at c-span.org. >> what video on demand anytime online -- watch video on demand anytime on line or try our featured that quickly guides you to highlights of our coverage. use that anytime online at c-span.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of a floor proceedings and hearings, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and invite scheduling information -- and bite scheduling information for c-span. she spent it -- this is

available at the apple store and google play. it is your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. . the art funded by these television companies and -- we are funded by these television companies and more. ♪ >> midco supports c-span as a public service, along with other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. -- this is andrew selee of the migration policy institute. good morning. as far as the institute itself,

explain to people what it is. guest: we are a nonpartisan independent think tank that works on migration issues around the world. we work on a lot of the migration issues in the u.s., but we try to be balanced and evidence-based. we assume migration is generally positive, but it depends on how you manage it. it is generally good if you manage it well, but how you manage it really matters and people can disagree on that. we bring in different opinions and tried to figure out how we balance them with equity. host: we are here to talk about title 42. as a management policy how has it been since it has been enacted? guest: the assumption of title 42 is that it is the toughest measure ever implemented at the order.

--implemented at the border. it has turned out not to be a great enforcement. it has been somewhat -- a lot of people get in. the fact that people get sent back to mexico and not their country of origin for a migrant perspective is sometimes preferable. for people who are concerned about asylum and protection, it does not allow any access to asylum. it has worn out its welcome because it does not give people access and it does not work as enforcement. host: when the country was suffering from covid the most, was that an accurate application of it at the time? guest: i think it was a justifiable application. o was a skeptic -- i was a skeptic at the time. you can make a case for why people should not be

coming into the country. it outlived its usefulness as a public health measure. i think it has so many holes in it at this point. host: what happens thursday? guest: thursday at 11:59 p.m. all chaos reigns. host: [laughter] guest: the numbers back until 20 were much lower. there was a period in american history when they were higher, but in recent memory the numbers were a lot lower. the trump administration struggled with the rise in numbers. they eventually got it back down with title 42. it is a lot more time-consuming. there are a lot more people coming. it is unclear the u.s.

government has the capacity to process everyone who will arrive at the order in a fair and efficient way. i think you will see a lot of chaos in the first few days. host: secretary mayorkas said we go from title 42 to something called title viii, different processing there. guest: title 42 was a measure that allowed the u.s. to expel people. usually to expel people to their country of origin but you are not doing a lot of process. now they have to do process. if someone comes in, if they say they have a fear of returning to their country, the u.s. has to do something about it. they are about to announce to roll we think that says if you come between ports of entry and you do not have an appointment, we will presume ineligibility. they do have to do some process to see if they have a fear of

being returned and to deport them they have to formally do paperwork, put them on a plane, and return them to their country of origin. i think they will be doing that a lot. host: our guest andrew selee of the immigration institute will take your questions. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8003. you can use that same number to text us your comments as well. those border state residents, what have their experience been like? what are they expecting thursday? guest: it has changed over time. there were massive amounts of people living in border communities.

what the white house is working with them with is how to process them quickly. the numbers went way down. i think they are expecting a huge dilution because the government will not -- huge dilution because the government will not -- huge deluge because the government will not be able to process everyone. my colleagues went from san diego all the way to brownsville, and we were able to go to border patrol stations, places of entry, and talk with ngo's. we were quite impressed by that. a a lot of this will break down. it will take them longer to process people. numbers will go up because they are no longer certain they will be able to get in. host: sec. mayorkas in brownsville, texas last week. spoke about -- he talked about

what happens afterwards. >> we are building pathways. at the same time we will deliver consequences for individuals who are arrive at our southern border irregularly. that is our commitment and our obligation of cutting smugglers out and taking care of the needs of individuals who qualify for relief. in a post-title 42 environment, we will be using our expedited removal authorities under title eight of the united states code. that allows us to remove individuals very quickly. we will by may 11 finalize the role we published. individuals that do not pursue

our legal pathways will be per assume do an eligible for asylum and will have a higher burden of roof to overcome that presumption of ineligibility -- proof to overcome that presumption of ineligibility. guest: the experience will undoubtedly be different. i think it is a smart strategy on paper. anything that government does on paper, you have to figure out how to put into practice. they have tried to open up as many legal pathways as possible. there are means in the labor market for people to come and work. it is hard to do, but they have stretched what they got a little bit. they are trying to offer protection needs for those in the region. they will open several centers in guatemala to screen people ahead of time. skip the smuggler, if they have protection needs, and if not

tell them there are likely not to get -- if someone shows up without a visa or without an appointment for asylum already ahead of time, they will process them an expedited removal, which means -- they assume that over time the more people who get returned, the more people will realize they cannot get the border. it will bring numbers down. host: some of thosehings expected after may 11. we spoke about those regional processing centers in guatemala, the streamlined family reunification process for cubans, el salvador in's, guatemalan -- el salvadorians, guatemalas. can you describe how that works? guest: in northern mexico you

can get on this app and schedule an appointment for asylum. the app has some glitches. people cannot always get on it. i hast trouble recognizing darker faces. it has trouble recognizing children. it is still a draw for people to northern mexico. they know they have to begin to process people earlier. many of us love the idea that any human being that shows up at our barter can ask for protection. i is -- at our border can ask for protection. it is a beautiful idea. the reality is that is it has become a really hard process to manage for most countries these days. anyone can show up and ask for asylum. what they are trying to do is

push it back earlier, identified people with real need. we need to catch some of these people earlier on before they hire a smuggler. host: our first color comes from jeannie. she is in virginia -- caller comes from jeannie. she is in virginia. caller: i live in what is considered a rural area. i am noticing and influx of migrant -- noticing an influx of migrants who are staying. it used to be that migrants would come and work the fields and go home. when you become americanized, you will do like americans. people cannot work the fields year-round. they will have a period where the fields are dormant. same thing -- the main thing here right now is tomatos and people are out there working the

fields, but as soon as they get a chance they will go for other jobs. i am seeing that on the roads, immigrants working on the roads, immigrants working in fast food, and i am wondering about what happened while of the americans who used to do those jobs myself -- happened to all of the americans who used to do those jobs myself. when you have more immigrants you will, be using more farmland that will go under pavement, housing, and roads. housing we have very little of here, but you will lose florist, you will lose wildlife -- forest, you will lose wildlife. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: that is a, great set of concerns and a legitimate set of concerns. what you want for some jobs, you want a mix of things.

we have always wanted some people to come here, to become americans, to stay in this country. it is what made us an entrepreneurial society, but not for every job. agriculture is a good example. it is often helpful to have people come in for circular migration. it turns out a lot of migrants prefer that too, because it does not mean they have to stay for years in the united states. we have one program for cultural workers for the -- workers called the h2a program. lawmakers are trying to make it easier to access and to create incentives for people to use it, rather than create a draw for people to come across the border illegally. the bush administration gave a huge boost to this administration.

we have seen this program grow throughout the years. her many -- tourism is this way also. it is seasonal. it is good to have the seasonal workers because it allows them to stay rooted in their communities, and allows them to be here in temporary ways. there is no magic wand to make it happen. host: there was a story today over concerns -- about concerns over resources. host: that is a heat -- guest: that is a huge issue. there will be a question of lawyers who are able to help with the expedited hearings. there are not enough clearly. that will be a huge issue. there are always concerns. we want a growing population to pay taxes as the rest of

the population grows older. we need people coming to this country. host: luis is next. you're on with our guest. guest: top of the morning -- caller: top of the morning to you guys. i may have missed you over this comment, but we do know 42 was placed on with the trump administration due to the covid. when i am not hearing is that there was a republican appointed by trump judge who removed 42 and did not notify the biden administration of what he was about to do, now biden and the asked for a court order to give them time to set up. can you tell me why this

republican judge, appointed by trump, released 42 when covid is still in america? guest: the administration has wanted to end title 42 since last year. they want to do and it, but the courts kept it alive -- end it,. but the courts kept it alive i will stay away from the reasoning there. they kept it alive for a a while. it looks like it would in in september -- would end in september. when the biden administration ended the public health emergency, that ended their rationale. the supreme court said the public emergency is ending, there is no reason you keep title 42. they understand it will be chaotic at the end.

it will be very chaotic this week. there will be lots of pictures of people crossing rivers in overflowing border patrol stations. it will be a mess. in the long term they have to build a better system, a system where fewer people show about the border in the first place, more people have access to legal pathways, and most people know that when they get to the border it is too late. host: let's call it a search. will that be a consistent thing, or does it taper off? guest: it tapers off eventually if they do the right ring -- the right thing. it tapers off if they are able to create legal pathways. people will keep coming, if they do not have another hope of coming into the u.s.. if they know how to get into the u.s. legally, there is a good

chance many of them will get in line. we. have created with canada and spain some additional pathways those countries have you should be able to walk into a processing center and learn how to get to a country where you can earn more money. a a lot of people would be willing to get in line if they knew it was hard to get across the u.s. border in the first place. people have not known that until now. host: this is from danny. he is in yuma, arizona. caller: good morning. good morning mr. selee. with all due respect, please let's keep this conversation real. this all started -- these people are breaking american law. they are breaking the law by line jumping everybody else.

i am down here in yuma, arizona. we are a small community. the consumption of all these people, and all of the drugs coming through is not right. joe and the democrats and mayorkas, they all lie. the press conferences, all they do is lie. unless you watch fox and see the drone footage of people coming across here, you would not know. i did not mean to get all fired up there. host: what do you want to learn from our guest? caller: ok. what i would like to learn from our guest is why don't they just shut down the border like trump did and start from scratch and do it legally,? i am all for legal immigration. i am dating a mexican national

on the others, so please do not call me -- on the other so please do not call me -- on the other side so please do not call meist. guest: i have been to yuma, and it is a beautiful city. dispassionately, we did a report in 2013, looking at the effect that the numbers of mexicans have gone down and central americans are next. it became really visible in 2018 under the trump administration. the reason is central americans there are reasons -- americans, the same reason europeans came to the u.s. earlier, they know

they have a better chance of a good life in the u.s. the trump administration was able to shut it down, but only because of the global pandemic. i don't think we would have seen the numbers go down this far otherwise. i think you are right that the biden administration was not clinical in trying to keep some of the enforcement measures going. they were trying to do it. the created a perception that it was easier, but people were coming anyway. they started coming at the end of the trump administration before biden even got there. it is less about politics than it is about policy and reality. you have a few crises in the atmosphere. nicaragua has melted down, venezuela has melted down, cuba is going through a particularly difficult patch. you have that, you have central

americans who know this is their best option. we will see what happens. hopefully, they hit on a way of helping people while discouraging people from the border. i think drugs is somewhat separate. . they tend to come through ports of entry in vehicles. we sometimes conflate these issues, but they tend come through different pathways. host: back in october, there were 2.7 million border crossings. what does that number tell you? guest: we are on a pathway to have a similar number this year. through canada and other seaports and elsewhere, it is encounters and not people. the number of people are less

and then there are people who are not detected. sometimes we say the number of people is less, but there is probably another 600,000 or so. it is a large number of people. it is the largest we have ever seen. it is hard to know for sure because in the early 2000's a lot of people were coming. we do not really know how many people came across the border. it is a large number. the last caller hit on something important here. immigrants come -- i would never blame the immigrants themselves. people come because they're trying to make a better life for their family. the reality is it is not good for us as a country to encourage people to do that or two have a system that encourages people to do that. host: let's hear from michael. michael is from texas, democrats

line. you're on with andrew selee. caller: i am a veteran, and i am on social care. i am disall of the bases, the u.s. army bases, all of that are not being used. they can use those bases and use them and take people from the border, take them to all ofe ba, housing, they can use them, they they talk about securing the border. they have to put people on the planes, to come to the base is not being used, haul them there. they have facilities. they can check them out and everything they need to do. if

talking about, i am going to send them to a sanctuary state and all that kind of mess. host: ok, michael. got your point. thank you. guest: it is a great point. i think there is a lot of interest in doing this. it is complicated. when you try and do things across the u.s. government, i marvel at watching this from the outside. how complicated it is to do each step along the way, particularly when you are working among agencies. i think there is a challenge logistically. there is interest in doing this, in particular where i think they may end up doing, people waiting for their asylum hearings. what we do now is let people go in the united states or keep them in custody. in a detention facility while they have the first step of their asylum process. we let them free for the second step and they go with their families. that is somewhat unfair. if someone gets a negative decision down the road, you have to remove them from the life they have started in in people in some intermediate

state that is not a detention center. his state while people get their asylum case decided a few months, not ears as it is now? there are ways of building this. with the afghans, they were in military bases. when the u.s. government wantsno get people out, they opened up military bases and had people there. ane with an afghan family that were headed to be to their final destination, moving to canada. i asked the young boy, how was it on the military base? he said it was boring, but they treated us well and we ate well. i think you can create a

condition that is not a detention, it does not feel like a detention center. but, it is an intermediate between being in detention and let loose to start a new life while you're case is being decided. host: it seems the perception is that if someone comes whether to the processing center between the processing centers, they give an inside lump -- an asylum story. they are automatically granted asylum. guest: in the past, the first step of a asylum process was called credible fear. the bar was fairly low. the idea was he wanted, people when they first arrive, they do not have the documents, a lawyer. you want to keep the bar fairly low. the problem is, 80% of people at one point were actually getting through the credible fear process whereas only 25% or fewer were getting asylum in the end. it was a broad funnel and narrow at the end.

what they are trying to do now, they are trying to do a presumption of ineligibility. they are checking to see if people can had -- we went from w standards that let a lot of people in. host: troops set to go to the border. what is their role? guest: logistics, part of the thing military does well. i have had a chance to interact with border patrol for 30 years. one of the things i was fascinated with, there has always been lots of former army and navy, sometimes marines in the border patrol. how much they are in leadership -- that ship positions. military trains people to do logistics. a lot of people are moving into leadership roles have this military background, logistics. i suspect the soldiers are going to do the same thing. they are sending them to do

surveillancein basic

nuts and bolts of done. what the u.s. government has when it needs additional people. the military gets used not in domestic law enforcement, but in all sorts of other ways to back up other law enforcement ability to move in situations and problem solve and make things move in the way they need to. host: is there not enough current staff to handle what is going to happen after thursday? guest: not even slightly. the numbers go down, yes. s from now, maybe the answer is yes. right now, they are going to be overwhelmed. that is why they want military there. to have other people doing things rather than having the military do logistics stuff -- there is a lot of stuff border patrol officers have to do, moving people around.

they have created a group of people who are processors, but they need more of that to be able to handle the numbers. host: we are having a conversation with andrew seele of the migration policy institute. we are going to hear from ralph, republican line. caller: good morning, everybody. the democrats open border policy is simply a way of importing democratic borders to create a one party system. it is completely wrong. thank you. guest: not lead to politics, soi have to say if that is the democrats plan, it is a shaky one. the evidence suggests the latino hispanic voters are increasingly up for grabs between the parties. things change over time. historically, yes, latinos and hispanics were in the democratic column. but, that is changing now.

you are seeing increasing number of latino elected officials who are republican. a lot of them in texas, and florida. i am not sure. i cannot say there are no democrats who have never thought of that. that would be a bad plan. host: asking about the employer's role in all of this. twitter, how would an employer know their new hire is using someone else's social security number? she adds, they do not. to the idea of the employer's will in hiring -- where do they fall? guest: about a quarter of all employers in the u.s. use the central system for checking people's social security. there is a central database now. it has never been mandated. it is mandated in a few states. it has never been mandated nationally. it has gotten glitches. there is a lot of fear there will be false positives where people turn out to be in a sense using a different social

security number, there -- they are not. it needs to be developed. i think someday, we are going to have to get to the point particularly if we can have a say in conversation about immigration in this country, and we figure out how do we get a number sectors, how do people come in in an orderly way? i think there will be a conversation about how we make social security numbers much more verifiable. host: do you think employers are adequately punished if they pee illegal immigrants to the united states? guest: they are, but there is not a lot of inspections. overall, the numbers that have been punished are fairly low. yes, there is not much disincentive there. it is not a cure all to verify people's social security numbers. what happens also is that people often higher contractors. contractors are not necessarily subject to the same verification. there is lots of ways of layering this. no system will be perfect. right now, no. there has not been an appetite

for it. the sense has a was been, the system is kind of broken. do not force us to be totally compliant unless you are willing to long time. i think we are going to get the point where we have that conversation, how do we have the legal immigration system we need and make it credible? host: many congresses have debated that. what has been the sticking point? guest: it is that. we have of immigration reform. how do you actually think about -- it was a three legged stool, let's legalize people who are here already. we can debate how long you have to have had been here. some large group of people, let's figure out the legal immigration system for the future and do the enforcement side on e-verify, theit has bee.

you're able to get everything down in a one shop here. that is not going to happen in the congresses we have or polarized politics now. we need to start thinking about smaller advances that democrats and republicans can reach some summer to -- some sort of agreement on. host: what is a good chunk to start with? guest: i would start with asylum and border management now. i would add in their daca, young people have been here since they are kids. i think that is something you would see a lot of support from. a lot of democrats are willing to go with some tighter, better funding for the border patrol for ports of entry and tighter restrictions on asylum at the border. host: this thursday. what do you think the concept it offers?

guest: i think it is the old enforcement only approach, which has not worked well. i do not know if it is going to pass. there are a number of republicans that are skeptical about this. either number of republicans that are very aware you need to open legal pathways at the same -- at the same time or you get tougher at the order. if you do not give people a line to get into, they are unlikely to be deterred by enforcement. enforcement will likely keep getting overrun. i think we have seen the biden administration try to do something -- i would not say open borders, but we are probably too much seeing republo all in on enforcement. i think somewhere in the that meeting ground, i do not know. we also recognize legal pathways. we need needs this.

we know we need workers in some sectors of the economy. host: we have set aside a line for those in border states. this is chris in new mexico. go-ahead. caller: good morning. we have a labor shortage and -- in a number of sectors like hospitality, agriculture and construction. i have long advocated a comprehensive guestworker program with i/o metric ids -- biometric ids that will allow u.s. officials to keep track of who is here and give those people rights, access to the court system if they are not.

i am wondering if that sounds like a reasonable solution. secondly, itin complaining thatr is wide open. the rest of the world gives the people in latin america the idea that it is wide open and exacerbates the problem. i will take your comments on fine -- offline. guest: thank you, chris. i love new mexico, by the way. i agree with what you're saying. i think we have long advocated for the -- to come in temporarily but with a bridged permanence if they worked a number of years. five years, 10 years orbility to move among employers.

it is often good for the economy. how that would be negotiated is a political question. it is a political question and how you decide how flexible that is. we need almost all growth in the labor market right now comes from immigration, and all growth in of it right now. we are going to need to figure this out sooner or later. it helps all of us. it helps the economy as a whole. i think we are going to get to that debate. the border is certainly not open. it is more porous than it should be. but, it is not open. the reason it is not open is you have to use a smuggler to get across it. people know now whether or not they are afraid of u.s. enforcement. they are afraid of what can happen to them along the journey. i am worried we have outsourced enforcement to smugglers in some ways. people might know they might be able to eventually get in, especially under title 42, but the cost of doing this is

putting yourself in the hands of criminal organizations that may or may not treat you with dignity and may subject you to a really dangerous or horrific situation in your life. i hope we can get to a out who s protection early before they get a smuggler and we are tougher on the border. those three things would begin to change the equation and take the smugglers out of the picture. host: you have probably seen that headline stemming out of that shooting in texas in may, that person suspected had been deported four times. i suppose this shapes the conversation. guest: overall, immigrants commit fewer crimes than those native born. i say somewhat jokingly, if you are concerned about safety, go to a immigrant heavy neighborhood. immigrants are much less likely deported four times can manage to get back into the

country again and stay is disturbing and that tells you the system is porous at the border in a way it should not be. we should be able to check people -- i do not know if they ever flagged him for violent behavior. that would be a different question. it is less worrisome if someone crossed multiple times to work and went back. if someone is flagged for violent behavior and is able to make it back into the country, that should worry us. host: five more minutes with our guest. brenda in south carolina, democrats line. caller: i am very enlightened by the fact that the hard total labor force growth is from the immigrations and not from any americans. that amazes me. i think as a biden has not done enough to do things

to alleviate all the people, the masses, that have come in and thert in, -- disconcerting, i do not think even any of our border towns need to deal with that. i think with all of the influx of immigration coming in, i wonder with an employment opportunities, are they question when they come in? what skills do you have? where can we put you in the country that would actually be a boon to us, like we have infrastructure bills, roads that need fixing. we even have doctor blights in rural areas. i do not know how many doctors come in. that would be beneficial to our

people, also. that is all i've got to say. host:my brother is from south carolina. we get more people through legal immigration. we have talked lots and lots about people coming illegally across the border. the reality is, we get many more people through the legal immigration system. those people tend to be -- we are mostly getting people still through family connections, not through employment. there is parts of the system we bring in people for employment as doctors, nurses, engineers. most of it is family ties. same with people coming across the border, they have to figure out their job prospects. it surprisingly works in this country. i have been amazed people find their way into the niches in the economy where their skills match. that is partially because recent immigrants move a lot. that is true whether they come in legally or not. they are willing to pick up and moveo not necessarily doucture ,

investment in green technology. an aging population that needs care workers. i am beginning to work where we are going -- to wonder where we are going to get these people from. if we tamper down the polarization on the border, maybe we can get to some of these conversations. what are the right legal chanters -- channels for? this in rural areas, they are more likely to offer -- born. we need doctors, we need nurses, we need people to work in

nursing homes. webuild factories. we need engineers. we need scientists. if we can get to that conversation at some point, that would be a huge advantage for our country. we should be thinking about where immigration fits in. the debate i wish we were having tay successful, innovative, entrepreneurial country for the future? host: one more call from arizona, janet is on our republican line. caller: first of all, i do not agree with anything you say. guest: [laughter] thank you. caller: i am 76. i am sorry. i lived in the valley my entire life. i just moved up to a little, rural town. we are goiody can tell you whatt is like. it is horrendous. they have destroyed our neighborhood. what are we going to do with them? we do not have enough hospitals to take care of people now. we do not have any facilities to

take these people and they have these little letters -- they show it when they come in. they are told what to say and they cross that --right now on washington journal, you use have both sides on the same subject. i loved it. that is what i miss on your show when mr. lamb was on. i loved him. host: thank you for watching. this is the guest we have. you have asked him major points. we will let him respond. guest: i have only got this morning, at least for this hour. look, we agree on the fact the numbers are too big. we do not want large numbers of people coming to the border and entering unauthorized or even entering with permission. we do not want to be making decisions at the border. this is why i think -- i go back to the three-part solution.

you begin to figure out how you can have more peoplethey forgo y are legally entering. you have more people getting protection earlier and you are much tougher at the border anito get there. i am not sure if it is going to happen in short order. where we disagree is, despite the legally but also in the past three or four years through unauthorized channels, it is surprising how well the system works. it is surprising the fact most people get jobs. the folks you see in shelters are predominantly venezuelans who did not have ties in this country, some nicaraguans. you do not see salvadoreans, mexicans, guatemalans and cubans in the shelter because they are going with family, getting jobs quickly, moving into the labor market.

it is surprising people were entering the country legally. we have got to figure out how to get more of these people in legally and be clinical about not letting in those that do not have a way of entering legally. host: the website for our guest organization is migration policy.org. >> what are copy of the 118th congressional diyour access to l government house and senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet federal agencies and state governors. skimode order your copy today or gto the c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store.

browse through our latest collection of c-span products, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you are connected, you are notpublic service along wite other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.