reporter. 8:30, immigration lawyers association executive director, benjamin johnson. associate director benjamin johnson and later, jessica boggan for the ash vaughan at the u.s. center for immigration studies. ♪ host: good morning. we begin with president trump's openness to what would be a theoric meeting with iranian president. the comments came at the end of the group of 7 summit. backpedaling. we will begin our program by getting your reaction to the possibility of such a meeting. give us a call. republicans, the number is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, it is 202-748-8002 .

on can also catch up with us social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in right now as we show you the headline from today's washington times. trump takes a step toward meeting with iran leaders saying it could happen if sir -- if the circumstances were correct or right. [video clip] a country ofan is potential. we are not looking for leadership change. this country has been through that many times before. that doesn't work. we are looking for no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles in a longer period of time. canally believe that iran be a great nation. i would like to see that happen, but they can't have nuclear

weapons. if the circumstances were correct, were right, i would agree to that. to be meantime, they have good players. you understand what that means, and they can't do what they were saying they will do because if they do that, they will be met with violent choice. set, no date for a meeting but some speculation that if it does happen, it could happen at the end of september. president trump and president iomney expect -- rouhani expected to attend that meeting. no american or iranian leader met since the hostage crisis. mr. obama talked by telephone to mr. rouhani in 2013, but .eclined to meet in person

it is unclear what sort of pressure the iranian president is facing today. here is the latest news reports about potential backpedaling on such a meeting. the president said the talks with donald trump must first happen after sanctions relief comes, talking about sanctions that have been imposed on tehran. rouhani said otherwise a meeting between the two would be a photo op and that is not possible. rouhani said without the u.s.'s withdraw from sanctions, we will not witness positive development and he added that washington the key. that is the reporting from the guardian newspaper, the associated press with a similar story today. takingtential steps place toward the idea of a meeting. times,om the washington

a potential sign u.s.-iranian .alks could be nearing here is more from the president yesterday talking about this idea of compensation. [video clip] >> what he is talking in terms of compensation is they are out of money and they may need a short-term letter of credit or loan. we are not paying, we don't pay, but they may need money to get them over a rough patch and it would be secured by oil which, to me, is great security and they have a lot of oil. we are talking about a letter of credit type facility. numerousbe from countries, numerous countries and it comes back. it would expire, it would be paid back immediately and very quickly. int: that was the president

france at the end of the group of 7 summit. we want to hear from you about the idea of president trump open to a meeting with iran. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we will start on the line for independents. thomas is in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, sir. i am a retired army senior officer. i think having voted for both republican and democrat, i think the thing president trump iserstands innately behavioral psychology, weather we like it or not, and that is what i used to do for a living. iran is not going to respond to reasonable offers. they have to be brought to their knees. they are not going to naturally

negotiate with us until they lose something they value greatly. this is what president trump has done. the only mistake is if he would relax sanctions for non-verifiable behavior. iat is my basic comments and can either respond or take my comments off. host: are you surprised that they are saying reports of iran on some backpedaling? rouhani saying sanctions relief has to come first before any such meeting would take place? yesterday we saw comments showing his willingness to meet with the president. he may ber me, willing to meet with the president, but a lot of that is probably going to be subterfuge. it is the same mistake we made as far as verifying nuclear compliance. meet with president trump if you need to, but verify the changes. they are the greatest sponsor of

terrorism in the middle east. there is kind of a reckoning for that that needs to occur and i actually think should iran anempt to block or take american or allied vessel, i wish they would because i think they would find the response from the united states to be far different from britain and i think there would be a great awakening for that country should they do so. host: thomas in maryland this morning. in terms of what rouhani has said, we showed you the guardian story today about the idea of sanctions relief before a meeting. this was his comments yesterday and he said he was open to talks. if i knew going to a meeting and visiting a person would help my country's development and resolve the problems of the people, i would not miss it.

we have to negotiate, we have to find a solution, and we have to solve the problem. that was iranian president rouhani yesterday. republican, your thoughts on this idea of a meeting between president trump and president rouhani. caller: i would like to see that . i like what president trump is doing. i think it is best to keep peace around the world, even with countries that have been our enemies. it is better than fighting with or making a wedge between us and other countries. i think he understands that even when it comes to north korea, it is best to try to work with these countries and it seems like that is working better in our favor than it has in the past. i would also like to thank the last caller for serving.

i appreciate all of our service people. i think they make quite a sacrifice and i just would like to thank them all and thank president trump for what he is doing. i think his ideas are on the right track and it is too bad we have so much negativity on the democratic side. int: do you remember back 2013, that phone call between then president obama and president rouhani? caller: no, i do not. i cannot say i recall that. host: would you have been concerned about a face-to-face meeting back when president obama was in office? caller: i think i would have. it is not that i did not like president obama personally, but i think the american people made a wrong choice at the time. we needed somebody with

experience in business. every country is run like a business anyway. i thought for many years that donald trump probably would have been a good president. i think he is doing a good job and he is doing what i thought he would do. host: denise in south carolina on the idea of a businessman in these negotiation's. try something new and out-of-the-box, thank god for a true businessman. on can join the conversation facebook or join us on twitter at @cspanwj. tonya is a democrat out of rose hill, north carolina. your thoughts on the idea of a potential meeting between iran and the u.s. caller: hello? host: go ahead, tanya. caller: yes, i am disappointed

in how the president conducted himself during the g7. i think he should have set up a .eeting with iran also, the last caller spoke about him being a businessman. they forgot about how many times he went bankrupt. he is not too good of a businessman. we need more peace in this world . to put our allies down, people need to remember, our allies came to our defense during 9/11. i wish people would really think about what our president is doing. he is creating problems instead of solving them. i just can't see how other people say he is doing such a great job.

i don't know why their eyes are close to that. that is my comment for today. host: showing you reaction from the folks who work in that building behind us on capitol hill. evolution of reaction from senator lindsey graham from south carolina before the president announced to the idea of that potential meeting. this is from over the weekend, lindsey graham tweeting he was -- followed that tweet issaying the only good deal iran can only make their nuclear fuel. you cannot make fuel because that is how they get a bomb. after president trump's statements at the final press conference of the g7 summit saying i appreciate the stance president trump has taken.

change itsative iran behavior before sanctions could be relieved. presidentsiranian's comments. -- the iranian president's comments. that meeting could take place at the end of september at the u.n. meeting in new york, but nothing scheduled. we are talking about the idea of such a meeting. johnny in ohio, what do you think? johnny, are you with us? caller: yes, i am here. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i don't think it is right for them to blackmail us to relieve the sanctions to have a meeting with them. host: why do you use the term blackmail? caller: they are not going to meet unless they release the sanctions. i don't think that is correct. host: what do you think of some

sort of relief -- some sort of -- oil andn securities of oil the president was talking about providing relief to iran as part of a larger deal? ? renegotiated nuclear deal caller: i don't see why they can't meet and discuss the terms then. host: johnny in ohio, this is lloyd. caller: good morning. -- ifk this president they want to talk to this man, the first thing they should've done is -- i disagree with what the former president did and i think other things should be done and talk to them then.

you go in good faith and peace first. let's talk about this thing and get a better deal. clarksburg, independent, good morning. caller: i don't think anything should be on the table -- should be decided before they set down and negotiate. the main thing about the united states, ronald reagan is the only one i have ever heard say it. you trust, but you verify. verify. it is, you if they cannot go for the verification, you don't do it. you trust and then you verify. host: are you ok with sitting down with the iranians in the

first place? yes, as long as there is no deal made before they sit down. messeason we are in this -- i have got nothing against obama is because he made a deal -- he did not bring it over to get the congress and the senate to approve it because he knows they would not approve the deal he made. that way, the next president was .ble to wipe it off the map i think congress and the senate should have to approve it before it is final, that way the next president cannot come along and

say i don't like that. host: donald withdrawing from the iran nuclear deal last year and we are talking about the idea of a potential meeting, potential talks about some sort deal. no meeting has been scheduled yet, but the president announcing he would at least be open to the idea. some reaction from writers around washington, d.c. -- jennifer rubin is a conservative blogger for the washington post, certainly a critic of the president in her columns and she writes the notion of president trump sitting down with the iranians like he did with kim should panic republicans. a cold chill should grip right wing iran hawks. a conniption -- afraid he was giving something

away or lending the iranian president legitimacy. imagine how the idea of a trump-rouhani summit fits with the hawks. two of the most conservative members of the senate, tom cotton and james inhofe put out a statement on monday reading that earlier this month the u.s. district court reaffirmed many nations of the world have long recognized iran bears responsibility for brutality against civility in yemen. the torture and murder of an american civilian in their custody are reprehensible behaviors consistent with outlaws from the civilized world. jennifer rubin writes do the senators or anyone else think president trump would sign a versionhe could get his of peace in our time? adriana in salt lake city, utah.

you are up next, republican. , i am calling to say i think president trump is doing a great job. he is a president that is bold enough to take on these countries and trying to make .eals with them out of the box, not theng in to pressure from political side of things. host: how did you feel about president trump meeting with kim jong-un? caller: i saw that and i felt president trump is more -- thinking than he

things through and that he is making good sense when it comes to negotiating and not moving too swiftly. oft: this is annie out mississippi, a democrat, good .orning caller: i called in to say trump is a compulsive liar. they need to get rid of mitch mcconnell. he never will be a president like president obama. host: have you been concerned -- escalatingng?

tensions with iran? caller: yes, i have. it is sitting down with the iranian president potentially a good thing? caller: beg pardon? host: is a potential meeting and face-to-face conversation a good thing? caller: no, i do not. i do not. of norths is bobby out carolina, line for democrats, go ahead. i keep hearing everybody doesn't want iran to have nuclear weapons, but everybody in this country can have a gun. you hear me? host: yes, sir. you think iran it should be able to build a nuclear weapon? caller: i think anybody that wants to build one should be able to build one can protect themselves from a person like trump.

is a battleground washington, republican. i was concerned of all the democrats calling in. i don't know what their solution is. 747 full of boeing cash with the hopes or the they would build a weapon -- would the democrats prefer they get a bomb and then we have a nuclear war? where millions of people are killed? we are at a peaceful time in our country. our economy is great. he is doing the things no other

presidents have ventured out to do. he is sitting down with dictators and our enemies and trying to make solutions to the world problems. it is pretty ironic to me that after obama failures, this and issman comes in taking it to a whole other level and i appreciate it. host: more of your phone calls for the next 20 minutes or so in this first segment of the washington journal. want to get your thoughts on president trump being open to a face-to-face meeting. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. get back to your phone calls in a second, but want to bring you

to domestic news. an oklahoma judge ordering johnson & johnson to pay for contributing to the state opioid similarn crisis -- cases wind their way through courts. this is the front page of the wall street journal. seek to hold drugmakers, retail pharmacy chains and -- accountable for opioid abuse that began gaining attention in the early 2000s. oklahoma's case became focused solely on johnson & johnson after other drugmakers settled their claims. the state proved johnson & johnson watched a misleading marketing campaign to convince the public opioids pose little addiction risk and were appropriate to treat a range of chronic pain. that story getting a lot of attention in domestic news and news out of capitol hill, sean

duffy resigning from congress next month. the congressman announced that he would leave congress september 23 and said he recently learned his ninth child due in late october will have health problems that will require more time and care. with much prayer, i decided this is the right time for me to take a break from public service to support my wife, baby, and family. first entering public life as a cast member on the real world in 1997 and elected to congress in 2010. back to your phone calls as we discussed international news. the idea of a face-to-face meeting with trump and the iranian president. republican, good morning. think trump -- caller: i

think trump, the meeting should be sent. trump knows rouhani cannot be trusted. they have american blood on their hands. forget thiscan country. i am a veteran and i have no faith in that guy at all. host: if he cannot be trusted, why have a meeting? why even discussed the idea of some sort of funding backed by oil guarantees to stabilize iran's economy? caller: i think that is a good idea as far as if he wants to bring trade into his country, he has to pay with something. think oil is a good thing. why not? over there happens

as far as attacking an oil ship, i think we should move in. this guy killed american soldiers. this guy cannot be trusted, they have terrorist organizations over there. america looking out for . all these other countries are looking out for themselves. they are totally looking out for themselves. they are trying to put as much their pocket as they can. of maryland,out democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i worked under the space department and i know what is going on over there. barack obama told vladimir putin andis face to knock it off

it was barack obama that put sanctions against iran. iran should not .ave nuclear weapons i believe our president is embarrassing the united states of america. he should not be allowed on board air force 1. i am going to say one more thing before i go. this country should be the beacon of the world. took us out of warming -- his seat was missing, he was missing in

action, he did not know what was going on in the world. man is an enemy of our state. host: got your point on climate issues, that will be the topic of most of tomorrow's program. energy and environmental issues will be the discussion for 2.5 hours tomorrow. it is part of our campaign 2020 series issues. yesterday we talked about the economy and we will be talking about health care and education. --15 minutes, we will spend various aspects of that and how it is at play in campaign 2020. in the meantime, 15 more minutes on this topic about president trump open to having a meeting with the iranian president amid escalating tensions.

the financial times in their headline on that potential meeting noting emmanuel macron is the one who has been seeking to broker the new accord. you can see the two men, the joint press conference at the end of the summit is where this news came out yesterday although the potential breakthrough -- camethe u.s. and after iranian foreign minister made a surprise visit to the g7 summit during which he transmitted his government's agreement to the possibility of talks. here is more from president macron yesterday at that joint press conference. [video clip] >> we need to be sure iran will not get a nuclear weapon. what we discussed concretely was to see how we can improve, very

newiderably -- build a nuclear agreement with iran. sayingnt trump was clear we would need a much longer timeframe, that there needed to be surveillance and this is how we can build a much further reaching agreement in terms of security demands. on the other hand, we need to convince the iranians to go in that direction and we can do that if we give them economic compensation of some form. movement in terms of credit or reopening economic sectors. you in detaill will jeopardize the conversations we are going to have, but this is basically what we are discussing. host: emmanuel macron yesterday at the g7 summit's closing

ceremonies and last press conference. the wall street journal taking up the idea of macron's iran -- acceptedng that the invitation and made a surprise visit on the fringes of the g7 and the french president played diplomatic route -- maneuvering for what it was if iran really wants sanctions listed -- lifted, it will have to act like a normal nation. iranian behavior is the main obstacle to a better nuclear deal, not mr. trump's skepticism .nd pressure

you, c-span and thank you, brian lamb. other countries have if theing with us is next administration comes in and tears up all the agreements the previous one made, it makes us unreliable. one of the problems trump has in breaking the agreement with iran that the obama administration longerted is iran no trusts us to keep any agreements since the next administration will break it. people judge you on your past .ractice

willext administration ands and void any -- nix void any agreement. .hey are dealing with someone what is most troublesome is the behavior with someone like putin, a murderous dictator, and how he treats our allies with disdain. i don't recognize the republican party anymore. they used to be about no deficits and now we are $23 trillion in national debt with no policies in place. we no longer generate revenue. of that tax burden has fallen on the middle-class class and the lower middle class. this is a real economic shift in

terms of where the revenue is. i have never seen so many homeless in my life and i think about it, these are good times and think of the arm late --army of homeless. host: this is charlotte out of houston, texas. what is your thoughts on this potential meeting between the u.s. and iran? caller: i think president trump and rouhani should meet. i don't think the sanctions should be lifted until they come to an agreement. i agree with all my other republicans that have been calling in. these democrats calling in that want to talk about everything else beside what we are asking climate change in this economy and that economy, we are talking about, should president trump be meeting with president rouhani

-- that is all we are talking about. host: would you have been concerned about such a meeting between president obama and president rouhani? caller: would i be? been. would have i did not agree with the accord either. i did not agree that in 10 years he can do whatever he wants to do, really? and we would trust him for that? it,e was no oversight on there was really no oversight. obama did good in certain areas and bad in other areas. nothing is going to get done start looking at what the president is doing and they don't want to do that, they just don't want to do that. host: here is what the president did yesterday when it came to

the future of iran. [video clip] i don't want to comment on that, but i knew he was coming in and i respected the fact he was coming in and he met with president macron and iran has a very difficult situation. they are not in a very good position from the standpoint of economics. for a regimeoking change, we have -- you have seen how that works, that has not been too good and we are looking to make iran rich again, let them be rich, let them do well, if they want or they can be poor as can be. i will tell you what, i don't think it is acceptable, the way they are being forced to live in iran. it is going to be nonnuclear,

nonnuclear, we will talk about ballistic missiles, timing, the length of the agreement, which expires in a short period of time. paid 150 billion dollars for a short-term agreement. that was president trump yesterday in france. in terms of how the united states should deal with iran and their concerns about getting it to shut down its nuclear program, this, a pull from gallup in mid july. should the u.s. take military action or rely on diplomatic efforts? 78% saying rely on diplomatic and economic efforts. when broken down by party, here is where it is when it comes to taking military action. about a quarter of republican respondents saying the u.s.

should get iran to shut down its nuclear program with military action if necessary. democrats -- 11% saying taking military action should be the route the united states should pursue. ryan has been waiting out of oklahoma, city. a democrat, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe trump's withdrawal from the trump -- iran nuclear deal was a wrong policy that ruined our reputation in the world. many people and politicians are saying the united states cannot trusted. his maximum pressure campaign

has failed. it refers to his failure in foreign policy and shows iranian power and strong will to counter sanctions. host: philip is waiting, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. there isall, i think intelligence and wisdom. they gave no specifics about what he does -- it is just a bunch of spittle coming out of their mouths. host: this is mary elizabeth in new york city, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i don't believe the president should be meeting with iran. the agreement, in my opinion,

theld be negotiated with people, the countries that sign the original agreement. they were agreeing with the deal and they were given additional there arebecause other people in our government who have decided they wanted to include -- punish iran because other issues they are concerned with were not discussed with this deal. the other thing i hear callers talking about that our money was given to iran. the money given to iran was there money that had been frozen in our banks since 1979.

that was given to help them agree with the deal. i think the europeans and all the other people who signed the deal should negotiate with iran and replace their economic sufferings that they are experiencing because of the sanctions. thank you. host: mary elizabeth out of new york. international reaction from the times of israel today. -- said president donald trump was a red light for israel and warned prime minister bette knight -- benjamin netanyahu was overly dependent on the united states's president and made vulnerable by trump's erratic policy. note -- running in the upcoming israeli election wrote tuesdaytter thread

morning israel should be concerned about the development and netanyahu's development with trump saying the change in direction, including the possibility of a presidential meeting is a red light for all of us which warns of overdependence on president trump. nick in new york, independent, you are next. caller: thank you very much. yikes. i wanted to mention a couple of things quickly. first of all, anybody that can get a meeting with kim jong-il . and his meetings have been so effective, i can now say his name. it is 70 years or more. if people are worried about iran, this is one leader and he can break the ice here. i feel like we have a big uncle working for us. he always deals from a point of

hope. red lights don't go off, like previous callers said and don't ever meet with him because what iran did 40 years ago does not come into the picture. also, that he is a businessman. he usually deals with the business of life. he isn't a being counter or accountant or somebody trying to .queeze muscle out of something it is the business of life and people and their futures that he deals with and that is good business. he brought himl, in because he canceled wargames and that is a gigantic thing to do. he stopped planes and he isn't the yes-man. my father always told me, don't be a yes-man. i have to chuckle about macron. trump did not touch it because he had to inject himself into

the situation even though he has no power or anything in this thing. host: that is our last caller in this first segment of the "washington journal." issuess campaign 2020 series continues today. yesterday we talked about the economy, tomorrow it will be energy and the environment. on friday, education. we turn to the topic of immigration. up next we will be joined by maria sacchetti to talk about recent developments in the immigration debate and what to watch for in the coming months and later, american immigration lawyers executive benjamin johnson will be here to discuss key legal issues in the immigration debate. we will be right back. ♪

announcer: watch book tv for live coverage of the national book festival saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. david troyer, his book is the heartbeat of wounded knee. sharon robinson talks about her book, child of the dream. thomas malone, founding director of the m.i.t. center of -- discusses his book. the national book festival live saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >>the national book festival int this year a committee will return early to mark up gun ,iolence prevention bills

restricting firearms from, restricting firearms from those deemed by a court to be a risk to themselves and preventing individuals convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from purchasing a gun. live coverage begins wednesday, september 4 at 10:00 p.m. eastern.- 10:00 a.m. listen live using the c-span radio app. "> "washington journal continues. host: according to gallup, more americans than ever before say immigration is the top issue facing this country and we will spend a gross -- the rest of this program talking about that topic. we are joined by washington post immigration reporter were rhea .ic eddie -- maria sacchetti federal detention center for immigrant families and children.

why were you there and what did you see? guest: immigration and customs enforcement runs family detention. a lot of what viewers cr border patrol jails. you see little girls sleeping on the ground. they have recently crossed the border, jails where nobody is supposed to spend more than a few days. the family detention centers are hold very few people right now. they could hold more and the trump administration wants to expand them. they opened their doors to the media, they have never had this many cameras before and they let us take our own photos. they want to show people how they want to expand family detention and how comprehensive they think it is and how they should hold people until they can order them deported or release them in the united states. host: where is this facility? guest: this is in dili, texas.

you can hold more people in a family detention area than probably the entire town. it is hard to get to. ac.e. has said it is not secure facility, not a jail, but advocates disagree. even if you left, it would be easy for someone to be apprehended. host: what is life like on a daily basis? guest: it was compared to a summer camp. on the surface, you can see it has a lot of camp like qualities. it has an infirmity -- infirmary, trailers divided into neighborhoods with names like yellow frogmore brown bear. ice did not allow us to interview the women. it is women and children right now at this facility and they did not allow us to do this, so we arrived early and went to a

greyhound bus station. they told us the detention was much better than border patrol, but they still felt family detention was a jail and that is a place where it can be hard to prepare your asylum claims. you are under constant fear of being taken away, so it is a challenging environment. host: there are people you talk to that had been released, how long did they spend in that facility? host: some had spent 10 days. i met a mother of three who had been there -- she was still breast-feeding and had been there 20 days and she was released without a tracking device. it is hard to understand exactly how they make all their decisions. -- go to a public building and pull the record and explain why people are released of the way they are. i cannot do that with immigration.

the settlement agreement began in the 1980's as a federal lawsuit against the trump administration and there were deep concerns about the way the government was treating unaccompanied minors. mostly teenagers who had crossed the border by themselves and you cannot just release them into the united states, you have to find them a sponsor and someone to care for them and they are middle-aged. long-running lawsuit and an agreement between the government and the plaintiff representing minors that set basic standards about how you should treat children, that you should move them from a secure facility like a jail into a non- -- there is no timeframe, but in 2015, a federal judge said based on the government's recommendation that you cannot hold people in a facility that

has not been licensed by a state for more than 20 days. host: your latest story talks about the legal battles over this rule change. guest: right. it is a little bit of a tangle to understand because the trump administration and past governments, the obama administration also had been critical of this 20 day rule. they say detaining families works, that fewer people came after they expanded family detention because they understood they would enforce the rules. the reason a lot of families are coming right now, according to the trump administration and obama administration is that it are tellingers migrants in central america it is easy to get into the united states if you travel with a child and most families have been released. they have been released because -- the initial interview that -- questions about weather you have

to be here and why and weather that person -- whether that person is credible. they are finding these folks .ave a credible fear this is a real challenge because the trump administration saying people are being released and that is why so many people are coming. there are families across the border in 2016 and you have more than 400,000 this fiscal year. host: california leading the effort, as you note, to block this new trump rule to detain

children and immigrant families longer. when will that have its day in court? guest: they have just filed it, but one thing i am watching closely is the actual floor as lawsuit. the settlement led to the basic standards in 1997 and there is another anti-trafficking law that protects unaccompanied minors. for children and families, the florez settlement is extremely important. i am very interested in the the trumps -- after administration released the rule on friday, each side had about a week to submit their briefs to the court about why it should or should not stand, why this should become the law of the land and a federal judge will have to decide. host: can you sum up briefly how many cases and court challenges the trump administration is facing when it comes to immigration policies and how many are expected to be decided ahead of the 2020 election?

guest: that is an excellent question and five years ago i think i would have been able to answer it, but there are so many lawsuits now, it can be dizzying. there is many we are tracking. host: what are the key ones? guest: for me, i am interested in the asylum lawsuits. as the asylumally bands, the trump administration tried to block people seeking asylum if they cross the border illegally. it is challenging because it is legal to seek asylum when you cross the border. right now we have two different roles depending on where you cross the border. if you cross in texas and new mexico, you can be sent back to your homeland to seek asylum in a third country. if you cross in arizona and

california, you can try to seek asylum here. trackingwsuits, i am daca, temporary protected status, there is a lot of things. it all boils down to who gets to come to the united states and who doesn't and what are the different ways the trump administration is trying to stop them? there is a myriad of lawsuits. host: certainly a major issue in campaign 2020. it is why we are talking about it. maria sacchetti is here to answer your questions about some of these latest developments in the immigration debate. phone lines, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we will head out to guam first. bernard, republican, go ahead. caller: hello.

regarding the immigration issue with the u.s. at the southern border that they are having over there, thank god we have the pacific ocean, that is our border wall and we have something similar because we come intoitizens that guam as migrants. the local government has been swamped by these migrants and the u.s. is supposed to provide assistance to help and that is not happening. trying to see and equate our problems here with the problems over there. president trump, i cannot vote for him because we are not allowed to vote being a u.s. territory. i don't know why the americans

there cannot see. host: what do you want to take from bernard's comments this morning? there are a lot of different opinions in the united states right now about immigration. i think there is a lot of differences about how to resolve them. you are a journalist and i am a journalist and it is important we listen to everyone always, but i also understand asylum is people fleeing for their lives and it is different from someone who wants to come here and work the way youw and are supposed to decide that in this country is an individual basis. you are supposed to hear each person out and understand the dangers they are facing and if they are not credible -- their case is not legitimate, they get sent home. i have covered stories where people have been deported and murdered and that is real.

that is something asylum is supposed to prevent. host: in terms of differences in opinion, is there a wide range of differences in the democratic presidential candidates and their views on various immigration topics? guest: there are often technical theirences and sometimes policies, just like the obama administration, their policies do not always line up with what their goals are. the obama administration deported far more people on an annual basis then trump has, and yet obama consistently worked to try to legalize the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. i am very interested to see what democrats will do with the .etention facilities under obama, they were holding maybe 33,000 people a day.

these are single adults for the most part and now they are holding more than 50,000 a day. 1994, they were holding maybe 6000 a day. immigration detention. these are single adults for the most part and now they're day.ng more than 50,000 a 1994, they were holding maybe 6,000 a day. so that detention system has bloomed and unlike and the e and courts system we understand best through law and order ajust court show -- and just hese court shows, none of that is public record. it's not easy to monitor or not you know, it's just easy to monitor this system and understand it. > as we try to find the

contours of the debate on the democratic side, can you explain section 1325 of the u.s. code is and why it was written. they can still do that at the border. maybe not a record of it necessarily. is still happening. nd so and not at the scale of the official zero tolerance policy. have i think people seized on it.

a lot of people support that idea and feel people should not the iminalize for crossing border illegally especially if they're seeking alie lumbar but a lot of other folks say there are more important issues. bit closer from guam but still out west in utah bill independent. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i always thought reporters were really supposed to ig and give information they normally

have. -- serve afraid? >> bill in utah. caravans. ng about >> qualify for asylum. but to be able to get through a as dangerous as mexico killed, urnalists are

migrants are killed. very high violence rates, often need protection to do that but absolutely i think there's asylum ncern that many claims are not valid, that they're false. also great re's concern that many asylum concerns are valid and the only to figure that out is to claim.ach a lot of people who get pushed back into mexico as part of a trump administration policy, a folks go home to their country, to them that that those asylum. do -- amount of attention reporting on the

immigration issue? the caravans were remarkable. of an, there were thousands people. it was an important new development. i think because it was a way for migrants who otherwise would pay ,000 to $8,000 to travel to a smuggler to travel to the border. to go for very low dos. people in mexico were helping them. they were young people. old people. joined one of the caravans as a reporter to kind of embed and it and people were saying otherwise i never would have been able to leave my country. > how long were you in the caravan and where did it travel to? > we rode -- do you know those trucks that carry cars? so there were a lot of dangerous right?ys, so migrants including mothers ith babies piled onto this car carrier and so we were with them we rode that through mexico

and so we were -- that was -- you know, it was a very because it also shows you the risk that migrants take and the dangers they face i try to be as a eful as me but it was dangerous thing to do and migrants would say, you know, take this risk. you would never risk your baby to do this unless you really had to go. again that's up to a judge in the united states to decide. your you ever feel like life was in danger on that journey? >> well, i took precautions. have gone in a different kind of box truck but we were not adequately prepared for that took precautions and made sure we had contact with a car hat was following us, enough water, enough light and air and things like that. but, yeah. it's dangerous. know. i mean, there's -- it's dangerous for journalists in general in mexico. i think it'salists

more than 100 have been killed this year. i mean, i'm sorry, more than 100 have been killed in the past few year.and 12 this so i mean it's a much more angerous for them than it is for me but yeah i think the world all over take risks. than others. >> we're taking your questions on "washington journal." ohn in new mexico republican here next. >> good morning. i would like to discuss the hipocracy of these gigantic companies. all these laws. the drugs are flooding in. risk.alking about we have a gang problem in every states. the united we even have a gang problem here in rural america. eople dying from opoids,

illegal drugs. people shot by gang members when they get in the way of a drug deal. in the way of something that just maybe the guy wants a say town your road and you no this is my property. get off my road. limited to is not the countries where these people immigrating from. we had a raid in mississippi i believe the state was a couple ago, the news made a big deal out of it. and most of those people go back because they had not yet been adjudicated through the ourt system although they were here illegally. we're a nation of liars. hypocrites. thieves. that's john in new mexico. implications of those raids at those farms in mississippi. >> i'm actually glad he asked because i go back to it all the time. he last am necessity as it's called in 1986 was supposed to fix this problem. about 3 to 5 million

immigrants here illegally. reagan signed the bill and it was supposed to hold accountable for having people here illegally and supposed to hold immigrants working here r illegally. and almost immediately and you can see this in the reporting that the nderstood bill failed. there were too many loopholes nd ways to get around it and now you have 11 million people in the united states without apers and since president reagan, no administration has really solved this issue. so what the trump administration trying to do is enforce the or in reverse and advocates and analysts and most nonpart season folks. folks have rtisan understood behind the scenes it won't be successful and has not been. deporting 200 to $300,000 people a year. others come in. system is just not

effective. >> on what the trump administration is doing, this is president trump from last week talking about his border security efforts. being very strong at the border. you see the numbers are way, way down. i want to thank mexico for that. could make tates your question could make that problem go away very easily if would meet and we could fix the loopholes and asylum which is what you're an extent but o let me just tell you. very much i have the children on my mind. greatly.s me people make this horrible 2,000 mile journey. ne thing that will happen when they realize the borders are losing and the wall is being built, we're building tremendous miles of walls right now in locations but it all comes together like a beautiful puzzle. but one thing that's happening you can't get into the united states or when they see if they do get in the united they will be brought

back to their country. it won't matter if they get in because we're doing that. they won't come and many people many women's and lives will not be destroyed and ruined. last week at nt the white house. he started there saying numbers are way down and i want to thank that. for explain. >> so after president trump hreatened to impose tariffs on mexico, mexico agreed to host ore asylum seekers to the united states and to do more subpoena yore enforcement. their 're down at southern border with gat ma la stopping people -- guatemala. stopping people on the caravans that have been going on in the interior and they're also people to some degree at the border. they're accepting thousands of their border cities from the united states to await their asylum hearings. so you're basically turning mexico into a bit of a waiting an asylum if i have

hearing pending in the united states, hi to wait in mexico -- wait in mexico for it. >> why would someone take years o complete and thousands of dollars when they can just walk in through our southern border asylum.are shouldn't people fill out the point of impactwork before getting here and is that what's mexico?g in >> well, so it's in central merica generally where -- some people have tried to fill out the paperwork. -- they've been reflected for visas or are just that.vailable to do some people don't know how to do it. i think most people it's just too bewildering. i know a lot of people do that for sure. ut it's much, much easier to go -- there's a contact in your neighborhood. know gler who says i you're afraid or whatever the reason is, you're in debt. getting threats.

extorted by gang members. border t you to the safely and if you're traveling with a child i'll give you a this nt and it becomes powerful lure. and it's powerful for people who don't qualify for acy lumbar. very -- you have to be afraid persecution the government wouldn't protect you. to meet a ave specific criteria. challenging. > back to new mexico, albuquerque. >> i wish more people would have understanding what these people are going through. there not just leaving. not an easy decision to pick up and leave and go to a foreign place where you don't language. it's not an easy decision. i'm sure they would rather stay they could ere if but i just wish more people would think about that and i just think it's just -- the

that we have now, able to he wealthy are ly i know obama did a lot of deportations. i don't know if this is true but going to ask, i heard that he was doing this in order to get a deal. he was hoping he would -- a lot of times i thought he was working with the other side too turn imes and they would him down but i don't know if this is true or not. you can just give me some information about that. for the call. >> that's a great question. i mean, there's a lot of why that about happened. he was a new y president and the immigration machinery works on its own so beenwas something that had

building and building under the bush administration and it just going. and as you probably remember, you know, there was an economic crisis. president obama wanted to move healthcare through congress. a lot of re are on -- he hings going did enforce the law and expanded an important tool that ice uses to ind immigrants who have been arrested. it's called secure communities nationwide.hat so -- but critics of president basically went against his own goals. he ended up deporting a lot of people. back a lot of people at

the border. quick removal rocedures and he expanded family detention so and kind of set the stage for what is trump.ing under president >> coming back to the democratic residential primary, you mentioned ice there for a minute. which candidates want to abolish ice? which don't? big of a part of the immigration debate on the topic?tic side is that >> so that's an important question. i mean, i think if people talk a ut abolishing ice but it's big issue for the democrats. i mean, democrats have funded years. years and quandary at is a real i think. and ice, federal agents, these officers. ice often points off that that congressjobs

ordered them to do. gave them money to do. do.re them to they're frustrated that no one suggesting to abolish the fbi or other things. i think people have been -- it's a hard question as you can because i to answer cover ice. work.erstand how they i think one of the biggest ice is that they're police. they say we're cops but they don't play by those rules. who they tell you arrest. you can't go look up court who decides nd out why someone should be in jail for two years. transparency is in like with the regular police and the fbi. we know why people are in jail and where they are and why a deinside them bail. can't really explain what ice does. creates a mystery around the

wherest the executive ranch has a lot of power over it. you have advocates in the agreeing partment did over their own statistics. we should be able to count how deported.e get they disagree over that. hat shows how lacking in transparency the system is. you don't have that in the ninth and fifth circuit montgomery, alabama is next. jason, independent, good morning. >> hey, good morning. that thearia mentioned problem was not solved in like point.rs at this i think two reasons. when you look at the raids in ississippi, the affidavit to get the warrant for the raid said that the employers hired ly unlawfully illegal immigrants so they knew going in that the employers these people and

yet when they got there they immediately threw the workers in cuffs but the employers still are walking through. o i think unless and until employers are held to the same standard as far as up holding fixed. it won't be second, we as americans have to come to terms with the fact that we need these people here. for instance at ag just like with the raids in mississippi, you look at the umber of illegal immigrants that are knowingly employed because the cheap labor is needed. here in alabama in the early 010s, they were going to crack down on them and get them out of the state. well, the farmers came out on publicly and said you can't do that. we won't have workers if do you that. so it's the open secret that people are here but still they're scapegoated by this others ration and by saying that they're here to take american jobs and bring violence ut we as americans have to

reconcile these people are doing jobs that provide products to us want.we >> jason in alabama. > those are really important points. but holding one, employers accountable as well as mployees, that was what the 1986 am necessity was supposed o fix and it is -- has been completely imbalanced. far more immigrants have been employers.ntable than part of that is you have a certain number of employers at more ompany and a lot immigrants. but i think people in general that employers are till powerful -- it's really everywhere. politicians have undocumented workers. president trump's properties, my reported on that extensively in the "washington post" and i would really urge read those stories.

so he's far from the only one. deal.has been a big but in a recession, there are definitely issues. the unemployment rate is low. but economists have found that workers do feel competition and do have from immigrants particularly those who are undocumented when there's enough needed like le are right now when the unemployment one thing butat's then there's concern about if they paid higher wages and perhaps more americans would do the job but always. so it's a really tough question that economists have struggled to answer. >> about ten minutes left. in woodridge, illinois. a republican. good morning. good morning. i want to make a comment about and wasn't it obama

irs he one who stopped the to -- and when reagan gave him there was money carved out for a wall. so they got the am necessity and up. wall never went so if they don't stop the problem at the border, nothing ever going to get done. >> so the number of undocumented immigrants has actually gone down. to be primarily people from mexico but immigration mexico has gone down almost to nothing. year.ot 11 million in a 1986.11 million since

so -- and that -- and, again, gone down.rs have we can absolutely see that. what's increased dramatically is family migration. and that has been a major shift what it means is that there kids and little kids so instead of sneaking across the border and trying to the they're going through desert where a lot of people crossing. you have people surrendering at the border and seeking asylum. dramatic change. border patrol will say they used o have to chase people and now they're running up to me and it's true. but what's really important is look at those apprehension numbers because they have not changed their language. apprehended but they're surrendering. little kids.e are saw one kid in a photo with a

teenage mutant ninja turtle costu costume. they're younger than ever. i think that is one of the big challenges. you're apprehending are much, much younger than they used to be. >> when and where? on the border along the border. arizona, for example, you're seeing people carrying across the babies border. nd about half of the apprehensions in yuma have been children. and back in the day in the 1990s, you would see a lot of people coming over that were nderaged but they were mostly teenagers from mexico so almost adults. seeing a lot of people aged 12 and under. >> how much time do you ersonally spend on the border or in the border region? >> so i spend as much as i can will have ly soon omeone down there more

permanently. but that's -- i just got back and i was in arizona in the past few months. go back and forth. i was in suarez recently. also go.lleagues we're a team and we go down there as much as possible. buffalo, next out of new york. democrat. good morning. >> good morning. how's you are day going? >> doing well. go ahead with your question or comment for maria. >> thank you. want to make a few that.nts about that some but not all republicans speak against diversity claiming diversity is of history yet we could actually go back to the roman third century e here were numerous emperors of rome who were not europeans. he roman empire was inclusive

of european, arabs, africans, even further on if you look at the 11th entury, century muslim scholar had a the catholic t kingdom of jerusalem which he reported there was great and friendship. >> bring us to 2019. >> okay. absolutely. if you look at the 1880s to the migration policy reports by 1920 the united to at least me 50,000 immigrants from the main region and many of those would go on to work for companies like ford motor in fact time magazine 2008 they actually interviewed an arab gentleman emigrated from the middle motor d worked for ford company and formed many friendships with americans of descent.and african

e said that he's 53 a retired assembly line worker and said the car companies were no doubt melting pot or the of the united states like other lebanese who flock to the area. running out of time here. what's your question or comment for maria? question to maria would be is there a way that we kind rhaps use history to of show americans that diversity is a part of history and that if of these immigrants even they're illegals coming from the middle east coming from south africa that g from in fact they did work for companies like ford that they our country.e to how can we perhaps use history to show americans and all people of the world that diversity is part of history and that -- point, jack. >> i'm going to -- i have a bit and recent answer to that so just as a practical matter. the united states has had an

before.risis perhaps not of this scale but we back log in asylum laims during the wars in central america, claims built up, and the nonpartisan actually policy has offered a solution and this is from a former immigration commissioner. so a former enforcer who said in that there are trained asylum officers who can handle claims and are experts and can tell if someone is not if someone an tell is a valid applicant or not. nd what have you to do is simply hear the cases and process the cases. and that there are ways to get done. of ead of creating a lot political confusion and -- and this is widespread. targeted one person. but there's a lot of confusion and they have

suggested actually just and forng asylum claims those who are legitimate asylum seekers, they should be able to and thoseding to them who are not should go. and i think there's been a lot about resting discussion how to actually get the job done in the united states. for you.all john in georgia. republican. good morning. >> good morning. i have a question for your guest. if she's a reporter, did she about the reporter if she was a true reporter, she the facts. >> if you want to talk about your reporting background. >> i've been covering immigration for about ten years is a lot ofnk there partisan attitudes about that's ion and everyone's right. even has the right to their opinion and things like that. is listen to do

everybody and all the different facts and i think that is really mportant and that's what i'm trying to convey here i think today which is this is a topic.ated ut all -- it's been going on for a long time and all the parties have been involved in in unable to come together to address it. -- and that is where we stand where we try to analyze that and that's why i'm alking about divinity administrations not just one. >> you can read her work at twitterton post".com on you can follower her. appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> up next, our look at immigration continues. american ed by immigration lawyers association executive director benjamin johnson. we'll be right back.

as we continue our discussion on immigration this morning we come back to our desk executive director of the american immigration lawyers association. remind viewers what the and what you do. >> the association is 15,000 over theon lawyers all country who do immigration of stripes. and they represent people in every conceivable kind of case in the system.tion everything from asylum to nobel prize winners. really it's a lot of people all over the country doing a lot different but important work. the casesed about all surrounding the trump administration's policies. o you get involved in those lawsuits in federal courts? >> our members are certainly those volved in all of cases. one thing that we've seen in the trump administration is that the mpact on immigration is no

loppinger isolated to a certain small set of policy objectives or goals. really the whole entire mmigration system has seen a real shift in how immigration aw and policy is implemented, the intentions of the system i think have all been sort of challenged. them members are all of really are actively involved in figuring out what is the policy currently.nistration they're actively involved in efforts to try to get the policy the more aligned with needs of the united states and the families who are here in country. it's been a full bore effort. >> our topic for today on the "washington journal" is and campaign 2020. ot a single democratic candidate says that the current immigration system is working. president trump often calms it a immigration system. if you were asked to fix the start? where would you guest: people have recognized this system has been broken for

a long time. first came to washington d.c. in 1999 and there was widespread ecognition them that the immigration system didn't work and unfortunately your question question.fect we focus too much that it's broken and not enough on the that it's fixable. think it's built on three pillars which is you've got to ave sensible, sane immigration enforcement. no question about that. you need immigration enforcement. a set of rules that makes sense for families and businesses that use them. of talk about the fact that since the last am necessity we did not have enough enforcement and that's why we're back in the situation that we're today.

you got to hit the reset button a workable path to status so we could move beyond so much of the tension and disagreement about mmigration today and get back to having an immigration system reflecting our value as and needs. path to legalization amnesty and a magnet problem like this 20 years from now? >> i think if you have a see asystem reflecting the needs of and the needs of the families that are here, that's oing to be the greatest

incentive for people to come legally. i mean, in you give people an legally or g illegally, people are going to choose the legal way. the problem now is that the pathways in the united states are incredibly difficult nonexistent for many, many categories. in we were building houses the early 2000s at an incredible rate. we needed construction workers build those houses. there is no visa available for construction workers. ten years for them to get a green card and no temporary system for them. to ere daring immigrants come to the united states to take jobs that we needed. right. outad this help wanted keep sign at the border and you can't have that kind of schizophrenia. particularly when you have the world's alarmest most powerful economy. hat's what we don't want to fight in the immigration system. our own economy. the needs ystem with of our economy and families with legal ways for people to get won't have to spend

so much time enforcing immigration because people will legally. host: ben johnson, with us until this morning tern if you want to join the conversation. folks are calling in. one of the pillars of fixing seven stem you said forcement. what are your thoughts on those democratic candidates for to abolish o want ice. what would that do? guest: i understand the abolish ice.ind i think that flows from the fact that the agency has really with prioritizing. it doesn't really prioritize. murders and people who violate immigration status ith apparently the same degree of urgency. that's misguided. no other law enforcement agency without priorities. and they really engaged in some

harmful hat have been and counterproductive and inefficient. they're housing a lot of people in private prisons. so i get the fact that the they're housing a lot of people in private prisons. so i get the fact that the agency needs to be really looked at, determine whether they've got the right mission and resources. determine whether they even belong in the department of homeland security or separated way.me so completely revamping and thinking about how we do that etter than we're doing it now is fair game. abolish ice is just a bumper sticker though. fact that it's got people sking the question if ice has the right resources. that might actually be a ositive but attend of the day you don't abolish enforcement entirely. host: sam. thousand oaks, california. good morning. independent. >> yes, good morning and thank taking my call. so i first came here 30 years legal immigrant to get my masters and then a green card

et cetera.ra u.s. citizenship for many years at this time took time but was the wait. nd now i see a lot of legal immigrants here so they didn't have to wait. for legal immigrants when we see immigrants coming in without having gone through the process, they ask the question is that fair. and the second point is that now card and become a u.s. citizen legally now it takes many years. know friends and relatives who the process.on it was so long they just gave up skilled so highly they went to canada or europe or elsewhere. dichotomy. there's a we're losing out on highly skilled people because they're to wait for the green card process. and at the same time we have a of illegal immigrants especially here in southern california. the system truly is not working.

sharing your or story. >> he's right. the system is not working. not fair. i think anybody who is serious about immigration policy and be gration law has to serious about ending illegal immigration. i think everyone wants to end including igration illegal immigrants. living in the united states ithout documentation and in illegal status is not an easy life. and it's not fair for those went through the process legally. what we have to do is decide hat are the barriers and hurdles that we expect and want to create for people to come into the united states. what is a reasonable period of to wait. i think it's fair to say that asking somebody who is looking a job that's available now with employers who need the orkers now asking them to wait ten years for a job that's available now doesn't make a lot of sense. kinds of hose dichotomies and tensions between he needs in the united states and the availability of visas that causes people to come

round the system rather than through the system. so i agree with you that it is ot fair and we've got to make it more fair all the way around. north carolina. republican. >> i would like to add a few personal bout responsibility by these adults that are bringing these children border illegally. had these children, they knew their living situation. nd just like me and i got neighbors, we know how many have an we could have to family and our income and our careers and all. part in our decisions on do we have children. and those same standards should not be erased because the border is where they're i think america knows he democrats have bent over

backwards to let them enter our illegally flooding the zone to take vote because they do vote. just not right to hold and cans at one standard then watch on tv thousands, hundreds of thousands of people caught a month and then that lets us know that when we see the mart and hispanics, how many of theme are here illegal? north 's jeff in carolina. >> well, i mean, with there's a lot to unpack there. listen, i think we want to create a system where people are coming here legally. get i would like to see it away from is all of the political fighting that gets us away from good policy decisions. there's debate about do to let them -- that doesn't help anything in

figuring out the policies we need to address challenges in front of us today can agree that the current situation isn't working. to come together and figure out how to make it work better. there is absolutely a sense of self-responsibility that everybody has in living their one of the factors that we have to consider in analyzing judging those folks is that the circumstances in the triangle of central america have changed dramatically in the last ten years. here's been a 300% increase in the murder of women and girls in honduras alone. that gang question violence and it's not even fair to call them gangs. sophisticated y violent criminal organizations taken over many cities in those countries and they of those e lives people.

extortion, violence, rape. those things are part of their lives and that's changed bad he occasion has gotten mother looks at the life of her child to say out worth it to me to get of here to be free from this violence.e that's why we have an asylum system. hereshould be able to come to determine if they meet grounds for asylum. if not they would have to go but if they do they should be allowed to come into the united states. it's not endless numbers. it's not everybody. it's in line with our values and system. t with our host: the numbers of those cases a day in court about 850,000 is the back log? guest: yes. host: what are the various plans to address that? are out enty of plans there. i'm not sure how many the

current administration is solutions.o real you need an immigration court system that's functional so the to do is get u to it out from under the control of the political machinery. administration has shined a spotlight on the fact that we don't have an court or have independent determinations about judgeses in front of the because those judges are employees of the department of ustice and they can be controlled entirely by the attorney general and we've seen that happen. independent court who can make decisions about the best and fastest way to review cases. determinations have to be fair and based on facts and that's of -- we're going to need more judges too in that get m but that's how you more of these cases processed. mentionedrlier it was the initial adjudicators looking at the cases. think you can increase the size of that and give them

responsibility to make determinations, findings of asylum findings on the front end. you can alleviate some of those cases. what i think is a mistake to do, what is i think an affront to happening is what's now which is to try to change the you will radios of the game that an entire group of people coming from a particular area of the world are entitled to asylum. you just can't do that. sweeping s of statements are not appropriate and they're not aligned with our judicial terms of our system. and you can't house people in prisons where private prisons are making billions of dollars off of our unwillingness really address this back log. it's not efficient and incredibly expensive. are many programs where people can be released from information, given representation, 99% of folks come back when we give them information and

representation. forward. path online it's aila.org. next.d is pensacola, florida. caller: good morning, mr. johnson. i've been reading from the time magazine that the actuary of the social 2014 ty administration in estimated that undockmented $100 billion aid over ial security taxes he past ten years and we need those social security taxes being paid because americans are aying they won't have their retirement. will you please speak to that? thank you, sir. >> i would agree that there's a

misconception that people in our in our economy are undocumented and undocumented are not contributing. taxes.y the overwhelming majority of the undocumented population is payroll taxes taken out of their paycheck. hey're making contributions including social security. so internshiping it's fair to acknowledge that these workers an important part of our economy and make contributions. to say think it's wise that it's okay for them to undocumented. those would be much larger if legal status. it's fair to defend them from of stereotypes that's happening as human beings and as workers. productive, decent folk. but that does not mean that we hould not all be committed to ending undocumented immigration. everybody in the united states and to be here legally they ought to have permission to

wek and work above board and have to create a system where that's possible and get the workers that we need. or less. we do it in the way that's sensible for the families and usinesses that use our immigration system. 30 years -- 30 years -- years we've host: for 30 years we've held the immigrants responsible. that doesn't work. just one ceo going to prison would eliminate illegal employment at once. ceos don't like prison. uest: i'm a believer that if you're going to have consequences those consequences ave to be evenly spread out across all of the actors nvolved in the behavior you're trying to conform. employers should face the same of penalties. we should take that serious. same time, we cannot believe, fool ourselves into we can enforce our way out of this situation.

another issue that's come up in campaigns is this idea of criminalizing or decriminalizing immigration. the fact of the matter is that most immigration violations are violations. that section 1325 debate we've heard. guest: exactly. that relates to someone crossing permission.ithout but all that to say the majority f the rules relating to immigration are civil rules. they can be enforced in a civil manner. that the solution to our problems is simply adding more criminal pent penalties sort of one employer being perpetrate walked into rison away from solving our immigration problem. we have to learn the lessons in criminal learn justice reform is that one size fits all. increased punishment. mass incarceration didn't get us warresults we wanted in the on drugs and massive

incarceration and increased one size fits all strategy is not going to get that immigration reform we want either. >> william, north carolina. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. talking about immigration nd the inability to get workers. i'm a retired military person. i have a top secret clearance. to school and i was a upervisor in satellite communications for over ten years. i came out and i wanted to be in construction. i wanted to get my general contractors license. make a long story short, i've waiting over 30 years to permission to get take the test. not flunk the test. test.he

job opportunities are not for black kids. host: william you're going in and out. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. those that say that they're willing to put their lives on defend this country are absolutely heros. to thoseould stay true values and principles. and one of them is we should not let folks pit americans against people against people. we definitely have serious challenges in our economy and access to about jobs. the ability of workers to move n order to pursue job opportunities in other places. maybe they're tied down by a have other factors. we should be able to address those challenges and those challenges are not going to go because we've gotten tougher on immigration. those challenges are only going we call that challenge out and say let's

focus some time and attention on sure ng hangout we make everybody in our economy has a wage.t job at a decent got access to healthcare and education. those arendamentally, the things that america was fighting for when you were serving. basic principles that -- we can't stand up fake solutions to real problems that we're going to solve those problems by either restricting immigration or less or more immigration, that's not going to happen. a labor on is part of force. immigration is part of an economic system. mmigration is part of our culture and history. but it's not the answer. immigrants didn't build this themselves. we all did this working shoulder to shoulder in deciding what create life we want to for each other. we need to get back to creating that environment. oklahoma.a,

prussia, king of pennsylvania. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. personal history that makes me feel strongly about immigration. survivors from world war ii. i'm first generation american i turned out pretty good. i have a regular job, a family. in my ewhat active community. o i'm very much let's solve this problem of immigration. changing the rules on people is absolutely not fair. we're talking a lot about fairness and ethics. like that topic, i would to make a special point about diversity. c-span often and i like the guests and i'm learning a lot. point here is why is it so using theese speakers word we go to church with other people. we go to work with other people. not all of us have church.

there are synagogues and temples and other faiths that use other buildings. would like to promote diversity by asking all those on -span and people across our politics to say we pray together. sense to you, ke mr. johnson? guest: it does. up.l just pie straight that's probably my own bias in terms of my faith experience. right.u're absolutely there's a lot more faith experiences out there. certainly i will try to be acknowledging that. i mean, probably acknowledge don't pray. i really think the heart of what i was trying to get at is that in this together. and i think the more that we llow politicians in their efforts to differentiate themselves the more that we differentiate us and divide us then i think we lose that sense of togetherness. to get e is only going better if we reek news that we

are all in this together. enemies need to make out of the people who have something that we don't. we need to figure out how do we out of our life's experience the things that we want and need and deserve for work that we contribute, for the taxes we contribute. have.e dreams that we all nobody has a monopoly on any of have things and i think we to figure out how we work together to achieve a better future for everybody. how long have you been at the aila. >> most will tell you too long i've been executive director for three years but i've been working in or around the about 19 years now. >> why did you get involved in this work? guest: it's an amazing community. i fell in love with the people this work. it's the honor of my life to across h these lawyers the country.

they work together. information. share ideas. they're committed to a larger the n of why they're doing work that they do. they really do believe that an important part of what we are now and can be in the future. we ainly a big part of who were in the past. obviously i'm very biased. really got taken by this group immigration employers. host: and taking your phone questions. nicky has been waiting from jersey.d, new good morning. morning. to force people out of their homes and send them here. we need to help people fix

their problems within their own that they're not that's the only way you're going to solve the problem.ion thank you. guest: you're not wrong there. immigration is not the answer. single answer to any question or problem that we face. i think we have to recognize that there are people that are unimaginable violence in the northern triangle of central america. long, proud ve a history of protecting people who persecution. i think we can solve these problems without abandoning those principles. doable thing and the 2 ntry of jordan dealt with million syrian refugees that came into that tiny country with economy and figure out a way to manage. to hould not let that get that point here so that i think

the solution is addressing those border and to our addressing the problems that home.e fleeing from back that could involve some working with other countries in the to set up processing centers so people don't have to make the dangerous journey.

-- it's important to call it out for what it is and address it with all the tools that are available to us. refugee processing, investing in the success of those countries, ultimately, that's how we will get ourselves out of the situation. host: we've had a special line for those in the country illegally. 202-748-8003. wane called in on that line from ashburn, virginia. caller: thank you for your service. my comment this morning is surrounded around the fact that if we talk about immigration, the first thing that comes to your mind is people from the

other side of the border. as important as that is, if you read the bible, it talks about taking care of your neighbors. that shouldn't even be the issue. that is a very tiny portion of immigration. on a larger scale, i'm wondering if you can enlighten some of callers, if -- every immigrant in the country $500-$2000, what will be the total contribution to this economy? talking about your neighbors shouldn't be having babies is a shame. host: can you talk a little bit about your situation? caller: i came to this country

illegally and found a way to change my status and now, i have a webpage up, i'm contributing, i don't rely on the government for a dime. host: what was that path that you found? caller: you come in, you have a visa, you meet somebody you love, you get married and they help you change your status. that is the path that i found. host: thank you for your call and for sharing your story. guest: you raised a good point about assumptions and stereotypes. it is really unfortunate, quite frankly, when most americans right now here about immigration, talk immigration, they immediately think of illegal immigration. that's on us. the immediate image that comes to mind shouldn't be illegal immigration. it should be about the system and how do we get out of a scenario where immediately, we

are talking about illegal immigration? there are so many other aspects to immigration. you shouldn't be just talking about immigrants from mexico or let america. -- latin america. there's immigrants coming from all over the world. the politics of this issue have narrowed it down to a few hot button issues. we ought to be fed up with that. we ought to have a much bigger conversation about how can we all work together to create a future for ourselves that is prosperous and valuable and what role will immigration play in that? is's not pretend immigration always going to be a divisive political issue. let's work together to figure out how to make it an asset for the country. host: 10 minutes left with ben johnson. ronnie is in texas.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a comment. in order to get something accomplished such as immigration, you have to have a leader at the top that has empathy, openness and some goodness in their heart. donald trump has none of that. he's a racist, he has no interest in getting things accomplished because that's who he is. miller, have stephen who is a racist also, implementing policies that donald trump implements, there's no way things are going to get done. donald trump is a racist, he's always been a racist. sad to say, the majority of his supporters, they don't want to admit it, but they are also racists. guest: i think support or

isosition of president trump a really divisive issue in this country. i make it a point to talk less about donald trump. i don't know what's in his heart. i know what his policies are. i would rather spend less time talking about donald trump and start talking to americans. ofding areas or moments common agreement. the divisiveness in this country, not just on this issue, but lots of other issues, is getting in the way of good policy. whether you are for donald trump or against donald trump, there's a lot of common ground to be found on immigration. huge majorities of the population understand, let's hit the reset button on under committed immigration, let's let people who have been working get overa long time

this political pothole. there's a lot of agreement about wanting to make sure everyone in treatedomy is fairly and has an opportunity for a decent living wage. if we start having those conversations, we will be able to figure out what is the immigration system we want to build together. host: are there rule changes the trump administration has made on these immigration topics that you do agree with? guest: he's been mostly focused -- his policies have been really restrictive. it's about having less people here, really digging into stereotypes of immigrants. to not violate the rule i just sent out, but this administration's policies have been pretty destructive and divisive.

we have a lot of fence mending to do in terms of talking about what kind of system we want in term instead of who's to blame for it. host: is there a democratic candidate doing a good job on that front? guest: very few of them are doing the job because no one is doing anything on immigration. those in the senate and house, we've seen a couple of efforts at immigration reform. mostly, we've seen tactics meant to distinguish them from their opponents. the administration is definitely having an impact. it said it would do a certain set of things and it's doing those things. unfortunately, i think the things they are doing are disruptive instead of productive. they have caused more of a division. the more there is division, the less room for good policy. host: carol in new jersey. independent.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have several things i would like to say. i will start with this. isbelieve that this immigration is to be totally naive. got deep, it's pocketed funders and organizers. this is a human invasion. it is not immigration. i would like to name just a few of the organizers and founders that have organized this invasion. first, it's the lawyers without service workerhe international union, it is la raza, it's an organization

funded by george soros. host: why do you think they are promoting that? caller: because they are funding that. has thrown over $15 billion into the effort. groups that front front for his theory, his concept. he is the originator and funder of the color revolutions all over the ukraine. , i willssica vaugha benjamin jn let you jump in. guest: there's a lot of deep pockets and moneyed interests all over every political issue we are debating these days. to dismiss an issue similar because it has a big funder behind it means we will never dig into any particular issues.

there's a lot of bipartisan support. certainly, there are the george soros' investing in issues they care about. so where the koch brothers. would let any immigrant into the united states who is prepared to do work and keep out any immigrant who wants to do us harm. description of the immigration system we ought to have. there's big money for and against every particular issue. i don't think that ought to be a decision-maker, a deciding factor on whether we lean into it. host: grant in vermont. an independent. good morning. caller: the lawyer said there's 99% of people who show up to their court hearing. i've heard constantly for a long time on tv that 90% didn't show

up. upill probably look that myself on some government numbers. also, the wages. they bring in people from mexico or south america to work. what do they get for pay? andhey get the same american worker would get on a farm -- an american worker would get on a farm? is that one reason why farm ?ages stay so low guest: in terms of the numbers, there's a complicated answer in terms of how the government calculates the failure to appear rates. i would point you to the american immigration counsel. there's is one source of information you might consider.

once you have information and res representation, apparent rates -- appearance rates are very high, around 95%. it is certainly in the 90's in terms of appearance rates. in terms of workers and their wages, these workers brought into the united states at every wage, there are rules, surveys that have to be done to workerne if you ping the the ratesor equal to of other workers -- there are rules to make sure they are not being exploited. there's a lot more work that can be done to make sure that's actually happening. more importantly, folks who are

here without documentation -- they have less rates, there are more opportunities breaks boyd tatian of workers who don't have documentation -- opportunities for exploitation of workers who don't have documentation. to make sure workers are paid decent wages, getting them a legal status is the most important tool we can provide them and the most important power we can give ourselves in terms of understanding whether they are being exploited and whether they are driving down wages. let's get workers the protections they need to stand up for themselves, let's get them the wages they need to continue to advance, that will make them better consumers, better taxpayers, all those things. host: one last call. ann is waiting in louisville, kentucky. we will keep talking about the

immigration issue up until 10:00. hang on the line and we will get you in the next segment. ann in louisville. caller: i have a two-part question. if we want people to apply outside of the country, why do they keep closing down the u.s.c.i centers? why can't they make embassies consulates places to apply for asylum? new trumpderstand the administration thing about applying in third countries. i thought asylum had to be physically on united states land or water to be able to apply for asylum? guest: you are right. there's a difference between applying for asylum and refugee status. once you arrive in the united

states, you are applying for asylum. once you apply abroad, that is refugee status. different rules in determining whether somebody is likely to be persecuted on certain grounds. it's a very difficult process either way. it needs the resources and attention we have not been giving it. in terms of this idea of closing doors, one of the challenges we've been facing with the current administration -- on the one hand, the administration is saying if you're going to apply for asylum, you have to come here legally, come to a port of entry. yet, we are closing ports of entry, giving people numbers and telling them to come another day. there's literally hundreds of people sleeping on a bridge to come across and apply for asylum. we have closed the door on them.

many of them are fleeing desperate situations. where theyer towns are being forced to stay, many of them are trying to find a way around that port of entry. the first thing they do in the united states is find a border guard and turn themselves in. you're talking about people who are desperate to have their cases heard, to turn themselves in and go through the legal process. we are doing a great is service to our values and to the system when we say to people come and do it the right way and then we will let them do it the right way. that is only amplified and made fore, a desperate situation thousands of people trying to protect themselves from death and all kinds of horrible,

torturous situations. is theen johnson executive director of the american lawyers association. thank you for chatting with us and our callers. up next, our immigration discussion continues this morning. we will be joined by jessica vaughan from the center for immigration studies. we will be right back. ♪ >> in the wake of the recent shootings in el paso and dayton, the house judiciary committee will return early from the summer recess to markup three gun violence prevention bills, which include banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, restricting firearms from those deemed a risk to thoselves and prevent

convicted of misdemeanor crimes from purchasing a gun. go, listen tohe our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public-policy events from washington, d.c. end and around the country. d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. watch book tv for live coverage of the national book festival saturday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. our coverage includes interviews with ruth bader ginsburg, david

robinson, rick malone. and thomas liveational book festival, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. "> "washington journal continues. host: jessica vaughan is back at her desk. she serves as policy studies director at the center for immigration studies. not a single democratic candidate thinks the current immigration system is working. president trump has called it broken repeatedly. if it were up to you to fix the system, where would you start? guest: i think i would start nothing -- why do we have

an immigration system to decide which immigrants we want to admit and build from there? we want people to be able to build their -- bring their spouses and other close immediate family members. we want our employers to have access to a global bullet talent, skilled individuals -- global pool of talent, skilled individuals. we want to continue to have a humanitarian admission program. how many people should we be offering resettlement to? we could probably do away with programs like the visa lottery and certain other ones that have outlived any useful purpose. host: what should be the goal? what do you think is the right number of immigrants coming into

this country illegally each year? guest: it should be based on our and not becountry disadvantaging americans in any way if possible. to make sure people can keep their immediate families together if they happen to marry somebody from another country and to be able to attract this global pool of talent -- it is hard to set a number on that. if you're keeping your standards , you're goingng to have to have a numerical limit. there will always be more people in the world who want to come to the united states. we have to be willing to enforce the limits that we have. if we don't enforce the rules, there's no point to having rules. host: immigration is a huge

topic. towards 2020, is it focused on the right topic as the candidates talk about immigration? guest: the president will end up focusing on two things. first, how he's dealt with the crisis at the border, which is foremost in people's minds on the immigration issue. it is an enormous challenge to community's around the country -- communities across the country who have to deal with this massive influx of people coming in over the last five years. solving that issue will be something the president is going to have to run on. i also think republicans are definey going to try to their vision for our immigration system and how they would like to see it and how we can build a

system that doesn't serve us well as a nation -- does serve us well as a nation and still offers the promise of becoming an american citizen to many people abroad. we taken over one million people in over one we take we take inople -- all over one million people -- we take in over one million people legally. trump hass president made from the obama administration, resisting this idea of a more moderate level of immigration. host: what would be the impact of abolishing ice? guest: they would find that to

be a mistake. already, a number of democratic candidates have shied away from that. if people want to have the rules everyonenforced, recognizes the real value that as not onlyn agency a value for public safety and addressing problems of that small fraction of illegal immigrants who come here who are committing crimes getting them off of our streets, but also addressing the problem of illegal employment, fraud and our immigration system -- in our immigration system. host: how much new wall has been built since president trump became president? has he lived up to his promise of what will be built? guest: he has not achieved his goal in terms of getting more

barriers at the border. some barriers that were falling apart, the fencing in california, that has been replaced. we saw the caravan pushing through that. it was obvious that that needed to be replaced. there are some new barriers going up now, but the big problem for the president has lawsuits,resistance, and frankly, congress getting in the way as well, being unwilling to appropriate funding for it. host: jessica vaughan with us until our program ends at 10:00 eastern this morning. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. ontinuing this discussion the topic of immigration and campaign 2020 as we focus on individual topics for each of

our programs this week. jerry has been waiting in grove, oklahoma. an independent. thank you for waiting so long. caller: thank you. i agree with the lady. the talent pool we want to bring into america should be verified. it should be whatever meets the needs of this nation. one of my complaints about the whole immigration issue, no one looks back through history. ronald reagan started the program where you had to hire only american citizens. -- we his own e-verify had five forms of verification, forms of id. license, social security number -- you had 15 days to do that verification. if you couldn't verify in 15

days and the employee was still fineded by you, you were $5,000. i was managing a store near the tijuana border. within the first three weeks, i terminated 30% of my employees. hrhad personnel people from in our store each week. they would pull the personnel files and look in it and check out each employee to make sure verification was done, but there was a copy of it in your file, they would look at the hire date and they would say this employee is to be terminated right now. host: you think that system works better than the voluntary e-verify system we have now? caller: god yes.

you don't have an e-verify system now. sheriff was down on the from phoenix, arizona. he went to the city government and he was arresting illegals and 10% of the city government were illegals. host: jessica vaughan? guest: you've hit the main point here on addressing illegal immigration. the main reason people are coming here legally is to work -- illegally is to work. when we have a robust system for from hiringmployers illegal workers instead of americans that share a zone a is one of the places that succeeded arizona is one of the places

that succeeded in that. they had a system to verify employees already on the payroll. they were able to reduce the number of illegal workers by 13% in just the first year. that's according to a study done by a california think tank. decline in the illegal population that occurred when a number of other states required e-verify when the federal government was doing more work enforcement in 2008 in 2009. it is one of the most effective ways we have of deterring illegal immigration. mark was on this program two weeks ago talking about the e-verify issue. ont's available

www.c-span.org. carrie in las vegas. a democrat. good morning. caller: i was just wanting to call when the last guy was on -- i don't like it, these lawyers profiting off illegal immigration, continuing to speak from their pocketbooks. this is about simple economics. the people coming here are good people but they come here with little education, they land in the most expensive places in america like l.a. where i lived for 15 years -- how are they supposed to survive? they don't. it results in terrible schools, housing inflation -- half the class doesn't speak english and your kid is stuck in that. places like brentwood, they send their kids to private school. every ballot measure passes.

sales tax goes up -- your vote becomes worthless. open borders when you have a welfare state. you have to pick one. when they say these people don't get benefits -- yes, they do. as soon as you have a child in america, you qualify for everything. to havere getting paid their own grandparents watch their child. what we are doing is insanity. guest: this is the reason illegal immigration -- one main reason why illegal immigration is such a problem for our country. that's not because the people who are coming are such bad people but because on average, they tend to be less educated than americans are and are not well-equipped to succeed here, are assigned to jobs that pay less that have little upward

mobility, and so, they depend on public assistance programs to a great extent. is because there isn't access to these programs because they have children here who are american citizens. 63% of all immigrant households, including legal and illegal households, are accessing some form of public assistance. that's because there is this disconnect in the education and skills they have and what our employers are requiring a people to support yourself. people in order to support yourself. host: can you remind viewers what the public charge rules change is? is that something you support? guest: yes. this is a long-overdue

thisation to better define concept in our immigration law that dates back to the 1800s, 1882 to be exact, that says the showrants we admit must they are able to be self-sufficient before they can be admitted as a public resident. evaluated one their ability to support themselves. we have so many people in the world who want to come here. we have 4 million people on the waiting list to been sponsored -- who have been sponsored waiting to get their green cards. we need to weed out those applicants who can't support themselves and the next people in line can step up and take those valued green cards. host: texas. david, a republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. guest.y love the last the caller called out the fact that he's a sellout that is been bought off by somebody. i live in what used to be a mostly black community. it has been taken over. when they come to our communities, they step on us, theydon't care about us, with cars andks parties until 4:00 in the morning. host: are you talking about illegal immigrants? who are you referring to? david. we lost

the other problem with illegal immigration is because employers are still able to get away with hiring workers who are here illegally, that means able-bodied and willing workers who are legal immigrants don't have access to those job opportunities. they are displaced and they see their wages decline. we have four or 5 million people who've dropped out of the labor market. there's millions of americans who have given up looking for jobs. we have something like 12 million illegal aliens living in the country, most of whom are working, 8 million of them are working. you can see how this displacement occurs.

that's another reason we need to get a handle on immigration. that's a reason we need to look at our legal immigration system and make sure it is not disadvantaging americans. host: dominic in new york. an independent. good morning. caller: i'm a union worker, a laborer, local 79 construction. i remember when the housing crash happened, the only people who are working were illegal immigrants. hourget nine dollars an and we get $37 an hour in benefits. that's why chrysler went to mexico, they want to pay three dollars an hour down there. 75% of these illegals coming here are young men. they're coming here to be construction workers. they are nice people, but they

are taking our jobs. host: do you blame the employers who are willing to do that or the folks who are coming here illegally? caller: something has to be done. it has to stop. we are going to lose all our jobs. you're talking about 12 million people? it's 30 million people. that was figured out already. it's no 12 minute people. guest: he's hitting the nail on the head with the displacement of workers. the construction industry is done largely by americans and some legal immigrants. it's not that we need more illegal immigrants to do this work. we have enough workers who can do it and we have other ways to get things done. this is all about profits for the builders. those homes that are built by

illegal alien labor don't get any cheaper because the builders are using illegal labor. americans are getting displaced from jobs that they can support a family on. these are not jobs americans won't do. that's why states like pennsylvania focused on the building trades industry to require e-verify so that those employers cannot get away with bypassing american workers. host: the number cited most illegal 11 million immigrants. guest: we think it's more like 12 million. the 11 million figure is a few years old. this been this influx at the andhwest quarter deportation levels have remained flat. the population is growing. host: jessica vaughan with us

for another 20 minutes. if you have questions on the topic of immigration, a very broad topic, especially in the context of campaign 2020, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. john in herndon, virginia. a democrat. good morning. caller: it is sad that every time there's an election, immigrants become a sticking point. if you've seen every home care the peoplemerica, taking care of older people are immigrants. they are the same people who clean the roads and pick up your trash. you have to understand one thing. immigrants are not all perfect.

some of them break the law, some come illegally, but if there were jobs here that's warrant jobs here -- if there weren't jobs here, they wouldn't be here. rules and sayome we will bring people every year, people would have come illegally. -- come legally. guest: i agree. people are coming here to work for the most part. if we have americans and legal immigrants who also need those job opportunities to support their families and the level of immigration we are getting now is not lined up well with our -- not's economic needs everyone who comes here illegally is coming over the border.

we get about 600,000 people a visa andenter on a sta over stay that visa. they don't go home when the submission period expires. there are about five countries that have the worst overstay rates. india andde china and mexico as well, brazil and have highespecially numbers of overstay's right now. the worst overstay rate happens to be in the student and exchange visitor category. people on short-term visas, guestworker visas -- that's another aspect of this problem that cannot be addressed with a wall. host: how is the trump administration trying to address that aspect? guest: if we could deter illegal

hiring, that would help a lot. the administration has started a pilot program to contact people to remind them that the visa is expiring, they are looking at are problems and are decreasing the number of visas. way to to find a encourage people to leave when their period of stay has expired. host: is some of this just forgetfulness? guest: most of it is intentional. i think a lot of it happens because people think they can get away with it. nobody is paying attention. if you come in on a visitor visa and you stay six months -- we probably shouldn't admit people for six months, it should be a

month or so -- when they get an email from the government saying we want to remind you that your time is up, it will be interesting to see if this program result in people saying, ok, somebody is paying attention, i better go home. host: eva in georgia. a republican. caller: good morning. we arert of the matter, doctor.i am a medical doctor. i come into this perspective in the intersection of where we just spoke about the overstay -- we have the five countries, mexicochina, venezuela, -- i'm here at the hospital, most of my physicians,

colleagues are from india and iran -- thesen, are the older physicians. the younger physicians, surgeons, our cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, this is in this country, they are foreign, not american. my two young people, adult children, just finished at duke and harvard. their roommates were from china and africa. the form i-94 -- as a medical physician, i'm intersected as i teach and i practice, so i know -- if anybody is going to the doctor, you can see that they have

foreign doctors. that has happened for the last 20 had been 30 years. we have not been producing. cis -- i think c-span --thank host: you are going in and out. i want to give jessica vaughan a chance to respond. guest: she has pointed out that our educational system attracts people from all over the world. we should be proud of that. allowing tooare many people to come in through bogus educational programs or people who are not likely to return home. we need to find that balance between allowing the best and brightest in making sure -- and

making sure a student exchange visa doesn't become an excuse to stay here illegally. a lot of these countries need the people live educated and -- they have educated and invested in to return and help there. host: how much do we need to trim or add to the student visa process? guest: for the student visas in particular, we need to make sure rigorous,utions are accredited institutions where people are going to get a real education and not allow these diploma mills to bring in people under the guise of an education. host: is that where most of the students are coming in? clear,not most, to be but it's tens of thousands of

people who come in under these programs. they have a program called the optional practical training program that allows people to stay on and work for a couple of during and after the conclusion of their studies. we need some better regulations to make sure that program is really training, the people are going home at the conclusion of notand that employers are using that program to bypass american workers. website torg is the check out the center for immigration studies. brian in michigan, an independent. caller: i'm working on the lake here. if i go out 50 miles, i'm in canada. we don't go out 50 miles because

it's disrespectful to canada. we have a bunch of politicians, mainly democrats, but enough republicans who don't respect our own laws. --are feeling as a country we are capitalists with $22 trillion in debt. we are becoming enablers for southern countries. they need to stay in their own country and fix their own country. it's not about being prejudiced or hateful -- i've been to 26 other countries. i would never dream of disrespecting their laws. host: how do you feel about legal immigration in this country? is that the right number? guest: the right number -- caller: the right number will go up and down. if you look at a broad-based number of one million, if you

look at the visas who overstay -- you make them buy a round-trip ticket. when theyil to leave are supposed to, that money is forfeited. that money is used to track them down. our most vulnerable spot in this country is the southern border. it's been that way since the iranian hostage crisis and before -- it's not about hatred. fix your own country. we cannot fix your country. host: that's brian in michigan. guest: he's right in the sense that many people are coming because they know they can get away with it. that's part of the problem right now. there are so few consequences for showing up at the southern border and asking for asylum and

getting released into the country or coming in on a visa and overstaying. risk inno real sense of doing this right now. sometimes, people will do this as long as they can get away with it. -2009 when the laws were enforced, especially at the realized iteople might not be a good choice to come here and stay illegally. this is where we need to move with our enforcement. we are doing a great job enforcing the law against those arrested for local crimes, people who are a public safety threat. we need to create more of a culture of compliance so that people follow the rules. people will have more confidence

in our immigration system overall. host: you think detaining families for longer periods helps create that system? guest: there are a couple of purpose for family detention. one is to make sure they go through the process and complete their proceedings so that they can be moved if they don't qualify for asylum. this didn't work in the mid-1990's when we had another asylum crisis. people are taking advantage of the opportunities to come here and get released. more than half of them aren't even filing an asylum application. many who do are not found qualified. if we release them into the communities, they just stay on. a new regulation that would enable them to keep them in custody a little longer to

complete their cases more quickly will go a long way. host: ohio. bob, a democrat. caller: good morning. my question is more of a factual question. you've already dispatched the notion that there are 30 some plus million immigrants in the country. the question i have -- two. number one, how many illegal immigrants are voting in our public elections? that seems to be a real political hot topic. this family, under case management system, exactly how many people actually appeared for their immigration or asylum hearings? thank you very much. guest: you are welcome.

on the question of illegal aliens voting, we don't know because it has been very difficult to figure that out. thatoting process is one is largely controlled by states and local government. to try tochosen not figure that out. we don't know. we do know some people do. the greater problem might be having voter registration systems that get a lot of unqualified or ineligible voters on the role that fraudsters can take advantage of. that might be a bigger legal problem. registration is a bigger one. with respect to the family case management program, this was a

program started under the obama administration that provided intense services to some of the families who had arrived to apply for asylum. the results are not entirely known. a lot of these cases have not been completed yet because there's this huge backlog. many of these individuals showed up for their first hearings. it did not tell us what happens when the process is complete. that of the agencies support this program don't take any responsibility for making sure people actually leave the country when the judge orders them removed. we have one million people in the country now who have not gone home. laredo, texas. ricardo, an independent. good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. for taking my call on this public forum. to make fundamental decisions about this, we have to understand the immigration system. i have some questions you can clarify for the viewing public. host: give us one or two. unaccompanied minors that come from the three countries that have little funding from the world bank, when they come over here, we , when contract with them they turn 18, we receive moneys from the world bank for these individuals. they are not coming in here for free. the hearings, we

created instabilities in their nations. guest: he's addressed a problem that is separate from the family issue, the unaccompanied minors who are arriving. 2012 innomenon started south texas. parents who were living in the country illegally started sending for their kids who had been left behind in central america. because of policy changes that had been made, these kids were usually held for a certain period of time in u.s. custody and then reunited with their families. we saw a huge influx of people coming. the contractors who cared for these kids until appropriate placement can be made -- it is

still a big problem. it has caused some problems in many communities. bad actors started to take advantage of this policy, including gangs based in central america like ms 13 and 18 street. now, we are cleaning up some of the problems that were created. host: anthony in richmond, virginia. republican. good morning. caller: i'm in my 30's, i was hearing the 11 million number when i was in grade school. i think it's much higher. hearing democrats saying we have a lawless president -- doesn't the law say all illegal immigrants are subject to deportation? wouldn't it be appropriate to say if you are in the country illegally, they should be deported? guest: that is what the law

says. not,er you are a felon or anyone here illegally is potentially subject to beep rotation. deportation. up somber hasn't gone dramatically because there's been a lot of amnesties as well since 1986. it's been easier for politicians to say let's launder the status of people here illegally and address the fundamental problem that results in illegal immigration and enables illegal immigration. we probably are going to have amnesty for some of the people here illegally. we shouldn't take that step without first addressing the problems in our system that facilitate illegal immigration,

also adjusting parts of our legal immigration system to make up for the number that would be admitted in any amnesty. host: cis.org is the vaughan wo, she serves as the policy studies director and we appreciate your time. that will do it for our program today. our issues week continues tomorrow and we will be talking about energy and the environment. hope you join us for that. that will be at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. have a great tuesday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] >> join us tonight at 8:00

eastern for c-span by remarks by a former harvard professor on the mueller investigation, and for remarks on his work on o.j. simpson and jeffrey epstein. >> let me make an admission tonight. clients majority of my have been guilty. thank god for that. would anyone want to live in a country with a vast majority of people accused of crime are innocent? that is china, that is russia, that is venezuela, that is cuba, that is not the united states of america. thank god we have a system that only tries to go after the guilty. and why does that system still work? because criminal defense lawyers don't make it easy for prosecutors. we press them. we attack them.

we challenge them. we tell them, unless you have the goods, we are going to beat you. that way, they only go after people who they believe are guilty. , a welet up for a moment don't represent the rose gallery people you talk about, and i don't like my clients. [laughter] if i did not represent people like that, first of all, i could not teach my students to do it. they say, they deserve representation, no, they deserve me and i was teaching legal ethics for 40 years, and if i did not defend those people, then the government will go after people who are very marginal. people say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. [laughter] ok. i understand that. but as a civil libertarian, a conservative, whose

father-in-law has been arrested for insider trading, once you -- once your loved one has been indicted or arrested, suddenly you fall in love with criminal defense attorneys. [laughter] dershowitz speaking in steamboat springs, colorado, a policy conference with different leaders. he also talks about the mother investigation and freedom of speech, and you can watch his entire presentation tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. in the wake of the recent shootings in el paso, texas and dayton, ohio, the house judiciary committee will return early from the summer recess to preventionee gun bills, which include restricting firearms