let's spread the faith. [applause] ♪ all in this togetherhost: weln journal.

we are going to talk about immigration and border security now. i'm joined by clarissa martinez to castro and laura reese of the heritage foundation. good morning to you both.laura,. we know heritage foundation is considered conservative, right-leaning, as a political organization. what is your take on the current discussion in congress on a border security measure. is there a position from heritage on what you would likes occurring is on top of the white house supplemental that the biden white house is asked. a package of money for ukraine, for israel, for border security, and all those things.

and so the negotiation that is happening with respect to immigration is policy changes in addition to the money that the white house is asking for. the house of representatives passed a significant border bill through the border act back in may, which has very good measures in it too end a lot of the asylum fraud and restore border security. at the senate side, they are negotiating parts of those measures in hr two. it doesn't come close to that build a house cast. -- that the house passed. answer the question is, with the policy changes actually secure the order, and wooded then prevent a future of illegal immigration? unfortunately right now negotiations have been going on behind closed doors, which is a problem, but parts of it have been leaked out or released, and

it doesn't sound like a good deal. it doesn't sound like it would actually secure the border. host: so clarissa, you are with -- which is considered more left-leaning. but tell me, what is your take on these discussions? you just heard laura say that ho bill is something that heritage has been behind. what are your thoughts on the discussions of what house republicans have been pushing? guest: first of all, thank you for having us today, particularly on this issue. i would say that we has civil society and as voters have every right to be completely frustrated about the state of our immigratn system and about the state of the debate about immigration. for a very long time, the american public has realigned on what needs to happen we want to see a

well-managed and secure border. we want to see it have to legality for immigrants who have an interest country for many years and remain undocumented, and we want to see amegal immigt serves the economy, that serves families and that protects people in danger. and we have the tools to do that. that is where the frustration comes in. instead, what we've seen is that unfortunately, too many members of congress seem more interested in using this as a political system and instead of rolling up their sleeves and tackling the problem. unfortunately, this negotiation which as our colleague mentioned, seems to be headed to a deadit is looking like a really bad game of chicken. and i say that because he said was supposed to be about ukraine. that was really the focus of the supplemental.

we've been asking the administration to bring to the tablis supplemental from immigration because we need more funding to get a handle on what is happening on the border. but by bringing these things together, the thing that was the crux first, which was supporting ukraine, take a stand against putin, that has become secondary, and now the tail is wagging the dog. host: i want to go ahead and get our viewers the numbers to call in, as you can share your thoughts on what is happening at the southern order, your thoughts on immigration policy, or any questions you have for our guests this morning. again, clarissa martinez, and lori's of heritage foundation. again, democrats, (202) 748-8000 . republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. go ahead and start calling in because we are going to get those calls in just a moment. i see those leading up. we are going to have lots of questions but before we get to that, i want to come back to you because clarissa just mentioned what started out as supplemental funding for ukraine became this bigger conversation on border security, mainly because republicans wanted to couple the issues. does heritage foundation have a position on whether these topics should remain linked, especially as congress, there is no official text yet, we've heard from ukraine that they are running out of money. what is the position, should they be late or is heritage foundation saying no, go ahead and address whether ukraine should have money and do border

security separate? i'm just wondering what the position is. guest: these issues should not be linked. each of them deserve negotiation and debate on their own merits. and it is the white house that sent over the supplemental to congress combining money for ukraine-israel border security and other matters. and so they should be separate. and in terms of the border security negotiations, not only policy matters that have been leaked out from the senate side, not only is that a bad deal because it wouldn't prevent the border issue that we are facing right now and would come in fact, codify the very tools that biden is using to carry out his open border agenda, but beneath that is the issue of this money. the border security portion, the white house is seeking t $.6 billion for political border security.

in fact, much of that would go to non-governmental organization that are carrying out or facilitating the illegal immigration that we're seeing right now, as well as paying sanctuary cities to continue to shelter the illegal population that is here right now. so the senate should be rejecting the money request on its own, let alone the policy measures that they seem to be debating which wouldn't solve the problem. host: all right, we've already gotten calls, select i said, i want to go straight to the phone line as we know that our viewers do have a lot of thoughts and questions about immigration and border security. >> if i could just make a quick comment, i think that one of the issues with our continued stalemate in tackling this problem is when we throw blanket statement that are inaccurate. i mean, when they agree or not agree with how this administration is handling the situation, we have a lot of

issues with it, but to say that biden has an open border policy i think is one of those things that we just say as hot air for political purposes. the reality here, we do agree that we need to modernize our immigration distant, and that deserves to be dealt with in its own right. but it is also important to note that unfortunately, a lot of the tools that we need by something that sadly, republicans who have been part of bringing solutions in the past have simply said no to. that is we're we are seeing right now. the reason we call it a game of chicken is because the president in trying to call republicans off on this, to show that they actually don't want any of the things they have asked in the past, they want to keep it a political issue, is actually willing to sacrifice tools that have been shown to reduce illegal immigration, like

humanitarian parole. when he did that for four countries, illegal entry for arrival from those countries was reduced by 90% that is on the table. it is that kind of looking more at the politics that he solutions that is setting is back there. host: centerpoint, when you say there is an open border, quickly, what does that mean to you? guest: well, it'thunfortunately, biden is setting new historic records of higher numbers of illegal immigration. just for december, 371,000 inadmissible encounters from customs and border protection. yet another record. we are talking about over 10.2 million encounters and got aways, people who evaded the border patrol under bso we are e sand if the biden administration has not -- have intended to

change course, they would have done it by now. they've just grown more deceitful about what they are doing, including using parole as a lawful pathway and trying to have people not look at the numbers between ports of entry. but in fact, the people who are being paroled through ports of entry, they don't have a visa, they are not eligible to be here, and it is an abuse and a violation of the statutes. host: i want you briefly to say why do you disagree when people describe what is happening at the southern border as having an open border. guest: because the reality, i mean you talked about encounters, encounters means people are doing things. it is not just open border rep are going through. that is not what is the realitys

with immigration has changed globally in our hemispheso the'. that is why we need to modernize our system. the interesting thing is that we started seeing the flow of people increase not under biden alone. those numbers were going up already under the trump administration, and i imagine you don't say he had an open border policy. so we are to limit changing factors and we need the tools to address those. the reality is that under trump, there was very little dent made on illegal immigration. what you believe reduced by 60% was legal immigration. in one of the things we believe is that when you have functioning, legal immigration channels, people use them. that has been shown. host: now to the phone lines. that started fred in multi-, illinois. democratic line, what is your

question or comment? caller: do you think we should go back to the way trump did it, which was incarcerated parents and put the kids into dog cages as they operate at 750 per child? host: i think that is a question for laura, basically mentioned family separation, trump policy at the border. what are your thoughts about some of the criticisms of immigration policy during the trump direct? guest: so if families -- true families, not fraudulent families, are coming to the u.s. y, they should be kept together. and we have to address and look at the issue right now with historic levels of public company children that are crossing under the biden administration. over 400 40,000 unaccompanied alien children during this administration. these are people whose parents

have chosen or directed their children cross that border by themselves. unaccompanied, with smugglers, traffickers. endangering the children. that is the current issue that we should be dealing with, and dissuading the exploitation of those children, many of whom and up in sex trafficking situations or child labor violations once they get into the u.s. host: all right, let's take another caller. richard in rural hall north carolina, republican line. caller: i have about three questions, if you don't mind. host: we will try, but still one by one. caller: first question, i see what is going on at the border, i've lived in louisiana. a lot of the people across this border are military. how come they are not fighting for their country if they are

from tyranny? host: do you want to go ahead and ask your second question? caller: well, i would like to hear the answer to the first question. host: let's hold on. i will let you into that, clarissa. i think what he is saying our people are seeking asylum so why don't they stay in their home country and fight against whatever regime they say is oppressive? guest: i think history has shown us that people do both. some people stay and fight. we saw that during world war ii. some people stay in their countries and fought, and some people had to leave. the reality is that the result of those experiences is what shape the asylum system to protect people in danger. so we as a country, we are certainly in our own right to demand that our government to at least three things.

one, to have a well-managed, secure border. second, to strengthen our legal immigration channels. we have a system that supports american workforce and protect people in danger. we need those channels, because some people may stay inside of an unfair regime in their areas just like we would as americans that we were threatened by another country, but some people may have to leave. or they may be facing a regime that is very strong twitch they cannot take a stand against. on our end, what we need is a functioning asylum system that is fast and fair, or people who are in danger have a fair shot at making that claim. host: richard, i will give you one more follow-up. caller: so in other words, the reason why they are leaving because they don't have guts. they can't fight for themselves.

and yet the democratic party is trying to take our guns. what they are doing if they are living in the soldiers because they can't invade our shores. biden has now opened the borders and letting in their soldiers. guest: you know, here is something i would say going back to some of the factors that are affecting how we solve this problem, is that there's a lot of conspiracy theories out there , and one of what the caller is citing is this thing that has been circulating about invasion and replacement theory. the thing about that is that first of all, we have a right to be concerned and demand that we get a handle on the border. but when we start overlaying conspiracy theories that as we know, have to use for years in the past witdeconsequences, thay troublesome. and i'm not talking intellectually here.

the fact that you have politicians now making that kind of invasion and replacement theory which is a white supremacist point for many, many years back, it has a death toll. while we have not yet, and if we get our act together, that will continue to be the case, while we have not seen yet a terrorist coming from the southern border that has killed american, we have seen people in our country motivated by this kind of conspiracy theory to kill fellow americans. that was what happened with the person from waco under the guise of killing hispanics, the person who killed african-americans, or the person who into pittsburgh to kill american jewish. as -- that has a real death toll. we need to demand that our elected officials refrain from lynn those claims, because those claims are killing americans. host: flora, i want to give you

a chance to respond because they might not be some of the conspiracy theories that clarissa mentioned, but you do hear a lot of republican lawmakers so that they are concerned that criminals are crossing into the water, that drugs are crossing into the border, and they do find maybe anecdotally that someone who may be can have a visa or had come over illegally was accused of a crime or found guilty of a crime. i'm assuming that is something you save as a concerned about. guest: we have to be very concerned glitch for population, and that is estimated to be over one point -- 1.7 million people. just again 50 watchlist hits by border patrol so far in the first three months of fiscal

year 2024, yet another record. so it is naive to ignore these -- the got aways, the few and get record levels at the border patrol is encountering and just dismiss it, particularly after october 7 and the threat from our adversaries and terrorist organizations that they would like to you acts like october 7 in the u.s. and around the world. the fbi director christopher wray is very concerned with the threat situahe said that lightsg red. we need to take that seriously and not just dismiss it and say that hasn't happened or, therefore it is not going to happen now, and try to rectify flaming domestic terrorism or white supremacy or extremism. that is simply not the real threat that america is facing right now. guest: this is not either or.

this is not burying your head in the sand and hoping that nothing happens. burying our head in the sand on the issue of immigration, we are demanding that actually, members of both parties come to the table and provides and serious so it is not either/or, and i don't think it is correct to misstate what i said. i'm not saying that it's one of the other. i'm simply saying that we need to mind how conspiracy theories are being used, not only to prevent progress of the issue of immigration, which we want and need to see fixed, but also having consequences on the lives of americans in a very real way. host: let's go back to the phone lines now. as a reminder, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. we are going to go to the independent right now. byron wilson, north carolina. caller: yes, good morning, and i have a few ways to make. number one, trump employed over 100 illegals, and these people, some of them were over 20 years -- for himek -- works for him or 20 years. we have destabilized the border, especially venezuela. providing clues and putting certain people in power. and when you destabilize these governments like this, you're going to have this problem. we invest nothing south of the

border. we could find hundreds of billions of dollars to give to israel and ukraine and everything. this is of our own if they were having -- even the mexican government said if you help us stop putting all these illegal guns down here for the drug cartels, and we could probably help you on the immigration. so these are problems that we created. and then as far as the heritage foundation, these guys promote more conspiracy theories and promote putin's stuff and they have been doing it, that is who puts infiltrated.

i thought you all were getting better. you will use to have him up there every two weeks to brainwash the american people. >> i appreciate your calls and you've raised a lot of points, but i want to give laura some time to respond to his concerned about the heritage foundation, but i also want you to respond to the points he raised about whether the u.s., by not engaging in helping u.s. policy is perhaps hurting some of those countries that we now see people fleeing. guest: the u.s. has been giving billions of dollars to these countries for decades in the form of international aid. vice president harris has, in her border role, talked about it and continued to give considerable money to these countries and it is not solving the problem.

but we also have to place responsibility on the countries themselves and not ignore that. the damage that that does to these citizens. the u.s. continues to be a beacon in the world, the greatest country on the planet, and of course people want to continue to come here. but as a sovereign nation, we have a right to have a lawful and orderly immigration system each year, and that means that not everyone can come in and choose where they are going to go and when and how. we have a right to control the border, and to encourage people's use of air system, but as long as it is easier and faster to come illegally, which is right now, that is the process capable choose. host: let's take another caller.

susan is calling from westchester, new york on the democratic line. caller: good morning to you. laura, my comment is mostly directed toward you and white honestly, to all the republican callers who have been calling and complaining about the border issue for the past three years. it seems to me outrageous, and i support immigration reform, i think when you do certain poles, you find that a majority of people do, it is either number one or number two issue in this country, especially republicans, and here is an opportunity where the senate is trying to negotiate and compromise, a word that doesn't seem just anymore in the republican congress. they are trying to come up with a compromised. all the details aren't available

yet and mike johnson and his republicans in the house are rejecting it out of hand. because they are sycophants to trump. and it is more important that they don't let biden have his win then to do what is right for this country. when is it going to be country over party? and i asked all republican callers, call your representatives and tell them to not reject this out of hand if you want immigration control at last. thank you. guest: so the test needs to be is the compromise going to actually solve the problem? this has nothing to do with biden and nothing to do with trump given the border crisis that we are facing right now the tools that are being used to accomplish that, those tools need to be taken away. and so the detail that have

emerged with this negotiation includes faster work authorization for people who are coming here illegally. it is against the law for someone who is not authorized to work here, and so you -- if you are going to give faster work permit which is a part of the negotiation right now, you are than enticing more illegal immigration and you are not changing behavior for people to come here lawfully. if you're going to allow a daily number of illegal aliens, including up to 8500 per day before allowing border patrol agent's to expel people back boe codifying crisis levels of illegal immigration. the secretary of homeland security under president obama said 1000 illegal aliens per date was a bad day. why on earth would be agree to 5000 a day or 8500 a day?

the terms that are being negotiated are bad. it is a bad deal, and we should not be saying yes to a deal just to strike a deal. we should be actually solving the problem. guest: here's the thing. interestingly enough, i agree on a number of things. we agreed that we as a country have a responsibility to have a secure border. also, that we should have functioning, legal immigration channels, which has proven to be the most effective way to decrease illegal immigration. sadly, the devil is in the details, right? and unfortunately, like yours and many members of congress oppose those legal immigration channels, in some of the tools that are currently in asia right now. we also often try to aggravate a number of big to try to win a point. the people who were getting work

permits, let's look at how this works. first ivanka, they gotaways that laura has talked about, that number has remained fairly constant since the previs administration to this one. the people that the administration is saying would be work permits are folks who have had a meeting with an immigration official, and they are put in proceedings where they have to show up. in the meantime, the cities where these folks are going are saying hey, these folks could be working and supporting themselves. that is what the administration is trying to do is to say ok, they are waiting for that, let's get them. but these are not the people who are gotaways or disappear off the face of the earth. there is a significant percentage being turned away at the border and it is not coming

in at all. host: i want to ask about it, because we've been talking about what is being negotiated in congress. we know there is no deal yet, but on friday, president biden basically put out a statement that said if they are able to negotiate something that gives them authority to shut down the border, if the amount of people who show up reaches a certain threshold, he would sign it. ed i'm going to show an article again. the headline says biden says he will shutdown the border if he is given authority. i want to scroll down to a portion of this article where it talks about the contours of the deal, and i'm going to read it. it says the contours of the deal are still subject to negotiation, but the negotiators have long discussed setting

treasures for daily border crossings, after which the biden administration could shut down the border between ports of entry. under the current proposal, asum-seekers would still be asked to make claims that authorized eventually, although they would face a much higher standard of being granted the opportunity to apply for asylum. republican to support a deal say the authority to both force biden's hand and strengthen that of his potential successor. i want to ask you both, the contours of the deal, does this sound like something you can support? guest: know, because again, and except a very high level of daily illegal immigration entry. it is not a number that border agents can manage.

if jeh johnson saying 1000 per day is a bad day, why on earth would be agree to 5000 a day or 8500 a day? that is crisis level for the border patrol agent. we should not be even discussing it, let alone putting that into codifying that. in terms of cruel, this is a go to tools of the biden administration is using. the obama administration used it well. it is intended to be rarely used, or someone who doesn't have time to get a visa. urgent need. emergency surgery or someone who is about to testify in a criminal case, they don't have time to get a visa. it is typically rarely used, and that is how congress intended one reason we know that is congress did not authorize work permits for parolees. and yet this is ministration is handing out parole at a mass scale. tens of thousands for four nationalities and other groups

as well, and giving them work permits. these are full for had time to apply for a visa, and this administration is violating that part of the statute. host: so we talked about the contours of the deal. is this something that you think is worth doing, because we furthered some progressive groups thanks thdeal might be too far when it comes to allowing illegal immigration. what i grew thoughts on the contours of the deal? guest: we somewhat agree again, but for different reasons. first of all, as you said, the actual language hasn't emerged, so we can't take full judgment until that happens. but one of our concerns is that this is supposed to be that ukraine and about standing up to putin. and now this side conversation has become dominant, but because it wasn't a side conversation,

we are not looking at how we modernize the immigration system to be effective. this is like a three legged stool. the border is the immediate concern but in order to look at the border, we need to look at the other piece of the system. for us, one of the concerns is it has proven time and time again, when we have functioning legal channels, people use them. this proposal unfortunately seeks to reduce the few door that remain open for people and doesn't have any of the legal immigration provisions that frankly, the vast majority of americans support and that lead to legality. so that is one of our main concerns. the other thing, yes. first of all, parole, not just obama, not just biden. it has been used by administrations from both parties. the thing is that yes, the

numbers of immigrants around the world are increasing. the movement of people for a lot of different reasons. so it is important to use the tools we have to respond to that situation and come up with new ones. and that is one of our concerns about this deal, is that it is looking at one piece of the puzzle and giving up some of the tools to increase legal channels, which is what we should be doing, encouraging people to come with the sow's than smugglers. host: we are going to go back to the phone lines. as a reminder, if you are a democrat who has a question or comment about immigration policy or the border security at the southern border, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

let's hear from marcy now. marcy is in massachusetts on the independent line. what is your question or comment? >> night comment is if the border was so secure right now, why did the supreme court order governor abbott to take the razor wire? that is not fair. host: and what else? caller: yes? host: did you have any other point? caller: yes. and i'm not going to live. when it comes to my haskell reunion, all my friends are already dying. i st had about 60 school

classmates that pass away from fentanyl, heroin. this is ridiculous, honestly. i'm not going to lie, i governor, who is a democrat is even complaining about the crisis. nobody is talking about us fi p. the only one i see talk about it is trump, that's it. i had to put up surveillance cameras. i let my dog loose when i'm not here because my father-in-law is 78 years old. i'm scared he's going to get injured. people but i've never seen before walking around my house now. post: we appreciate your call. laura, anything you want to say to respond? guest: with regards to the case, the supreme court order that just came out this week was very short and it basically said, it

returned the decision to the lower courts on the merit that it said that texas can to put up wire but also the federal government is not enjoying -- in joint from removing the wire. guest: there is a standoff with the supreme court's of the federal government can remove the wire, but nothing has been done yet. host: the biden administration has ordered texas to give them access again to that area, which is city property and private property. it's not federal property. that didn't occur. the biden administration has not acted on that yet. host: i want to go back to the phone lines because we have a caller in charlotte, north carolina and she is a latino

voter. andrea, go ahead and share your thoughts today. caller: thanks so much for taking my call. -úi have a question. donald trump said that the immigrants arriving from asia, america, from africa, they are poisoning the blood of this beautiful country. it makes me wonder4s, when he gs back to the white house, what would he do to address this problem of seeing so many people who are not white coming to our country? and second, i need to let you guys know that earlier, your

guest said that the families that were separated at the border were not real families. i work as an interpreter -- i'm sorry, this is disgusting. this is racist. i don't know why people want to dehumanize others this way, but i don't think they should be allowed. i mean, if they want to talk this way, they can talk this way , but why would you go on tv and say something so racist? anyway, and a practical way, what kind of measures do you think donald trump would do if he were to go back to the white house not to allow brown people to keep poisoning the blood of our country? thanks so much for taking my call. host: go ahead, laura. guest: so during the biden

administration there have been foreigners coming from over 175 countries read we are talking about at least 80% of the globe. which race would that be? it doesn't matter what countries they're coming from. we cannot sustain the numbers that have been led into the u.s. just in the past three years. guest: do you poisoning the blood of america? guest: no, i'm not going to get into trump's characterizations. but the reality is we as a nation, cities and communities can absorb the number of people that are coming in. so say new yorkers, so say chicagoans. we simply cannot sustain this in terms of cost. education, the housing, hospitalizations, etc.

so that is what we are dealing with and that is where we need to get some control over securing the border and enforcing immigration laws. guest: andéc yet you have people getting work permits so that they can get their own housing and lessen the pressure on the cities. on the texas thing, with all due respect to governor abbott, this is not a new thing. this is the latest of a series of things where he's very intent, more intent on using immigration for political stunts than to solve a policy issue for texans. i mean, how crazy is it that people are demanding that we have border patrol on the border and the governor is actually taking measures to prevent horticultural? -- border patrol? we have always been a country whose dna has immigrant dna.

going back to the beginning of the nation. we also need a modern immigration system that continues to honor that legacy, not just because of who we were, but because of who we are. nobody can deny that immigrants are integral part of the american economic engine. as a matter of fact, right now one of the reasons there is increased immigration is because our economy is doing well. it is strong. there is low unemployment and we are seeing worker shortages. so rather than political stunts of dropping immigrants this city or another blue city to try to score political points, frankly, there are states like utah, indiana who are saying send immigrants here, we. we understand that, but we want a system that makes sure that

yes, people are doing better in those who go work in different places complement the american workforce. and by the way, we didn't talk about the previous call is flagged something that our country is dealing with, and that is the opioid epidemic. in one of the things we are seeing is that the majority of drugs coming in through the southern border are coming from went eventually. we have invested in the technology needed to do scans, x-rays of trucks which is how a lot of those drugs are coming in, and we need to do more of that. that is part of cutting off the supply. we also need to address the demand in this country but i agree that we need to deal with that based on where the problem is, and that is investing in our ports of entry. host: let's go back to phone lines.

david in sacramento, california, republican line. caller: i just want to bring up, what happened to due process of law and the allegiance to the country? quit pretending you are jesus and you are going to need everybody with red and fish -- bread and fish. host: do you want to respond to that? guest: we have to process. my organization is not allowing many others to shore up the assignment -- asylum system■é. that is what we want to see from our due process. so i agree, we want the resources to make sure that there are adjudicators and staff to be able to move people through that process.

in a way that we are figuring out the people who are indeed in danger and we can give them if have to be out of danger. host: so again, the phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8001. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you're a latino voter, you do have a dedicated line, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. next up is someone who called on that latino voter line. jonathan is in long beach, new york. caller: good morning, everybody. i'd like to discuss a few things here quickly with you. so we have 8 million plus illegal immigration invaders in the last three .5 years due to democratic policies in america.

we have some weird kind of sense that the democrats are going to allow all these people in so they can vote democrat, which is weird to me because most spanish people like myself believe in god. we believe in heaven. we don't believe in this woke-ism, we don't believe in free rides, we don't believe in this lack of due process that has been happening in this country for the past years. and i'm not blaming any party or anything, i'm just saying that listen, america is broke. your $34 trillion in debt. we are throwing children who are going to school into streets so that homeless immigrants can go and grab some sleep in a warm place to live. this was not well-thought out. none of it. this was a travesty.

host:host: laura, you want to respond? guest: i agree, we simply can't afford this and this isn't how a sovereign nation should be functioning. i want to also address something that was stated earlier about a political stunt of sending people to blue cities. the biden administration has been allowing the majority of the encounters to come in. secretary mayorkas admitted to agents a couple weeks ago that they are allowing in, releasing over 85% of those encounters. they have been doing it for the past three years, often under the dark of night, and so they don't really want americans focusing on this. but the net result is indeed that the vast majority of those were coming here illegally are being allowed into the u.s. texas, of course, due to geography, faces the front line

of this, and texans don't want to be subject to these very large numbers of people that they cannot absorb into their communities. and so other states are feeling it as well. other states have become border states not just because of the number of people, but also the fentanyl that is coming to every community and killing far too many americans. host: next caller is dylan in vermont, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that people have been freaking out about immigrants coming here from the beginning. they said the irish were going to destroy the country, they didn't want to live any jewish people in, the chinese, they had

to pass laws to stop chinese people. it was just racism. it is racism every time. the fentanyl is being driven across the border by americans. it is not coming across on foot. they are just saying that to justify evil treatment of refugees, really. if you don't like a border crisis, i'd say don't overthrow every democracy in south america. thank you. guest: you know, dylan makes a good point. again, going back to the fentanyl, part of the rhetoric we are hearing, and again, this is about adding hot air to what is already an issue that we can fix, but to try to derail those solutions as dylan mentioned, there is a sense that is trying to be put out there that undocumented immigrants coming

to the border are the ones bringing in the drugs. those drugs are coming mainly through points of entry and mainly on vehicle driven by american that is in that doesn't make it right or wrong, it just means that we need a strategy that deals with that as opposed to try to obfuscate this thing like it is these families of these individuals. we need that kind of intervention. we need that kind of smart enforcement. at the end of the day, one thing is true. we need change. what is happening is unsustainable. the majority of americans, including us, we support decisive well-managed and secure border. but again, to say that we can simply do that by closing off legal immigration channels which is unfortunately a lot of what happened on the devious administration and a lot of what

-- supports is counterproductive. what keeps attracting people to this country is that we continue to be the best country in the world, that there are economic opportunities. i don't want to crash the economy to try to stop people from coming in. a more effective solution is to make sure that the legal channels work and they are able to get here legally. that is what we need to demand from our elected leaders. guest: can i address the fentanyl at ports of entry? when we are talking about 1.7 at least who are coming in and also there are plenty of cameras set up across the southern border, that take pictures of people crossing between the ports day and night, dressed head to towing camouflage, military-aged men with very large backpacks, the drugs are coming in between the ports of entry. i don't understand why this

constant argument of the drugs are only coming through it eventually. they are through both. and the net result is the fentanyl and the other drugs are getting in coming historic numbers of americans. secure the border. the drugs will decrease. american lives will be saved. that is what americans want. host: jean-pierre in newport, florida. he told us that he is a puerto rican caller. quickly, your final point. caller: thank you. i just wanted to point out that in order to have a border, you have to be in control of the border. biden has given up control because he's not obeying the law eight doing as he is supposed to. host: all right. laura, just quickly, is hr to

the only thing heritage foundation supports or is there some type of compromise possible on border security measures? guest: hr two should be the floor, not the ceiling. it would, in fact, secure the border. it would prevent future illegal immigration. it cuts down on the asylum fraud which no one should prefer. it cuts down on the catch and release. unauthorized work by requiring a verify or any other may researchers --or any other measures. it should be passed in the senate. host: what needs to be done to secure the border? guest: i think we need to fund properly the tools that we need so we can have a fast and fair asylum process, so that folks that actually need asylum can get through that quickly and folks who do not need it can be denied. but, we need that to work with

other functioning doors because we know that when there are legal channels that work, people come in with visas rather than smugglers. unfortunately, the current deal does not have that. simply, proposals that shut down every single door people may stand in line for to do things illegally, shutting those doors will not secure the border. host: we are going to have to leave it there. we have clarissa martinez de castro and lora announcer: , next on c-span q&a, and retired u.s. senate historian betty koed shares stories from her book, collection of brief chronicles of senate history she presented to senators during their tuesday caucus lunches between 2009 and