>> see spanish or unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies. >> you think this is just a community center? it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with hundreds of community centers so studen can get tools they need to be ready for anything.

comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up this morning, on washington journal, seeking role tax, economics reporter laura weiss joins us for a discussion about the release of former president donald trump'tax information. then democtic representative al gre of texas will talk about border policy. then david bier from the cato institute joins us to talk about the supreme courdecision to extend title 42 dision. you can join the conversation with your calls, texts, and tweets. ♪ host: after hours, behind closed

doors, the house ways and means committee voted behind -- to make public six years of former president donald trump's tax returns. the vote was a culmination of nearly three years of efforts of democrats to obtain his records. a fight that went all the way to the supreme court. democrats call the move long overdue and an important step toward transparency and better oversight. republicans call it a dangerous weapon that can be used against other politicians and private citizens. this morning, we want to know what to think. if you support the release of former president trump's tax returns, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the move, your phone number is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003.

find us on facebook.com/c-span, on twitter at cspanwj and instagram at cspanwj. here to tell us about yesterday's announcement is laura weiss. thank you. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: we appreciate you getting up for us this morning. it took several hours to announce a decision and the boat was a long path -- the boat was along party lines. can you tell us some of the behind the scenes and points of tensions during the debate yesterday? guest: basically the committee voted along party lines to go into this closed session to discuss the tax returns and what they would be doing with them. we know that democrats's

argument has been that this is about a presidential audit system of the irs. one of the things that democrats said yesterday is because president trump did not release his tax returns publicly, and that was the first time since nixon that a president had not done that? , they wanted to understand the system of private scrutiny. republicans argued that this was about politics. they argued this would set a dangerous precedent in terms of disclosing presidents information. it was really divided along party lines. one of the things republicans said they did behind closed doors was tried to defer it to the tax commission. that did not happen and would

take it into next year when president -- republicans would have control over the house. instead, the committee voted to release this information. host: what needs to happen in order for the tax returns to actually be released? is there any indication when that might happen? guest: chairman neal told reporters that should happen in the coming days. from this vote, this means they will be released publicly. the delay is to redact personal information. things like social security numbers more account information that, on either side, no one wants this released publicly. they need to be sure about that and we should see them in the coming days. host: what do you expect, if anything, to be learned from the release of these documents? there have been leaks, even

though not officially, and of course not voluntarily. you have reported on it and organizations like the new york times. what new can be gleaned or is this symbolic? guest: i think we will be seeing a lot more data and in part -- pertinent information. we got a hint of that. the majority was from democrats. some were focused on the presidential audit process and audits that occurred at the irs and the committee on tax evasion which did include tax information on president donald trump's and bilotti and -- melania's. they tax returns will be the fullest picture that we have

had. host: we have talked about the partisan divide that was indicated in that vote. can you get a little bit more detail. let's start with the democrats, in the majority. what is the case they made and why did they say this move was needed to happen? guest: the case they may throughout this process is this was about making sure that someone is scrutinizing and putting a check on the president's powers in terms of tax returns. if it was not going to be the public, they need to make sure they knew what the irs was doing. they concluded they felt the irs audit process was really lacking. that the irs had too small of a team to really do these kinds of reviews. something to note here is that former president trump, the way

his businesses are structured, auditing his taxes are quite complex and require a good amount of specialist knowledge. it is concluded that the irs does not have the ability to do that at this point and it was not really being done in a timely matter. that trump's tax return time not been completed under the mandatory process largely. that was the argument they produced from chairman neal that is their argument of what they think needs to change. the democratic majority leader hoyer has put the on the schedule. the house is at least making effort to put that on the

schedule and make a point on that. that's also would involve legislating the audit process that happens quickly. and that both the audit process in tax returns would eventually become public. host: on the others, republicans criticize this. none of the republicans on the committee supportively to double trumps tax returns. what is there argument? guest: there argument is this set a dangerous precedent. that now that it is done, is it safe for any person to go after political enemies. they said this kind of personal information should not be released and made public. that has been there argument. they sort of pushed back on the idea that this is about the audit process. one thing we saw last night is

the republican on the committee who is running to be the next chairman put out a statement and essentially said they are scared . republicans are more likely to look into president biden and his family's plan. we will sort of see what republicans make of this as time goes on and they release more information. but now the most detailed information we have is mainly from democrats and nonpartisan. host: i want to follow up on that because republicans said they may go after president biden for example but his tax returns are already out there it on a website right now. how do republicans response, if at all, to the assertion that trump was so outside of the norm from previous presidents and candidates? did they address that at all? guest: i think they just really

emphasized that this is protected, taxpayer data. they really pointed to this as it's really something they wanted to stick to and that they did not want ways and be to be releasing this kind of information. they said this is unprecedented and democrats pointed out that they have made taxpayer information public before in courts during investigations. republicans are arguing that this is a different case and that is what they have stuck to. some of them are calling it an attack on donald trump. host: what is the risk for democrats now that they have made this vote and we know that republicans take control of the house and control of the powerful tax-writing committee in a few weeks? what could be the impact when republicans take control? guest: it will depend on who the

next chairman is for the ways and means republicans. i think they have pushed aggressive oversight and they will focus a life time on the bid i'm in -- are the biden administration and irs as well. it is hard to tell at this point. we know they will be really focused on oversight, including the irs come january. host: i know time is running out, but is there any developments democrats are still fighting for when it comes to former president trump's transparency and financial status or anything like that? guest: one thing that had been sort of an open question is what we did not know if this information would be processed and become public before congress ended, it was whether the finance chair would take

over in some way and take up this issue. he has sort of said he is watching ways and means, keeping eyes -- options open. last night, the ways and means effort is closed. they have completed their work. the information is going to all be public. it is sort of a closed investigation into this issue. what we have seen is how much republicans focus on this in terms of legislative goals. they have basically mandated that president's tax returns become public. host: thank you again. this is laura weiss, an economic reporter. thank you for joining us. we want to hear from you. do you support the release of former president trump's taxes?

call us at (202) 748-8000. if you think that was the wrong move, give us a call at (202) 748-8001. our lines are open now and let's go to them. our first call her is a mic in north carolina -- caller is mike in north carolina. do you think this is the wrong move, tell us why? guest: it is pure fascism, that is why. host: i want to show you guys articles about it. let's go there. we have an article i want to bring up about how the taxes have been put on hold. let me also remind you of the numbers. (202) 748-8000 if you support

it. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. the house ways and means committee to representative richard neal, a democrat from massachusetts, said the mandatory tax audits of former president trump's tax returns were almost nonexistent as he and fellow democrats hold a press conference after the debate on the release of president trump's tax returns. here is a portion of his comment. [video clip] >> for all practical purposes, the tax forms were nonexistent. they were never audited. only my sending a letter at one point prompted a rearview mirror response. i emphasize again that the mandatory program as highlighted

in what you will likely get in the next few minutes or so was almost nonexistent. my point is that was the legislative purpose with which we won four federal court decisions in three courts. we argue for an examination of how the audit process played out. once staff went to visit the irs , and once staff had a chance to go to smooth the other locations within the jurisdiction of the irs, they quickly concluded that , in fact, the audit did not occur. there were no audits in a timely manner and that goes for 2017, 2018, and 2019. i am restraining the speech and debate class for talking about the other issue that we had in our agenda.

the mandatory initiative highlights the idea that it is a two-tier system. if you are at the top, you have no chance of getting audited. as steve morstan pointed out today, in our get together, the chances of being audited -- if you claim income tax credit, the chances are far better than people at the top of the economic system. as i noted, we made it through substantial court decisions. it required patients. let me say something because i think it bears a personal note. it was never about being punitive or malicious. i never overpromise or built an unreasonable level of expectation. time and again, i refrained from questions in the hallway that you post to be because i was not about to upset the very sensitive court case. the other thing that happened to your dislike was there were no

leaks that occurred from the committee. we kept this very much aboveboard. he went back and forth with the attorneys at the committee and who were determined to put forward a case that would, as i noted early on when i was asked in the hallway right after my letter was originally sent. i was asked what do you expect and i said "a long and grueling court case". host: you want to know if you support or oppose the release of former president donald trump's tax return. our next caller is in support of that move. joseph. caller: the morning. i feel like every american who files a tax return is

responsible for the content. i do not care who prepared it. the taxpayer or tax filer is responsible. i do not feel like they are handling the audit responsibly. i feel like this individual, donald j. trump, is in fact a liar, a cheat and much worse. he should be subject to everything in power by the laws currently on the books. his tax fraud is the most despicable crime, thank you. host: let's hear from brady in ohio. you do not think trump's tax return should be released.

tell us why? caller: i do not feel like his tax returns should be released because every civilian in the u.s. does not have to present their tax return. one thing that they need to do is audit the democratic party on how much money they spent and how much time they spent with taxpayers money on going after donald trump. host: how do you respond to the precedent that every other president and most candidates have released their truck -- their taxes but trump did not? caller: donald trump, they have been after him before he even ran for president. as soon as they heard he was running, they went after him. ever since he said he was going to run for president. they need to stop. host: let's go now to judy in decatur, illinois.

you are supporting releasing trump's taxes. caller: yes. i would like to make one point. did donald trump say that he could not release his taxes because he was being audited? there is a life he tells. he was never audited and he lives, and allies, and lies. host: host: our next call her -- caller opposing the release. caller: the morning. thank you for taking my call. host: yes, go ahead. caller: it is a checks and balances. a ways and means committee. although i generally vote republican, and i support the president's seat, no matter what

they are doing, the office should always be respected. i do not like to hear our current president, president biden. i do not like former president trump to just be called trump or pence. it is a form of disrespect. i also agree that if we are going to publicly publish everybody's taxes, let's do everybody's, not just the presidents. i really like hearing from the ways and means committee that they were not "doing a witchhunt ". i like the accountability going on. i oppose that it has to be published. but the gentleman from massachusetts, they are not malicious. they are not maligning. i voted for president trump. they are not doing that.

it is just proving that our system is not up to par and if the republicans can get on board, they are not doing this across the aisle. they are sitting side-by-side i have seen on pbs and other things. yes, the lower class of income people, such as i, because of being a disabled nurse, we care that the other side wants to say that. no, it is bringing the u.s. together. i will say there is an exception to the role because there are certain cases and certain names on that committee that look like they are going after somebody. that is not what i see today on c-span and i really, really truly appreciate it as being a person of accountability.

a representative at one time at 17 is an ambassador to another country. host: alright, we appreciate your call this morning. we are going to have to go to the next caller. this is robert in fairfield, california. tell us why you are in favor of releasing trump's taxes? caller: i pay my taxes every year. wise and he not pay his for the last six years -- why did he not pay his for the last six years? he says he has been audited. he is a billionaire and he could not pay his own taxes? the committee is doing their job. he thinks he is above the law of everybody else. they should release them, you know? host: all right.

i appreciate your call this morning. let's now go to tulsa, oklahoma with kane to tell us what are your thoughts? caller: i obviously oppose the kangaroo court that we have. and all of the publicity to keep people talking about something to divert attention from the criminality that is going on in our government. the irs is essentially -- went after conservatives. the fbi goes after conservatives and sway the election from the standpoint of censoring the hunter biden crime family story. c-span's is continuing the propaganda today by attacking donald trump with all made up,

one-sided, democrat arguments. we are all in a deep-freeze right now in the u.s., yet the democrats are promoting the global warming falsehood. we are talking about kangaroo court results as though it israel. -- is real. saying that donald trump did something wrong by not releasing his tax returns. host: marian in georgia. telus what your thoughts are this morning. caller: let me respond to the last caller. global warming means the weather becomes extreme. this cold weather we are having is extreme so that is what level warming is about. but going on to the other.

to me, republicans say they like transparency. when we have somebody who goes into a public office, we need to know the reasons that every year the irs makes it mandatory to look at presidents taxes, so that we have transparency and all know what is going on. that makes sense and is the way a good democracy should run. anybody who says we should not be looking at donald trump's taxes is more fascism, referring to what that other caller called it. that would be more fascism. please always -- i am all for transparency, especially from these politicians who reach out to other countries and do business dealings. definitely need to see their taxes. thank you very much.

host: again, we are talking about the release of donald trump's taxes which the house ways and means committee voted along party lines on last night. i want to bring up that on the ipod, on usa today.com, there is an overview of the action tak en by the ways and means committee. the request put out a couple reports last night but the full report has not yet been released. it says that democrats did not disclose a lot of details about what is exactly within trump's tax returns that they are releasing. there is overarching take away. trump did not pay so much in taxes. he had big deductions, big

credits, and big losses. but seldom a big tax bill. support over the years has enclosed -- has disclosed that donald trump has not had to pay taxes at all in some years because of reports from previous years. the success of our inquiry underscores the failure of trump and the irs to to hold him accountable by failing to initiate timely, thorough presidential audits, none of which have yet been completed. some claim tens of millions of dollars in losses of credit without the types of substantiation an ordinary taxpayer would likely provide. we want to hear from you about the release of trump's tax returns. our next caller is far east -- maurice from michigan. caller: good morning.

i am having a good time listening to all of the excuses by both sides for the misrepresentation that they all offer. host: what is your opinion on it? caller: i do not believe that anybody's taxes should be public knowledge. that is just another way for people to blackmail somebody. you can always make up a story and that is what you people allow. to hurt the reputation of anybody that does not lead to democrats toyed. host: and for an opposing viewpoint in support of releasing the tax returns, let's bring up richard in new york city. hello.

caller: hello. i am really glad they are releasing donald trump's tax returns as presidents going back 50 years have done. i think we should go much further because the people that we elect and to give power to run our country need to be held to a higher standard. their finances should be public. they also know exactly what is going on. if there is something bad going on, throw them in jail. that is pretty much it. host: back to someone who opposes releasing trump's tax returns. lyle in morgan hill, california. hello. caller: hello. host: what are your thoughts? caller: my thoughts are that people need to get off of trump's back. the democrats need to get off of his back and his family.

the democrats are righteous people that are out to neil trump. host: ok. we are bouncing back and forth this morning. evelyn in florida. givers were thoughts. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make it very simple. every president has released their taxes for however long. i do not understand why this is an issue. because it is something that has been done over and over again. i understand that people think that trump is being persecuted but the reality is when we have had a president over and over and over releases taxes, and then we have someone that does not want to do that, i am concerned about that. i am very much in favor of this.

i think it is becoming such a public issue mainly because he refused to produce his taxes like every other president. that is really all i have to say. thank you. host: molly in texas. oppose releasing trump taxes, why? caller: i do oppose because when president trump was running, and was not even elected yet, he told us that he took every deduction he could possibly take . he did not pull any punches there, he lets us know what he was all about.

if the voters are going to elect donald trump, and they do it without him releasing his taxes, then we have no right now to come back and say, ok, now you need to show us where taxes -- your taxes. we do not have a right to do that. host: you are watching washington journal. it has been a very busy news week. on monday, the january 6 committee approved the release of its final report which could be published today at any moment. we also had the immigration, title 42, which will be talking about later on today. we also had the world cup and lots of news today.

but the biggest news is that ukrainian president zelenskyy is scheduled to arrive in washington later this morning. he will meet at the white house with president biden and then he will go to the capital to address a joint meeting of congress. with president biden, president zelenskyy will also hold a joint press conference. you can watch the coverage on c-span. you can also monitor the joint meeting of congress on c-span again, with ukrainian president zelenskyy who is making his first trip -- his first foreign trip is here to washington. the are talking to you this morning about the release of donald trump's tax returns. former president donald trump's tax returns. the house ways and means committee voted on party lines

last night to release his tax returns. all democrats are in favor, all republicans opposed. our questions to you this morning are what do you think? if you support releasing donald trump's tax returns, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, call us at (202) 748-8001. i want to bring up the usa today article one more time. this is a different section. under the heading, "trump aids blast vote to release his taxes, linked by lame-duck democrats". it says donald trump has not calmed -- has not commented yet but his campaign member denounce this is purely political. stephen chang accused democrats

of green lighting an unprecedented leak, a move that is proof they are playing a political game and they are losing. "if they are so hell-bent on releasing donald trump's tax returns, which show he builds a very successful business and created numerous lucrative assets throughout his career, they should release the tax returns of nancy pelosi. saying he lobbied allegations that pelosi benefited from her --". saying, "if this can happen to donald trump, it can happen to all americans without cause". jane in plano, illinois. you support releasing the tax returns. why? caller: i very much support it. host: can you turn your tv down

just a little bit. caller: i definitely support it. i paid my taxes. i am 81 years old. i pay my taxes every year. as long as i get a w-2 form every year. you just fill out your tax return and pay it. what really gets to me is not only donald trump's but all of the billionaires and millionaires do not pay their fair share of taxes. the democrats did a good thing this year by increasing the irs man so they can get to more audits.

i wish republicans would get on board with that too. it seems like they do not want theirs looked at and that is why they do not want to vote for it. that is my only concern. thank you. host: thus go to gina in mississippi. you oppose it. tell us why? caller: yes, i oppose it. i oppose everything the democratic party and liberal media has done to this man since he walked into the elevator. it is an obvious lynching of the presidents of the u.s. everyday i watch this. i have been watching this tv show for years. ever since trump came down the escalator, the democrats, along with the liberal media -- 95% of

the liberal media, if you could wake up and use your tiny brains to see how they are doing this to this man, including c-span. it is a shame that c-span has allowed lies to come over the air about this man and you sit there and do nothing. i'm not talking about you because you are a very nice lady. but i have listened for eight years and it has become some kind of sick of session with the democratic party -- of session -- obsession with the democratic party that you are ignoring what they are doing to that man. you are still talking about donald trump. you believe that the democratic people will not be satisfied until that man is hanging on the

news in front of the white house. host: we are going to have to move on. i do want to note that c-span provides gavel-to-gavel coverage of congress and the white house. if it is being said at capitol hill, you will see it on c-span, including our website c-span.org . our next caller is david in west virginia. what are your comments this morning? caller: i support it. host: tell us why? caller: everybody else pays their taxes. host: ok, thank you very much. let us go to tom in orwell, ohio. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i would like to know how much of president trump's

corporations pays his employees in taxes that he has to provide in his income to make these people all be able to pay their taxes. this man has been persecuted since he has been elected. they did not think he had a chance to win anti-fuld everybody. -- and he fooled everybody. i think they ought to pull down the wall from texas to arizona and have a controlled alien invasion. with the invasion we have now, reminds me of how we came over here and took the land from the indians because it is getting to be ridiculous in this country. host: debbie in florida. good morning. caller: hello, good morning.

i definitely support it. it is astounding to me how people have been deemed by this conman to have to believe he is being persecuted when all he has been asked to do is what every other president has done. after they are elected, there is a regulation that there taxes be audited. he avoided that by appointing his yes-man into the irs. this is not persecution. this is him avoiding responsibility that every other president has undergone. on may 16 -- on may 11 of 2016, he tweeted that he would provide his taxes once his "audit" was finished. there was still audit so that was a lie. to all the callers who are

claiming that he is being persecuted, what does he have to hide because every other president has undergone this audit? since he did not undergo the audit, releasing his taxes is the right thing to do. host: our next caller opposes the release of trump's taxes. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? i am not opposing. i do not really care about trump's taxes. the thing about it is his followers are so delusional that i personally believe they would make an excuse for him if he rolled in here with vladimir putin's army. they would say our american army is doing something wrong. i do not understand how people can be so delusional about one

individual who has ran this particular program that he has run against the american people and the government. has a fascist takeover of our government. i think she cut me off? host: candy in tampa, florida. tell sure thoughts. caller: i think donald trump is not above the law. he is not the type of guy i would support. i think republicans are hiding things they do not want to be shown. that is why they are more or less trying to support him not showing his taxes. there is a lot of cricket stuff going on that they do not want to be shown so that is why they are voting to not show his thing because they are afraid they might be investigated too.

host: joe in signal mountain, tennessee. tell us why you oppose releasing donald trump's tax returns. caller: good morning and merry christmas. candidates and presidents are not legally required to release their tax reforms. they do it as a courtesy because the last 34 presidents have done it. was i am more concerned about is the 150 red flags of things president biden has done. what about mr. biden's son? he is under tax scrutiny but they are not doing this. just saying, let's be fair. have a great day. host: our next caller is james in missouri. you support releasing trump tax

returns. caller: undoubtedly. good morning. i look at like this. if he is going to cheat on his own taxes and try to scheme and do things for himself, if he had the power of the u.s., he would do the same thing and be in cahoots with different people like vladimir putin or kim jong-un or whoever. birds of a feather flock together. all of the corrupt people from different nations or what have not, he will be right in the mix. he would fail the country down the drain and keep right on moving. anybody who believes in donald trump's to get behind him and follow him to an island or something and stay there. host: here is a little bit more from the new york times about the reports that the house ways

and means last night. the full trust tax returns, six years worth, should be released in the coming days. the new york times wrote an article based on the report the committee put out last night. it says that in the first three years of president donald trump, he paid $1.1 million in federal income taxes before paying then as is income dwindle and losses once again. according to tax statements, the data, which includes details of his tax returns from 2015 through his full term in the white house, shows he began suffering with large business losses that had to find much of his business career and paid almost nothing in income tax. but his fortune changed in 2018 as he reported $24.3 million in adjusted gross income and paid

nearly $1 million in federal tax. mr. trump's tax returns show he was in the black the following year as well, reporting $4.4 million in income and paying $133,000 in tax. in 2020, as the country staggered under the coronavirus pandemic, his finances reverted course. mr. trump reported a loss of $4.8 million and zero income tax. the fresh details of his taxes emerged from two reports released late tuesday by the house ways and means committee which had raised a legal battle to obtain revenue from an of -- internal revenue court. do you support the release of donald trump's tax returns? (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, your number is (202) 748-8001.

our next caller opposes the release of the former taxes. roger in southbury, connecticut. caller: good morning. i find it interesting. number one, demand that called in and said there is no legal requirement for a president or candidate to produce tax records which is true. but i do not hear any mention about the fact that donald trump did not take a dive of salary as president. neither did any of his children. i think that the callers that call in, if there is a failure in this country, it is a failure to read. there is a book that talks about the money that joe biden took

from china, iran, the ukraine and russia. i think that the democrats are afraid to death that people are going to start reading and understand what is actually happening to this country. host: let's bring of smoothie text messages b -- bring up some of the text messages b have received. "by definition, all politicians call themselves public servants and receive privileges nonpublic servants do not receive. all public service -- servants should have to release tax receipts. everybody every year. if you want the privilege of the extra benefits, your life also becomes public".

william in connecticut writes, "i support the release of all politicians tax returns, equal under the law. look for insider trading and payment of 100% which of the fair to all americans". it is about time trump is made to do what past presidents have done voluntarily. if the u.s. presidency is the highest position in the land, which on its face is absurd, we the people have a right to see his taxes as other presidents have done. joe in fayetteville, north carolina. "trump's taxes are a big deal because we are talking about an individual who is possibly guilty of money fraud, insurrection, and lying to the u.s.".

it is not the trump family but the trump crime -- criminal syndicate. the final one for now is larry from caldwell, new jersey. "pay your fair share of taxes a patriotic act. every american must adhere to this. the former president obviously owes a few back taxes and has not released -- is not the least bit patriotic". we want to hear from you and take more of your call. our next call is trina from indianapolis, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i support trump turning his taxes over because this is a president who has filed for corporate bankruptcy six times. and we are not allowed to look at the taxes.

with all other past presidents, we were able to look at their tax returns. if the irs were to ask me for any tax information, i would have to turn it over so why would a president not turn over his information? is able to turn it over and deny, deny, deny. why put that show why would people see this? it is crazy that he would not have to turn over information and he has the right to be in charge of our finances for our country but has filed bankruptcy over and over again. is our country going to go bankrupt? we sit here and talk about what president biden is currently doing. he came into a life debt. host: nancy in rogers, texas. tell us why you oppose releasing his tax returns? caller: i feel like the tax

people at the irs are viewing his taxes and scrutinizing them. they should know if there was anything wrong or not wrong. why should the president have to see it? it is just not fair. if they want to look at his, they should look at all of congress. make it fair. host: let's go to facebook. this is bill. he writes, "if trump cheated on his tax returns, why hasn't the irs charged him with anything? if he avoided taxes, it is because there are loopholes in the law. if there was any wrongdoing, the irs would have leaked it rep -- it by now". another writes, "trump has been

under intense scrutiny for years. if there was something, we would have heard about it long ago. all smoke and mirrors. we should be monitoring the federal reserve and where the foreign aid money is actually going". our next caller is gary in pennsylvania. caller: good morning and merry christmas. host: merry christmas, go ahead. caller: i believe a hand is a hand. you can show your hand if you want but it is a hand. the man has lied so many times that of course you cannot believe his tax returns. i believe they are doing the right thing by exposing him and how he cheated on his taxes. he is a bad man and i appreciate your time. host: let us go now to kevin in

massachusetts. caller: good morning. i really do not think they should release anybody's tax returns. they should know that they have been audited and he paid his taxes or he did not. they're going to pursue this or pursue that. that is where other people say that he takes every deduction possible. how long would a tax lawyer or h&r block be in business if you had for a taxes done and they said we could have gotten you a couple more deductions but we believe in this cause or that cause? that is what tax attorneys do. if there is a problem with rich folks not paying their taxes, it is due to the laws and just shows how an adequate congress is with making laws responding to what the people really want. host: next, volcker in

minnesota. caller: good morning. i would like to know what is going on because there is so much talk. i would like to see it black and white, what really the matter is. this website says this and this website says that. i would like to check this personally. then i can have an opinion and invest emotions. what is going on is an awful lot of talk. i would definitely like to know what is going on. thanks. host: steve in ohio. go ahead. caller: hello c-span, good morning and good morning america .

i would call him president trump if he deserved any amount of respect but unfortunately he does not sigh will call him donald duck. he is ducking his taxes. like he has ruined every other institution in this country. he has gotten his tentacles into the irs now. obviously the guy is a grifter and a swindler. just hope and pray that you 30% of americans who support him wake up. host: that will do it for us. we are going to take a quick break is coming up, homeless committee member from texas, al green will discuss border policy and whether they will be able to fund the government before friday's deadline. later, we will talk about the recent surge of my friends and

title 42 border restrictions on hold right now. this conversation with david bier, associate director of immigration studies at the cato institute. now, here is a clip of senator patrick lakey, the president pro tem poor -- pro tempore a and the longest-serving member in the nation. senator lakey has retired after serving nearly five decades in congress. yesterday he gave a speech. [video clip] >> this is something i learned on the agriculture committee. i once overheard someone say that they were out driving in the middle of nowhere. i thought to myself that if you were one of the people that live there, you know always that

there is a somewhere. that is a bit of a brainstorm. for years, i have been traveling during recesses to try to understand the world better. traveling in building relationships with other leaders, to other countries with allies and adversaries alike. from that very first co-dell onward, i found that almost without fail, when senators of both parties traveled together, the partisan differences dull and they share perspective growth. you see a country and you see each other. you see the country through each other'sso we came up with a new, let us have that here at home in the united states. it would teach -- it would help senators understand the other states have a lot in common.

to make it clear that everywhere was somewhere. and nowhere was just a place on a map that you had not experienced yet. so, we explored those states together. we went to republican and democratic states to hear from the people there. but more importantly we got to know each other, we all became invested in each other's success legislative and personal. i fear those days might be gone. i pray, just temporarily. because if we do not start working together more, if we do not respect each other, the world's greatest gubernatorial body will sink into irrelevance and become our own version of the house of lords. now, mr. president, i am especially proud of the work i

have been able to do for vermont and for americans across the nation. our distinguished leader, senator schumer, has heard more about vermont than anyone from new york ever has. and i thank him, as a lifelong vermonter for listening. [end video clip] >> washington journal continues. host: with that and we have -- with that we have representative al green, a democrat -- a representative from texas and a member of the homeland security committee. guest: it is an honor to be with you and i trust that you will have happy holidays. host: same to you. you are just listening to our conversation about the ways and means committee voting to release former president trump's tax returns. do you agree with your fellow democrats that the tax returns,

all six years should be released to the public? guest: thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts on this. i think it is important for us to do so because our country is currently being tested. we are a country, according to john adams, of laws, not men. and our 26th president, theodore roosevelt, reminded us that no one is above or beneath the law. if we are truly a country of laws and not men and no one is above the law, then the returns have to be exposed. i think that the public has a right to know what is in the returns, and the public has a right to know that there president is not a crook. and i think doing this will give the public some understanding of what type of person we are dealing with.

after all we have to remember that president trump, when he was president, had many business deals going on. he was dealing with foreign countries, and there was a need to ascertain whether or not there might be a conflict of interest and to determine this we have a program that is mandatory for a president. a president has to be audited as well as the vice president, annually while in office. president trump was not in compliance and i think the cause of this not being in compliance we have to expose those turns. and i want the public to know that this is a time of great concern and i believe that we have an opportunity to demonstrate that we are moving in the right direction notwithstanding the behavior of

our former president. host: we want to get to your calls or comments. so you can start calling him now. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. and we will get to some of your calls in just a moment. first, representative green, you represent a district that includes parts of houston and you are a member of the homeland security committee and you have been on active -- you have been active on the issue of immigration. you pushed for the border restriction policy to come to an end, known as title 42. the supreme court has currently extended that restriction. what was your reaction to that ruling from the supreme court

chief justice? guest: the title 42 has been debated quite extensively, and it has gone before a court. a court issued an order bringing it to a conclusion. the supreme court has now put a stay on that. i support the law-enforcement enforcement side of this. when the court ruled that we could not continue it, i thought we should follow the law. i still think we should follow the law. the law allows us to do this in the case of a pandemic which was something that consumed the entire planet. but when the pandemic is over it does not allow for us to continue to use that law to bar people from our country. now, the pandemic, as the president has said is over. we have some residuals that we will have to deal with and i do

not see a need for us to ban people when the law says we cannot do it for this reason. i will also add that if we are truly a country of law then we should change the law. if we do not want people to come and follow the law that relates to asylum in this country, then change the law. if we believe that there are too many people coming for whatever reason, do what you can to have laws that reflect your views. i happen to believe that people fleeing a humanitarian crisis in syria fleeing to jointed and we are playing the jordanians money -- paying the jordanians money to receive them i think that is the right thing to do. i think people who are fleeing humanitarian crisises across the border and coming to this country, i think we ought to receive them. we have -- we are the country

that has a statue of liberty and we are asking for your poor, humble masses yearning to be free. why not let the people have the opportunity to prove that they are asylum-seekers? and if they are we will allow them to start the process. if not they will have to return to their home country or some other place. i think that is the appropriate way to follow the law and not to become a country of men who will use any law to have our will opposed upon others. host: host: what do you know about conditions about the border -- around the border now and you think the biden administration is doing enough to address the flow of migrants starting to inundate some of those border towns? guest: i was at the border a few weeks ago, and i was at el paso and then i went over to warez

and i met with the consulate. i was there for a specific reason. i had a constituent who was being barred from the country for 10 years because he was brought as a baby at the age of one and at the age of seven his mother took him to mexico so that he could properly register his adoption. his mother married a man who wanted to adopt a child. because they went back he is now barred from getting a visa. he went to mexico lawfully and he was denied. we are hoping to get them back. we should not allow a law to ban a person because someone took that person to mexico at age seven to register the person's birth. if not for that he would be back in the country with a visa.

with reference to persons at the border i believe that there is much more to it than we advertise or talk about. i met with the people at the consulate, i met with the entire staff and took a tour. but there is much more to this. we have people who are fleeing from harm's way, and the question ultimately will become are we going to honor the laws that we have produced and promoted, or are we going to simply disobey them because persons who are coming from south of the border should not be treated as persons that are to be respected and to have our laws apply to them. the unfortunate circumstance for us is the root cause dates back how we treated the people south of the border for many years. we treat our northern neighbors as business partners and southern border neighbors as

persons as part of a cheap labor force. we see them as workers and we have been invaded from their work for many -- we have benefited from their work for many years and we have had them come across the border and then go back home. once we passed laws that allow them -- that we have taken the jobs from them we developed a change of attitude. at some point we will have to adjust our attitudes because you cannot wall people out of the country and assume problems will stay on the others. we cannot use a berlin wall to protect -- to keep people away from the humanitarian assistant. we cannot use a berlin wall to keep them out and we know what happened to the berlin wall. i believe we should extend the hand of friendship to persons in times of need. after all people extended the hand of friendship to many

people that were my ancestors in a time of need when they were trying to find their ways to safety in another part of this country. it would be hypocritical of me to conclude that we would deny others what my ancestors received by way of help from persons in the north when they were trying to escape persecution in the south. what is happening in mexico is not the equivalent of slavery or south of the border. but it is a circumstance when people in harm's way are trying to get help from persons who, obviously, are in a position to provide assistance. we are the richest country of in the world and we expect others to take in refugees and sometimes you have to practice what you preach. host: we are taking your calls for u.s. representative al green. he is a democrat from texas.

the numbers are republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. let us go to bradley in northport, michigan. democratic line. what is your comment or question? caller: thank you for your work and you just mentioned my point about -- i got in contact with my two senators as well as my representative in this regard. at the border is just a fact. i wish they would call a summit of americas and call all countries and and address the root causes as to why people are fleeing. that would be more effective. also to end the talking points that every republican has about holding a wall. let them build but get an agreement about the dreamers and

other situations that will really correct and address the problem. and i hope that is carried on and i appreciate your work. guest: thank you. may i respond? host: share. guest: sir, i appreciate your commentary. i would add a couple of points because you caused me to reflect. the first point is this, we do have to have comprehensive immigration reform and it has to include securing the border. i do not mind talking about border security. i think this president has done a marvelous job trying to use the laws that we have to secure the border. but i also think we have to talk about the people who are in the country. we cannot ignore the fact that we have people who are living among us who are law-abiding who meet us no harm and are a benefit to the country and we

cannot ignore the fact that they are here and cause them to live in the shadows as were the case with my constituent living in the shadows, he did become a daca recipient and was one when he left the country and now he is barred from coming back because his mother took him to mexico when he was seven years old. these are the sides that people do not understand because they do not deal with it like i do. we do have to deal with comprehensive immigration roof -- reform. that might surprise people. and also let me just say i am not the president, but if i were, i would ask these governors who have decided that they are going to transport persons the other side of the country. i would say to them, i understand that you are a person acting on what you believe to be

goodwill, and i would say let us work together. we do have to move people throughout the country. you wanted to have this in assets available, but let us do this in an orderly fashion. let us let the cities know that they are coming and help those cities to develop infrastructure so they can help the people who are coming. i believe that sometimes you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. i think these governors are misbehaving in doing it the way they are doing and i am trying to be euphemistic, but i do think that we can say to them let us do it the right way. if you want to do it, just talk to the people in new york, and in chicago, washington, d.c., and let them help us to help these persons who are coming to the country. human beings, let us stop calling them illegals because

that is a pejorative that can cause them harm. so let us help these human beings have an opportunity to at least have safety and to help their children to have a safe environment so that they too can become productive parts of the world. i think that is a fair thing to ask. host: on the republican line is richard in durham, north carolina. go ahead. caller: yes. representative green, there is a lot more to this issue that we are talking about. what do you think personally about the way the haitians were treated at the border? guest: i was very disappointed. i have been disappointed about the way the haitians have been treated before we had them trying to get into the country at the border because with kubo

we had a process called wet but, dry foot -- wet foot, dry foot. if someone was able to put a dry foot on land that person could literally become a purslane on a path -- a person on a pathway to citizenship to get a job and be a productive part of society. that person had an advantage on the haitians who would traverse the same golf of exit and the same shark infested waters and get two feet on dry land and they would be returned to haiti. i did not believe that that was fair and i believe that people who should come from similar circumstances the same. all of these people were fleeing harm's way for different reasons and we ought to treat them the same. i feel similarly about the people at our border.

we cannot hold ourselves out to be the persons who would have a statue of liberty that begs people to come and well pump -- and welcome them and then develop this line of hypocrisy that would require them to be extricated upon coming here. host: from massachusetts. barbara on the democratic line. you are on. caller: good morning and i wish i had time to comment on everything that was discussed, but i am calling into congratulate the entire ways and means committee in the house under the extraordinary leadership of massachusetts congressman richard neal, who has brought this issue of president trump -- former president trump's tax returns to

a fantastic conclusion. i am a super progressive and i have no love for president trump, but i want the public to understand the basics of the situation and having listened span overnight and yet -- listens to c-span overnight and yesterday to understand that president nixon in 1973 is where this starts. he wrote a letter to the speaker of the house or majority leader and said it was somebody like wilbur males asking that his tax returns be reviewed. and then out of that the law was created that presidents and vice presidents would routinely have their tax returns -- host: barbara we appreciate the background, but i also wanted to focus on representative green. we have him here with us, do you have a question or comment

specifically for him? caller: ok, i appreciated what he said about how america has used migrant labor in the production of our food for years, and that it really is time for the country to come together and solve this issue. and that it would be good for washington journal to do backgrounds on the attempt at an agreement during the bush administration and just go in-depth until all of the issues that surround it because we need to solve the problem. i do not think the stunt of sending busloads of people to martha's vineyard or new york or whatever is a good idea in the short run. in the long run it just makes me personally as a citizen who is

distant from the situation realize that the people at the border have been suffering for years and we have to resolve this issue amicably. so, go into wet foot and dry foot and especially the issue about the asylum. i think that is what people do not understand. host: let us give representative green time to respond, specifically why it has been so difficult for congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform? guest: multiplicity of reasons. let us start with that there are people who legitimately i think believe that the wall is a solution. that having a wall to just keep people on the others out of

sight and out of mind, not my problem, they have this live and let live philosophy. i'm going to live my life and let you live yours. i do not find that to be a good philosophy. i have a live and help live philosophy. i will live my life and then do what i can to help you if you are in harm's way. we have people who believe the wall is a solution. and then we have people who genuinely believe that the persons coming end up being democrats and if they are democrat that will change the balance of power in the country such that democrats would be in charge forever. i do not agree with that assessment. i have found the persons who come to this country do not come looking generally speaking for jobs, they come looking for work. when you come looking for juror -- from work they create a job.

many of these persons have come here and started their own jobs where they have their own businesses and they are working well in those businesses and quite frankly many of them are as business minded as the typical business minded person is in this country and would like to be republicans. i do not agree with this assessment. be that as it may many of them believe that they will affiliate themselves with the wrong party. there are other reasons probably. some of them quite frankly i would prefer not to mention because it would not benefit the program. but there are some of the reasons. my point to you would be this, our reason has to be the law that we have produced. the law that says if you are seeking asylum, fleeing harm's way, these are my words and not the exact words, then we would

give you a chance to demonstrate that it is the case. if it is the case and we extend the hand of friendship. i think that has worked around the world and it can work and it should work in our country. the lady said she is progressive but i would say that i am a little bit different. i do not hold myself out as anything more as a liberated democrat a person who is understood -- who is not afraid to speak true power and the truth about power. that is something we are needed -- we needed, truth for power and about power. we need to talk about how the powerful are using the power that they have to avoid having the laws applied to them and putting other persons'neath the law. the example is what our former president did.

focusing on a wall while keeping people out while he was at the same time maintaining a status above the law with his tax returns and those people trying to get in were made beneath the law. everybody has to have a law apply equally in this country. as a liberated democrat, i choose to do things in an unconventional way. we mentioned bussing to another part of the country is a stunt but we can turn that into salvation for people who need help. if we can get those governors to work with us, give them the chance to say yes, we will cooperate and work together and we will work with the city's where the people are going and the federal government will do what it can to help build the infrastructure, that would be the reasonable way to approach this and give those persons an

opportunity to demonstrate that their hearts in the right -- are in the right place but it is a means which we can get a certain degree of salvation and sanity to people who need help. host: we are taking more of your calls for u.s. representative al green. our next caller is alan in florida on the independent line. go ahead. caller: hello and merry christmas and happy hanukkah. i have a few questions. why -- it is two years for the democrats to change the laws. you know would think it was done 10 years ago when you had control of everybody and you could get it done. and 2 million people are coming in a year. if we get rid of 42 it could go to 4 million a year. in two years that would've been eight.

in 10 years we would have 50 million people. when do we draw the line when we say enough is enough? plus my last question is if we are taking in all of these individuals mostly from south america should we stop giving financial aid to south america since we are taking their citizens? you have a great day. guest: well, allow me to extend seasons greetings to you as well and i think you have made some salient points. the whole notion of our having to withdraw funds because we are taking in their citizens. quite frankly they have not done enough to help those people stay at home. and if i think we can do more to help them stay at home by helping them to have jobs where they are. jobs that by the way do not play

-- pay slave wages and will allow them to have a decent standard of living. we tried to do it with some of the legislation that we passed. i would like to see us do this. but i would also say that the persons who are coming here, fleeing harm's way, are persons that do not always have the options that i would want them to have. and i believe that we do have to do something about this. so that we can give them the option of coming not necessarily for citizenship but for a job. coming to perform a service, and then go back home. comprehensive immigration reform could allow us to develop a law so that everybody who comes does not have to ask for a visa to be here for some prolonged period of time or forever as a citizen and they can go back home but we

have to have that kind of law. and not all of them coming over wants to stay forever. they want to escape harm's way and save their families. to your point which is legitimate criticism. democrats have had the house, senate, and presidency. it is not unreasonable for you, sir, or the public at large to expect us to do things that are necessary and need to be done. that is not unreasonable. here's a situation. we have these parties that it will take cooperation from across the aisle to get it done because the rules of the senate require that you get 60 persons to do something before you can have 51 people votes to pass that law that you want to have to pass. if you have to have 60 persons

and you only have 50, and that is what we have had. but, we have only had 50 persons and the vice president could make 51 if we had the opportunity to vote on the issue. we do need some degree of cooperation from our friends across the aisle, and some cooperation from a couple of our friends within the democratic party whom i have great respect for, all of them. but, i would say to you that i do not know that it would be the best thing to be quite candid with you. the best thing to pass this along party lines, but things that pass on party lines, the party that did not vote to pass it will fight you eternally to the end of the earth to return things to the status that they were before you passed the law. the best acceptable -- example

was the affordable care act. it was a great piece of legislation people respected, the republicans who did not were -- vote for it they have fought tooth and nail and they have many pieces of legislation to repeal but they have not replaced it and that is no disrespect to you, my friends who might be watching it. it is the truth. perhaps i can free up some minds today. it is not a good thing to pass legislation, things that will have long-term implications along party lines. i would do it if i had to but i would prefer to have some friends across the aisle so we would not have the eternal battle to dismantle the program that is of great benefit. the example being the affordable care act. host: anthony in green town,

pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning, congressman. good morning, c-span. i have a comment and some questions. the comment is that trumped arrangement syndrome is alive and well on c-span and i think that all congressman should not take a salary for four years just like prompted to get a feel for the -- just like prompted -- trump did. the laws on the books say that anyone seeking asylum has to come to a point of entry to be granted that request, that is the law as far as i know. the second question is what percentage of the people who come into this country go over their asylum cases in front of a judge and what percentage of those cases that are denied actually get put back to their home country? i have never heard of any

statistics on this and i would like you to answer those questions. guest: thank you. and sir, if you would leave your phone number with the folks at c-span i would not ask you to give it out over the air. i would research this and give you an answer. i do not have that statistical information available to me immediately, but i would be more than happy to give you the best answer available. i have the congressional resources to do this and would be honored to do so. please if you could call back and leave your number, i will get it and we will give you an answer. you deserve an answer to your question. in general, let me share this with you. i do not know the number but i know this. i know that if we had a process in place with the resources in place to address these issues immediately we would not find ourselves having you ask this

type of question. we have not had the resources necessary to address asylum-seekers so we can get immediate responses. we deserve it in this country and they deserve it who are trying to get into the country. answers should be made readily available. it is a legitimate question and i will give you the best questions -- the best answers available if you will need your numbers. in reference to the other question i do not want to give the appearance i am trying to avoid a question. the question that had to do with the law requiring people to go to a point of entry to present themselves. i think that they should go to a point of entry, but i also have been to points of entry, and i can tell you what it is like at a point of entry from personal experience and observing.

if we tried that without the points of entry being somehow expanded, we would find ourselves with points of entry being totally blocked, so commercial traffic could not get through, and without the help that we need, i am not sure what would happen to those points of entry. i do not think the law requires points of entry to be a place that is designated as a map as this is your point of entry for the purpose. as i read it, a place where you can find someone to present yourself to such that you can make your claim of asylum. and if you tried a person along the border who is amenable to hearing your claim as they should be then you get presented to that person and i would think that would be super for the law,

that i stand to be challenged and i would respect your opinions on it. thank you for that question. host: the last caller of the segment is susan in connecticut on the democratic line. you are on. caller: hello, i am honored to speak with you. you are one of the phases that i know -- faces that i know in congress. americans like myself need to know more of why there is a humanitarian problem and why there is a humanitarian crisis in these other countries. i feel very ignorant of it. and if we do know -- if we do know it will be more empathetic. it is not your job to teach us. but i do not know where to look. i ride the disabled transit and the driver who is puerto rican

could spout out the dates and what happened in each country. a lot of it has to do with our atrocious foreign policy down there. like venezuela i kind of do no what we wanted to accomplish so what i saw a lady on the news in el paso when she was crying and holding a sick baby i felt very empathetic. but representative, how do we find out because i do not think we can be empathetic if we do not know the history. host: quickly, final thoughts on that comment. guest: thank you. i will be terse as possible. ma'am, i think that generally speaking we will find at the root of this for wages, poor jobs, not enough income for a person to have a decent life. and also the lack of that

causing persons to get into activities to make sums of money that they cannot make working and i do not justify crime. so i have to be careful how i state this. i think criminals ought to be prosecuted and we do not allow criminality to exist the extent that we can. i think you will find that we have contributed to these low wages and to the fact that these persons find themselves living lifestyles totally unacceptable to. but we see them as a labor source that is beneficial to us. and that, unfortunately, has been a sad story that i regret to have to integrate -- iterate. thank you very much for allowing me to be on with you this morning. i trust that you will have a pleasant, safe and prosperous new year.

i wish you the best and i pray that we will see others who are less fortunate as persons that we can extend the hand of friendship to. we are blessed so that we might be a blessing to others. thank you. host: thank you for joining us. this is texas democrat congressman al green, again we appreciate your time. we will take a quick break and up next we will talk about conditions at the border a little bit more including the recent surge of migrants. the title 42 border restrictions being on hold and the lack of immigration reform at the congressional level with david bier, associate director of immigration studies at the cato institute after the break. ♪

>> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the span brings you after words, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed on their latest books. this week, chris milletraces the history of microchip technology and helps speak on the most critical resource globally on "chip wars." watch it every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> live sujanuary 1 on in-depth, author and pulitzer prize winning journalist will be our guest to talk about political revolution, and incarceration in america. his books include "america: the

farewell tour," and "the greatest evil is war." joinonversation with texts depth with chris hedges live sunday january 1 at noon eastern on c-span2. the new 118th congress continues tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern. for the first time in two year lawyers -- in two years they will return as a divided government. republicans control the house and the democrats the senate. the newer members are younger. the new congress will also be more diverse with a record number of women serving including more women of color. follow the process as they gavel

into section -- into session and they state the oath of office. new congress, new leaders, watch the opening day tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern live on c-span and c-span2 and c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are here with david bier, he is the associate director of immigration studies at the cato institute, good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will talk about immigration. on monday the chief justice of the supreme court moved to halt the end of title 42 restrictions at the southern border which were to expire today.

so, can you tell me what that decision means? when and how will the southern border open or what happens next. guest: title 42, the most important thing to understand about title 42, it is not an immigration policy. it is part of the public health code of the united states. and what that says is the centers for disease control can issue an order that blocks the entry of persons or things carrying potentially contagious diseases. so it is not about immigrants, per se. of course the government is only applying it to noncitizen entering without advance authorization to travel, but in theory, this law can be applied to u.s. citizens, it can be applied to anyone trying to enter the united states legally

or otherwise. and so the public health nature of this law is at the center of this debate and this controversy because what the cdc and trump administration and biden administration have said is that they can use this to waive any other laws to block the entry of people with supposedly contagious diseases. as a practical matter what is actually happening at the border with title 42 is that they are not blocking the introduction or entry of people they are expelling people who were already on u.s. soil and in the united states and sending them back to mexico or to their home countries and denying them the chance to adjust their status to a legal status like asylum and refugee. and so, in terms of what the supreme court decision means, it just means that at least for now

the order will be extended for at least a few more days while they consider the issue. host: that decision came at the request of state officials and several republican -- republican state officials in several states who have been trying to keep it in place. what are the states involved and why are they involved, and what is their argument for keeping the policy? guest: this is a group led by the state of texas and the main argument about immigration and it is whether or not we will have more immigrants coming into the country and whether that will impose harms or cost on those states. it is really not a question of public health. and that should be what this law is about. it is supposedly about the public health necessity which from the very beginning has always been a farce. there was never any public health rationale. the centers for disease control

was forced to issue this order by the trump white house. if you look at it as a practical matter about preventing contagious diseases from spreading, title 42 requires these people brought into u.s. custody and transported and we are flying immigrants from one part of the united states to another. so the whole public health rationale for the order makes no sense, but the states are arguing that it must be held and continued because the biden administration did not follow a thorough enough process for resending the order. host: we are talking with david bier of the cato institute on immigration policy. we want to hear your questions or comments on title 42. so start calling in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. we will get some of your calls in a moment. we have been hearing a lot about the influx of migrants going on even with title 42 in place and a lot of border towns in the state of texas they are concerned that if title 42 is lifted then it will get worse. can you talk about why this influx and where the migrants coming from, why has it increased so much in recent months? particularly after president biden took office. guest: title 42 in theory should apply to anyone who crosses the border. but there are practical limitations on the ability of the government to actually enforce title 42 against every person who crosses the border. mexico only take certain people back. on the whole over the course of the biden and trump

administrations when this has been in effect it has mainly focused on mexico and the northern triangle countries of south america. those nationals who cross the border are very likely to be returned to mexico or their home country. other nationalities, very unlikely to be sent back to mexico or their home countries and that is because mexico has a policy against accepting them, those countries such as cuba, venezuela and nick are while grub -- nica -- nicaragua or there is a limit on a limit on the number of flights. there are only so many flights that you can fly per month. that is maybe three or four per day so there are not enough lights to fly all of the people who cross the border back home. the biden administration made a

decision that we will use title 42 primarily against these four nationalities in conjunction with mexico and target in particular single adults who are crossing the border trying to evade detection, and those nationalities and those individuals are the most likely ones that want to be returned to mexico. the other ones are getting process for asylum already which makes the argument that it is going to greatly increase the number of asylum-seekers a little bit shaky because we already have a regime in which they are eligible to apply. in fact, many asylum-seekers recently told the associated press that they believed that this deadline on december 21 was about ending asylum not about opening asylum because they knew that people were already getting asylum. so any change in u.s. policy creates confusion south of the border.

and that is part of what we are seeing. people getting here and saying we need to get in ahead of the deadline. so we better get here because we know that asylum is being processed for these countries. host: that is interesting. i want to open up my phone lines. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. and, if you live in a border state there is a special line just for you. 202-748-8003 for those border state residents. let us go to some calls right now. this is irene in houston, texas. again in the border state but you are also a republican. what is your question or comments? caller: yes. good morning. i got through just fine. i want -- i am confused.

this is complicated, i guess. what are the current laws enacted by congress regarding immigration? what is it -- why is the executive branch, i.e. biden and his handlers, by the way not elected, doing against the invasion of immigrants at the border. if this is about congress and immigration laws i am sure it is pages of it. anyway. can you please give some answers. thank you. i will listen. guest: excellent question. to make it quite simple for you, someone in these countries who are trying to immigrate legally to the united states has four office -- four options. the family-based immigration

system which involves a close u.s. citizen real -- relative to sponsor you for a green card or an immigrant visa. this is a limited process and basically if you do not have that relative you have no chance that even if you have a relative you might have a wait time measured in lifetimes rather than months. so the second option is the diversity visa lottery program which we have 10 to 20 million applicants for a 55,000 slots. again this is like winning the lottery, not really a viable option for people. and all the countries that are the most common senders of immigrants, mexico, guatemala, these countries are ineligible for the diversity visa lottery underway so they would not be eligible for that program. you have the refugee program which the indicted states allows less than .01% of displaced

people around the world to enter through that program and we allow almost none from the western hemisphere where most illegal immigration comes from. the final option is employer sponsorship and this pathway is the most narrow and most restricted of all of the pathways. it requires a very high wage job offer, it is limited almost entirely to people with bachelors degrees or above and almost all of them have wage offers at a $100,000 level or more. and even those people still have to win a lottery through the h1v visa lottery because there are so many applicants and few slots. so there is only a 25% chance of winning that. so for people at the lower skill end of the spectrum there is no year-round guestworker program or visa that would allow them to get an employer sponsorship. so what we end up with is how do

people from the perspective of the immigrants coming to the border, what do they think is a way to immigrate? they think the way to immigrate is to come to the u.s. border and request asylum. the u.s. laws say that anyone who crosses the border whether illegally or legally might request asylum in this country. and those are the laws and title 42 is supposed to supersede the laws and eliminate that right. it is kind of the final nail in the restricted coffin of the legal immigration system, the final we will not let you immigrate to this country. obviously that is not always happening and it is not always being applied. some countries are being processed for asylum but that is the law and the nature of the law that congress has passed. we created a system where people believe the way to immigrate to the united states is to come to

the u.s. border and why do they believe that? because everyone they know who has emigrated has done it that way -- immigrated has done it that way. we have an illegal immigration problem because we have a legal system that is broken, flawed, restrictive and prevents people from coming legally. even if they come to the border and try to come in through the legal pathways where travelers and we allow them millions of people to travel back and forth, u.s. citizens and other people traveling from mexico they are blocked and not allowed to apply for asylum at those points of entry. and that is what is causing the problem at the border. host: the next caller is greg in texas. he is again a border state but on the democratic side. what is your question or comments? caller: well, good morning. good morning.

host: good morning. you are on. caller: my comment is that this is what i want to talk about. this is a big old paw for the republicans. if the republicans want to control the border, this is an excuse for them to say the democrats are letting these people common illegally. there is nothing truthful about what these republicans are saying. paying these people, but these have nothing to support the system because they do not -- they do not want to work with the president about the border. let me tell you what is going on. these people taking jobs from us and putting us out of jobs, i am not mad at him. they will start their own businesses and companies and then they get mad. i have worked in construction they will walk up and they will put you out of a job. this is what these people are doing, they are making -- they

are bull dogging the whole community. i am not mad at them. they are building and buying and they are taking care of themselves. the only people talking about the illegals voting republican, because -- so let them. but the democrats are fighting for these illegals to get there and then they go against everything that is for the working class. the women and children in school are on food stamps and in the system and then they are running the construction. they are not married to each other but they are living to each other and the other one has a construction company and they cannot stand to see a white come -- a white person walk up there. host: let us let david respond. guest: the most important thing to understand about immigrants crossing the border to request asylum is that until they actually receive asylum they are not eligible for public benefits.

and it is a long process that they have to go through to earn the right to work in this country legally. of course many of them find jobs and end up working in the black markets. that is the only way they have to support themselves so it is not surprising that is the system that is happening. unfortunately we have a system where we do not have the right to work once people come or a legal immigration process where in employer can sponsor them. that is the right way to do it and that is the way to fix the system. a lot of the problems you are talking about would go away with a legal immigration system that worked and had a functioning process for people to work legally in the united states. host: let us hear from benton in colorado on the independent line. caller: hello and thank you for

taking my call. host: of course. caller: so my question is are cooperation with canada in this process. the reason i bring up canada is that i see the problem as an american or western hemisphere problem. and the reason we absorb most of this problem is because our southern border touches on mexico and it is the easiest border to reach and those countries are poor in the caribbean, south america, and central america. we are at a great geographical advantage and canada is at a great advantage since they have us as a so, we have taken on a complete responsibility of handling this problem. i would propose, and i know it

sounds very radical and unusual, but i would like to hear your response to it. a court order provided by the united states be because -- that goes up to canada and provide safe passage to immigrants. trying to get asylum or otherwise. put them at the border of canada and have canada help us manage this problem. has anything been proposed like that, and what would be the issues that it would face should such a proposal be made? i will go off-line. guest: canada might have issues, but there is nothing in the law that would prevent them from offering the ability to go up to the canadian border and request asylum. many immigrants under the trump administration and even under the biden administration have follow that path. they have gone to canada to receive -- request asylum, and that allows a greater love of

legal immigration in humanitarian and otherwise as a percentage of its population. canada is a smaller country than the united states. we are 10 times the size of canada. even if you think about it proportionally, canada would end up with a similar share of the number of hemispheric refugees that we have in this country. i don't think that it would end up battering if it was done on a proportional basis. just because canada except so many refugees and migrants already. basically double the rate united states is doing less than a share proportional to its population. host: we are talking with david from the cato institute. your questions and comments on title 42 border restrictions,

other immigration policies, and republicans can call us at the number on your screen. democrats, numbering your screen, and independents, number on your screen. if you live in a border state, you can called the number on your screen. our next caller is from the border state of texas and red oak. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling in reference to an issue with the border states and immigration, and frankly speaking, the folks here in the border states are getting a bad deal in terms of what is impacting the individuals living here. in texas, the class sizes are increasing at a high rate and

again, it is not the fault of the folks that are trying to come here for opportunities. but the impact and the rate of speed that is happening, the states are not able to sustain these individuals, and this is having an impact on everybody, including the children of these people coming in from the border states. they are now in the school system. so, i think the frustration is that the government, the local governments to not have the resources to facilitate, and if you think about this, it has been happening for 20 years. now, these people who are here, who are legal, are having families, and they are legal citizens, and they are receiving resources that they should receive, but the population is at a level that is going so fast that the local cities and states

are not able to sustain it, that is why you see frustration with people saying that they do not want these folks coming into the border states because it is having a severe impact on local resources here in the states of texas. that is what i have to say. guest: a couple of points. look at the country at large. we have a population growth that is as slow as it has been in the united states history. the idea that we don't need people, yes. the there is a way to do it. we have to make sure that localities have resources to absorb people. but we absolutely need people. social security estimates that in order to maintain the same level of social security benefits from 50 years from now that we have now, we will need 70 million more workers than they are projecting we will have at that time. there is a massive deficit in our population growth.

our workforce. we have 10 million open jobs in this country. there is a need for workers read we just need to make sure as you said, that there are resources that we are following with the students so the students can ultimately make sure that location as resources to educate that person and bring them through to graduation where they can become more productive and contributing to the united states. host: i have on my ipad the el paso times. were talking about the border being inundated. the mayor has declared a state of emergency response to growing migrants as the headline. the el paso mayor declared a state of emergency as a result of the migrant crisis which is left a crisis. they have long issued a state of

emergency declaration. they said the move would allow the state to have a much needed additional resource. it will only become more necessary with the december 21 title 42. i know you don't necesrily agree, but what is your reaction en you hear from mayors like marilee who says that whether it is before after the title, if there are cities being inundated in ways that are staffing resources. what is the solution. we saw that in 2019 under the trump administration. border mayors were issuing declarations. it is a consequence of our broken immigration system. the way in which people are crossing the border. the border patrol takes them into the custody, and then releases them onto streets. there was nowhere to go, no transportation no bus tickets, nothing. that is the problem. that is what is creating people sleeping on the streets. that is what is creating this

influx in homeless shelters. most of these people have places to go. they have someone living in the united states you can help them up. the problem with our border management system is that when people are coming over, they are not coming over on a bus. it is not taking them from the border to where they want to go, that is where we saw texas come in and say we are going to bus people. that was a good thing from the perspective of migrants. they need more buses. anymore transportation. many of them are going to fly to new york or chicago or d.c. or elsewhere. so, there is a problem here. i don't dispute their people living on the street as a result of our poor border management. what i dispute is that there is a consequence, a natural phenomenon. it is something of a consequence of how we are administering these policies. let's take another caller in

lake city tennessee on the republican line. you are on. >> is america's fault that the answer we get from anybody that we have to stand up for america. we didn't have this problem when president trump was in office. now, since biden has been there, he said during the campaign, he told them to calm, because he is following the orders of the nonpoint donor to the democrat party, george soros,. he has given aliens, $70 billion and what's more for ukraine to protect their border. they have a hundred 50,000 soldiers from russia come into their country. we've had 5 million come into our country. and that's fine with him. he doesn't care. he told our governor tennessee, he said -- sent to busloads. he has flown kids in the middle of the night into canada.

host: where you getting this information from? caller: i watch the news. i don't watch msnbc, where you've been. i watch the news. i hope that our governor will do the same thing that they did in georgia when they dropped a busload of people in the middle of nowhere, so the sheriff was called, he told the bus driver to get back on the bus. he told those people they can walk to chattanooga. they were 70 miles from chattanooga. but this is all on purpose. biden has done this on purpose. now he wants to take down title 42, with 15,000 a day into america. we need to stand up for america. he is sending money to georgian -- jordan and egypt company will track our borders. i don't understand what you do understand that we have a right to decide who comes into our

country. we have a right to have our border. we are a sovereign country. host: let's let david respond. guest: i thing we do have a right to decide. we should exercise that right by allowing people to come to this country legally. i've already went through the need. we have several million jobs open. we have a deficit of 70 million workers that we need to maintain social security in the united states. there is a tremendous need for people. our population growth is at the lowest level has ever been in the history of united states. we have a need people. we just need to create a system, a process, for legal immigration so people can come to this country the way our forefathers did almost all of her ancestors did. our ancestors showed up at ellis island. they didn't have a visa or advance permission. they didn't check in with anybody. data showed up on the boat to say please.

give me asylum in this country. we did. we did that for millions of people. before the 1924 immigration act. it close the borders of the united states. we should go back to that system. we need people now or than we've ever needed them. the problem we see at the border, the issues that are coming up, they are not a consequence of one administration or the other. these are long-standing problems. the number of people has gone up. i don't disagree with that. the question is how we deal with that and what the responses. the response should be let them come legally. find a process. create a way. contribute the right way in accordance with the rule of law. host: let's hear from jan on the democratic line in silver spring maryland. caller: hello.

can you hear me? host: yes. caller: good morning. my question is the supreme court justice that did stay on this for a couple of days, did he do it at his own discretion? how unusual is it for them to act upon something that exists like in an emergency situation, and i understand it is only going to be for four or six days. what would that make as a difference for this problem? the way that you have explained it is about immigration laws. americans don't understand it. it is very complicated. people keep saying that with trump, it. . no. it is pressure. it is there. listening to you, your speaker, these need to be done. we need laws.

we need help. but i do not want the character of this country to change, with another culture, because it's being overtaken like it is. why is that? thank you. have a good day. guest: just on the last point, about culture, the united states as a percentage of its population of about 15%. this is half of the level in australia. this is far below the level in canada where it is over 20%. were talking about a difference of tens of millions of people. between that, we would have a similar level for other developed countries around the world. many countries in europe, like the united states, we do not rank highly among wealthy countries for its percentage of foreign-born. in fact, brinks and the bottom

third. there is a capacity in this country to accept more immigrants. we should be doing so legally. we should have a process as you say. the culture is resilient. it is resilient because it is so successful. it is the most successful in the world. it is spread around the world. it is more influential than any culture that has ever existed. it is for that reason that people assimilate to it. so, i am not worried about the culture of the united states. we will have a persistent american exceptionalism well into the 22nd century. host: let's go to arizona. this is kristin in phoenix who is a republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say a few things. first, i totally and

emphatically disagree that we need to have all of the aliens in the entire world come to united states to help us with population or help us with our workforce. it is a mathematical fact, and really, an economic fact that the more workers you have, the more the wages go. even the center for immigration studies have a study on the website. for the people who don't know about joe biden, the original plan on immigration, you can go to his website and it lays out several bullet points. even a deal specifically to rattle off some of these immediately reversible cruel and policies that we hear from the border. in trump's detrimental asylum policy, in the mismanagement of the asylum system, the surge of

humanitarian resources in prolonged detention, they reversed the charges in the so-called national emergency. it goes on and on. joe biden is 100% responsible for this. i blame the self-righteous so-called republicans that allow joe biden to have his 2020 electors to confirm. that is why blame. they are running around crying wolf about title 42. the reality is, every president that you elect going forward place into the white house in article two, in the executive branch. they have a broad discretion. if they want to open the border, they can open the border. that is his authority under article two. the supreme court is going to try and slow it down as much as they can, but the reality is that the president of the united

states has a broad discretion. we went over this. in the trump case at the beginning of trump presidency. thank you. host: can you address two things. how much can they unilaterally do this when it comes immigration policy, and how much has president biden done in his two years in office that changes what immigration policy is in place when trump left office? guest: on the first point, the bind administration has done a lot on immigration. they have reversed a lot of the trump administration's policy, but the most important policy of the border's title 42. that is been maintained, they tried everything they can. they invested an enormous amount of money, billions of dollars, and trying to make title 42 an effective deterrent on people crossing the border. they filled up. there are not enough room to send them back across the country.

to expel them somewhere else. every single day, there is explosion to countries around the world. they are trying to return as many people as i can. they can't keep up with the flow. many of the people are still being released into the united states. but it is not a lack of trying. in terms of how much there should charging or changing, they can change a lot. ukrainians are coming to the border to request asylum. the bind administration waves his hand and says we'll let those people in. in one month, they let 20,000 ukrainians cross the border at the same time. they were blocking people from everywhere else in the world. then, they created a program where they can fly ukrainians hundreds -- more than a hundred 20,000 authorized to travel and fly directly from poland or wherever else they are to the united states directly. they don't have to come to the border anymore. that shows that we can change

the system through executive action. we can make it possible for people to immigrate legally. no one understands that is happening because the ukrainians are coming in and being sponsored by u.s. residents. it is working perfectly. it is a beautiful system that goes under the radar because we don't have the disorder and chaos and illegality of the border. i do want to address with the caller mentioned as rate -- as wages. the mathematical certainty that if you increase the number of workers, you will end up with lower wages that is not the case. you are ignoring the demand side of the equation. you increase the supply of workers, but those workers often create things of value. they have wages. they buy goods and services, and that creates jobs for u.s. workers elsewhere in the economy. in many cases, those jobs are better paying jobs because these workers are coming in at the lower end.

they create jobs as managers or at a restaurant, they work to the back of a restaurant, like immigrants or as managers as hostesses and bartenders, and for the english-speaking residents. host: on the independent line in waldorf maryland, robert. what is your question or comment this morning? caller: merry christmas, americans. i'd like to point something out to your guest. in this country, under president biden, he took a note to help protect the united states against invasions. this is an invasion. it is facilitated by mexico. when 50,000 russian troops crossed the border in ukraine, we went to war there. the ukrainians shot them and start to kill them. they have done everything in their power to reject them from their country. but in this country, we call it

illegal immigration. but it is an invasion being facilitated by mexico. how you could call it anything other than that, it is beyond me. guest: this is some seriously dangerous rhetoric you are playing with your. you are talking about shooting people who are just trying to seek safety in this country. someone who crosses the border illegally, who is trying to seek safety in a country, who is trying to come to this country according to the united states law and the u.s. immigration law, they are entitled to request asylum in this country. that is not an invasion. that is someone who is trying to get into the process of illegal immigration in this country. someone who is trying to take over the u.s. government, someone who's trying to take over the capital, someone who is trying to overturn the government, that would be an invasion. that is not what is happening here. encouraging people or making comparisons to soldiers trying to take over ukraine, that is

dangerous and it is incorrect. you need to understand the english language should not be abused in this manner because it does have consequences, and we have seen people carry out mass shootings in texas who are just like that, who saved there is an invasion would immigrants enter this country. that is not true. it is incorrect. they want to contribute to this country. they want to contribute to the united states of america. >> with a text message we just received, i've been hearing about comprehensive immigration reform. nothing gets done because it becomes all or nothing. why can't we pass things we agree on instead of folding everything -- holding everything for ransom. that is from tony in florida. guest: this is where both sides need to come together. we are so far apart in our principles, and we think the

goals of the immigration policy should be, but we saw comprehensive reform come up in the early 2000. the bush administration was really on the side of having a system that works. a country that make sure we don't have jobs that go open and expand our economic growth. that is not where most republicans are now. they are opposed to expansion in illegal immigration. they want to restrict the number of green cards and restrict the number of people coming in legally and illegally. there is not a rule that was once with commonality between everyone clamping down on the border and reducing illegal immigration. you want to create a new process for illegal immigration. that is the deal that brought people together. it's in the early 2000 and and 2013 were marco rubio in the senate lead that effort. we are quite a deal of distance between the parties right now.

i am not optimistic that we will see a comprehensive integration that we need in this country. host: thank you for joining us. again, david, the associate director of immigration at the cato institute it were going to take a quick break, and when we come back, it is open for them. colin now with any public policy on your mind. republicans, the number is 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-8000. independence, your line is 202 747-8000 two. we'll be right back to get to your calls. ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are open for them. your chance to weigh in on any

public policy or political topic on your mind. republicans, your number is 202748 8001. democrats call a set to a 274 eight 8000, and independent style 202 748 8002. we are ready to take your calls right now. first is joan in rochester minnesota. calling on a democratic line. good morning. >> can morning. my comment is, except for native americans, everyone in here is a descendant of an immigrant. they wouldn't call the people who were with their families years and years ago an immigrant. they call the immigrants now that come to this country. i think one of the things we don't say is instead of people coming here, why are we not

using some of that money to help them restore their own country. so they have something to be proud of and to some place to call home. i'm sure there are very many different ideas that have never been put forth to people. i just think that condemning people who are in need, and need our help, that is the wrong way to go about it. i think we should have, with all of the smarts and money to this country has, we should be able to come up with some solution that helps all of those people. thank you. host: next is chris in oregon on the republican line. what is sure comment. caller: i find it interesting listening to the last fellow say that we need 10 million people in the next so long, just to get

social security afloat. maybe it's time americans take their medicine. stop spending. that seems to me like we are hurting immigrants and giving them a broken country. secondly, letting so many people in from all different places, i notice we are the flight -- where the fly for they came from, they don't want to assimilate. they will end up leaving. the policies of the democrats don't seem to be appropriate. thank you. host: let's hear from brian calling from michigan. caller: thank you. you were -- pronounce it right. i've been over 30 years or 40 years, and i'm sorry. but anyways. i'm glad you had a cast on, but he was swaying the conversation.

the reality is that i am a kid of the 60's. i highly respected. i knew what he was going for. my father explained to me properly when i would even respect. here's the deal. in the country, there hundred 50 million of us. we didn't have much data. the number one minority, i believe they were at 6%. a latino south of the borders only about one and a half percent. the blacks were considered the number one minority, and we wanted to elevate that. now, we flip-flop over the last 40 to 50 years. you'd -- latinos of the number one minority. now they are second. that's not good. that's not how we should have help them through things for hundreds of years or whatever it we try to fix that stuff so weak can help them.

we are 30 chilean dollars in debt, and means we are failing. we are not telling southern mexico, do not come. applying your own country. these are the type of things we need to do. we keep playing with it, and as far as the workers go, this is a supply and demand thing. we are being disingenuous we say he needs 10 million workers. he's going to have to provide more information than that. i've been in business a long time. it is up to me to pay more or even be in a better business or people actually want to work. all of those things. we keep hearing about that, and those are falsehoods. these are smart people down below mexico. they need to fix their own countries. that is what they need to do. we have been trying to help for decades.

i've spent months in haiti with the navy, trying to help. we try to help. they have to help themselves, and that is not harsh. that is just life. life is not perfect. we cannot fix everyone's problems. we are 30 chilean and we can't fix our own problems in debt. thank you. host: let's go to the democratic line where dorothy is calling from pennsylvania. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. if the truth is told about white these people are not wanted in the united states, is because of the browning of the country. a lot of people are afraid that eventually, the united states will be more brown than white. let's be truthful about it. i know that some of these people who are coming over are undesirable, just like in the united states we have people who are undesirable.

but the real reason for keeping them out as they are trying to stop the browning of the country. come on now. we know that's the real reason. thank you. that's all i have to say. host: our next caller is linda on the republican line from louisville, kentucky. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. hello. host: turn your tv down and go ahead with your comments. caller: i have a stroke in 2020, and my brain is gone. host: it's quite all right. did you have a, you wanted to share? caller: i would like to know why they took my social security

away from me. host: we'll make sure you call your congressman, and hope that you work on that. let's go to another caller. jim in arlington virginia. on the independent line, you are on. host: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. thank you for having this guest on. i wish she was on for a little bit longer. if this is an important issue. immigration. in the current narrative, what i understand is that one side is for security, and i support that. i do feel there are better experiences for illegal crossings, and i live in virginia. it is far from the border, so this is the first 10, but i do

think we need solutions. democrats want to have a pathway to legal status for the undocumented in the country. at least, the dreamers, the dhaka. it is common sense. bipartisan solutions are there to be had. both parties can have what they want. for some reason, hasn't happened in 30 or 40 years. we haven't had any kind of immigration reform. what's frustrating to me is there a pin a lot of solutions presented, in 2013 with the gang of a pill. it got past the senate but it didn't go to the house. recently, we've had kyrsten sinema's bill that is of early republican. it was rejected even though it had border security, so i am at

a loss. i hope everyone calls in to the politicians, and puts blame on them squarely because they're supposed to work on this, and solve. one real quick thing, and the previous caller from a while back, they said they didn't have an issue. with the illegal border crossing when trump was in office. i have to respectfully disagree. this is been happening for 20 or 30 years. we just didn't talk about it because they were in power and they did make a big deal about it. he had illegals working at mar-a-lago. to give you some context, we all know, we all know and illegal or undocumented person in our lives. you just don't know because --. thank you. host: let's move to frank in

california calling on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for the early update about the border. we do have a border issue. we've always had a border issue. this gentleman was talking about border reform. we had that for years. all we do is kick a canned on the road, but is not just in texas or california. what about our canadian borders. no one really talks about that. people come in another way. as a former government employee. we are -- i am a typewritten i asked the house and senate, please let's get this bill passed. why are we waiting until the last day and sour. we deserve and we work very hard. let's pass this bill. thank you. host: our next caller is laura in washington on the republican line. good morning. caller: welcome to your new job as being a host here.

it's amazing. i love to look at you. but anyways, that's not important. my reason for calling is this young man. he is overlooking the fact that the governor is overlooking slavery as an opening with more deaths for innocent and defenseless children who are being traffic. being organ harvesting. and the people being without that, they die on the desert. and he is ignoring that. the president -- trump and his policies are country and the immigrants were safe. that is my concern right there. the amount of slavery that talked about. they're having a helluva time. it is a horror for the states and for this country, and for those immigrants. the cartels are making billions. quid pro quo show.

this is going in his pockets because those laws are there. they are very good immigration laws. he does not have the authority or the right to ignore them and open those borders and allow the suffering and death that he has inflicted on not only america but the immigrants also. it is wrong. i just -- i am twisted up. you using this name in the wrong way. he does not know english. we have a horror at our border. and the borders need to be close. when president trump had it, people were so much more safe area those immigrants didn't make those journeys. they were working on their countries. and now, we have so much suffering down there. those kids and our troops, our

states, our people, and that's all i have to say. host: we are in open forum, asking you to weigh in on whatever policy or topic is on your mind. it is been a busy newsweek. the january 6 committee of the u.s. house is releasing a full report any moment now. it will outline a case that the committee has made for charging president trump with several crimes including aiding insurrection, and there is also the house ways and means committee voting last night to release the tax returns. the ukrainian president is scheduled to meet with president biden at the white house as well as go to a capital and meet with a joint meeting of the house and senate. of course, we are talking about immigration. but we want to get more of your

calls. whatever is on your mind. again, republicans, your line is 8000 one, democrats, call us at 202 8000, and independence, call us at 8002. our next caller is on the independent line. from boston massachusetts, good morning. >> good morning. i have a question for you. i've a question for the gas. al green. the representative. host: busy and entertainer? host:it is not the same name it thank you. host: let's go to anthony. he is calling as a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. ever since you got on, you and me, with my 30 days, i've wanted

to tell you welcome. you and me have been doing a great job. i've talked to all of you, and i thank you for the show. our representatives have a voice. i would call in. i was trying to call big john, or pedro. but thank you. we call in with a former police officer, today. i weigh in on the border issues. i'm very disappointed in the democrats and republicans for not coming together and doing something. i know by governor in florida, they did some things like send an immigrants different places like asylums, and they call territories, but i am disappointed, and i hope they come to some type of solution. by the other gentleman said, in canada, they have a situation.

they have been building outside of the border. and they help with the process needs to be done. thank you. you are doing a great job. goodbye. happy holidays. host: happy holidays to you too. let's go to maryland. we have edward on the republican line. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: i know what's going on on the southwest border as a department of homeland security official. i was down there on the rio grande river. what i saw was 100 plus nations coming through the southwest border illegally. not coming through ports of entry. we processed individuals from the republican -- republic of ukraine, people coming from romania.

just a totally different environment. the u.s. is getting cartels, and bring in illegal aliens. fentanyl, cocaine, pedophiles, etc.. this needs to be rectified. we have open borders, which is absolutely ridiculous. pres. biden: all right. let's hear from luis in chicago on the independent line. caller: hello. i am retired, and i'm sure there are a lot of retirees out there. we grew up, and we had a halfway decent world to live in. it was not bad like it is now. we know what the problems are. everyone with a brain can think. we see with the problems are. it's the have's versus the have-nots. it's the look -- young kid still

stealing and robbing in chicago. they are frightening people who are retired and not retired. no one is in charge of this. no one is in charge of our country. people are doing what they want to do when they want to do it. we have no one to really set up rules and regulations for us to live five because people want to do what they want to do. no one will bother them. that's what we're dealing with. were dealing with everyone wanting to destroy the culture of america, and prosecute the people they hate. but no one is in charge of making anything decent for people to live by. until we get a person that everyone can respect, and set up some rules so we can live by them and have a country with rules and regulations, we are going to have problems. we cannot walk outside and enjoy anything. there are bad people all around hurting, and that is not a good way to live, but some of us are just struggling and trying to, anyway. try it. keep trying to know what's going

on, and give ideas because politicians don't come out and tell us what they need to do. host: i want to bring up a text message we perceive. it says that it is refreshing to see someone stand against the misnomer that immigration equals an army of soldiers coming in. but the system must be repaired. our country has a lot to gain through immigration in the value-added bite good immigration policy. that is from william in middletown connecticut. let's go to more of your calls. on the democratic line, in grand prairie texas, good morning. caller: thank for taking my call. since this is open forum, i just wanted to mention the fact that having president obama gave me as an african-american a lot of pride, having the color of his

skin. having kamala harris as vice president is a point of pride for me. it shows that we are starting to be a country that is for all of its residents. but i still have a problem with the fact that neither were descendants of sleighs. president biden was open during the democratic nomination bait. he said that he was putting together a committee, and he seemed to lean over his podium when he said that to discuss slave reparations. i want to make a point that we were here during the gold rush to the west and all of that when people were settling in california. they were giving a hundred 68 each, and it is time for us to come out of the projects because it is hard to free our children. we are living on the second or third or the first of the 20th

floor, but the point i'm trying to make is this. we have been tired of prison. we are tired of criminals. we have national park set aside that we paid taxes on that we never use. i think they should be reallocated to the american citizens. we can adjust for this new world. and second, i am a veteran. i think we need to upright -- offer our assistance to mexico because the problem is not immigrants. they don't have a place to stay. we need to go down there and get rid of drug dealers and belief with natural boundaries. thank you. host: let's go to david in illinois on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. regarding the border, in my view, this has been an issue for decades. it has been an issue under democrats and republicans.

we just can't seem to solve it. the guess that you have says that we need tens of millions of new workers in this country, and meanwhile, the fed is raising rates and trying to restrict employment, so unemployment is going to go up. who should these jobs go to? american citizens or immigrants, illegal immigrants. i think we need to -- that wasn't mentioned, and we have multiple things happening in this country right now. we need people smart enough to understand that who are running this place. the other thing is, my point is that over the decades, we've had elected legislators who are tasked with creating laws. we pay them. we go through the whole election cycle. year after year, all of those laws are on the books.

yet we don't enforce them. why don't we create a law that makes it illegal to not enforce the current laws. that would by and large resolve the issues that we have in many areas of our country. i think we need people with solutions to the border. we make it a political issue, but nevertheless, we are a sovereign country. we can build a wall. we can have immediate expulsion or we can work with governments from where these people are coming to try and solve the root. there are many ways to attract this and you don't see anyone working on any of this. i see congresspeople on tv saying that we need to work on a permanent solution to this. yet, they are the people that are supposed to be doing it, so

roll up your sleeves and do it. don't get on tv and tell me that someone's been working on it. who's supposed to be working on it. it's democrats and republicans. everyone else in our government is just too busy, and focus on things outside of their core responsibility. those are my comments. thank you. host: our next caller is karen in littleton new hampshire. on the independent line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. merry christmas and happy new year. i want to say that a woman is probably five or six calls ago said that the problem is that we americans, bunch of us don't want the country to turn brown as in the brown people. myself, being native american and french, i think that was wrong -- very wrong of her to

say, and there's a fact that having everyone come across the border the way they are, they know exactly why it's being done. it's about having them vote. for the democrats. that is a given. but the fact is that what it is costing us to take care of all of that, considering the fact that nobody wants to take care of us, and furthermore, the fact is, you can't be a nation if you don't have a border. also, the fact being that the people, and i heard them. someone said one of the political sessions on c-span that there is like 7 million jobs that we have open. but the problem is that there are so many people 60 or so, 40 and below, they are still going

to be unemployment, they are getting more on unemployment just sitting at home. they do nothing. then they go out and get a job, in my day, if you are on unemployment, you are on it for only so long, and if you are laid off, you late -- went back to work, there was a different way. there was a gentleman who just was on, and he is exactly right. there are laws. and there could be a law that if you don't follow the law, you are in trouble, and the fact that everyone is saying that the republicans in the democrats can't get together, well, in my opinion, the democrats are not worried about what they need to worry about. they are worried about doing what they are doing to president trump. and, it's a shame that the bill that they want to pass, before friday, the 4100 page thing, it has millions and millions of

dollars going off. three countries to help them get their borders bill. just where we've been helping ukraine, but we can't help ourselves, there is a reason for that, there are people who really need to wake up and see, and i'm not being mean, but they need to wake up and see why what's happening here, it doesn't take a -- much to figure out what they are doing. and, it's a crying shame. we need to take care of ourselves and stick to the fact that we allow so many to come in. every year. i'm pretty sure that's what it's always been. but the people that have been here, and to come across and they've taken 10 years or whatever, to become citizens, they forked really hard, and it's really a slap in their face. to have this going on, we've had this -- so many diseases in this covid and stuff, and then they

are not even tested with what they bring over, not that it's their fault. they just don't have immunization or any vaccines but also, the fact is that is said that the government is just shipping, especially, these kids, and they are not even betting people. -- venting people. host: the caller just referenced a federal spending package known as the omnibus bill. this is an opinion piece from the wall street journal. the headline is the ugliest omnibus bill ever. congress will pass a 4155 page bill. most members will never read. and it is the 117th congress. it is the most spendthrift in history. this week, he plans to go out with one final bipartisan route. it for thousand 155 page spending bill that is the worst in history.

this is no way to govern in a democracy. here we are. the members in their efforts to decide what they are doing rolled doubt the final product late monday night. they plan to whip it through by thursday well americans are busy with pre-christmas plans before even the members know what they are voting on. this is an editorial in today's wall street journal. let's go to a few more of your calls. jerome on the line from tampa. democrat. what your comment. caller: my comment is that i am an older man, and like most black people, were brought over here from a slave street, and we are treated like third class people. you get democrats come over here. but they come over here, and they allow all types of loans and credit cards, and just like the guy that just got killed, this guy is a job.

and you have a right to be over here. you have an officer. then, these guys, they are the people who don't care about their situation. their status. they are only worried about the type of money they are paying. then you have many people who just want a job, but they cannot get a job, and black people find it hard to get jobs because are not even able to get status as a credit card. it is always something about your record or something like that. you try to understand, what does it take for a black man to be able to get grants and stuff like that. host: let's go to taylor, michigan on the republican line. it is rape. go ahead. caller: hello. the two people i listen to got beyond the phone. they pretty much said it all.

it is mostly for the border for me. i live right outside of detroit. for me to go to canada, i have to go to proper papers to cross the ambassador bridge. if i take a vacation to cancun, and mexico, i have to have proper papers. if i want to fly out of state, east or west, i have to have proper identification to board a plane. what in the hell is going on at the border where -- why can't they hold mexico accountable for all of the people that have come through. if they would hold mexico accountable, they could very easily stop the people from coming into mexico. their government doesn't know how to stop anything. they want to help foreign countries. they want to help migrants. they want to help everybody

else. but they don't want to do anything for american citizens. host: that is the final caller from today's washington journal. we are wrapping up today, but later on this evening, the ukrainian president will address a joint meeting of congress before that. president biden ansell solesky will hold a joint news conference at the white house. this is the ukrainian president's first foreign trip since russia's invasion. you can watch that joint press conference live at 4:30 p.m. eastern, here on c-span or online at c-span.org. "washington journal" we'll be back tomorrow at 7:30. thank you for joining us.

[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] ♪ >> the 118th congress convenes on tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern. for the first time in two years, returning to washington as a divided government. democrats retain control of the senate by a slim majority. incoming members are younger with an average age of 47, compared to the average age of 58 in the previous session. it will be more diverse with a record number of women serving. the 118th congress gavels into session. a new speaker of the house. new congress, new leaders. watch opening day of the 118th congress tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern live on c-span and

c-span2, also on c-span now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet and state governors. preorder your copy today for delimah. $29.95 plus shipping and handling. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪