can learn from the w wisdom of e founding fathers in today's world. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide. watch any on c-span.org/history. >> we are at an important tipping point in this nation. what we do matters and i believe the 1776 project that this project is an important historical moment. we need people to get behind us. we need to make sure that our message reaches white, black, asian, hispanic, everyone. america is a great country and we need to fight for. >> live sunday our guest on in-depth. her most recent book how critical race theory is burning

down the house. she has other titles as well. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. that's live sunday at noon eastern on book tv. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there is a collection of c-span products. browse to see what's new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-spanshop.org. >> we are back with our guest to discuss president biden's administration -- afghanistan

policy. good morning. >> good morning thank you. >> tell us what the immigration law clinic is at the university of houston law center and what you do there. >> i would be happy to. we are a law clinic and our primary goal is twofold. first to teach students to be ethical and competent attorneys. in addition, we serve the community. we help immigrants with all types of family-based cases. also humanitarian cases. >> what exactly happened with the supreme court decision this week? a lot of this got lost because what was going on in afghanistan. take our viewers through what

the supreme court said. >> taking a step back, it's such a complicated issue. judge pozen are on the seventh circuit said it was the most complicated field of law behind tax law. immigration, this policy is called migrant protection protocols. it is also called remain in mexico. it was a policy that started back in 2019 from the trump administration.

it has been a dire predicament for these people. seemingly, there was no regard for the human rights issues. the other thing i would point out is that it really is a non sequitur because in march 2020, as you may remember, title 42 was invoked.

because of the covid-19 pandemic. title 14 -- title 42 was used to expel about 940,000 people. if you think about that, 940,000, almost one million people have been expelled. expulsion is different from deportation. is different from mpp. title 42 once it was used in march 2020 supplanted the mpp because she didn't need it anymore. the trump administration expel those people. they were even given their fair day in court. fast-forward forward to the judge's decision which is a district judge relating to the texas lawsuit against the biden administration. earlier this year, he rolled out

plans to cancel or rescind the program. that was challenged by texas. basically with the judge said was the biden administration didn't follow the correct procedures under the image trade procedure act. therefore, to basically send it back to the agency to give better reasons saying it was arbitrary and capricious. the supreme court quickly within a day or two with three justices dissenting found that the mpp program agreed with the district judge and found that the program must be reinstated. obviously, this is a devastating decision and i think is

pertinent. basically, what the judge is doing in this case is making himself the person in charge of foreign policy. in other words, there's a long tradition in our jurisprudence that the courts are not supposed to determine how we deal with other countries and by requiring them to have a program, necessarily that requires bilateral negotiations and bilateral negotiations of mexico. it seems like that would be a no-brainer that the courts should not have the ability to tinker with the united states. that is another another reason to criticize the decision. >> who does this affect now that it has been ordered to continue? is there a way for the biden administration to cancel the

program? the court didn't say it must run forever, they just said you have to give better reasons. is the biden administration moving toward giving those to the judge? >> that's very important point. the way that this could play out , let me back up and say about title 42. if title 42 is going to continue to be used, it is my understanding that it is still used. that's when to be the issue. mpp suld not be ud. even under the truck for administration, there were exceptions. there were supposed to be exceptions for certain people for example people who were unaccompanied minors, people who

were in certain vulnerable populations for example transgender cases and people who were in what they call expedited removal. the biden administration now has to do a thorough job of presenting reasons to the federal court that would spell out exactly why the program is not effective, why it's not efficient, and why it's not legal. i would point out that a panel of the ninth circuit has already found that an application of the subsection of the act does not support the application of mpp to asylum-seekers. in other words, it was never legal the way it was being implemented by the trump administration wasn't lawful in the first place.

in my opinion, that's what the biden administration should emphasize and point out. >> this requires agreement from mexico to actually work. do we have any idea what the mexican government thinks about this court -- the supreme court thinking this program must continue? >> it's interesting that the mexican government, this is not been while -- widely reported, pushed back against npp. -- mpp. they did say that they refused to accept family units back. they have already sort of made exceptions and they have been pushing back. this may create an opportunity for the mexican government to push back even more forcefully. i think that's right. >> with this program, the remain

in mexico program, does the united states have this program with any other country besides mexico or was this specifically aimed at immigrants and asylum-seekers who are coming through mexico? >> that's right. it specifically uses the words contiguous territory. it would have to be either mexico or canada. people coming through and most importantly, it is not necessarily mexican nationals, we talking about anybody. it could be anybody passing through the border. that's one of the paramount reasons for the criticism. it is being applied to people who were being thrust back into mexico. they may not be from mexico, they may not even speak spanish. we have seen in our clinic, they have been subjected to kidnapping, extortion, rapes,

violence, lack of social services etc.. i can't emphasize enough the lack of care and adequate protection that these people have been subjected to under this program. >> let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we are going to remember -- open up our regular lines. you can always text us as well. we're always reading on social media on twitter and facebook. we know that it was the state of texas and other border states that brought this entire action

against the by the administration. what is going to be the impact of the supreme court decision on those border stes? >> the border states, specifically and especially texas, have been very tedious in the sense that they have taken upon themselves the role of plaintiff. enter the words, what they're trying to do is create a litigation strategy that forces the by the administration to do certain things. i would also point out not just in the mpp context, there was another case by judge tipton recently the southern district -- district of texas relating to more broadly the policies of prosecutorial discretion. the priorities that the by using. that decision also was adverse to the by the administration

saying that he could not provide certain priorities and prosecutorial discretion. that was saved by the fifth circuit and my understanding is that will be stayed for the duration. that is less pertinent or going to be an issue as opposed to the mpp. >> let's let some of our viewers get involved in this conversation on immigration. >> hello.

[indiscernible] >> what the public has to understand is these people are not going back to hotels. they are going back to mexico city. they are not going back to shelters. you might understand shelters and social services that we have here in the united states. they have been going back and i know this because some of them are my clients. they're going back to basically tent cities, places that don't have much or any support. they don't have access to jobs. how are they going to provide food or the essentials if they can't work? i think the listener

misunderstands my point when it's not that i'm saying that mexico is a bad country or supportive, it's that mexico doesn't have infrastructure. i think the mexican government would agree with that. >> let's talk to anthony from iowa on the democrat line. >> good morning. i want to make a couple points. there is a legal way for them to come to the united states and an illegal way. when i was in germany from 1982 to 1984, if you cross that wall, you were shot. here in america, if you approach norad and you cross that line, you are shot. if they come up to our border and they cross it illegally, they should be shot. they're committing a crime against america. if they want to come legally,

i'm all for. that's all i have to say. >> i hear the sentiment and i understand what the thrust of that argument is. we have to understand what it's for. it's for people approaching ports of entry. they are approaching it trying to get asylum for the most part. they are not people who are generally caught trying to illegally enter. they are approaching it and trying to apply. their applicants for admission. under the ina, there is a provision for people to seek asylum and what that means is there is a process to give reasonable fear interviews. they are not getting this interviews under title 42, under mpp are being taken back to

mexico to dire conditions. i don't think that that's what we want as a country. i don't think we want to expel people and put them in harm's way and creates a situation that is a humanitarian crisis. >> do we know that if the biden administration is going to challenge in court again the decision that forces them to continue this program or do they plan to sit back and they are not using it anyway -- do they plan to sit back and let the issue like? >> my understanding is that they do not plan to sit back. because of the supreme court's decision, it is now before the fifth circuit. i anticipate that the department of jusustice will vigorously prosecute that appeal.

i think it will go back for the district judge and as you pointed out, they will make arguments about why it is not arbitrary to cancel the program. >> eventually, we expect that that decision will be appealed again and the court of appeals decision will be appealed again. how long until we see this before the supreme court again? >> you are asking about the future litigation and you're are exactly right, it could percolate before the supreme court. this could also be dealt with through legislative process. in other words, the by the administration h has attempted through the budget reconciliation, i know that's another issue that is on your lister's minds and audiences minds. what is happening with budget reconciliation? from reports that i have received, there is a budget

reconciliation of 3.5 trillion. of that, $105 billion would put forth a pathway for u.s. citizenship. that pathway could then ameliorate some of these problems. the pathway relates to different groups. one of them is daca recipients or dreamers. another group is farmworkers etc.. if people are able to apply legally to get into the united states through some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, it could root out some of these policies under the trumpet administration. >> we have been going for a pandemic in the united states for the last year and a half. the world has been going through a pandemic foror the last year d a half. how has that impacted immigration into the united states and those seeking asylum? >> the main way it is impacted

it is to create incredible burdens on both legal immigration and people who are subject to trying to enter at the border. i have already talked about title 42. i will give you and example. we had a client who was subject to title 42 from a country where he was the subject to political persecution. he was immediately expelled without any judicial to administrative credible fear issue and he was tortured back inhat country. it is had devastating consequences. let me say something about covid-19. some have made outlandish statements without evidence.

what is happening is the immigrants or the migrants are getting the covid-19 detention centers. that's where the issues being created. there is no evidence and hard data to suggest the immigrants should be demonized or stigmatized for that reason. >> letet's go back to the phone lines. diane from kansas on the republican line. >> good morning. the first caller stole my point of view almost word for word. i have been to mexico. most people have been to mexico. on vacation or visiting relatives or whatever. for my whole lifetime. it's a big country. it has opportunities for people to work there. obviously they do. yet these immigrants that are coming, they don't want that.

they want with the u.s. has. which are social benefits which cost u.s. taxpayers a lot of money. many of the same benefits are even available to the u.s. taxpayers that the immigrants get. byature of having a child in the u.s. then they get benefits for the whole family. my sincere belief is that the reason we are getting all these immigrants is that president biden opened the borders and closed the wall expansion and is looking to basically look forward to having these as democrat voters after asylum supposedly granted for citizenship is granted.

it is a political ploy. >> i will be happy to respond. certainly i understand the sentiment, and from the perspective of somebody who has vacationed in mexico, i can see that. a couple of assumptions that i would point out, the assumption is if you are in mexico you can get a job and live in mexico and the mexican authorities are welcoming to these migrants. that is not the case. the mexican authorities do not have infrastructure to grant asylum to a large group of people, number one. number two, you need a work permit just like here to work, you need that in mexico. number three, the public has to understand, and i have

worked with a lot of these people. i have talked to many migrants, and i can tell you the main reason that a lot of them are coming, and some are for economic reasons, but the main reason i have seen is legitimate, valid persecution based claims. you have to understand the state of some of these countries in central america. their kids are being beaten, raped, persecuted on the way to school. they do not feel safe. they have no choice but to come to the united states.

i am not saying this because i have heard it or because i read about it. from my own experience representing these immigrants, a lot of them have valid persecution based claims, and i don't think we as the united states wants to be remembered for turning people away. >> this is john from liverpool, new york, on the democrat line. >> i have no problem turning these people away. there is a legal and in a legal way to do this. i am looking right through you, pal, this is all of the money. i am paying you. these people do not have any money to pay you. this is a big money grab. you are profiting from open borders. i am a democrat and i have always voted democrat, but if they continue this garbage, and the amnesty lie. these people are coming here for a better life, and they are telling you they are persecuted and you are buying it because it is to your financial benefit. it is all about money. you are grabbing money from the american taxpayer to support these people. i am ashamed of you.

>> ok. my response to that, this is interesting. there is a misunderstanding about immigration, this dichotomy between a legal way and an illegal way. let me say as far as asylum-seekers, you have to understand, and may be caller doesn't understand, there's something called the convention against torture and the refugee act of 1980 and there is a doctrine, which is well entrenched in our laws and our domestic international obligations. this is not happening in a vacuum, not something that creative immigration attorneys are making up. this is required by law.

again, unless you have worked with immigrants and spent time representing these people and unless you can tell me you have experience with these people, i don't think you have a basis to criticize. >> one of our social media followers has a question, this person says does the u.s. patent -- pay mexico through this program? and then how can we encourage mexico to close its border? >> that is a good question. i think the issue is and it has been brought up a few times about how do we incentivize mexico and other countries to stop people? and then it becomes a question of sort of ad infinitum, where you are

stopping people at various borders before they get to the united states. as we know, mexico is pretty poor. they do not have the infrastructure. my understanding as far as payment, i don't think the united states does pay with respect to the mpp program, and that is part of the argument that the mexican authorities are using about how this is an unfair program because you are basically dumping people into the mexican population and not allowing them to have social services. i think that is a fair point and important to note. >> this is bill from mobile, alabama, on the republican line. good morning. >> good morning. i would like to say that we don't need these people here. we don't want them here, and they come in here with covid and nobody seems to care.

the communists in washington, d.c., they want to state in power and be as stupid as they are now. ridiculous. >> let me point out what we have done as a country and how we have in the past welcomed people in the past and we have been a country that is sensitive to humanitarian issues. think about act in 1959, the cuban exodus, first eisenhower and then jfk letting about 250,000 cuban nationals because of the situation. think about h w bush in the 1990's, the chinese student protection act, about

300,000 chinese graduate students and undergraduates. think about after world war ii and some of the things that we should have done better in terms of welcoming refugees. think about afghanistan right now in the situation with afghani translators and interpreters. most of the callers are very xenophobic and i understand where they are coming from, but i think that is not really the kind of country that we want to be, the beacon of light that we want to be. >> what are the requirements to actually apply for asylum from those -- for those coming in to the southern border? what are the criteria for allowing them to seek asylum in the united states?

>> that is a great question. i think people do not understand how difficult it is to get asylum. i think asylum, some of the judges are denying upwards of 90% of asylum cases. it is really a pretty high bar. what you have to have is past persecution, a connection to one of the five grounds, race, religion, nationality, a social

group, and then you have to show that you would be persecuted to go back. you have to have a we-founded fear of persecution. these are not easy cases. they are difficult. they are cases where people sometimes fight for years. i have a case right now which is pending for many years. people are frustrated with the backlog and with the lack of movement in terms of legislation. i will point out, for some of your viewers, remember who has been a champ and of legal immigration in the past? ronald reagan, if you remember, 1986 amnesty, that was all rona reagan. we have a duty and a humanitarian obligation to help people. i am a citizen. many of you are citizens. i get that you want to create a country that helps u.s.

citizens, but when you have legalization, a pathway to citizenship, the statistics show that program, that is actually a boon for the economy and actually very good for people to get on the tax rolls. it is very good for our investment and very good for not just immigrants but for all of us in the united states. >> this is tom from connecticut on the independent line. >> the ronald reagan deal was a one-time deal, and it was promised that would never happen

again by the democrats, but they broke the deal. it is not hundreds of thousands. it is millions crossing the border and there seems to be a lot of sympathy from washington, but they do not seem to have sympathy for the people who are receiving these people. i suggest that we -- maybe washington can provide buses to take them to washington d.c. and see how to deal with them. >> go ahead and respond. >> it wa't really a question. i think it was a suggestion. i think the way to respond, there is a great organization called immigrants last, and it has a list of different proposals, and these are probably technical immigration related statutory proposals, but we have what is called the 3 and 10 year bar, and that means if somebody leaves the united states they are barred for a period of time, and allow for people to adjust status lawfully. a lot of people are barred because of unlawful

presence, a situation where we have more waivers. i get the frustration from my fellow americans, but think of it this way, we do not have the legal resources to deport 12 million people so we will have to create can sums to legalize some, and many people in the united states can be a boon to our economy, and we need to make efforts to solve the problem. we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say we just don't want anymore people. that is not going to happen, so we need to be intelligent about it and look at organizations and have comprehensive reform. >> this is david from new mexico, on the democrat line. >> good morning. i would like to know if mr. hoffman would be

willing to give his address so americans can go -- i imagine he lives in a gated community, where we can get in, if he would leave the gate open, and if not be guaranteed that we would not be shot or persecuted if we go on to his property, and i would admire him or any of these others that say we have to bet millions here, if they would sell their properties and take everything out of there account and all of these goody-goody to shoes and then go help them in their country, the world would be a better place and we would not have this conversation. us having to give up, and if you look in certain neighborhoods, they say they are being persecuted, being beaten and raped and all, has he looked at chicago and even herere in

albuquerque, and that does not count for any sympathy? we have to say please come over, don't worry about what the americans are complaining about. they are just anti-people. >> there is a misunderstanding that people who help immigras or democrats who push for comprehensive immigration reform are just looking for open borders, and that is the premise of this discussion. i'm not advocating for open borders. i am advocating for a legal process that allows people to be adjudicated fairly and with due process. due process is part of our constitution and it apapplis to you and me and to people who arhere in the united states,

that is all that is matts. >> this is linda from staten island, new york, on the republican line. >> good morning. i hear you said something about three $3 trillion for your proposal. >> that is actually the budget -- the overall budget and it is not my proposal, but just to correct you, a portion of that would be used for legalization. >> i understand. but legalization is just an abstract term. you want to see $3 trillion for housing, where are you going to invest that, what part of the landscape are you

going to apply? we are facing eviction. how do you visualize this? this is a big number. i don't see any real investment as far as these communities are concerned. >> >> i think what the caller is talking about is budget reconciliation, and i can only speak to immigration, and the fact that as i said before, within the reconciliation, which is moving forward, there are options or alternatives available for specific groups. people who have, dreamers, farmworkers, essential workers.

>> we would like to thank geoffrey hoffman for being with us this morning and talking to us through the supreme court decision to stop the current administration from ending the remain in mexico policy. thank you so much for your time this morning. coming up, we will go to our open forum which will allow you to call in and talk about what you think is your most important political topic of the morning. you can see the numbers there on your screen. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> the population of china in 1949 was 540 million. during the

72 years, the prc has had five principal leaders, and since 2012 the current head of state. george washington university professor david shambaugh has written close to 30 books devoted to the subject of asia. we talk with the professor about his newest book. >> listen to book notes plus at c-span.org or wherever you can your podcasts.

>> middle and high school students, your opinion matters, beart of the national conversation by creating a documentary that answers the question how does the federal government impact your life? your video will explore federal policy or programs that affect you. the competition has $100,000 in cash prizes and a shot at a grand prize of $5,000. for competition rules and more

information on how to get started, visit our website. studentcam.org. "washington "was >> we are going to go to our open forum where you call in and tell us what your most important political topic is of the morning. we are opening up our regular lines, republicans, you call (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. independent, (202)748-8002, and you can always text us at (202)748-8003.

we want to know what you want to talk about this morning. before we get into our open forum, i want to bring to a story from the washington post about hurricane ida coming up on the u.s. gulf coast and hopefully all of our viewers down in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, you are all doing ok. sunday, march 16, anniversary of hurricane katrina man fall in louisiana, and this marks the expected landfall of hurricane ida which is forecast to crash a co as a category four unleashing destructive winds and flooding rain and ocean surge up to 15 feet. on friday night the hurricane center warned of life-threatening inundation due to the surge and catatastrophic wind dame near where the storm comes ashore as it boosted the predicted landfall intensive a category from three up to four.

new orleans was placed under a hurricane warning. storm surge warnings stretches from louisiana to the mississippi alabama border. hopefully all of our viewers on the gulf coast are doing ok and will be doing ok throughout the weekend as we continue to watch and track hurricane ida. let's go to our phone lines and see what you would like to talk about this morning. this is fred from red oak, texas, on the republican line. >> first i would like to say i appreciate you taking us on like this where we can actually say what we are thinking. that gentleman before us mentioned about ronald reagan letting in or letting -- legalizing 4 million hispanics. that number

went up to 25 million after four or five years. they had a cost in the 1990's of which eat family cost and it was over $200,000. what bothers me most about our situation that we are in is the lawlessness. you go to chicago, detroit, atlanta, i don't know what to say about that except i want my fellow countrymen to jump in to help we can do to straighten that out for everybody, not just me. i know people have different views of what causes it. i personally have a view that is probably different then you are some of

the people, but i think it is family failure. it is not police failure or guns. i am sorry, in my heart, i cry over that. >> this is paul, calling from plymouth, connecticut, on the independent line. >> good morning. on the immigration issue, some of the people have suggested that border crossings, people come here without paper should be shot. the advocacy of violence, we must reject. to say that state sanctioned or not, this leads to vigiltly is him, and we need to reject that. we saw the lead up to january 6. it was all over the place. anyoneould see that violence was going to happen. to have people like

we've seen on the border during the trump administration. the biden administration is on the right track. they are approaching this because they were handed it over a number of different administrations. your guest pointed out there were republican presidents who led the fight and championed for fair immigration. isn't about opening the borders or vote seeking. i am just as much right as i am left but the argument being made that somehow the democrats want these people on

the public dole is wrong. >> this is ava from mississippi on the republican line. >> just pray for us down here that we don't get the hurricane bad. >> where is columbia? >> about halfway between jackson and new orleans. >> are you seeing any effects? >> it should be moving in tonight and we are going to be on the east de, so we have everything moved and shut down and walmart has been overflowing with people getting supplies. but we is as ready as we can get. we always know how to prepare down here. >> what you want to talk about this morning? >> the man that was up before me, i don't know how many people is in mexico in comparison to the united states, but i ajust asking, i don't know if they pay

sales tax or land tax, if they pay income tax. but do they have a food stamp program like we do? do they have medicaid, medicare? i'm just curious because we have people in this country that need food stamps. you can't get medicaid, some people taking only part of their medication. i am not trained to deny anybody the necessities of life. i am just curious about all of this, what kind of programs that they have down there. >> this is lori from pennsylvania on the democratic line. >> i was just calling to -- i believe the republican party is more of a propaganda machine, running their campaigns on

propaganda and disinformation. they are not talking about any policy, and i think that his interests -- injurious. if you think about it, trump broke the constitutional norms more than anybody ever has, like affirming his appointing his top seats to put in people that were temporary. >> this is dave from bedford, new hampshire, on the republican line. >> good morning. i am calling because all of the stuff going around, this is not a democratic problem or a republican problem.

this is a media problem. what i want to talk about, which no one is talking about, is how about the arizona audit, we have not even done -- you are getting ready to hang up on me. nobody is showing it. you got arizona, michigan, yeah. -- host: dave, go ahead. good morning.

sherry, good morning. caller: good morning, my concern is that i am seeing your people, i know they are helping people in the united states with the stimulus money, and for people who have children, but what i am seeing is a lot a people who do not want to work anymore, and they are also forcing people to have the vaccination to keep their jobs. we are air -- we are in a real predicament, i have several friends who work in restaurants who are saying that theyey are unable to get food from distributors because there is lack of people to work and not because they are sick, but because they reject the vaccination. as a as a senior, i was married 31 years and my husband left, i am disabled. i no longer get those benefits from being disabled.

and so, i live on a bare minimum of $647 a month. i talked to my democratic people that were running for office, elizabeth warren, and i ask her how this works when we all pay our own disability if we have a spouse, we all pay, no matter who we are. we pay disability when we work, i have worked all my life. i do not understand how that takes away my getting my disability when i work too and they go by his income, and now he has left, and i am living in poverty. host: the caller brought up the coronavirus pandemic, and as we go through the end of this month we will see more and more schools reopening around the country. we have several schools that have already opened, but we are seeing more and more schools

come back to in person learning, unfortunately, some of those schools are dealing with a new outbreak of coronavirus, and here is a story that comomes frm "the washington post" that talks about a situation that happened in california with the reopening of schools during the pandemic. "an unvaccinated elementary school teacher infected with the highly contagious delta variant spread the virus to half of the students in a classroom, seating and outbreak that eventually infected 26 people, according to a new report from the centers of disease control and prevention. the unusually detailed to -- detailed study, which comes as school districts around the country reopen, seems to intensify the debate over vaccine mandates and schools. a handful of school districts including new york city have announced vaccine requirements for student -- for teachers and staff. others may follow suit now that

the drug administration has granted full approval to the pfizer biontech vaccine. the most important thing we can do to protect seals -- schoolchildren, particularly those too young to be vaccinated is to make sure that the adults in their lives, including teachers and school staff are vaccinated." that is coming out of california where an unvaccinated elementary school teacher infected half of the class, the students in the classroom, eventually infecting 26 people. and this comes as more schools are planning to reopen over the next few weeks, and we have sesn several schools reopen and then be forced to go into virtual learning as the coronavirus spread through the schools. we want to know what you want to talk about this morning, let us talk to charlie from maine on the democratic line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i watch you guys every day. my biggest beef right now is i do not care what party they are in, and this minority leader, i cannot stand looking at this guy. in america, when the president is the president, if we are in a crisis, if you cannot help, shut up. this guy does nothg but puke all over the man who runs our country, and all of these people want to have their say. all these republican people want a 9/11 hearing. we cannot even find out what the minority leader said to mr. trump on the telephone. how are we supposed -- supposed

to believe anything out of this guy's mouth? host: stephen from oklahoma, on the republican line. stephen, good morning. caller:ood mornin jesse. i have not gotten the call -- to call in many months. there are a few things on my mind. i know that i am a senior citizen at 67, and obamacare cut me from my doctor and because my health care to get worse, and the month or two after they told meme i could not see the doctor anymore, because they wanted me to have a medicare settlement which caused -- which costs $360 a month. donald trump after a year or two in office he lowered it to 500 -- $45 a month, and nobody cares to discuss that he was helping health care.

if he had been president in 2011, i would have been back to work making 50,000 a year. you know what they are doing now? they are doubling the food stamp money, because i had some neighbors that went from $360 a month to $720 a month, and they are going to give them $300 more because they have two little kids? and they never work, they game the system, and they never give us senior citizens every extra. $30? i never saw that. host: william from new jersey on the indepdence line. william, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you, i have three points and please let me finish. first of all, god help the families of our service people who have been killed in this disaster.

this catastrophe created by mr. biden, because he decided to pull out our troops before pulling the civilians. and, and are afghan allies out, and the hundreds of afghan families. the other thing, number two, the problem with kamala harris' wide open border, speaking of covid. they seem to be so concerned about stopping the spread, why are they allowing tens of thousands of illegal migrants knowingly, many of them infected with covid, and sending them to every state in the country. by the way, here is another problem with the border, jesse. they are not vetting or checking people's backgrounds. with this catastrophe in afghanistan, it does not take a smart person to realize, terrorists andeo