning. caller: i would like to comment on this. we are all immigrants. my family came from england and europe people needs to stop and country. built this these people worked hard all of -- slavery.nd made some people in the united states billions in millionaires and don't forget, god bless america. host: mary is next out of georgia. your thoughts on the vice president's comments over the weekend saying there is nothing

compassionate about open borders. caller: the lady before, this previous one here that called in saying a farmer builds a barn first, but the europeans came over here and took the land from the farmers that were here and then they built the barnes and then they went to africa where -- africa and everywhere else and kidnapped me and all people to take care of the barnes. as far as open borders, canada can come over here without any problems. , you cane caucasian come over here, but if you are from sudan and somalia, yemen, sanctions against all the countries of color. the borders are closed to all the countries of color, not the countries that have blonde hair, blue eyes, straight hair. borders are open to them. as someone else said, america is

going to see more red than she wants because south korea, north korea, china, japan, those people have not forgotten things and they are going to stick together and really open the borders. host: this is michael out of new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i believe we should have secure borders. hello? host: yes, sir. you believe we should have secure borders. caller: the government is so divided on this situation. you are inviting these people to come over the border by offering them gifts. every democrat is offering free everything for everybody. you want to give the illegals free this, free that, they are not going to stop coming over. host: what did you think about that moment from the democratic

debates over the weekend where candidates were asked about health care for illegal immigrants? caller: they want to give everybody everything free. they should be paying out of their topic, not -- their pocket, not my pocket. i have to pay for medicare, i pay. it is not free, i pay. i pay into the system. people walking over here get all kinds of gifts. host: this is karen out of virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. listen. the hypocrisy in this conversation is outstanding. mike pence is the worst representation of a vice president or a christian man to ever walk this earth. you know what the bible says about false prophets. we can sit up here and act like he is the best moral compass, he is not. they hypocrisy in it, the difference between jet -- the

woman from california and the gentleman who just called, the only difference from those at the border and those coming from italy or wherever, they have a plane to fly them in. they are being sponsored, you are already paid for. 350 million people in this country illegal and we are paying for it. a color racist because i don't like to use that word as a black woman. no more than your aunt and uncle from italy who came over 20 years ago, that is what i cannot stand about it. regarding those kids d -- children-- those daca born and raised here, what do you want to say about that? all of us will be judged for how we manage this situation and shame on us for trying to be a superpower in the world and we

cannot even handle this situation. diane mena barest -- i am embarrassed as an american. we need to stop acting like punks and fix the situation. there is no embassy in guatemala and the southern border, what do you expect them to do? host: robert, greenville, north carolina. you are next, independent. caller: mike pence is a disgrace. he calls his wife mommy. he will not he and the company of another female without his wife with him. he is a sick degenerate and he is a liar and covering for the president. host: what do you think of the idea of being compassionate when it comes to the border crisis and what that means? believest is hard to -- hard to believe what this country turned out to be. i am 71 years old and i never

thought in my life i would see what is going on todaythey're n, liars, thieves. they are disgusting, racist -- it's bad. host: what does a compassionate border policy look like? caller: we need more judges and we need some help. definitely need some help to get by. a lot of this was created by separating the children. that makes it a lot more difficult. we just need to put more resources there. these people need help. we all need help sometimes in our life. host: that is robert in north carolina, our last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." discussion on news out of the g20 summit. joined first by joseph gagnon. summit andcuss the the future of u.s.-china trade. discuss thatl

with the aei's derek scissors. ♪ tonight on "the communicators," we talk about the future of journalism in the age of big tech firms with david schruers.d matthew apple, they google, employ exactly zero journalists. so the amount of journalism they are doing is zero. they are not going to city hall. they are not going to school board meetings. they are not covering the president. they rely on delivering our content and monetizing on our content. and we do not do that anymore. we do not have local journalism. >> the question of whether or

not we want a strong and vibrant journalism industry, the question is how do we do that and with antitrust. we did it the 1970's. it did not work. communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. ♪ >> the house will be in order. has been years, c-span providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. " continues.journal host: for the first two

perspectives on the news out of by g20 summit, we are joined joseph gagnon, senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics. the president saying that trade talks are back on track after his meeting with chinese president xi jinping. your reaction to that we. onst: certainly things are hold. he seemed to give a number of concessions to the chinese. but we still have tariffs of 25% on roughly half of chinese exports to the u.s. in that sense, the trade war is somewhat still on. host: the president saying he would pick up where we left off -- remind folks where we left off. guest: the u.s. and china had come on a lower level, agreed on a lot to what u.s. wanted, but morees to make it respected of international

property and to put restrictions on what china could do in terms of forcing companies to give up technology in order to work in china or use cyber means to steal technology. also, china's support of state owned enterprises. it has a strong policy to have state owned companies lead the economy there, which is seen by many as a little unfair, because if they get into trouble, they have the government to back them, which our companies do not. then they will talk about changing that and making china move towards a western style. apparently, negotiators on china's side gave up more than chinese leaders were willing to. host: hear we are after a meeting with chinese president xi jinping, president trump announcing negotiations are back on. here he is from his press conference saturday discussing what led to that. [video clip] china, respect to

basically, we agree today we will continue the negotiation, which i ended a while back. and we are going to continue the negotiation. we agreed that i would not be putting tariffs on the $305 billion that i would have the ability to put on, if i wanted. advanced,fairly depending where you want to look at and where you want to start. pretty advanced. we did discuss numerous other things. we mentioned huawei. i said we would have to wait and see. a lot of people are surprised -- huawei and sell to tremendous amount of product that goes into the various things they make. and i said it is ok, that we will keep selling that product. these are american companies that make product. it is very complex.

highly scientific. and, in some cases, we are the ones that do it and we are the only ones that do it the only ones with technology. what we do in silicon valley is remarkable, and no one has been able to compete with it. and i have agreed to allow them to continue to sell that product, some american companies will continue. and the companies were not exactly happy that they couldn't sell, because they had nothing to do with whatever was potentially happening with respect to huawei. host: your thoughts on the ability to sell products to huawei. the president receiving a lot of pushback, particularly senator rubio out of florida tweeting his concerns. guest: the devil is in the details. trump did not say we would have unlimited sales to huawei, but he signaled a loosening. it is a temporary negotiating

tactic to keep the chinese talking. host: getting your thoughts in this segment of the "washington journal." two perspectives throughout the second hour of "washington g20,al" on news out of the specifically focused on u.s.-china relations. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, the number is (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. phone lines are open. a good time for you to call and ask the questions you have when it comes to trade and china. joseph gagnon, how long do you think these negotiations will last and will be the sticking points? guest: the election looms large, the presidential election, coming up for their election of the president, hockey wants -- how he wants to be seen. on the one hand, being tough on china and on the other hand, american farmers are losing

exports. but in the sense that half of chinese experts have tariffs, the real question is who is paying that tariffs and who will feel the pain more? the u.s. side is betting that the chinese side will feel that pain, whereas the chinese side will feel that american consumers are feeling that pain. is?: who do you think isst: economically, china losing more. a lot of companies are worried about putting new facilities into china. but the political side of it may go more against the americans, because any pain at all during an election year is not good for the president. host: what are your thoughts on the use of tariffs here, the ability to bring china to the negotiating table, the stick in

these ongoing negotiations? guest: i am not happy with it, because i think -- to me, the administration has too many objectives, and they have not been clear enough on what they want. they talk about the trade deficit, intellectual property theft, lost jobs, state owned enterprises. i am not sure you can make progress on every one of those issues. and i do not think the chinese themselves understand what the administration really want. do they want a commitment to buy more exports from america or stop stealing intellectual property or put limits on what owned enterprises can do? those are very different goals. host: how should they prioritize those goals? guest: i do not think the trade deficit should be and is you between the u.s. and china, because it is the multilateral, what china is doing. they used to manipulate their currency to have a surplus, and they are not anymore, so we should not talk about that and focus on intellectual property and the treatment of state owned enterprises.

host: before we do not talk about it, can you explain -- a specialty of yours is currency manipulation and what it is and why it is something policymakers are concerned about. guest: currency manipulation is when countries have a large trade surplus, and they want to keep -- sometimes, the market wants to adjust their trade rate up, and what the government does is steps in and buys the foreign-currency that the market wants to sell and sells their currency to the market, basically. it intervenes in supply and demand in currency markets to keep their trade balance up with a large surplus. host: does or had the u.s. ever done that? guest: the u.s. has never done that, but a number of countries have. it is more than just china, but china was the biggest one. gagnon with us until the bottom of the hour, about 8:30 easton, taking your phone calls. we are talking trade policy and that deal coming out of the g20

meeting. deal to continue to talk about a deal where president trump and xi jinping left it. april, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i wanted to find out how have affectediffs our economy and how much we can expect it to affect our economy in the near future. we hear a lot of back and forth between the president says they pay for the tariffs -- what is the real truth, in your opinion? it seems i've seen that most are saying are paying more for the tariffs and that foreigners are not lowering prices to offset the tariffs. the price has been the same, and whoever is importing, like walmart or whatever, have to pay 25% more. keep in mind, compared to the size of the economy, this is

tiny. onuntil now, 25% tariffs $250 billion of imports is less than 1% of the u.s. economy. it is not big. if you go to stores, where you say there is a $20 toaster, at most, five dollars of that goes to china. so if a tariff is 25%, it would raise the price of the toaster perhaps $1. host: what happens to the money we take in from tariffs we put on foreign goods? guest: it goes to reducing the budget deficit. host: do we have a total of what the trump administration have taken in? guest: i am sorry. i do not know that number. it is probably available somewhere. but it cannot be much. under 1% of our economy. erica, out of san diego, democrat. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am.

whyer: i am just wondering, does nobody talk about the fact that mr. trump and every project with trump on it comes from country some other where the people get paid less for their work? her concern was about the trump organization, i believe, and where they get their products from. guest: i am sure -- i've heard that is true. it is certainly the case that, for clothing, almost everything we wear is made out of the u.s. very little is made in the u.s.. there are some u.s. producers. i would imagine, other political campaigns go out of their way to buy american. i am not sure why mr. trump has not done that, but 90% or more of our clothing is not made in the u.s., so it is not surprising. host: if you want to talk trade

or u.s.-china relations, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002 is the number. we talked about currency manipulation. what is a currency war? guest: that is not well defined. there are many things that affect the value of currencies. when that term came up, some people, especially the demonstration in brazil, were upset that the fed was lowering interest rates. that does affect the currency. but most economists, including the g7 leaders and the g20 leaders at their meetings have said that monetary policy is not currency manipulation. fiscal policy affects interest rates. one reason that we have a strong dollars we have a big fiscal budget compared to other countries. it makes the dollar stronger. it is not currency manipulation,

but it affects the dollar. currency manipulation focuses only on the currency as opposed everything else. that is buying currencies in the market, literally being a player in the market. host: so a currency war would be multiple countries doing this against each other? guest: yes, and it would be with different tools. host: what are other tools? guest: there is monetary policy, fiscal policy, then outright currency manipulation. host: john out of south carolina. caller: good morning. this --een listening to first of all, this guy cannot name one company in the united 100% byhat is owned americans. nobody pulled these guys arms and made them move all of these companies to china.

china is a communist country. when you talk about tariffs, tariffs on who? these are american countries. -- american companies. if you bring stuff to my house to make it, and you want me to help you make it cheaper then you can at your house, i am not stealing it. you are giving it to me. come on. get off of that crap. host: your thoughts? guest: the call is right. any publicly traded company in the u.s. has a lot of foreign owners. foreigners own a quarter or one third of our stock market, which is a lot of american companies. u.s. people own shares in a lot of foreign companies. in terms of intellectual property protection, there is a little bit of hypocrisy. we still intellectual property from great britain in the 19th century.

so we are not pure. there areat gets -- two things i get americans upset. one is that other countries allow foreigners to build factories in their borders and do not require them to handover the company's secrets. china publicly or formally agreed to stop doing that as exception at the federal level. the public is local governments still do. the other thing is we spy on foreign countries for clinical and military reasons, but we do not spy on them for economic reasons. china does. we find that the problem. of georgia, at republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a brief statement. i agree with what the president

is doing. it will be a burden for us for a while, but we would be better off in the long run. we definitely cannot allow china to behave as it has in times past. host: why do you think we will be better off in the long run? caller: because china will respond to the pressures and make a change. host: do you think tariffs work? caller: yes, definitely. host: did you want to add something else? caller: no. we, as americans, need to realize that we may have to suffer for a little while. but look at the results in the long run. the bethat is certainly that the administration is making. i think it is hurting china more economically than it is hurting us. but that does not mean politically that it will pan out the way the president wants. chinese leaders do not have to

face elections, and u.s. leaders do. and it is hurting the u.s. it is not clear to me it will work, but it is not crazy. i just wish they would have a narrower set of goals, clear set of goals that are achievable, and more allies. we need europe and japan and canada on our side. they are not on our side because we are antagonizing them. they are natural allies, and why we would not try to get allies, i do not understand. host: gary out of tennessee, independent. caller: good morning. is there a list that shows the purported stolen intellectual property, and is it possible that china might change their copyright protection laws to be more in line with hours? -- ours? areas that is one of the where progress is most possible. because i think china, as it

advances and gets more sophisticated, they are the thing up there intellectual property enforcement inside china. they have hired and set up many courts to hear these cases. hired dozens and dozens of judges and train them in copyright law. chinese companies are trying to enforce their own patents now. that is a change that we could encourage inside china, and it could work. frankly, i am more optimistic about that than some of the other things the administration wants. host: if a deal does come together in the coming months between the united states and china, what are the enforcement mechanisms to ensure the parts of that deal are actually cap -- kept? guest: the administration wants the ability to put tariffs back on at their own discretion, which of course the chinese do not like. but i think the administration is right did we need some way of

enforcing the deal. i do not know what the chinese will agree to, but right now, they want the right to put tariffs back on. host: on tariffs, and owner of a consumer tronics 70 that sources 90% of their products from china, from today's "wall street journal." he says most american companies will not roll over and pay 25% more for a product when it comes to the president's tariffs on chinese goods. they will demand lower prices from their chinese factory sales representatives. that is what my purchasing department did. the moment the tariffs went into effect, we were demanding price adjustments on our orders, and every single factory conceded to that. he gives an example. bluetooth before, our speaker was $10. now we pay eight dollars and $.20 per unit. we will pay the 25% tariff, but it now applies to a revised cost

of $8.35, putting my total cost per unit at $10 per -- which is far from the two dollars and $.50 that pundits claim passes on to consumers. your thoughts on that example? i expected is what to see when this started. it is interesting to see he is reporting that. but my colleagues at the peterson institute have looked at this and they find many counterexamples, where the u.s. purchaser did not get any price cuts. the --e -- that seems to be the predominant take. just surprising. i thought that what you said would have happened more. that the foreigner would cut the price a little, but not enough to fully offset the tariff. but what i've seen, more broadly, is, if anything, we have been paying more than our share. host: a few minutes left with joseph gagnon. for democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you mentioned the peterson institute. you are a senior fellow. what is the peterson institute? guest: we are a nonprofit research institute. our goal is to try to propose policies that are good for the united states and the world, and we focus on international issues. trade and finance around the world. host: what is your background? guest: i worked at the u.s. federal reserve for some time with some since -- stints at the treasury. policyworked in monetary after the great recession and what we now call quantitative easing. host: your thoughts on the criticism of the federal reserve chairman and the federal reserve and their actions? he is it is funny that

being so critical, given that he appointed jerome powell as chairman. he appointed the two vice chairs. he appointed another member of the board. so he has four appointees, and there are two more vacancies he can appoint. presidents, he has a chance to appoint almost the entire board, and now he is criticizing the very people he appointed. it may be convenient for him to have a scapegoat -- i do not know. how sensitive do you think the federal reserve has been to that criticism from the president's twitter feed and impromptu news conferences? guest: they notice, but i think they go out of their way to ignore it in terms of policy. i've been to those meetings before. there was criticism at the lower

level. it never gets discussed, and i would be surprised, when the trans-crips are released in a couple years, and i would be surprised if anyone said they should change their policy based on what the president said. host: how long does it take for those transcripts? guest: five years. democrat,of florida, gene is next. caller: good morning. i have a question. how would things have been if we had stayed in the trans-pacific partnership with regards to trade with china? guest: that is a good question. one of the things that my colleague is working on is that a lot of countries are giving each other better trade deals that do not apply to the u.s., because we are not

involved in these agreements. for example, canada now has preferential access for a lot of agricultural products into japan that we do not have come up because we do not join. another example is the europeans are making deals around the world, including south america and vietnam, and they are getting better access than we have. also, china, one of the ways china is fighting this trade war, by the way, is by reducing tariffs to other countries that we still have to pay for things that we sell to china. there are a lot of elements going on outside of the main dialogue between the u.s. and china. china's talking to other countries and other countries are talking to each other, and the u.s. is not part of that. host: so you are a supporter of the tpp? guest: in the end, i was not supporting it, because i wanted a stronger currency chapter.

some countries that have manipulated their currencies, and that should be part of the deal. host: do you think we get better trade deals in bilateral negotiations, or those big deals like tpp are more beneficial in general? guest: i do not by the president's -- but the president's argument that we get better deals bilaterally, but it does not make a huge difference. it is nice to have a large deal because it brings more countries in, and that way, we get the same benefits that other countries get. it is a more efficient way of doing it. host: trenton, new jersey, alford, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. president doesn't know about doing good for america pete i do not like his policies. the idea that somehow he would put americans first -- i study

political science. we tend to gravitate towards those people who most resemble ourselves or who most resemble what we aspire to. trump has spent his entire life as a dictator. owned into a family parts the trump organization rather than a country, but a dictator is what he has been. so when he looks at putin or kim models, these are role people that he imagines to be of the same species as his own, even though they look at him with amusement and -- host: bring us to trade policy. caller: sure. he has no patience for leaders

from democratic countries who operate within democratic norms and international alliances. i can name five allies that trump has pretty much left. wheresingle one of these our relationship was better under obama. host: anything you want to pick up on? guest: it will be interesting. i think a lot of countries are hoping that when the next president comes into office, things will go back to the way they were. we will have to see. the question is is this just about trump or a change in u.s. policy broadly? host: one more call. greg is in virginia, independent. caller: at some point, we will go into a recession. i wonder how this u.s. trade and tariffs is going to work when we dip into a recession and how will it affect us.

is it going to make it worse? is it going to help? i would like to hear yours monster that. guest: the tariffs are really small as far as the overall economy goes. they are much less then 1% of gdp. they are a small tax on some people. some rich foreigners made pay, some americans may pay -- it is not a big deal for the recession. what matters for a recession is what the fed does and how congress responds with fiscal policy. this is not a huge factor in terms of recession. host: we will end if there with senior fellow with the peterson institute for international economics. we continue the discussion on trade and then use out of the g20 over the weekend. we are joined now by derek scissors, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. good morning to you.

guest: good morning. host: we have been talking trade policy this morning, and then use that the president is heading back to the negotiating table with xi jinping and the chinese. your reaction first that we. -- news. guest: for those of us following china policy, it was not a surprise. the administration has been signaling this for a while. due to what weup sized -- what we saw as new chinese demand. a couple weeks later, they postponed some human rights to taiwan, so this has been a goal for the president, and here we are. host: what does a good deal look like? guest: it will be hard to get a good deal. i am suspicious of china's incentives to become a better actor with regard to intellectual property. it has been very beneficial for them to be able to steal and

coerce intellectual property from the united states and others. i do not think they want to stop or they just want to go back to 2016 and ignore it the way we had been prior to the trump administration. we would need an enforcement mechanism on the american side, not the chinese side, that automatically kicks in if we find more evidence of intellectual property theft and coercion, and the chinese do not want that. it will be difficult to get a good deal. host: is the enforcement mechanism tariffs? guest: i would not like it to be tariffs. i think that is a mistake did we have seen the president's love for tariffs. few things they are wonderful and useful in all cases. the reason i do not like tariffs is some companies benefit from stolen i.p. some companies do not. but tariffs punish everyone. it sends the wrong incentives to firms based in china. i would rather pick out the

companies and punish them severely, but pick out those companies that have received stolen or coerced i.p. host: seems like you're not optimistic that a deal comes together, so how does this all and -- end? guest: at this point, both sides are looking at the american presidential election to provide some conclusiveness. if we signed a deal -- it is possible we signed a deal with china -- not necessarily a good 1 -- in august. i do not think it lasts long. i think we're looking at the next election to see the direction of u.s. policy. if president trump wins reelection, if he will make policy or if someone else will make it, if there is a new president, what do they make? i think the chinese are trying to stall until the election, and i think some on the u.s. side are trying to stall as well. this discussion

about u.s. trade policy and china. the phone numbers are the same. is a number four democrats, (202) 748-8001 fors republican. independents, (202) 748-8002. our guest for this half-hour, derek scissors from the american enterprise institute. joseph joins us from l.a., and independent. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i read the transpacific punish of agreement, and in chapter 13, there is a section that talks about loss of property, where multinational corporations have the ability to decide if there is a property they want, they can take it, without the country's ability to tell them no. which means citizens of the country would lose their property to multinational corporations. the second part of the tpp was

the tribunals. the countries have no ability to really represent their country in the tribunals. it is done by multinational corporations. how do we resolve these issues? host: where you glad that the u.s. decided not to be part of the tpp? caller: yes, very much so. host: how did you feel about the u.s. pulling out of the tpp? guest: i first want to congratulate joseph i'm reading the document, because i thought, for about three years, that i was only one who read it. certainly i was only one who read it in washington. i do not agree with his interpretation of chapter 13. there are supposed to be protections for foreigners who legitimately buy property and other countries and have it taken away by governments. his comments about tribunals and the settlement of disputes -- what i nationals in small countries can be powerful political forces. not in china. in china, they are the victims,

not the predators. but in small countries, they can be predators. that is an issue that congress has to deal with in the usmca. with tpp i think of the agreement and how it affects weak -- i thought it was a agreement that would not bind the chinese, so i opposed it. i do not think the president is right to say it is a worse agreement of all time, but i am glad we did not join it as it was. host: you wrote a column about the u.s.-china trade debate, trying to sharpen people's understanding when we talk about that debate. one of the issues you point to 's concern istrump every dollar the trade deficit we run with china is a loss for the united states. a place where the president is partly wrong, you say. why? guest: if you go to a grocery store and pay them dollars and get stuff, it is not a loss for you, or you would not do it.

the president is ignoring the fact that we get things for our dollar. that is why we spend that is a basic steak that he and many others have made, where they see the trade deficit as a pure loss to the u.s. it is true when other countries block access to their market, and our market is more open, that is the problem. the problem is not the dollars we spend, it is the policies other countries adopt. host: and the president says it is again -- what are your thoughts on that? guest: it is a mistake. there are a lot of assertions that americans pay the tariffs. the companies.n for sure, the tariffs are not on michael he again for the u.s. they are a tax. we have to levy taxes sometimes,

and we have to put on taxes, like cigarette smoking, but taxes are not pure gains for the united states. they are gains for the government, but not for the people. and: tariffs, trade, u.s.-china relations our topic. derek scissors our guest. texas, at of republican. go ahead. caller: i would like to comment that we are competing with with a countryg with 900 million slaves. they will not acknowledge that, they being the chinese government, because they say we pay them $.25 a day. but if they do not go to work, they incarcerate them. we have to understand that. and all of these experts and all of these institutions, they have never dealt with business on a global scale like donald has.

he understands. in that is all i can say. i never heard any of the democrats in the debates in the previous elections bring this up until donald trump got involved with it. it was never an issue. never an issue with the previous administrations. host: do you agree with that? guest: i agree with a couple parts of it. i think there is a remarkable amount of repression in china, and some people want to act like china is a normal country instead of being a communist dictatorship. i also think that the president deserves that forcing our elation ship with china under presidents obama and bush have not been a relationship that has benefited the united states. it has benefited some consumers but not the country as a whole.

do not think that means the president -- president trump is right about everything. if you care about human rights in china, that is another concern. i care about tech transfer. there are military issues. so the president deserves a lot of credit about chaining our conversation on china. it needed to be changed. but he is still too focused on the trade balance instead of the many issues, including internal repression. host: do you care about u.s. companies being able to sell products again to huawei? guest: i am not a national security expert, so i do not know whether huawei is a serious danger to the u.s.. i know their business was built on ip theft, years ago. i would like that not to be awarded. if you are an american company, you can say it was not me they stole from, it was motorola and so on, it is the company's job to make money, and they should

push to sell to huawei. --need an international is walking away from pushing sanctions. i do not want companies to shut up. but companies interests are not american interests. the national security commute has to come forward and say we should not be dealing with huawei or that we should. they should be the guide, not exporters. host: carl out of madison, mississippi. caller: good morning. i have a question. studies of china. last a tape about the 82 system can break the four system. if you go out, because it is cheap.

the four system in america, who would take care of the counties runs it?when the state that is what china does to democrats andy republicans fail to get together. with two -- we have a system of four levels of government, breaking the two at the bottom. host: does china's form of government give them an advantage in the trade debate over the u.s. of government? are thinking about the short term, people pursuing their own interests instead of the national interests, then it does. hejinping is a dictator here puts people who opposes him in prison. he can keep china on horse longer than the president or any president can keep the united states on course if we are disagreeing with each other.

i interpreted the call to mean something a bit different, something i agree with. what matters most to the united states is not china. i study china. it is important to me. what matters most to the united states is what we do at home. we have problems in our china trade. we have bigger problems. running deficits at the federal and local level. borrowing makes you feel good in the short term. you will be sorry. 10 years from now, we will say there were real problems with china, but the biggest problem is we are borrowing too much money for no reason. the u.s. should take care of its own house first and confront the chinese as well. they are not substitutes. they are components. complements. are host: does china have different tools to manage the tariffs levied over the past months and year? toot: i do not mean to be course, but their main tool is "suck it up."

the chinese government hurts their own citizens far worse than u.s. tariffs will. we do not throw anyone in prison. we do not send them to reeducation camps for their religious beliefs. the tools a chinese government have is a population that is used to being oppressed. this is a minor change with regard to that, as the previous guest was saying. tariffs are not that important. these are the countries with economies. what goes on in china domestically in regards to chinese commonest rule is more important. host: if this trade war were to escalate, does this "suck it up" method give them the ability to outlast the united states? guest: again, if we are united on our course, and we have discussion, no. we are the bigger and richer economy.

americans have nine times the -- that is how much richer the average american is versus the average chinese. china needs dollars. we do not need dollars, because we can print them. without our trade surplus -- without their trade surplus with us, they have the dollars. china does not have people criticizing their leader, at least not for long, but if we want to have a trade conflict with china, if we think it is justified, we will win that conflict. host: derek scissors joining us for about 15 more minutes. on phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002 is the number. stephen out of hampton, virginia, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask your guest

how is it, and our long-term national interest, to the chumming it up with the murderous crown prince of saudi arabia? our own cia holds them responsible. the u.n. is looking to prosecute him. -- arms trade to arabia isn't that sacrificing american ideals for short-term monetary gains? nerds i will do what always do is turn your question into something i know about. i do not know much about saudi arabia. i am not disagreeing with the caller. i believe the caller could be right, because the president has shown that he is fine dealing with dictators. vladimir putin, kim in north korea, and the dictator i know most about, xi jinping in china. maybe the biggest flaw in the

president's foreign policies he does not place a lot of value on democratically elected leaders. they made personally the air trading, but they have to respond to the will of their people. and he seems more comfortable dealing with repressive leaders. i cannot say whether the foreign policy is correct. i will say that the president? -- the president's friendship with dictators makes me uncomfortable. democratic leaders are trying to do what is right for their people. dictators are only trying to do what is right for themselves. we will never be able to reach lasting agreements with a leader like that. host: turning back to china, we talked about your column sharpening the u.s.-china trade debate. viewers can see it on aei.org. how else do you think we should be sharpening the debate? how else can we better talk about this debate? one thing we do not talk

ongt -- i could go on and with this question. we talk about u.s. exports to china and tariffs, we talk about intellectual property. maybe the biggest intellectual problem is the chinese do not like competition in china. they like it everywhere else. you're supposed to compete with it in the united states and canada, but in china, state owned enterprises are not supposed to face competition. fundamentala imbalance. it is not about the trade deficit. it is about the fact that china thinks competition is good for everyone else. and there are people who criticize the president and say we go through the world trade organization and work with our allies -- the world trade organization size country policy should be reciprocal. you cannot have a reciprocal policy with china if you want a market good for consumers, because the chinese want a market that benefits state owned

enterprises. we are starting off in the relationship with china in the position where our market is open to them, and their market is not open to us, because we cannot compete with those firms. that is where the president should get credit saying our relationship with china has problems. it is not about the trade deficit, it is the protection of the chinese market. host: in minnesota, brad, a republican. caller: good morning. i've been watching this morning, and i heard him say something that was really interesting benefits ourething government but does not benefit the american people. right then and there, i told myself this is just another talk session to manipulate for the 2020 election coming up. the government is we the people. it benefits us. something,have said

first of all, but when you get people on here trying to manipulate the people, there is something wrong. this has been going on for the last 20 years. -- it wasjust compounded during obama, but you can go all the way back to bill clinton, where it really escalated. i do not ever hear these people talk about where it really started and when it really started happening. you have to hold their feet to the fire for me. that is my comment. derekwe will let scissors respond. guest: please hold my feet to the fire play when you raise taxes, does not benefit the people who pay the taxes. the government then has more resources. that is what i meant. maybe the government does good things with those taxes, maybe it does not. we have seen that in republican and democratic administrations. but taxes are on people. the government gets the tax --

that is all i meant. i do not like borrowing a lot of money, which the government is doing now. that hurts the future of america. there is an example where i think the government is not acting as we the people, it is acting in the interest of itself, government programs, not the country as it self. host: dee out of maryland. caller: if we are so rich, why do we have to borrow money at all from anyone? i do not understand that. point.that is right on the reason the united states government euros money is because politicians, democratic and republican, president or congress, going back decades, they want to spend money on federal programs, and they do not want to tax you for it. this is the fundamental corruption of borrowing. if i am in office, the thing for me to do is say i will spend $4 trillion, and all of you get

benefits from that, by will only tax you $3 trillion. we have the money to be a bigger government, to be a smaller government, and we do not choose either one. we choose to borrow money. and because the united states is a rich economy, people overseas give us that money. but that is why. it is lack of political will. we do not need to borrow money, it is just easier for us to do so. host: cliff out of pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. i had it, that probably would have been just as good with their previous caller, which you can overlap to this person here. it, or ifnow if it is you want to comment on my comment on u.s.-china trade. this has only been going on since the nixon years. prior to that, our big trade was with cap -- thailand, japan, and we used to complain about that. pbs, hong kongn

news. i get a lot of news from that, from tokyo, that you do not get here. i am seeing things going on -- companies just switching from china to vietnam and india. with their middle-class going up, it is expensive to make things in china now. so people are switching over. is thing vietnam is doing not only are they doing it just as good and cheap, but they are doing it in eco-friendly ways. india, they want our business. the chinese are scared of that. not knowthe debt, i do if americans know this or not. they do not hold the largest part of our debt. many other countries hold our debt. host: mr. scissors? guest: lots of countries hold american debt that is troop you're the chinese are the single largest folder, but if you combine other countries, you could leak at larger holdings than china.

they hold our debt because the united states has been a great wealth creator under president trump, president obama, and so on. the private part of the american economy is very strong. that is why countries want to invest in the u.s. in regards to china, china has become a more extensive place to do business. firms are looking to move to other parts of the world, parts of india, vietnam, perhaps mexico, indonesia, and so on. trade conflict with the united states have accelerated that. people should not think that china has always been the way it is now. it used to be a very poor country. we used the trade with other countries in east asia like japan and korea more than we do with china. things will change again. one of the problems in the china debate is people act like china's rise is inevitable and china will soon be the most powerful and richest country in the world and the biggest economy, and none of that is

true. china is an aging country. it has depleted its natural resources. china has a lot of weaknesses. my problem is not that i am afraid of china. my problem is i think they are a harmful trade partner, and we should trade less with them unless they fix their policies. host: the president wrote a book about his dealmaking style. you have studied xi jinping. how would you describe his negotiating style? guest: again, i am tempted to say agree with me or else -- that is certainly his negotiating style at home. let's take a comment xi jinping made where he accused other countries of bullying. he meant us. he said the united states was the only country capable of bullying china. meanwhile, china's bullying indonesia, has bullied vietnam, bullies taiwan constantly. china is a bully to countries all around it, and xi jinping resents that the united states

may be bullying china. he is a bully. that is his negotiating style. i am bigger than you because i am the general secretary of the communist party and i run my country, and i am bigger than you because china is bigger than your country, and when someone stands up to him, he resents it. host: who else should viewers know about on the chinese side as negotiations continue? guest: good question. the lead chinese negotiator liu he. one thing that happened is the dispute we had where secretary mnuchin thought we were 90% of the way to the deal and then the chinese changed the draft document we were using quite considerably -- that was a mistake by liu he. he is the front man for chinese negotiations, but they have not worked very well so far. another interesting figure is

supposed to be the number two , li keqiang. that is a sign that xi jinping has taken absolute control. i would mention xi jinping's , becaused successor they are supposed to have designated successors, but xi haveng has not -- does not one. hisiu he and xi jinping, boss, and everyone else is putting much invisible. host: out of cape coral, go ahead. caller: i am wondering, can china ride this out until after the elections? --o not see where there is it just seems like a back and forth to make lyrical points. that is the first point. the second one is about the earlier show.

happened to the inscription on the statue of liberty, with all of this immigration stuff? that is all i have. host: we will stick to the trade question with derek scissors. asst: china can ride it out it is now. the united states could take more decisive action against china, not just tariffs but punishing chinese firms for stealing technology, for corrupt practices overseas, for receiving heavy subsidies to block competition. we have a lot of options if we want to take them. i'm not advocating all of them. that is not a good idea. but the united states has not been very tough on china. our tariffs are not that important to the chinese economy. we could get tougher, and they would be in a difficult position. if we decide that is not in our interest, china will ride it out to the election and see whether the president has a different view, if he is reelected, or if

a democrat wins the election, there is a different view. host: what is the toughest thing we could do? guest: i have been advocating for years that we evaluate the largest and most important state owned enterprises to see whether they should face u.s. sanctions of various sorts. they all receive subsidies, so it is within our rights within thereciprocity principle of wto to block the exit to our market. many of them have received stolen intellectual property. that is where the comet's party is most sensitive. hurt the tariffs that chinese people and companies in china, it is state owned enterprises. if president trump or another american president were to decide we need to change chinese behavior, not just talk about it , we will target those state owned enterprises, and that would change chinese behavior. it would also make them very angry. so this lower-level trade conflict will become more serious. host: richard out of philly, an

independent. competitiononcern is about the south seas area, as far as whether the united states will be able to marshal those countries or china will be able to marshal those countries and the southern pacific region, if that makes sense? host: mr. scissors, i will give you the last minute or two. guest: it does make sense, the caller is referring to the south china sea, where they have territorial claims that conflict with those of other countries and where they run into the american principle of maritime freedom, we didn't make that , weciple up for no reason made it up because we want trade to move through the area and the chinese want to control it. national security clash in the south china sea with the trade clash and i would go back to

basic principles here where we are negotiating with a dictator and if you forget that entry china like a normal come -- country, you are missing the point. xi jinping will do what is in the interest of his neighbors and global trade freedom. the south china sea is a global political problem but also a trade problem connected to the issue of whether we can trust china to keep its word in trade negotiations. , at therek scissors american enterprise institute, aei.org, thank you. guest: thank you. host: up next, we will be joined by stephen hawkins, of the group more in common, to talk about political polarization in america and the perception gap between partisans. stick around for that discussion, we will eu right back. -- we will be right back.

♪ [video clip] historian andwar friends of mine emailed me and said -- why do you want to tackle this issue? you are jumping into the culture war, do you really want to do this? our -- can go will be guest on "the our communicators." has written books about the spiritual lives of ronald reagan, george w. bush, and hillary clinton. join our live conversation with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook questions. with pauldepth," kangor, on booktv. and be sure to watch next month with author lee edwards. booktv, every weekend on c-span two.

in 1979, a small network with an unusual idea, letting viewers make up their own minds. c-span open the doors to policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in four years but today that big idea is more powerful than ever. c-span is your unfiltered view, make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion now on political polarization with aei -- with stephen hawkins. what yourlain organization, more in common, is. guest: thank you for having us on the show. it's a organization that works germany, france,

the u.k., and the united states to understand what is happening in our society. there's a lot of concern over fracturing in this country and over anti-immigrant sentiment and why it is that right-wing populist figures seem to be getting more and more steam in those countries. we have been studying what exactly is happening in these countries and have had a lot of conversations with everyday people and a lot of polls to try to get at the underlying values, belief systems, emotions and concerns driving these new and concerning phenomena. we both try to understand and explain the phenomena and we try to address them. the hidden tribes project today is our u.s. work that began last year. how long has your group been around and how are you funded? guest: since 2016 and funded by

a lot of different organizations. there is wide recognition across the political spectrum that this is a problem, americans are becoming too hostile towards each other and our political divisions are deep. we are able to draw funding from foundations that would otherwise have nothing in common. your latest report focuses on the perception gap in america. explain what that is. whate difference between we think our opponents believe and what they actually believe. we ask people to estimate the percentage of democrats, if you are a republican, or republicans, if you are a democrat, think a certain thing. questions are framed in such a way as to elucidate the agreement. we have found that people tend to significantly overestimate their views from their political opponents and particularly how extreme their opponents are. host: what are a few examples?

on immigration we find the most striking examples. for instance we asked democrats what percentage of republicans do you think would support properly controlled immigration and believe it could be good for america? they estimate only about half of america -- republicans would support that. actually 85% do. we support -- and we see the same trend in the opposite direction. we ask republicans which percentage of democrats support open borders and they suspected about half, more than half actually, would support that, that 38% would reject completely open borders. actually, 78% reject completely open borders. there is a big gap here between how extreme, partisan, and different we think our political opponents are and the reality. that is what we describe is a perception gap. host: for our more visual learners, here's an example of

perceptiongap.us is where you can find the report. holdinghink it's 50% extreme views, but the actual is 30%. perception gap survey. you also found out more about the people who have the larger perception gap, including people who consume more media than others. explain. guest: yeah. so, we wanted to understand not just whether the phenomenon existed, we know it exists from previous economic -- academic research on the subject. we wanted to understand how it has varied and which groups had better reads on their political opponents. the peoplend is that the most politically engaged, the ones who vote the most often and feel the most attached to their political identity, those who have thee

biggest sense of it. those who consume less news and have fewer filters on the political world around them and are able to make more sober judgments on how extreme their opponents are. we also found that -- guest: go ahead. host: you first, go ahead. guest: the difference is that it was true of both sides. partisan, the most ideological and politically theve on both sides were ones with the most distortion in their perception of their political opponents and we found that the reasons for that were not the same on both sides. for republicans we found that their particular outlets of media consumption that they preferred, like breitbart and george report, were most closely associated with that bloated, distorted perception of their

political opponents and how extreme they are. for democrats we found that their sources were slightly better at shaping their political opponents. not great, but better. for democrats we found that issue,as a particular which is that as they become more educated from high school to college and ultimately to graduate degrees, we found that their political networks, the people in their friends circles more andies become more similar, fewer and fewer republicans and conservatives in their friendship network and what correlates with that is the worst perception gap. for republicans it's the media consumption that they are taking part in, which seems to contribute the most to this and for democrats it's the people they surround themselves with. they are just having fewer and fewer conversations with republicans areas host: stephen hawkins is the director of research at more in common. that's moreincommon.com.

phone lines, as usual, (202) 748-8000, republicans 202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, explain what you mean by the exhausted majority in this country. guest: we released a study called hidden tribes. and it we found that about two thirds of americans, people who sit more towards the middle can be accurately described as an exhausted majority. 65% of americans who feel the political debate, who don't feel like the news media or political parties capture how they feel all that interested inmore bringing down the temperature in the national debate. instead, on the wings, the 33% that fit more to the right and

left, we find more engagement in the disagreement and hostility in the country and less of a desire for compromise and more of a sense of recognition in who the political parties are represented by and who we see on tv. as we move forward in our research, we are interested in the group in the middle, the exhausted majority where the political parties will be able to speak to them and compel them to vote. see where our viewers stand this morning. connie is up first. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would like you to expound on your funding sources and the s that are supporting you. regarding a question, how, how can you sort of share that the more educated somebody is, in

politics and sort of outside of politics, the more distorted their view is. that seems quite counterintuitive. this election i have been very involved and unfortunately, the more i learn facts, the more it becomes evident to me, and i'm a democrat, you know, that the republican party has been reallyinding a plan to circumvent democracy in terms of gerrymandering, voter suppression, that is very concerning to me. i don't see how that is a distorted view. thank you so much for taking my call. host: mr. hawkins question mark guest: -- hawkins? guest: thank you, connie. as for our funding, we are funded by big philanthropic groups engaged in u.s. politics

and in trying to make our society better. not going to name names, you can find more information on our website, moreincommon.com.. any organization concerned about civic health, any organization concerned in addressing immigration in the country, these are organizations looking at the polarization that is really a systemic problem. if you want to fix any particular issue, campaign finance or whatever you have, climate change, you will need a more functional democracy and we're going to need to have more civic art is a patient. so we have to talk about the problem of polarization. we really do get quite a broad set of funding. as to your second question about distortion, i want to make it an important distinction. it would be unfair to say that the most educated have the most distorted understanding about

politics. that isn't what i'm saying. what we are saying is that as people consume more news information that is particularly situated to the left or the right, it tends to distort their perception of what the average democrat or republican thanks, which tends to be not as partisan. when it comes to education we found it's not true for republicans and democrats. republicans show a flat level or rather a consistent level of diversity in terms of their friendship circles with regards to political affiliations and regardless of how educated they are. regardless we do find that as people become more educated, they self select into narrower social circles and have fewer republican friends and that is not helpful when it comes to understanding what the average republican thanks. not going to spend a lot of my money on pursuing higher education where most of it is about understanding the reality

and i think it has worked. but what we are trying to point out is that when it comes to understanding your political opponent, people who have different views from you, it's really helpful to have some of them in your first circle of friends or your friendship network. they will help to differentiate between the extreme perceptions newsget circulated by the and can create drama and fear and what is the more common everyday reality for people who disagree with you politically. talk about the perception gap, earlier you offered the example of immigration. another example from the report, this is the amount of republicans who think that democrats are proud to be an american up against the democrats who say they are proud to be an american. can you walk us through as we show the results on that line? guest: sure. we asked republicans what percentage of democrats could say that they could it knowledge

the flaws in the united states and that they are still proud to be an american. republicans, they estimated about half of democrats would pursue that or agree to that statement. instead would -- in fact we found the number was over 80%. with we are talking stephen hawkins this morning as we go through his group's report on political polarization. richard is waiting in quincy. good morning. good morning, how are you this morning question mark host: good -- morning? host: good, go ahead. caller: what you hear is what will come. if you hear something is the truth, it's the truth. if you hear something that is not the truth, you have to weigh that against what seems like the truth and what is the truth. most people, the perception is that they are selling stuff that isn't true and you find your truth is for trade.

i believe the bible is the trait -- the place that has the truth in it for everything. all of these people, up and down politicians, the creator of the universe gave us free will, meaning that he loves us so much that he does not maneuver, manipulate, control or force himself on us. your life decision will determine your station in life. i have free will, also. the moment that you step over it, using my free will to pay for your best someone else's life decisions, you are wrong and this is what's wrong with political parties. immigration, it goes for everything. , what dophen hawkins you take from that? guest: well, two points. the first is to what you are saying about how people have a believe system and the information they get tends to validate that.

that is something that we call confirmation bias, something that other academics have really found to be incredibly important as a part of today's political environment. especially as you become more invested in your political identity and it means more to you that you have your beliefs as a democrat, republican, libertarian, whatever it is. there is a certain reward that comes from reading a news source or hearing a lecture that speaks to that and elevates it and confirms it invalidates it. but it also means that we overlook things that contradict or undermine it. that is something we need to be attentive to. in this environment we are seeing people on every side of the aisle subject to that confirmation bias. when it comes to an inconvenient reality they tend to focus on the things that preserve the narrative they believe in. speaking to your second point about free will, this is

something that is a really central part of our division in this country. it, a creatorcted gave us free will. that's a premise that is really critical on the conservative right. it is that premise that says that individual responsibility, accountability, culture and family, those are the things that matter because they emanate from the premise of free will. whereas on the left there is a real focus on -- what has history given us? while everyone might have control over their thoughts and actions to some degree, people are not born into those same circumstances. some are born with incredibly huge hurdles to climb over when it comes to their environment, their family, their home, when it comes to the schools they have access to, the environments that they live in. so while people in one situation or another may equally have the

capacity to make choices, they may playing different games starting at different levels and the left is focused on these structural environmental factors that are not to be excluded, they are relative, too. if you read hidden tribes, our west report in october, talked about agency and causality because while it is kind of abstract and in this world of ideology, it is actually really important in the ways that we navigate through the worlds that we live in. issues wheree the you have found very little perception gap where one side has it about right when they think the other side agrees with an issue? there are really to anger we found. this is not an exhaustive study and i suspect there will be more in the coming months and years but we found that there were two. democrats were quite good at estimating that percentage of republicans think that president trump is flawed, about half,

they were right about that and a similarly estimated that half of republicans thought it was right to be worried about climate change and that is what the data bore out. on those two there was good alignment on average between what republicans reported and democrats estimated. particularly in the domain of social questions, groups of people who get discriminated police andout immigrants, it's that social world where we find there is quite a lot of difference between what people expect their opponents to say and what they actually say. out of massachusetts, this is steve, independent. great topic,is a talking about polarization. democratic party, republican party, the political machines that they are, they have almost unlimited resources and it leaves almost any independent third-party out of the question. how realistic is it to be in the

as an option without being ostracized or put off in the margins? it feels like as an independent, none of our voices are being heard because we are cast off into left field. bernie sanders has to run as an independent through the democratic party machine to gain any kind of benefits through that. that's just the point i like to make about any kind of third party or socialization, it's just one or the other and they are both pitted against each other. host: mr. hawkins? guest: yeah, well, there is an appetite -- among and not trivial percentage of americans, for something new. new party labels, new messages. we think there is an appetite for that among the moderate americans.ut 15% of maybe among the politically disengaged, one in four

americans, 26%. an independent run could have an appeal among those groups. but the reason why independent or third parties struggle so much in the united states has less to do with public opinion and more to do with our political system. because the united states has a past the post electoral system meaning that the person that gets the most votes, even less than half, that person gets elected to office, it had a critical impact for third-party runs. even if you were to get 25% of lot,ote, which is quite a if the more conventional party, democrat or republican, got more than that, they would get elected. we tend to have this calculus as voters, voting not for our first choice, a third party, but against a candidate that we like the least and we tend to pick the major parties because we

don't want the other one to win. ofs a very conventional part this science in the united states and that is why we see that across presidential history there has never really been a moment where a third party has been able to oust one of the major parties of the day and that is not likely to change. of tweets from viewers as we have had this conversation this morning. guest: there is a lot of action going on out there because of the recognition of polarization is a problem. it's not just -- it doesn't just bother some people. no matter the political issue

threatenedout, it's by our inability to work together as political parties and americans in society. there is a lot of problems with polarization. a lot of groups are looking to do centrist work. to date, they have not found a lot of success and i think it relates to my answer to the previous question, which is that americans are very reluctant to vote for a party or a candidate that they see as having little chance of winning. i think that's -- just the kind of continue that point slightly, in this environment we have found that about 90% of ofublicans and about 90% democrats described their political opponents as either brainwashed or hateful or racist or all three. so in that environment are there such hostility and fear of the political parties, there is a lot of probability that people will say -- i'm going to risk letting a member of the party that i described as racist,

hateful, and brainwashed come into power that i can cast a vote for a third-party candidate that has long odds of winning. how much blamed you put on the primary system in this country as one of the factors playing into this? ugly canyon on twitter saying that the primary system favors right wing extremists. guest: the primary system is what we call a polarization ecosystem, a fancy term for saying whether you are in politics or media, your incentives are aligned in the same direction, towards more conflict and more partisanship. it is really useful to have a dangerous, threatening enemy because if you are able to generate fear in your political base, you can generate money, you can generate support, you can generate viewers and there is a lot of drama there. there's threat, danger, unique euros and loyalty, there is more

of a morality in the conversation. so, when the political primary process, which does take the base of the republican party and democratic party and let them pick their candidate is one of these threads of the polarization ecosystem, it does matter. it doesn't just pick far right wing candidates, it picks far left wing candidates. the average democrat difference from the average democrat primary voter and the same is true on the republican side. we have to have a national conversation frankly about all of these incentive structures. whether it is cable news, talk radio, social media increasingly , where the incentive is towards more drama, more conflict, and not towards finding common ground or reasonable voices. that's a problem because one of those problems at a time, we might be able to endure.

but having the entire landscape pushing us towards more division ? that is cause for concern. callers formore you. randy, wisconsin, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to talk about the perception gap and tribalism in the united states. we did a study and the national institutes found out that between 15000 and 18,000 people overdosed on alcohol every single year and we can't find a single person that has ever died from pot, yet they can come here and take my home, take my land, take away my job so that no matter what i have to go to a city if i want to work. what tribalism does is it controls how people that are drunks, christian church people like me get to take away people's money that isn't our color of people, run them off to a city so now we have a tribe that lives here in rural america and weekend keep these colored people out of here because of

this law. we can find thousands of people's shot and killed from search and seizure of pot. host: thank you, randy. on the geographic separation of the political tries on this -- in this country? guest: it's a big factor. the morethat conservative groups are more concentrated, perhaps intuitively, towards the southern liberal areas and others, the more liberal areas are on the coast so that part of the story lines up with the data that we have. host: arizona, lynette, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'm just waking up, so bear with me. host: thanks for getting up for us. caller: yeah, try to. i love both your callers -- sorry, speakers today. regarding what we are talking about today, to callers ago have

a lot of my thoughts that i wanted to turn in a little bit more. what i saw as going on in all the dynamics that i'm hearing the speaker talk about, two calls ago, that stuff is turning into hate. what is hate doing to us? i guess specifically, just like the media, the social media, into people people we don't recognize. these people that are good, upstanding, compassionate. all of the positive things that we have in america, it's taking people even from the middle all the way to the left or the right. because of the hate. i don't know where hate speech qualifies from a prejudice .owards groups that are left

i'm sorry, into politics. i feel that politics has turned into who can we make hate the most. host: mr. hawkins? well, as we found in the perception gap, almost nine in 10 democrats describe republicans as hateful, brainwashed, or racist. and the same goes in the other direction. there isot wrong that a lot of antipathy -- antipathy, hostility, and anger, as well as hate towards the sides. it is something we should be concerned about. the only good news that i can offer today is that we found as aople -- the more distorted person's perception of their political opponents, the more hostility they showed towards them.

a good news story embedded in there, which if you have a more informed embedded orerstanding of democrats republicans, you tend to have a more gentle, informed, lest hostile perception of who they are and how you should feel towards them. like you i am concerned about the degree of hostility in our politics and how acrimonious it is getting. it is a trend we should be looking to our leaders to reverse. from arizona to new mexico, this is joseph, good morning. caller: good morning. my issue i want to say here, the other day, dividing up, i think that with the hate that's going on, especially with the democrats who are really hateful , i think that what we should do as americans is give them a certain amount of time just to be senators. that way they won't be able to be hating each other because the

longer they stay there in this position, they will be hating. you are right, you know what i mean question mark it's a problem. guest: are you calling for term limits, so that i understand where you're going? caller: excuse me? guest: are you calling for term limits? caller: yeah, that's what i'm talking about. that's exactly what needs to be happening. we need to get together and let these people only have a certain amount of time. host: any thoughts on term limits, stephen hawkins? guest: don't have any thoughts on term limits, but i can speak more to the underlying causes of that hatred and that division. one of the things that we try to one in the study that we released last year, hidden tribes, we try to look at the psychology and value systems of liberals and conservatives and we found that they are significantly different. we have done these studies in greece, italy, the netherlands

and france and the united states really has an almost unique level of disagreement when it comes to our values. so, while liberals have a very strong emphasis on fairness and on caring for people, conservatives care a little bit more -- they care about those two, but they also care a lot about preserving the authority of our systems. they care a lot about sanctity, which is often related to religious ideas and sexuality. and they care a lot about loyalty. are you as an american going to fight for me? do you see me as a part of the in group? or are you just as likely to care about a group outside the country? so when we are having these national debates on immigration, we are really finding that these two value systems are at odds, where on the one hand liberals care deeply about people are suffering and want to do things that are fair for them, and on

the other hand you have conservatives who care deeply about the rule of law and the degree to which these people to thein will be loyal american ideals and the american culture that we are trying to preserve and will they have the same value system is us. there is a lot going on at the psychological level and internally in a place where values are connected to our emotions that explain why hostility is emerging. it's not simple party identification, there is a lot happening deep inside at the psychological level and that work has been advanced, if you care about this topic, advanced the most by an gimmick called jonathan height, who wrote a book about people who disagree on politics and religion and we have drawn a lot from that type of social psychology to do our work and understand the roots of these divisions. host: one last call for you, gary, ashland, ohio, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you, i just got a

few questions. due to the fact that you are talking about things like this and i have never heard it on the radio or television, the television maybe a little, but never on c-span or any other ofs media, what is the cost illegal immigration to the american taxpaying citizen? and what's the cost of legal immigration to the american taxpayer? you know, during the year. that's mainly what i'm interested in. i want to know the cost, the moneys. so, immigration is not exactly the topic we are talking about right now. thist comes back to question about the immigration debate in this country being the place where we see some of the largest perception gaps. guest: yeah, exactly. i really don't have those numbers for you, it's just outside my area of expertise,

but the conversation outside the united states is complex. the good news is that americans largely agree on some elements of that agenda. most americans, including most democrats, don't want them think the open borders. most americans, including 85% of republicans, think that immigration control is good for america. poroust want completely borders or completely shut borders, we want policy that is under control and seems to preserve the process of abiding by the law. from there the debate can happen. it's a difficult conversation to have because of the values that we have. democrats i think rightly are deeply concerned about the images that they are finding and seeing from the border. from these different facilities and camps holding people in

condition there. republicans i think correctly our right to have some level of anxiety about what it means when 144,000 undocumented persons cross our borders in the last month. there are real problems here to address and if we can work from that common foundation of an understanding of what the extreme positions are and what we actually agree on, there may be some chances for this president. host: the group is more in common, the website, moreincommon.com. stephen hawkins is the director of research there. we appreciate your time this morning from denver. guest: thank you for having me on, john. in the0 minutes left program until we end today. we will be hearing from you about the public policy issues you are most interested in today in washington. congress may be away, but the phone lines are open for you to call in about your stories here. ,emocrats, it's (202) 748-8000

republicans it's (202) 748-8001, independents it's (202) 748-8002 . you can start calling in now and we will be right back. ♪ [video clip] i'm a cold war historian, historian of communism, different ideologies and so forth. friends of mine in emailed me and said -- why do you want to tackle this issue? marriage, family, you're jumping into the culture war. do you really want to do this? >> author and professor paul guest onll be our "in-depth," sunday. his latest book is "the divine plan." theas written books about spiritual lives of ronald reagan, george w. bush, and hillary clinton. join our live conversation with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook questions.

watch "in-depth," with author paul kangor, 2 p.m. eastern on booktv. and be sure to watch next month with author lee edwards. watch booktv every weekend on c-span two. >> tonight on "the communicators," we talk about the future of journalism in big ,ech -- with big tech firms speaking with david chevron and matthew sheers. >> facebook, google, apple, they employ zero journalists. the amount of journalism they are doing, they are not going to school board meetings are covering the president. they rely on delivering on content and monetizing around the content. and we don't do that anymore, we don't have local journalism.

the question isn't whether or not we want strong and vibrant journalism. the question is how to get there. we tried antitrust methods in were970's when newspapers last threatened by new media. the broadcast era. it didn't work. >> watch "the communicators" on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in about 20 minutes we will be taking you over to the wilson center for an event on brazilian politics. but until then, phones are open to hear them public policy stories you are most interested in today in washington. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans it's (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 we will also keep an eye on social media pages, on twitter it's @cspanwj and on facebook

it'sjournal@c-span.org -- facebook.com/cspan. this morning we were talking about u.s. china relations and the trade deal that was agreed to, or what they agreed to continue talking about between president trump and the chinese president xi jinping. in light of morning those discussions, with u.s. chipmakers looking to be the big winners in monday's trading after the fall in trade relations between the u.s. and china over the weekend, " washington journal" with talks back on track, trade and telecommunications firms given boosting asian and european stocks today, the story noting that traders and analysts called the moves a relief rally. they caution that the function

around commerce between the world's largest economies were likely to be long-lasting with better economic outlooks and less trade driven uncertainty meaning hope for interest rate cuts might not be realized. that story is just out the past 10 minutes or so in "the wall street journal." we can talk about u.s. china trade or the other issues you are interested in in washington. irvin, fort worth, texas, republican, good morning. are you with us? caller: i'm with you. host: go ahead, sir. --ler: i'm just continued concerned about the continued immigration. it seems that we have not had a long-term -- host: you have got to talk through your phone and not listen to the television. i tell you what, we will work on that.

kevin, mineral point, go ahead. yes, i would like to address something about immigration, people coming into the country illegally, but they never say anything about the people that hire them. they are just as much to blame as the people coming in. you say they never talk about it. who is they? politicians? caller: anybody. no republicans or democrats on the radio or the television talk about the people that hire illegals. they don't find them, they don't do anything. if these people didn't have a job, why would they come here? that's kevin, out of missouri. john, clermont, florida. good morning. good morning, this is john coffee, i contacted you and you said you would get back to me and you didn't do it. host: what was the issue?

time i called about lowering the voting age to 16 and i proved that i could create bipartisanship because caller emmy called after me and she agreed with my idea about having a youth service learning program to help boost of the vote for 16-year-olds. i wrote a letter to you and i said that it was one of the first times i remember a caller actually calling and agreeing, changing their mind from another caller. anyway, the reason i'm calling today is i want to introduce truth party, which is what i spoke about last time, and president truth. i really should be on your program, if i may say so. that last caller, the last speaker really, he was looking for answers and i have them, i believe. host: what does truth party do, john?

it's about uniting the country. first of all, the original goal of the country was not to make america great. if you look at the constitution the first 10 words say that we the people of the united states in an attempt to form a more perfect union, that's the original goal. about making the country great. president truth is about making america more perfectly united. the way that we do that is we have got to separate the politicians from the plans. everybody has got to have a plan . that is what i advocate. everybody has got to have a plan . so therefore we take the personality out of politics and it becomes plan based. bee of that hatred can diminished. host: when was the last time

that that personality wasn't a part of it? caller: that's the mechanism of control right now. i may not like a cashier at a store or i may not like somebody where i bring my car in to fix, but if they do a good job fixing the car, i will get my car fixed and it's the same thing with politicians. if they have a good plan, we go with it. that's why elizabeth warren is rising in the polls right now. she has got plans and the media really tries to confuse people because they say well -- people don't vote about plans. marianne williamson didn't give us an electoral plan? that's right, the system is personality-based, not plan based and we have to change it. i've got a way to do it that will work and the problem is that we have a system right now that's about popularity and not about potential. and my twitter

2020.e is truthparty host: what line of work are you in? caller: i'm a teacher. i teach math and science. my mission is to lower the voting age to 16 and unite the country, ultimately. i wrote a book called "political football," using the game of football, which i used a referee, to unite the country. uc football, teams clash and bang each other all day long. but they have camaraderie. that's what we need to do in politics, bring truth to politics. host: before we go, when and why did you make that your mission? guest: i love this country and i have these thoughts in my mind and someone has to do it so i have made these sacrifices for

myself but the media, when i first started this about 20 like ito wasn't tainted was and i used to call it the media twice. they came right out and videotaped it. right now the media has rebuffed me consistently. i have a picture of me meeting chuck todd from "meet the press" in tampa in october and i went to his lie program, i have a picture, i can send it to you, i showed him my book, we talked, i walked into the parking lot and nothing came of it, you know? as they keep looking up. the media keeps looking up at the leaders and the leaders keep letting us down and you have got to look at the grassroots if you want change and i have got it, ty.com.ruthpart i would hope that you would put a halfour program for hour or an hour and i could give

people the ideas that will change the country. look at hong kong, people around the world are ready for change. we are dissatisfied with the leaders and it starts with truth where people get treated right. thank you for chatting with us this morning for a few minutes. cecil is waiting in florida, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, how you doing, john? host: doing well. caller: this is cecil. like the last caller, i wanted to get on to talk about something that's really contributing to helping the united states, you know, becoming a better, a better country. how you doing, john question mark host: i can hear you through the -- john question mark host: i can -- john? you passionate about? i can hear you through the phone. caller: the topic from last week. when they were talking about the product line that president trump is trying to --

host: you have got to work with me and talk through your phone and not the tv. caller: i'm passionate about him trying to enlighten people about the product line because as they say now, if the stock market is doing so great and a lot of americans still feel, like myself, unemployed or looking to get back into the work field to change careers, we need to understand why we need to be finding that -- not the immigration problem it's going on, but why do the people in america still have to worry wages just tohese be in the workforce. host: this is something you worry about today question mark -- today? caller: especially at my age, i look at the young children coming out of college or just owing to school, when i came out of high school, if you knew the construction business, you would

add them -- automatically go to college and you made a living with a trade school. going down there in tennessee, you know, where they will help you through school. these type of schools to where they probably have a saying where they come out of school but at the same time like me, someone who has been in the trade where you try to change careers -- host: you are calling in on the line for democrats. the two someone among dozen democrats right now speaking to that concern that you have, the worry that you are living with? there you go, the one that i think should be in there, g.k. butterfield four north cap -- from north carolina. you want him to run for president? caller: yeah, he's very strong

of issue and that's one of the issues where the democratic party is in bringing the information like that to the masses. cecil, appreciate that call. for those viewers that want to watch that segment, go to our website, c-span.org, and type in butterfield in the search bar at the top of the page and you can watch the segment that david is talking about. isil is next, -- cecil talking about. david is next, good morning. one of the many issues that concerns me, term limits. i don't see anything being done on that. and quite frankly i think that some of them in congress and in the senate have been in their way too long and need to be replaced. democrats and republicans. what is a good amount of time, the right amount of time for someone on capitol

hill? where would you set the term? -- well, would set it for president i think it's ok where it's at, but for congress and the senate? i think it ought to be a four-year term and that's it. if they serve four years in a house, can they serve four years in the senate afterwards? caller: i haven't really given that a whole lot of thought. so i really couldn't comment on that at the moment. i just think that there needs to be term limits and i don't see anything being done on that. the other issue that concerns me a great deal is this immigration problem that we have. legal immigration. if you want to come over here legally, i'm fine with that. my grandparents on my mom's side came over here from russia on a boat. they did it the legal way.

i just don't like all these people coming into our country and -- it's like an invasion. i just think something needs to be done on that. host: that is david out of missouri. i will point you to the website we were talking about a few minutes ago, two events from june 18 a couple minutes ago, one, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on congressional term limits and the legislation surrounding term limits. you can watch that in its entirety from our website there. two of the experts that testified at the hearing, the executive director of u.s. term , and a member of the our street institute, they joined us on term limits that morning and we heard a lot of viewers weigh in during the segment. you can watch both of those available on our website at c-span.org. chris, with about five minutes

to go today, go ahead out of harwood, maryland, independent. hi, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: the last guy who was on talking about how everyone is polarized the political community today, as a young person who is not really sure what i believe in, yet, i want to say it's nice and refreshing to hear someone talk about that is when i sit down with my friends, i know a lot of democrats who won't sit down and talk with republicans and vice -- yound it's just like aren't going to solve any problems that way. i would be very interested to see how many people believe in the centrist mindset. people on the's left and there's people on the right and what's best for the country in my mind must be somewhere in the middle and if you can't sit down to talk about it, you won't accomplish anything. that's the perception gap

quiz that we talked about. the estimated proportion of republicans and democrats who estimate the other side has extreme views, they think about 55% of the other side has extreme views. the actual proportion for both sides is somewhere around 30%. does that surprise you? caller: honestly, no. the people i sit down with on both sides, it doesn't matter. if you are a democrat you might have some conservative values in there, it's kind of unfair to all of theseiate individual values with the left or the right side. listening for a while now. i don't hear a lot of that centrist kind of talk. host: do you describe yourself as a centrist, a moderate? morer: i would say i have

liberal beliefs but am more towards the center. i don't necessarily agree with all of the like extremely liberal viewpoints, but unfortunately a lot of the ,andidates, if you don't agree they say you are not really a democrat. what is an independent towards the center to do in the 2020 election? for me one of the most important things is sitting down and talking to people to have reasonable conversations. if you can't be civil, politics isn't worth that much. saying that you can't sit down as a democrat will talk with a republican or a public and to talk with a democrat -- [no audio] are you still with us? did we lose you there, chris? . think we lost chris at but we will go to tom, waiting in reno, nevada.

republican, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i have a question, there was a law that went into effect in 2012 that said you had to of theou were a citizen united states. it's called real id. how is that going to affect the 12 million undocumented in this country to fly at that time? so, tom, not an expert on real id, but it is a fantastic a future segment on "washington journal," something we can dive into and get an about thato talk process. thank you so much for that suggestion. is that something you are particularly concerned that? -- about? i'm about to renew my driver's license and i was

amazed all the documents we had to bring down there. that's what got me wondering about, you know, 12 million undocumented, how are they going to be able to fly? they have been living in this country for years and especially the ones brought here when they were children. alldy is discussing this at about anything about something like this. tot: something we will look in a future segment, but that is going to do it for today on the "washington journal." we will be back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. now we will take you to the wilson center for international scholars for discussion on brazilian politics, looking into the first six months of the brazilian presi