act of 1986, we will speak with the former immigration and national is eight -- naturalization service commissioner. we will take your phone calls, text messages, and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." president biden is heading toward the midterms with disappointing poll numbers, an ongoing war between russia and ukraine, supply chain problems and high gas prices and inflation. but the president can brag about a gun-control bill, getting this country out of the worst of the pandemic, and a return to normalcy after lockdowns and strikes. with the elections in november it is time to ask our democratic viewers about the

president. it is for democrats only. what is your view of president joe biden? this is for democratic viewers only and if you are in the eastern time zone, your number is (202)-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zone, (202)-748-8001. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)-748-8003 and you can always follow us on social media, on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, twitter @cspanwj and on instagram @cs panwj. our question this morning is for democrats only. we recently asked republicans their opinion of former president trump. this morning we want our democratic viewers to call in and tell us their thoughts about

joe biden. there is a front page story in the new york times that talks about president biden and his image. i will read a couple of paragraphs. just a year and a half into his first term, mr. biden is more than a year older than ronald reagan was at the end of two terms. if he mounts another campaign in 2024, he would be asking the country to elect a leader of eddie six years old -- 86 years old. many americans consider him too old and democratic strategists do not think you should run again. it is a sensitive topic in the west wing. more than a dozen current and senior officials recorded that mr. biden remains intellectually engaged, asking smart questions at meetings, calling them late at night picking out the weak

point on page 14, and rewriting speeches until the last minute. but they acknowledge he looks older than a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by staff shakeups or new communication plans. he often shuffles when he walks and worries he will trip on a wire. he stumbles over words during public events and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gasp. president biden came out on friday and talked about what he considers one of his successes, the better job numbers, and he defended his economic policy. here's what president biden had to say. [video clip] >> today the labor department

said we added 372,000 jobs last month. our private sector has recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic and added jobs on top of that. we have more americans working today in the private sector then any day under my predecessor. more today than anytime in american history. today. in the second quarter we created more jobs than any quarter under any of my predecessors in nearly 40 years. think about that. at a time when our critics said the economy was too weak or already added more jobs in my first year as president of any president in history, we still added more in the past three months than any administration in nearly 40 years. i know times are tough. prices are too high. families are facing the

cost-of-living crunch, but this news confirms the fact that my economic plan is moving this country in a better direction. the unemployment rate is near 3.6%. private sector jobs are at a record high. gas prices are still too high, but have fallen 25 days in a rope. this week we saw the second largest decrease in a decade. we still have a lot of work to do, but i am suggesting we are making significant progress. the program is working. host: let's start with shirley calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i just want to make a statement. i just want to say that i think president biden is doing a very good job with what he has to work with, and i hope he run again.

i will be at the polls to vote for him. all of these people calling in and, you know, criticizing him and everything, i would much rather have him again than have what we had the last time. host: there are some people, including in the new york times, that's a president biden may be too old -- that say president biden may be too old to run again. caller: donald trump is almost as old and he don't have not near the knowledge joe biden had at his age. that is the way i feel. i would also like to make a statement about lindsey graham. i want to know from the people of south carolina, when are we

going to turn this state blue? lindsey graham needs to go. host: let's go to marion calling from aberdeen, north carolina. good morning. are you there? caller: good morning the tar heel state. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: i am calling to say that i have moved from raleigh, north carolina to arlington, virginia when joe biden was elected to congress. i have been following him ever since and i think he is as perfect as any man can be. as president, he has the experience, the character, the judgment, and his strong faith as a leader. he is loved and admired and accepted by those i call the junior journalists, who have no

experience at making any contribution to make our country better, to make the world better. i thought i was done with my anger after four years of donald trump, but now i am so angry at the press, including the new york times. anyone who is so -- they are trying to destroy him before he gets through another year. it just infuriates me. i will vote for him again. if anyone wants to know about the bidens, read jill's book. host: are you concerned in any shape, form or fashion about his age? that was the story in the new york times this morning. caller: absolutely not. i watch him every day. i watch him every day around the

country, around the world, around the white house. he is magnificent. host: all right. the first two callers were all in for joe biden, but there is a story in today's bloomberg that says joe biden's poll numbers might not be where the white house wants them. i will bring you a paragraph. after staying pretty stable for january until early may, president joe biden's approval ratings have declined, hitting a new low at 39%. biden spent most of that recent time as the least popular president of the polling era on a comparative basis. he is now somewhat faring better than harry truman did. biden is at 39% on day 526 compared to truman's 33%, which might offer reason for optimism, given that truman wound up

winning the reelection. but it bodes poorly for democrats given that truman's party was clobbered in november 1946. we want to know from our democratic viewers, what is your view of president biden? on thursday the white house responded to some of the bad polling numbers when asked during the press briefing. here is what the white house had to say. [video clip] >> why do you think 88% of people in this country think the country is on the wrong track? >> i will say this. the president understands what the american people are going through. he understands gas prices are high because of putin's tax hike, because of the brutal war putin has taken on in ukraine and their brave fight to fight for democracy. that is what we are seeing here

and the food costs have skyrocketed. that is what the president has done everything he can to blunt those high prices. that is why he tapped into the strategic petroleum reserve. we have seen a large amount of barrels coming out per day, one million per day. that is why he is doing the ethanol 15, making that available, which is not normally available in the summer. that is why he is going to continue to work to make sure we lower those costs. again, we understand what the american people are feeling. we are doing everything we can. we have a plan. republicans do not have a plan. what they want to do is take away rights from the american people. >> but do you think it possible your plan just is not popular with the american people? >> i do not think it is not that it is not popular.

we know the american people are feeling the high costs. we understand what they are feeling, because, when you look at inflation and where we are economically -- and we are stronger economically then we have been in history. you look at the unemployment numbers of 3.6%, when you look at the jobs numbers, more than 8.7 million new jobs created, that is important. but we understand gas prices are high and we understand food costs are high. that is because of once in a generation pandemic and putin's war and that's the facts. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about president joe biden and how he is doing right now. here is one tweet that says, biden is doing a good job considering the handcuffs the right put on him. many regressive trump policies

were reversed. the trump recession is gone. there are more jobs than unemployed. another tweet says, i love him. it is wonderful to have somebody that tells the truth and cares about all americans. it is such a relief after the last nightmare. another tweet that says, president biden has been handling an active republic insurgency and white supremacist revolt, yet he is making progress. one more tweet that says, i am a democrat who did not vote for biden. while i preferred someone younger i voted for biden because the alternative was unthinkable. but his age is affecting his communications skills. the dnc needs to start vetting someone new. the question is for democrats only. what is your view of president biden? mary calling from new york. good morning.

mary, are you there? let's go to heather calling from milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. so, i am a strong democrat. i grew up in madison and just move back to weeks ago. a big part of the reason why is my partner and i decided to bring our households together. part of it for me is i was driving a lot for my previous job and i could not afford to keep my car and keep everything together with the way costs, including food, have been increasing. my background is in social work so i have studied this. i have studied poverty, inflation, all of these things

intensely over many years. i am very frustrated with joe biden. i think some things are good. i understand the constraints he is under, but at the same time i think the ages affecting him and i am concerned if he runs another term, he might not make it through the next four years. i have wondered, have we ever run someone -- if he does not run for a second term, do we choose another democrat? i tried to look back in history and had to go far back, but i do not think we have seen this in modern times. where, for any other reason, a current president was not able to run, if that makes sense. i am worried now. it is affecting my own personal

choices and imc how it is affecting -- and i am seeing how it is affecting people in my community. i think it has improved since the pandemic supple settled down. i think we have to think about our own communities. in the city i grew up in, an uptick in homelessness. i saw it increasing in milwaukee. there are many reasons people become homeless, but these are things i am thinking back to when the housing crisis happened in 2008, 2009. we have to look back in order to look forward and i am worried this bubble is going to burst. host: heather, what if

president biden decides to run for a second term? his people say he is going to run. if he runs for a second term, do you still support him? caller: no. i have contemplated becoming independent at this point. i am dissatisfied with both parties and i look at it in a bigger sense. both sides can be equally not good. i have been very dissatisfied with the democratic party, and i try to look at new sources, including c-span. i just think we have to open our eyes and say, there is something bigger going on. i am very dissatisfied with who the dnc chose when they picked joe biden. host: herbert calling from romulus, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: hi. i was a lifelong republican but the last seven or eight years i cannot agree with what the republicans have been doing. everybody is blaming biden for the inflation but nobody is looking at the two rounds of tariffs that raised the price of every product sold in this country. they are blaming him for everything but people need to look at who caused these problems. i just think he subsidized big oil while the independent guys went out of business and people need to look at what happened and stop blaming someone who had nothing to do with it. host: herber, do you think president biden should run again? caller: i do.

i think he is doing a great job. that is coming from a lifelong republican who switched parties. i cannot agree with the unconstitutional things they are doing. host: are you in any way concerned about president biden's age? that was the topic of the new york times article this morning. are you concerned about his age? caller: no. you gain wisdom with age and everybody says he is senile. well, the man has always stuttered. [laughs] that is a nonissue with me. host: all right. the president does have his defenders. a democratic strategist, david axelrod, chief strategist for president obama's two winning campaigns, had an article in the new york times i want to bring to you. this is what he said about president biden.

the presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the second term. that would be a major issue. biden does not get the credit he deserves for steering the country through the worst of the pandemic, passing historic legislation, pulling the nato alliance together, and restoring decency and decorum to the white house. part of the reason he does not is performative. he looks his age and is not as agile in front of the camera as he once was. this has been the narrative about confidence that is not rooted in reality. that is from the democratic strategist david axelrod. we want to know what you think for our democratic viewers. what is your view of president biden? clifford is calling from birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i think joe biden is doing a fantastic job considering the

hand he was dealt. people in this country really amaze me, how they could come down on this man. there is only so much the president can do. considering the hand he was dealt, i think he is doing a great job and i would vote for him a second term considering where we are at. what surprises me is the way this country is divided. i watched one of those trump rallies and it really frightened me. i saw some people in that rally that has shirts on that they would rather vote for vladimir putin than a democrat. i said to myself, you would vote for someone like that over a fellow american just because he is a different party?

i am a person who believes in the bible and i believe it is true. it is not going to be because of russia or iraq, iran that is going to cause the fall of this country. it is going to be us. a house divided cannot stand and this country, if we remain on this road, we are going to go down because of ourselves, not some outside individual. thank you, c-span. host: matt calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: morning, jesse. thank you for taking my call. i have to be contrarian. i do not want president biden to run again. if he is our nominee, i will vote for him again, especially if he runs against trump. but i would prefer kamala harris to run. you look at the recent roe v. wade being overturned, president

biden wet out feebly and harris was on pbs. she was strong, she was charged, very photogenic, she is articulate, she has great demographics. i know her poll numbers are low now, but remember trump's poll numbers and 2016 when he got elected? i am all in. i think joe is too old. host: you say is president biden does decide to run for reelection, he still has your vote, but you would prefer vice president harris at the top of the ticket. am i understanding you correctly? caller: correct. host: what is your biggest problem with president joe biden right now? is at his age? is it how he appears on camera? what is causing your problem with president biden? caller: i think how he appears on camera, his image.

you can get up there and spout out everything you accomplished, if you look like you are ready to keel over, image is everything these days. just look at the media. host: you mentioned president biden's reaction to the supreme court's throwing out of roe v. wade. how much does that have to do with your dissatisfaction with the president right now? caller: to be honest, i do not blame president biden specifically. there is a lot of blame to go around. i think when president obama was president he should've codified roe v. wade. in 2016, i think bernie sanders undermined hillary's campaign with their ridiculous attempt to get the nomination. and then in 2016 some actually

voted third party or for trump. they got trump as president and look. if hillary clinton had been elected, roe v. wade would have stood another 50 years. a lot of this is democrats shooting themselves in the foot and i do not blame biden for that. host: john calling from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on dn c-span. every single one of these callers says biden is doing an excellent job. donald trump not been in office for, what, 17, 18 months? host: are you a democrat? caller: i am and i will read my card. joseph pastorelli. i will never vote for another

democrat again. your black callers need to get an iq test before they can vote. host: anne calling from greensboro, north carolina. caller: wow. i think president biden is doing an excellent job. i think people forgot what happened at the end of the last of administration. there were long food lines, jobs were being lost, companies were shut down, the deceased were put in refrigerator trucks, it was horrible. we were in a recession. when they talk about gas prices, the gas was low because nobody was driving.

president biden came in and took over. as he said, more jobs has been re-created them back to where we were pre-pandemic levels. i think people need to look at, when they call about inflation, they need to look about inflation is temporary. i think it is very important what he is doing, what the democrats are doing, and they are trying to help everyone. host: ron calling from texas. good morning. ron, are you there? caller: good morning, jesse.

how are you doing? host: i am doing great. go ahead. caller: hello? host: we can hear you. caller: i really appreciate the job. are you here? host: we can hear you. go ahead. caller: hello? host: ron is having problems so let's go to linda calling from des moines, iowa. linda, are you there? caller: good morning. i am here. i am calling to say joe biden, i am tickled he is our president. i think he has done a tremendous job. he gets the blame for everything. the price of gas, jobs, they throw everything at him. i swear, if there was an earthquake, i would not be

surprised if somebody blamed that on him. look at sri lanka right now. the same with them, food, gasoline, medicine, it is all because of covid started. everyone is having inflation. he does not have a magic wand. nobody in power in any of these countries has a magic want to say, be gone, inflation. i think it is ridiculous. there are no articles about him lying over 3000 times like our past president. he is not say, send me $25 million that goes right into his pocket. he is an honest, good caring man. he was not born with a silver

spoon in his mouth. he thinks about the college students. he thinks about people below the poverty line. he thinks about everyone. his heart is on his sleeve. as far as him looking his age or he is not competent, that is ridiculous. as somebody noted before, they know he had a stuttering problem. i think he has come through a lot of odds. he is a good man. host: why do you think president biden has such low poll numbers? what do you think is causing the low poll numbers? caller: i think people are hurting. i think the people are listening to one station, fox news, who is never going to give biden credit for anything. that is another thing. i wish people would listen and

gather information. i am embarrassed to say that people in north korea wish they had as much truth they could reach out for as we can. some people only listen to certain stations, far-right groups, and they are going, i don't want to listen to anything else because they are not telling the truth. they are blocking themselves off. it is like we have putin here, too. putin let's these people in russia hear what he wants them to hear. these americans are doing it to themselves. host: the hill newspaper has a story that shows a majority of americans say they don't want president biden to run for a second term and i will read a couple of paragraphs.

seven in 10 americans say they do not want president biden to run for a second term, according to a new poll that comes as the approval remains low and his party braces for losses this november. a harvard poll survey shared with the hill found 71% of respondents do not believe biden should run a second term, compared to 29% who say he should. among the contingent of respondents who say the president should not run, 45% said he should not make another bid because he is a bad president, while one third said he is too old, and one quarter said because it was time for change. president biden may want to run again but voters say no to the idea of a second term. only 30% of democrats would even vote for him in a democratic primary. the codirector of the harvard

poll said. our question for our democratic viewers only, what is your view of president biden? on friday, president biden came out and panned the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade and promised that would be a campaign issue in the fall for the midterm elections. here is what president biden had to say. [video clip] >> the court's decision has already been received by republicans to pass a national ban. they are saying there is no right to privacy, therefore, it is not protected by the constitution. it is left up to the states and congress. now my republican friends are talking about getting congress to pass a national ban. extreme positions in some of these states. that will mean the right to

choose will be illegal nationwide if they succeed. let me tell you something. as long as i am president, it will not happen, because i will veto it. the choice is clear. if you want to change the circumstances for women and little girls of this country, please go out and vote. when tens of millions of women but this year they will not be alone. millions and millions of men will be taking up the fight alongside them to restore the right to choose and the broader right to privacy in this nation, which they denied existed. and the challenge from the court to the american women and men, this is a nation to go out and vote. for god's sake, there is an election in november, vote, vote, vote.

consider the challenge accepted, court. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about the job joe biden is doing. here is one tweet that says, he is doing the best he can versus the worst president ever. that is why i do not listen to partisans. another tweet says, joe biden is doing the best he can with the hand he was dealt. the do-nothing republican party and two senators, i would vote for him again. another tweet that says, his age, really? he is fully competent, has all mental faculties, and actually knows what taking an oath to the country means and never planned a coup. another tweet that says, biden did what he needed for the sake of america despite heavy resistance from politicians and hateful people. i am not sure a second term is recommended because of his age. one final tweet that says,

biden's low numbers include democrats who want him to fight harder. but if he runs again, we will vote for him again over any republican. our question is for our democratic viewers only. what is your view of president joe biden? let's go to angela calling from washington, d.c. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think many of the previous callers have hit the nail on the head. i do think president biden is doing the best he can considering what the republican side of our government has done to him as being against anything he put out. they are doing the same thing to him that they did to obama. mr. biden came at a time when we

worked with people across the aisle and people were reasonable. i think when we go to the story about inflation we have to remember -- and i think a lot of people would be good to watch american greed. big business is greedy. i hear stories all the time about they are making record profits on gas when they are claiming, oh, we don't have any way to make the prices go down because demand. that is not true. they are making record profits, record profits on food. we have supply chain problems. these are things that big business is doing to us to make the small people, people like you and me, say, oh, we are not happy with the president. is not the president. i certainly want to see mr.

biden succeed this term and then decide whether or not he wants to run for a second term. i think we need a president like biden who is willing to listen to two sides of the story. but i think there are people in this country who think age is the answer to everything. they want younger people doing everything. i worked for the federal government and i see it every day, age discrimination. decrying somebody is too old to do such and such, but they have been reared to think that experience and wisdom do not matter. they want only what they want right now, like a two-year-old. host: johnny calling from el paso, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening to some of the comments and it spurred me

to bring up my opinion. i am looking at his poll at 30% and i always wonder, where is it coming from? in all my years nobody ever asked me. i am suspicious of the 30%. the man has been dealt the hand he was given. the only thing i wish you would do is have a stronger pulpit. i remember michelle obama says, when they go low, we go high. as much as i love the obamas, not today. you have a lot of people today that does not admire or respectful of their colleagues across the aisle. nobody mentioned vice president harris. i think she would be a good candidate. talking about age, i am qualified to talk about age.

i am 80 years old. i know what it feels like to be 79 years old at a regular job. to be the president trying to run the country and support the world, it has nothing to do with him, it has to do with that hard job. i look at obama when he came into office, he looked 25 years old. when he retired his hair was at white as phil donahue's because of the stress. talking about his talking, he always stuttered, since he was a child. when you look at his physical appearance, when you compare him to the guy who just left office, he looked like he was not in shape. who are you going to compare him to? trump was three or four years younger than biden. what i did not like was when he was getting ready to go into the office he said he knew the senate. the senate he knew was not around anymore.

the senate up there now, to me, is close to being criminals. i am looking at the two democrats that do not support anything. i am talking about manchin and sinema. i wish you would not run again but it is too tough. it has nothing to do with him, it is too draining mentally and physically. host: one of the things we want to bring to you is on monday, at 12:00 p.m., there is a middle east trip preview. president biden has an upcoming trip to the middle east where he will be expected to meet with leaders and saudi arabia and officials. the middle east institute will preview the trip and you can

watch that live here on c-span on monday at 12:00 p.m. you can also watch it on our free mobile app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. president biden has an editorial in the washington post that talks about why he is going to saudi arabia. i want to bring to you a few sentences of a president biden said about why he is going to saudi arabia. a more secure and integrated middle east benefits americans in many ways. the waterways are essential to global trade and the supply chains we rely on. resources are vital for mitigating the impact on global supplies of russia's war in ukraine. in a region that is coming together through diplomacy and cooperation, it is less likely to give rise to violent extremism that threatens our homeland or new wars they can

place burdens on u.s. military forces and their families. i know there are many who disagree with my decision to travel to saudi arabia. my view on human rights are clear and long-standing and fundamental freedoms are always on the agenda when i travel abroad, as they will be during this trip, just as they will in israel and the west bank. as president, it is my job to keep our country strong and secure. we have to counter russia's aggression, put ourselves in the best position to outcompete china, and work for greater stability in a consequential region of the world. to do these things we have to engage directly with countries that can impact those outcomes. saudi arabia is one of them. president biden will be going to saudi arabia and has an opinion article in the washington post today explaining why he is going to what he says is a consequential country in the middle east. our question for the day is for

democrats only. what is your view of president biden? let's talk to julie calling from elton, michigan. good morning. julie, are you there? caller: good morning. i think president biden is doing a good job. good morning. i think president biden is doing a good job. as democrats have to be quiet because so many trump people are constantly talking and we do not know how people are going to react. my son was in france and has been there 19 years. they are going through the same thing we are. it is not biden's fall. -- fault. trump started all this shooting.

as far as i am concerned, biden is doing a good job. host: jeff calling from birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: i think we need to have somebody like jon tester to run. the one thing i have not heard democrats talk about his wages. i heard january 6, all this green stuff, and we do not need gavin newsom to run. even though he is saying he wants to have california produce insulin for poor folks, why did he not do it on day one? we need somebody who is in touch with the working people who remind folks what the government used to do which do things to help people and not do things to people. biden reminds me of the character colonel henry blake from "m.a.s.h." i would like to have one question answered, who is going

to be radar to his henry blake? host: cj calling from minnesota. caller: good morning, america. i think he is doing a great job but we want to talk about age, what about mitch mcconnell? he is old. what about congress? they are old. what about the senate? the young senate are following the old man they don't agree with but they have no choice because they are freshmans and sophomores. age is a factor but at the same time the country needs a leader who will be honest and say, listen, after these four years of being president i don't want to do it anymore. i think joe biden is the kind of person who would say that to people. i do not think he would try to stretch it out because him being president is not stoking his ego. he do not have to have a second

term. i think he will make sure who ever he get to replace him, he will give them support. being president twice is not a big deal anymore. thank you. host: let's go to mary calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i look at president biden, he is a work in progress. we need to move on from the jobs market. we have trillions of dollars in offshore accounts that have not been tapped into. under the repatriate act with former president obama, we never collected the revenue, the taxes, from these offshore accounts. and i think president biden needs to make sure that this is our objective. we have businesses and

corporations dealing in gouging the american people and we have politicians that have offshore accounts. even they mentioned former president trump had offshore accounts. make sure that everyone pays their taxes, our economy could be great. no one should be poor in this country because the middle-class is carrying the whole country based on the tax structure. when president biden said he was going to hire more irs agents to collect these taxes from these businesses, corporations, companies, i want him to follow through on this. may be reduced the tax structure -- maybe reduce the tax

structure for the middle class. host: josh is calling next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i like president biden. i would vote president biden for a second term but i disagree with axelrod. it has little to do with confidence. i think it has to do with him -- host: did we lose you? caller: i think why many are abandoning him is he is not forceful enough in opposing republicans in congress. he was weak on filibuster reform, he is unwilling to use executive orders in the manner obama did. if biden would fight more, i think he would regain the support he had. host: michael calling from oklahoma city, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. first i would like to say to all

of the callers when you call in, it is like talking in a tunnel. you are on air and people can hear you but you are talking in a tunnel and i cannot hear anything jesse might have to say. everybody seems to focus on the presidency. all of the news agencies, all of them, they point to the presidency. any problem you got you expect the president to fix it. it does not work that way. we have three branches of government. the executive branch can only do so much. look to your court. look what the court is doing and then congress, these questions should be asked of mitch. where is mitch? we need laws enacted and the congress just sits there, particularly if it is a democrat. we have minority rule in this country.

the republicans that represent the minority of the country running the congress. we have them running the supreme court. where is mitch? host: andrew calling from maplewood, new jersey. caller: good morning. i just want to call and express my gratitude for president biden. i think that he has surpassed and overcome incredible odds dealing with both democratic obstruction and republican obstruction. i think that we as americans, no matter what your party, in history will look back and say that he was the one that stabilized and saved democracy. i think he was the only candidate that was able to win in 2020 and i think people forget about that. i think if he is hopeful he may be able to grab seats in the

senate, we can get the agenda going. but he is kind of stuck in the middle. i think joe biden, his entire career has been a guy that has worked the middle of the aisle. unfortunately, the political climate we are in right now, the middle is ground for getting nothing done. i think joe biden deserves a tremendous amount of credit for stabilizing democracy and hopefully things will improve. but i also think these poll numbers, you have to remember how many millions of people voted for donald trump. i think there is a little bit of the democratic pessimism with the way things are going, but i don't think that is all animosity toward president biden. host: yesterday in cleveland, president joe biden came out and touted his economic plan and talked about how things have improved in the united states since he became president.

here is what president biden had to say. [video clip] >> you all remember what the economy was like when i was elected president. the country in a pandemic with no real way to get out of it. cars backed up for miles waiting for a box of food to be put in their trunk. the previous administration lost more jobs in its watch then any administration since herbert hoover. that is a fact. all based on failed trickle-down economics to benefit the wealthiest americans and hit the american working class the hardest. we came in with a different vision. an economy that grows from the bottom up and the middle out. it is good for everyone because when the middle class does well, the poor and the wealthy still do well. [applause] that's why we designed the american rescue plan based on the belief a recovery should

help all americans prosper. a belief that working, building power and unions are good for workers and for the economy. a plan that led to the most jobs created in the first period of a presidency then in all of american history. [applause] we have seen in the past have economic crisis can leave so many americans and test rates for years, sometimes the rest of their lives. economists, the scarring effect. when we started this a lot of people were equally qualified but they have been unemployed for 8, 10, 12 months. they would not be considered. two people put in an application. the person may be qualified but unemployed for longer, it is the scarring effect. we change that.

young people have faced a weak labor market. they are back. long-term unemployment dropped at a record pace with today's actions. workers will have the dignified retirement they earned and they deserve. host: let's hear what our social media followers are saying. here is one tweet that says, president biden nominated the first black female vice president and the first black female scotus justice. he is going to get blowback. another tweet that says, president biden and the democrats have an executive branch but the republicans are in power. manchin, sinema and the six republicans on scotus. one more tweet says, his problem is trying to play by the same political rules that were played in his early senate career. rules that were shredded by

republicans decades ago. we want to know from our democratic viewers what is your view of president biden? larry calling from houston, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. under the circumstances, he done a good job. americans, we have such a short memory. we have got to understand we came out of a pandemic where the whole world shut down. was he my first choice? i will be honest with you, before trump, i was about being independent. as an african-american i got tired of the democratic vote that would never do nothing. he is doing as much as he can for everybody.

but what we have to really do is take that money out of congress. this is the only job they can go in as a freshman and come out a millionaire. what other job can you do that? host: greg calling from chicago, illinois. caller: there is an epidemic of reasonableness. there is nobody in power truly articulating the anger of the left. joe biden is a wonderful manager. i am grateful to him for judge ketanji brown jackson. he is a kind man who lost family in horrible circumstances and brings empathy to the job. but you cannot beat an entertainer as a politician and donald trump is going to run again. unless someone like jon stewart realizes you must be a left-leaning celebrity and understands that your skill set has been called in this moment,

we are going to get clobbered. we do not have the right mentality on the left. i don't know why pelosi has not passed the gavel leadership to aoc. i do not understand why schumer has not passed it onto senator warren. what we keep doing on the left is what obama tried to do. they go low, we go high. in recent times when they go low, we go lower plus a joke. host: ronald calling from troy, new york. good morning. ronald, are you there? ronald, go ahead. caller: i am on the air now? host: you are. turn your television down and go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead.

caller: this is ronald from south carolina. calling to let the world know that they paid for that lab that made covid-19. host: i think we lost ronald. we would like to thank all of the callers who called in for the first segment. coming up, the supreme court will be hearing an important case next term that could radically reshape elections for president and congress. here to explain that is ned foley, director of the election law program at ohio state university. later, the landmark legislation series continues with a focus on

immigration return and control act of 1986. that conversation with doris meissner will be coming up later. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ january 6 committee returns for its seventh hearing. watch they examine the role extremist groups played at the trump white house. you can also visit our website at www.c-span.org/january6 to watch previous hearings and other videos related to that day.

if you're enjoying booktv, sign up for our newsletter to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, festivals and more. at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those during season two of presidential recordings. >> our private conversations, part deliberations, and 100% unfiltered. >> let me say that the main thing is to get to those people who are -- if i could have spent a little more time being a politician and less time being

president, but i didn't know. announcer: find c-span2 on the mobile lab over every you podcasts. -- or where you get your podcasts. browse our >> latest collection of apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime. washington journal continues. host: we are back with the director of the election office at the ohio state university and he is here with us to discuss is a bring court decision to remove state lawmakers and state courts in federal elections. how are you?

guest: good to be with you. host: explained to us what the election law project is, what it does, and where it gets funding. guest: all the funding comes from ohio state university, part of the college of law. we are a small group of professors and associated faculty and staff at law school that we started back in 2004. and in the aftermath of the bush vs. gore dispute and knowing similar disputes in come along, there is no federal law that was relevant. we already had some folks at the law schools but we want the decree a program to study it more systematically and i a nonpartisan spec if based on the philosophy of the election existing for all the voters and for the public at the hole where

the ohio state university. we're nonpartisan, we just want to be a good citizen for the country in the state of ohio. host: explain to us what the case in north carolina is about. the supreme court has agreed to consider it. >> sure. there is some tactical stuff that we may have to dig deeper on but basically the u.s. constitution has provisions in it that say that it very federal elections, members of congress. they are adopted in the first instance by state legislature. that congress has the power to override those rules for congressional election.

voter registration rules, a voter id roles if they are going to exist. congress can commit and update the rule that congress is done. drawing the maps to the seats in congress. if congress could draw the maps itself or set up a procedure for that, the default is that the states do it. but the constitution could have just said states do it that's electrifying what part of state government is responsible. and that is where this dispute with the supreme court comes in, because the state of north

carolina constrains what the legislature does. the potential issue -- financial issue involves redistricting and whether the district lines are submitted to partisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for partisan advantage. a few years ago, the supreme court so that the federal constitution as no principal to allow no federal judges and the supreme court managed -- admitted that gerrymandering is a blight on democracy by admitting the boundaries. the u.s. constitution doesn't have standards, congress can write those standards but congress hasn't done that. in north carolina, the state culture stepped in using their

own constitutions to say we can stop egregious gerrymandering because our constitution demands free and fair elections this basically invalidated a map that the state legislature drew. the federal constitution insists that the state legislature right of rules and in the map i know that was a lot, but that is the essence of what is before the court. it would apply not just to maps, but any rules for running in federal elections. host: does this case only effect in north carolina or does it have national implications? guest: definitely national implications. the same issue could exist anywhere in the country, and as i said, it could involve any

type of voting rule. it could involve voter registration, voter technology, absentee ballot. anything could be affected by this. host: so what seems to be at the heart of this case is a theory called the independent state legislature theory. can you explain what that is what opinion of that theory is? guest: it is complicated. what i think the supreme court has to do, in this case, is to deal with what we call a line drawing problem. either end of the extreme probably the condition is untenable because say you decided you'd like this doctrine at all. you think it shouldn't exist.

well, how do you deal with the fact that the constitution, whether you like it or not does that say legislatures have this power? the example band like to give my students is what if they stay constitution said the rules for running elections will not be governed by the state legislature, but by the governor, or by the courts? try to completely take the power to write the rules away from the state legislature in to a different part of state government you can see why the supreme court set our job is to enforce the u.s. constitution, we don't write the constitution, but we are obligated to enforce the constitution. if states try to take this power away from state legislatures and give it to the governor, that would violate the federal constitution state legislatures that have this power.

that is kind of a kernel of the idea of how there must be some limited the ability to deprive state legislatures of this power. but then you go all the way -- although it to the other rent and you say does that mean state courts cannot do their normal jobs of enforcing state constitutional law? many state constitutions say voting shall be by secret ballot we like it so much, we enshrined it the state constitution. well, suppose the state legislature said we're not going to use that anymore. the judiciary does not have the power to say those are all into a bay that law, and is mostly clear command in the state constitution.

book. as long as the enforcement of that requirement doesn't completely take away the legislatures that showed as limits to what the u.s. supreme work and do with respect the concept of the independent state legislature, and supreme court is going to have to find some middle ground somewhere between those two extremes. host: let me show our viewers with the constitution actually says in article one, section four. the constitution says the times, places and manners of holding elections shall be described in each state by the legislature thereof. brings us to question coming to the courts have jurisdiction? the constitution clearly says it

is up to the legislature. it doesn't say the legislature will review by the courts, it just says legislature. guest: true, but most states like congress on federal legislature have provisions for vetoes, and congress would have to override the veto for something to become law. most people say that even though that clause definitely says legislature, most people think legislature in that context could allow for governors to have the right to veto state laws if the state constitution establishes the general practice that you can't have a law in north carolina unless the governor signs it or there is an override of the governor's veto. the question is what does the word legislature mean? most people would say it implicitly means the ordinary

practice having a legislature is and if the ordinary acts of having a legislature governors have the right to veto, that is ok. but the ordinary practice of having a legislature is assigning judicial review that courts get to enforce constitutional right and constitutional rules so legislatures can violate them. the word legislature then carries with it the implication that there will be judicial review as long as it is pursuant to ordinary practice. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we are going to open up our regular lines. that means democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can always text, and we are

always reading on social media, on twitter, and on facebook. now, there is a lot of conversation around this particular case, especially in democratic circles that say that this case could be used by the supreme court to allow state legislators to ignore votes in their own slate of electors in presidential elections. that this case have more to do with than just gerrymandering and representatives? guest: yes, and very glad you asked that question because i think it is a very important oil. to clarify the limits of this doctrine, whatever the import will do. first, you are absolutely right. all of the case in north carolina involves gerrymandering

and redistricting and therefore article one of the u.s. constitution which is about the rules for congressional elections, a parallel position in article two involving the electoral college presidential election. once again, that concept of the word manner appears, and it says that states shall appoint electors to the electoral college system in a manner chosen by state legislatures. that gives state legislators the power to choose the manner for how they are going to participate in the electoral college area in fact, as many viewers may know, legislatures don't even have to give citizens the right to vote in a presidential election to a want the electors. the electors vote for president, and that occurs in december. when regular citizens vote, we

actually are technically voting for the electors of our specific state. the electors have come to practice and by state law, are obligated to do what we the citizens want them to do if they are democratic, republican electors, or what have you, that is because of the way the state law has set that up again, whatever the u.s. supreme court does in this north carolina case, there are some basic propositions given which means that legislatures can choose the rules and many viewers may know that the cases made in nebraska he's a little bit of a different system than the rest of the country. every eligible voter in nebraska may vote, but they allocate some of their electoral votes based on congressional districts. every other state has all of their electorate appointed based

on the statewide popular vote route the entire state, meaning nebraska can do something different. they have that power undeniable from the constitution and it comes from the fact that state legislatures have the right to now we get to what i think of the really important part of your question, which is the understandable fear in light of what has gone on in the past few years that state legislators might attempt to grab this power back if they don't like the results of the popular vote that takes lace in their state. let's say in 2024 if there is an independent state legislature adopted, could they around thanksgiving say we don't like what the voters did early november, so we're going to appoint electors ourselves? and the answer to that is emphatically no. because of the text of the

constitution, regardless of what happens in the north carolina case for those reasons. legislatures could do this before november of 2024. it is unlikely because we as citizens like to vote, but there is no constitutional obstacle for any state legislature if they wanted to say we're just going to appoint electors. the supreme court has already said that, so that is nothing new, but that is not going to happen. and here is the key: congress gets to set the time and the date for when that happens. that is in the same article to the constitution that the state legislature power is also recognized. so state legislatures can't undo their own choice. they get to write the rules ahead of time for how we as citizens vote for president.

but they can't afterwards say we don't like the results of the rules we put in place. if you change the rules for the next election, they can't mid november, early december say we're just going to repudiate the book that has taken place and we are going to electors ourselves or undo it somehow in december. that is not constitutional, no matter what happens in the north line ace. -- case. host: we will start with robert cullen from massachusetts on the democrats line. caller: morning. -- set up to be sure a tyrant never becomes president.

number 2 -- every 10 years. black americans, stop by donald trump. these two people are going to try to change this country forever. we have 50 different states running like 50 separate countries. if you decided he did nothing wrong than your whole life -- you still can't vote. host: anything to add?

guest: the important point, i do think the original purpose of the electoral college was to void tyrants. it is involved to give more power to citizens and most of us don't like the idea that the electors will undo the choices that the voters from november make, and people remembered back in 2016 after trump on the electoral college, there was movement to try to undo his popular vote victories in enough states in the electoral college majority. it didn't happen, it fizzled out, but i think the prevailing view is that we want democracy to be weak, the people get to choose, so we hope that we can avoid tierney by other citizens making good choices.

the only other point i will make is that felony disenfranchisement is a serious problem. the example of how the u.s. constitution unfortunately not perfect at least from the perspective of equal opportunity to vote, the 14th amendment, part of the constitution that has that free and equal protection, will we get so many of our equality rights and have for the last 50 years or so -- another part of the amendment explicitly allows states to the felony disenchant -- disenfranchisement. we are all citizens, you serve your time, you should be allowed

to vote. but the constitution does not guarantee that as one of the things that is state-by-state, and although we are one nation, a nation made up of different states that have a certain degree of freedom to deviate from and go their own way, they can go their own way and have this kind of disenfranchisement. host: many liberal people who worry about this case say that even though it isn't about presidential elections, it is more about ending roe v. wade. this case to be a vehicle for the supreme court to do something about presidential elections. i those fears overblown about this? guest: i think the key point to

understand here is it is important to be concerned about efforts within our political system to manipulate the ross s unfairly for parson actors. this election denial is that grew out of the 2020 election, there is a reason to be afraid. have that concern. but the response to that concern is to recognize that there is a role for the constitution to constrain the ability of bad actors to manipulate the

process. the most important provision in that regard is that states can't change the rules after the votes have been cast. can we trust the u.s. supreme court to recognize our principles? i think so, because they have said that before. we know that they don't have to always obey proceeding. they are not a justice system, and by my mind, i divided three three. they are very conservative, three justices were more progressive, and then some that are conservative, but more in the middle. my strong belief is that the middle of are going to search for a middle ground on this topic.

if they go all the way to one extreme, that would be very dangerous for democracy and i guess we should worry about that a little bit but i think chief justice roberts, justice kavanaugh and just. will be likely to search for a principal that allows legislatures to have a certain degree of control. but i don't think they are going to go so far as to say that that means in the presidential election, state legislatures can undo results that they don't like. i don't think we have any reason to think that is what they are going to do. host: april from rock island, illinois, democrat line read -- democrat line. guest: i am more of an independent. i guess a really simple thing to explain to people, i think people get very confused about

the electoral college. and it is a state issue. there is a reason why it is a state issue and not a federal issue. the reason we have in electoral college is because every single state has a different amount of people in it. california has 100 million people. isla has one million people. you take that state and you only have three electoral votes or four electoral votes. california, you might have 57. that way, every single state, every person in the state, they vote for who they want in their district, and they break that down, and that becomes the electoral college vote. the reason why the popular vote can never happen is because if it happens, people in new york

and california will decide who my president is. host: what do you think about her theory of the electoral college vote? guest: it is true in terms of what the original college of the electoral office wanted, the federal system that the nation is made up of states have different populations. the electoral college, each state has the same number of electives as it has combined senators and representatives. that does deviate from pure population equality. the senate is even more that way. the exact same number of senators regardless of population. one of the tricky things going forward is the difference between california and wyoming today is much, much greater than it was between largest and

smallest at the time the constitution was created. and yet we don't have a mechanism for updating this mathematical formula for how much electoral votes each state has. also, some people think that we are more of a united nation, one nation in the 21st century in her back 18th-century is technology, community nations and stop you're looking for a fundamental aspect lugo system is difficult to change. this is a safeguard the fact that smaller state shouldn't be overwhelmed by the larger states. other people see it the opposite by saying we are all american citizens, so what should matter is already whether you are isla or california. your vote should count equally.

but that is not the electoral college system. host: one of our social media followers followed up with a question for you. they want to know, are you in favor of the demolition of the electoral college? guest: personally i am. personally, my own views and be to replace the electoral college with a national popular vote. that would allow for all americans to participate equally. but that is why i think this is a difference between a policy preference that i might have versus my knowledge of what existing disney law is. i asked my power from the side, recognize the existing law. the existing law upholds for the college. host:host: in march, the supreme court had a chance to speak on

this case, but they decided to let the north carolina court ruling stand. host: the jurisdiction and the way it operates, probably the easiest thing to say is it only takes four of the nine justices to hear the case in the way they are doing now. it takes five on the court to either leave the issue a ruling in the way that haim -- they would have to go back in march. it might be just the difference between four and five. the most important rule of the supreme court is learning to count to five because if you can only count to four, a gap between hearing the case and deciding the answer.

children set a course for intervening ahead of time back in march. about whether to stay a proceeding in the revolution or to intervene, so you can attribute the view that this doctrine is a doctrine of independence day legislation of what they knew in the sense that while people are talking about the doctrine for 20 years, the u.s. never really embraced it one way or the other. in that posture, for them to have actually made a decision would have been very abrupt and interventionist. they might have said hey, we

know this is an important case that we are going to have to get to in ordinary word, but we are not going to rock the boat ahead of time. host: richard is calling from louisville, kentucky on the wiccan line. richard, good morning. caller: yes, i listened to your first caller, democrat was wondering if you could find a way to get republicans in there. the founding fathers put the electoral college because they knew that a state like my state has no values even close. our values are different than that of new york city, or the stuff that is going on out in california. here where i live, we think differently about a person with a drug problem. we try to get them into a hospital. we don't give them crack pipes to smoke out on.

we try to get them homes, we tried to get the air pay. i california, you take kentucky, indiana, all of the sudden we have as much power as california. because our values are different in california. guest: again, i think that comes back to this fundamental lasting about how much we want our political system to protect and recognize state as states versus individual citizens. you can think about this, and the united nations, for example, and obviously the united nations is not a government, but still,

we think that our seat at the un security council should be based on a single, sovereign nation regardless of our population. and britain has one vote in france has one vote the idea of political entities representing as entities regardless of size, just in different parts of thinking about political structures. and when the founders created country, the 13 independent colonies, the sense was that each of those states were really independent nations when they declared their independence. yes, they want to deform a more perfect union because they saw benefits from being united.

but they did not want to dissolve completely the sense that each state had its own independent, political entity. texas, california. our system is complicated because side to represent individuals as individuals, but it is also designed to represent states as states. host: lets talk to beatrice who is calling from maple city, new jersey on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i'd like to get the opinion about -- host: are you still there? caller: yes. my opinion is i do not vote for

the specific person. we are still americans. california has people, they are all hispanic. together, spain and russia and other countries, here we speak english and we speak spanish and we still have the same right to vote. people speaking our language.

we got the vice president, so my point is i have been voting for the party all my life because -- guest: many political scientists believe that voters should vote in the way that she is describing, that political parties are actually an important part of the process because they form around a set of beliefs and values, and therefore voters are busy, they have jobs and lives and so forth. if voters can look at a

political party and say that aligns with my values, i know regardless of a particular candidate when they get into office, members of that party of congress, in the white house, they will act consistent with these political values. that is why political scientists think that a well-functioning political system will facilitate the ability of voters to interact with political parties in just the way she is talking about. what is interesting about that is that is not the way the founders of the country thought about political parties. they wanted to design our constitution including the electoral college, including the separation of powers in the hopes to prevent the formation of strong political already that were coherent and consistent in that way. they hoped that their architectural systems including federalism would keep these so-called facts in check and you wouldn't have these permanent

parties. it didn't work out that way. we got political parties very quickly with the constitution was put into operation and we had political parties ever since. some people observe some of the difficulties with congress unable to pass laws and the way in which the filibuster operates. we kind of got the worst of both worlds because we have political parties, and yet rules that don't the mesh very well. we need to realign our institutional arrangements with the way politics actually works if we are going to have government function properly going forward. host:host: tell us quickly, when do we expect oral arguments? >> the arguments will be in the fall. i'm not sure exactly what date

it is, but the court will come back at they always do the first monday of october and this case will be heard in one of the early settings may be october, november, december. i don't have that information right in front of me, but they will take a while to decide this. they've sort of saying 50th cases for the end of the term. this case is likely to take, likely to provoke a year from now. host: we would like to thank the

director of the election law firm for tuning, thus to talk about state powers and federal elections. thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up next, we are going to go to our landmark series which will continue to focus on the immigration reform and consumer act of. the conversation with the commissioner of the immigration -- will be coming up soon. but first, we are going to take more of your phone calls in the open phones segment. you see the numbers there on the screen. we will be right back. announcer: c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearing investigating the attack on the capitol.

go to www.c-span.org/january6 to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and subsequent investigations. go to www.c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch. you can see it live. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president to other white house officials, the pentagon, and the state department as well as congress. we also have international perspective from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks. our live resource page where you

can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span you get it no matter where you have been or where you stand on the issues. c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. host: we are back with our open phones segment where you get to call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. we are going to open up our regular lines.

that means democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading our twitter and facebook. david is calling from illinois on the democrat line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. my questions for the professor that was on earlier. why is the electoral college winner take all? the presidential election, one state has 50% and the other one gets 51. why couldn't those folks be split? thank you. host: let's talk to sheldon who

is calling from whitehouse station on the democrat line. where are you, sheldon? they you are. -- there you are. caller: yes, i just want to say thanks for everything you do. i want to say i voted democrat basically by party values, but what i am very disappointed with is the continuous line in order to keep their jobs in place. somehow when we elect officials, they should not lie to us. i would like truth and transparency in government. thank you, c-span. host: maurice from michigan on the independent line. caller: good morning.

a couple things, but the first one is what is a kangaroo court? i've heard that expression used to describe the january 6 committee, but i would like to know when was it initiated and why? in other words, what does kangaroo court mean? host: what is your second question? caller: the second question is why does the state department think that any agreement is better than nothing? the fiasco with our agreements with iran, it just seems like

the state department doesn't understand that sometimes, no agreement is better than what they came up with. host: so according to dictionary.com, a kangaroo court is an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone potentially without good evidence as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor. as according to dictionary.com. caller: that sounds to me pretty close to what we are seeing with this january 6 committee. host: let's go to paul who was calling from west palm beach, florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to let you know, i think you're the best person for the job here. the next thing, all these people

who are calling regularly, claiming that joe biden is the best president, what time are they living in? when president trump was here, everything was going perfect. the gas prices. the highest inflation when you go to the store. evening walmart, things are missing. i think you should ask the question, either he should be working for the state government or -- cnn and msnbc. thank you. host: let's go to mary who was calling from vermont on the democrat line. caller: yes, my concern is i used to be on the board of civil authority.

-- sarah palin -- the republican ticket for 2024. and then trump-palin or whoever for the 2020 race on the republican ticket, our former president has a big ego and wants to save face. former president donald trump can do whatever and -- can't keep track of them.

the nra can handle it. host: let's go to tim who was calling from myrtle beach, south carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: all these people are calling here. who is still running c-span? host: c-span has a lot of people still here. caller: i'm going to cut the chase real quick. i am independent and these people calling here about joe biden and the democrats, i mean, i don't know if these people need mental help or if they are mentally ill or what their problem is. i mean, i am not a big trump supporter, but if you look at the state of this country in where we are at now, this started way back before now. these problems started 10 or 12

years ago. it is ridiculous that these people calling here about biden, honestly, i don't know who is running the country right now. america had better wake up -- host: let's go to steve who is calling from florida on the independent line. caller: good morning to you. i've just got a few things that i would like to say. and the oath keepers invaded the capitol, i thought the overthrow was to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. the process and the constitution, that is number one. number 2, 1 of the big reasons that gas prices are so high is that jerred, the son-in-law of

the past president, is managing the fund over in saudi arabia that the 70's bought into. and they are the ones that are keeping oil prices and global prices high. that is one of the biggest ripoffs there ever was, because all of the trumps are nothing but grifters. they want to use political money for lawyers, they want to perpetuate a lie, and ironically, biden beat trump by the same level of electoral college votes as trump did when he was in office, and he said it was a big victory, as a whole nation was behind him. and that is why i think the electoral college should be eliminated, and a true democracy is popular vote, not mixed up with states rights and all of this other crap.

host: frederick, maryland, democrat line. caller: i hear people complaining that gas prices are high, you can blame part of it on the administration under trump. but when covid was out, trump minimized and all this garbage. this stuff could have been alleviated if he had people on board who knew what they were talking about. but he decided to bring in his little cronies. also, i'm really worried about this country's democracy and the election. this previous administration under trump tried to take my vote away, everybody's vote away because this guy is an egotistical maniac who really is

only interested in himself, nobody else. host: upper marlboro, maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. it is so ironic how we quickly forget in this country. we need joe biden here. america made demand and supply. 4 million people die around the world. we need to wake up. everybody is blaming joe biden. demand and supply.

thank you for taking my call. host: see morris calling from scottsdale, arizona on the democrat line. -- seymour. caller: i am really upset about the anger that i hear on your calls calling from the republican side. true anger and hatred against what is going on. hey, republicans, we've always been a country that has disagreed on a lot of issues, but we come together for the good of the country. now i hear people saying things as if they want to ship me off to russia. i am not your enemy. i am somebody who just disagrees with you. host: let's go to phil who is calling from colorado springs, colorado on the independent line. caller: good morning. yeah, everybody hated me blaming biden for everything.

just ask where we were in 2020 when everything was shut down and there was nobody driving and the gas prices were low because nobody was driving. now everybody is going back to work and things are opening and everybody is blaming biden and his administration. host: let's go to more rain who is calling from winchester -- maureen who is calling from winchester, new hampshire. caller: good morning. one thing i have learned from c-span is after the recent supreme court decision, we are a federal country. we are a federal democracy. and we change our legislature every few years and things can change immediately how and if and when the voters get up there

and change their government. people have got to understand that this is a federal democracy. host: let's go to bill who is calling from florida on the democrat line. caller: i've got one question. every few years when we watched the president get sworn in, when we take the oath of office, and you break that over, are you still eligible to run for office again? that is my question. host: all right. we would like to thank all of their callers to call didn't for our open phones segment. coming up next, every landmark

legislation series continues with a focus on the immigration -- act of --. coming up next. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch washington today for stories on the day. this into c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio.

c-span, powered by cable. the january 6 committee returns for its seventh hearing. watch as they examine the role extremists played in the attack on the u.s. capitol and their relationship with the trump white house. watch live tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now and at c-span.org. visit our website at c-span.org/january 6 to watch previous hearings and other videos related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter, word for word, recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to the remarks of the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or

use c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. now available at c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with context information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smart phone. every c-span shop purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with our landmark legislation series. we will focus on the immigration reform and control act of 1986. here to explain his doris messner -- meissner. thank you for being here.

guest: thank you. host: before we get started, let's look at what president reagan said as he was about to sign the law. we will hear president reagan from november 6, 1986, when he was about to sign the immigration reform and control act of 1986. [video clip] >> this bill, the immigration reform and control act of 1986 that i will sign in a few minutes is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1953. it is the product of one of the longest, most difficult legislative undertakings. it is an excellent example of a truly successful bipartisan effort. the administration of the allies and immigration reform on both sides of the u.s. capitol and both sides of the aisle worked together to accomplish these critically important reforms to control illegal immigration. in 1981, this administration

passed a comprehensive legislative package, including sanctions, other measures and legalization. the act provides these three essential components. distance is not discouraged. the problem of illegal immigration should not therefore be seen as a problem between the united states and its neighbors. our objective is to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. host: so, doris, what made the 1986 immigration reform and control act a landmark piece of legislation? guest: probably several things. first thing, perhaps, is that it really was an effort for the first time by us, as a nation, to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, which

actually, probably has occurred throughout our history. but really became much more visible and political in the 1970's and 1980's, because of legislation that was passed in 1965. we can talk about that further. it also did for the first time something that was very controversial. that is held employers responsible, legally, for hiring and employing people legally in the united states and created penalties if they did not comply. and they found that with order enforcement increasing -- increases and very notably with a legalization program. the legalization program was a very important issue at the time. it has continued to be an issue. it was controversial then.

it continues to be controversial. it was the only time in our history that we have actually had a broad-based legal program. host: i don't think it would be controversial for me to say it is hard to see this legislation going through congress right now. with the political situation in 1985 -- what was the political situation in 1985 and 1986 that allowed this to go through? guest: it's notable you used the clip from president reagan, making exactly that point. he made two points, which is it took a long time to get this education passed. but, it happened because of bipartisanship. because the two parties were together. it was a very different political atmosphere then. even though the issues were every bit as controversial as they are today. so, we have to remember, actually that this, almost the

same legislation was proposed as early as 1977 by president carter. president carter could not even get the congress to hold a hearing on his legislation. so, as a result, the congress senate was able to rescue some aspect of it by creating a commission. in 1978, through legislation that was sponsored by senator kennedy at the time. a commission was created to look at the issues of illegal immigration. in that commission worked for several years. it was chaired by a very distinguished american, ted hesburgh, who was the president of notre dame at the time. he was a public reader. it was a bipartisan commission. and it reported in 1980, basically, ideas that became the

immigration reform and control act of 1986. the critical thing was it was a bipartisan commission. it looked at the issues that -- it looked at the issues. people got to know each other. the two critical members of congress who were on the commission were senator simpson of wyoming. and congressman ms. oli -- mazzoli, from kentucky. neither of their states had a lot to do with immigration at the time. they were able to be a bit more distant from the issues, in terms of their own political constituencies. and they got to know each other. they were newer -- newly elected. and they really forged an alliance, even though they came from and places. that led to the simpson-mazzoli act. they had two unsuccessful go

arounds in 1982 and 1984. similar legislation was on the hill and it did not pass. even in 1986, it would not likely have passed except for the very end of the session. it gained a new life. so, this is a controversial issue then. at that time, the numbers of congress did work for committees. -- through committees. they did have hearings. they did try to find compromises. they did problem-solving. we don't have that today. host: in 1986, -- came in to talk about this. he was the majority whip. i want to show you what senator simpson said on this show in 1986. [video clip] >> we passed that bill which

would control illegal immigration by penalties against employers who knowingly hire those people, lee's link -- legalizing the people who have been here a certain amount of time. the ultimate is hunting them. i won't be part of that. that is the key to the bill. it is in the house right now. this very hour or tomorrow, the house rules committee is going to deal with how to get it to the floor. how many amendments they will allow, then it will go to the floor of the united states house , next week. and if it passes the house, i think it will in its present form, there are some things in there that concerned me. but, if it passes the house, we will get a bill.

if you want to do something about it, anyone viewing this should write their congressperson. it is out of the hands of the senate. you can put it through to your favorite congressman in your district. host: when simpson had came on the show, it had passed the senate and was in the house. what were the objections to the bill? guest: there were many objections to the bill. senator simpson just received the medal of freedom last week. he has been a great legislator for all the time that he served. it is the attitude. it is that willingness that comes through in his clip to find a way to solve the problems of what the opposition was. he had to solve them in the senate. they were similar in the house. there was a lot of opposition from employers, as you can imagine, because they viewed the idea of checking on people that

they were hiring as burdensome. as another government intrusion. and they did not want to have to comply with another piece of labor market employment legislation. it was particularly opposed by agriculture, as a subsector of the employer population, because agriculture has always, and actually continues to rely heavily on foreign-born labor. and that foreign-born labor, at the time, was entirely people who did not have a legal status in the united states. it was also opposed by people on the liberal side of the political spectrum. it was supposed heavily, although that changed by labor

unions. labor unions have always been concerned about an influx of foreign-born workers into labor markets. labor unions did not oppose it in the way that employers did. immigrant populations were concerned it would lead to disco nation. to discrimination against people who looked foreign-born. selective enforcement. and there was a big issue about how people would actually show they are legally in the country to be able to work. because, we did not at that time and we still don't have any kind of a national identifier as a society. so, the difficulties of how it would be implemented, because this employer sanctioned issue was the lead issue. that was the primary purpose of

the bill. the border enforcement and legalization were balancing factors. they became more important in retrospect. at the time, so much of it was truly about employer sanctions. host: given what we know now, would you say the bill was successful? did it achieve its goals? guest: to some extent, yes. to some extent, no. it is probably, in that way, like most legislation that has been enacted. it was a product of compromise. it was a product of its time. it did in fact establish some new principles. it did establish the idea that legal status should be a norm in our labor markets. and in the relationship between employers and workers. and that, of course, if people are hired illegally in the country, it reduces the -- hired

illegally in the country, it reduces exploitation of workers. establishing that was an important step. in retrospect, it should have been a first step. the implementation of it, the enforcement of it has not succeeded because of a proliferation of false documents that people have used that then allows employers to show that they have checked people's document. but, there is such a wide range of documents that can actually be used by people applying for jobs to get those jobs that it is -- employers are able to basically say they have complied, they have showed and they've asked. at the same time, many people are working who are still legally in the country. and that is not what the law intended. on other fronts, other parts of

the law, the border enforcement that was important at that time, the whole idea was what senator simpson would always say. this is a three legged stool. a three legged stool with employer sanctions, increased border enforcement, legal status for people who have been in the country eight -- for a period of time. those three legs were intended to sit equally on the ground. but it did not turn out to be the case that they balanced equally. in retrospect, it is the legalization program that actually became the most successful element of the 1986 act. that has been very significant. because about 2.7 million people were able to obtain legal status. that was probably about 70% or

so of the people that were eligible at that time. we had an unauthorized population of somewhere between 3 million and 5 million. 2.7 million at the low-end of the estimates -- if 2.7 million people at the low-end of the estimates were able to achieve legal status, that was significant. once you have a green card and apply for citizenship, you can then take advantage of the legal immigration simpson -- system in order to bring your family members and others to the united states. so, for that population that was able to get legal status, it was about 70% of that population that was from mexico. they were able to establish a foothold in the united states for legal immigration. and actually use the system in

the way the system is intended to be used. that has led to as much legal immigration from mexico in subsequent years as unauthorized immigration. but, the employer sanctions have not worked so well. and it has ultimately been a case that employers that do, because the system got improved in the 1990's. there is a program of verifiers. the overall effort to enforce the law where employers are concerned has been quite weak. it is because the statute at that time did not have any way of putting an identical patient system into place that would be reliable. then we get to border

enforcement. that is a whole different topic if you want to talk about it. the border enforcement part of this required additional resources. some additional resources came soon after the act was passed. but mostly, the real border buildup did not happen until later in the 1990's, when the job market was roaring in the united states. and ultimately, it really did not happen until after 9/11. after 9/11, for different reasons, when immigration became defined as a national security issue. that is when the border buildup took place. host: let me take a second and remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we will open up regional lines. regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number will be (202) 748-8001.

keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, twitter, at c-span wj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. so, we have talked about the major portions of the bill. border security, the employer in provisions. one thing we have not talked about was the amnesty provisions. which is still a controversial subject to this day. talk about how those revisions got into the bill and what was the at -- and what the effect of the amnesty provisions have been. guest: it is interesting you use the word amnesty. that was the word used at the time. it has almost become a no-no word. i would say legalization because i am now accustomed to using the term legal status and

legalization. at the time, it was called and amnesty. it was -- it had limitations as a program. because, it had any positive outcomes but it also was narrowly designed to apply to people who had already been in the country for at least five years. and so, that meant that in order for people to receive the legal status, and it was a temporary status for about 18 months. and then people were permitted to adjust to green card status. after that, they were eligible for citizenship in five years, which is the way immigration laws work for other populations. the eligibility being five years in the past meant that people needed to show the government proof of the fact that they had arrived here before 1982 and that they had been here,

continuously since then. that was difficult for people who were illegally in the country. because, of course, if you are not supposed to be here, you don't have a lot of evidence of being here. so, the effort to collect data, many people were paid on the -- under the table. they did not have proof of employment. that was difficult in administering the amnesty program. at the end of the day, very large number as a people applied. 2.7 million people received legal status. about 90% of the people who applied were approved because they were able to show what was required about -- what was required. about 70% of the people who got legal status were mexican.

as we said, that allowed for a large portion of mexicans in the country, illegally, to get a legal status and bring their family members. it also really changed, to some extent, the view that immigrant populations and immigrant communities had on the inf. immigration and nationalization services was the agency in the justice department that administered these measures. they made a very successful effort at creating a structure that made it -- reduced the level of fear and reduced the level of certainty for people who were -- level of uncertainty for people who were applying for amnesty. they hired staff that were devoted entirely to legal status , to the amnesty program.

and taught them interview techniques that were customer friendly. and so, it did show government and a facebook government in the immigration field that looked for them. different from what had been experienced before. ultimately, the important thing about the amnesty program is that those people who did get legal status succeeded. they have done well in this country. they have been important contributors to labor markets. they have been a very law-abiding population. and they have really created a template for what could happen if we were to have another legal status program and make it possible for people to actually participate aboveground in our communities, in our labor markets, become taxpayers and

not live in fear of deportation. host: lets let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with david, who is calling from denison, texas. david, good morning. caller: good morning. you said the 1986 bill had to do with three things, the employer sanctions, border enforcement and legal status. the border enforcement never happened. employer sanctions were a failure for several reasons. that didn't happen. the only thing that happened were the 2.7 million people, 70% got amnesty. thankfully you're using the word amnesty. it is what it was called then. even though it is not politically correct now. the reason republicans don't trust democrats for two seconds regarding this issue is the same thing. they refuse to secure the borders first. you have mayorkas and biden laming the borders are closed and secure. they are -- claiming the orders are closed and secure, they are

wide open. he couldn't be more wide open. as far as employer sanctions, by the way, i worked in the hospitality industry and management for close to 20 years. it was impossible to deal with the different ids. they needed a photograph on a social security card. that's the only id that should be required. you say people don't like the idea of -- idea of a photo id on a card. i don't think there are people who would object to that if it would solve the problem. we had wages that were flat for decades as a result of illegal immigration. amnesty is a major magnet. there were 3 million or so illegal immigrants in the country in 1986. it is anywhere from four to 10 times that now. you can't have a welfare state in an open border without having an open call to everyone to join

in. since china and wto have moved in and taken our capital markets, the furniture business and the textile industry moving to mexico and part of the alto -- auto industry. and then bringing in millions of illegal aliens, this is what we get. host: go ahead and respond to him, doris. guest: there are a lot of issues. let me try to take some of them. it comes back to the basic point, first of all, that the 1986 law was a set of compromises. there was a great deal of conversation in the debates surrounding the 1986 act about identifiers and about exactly the issue the gentleman has raised. how should employers know, how can people show they are legally

in the country. that is a political issue. that is an issue that when we say that as a country we have been never -- we have never been willing to go to that step, we haven't for lots of reasons. that comes down to congress and congress being willing and it has been unwilling, just as it was then, to improve documentation in a way that would make it more reliable to be able to enforce employer sanctions. the issue with the border is that -- there are so many issues that have to do with the border. it is important to say that looking back, we now spend more money as a country on immigration enforcement than we do on all other federal criminal law enforcement responsibilities by 25%. we spend more money on

immigration enforcement than we do on the fbi, the atf, secret service, put together. and what are we getting for it? we are getting for it, actually, a very heavily fortified border. the argument that the border has to be under control before we can do anything else with immigration gets it backwards in my opinion. because, the difficulty with simply pouring money into the border and into border enforcement is that there still are labor market reasons in the united states, as well as family connection reasons where people should be able to come legally to the country through our legal immigration system. i would say the big failing of the 1986 act goes to that point. and that is that the 1986 act and those people who passed it

viewed it as a one time issue. the terminology at the time that was used was that this would wipe the slate clean. in other words, give the united states a fresh start in putting illegal immigration behind us. what that fails to understand was the deeper forces. that is that we are a very diverse country. we haven't immigration law which functions largely on family unification. very, very little visas available for employment purposes. and when it was passed in 1986, we were just on the cusp of becoming an aging society, which has never been the case for us before, demographically. and of, going into the 1990's, a

major shift in the economy, shifting from an industrial economy to various elements of a service based economy. it created more jobs in the 19 need these -- 1990's than had been the case since at least the second world war. that, at a time where we were and continue to have less children. low fertility, lists -- less native born workers coming into the workforce so that our growth of the workforce comes entirely from immigration. that was not foreseen at the time. and congress has not been able to tackle that issue since. as a result, there is a market demand. when your laws do not align with

the market, the market will always win. the market and the availability of work in the united states draws people as well as terrible conditions from which people are fleeting. it is always post-poll. border enforcement alone cannot solve that. there needs to be ways to regulate the system, which means legal pathways to come to the u.s., so that there can be limits. limits that are reasonable and aligned with our country. host: let's talk to walter from butler, indiana. walter, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it is funny. the older you get, the more bizarro world we live in. for years and years in this country, there was a lot of farm

help, factory work and meat processing plants on and off. we could just pay them the minimal amount of money. the first and only question the united states should ask about immigration is how is this individual going to benefit america? that's the only question. they don't have a right to come here. nowhere in the constitution does it say that anybody can just walk in the store. they have to go through the process. it is a joke on both sides. the bottom line is if this government wanted to fix it, they could. nancy pelosi said something i agreed with for about 10 seconds, when she said we will secure the ukrainian border. the only president that ever did

something was president trump. the idea that it is a complex thing, it's not a complex thing. you don't get housing, don't get medical, you don't get food stamps, if you are illegal. when we find you, we round you up and throw you out. the only thing is how you benefit america. you shouldn't have to be like oh, these people from mexico, they are very low crime. that would be like saying the german people are very nice. nobody has a right to walk into this country unless they are invited. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i agree with the point that we should be choosing as a country who comes here. and that we should take our national interests first and foremost into mind and into account with our immigration policies and our immigration laws.

that is congress's job. congress has not been able to do that because our national interests do call for certain levels of immigration and it should be legal immigration. there are no lines for people to get into to come to the united states unless you have a family member in the united states already or you have access to a very small number, about 40,000 a year, of high skilled visas for purposes of employment. so, until we put an immigration system into place which has got to be done by congress, we are not going to be able to be in a position where we are in charge as a country of deciding who ought to come that actually serves our national interests. our national interests do have

to do with productivity and are labor markets and with maintaining a competitive edge in technology and in other aspects of our economy. but, we are not taking advantage of the resource that immigration or our immigration history actually represents for us as a country. why won't congress deal with this? it has to do with lots of competing interests that were competing interests in the way we talked about during the 1986 debate. it continues to be the case. and yes, one certainly can make the argument that there are aspects of us as a society that does want to have a flow of cheap labor that is exploitable. that's on us. it could be fixed. host: back in may of 1988, a

representative romano mazzoli came on c-span after the bill had passed. he talked about his views of immigration in the 1980's. i want to show you what he said. [video clip] >> is there a difference between immigrants, we say -- from 150 to 100 years ago and the immigrants we see coming into the country today? >> it's interesting. my father was an immigrant. he came from italy. he became a wonderful american. he was a great proponent of this great country and was a businessman. many of the people who might be watching at home remember him. what i would say is this. the attitudes that my father brought in and his forbearers

are a little different than the attitudes brought in by these people today. i think the people who come in today, whether they are coming in due to legalization or the legal preference system allowing six of thousand people to come in legally, they are coming in with one or two goals aligned -- in mind. to join families or find some opportunity they don't have in their own country. i don't think the impetus is any different than it was before. the gentleman from tampa said there are different language problems and educational problems than we might have had in the past. i think if we put our time and talent to it, these people could become the new wave of the future. i think it is clear that many of the young asian students, first generation americans are now having top honors in the classrooms across the country. they are becoming rhodes scholars. they are becoming doctoral candidates and some of the most stern and difficult of the sciences and technologies.

so, i think that these children, these youngsters, given a chance, they are going to be the producers, just as my father and his people were producers. host: is that still our attitude about immigration in the united states? guest: i don't know whether it is still our attitude but it is still the truth. it is what all the research shows, that the people who are here as immigrants, and this includes illegal immigrants as well as people who have come legally through the system, they do well. immigrant integration works. it could work better if we did not have a system that was as contradictory as it is. but, what the congressman has said is borne out by the research. i think maybe the best example that is so evident today in our debate is the daca program.

these young people who have come to the program -- come to the united states because their parents brought them when they were young. they don't have a legal status here. it was put into place by executive action in 2012, under president obama. they have partial legal status. they are allowed to work. and they are not subject to deportation enforcement. they have done brilliantly well. because they go to school. they go to college. they become doctors. they become scientists. they become very productive americans. and they are americans and everything but the fact that they were born in another country and came here as children. that's what most immigrants and

most immigration is about. until we are able to recognize that, for us as an aging society , for us as a country that has strong history of immigration, that has always made in cap a strong, until we are better able to embrace that, going forward, we are going to continue to be contradicting ourselves in this immigration space in the way that we have been doing for years. we need congress to act and change it. host: let's go to our phone lines and talk to john, calling from dearborn heights, michigan. john, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you so much for c-span. i noticed some of the previous collars were kind of making statements. i'm more interested in some fundamental assumptions about immigration and what it means to

be american. i obviously have a different -- disagreement with you. i don't think anybody can be american. i don't believe we are a nation of immigrants. i believe we are a nation of settlers. i think people, european christians, mainly, columbus discovered america. we had christian europeans who helped establish the constitution. some of them weren't christians but nevertheless, they were european. the reason i want to challenge this idea, i'm sure you've heard before in academia or other institutions, if you did something fundamentally different with japan, if you just draw in millions upon millions of nigerians into japan and displaced that population or you brought in millions upon millions of nigerians in israel and displaced that population, it would no longer be japan and israel.

that's what happened in 1965. i think what is so disturbing about this situation we find ourselves in is that at night -- no time in history, whether it is immigration, illegal immigration, migration, economic migration or warfare, we are being invaded, any displacement of that population meant the end of the population. you say things like -- which are decent answers as far as an economic sense, a material sense, but not a spiritual sense. in israel and japan, there is an aging population. and they have economic incentives. right? but, they don't want their nation destroyed. i will just hang up and listen to you at this point. black people have been in this country for 400 years. and we are more balkanized now

than we have ever been. in some respects, they have never assimilated. i will just hang up and listen. host: i think the native american population might disagree with some of his contention. but go ahead. guest: looking back at our immigration and our immigrations history, we are a nation of immigrants. we just are. and that is -- that immigration that took place in the 1800s and early 1900s saw each other as every bit as the front from each other as today the comments that this gentleman is making about different nationality groups do today. italians, eastern europeans, southern europeans were by northern europeans as an

entirely different type of people. they were viewed as a threat. they were viewed as people that were going to change the nature of the country. change the values and the identity of who we were as a nation. not to mention, the irish, which has the most well-known story of a newer group of immigrants coming and viewed as a population that was going to change us in negative ways. but in fact, it has not turned out that way. it has not turned out that way throughout our immigration history, because of the fact that we do have a very successful track record as a country of incorporating newcomers. that has to do with who we are as a country. we are a country that does allow

for opportunity. we are a country that does provide for mobility. we are a country that has the benefits of people coming here who have the energy and the will and the drive to improve themselves, which then improves us as a nation. and so we don't give ourselves enough credit as a nation for the overwhelming power of our civic culture of our values, of our democratic belief. those values become internalized by new groups who come here. they become the new champions of those values. and they keep us refreshed, vital. the idea that somehow or another we are being ruined as a nation

because of immigration is exactly the opposite of what is actually taking place. host: let's talk to jean, who is calling from syracuse, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. can you tell me if during the deliberations for that immigration policy to finally make it through and pass, was there any discussion of sex trafficking and if so, were any of those discussions in the public eye? thank you. guest: i don't recall that that was an element of the debates in the 1980's. that of course has always gone on. it goes on domestically, as well as with domestic population groups as well as with people from other countries. it has become a much more

prominent issue and visible issue in the 2000s. probably late 1990's to the 2000's. that is an issue for which we have a range of statutes and criminal penalties in our legal system and legal structures. totally apart from immigration, that gives law enforcement what is needed to combat the problem, which is not to say that you can solve these problems. these are the kinds of issues that have to be managed, where law enforcement responses, and particularly that there is international cooperation. and there is a great deal of international cooperation. host: let's talk to dominic,

who is calling from east hampton, new york. caller: good morning everyone there. thank you for the program. a couple of questions i have, relating to -- you mentioned push pull a couple of times. i was wondering what the push part of the immigration story is . going back 50, 60 years and seeing what the organization of immigration forces were from central america, for example. i'm thinking of liberation theology and the means of revolutionary action on the part of some in central america. i'm speaking in the 1960's when people were pushing for

revolutionary change and immigration became one of the tools of that great change. the other thing i wanted to ask you about is what did the farmworkers in the union think of the legislation at the time? the third question would be the size of the immigration industry that has grown since the legislation was passed. thank you very much. host: so, on push factors, we have not talked about push factors. it is an important issue to raise. there have always been push factors. push and pull is the essential paradigm here. way back from when people came in the last several centuries.

that has always been an aspect of immigration. it continues to be an aspect of immigration. today, the large numbers coming from central america are probably the best example of push factors that do go with what it is that the caller was talking about. the push factors from mexico and central america and other parts of the world are parts of political persecution and lack of any kind of economical opportunity. increasingly, as we look to the future, climate and climate change will be an important push factor that we are already seeing in some areas. so, the push factors are a big, important issue. and the degree to which push factors can be mitigated is a long-term proposition. that is one of the difficulties

with trying to manage this issue. in the case of central americans, people in central america did begin to come in significant numbers during the 1960's, because of revolutions and the violence that was taking place in their countries. some of them were truly being persecuted and were candidates for refugee status, labor union leaders, teachers, clerics, etc. increasingly, that became used with others who simply were being pushed off of their land. they were not able to grow crops and provide for their families. that continues to be the case. so, one of our real challenges as a country is how is it that we and other developed countries can be constructive in improving conditions that lead to the kind of desperation that drives full from their homes, because they

simply have no other option's. migration cannot be the sole answer for those issues. those are much, much larger issues. and we don't probably -- we certainly don't put enough effort into understanding and being effective in changing those conditions. i would have to say, this administration has made a very significant commitment to changing those issues. and congress has in fact appropriated some money for that purpose. it has to do with reducing violence and approving the rule of law in countries where there is no accountability. -- improving the law in countries where there is no account ability. those are long-term failings in other countries that ultimately need to change if the push factors are going to be changed.

>> let's talk to mike, who is calling from houston, texas. caller: from 1924 to 1965, the united states had almost no immigration. one of the people who did come here, the irish italians, they assimilate. assimilation is important. it is part of a culture of our country. we have borders. the lines are not being enforced. what expectations do we have of these immigrants? must they know english? must they be vaccinated? must they take a civics test? must they love our country? do we know about their criminal records? i bet we don't. i bet we don't. we've never mentioned drugs coming across our borders, killing one americans last year alone. -- 107,000 americans last year alone. we cannot step aside and let people come into the country because they have family here. the people you are inviting into this country are the very people

who then inject reform in their country that they leave. you said this a moment ago. those are exactly the people, they change from the people. the 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds are walking into the united states and you are endorsing it. that reform in those third world countries and poor countries will never happen with 65-year-old people left behind. it happens with the people who are 20 and 30 years old. that is how freedom will ever happen in a smaller country. you are not going to get it. you are never going to get it by stepping aside and letting them come here. of course we have more money being spent on our border. this country is worth defending. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i don't want anybody to get the impression that i am

making an argument for people walking across the border freely into the country. the important thing about our topic, the 1986 act, is that it was an attempt to prevent that. and look at what the difficult these have been in actually bringing that about and improving it and learning from the lessons from it since. of course we need to enforce our borders. of course we need to be a country that is choosing who should come to the united states. of course we should be a country that recognizes the people who come here need to be cleared, need to be screened. need to have a reason under the lot to come into the country. we don't have a system today that makes that possible. host: do you see any chance of any comprehensive immigration, legislation making it through

congress today like this bill did in 1986? guest: i would have to say i do not. we need it very seriously and desperately. but, until people are willing to sit down across the aisle and work with each other in the way that simpson and mazzoli did, this will be a political football and a wedge issue, rather than an issue where we operate and work in the national interest. immigration is in our national interest. but for it to be in our national interest in ways that don't bring all kinds of both substantive policy as well as political, negative five product it, we have to put a system into place that actually is workable. host: let's see if we can get one more call in. mina from jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. jesse.

good morning, miss meissner. i'm in floater. i wanted to speak to my experience. as opposed to people that don't have that experience, a small group of people from venezuela, people who have come in because they have been persecuted and the situation in venezuela is untenable. from what i have seen, i have been seeing this for about two years, those people are mostly professionals. they have degrees. some of them are engineers. they come to this country seeking asylum. therefore, they are not illegal in the sense that they didn't jump the fence. they are here, they came in and they said i am seeking asylum.

they are here in this country. obvious the, they need to eat. ok. here in florida, a major industry is the tourism industry. hotels are desperate for people who will come in and clean the bedrooms, cleaning the toilets and they will pay them. i'm going to tell you this because i've been watching very carefully. there is a line of people, u.s. citizens, waiting in line to clean the rooms and clean toilets. -- isn't a line of people, u.s. citizens, waiting in line to clean the toilets. who is going to do that? they will clean the toilets for $14 an hour. why not allow them to do that?

guest: the caller is referring to the services industries, to terrorism. a major part of our economy. very much a part of the economy that has relied on foreign-born workers. venezuela is a country under severe political oppression, as well as economic need and corruption. and so, the asylum system is -- that is the reason for the asylum system. so that we make it possible for people who are eligible to get protection in the united states. that is absolutely the case. and this is making the point we have been talking about. we, apart from the asylum system, we don't have ways for people to come to the country for work purposes, legally. and there is work that is available. there are jobs that are available across the skills

spectrum. we should be taking advantage of that through a legal immigration system that makes it possible for people to come. host: we would like to thank doris meissner for coming on with us this morning and talking to us about the 1986 immigration reform and control act. doris, thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: we would like to thank all of our viewers, collars and social media followers and all of our guests for another great washington journal. everyone stay safe and wash her hands. we will see you tomorrow morning at -- wash your hands. we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that is why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. >> cox along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span's "washington journal" every day taking your calls live on air discussing the news of the day and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, we will take a look at the week ahead in congress with politico, and then in light of the recent

unemployment report and ongoing recession fears, we will talk about the state of the u.s. economy with axios, and we will preview the week ahead at the white house with the white house reporter for the hill. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on monday morning on c-span, or it c-span now, our free mobile app. >> congress returns this week following the july 4 holiday break. the senate is back monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. senators will vote on the nomination of stephen dental box , president biden's nominee to serve as the director of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. legislation in the house continues tuesday. members will focus on wendy 23 defense department programs. the house plans to take up abortion legislation.

members are expected to consider for a second time a bill to create an amber alert bike system for active shooter events nationwide. watch the senate on c-span2. you can watch on our free video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> the january 6 committee returns for its seventh hearing. watch as they examine the role extremist groups play in the attack on the u.s. capitol and the trump white house. watch on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. you can visit our website at c-span.org/january6. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >>