mere zelenskyy will address a joint meeting of congress. this is his first visit to washington, d.c., since rusa invaded rue crane in februy. the house is-l take up the $1.7 trillion funding baggage. the most recent form extension ends this friday at midnight. watch live coverage when house lawmakers return here on c-span. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including cox. >> homework can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder. that's why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet. so homework can just be homework. cox connect to compete. >> cox supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you

a front row seat to democracy. we 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 necessarily agree, but what is your reaction when 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 detrimentalsym policy, in the mismanagement of 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. >> ukranian president will be in the nation's capital and first foreign trip.

at 2:00 p.m., president biden will welcome him and hold a meeting at 2:30 followed by a joint news conference at 4:30 and president zellenskyy meets with congressional leaders and at 7:30 tonight president zellenskyy will address a joint meeting of congress. you can watch on our free mobile video app. >> c-span is unfiltered view of government and funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> that's why we are providing lower-income students. homework can just be homework.

cox connects to compete. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other prigs providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. 4* 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 we'll keep our commitment to loiive coverage of congress. u.s. house. live coverage of the house here on c-span.