including the eisenhower era campaign operation wetback and president-elect trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. "washington journal"'s next live. join the conversation. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, december 1. many americans will spend this morning and houses of worship, but some laws are passing --

states are put passing -- states are passing laws to allow a greater will for religion during the week. this morning, we want to hear your opinion. should religion be included in public school curriculum? if you believe yes, call in at (202) 748-8000. if no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, that number is (202) 748-8003. please be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. you can also find us on social media. we are at facebook.com/cspan and on x at @cspanwj. there have been developments and efforts in multiple states to incorporate more religion into the classroom, including in

oklahoma and louisiana. now, texas will be next to try for bible lessons in schools. bible-based lessons will not be mandatory. schools that incorporate them will receive additional funding. boosters say the bible is a core feature of american history critics point out the lessons will alienate students from other religions. texas's education board voted to allow bible infused teachings in elementary schools under optional new curriculum that contests the boundaries between religion and public classrooms in united states. the material adopted by the texas state board of education, controlled by elected republicans, past 8-7 in a final vote over criticism that the lessons would proselytize to young learners. supporters argued that the bible is a core feature of american history and that teaching it will enrich lessons.

as reported in usa today, there has been other news, including in louisiana. louisiana law ordering 10 commitments in schools ruled unconstitutional. this is from november 12, when a federal judge ruled on tuesday of that week that a louisiana state law requiring the 10 commitments to be displayed in all public school classrooms is unconstitutional. every public classroom in the state from elementary school to college would have been required to display the 10 commandments starting in january 2025 under a law signed by governor jeff landry. in the decision, a u.s. judge said the law conflicted with u.s. supreme court precedent, violated the religious rights of people who opposed the display. as you go down into the article, it should be pointed out that

while louisiana has drawn national attention by passing the law it is not the first to attempt it. war than a dozen states have tried similar bills, including kentucky's landmark case decided by the supreme court in 1980. this is a map of states that have tried or are trying to pass bills to allow the 10 commandments into the classroom. for more of an overview of what state action has been happening on religion in public schools, in texas in november the state school board approved an optional bible-based lesson for k through five schools by an 8-7 vote. in louisiana in june the vernor signed a law requiring public classrooms to display the 10 commandments, the one blocked by the fedaludge that will remain on hold until the case is argued in nuary. in oklahoma in june, the gop

ate superintendent mandated that public schools should teach the bible in fifth through 12th grade. a group of teachers and parents have filed a lawsuit to stop that plan. last month, the texas state board of education debated and approved that inclusion of christian-based curriculum as an option for elementary school education. at the school board meeting, a democratic state board of education member expressed her concern about possible constitutional conflicts in the proposed curriculum. >> i wanted to talk briefly. as i said tuesday, i spent a lot of time reviewing it in terms of its step and including black history references. it is a great start. i appreciate work with me this

summer and this week on trying to make it as inclusive as it could be. i know there are people that have emotions on both sides as to whether to vote yes or no on it, but in my profession we deal with fact. when it comes to whether materials will file at the establishment clause, i'm thinking about entanglement. in the can guard materials, christianity is referenced three times. first grade, reference four times. second grade, 17 times. third grade, referencing hundred 90 times. fifth-grade, it is referenced 66 times, so if those facts alone, if a parent or teacher did not feel comfortable teaching this to bring this to a court, i believe that will be successful. in protecting my bar license, i do not feel these materials are

reflective of the experiences and he wants of texas students, so i have to vote against this decision. host: a texas state board of ucation member gave this defense for why this should be incorp into classrooms, saying these religious curriculum stories are on the educion side and are estang cturalerac and religious concepts like the good samaritan and the golden rule that students should be exposed to. we would like to hear from you all this morning on your thoughts about whether there should be religion inc. in public school curriculum. if yes, (202) 748-8000. if no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. let's start with maria in new york, who says no. good morning, maria.

caller: i am not interested in having religion in school. host: why is that? caller: sorry. host: we will go to john in new york, who also says no. caller: thanks for taking my call. religion as a subject matter itself i do not think should be incorporated in school. i am a former teacher and i believe in the separation of church and state, but this goes as far back as the scopes trial, when a science teacher tried to teach the theory of evolution in tennessee and there was a tremendous backlash. people did not want that to happen, so it was a clear

conflict between science and religion. if there's any component of religion that has historical value, i do not see anything wrong with incorporating that in a lesson. i do not. and comparative religion might be a good thing to teach as long as the teacher does not proselytize. it has value. and in that respect i would not have objection, but to teach religion and try to convert some student or students i think would be wrong, but at the risk of repeating it if there is any historical value in any of the world's great religions, and i believe there is something to that, i do not have any problem with that. thank you for taking my call. host: john referenced the scopes

trial, also known as the scopes monkey trial. it was a prosecution of a science teacher for teaching evolution in a tennessee public school, which a recent bill had made illegal. the trial featured two of the best-known orators of the era. as opposing attorneys. the trial was viewed as an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the bill and publicly advocate for the legitimacy of darwin's theory of evolution and enhance the profile of the american civil liberties union. let's go back to your call. caller: thank you for taking my call. i say yes, but i think they should teach religion in school because to me it is how we teach our children social skills and the bible will teach our children how to behave, how we should interact with one another and love one another.

it is no different than teaching them similar social skills, so i know when i was in school we had prayer in school. to me, it seemed like children were better. we acted better. we knew how to love one another. we just had a different type of love in our schools and we respected one another. it is so different now. i am an older woman. it was just a different atmosphere. it changed how we thought about one another and respected one another because those are the kind of things the bible teaches us, to love one another and respect one another. so i think those things may change how our children interact with one another and get along with one another, so i agree that we should have those in school. host: gina is in kentucky and

says she is not sure. good morning. caller: i am going to open a bag of worms because if we do change the law then what really is your child going to be taught? since there are hundreds of different religions. people are not thinking it through. if the law was to change -- your child could be taught any type of language. the bible says it is left up to you to make your choice. it does not say you have to be baptized. he says it is your choice to enter into heaven. so i think this is going too far and i think it will backfire. thank you. host: ray is in tennessee and

says yes. good morning. can you turn down the volume on your tv? then go ahead. caller: yes. i think it should be taught in schools. it would be better today if the kids didn't know about the bible. there would not be all this stuff going on in the world today. host: joseph is in massachusetts and says no. caller: good morning. i'm a believer in the theory of evolution. i think the theory of evolution should be taught from grade one to 12. that is a central. if you look at the problem of america and the world, it has to do with religion. people do not like to step on religion, but the people in

power use religion to keep people down, especially black people. they use christianity to keep people enslaved for 200 years. they still used religion to discriminate. look at what is going on in ukraine and all over the world. the moral of the story is people would do better if they understand evolution and the theory of evolution. host: what do you think of the role of religion in schools? should they be teaching that as well? caller: they should not. as a historical reference, you could. i went to catholic school. we learned the theory of evolution. how could religion affect a psychology major? they taught the theory of evolution was needed.

these people running the world use religion to keep us divided. you must have separation of church and state. it is what america has been known for and will make america great and will make america continue to be great, when they bring back separation of church and state that we never really had. thank you for taking my call. have a nice day. host: joseph referenced the separation of church and state, from the first moment of the constitution, weads congress shall make no law respecting tablishment of religion or prohibiting the free ex thereof or abridging the freedom ofh or of the or the right of people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. this is also known as the establishment clause. let's hear from karin in illinois, who says there should be religion in school -- publix will curriculum.

go ahead. caller: i am the product of a catholic school. i grew up in a baptist church. i think it starts at home, but i do feel the curriculum should be introduced in schools and a child should have a choice of if they want to learn about religion and maybe you can present possibly different religions and they can choose it as a curriculum to learn because right now we do not know our history and if you teach in a historical manner people may learn better and respect each other better because the country is full of so many different religions and people. if you learn better, you might respect better, so i feel it is ok to teach it as a curriculum. you do not have to force it on anyone. host: fran is in new hampshire and says now.

-- no. caller: i was in education for over 40 years and one of the things i noticed is that most teachers do not go to church anymore. they have no affiliation with any regular religious organization. it just means that you are asking teachers who have a blank slate of a topic that they are going to teach, which sounds very ineffectual and unnecessary . what teachers are focusing on now is respect for each other, respect for the young child that is handicapped, inclusion, helping others by going out of the playground and looking for new friends. this is what children need. they need that kind of

experience, not some person who has been raised in a particular faith and feels that -- an apparent government that feels that they need to force that particular faith on all children when it is not necessary. what we need to be stressing is love and respect for each other, which is what is going on in schools today. host: following the decision in texas, the group families engaged for effective education said -- the group's mary low , ounation does not have a religi i do not think our sool districts should imply or try to overly impress too young, impressionable children that the state does have a state religion.

aaron is in maryland and says there should be religion in our publix will curriculum's. go ahead. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. to have a well informed citizenry, students must have at least a basic background in religion and the bible. how can a student truly understand the great works of art and literature to understand the currents of history without understanding religion? and what the bible says and how the bible has been interpreted and misinterpreted over the years. president lincoln said during the american civil war that each side, north and south, invoked the bible in their own cause. i think students should understand how did different groups interpret that bible to support their cause or misinterpret the bible to

support their cause. this is not about establishing a state religion. it is making sure we have a well informed citizenry because whether people like it or not religion and the bible and the old testament have shaped civilizations. for children to be well-informed citizens, they have to have a basic understanding of that. host: carly on facebook has a similar point to the one we just heard with a different take away. i have no problem with student learning much different religions and how they weave into other cultures, but im strongly opposed to exclusively teaching a certain religionn public schools. donny says, in terms of historical context and cultural understanding, it needs to be up to the school district and the states to decidef needs to be incorporated in public schools.

however, the founding fathers did n eablish a religion because they believed in freedom of it. and it says, i am a strong christian but i do not believe on should be taught in public schools. the constitution clearly for visit. my guess is most people would say it i to teach their religi not others. as christian, i do not want to relinquish the public schools what i'm supposed to be doing through my personal relationships to share about my faith. there is a case in oklahoma that has been causing additional debate as reported in the oklahoma voice. the oklahoma court deciding the oklahoman superintendent has no power to make schools show a prayer video, according to the attorney general's office. state superintendent ryan walters had ordered schools to show videos of him praying for the president. oklahoma's top education

official has no authority to force schools to show a video of himself praying for coming president donald trump, the state attorney general's office found. it is contrary to parents' rights and individual free exercise right, the attorney general's office spokesperson said friday. the story was from november 15. and state superintendent -- state superintendent ryan walters sent a video and ordered public school to show it to students and parents. some oklahoma school district had said they did not intend to comply. 's last month, oklahoma superintendent of public instruction also announced he was establishing a state office of religious liberty and patriotism. he had ordered the schools to show it to all students and parents and then the state attorney general said he had no

power to do so. here >> is that walters announcement. we are excited to announce a new office in the oklahoma state department education, the office of religious liberty and patriotism. for too long, we have seen the radical left attack individual religious liberty in our schools. we will not tolerate that in oklahoma. your religious liberties will be protected. we have seen patriotism mocked and hatred for this country pushed by woke teachers unions. we will not tolerate that in any school in oklahoma. we want our students to be patriotic. we want our students to love this country and we want all students' religion to be protected. i will now say a prayer. students, you do not have to join, but if you wish i am going to go ahead and pray. dear god, thank you for the blessings you have given our country. i pray for our leaders to make the right decisions. i pray in particular for

president donald trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country. i pray for parents, teachers, and kids to get the best education possible and live high-quality lives. i also pray we continue to teach love of country to our young people so our students understand what makes america great and that they continue to love. host: also last month, the oklahoma gop senator markwayne mullin expressed concerns about letting oklahoma public school educators teach the bible and recent actions by that oklahoma education superintendent. caller: -- [video clip] >> let me ask you about the top educator in oklahoma, ryan walters. he has been on this show a bunch . here's what he has said about bibles in the classroom. i will get your reaction on the

other site. >> if you are teaching american history, the bible has to be included. you have to have it in the classrooms. that means kids will know american exceptionalism and the role that faith plays. >> how do you come down on this issue? there's talk of if it should or should not be an other aspects as well. i wonder how you come down on this. >> we all make decisions based on how we are raised and our life experiences. i was raised in a strong christian family. i have raised my kids and a strong christian family and i want them to know the bible what i wanted to be taught by someone taught the bible themselves. it is a slippery slope when he put it in the hands of teachers that may not be believers and will be teaching a word that can easily be taken out of context, so if the state is going to require that, the state should also be required that it is taught by someone who graduated from seminary school. if you leave in the hands of the public school teachers, that may

be not able to ashley teach it because they were not taught at themselves, then it can cause tremendous confusion. keep in mind that maybe the only time that child gets the word taught to them and if it is not taught right the bible warns of that. so i am concerned. unless they're going to require a person that was trained in the bible and graduated from seminary school or a different bible school, then i do believe that is the wrong move. host: let's get back to your calls. steve is in florida and says religion should be included in public school curriculum. caller: after listening to the oklahoma guys, just because you are taught it don't mean you learn it. if you are going to teach religion in school, you need to teach all religions. you need to teach the history of

religions and you also need to teach philosophy because that is what religion is, a philosophy. host: do you think schools should prioritize making that part of the curriculum over of -- over other subjects given the limited time on the school day? caller: no. they want to teach the bible and christianity. and forget about all the other religions and philosophies of the world. and it is a slippery slope. like those guys in oklahoma said, it ought to be taught by somebody who thinks the way we think, and not everybody thinks that way. host: selena is in new york and says now. -- no. caller: i am definitely opposed

to religion being taught in schools. the reason i believe this, i think that for black americans religion has been used to oppress us and to dumb us down and so i go all the way back to the time when we were in slavery. we were in the hot sun, bent over, working, and we were singing songs, hoping god will deliver us. god did not come. to go from that time to the current time, i think that religion has something to do with people voting for donald trump and anybody who knows anything knows that donald trump is not for black americans, so therefore these are my compelling reasons for why religion should not be any place near schools. thank you. host: walter is in new jersey

and also says no. good morning. caller: every time i hear this discussion, it reminds me of something. a substitute teacher asked us to say the lord's prayer. i never heard of it. i stood up and walked out of the room. my mother got a phone call. it also reminds me of a book. the title is religions of our founding fathers. there is a long proof of how george washington was religious. he was seen in many churches, but if he stayed in someone's house they wanted to show him off so they brought him to their church. he went to church a lot. when we get to the bible, which one? you have some religions that do not follow anything near the old or new testament. so what are you going to teach them?

if you take almost any sentence in the bible, there will be five or six opinions or more. so that does not belong in the classroom, to have a conflict of interest to talk about any given sentence to a classroom of kids who are not in the classroom to learn the bible but to learn to read, write, do math, science, and every thing else. thank you. host: walter mentioned prayer in public schools and the substitute teacher that once suggested doing the lord's prayer. americans united for the separation of church and state put out a statement on november 26 related to prayer in public schools as a memo to president elect trump. prayer in public schools exists but cannot be compelled saying that, as president-elect donald trump has released a list of education priorities, one of which is bringing breck -- back

prayer to our schools, the idea there can be absolutely no prayer in public schools is a persistent myth port debunking. while the facts that follow are not likely to persuade ideologues like trump, we hope you can use them talking to family members and friends who have fallen for christian nationalist distortions, saying that voluntary prayer exist in public schools. students have the right to pray in public schools in a voluntary, nondisruptive way. students want to pray the start of the day, over lunch, before they take the test or other points of the day, that is protected. what is not protected and is not allowed is anything that smacks of government-sponsored religion or coercion. make no mistake, that is what used to happen in many american public schools prior to the supreme court rulings of 1962 and 63. school officials in several

states broadcast prayers and passages from the bible over the loudspeakers and everyone had to purchase a paid or at least listen. one of those cases being in 1962, a supreme court ruling which declared school sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional. let's get back to your calls. bert is in alabama and says there should be religion in public school curriculum. caller: good morning. this is what i want people to know. i'm not a person that goes to church, but i -- can you hear me? host: caller: i can hear you fine. i am not a person that goes to church, but i don't got a problem with the religion of the problem i have, if people was to go back to read the bible and get a clear understanding of the

bible, is it the book of matthew's -- you go to the book of jeremiah chapter 10 through five. we are getting ready to celebrate a holiday that you never read in the bible it was december 25, but if you read jeremiah chapter 10 it will tell you you ain't supposed to be cutting that tree down, so you have a lot of religious people saying they are religious but they are not really going by what the bible says. jesus did not even teach none of that stuff, so have a good day. host: a couple moreomnts from social media. i think it llpen a can of worms, all these parents pushing for relign e not thinking about there are so many sects of christianity. whatind of fit will they throw in their specific relions not taught? christine says teaching of world

religions, not theology, including atheism, should be part of cuum. basic understanding promotes tolerance. roberta says, when i was in a called religious education. evy iday afternoonhe last hour of school we could go to the local chu for what was basically sunday school. you have to have permission from your parents to do thisnd no one was forced to do it. i loved it. now back to her calls. dennis is in iowa and says no. good morning. caller: yes. in iowa, i will -- i believe it was the 1970's. they had should religion be taught in schools? people overwhelmingly voted against it because they said,

what religion are you going to teach? the catholic religion? lutheran? that is why it was voted down, because people have differ beliefs and they did not want religion taught in school because of that. that is my comment. host: katie is in michigan and says yes. good morning, katie. go ahead. >> i am 90 years old and i went to school and every morning we pledged allegiance to the flag. we did not have the criminals like we have today. let them put that back in the schools.

the children need it. kids cannot say the pledge of allegiance. host: what about religion in public school curriculum specifically? i know the pledge of allegiance has one nation under god, but do you think religious teaching should be part of public school curriculum? it looks like we have lost her. alvan is in texas and says no. good morning. caller: i do not believe religion should be in the public school. it would be one big mess. everybody would want their religion taught in school. teach religion in your house. that is good enough. thank you. host: linda is in texas and says no. -- wanda is in tennessee and says yes. good morning, wanda. caller: good morning.

i got joy down in my heart the song i think would be better for the children because of the critical thinking that it takes to dissect the word of the bible. the civics they took out of schools could help with the temperament of the children, so i think civics and biblical music would be great for our children. thank you. have a great day. host: now i will go to linda in texas, who says no. good morning. caller: i think they should not mix religion and schools. in every town usa, there are tens of tens of churches that can forge religious ideas and ideals. why can't when there is only one or two schools or libraries -- what is it going to do what they

want a muslim religion? that is going to be the first time they are going to shut it down. host: karin is in longview, washington and says no. caller: good morning. many callers have said they will want to teach all religions so they would have to have a historical religion class. who is going to make of the lessons plans? when i was in high school, i think it was 1972, we had a class, bible as literature. that is how they did that. so you could study it like that, but all religions -- even satanism and stuff would want to be in there. host: ok. she was calling in from washington. in washington state, there was a

2022 case that went all the way to the supreme court, y versus bremerton school district. this was a supreme court ruling whicld the right of a football coach to offer prayer on the 50 yard line after a game saying that this conduct was protected by the first amendment. let's hear now from tommy in new york, who says no. caller: of course not. why do people come to america? they came here for religious freedom because they were being oppressed in england and france. so quakers came here. catholics came here. protestants came here. we decided at that time there was no one state religion. you could have a state religion, but that would be just like the

taliban. that would be just -- you could only teach one religion and you must teach it. this is such a divided -- divisive thing. more people have died because of religion and politics. when you intertwine the two of them together, that pot will boil over. and there will be a religious war in america. that is what i have to say. good luck. host: carrie is in michigan and is not sure. good morning. caller: yes. i not sure because i am a christian, but yet the stories are all good in the bible that teach morals and stuff like that, but as far as religion goes and church and state it is

the first amendment that talks about it. not the second or down the road. the first amendment. that is how important it is. and christians have let me down with trump. with what he has done and he is guilty of the felonies, sexual assaults. we are going to put him in as president. please, i don't understand. thank you anyway. guest: -- host: he was referencing the first amendment to the consti, saying that congress shall make no law ting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof. michael is in connecticut and says no. caller: if you're going to teach the factual truth about religion, the bible, the torah, then yes.

teach it. but they do not want to do that. these places talking about religion in schools, what they want to do is promote christianity. but let me give you an example. if you are want to teach the truth about the bible and religion, are you going to teach children jesus was not born december 25? are you going to teach children the doctrine of discovery, which is the church's divine authority giving the early settlers of this land the authority under the -- by way of the lord to kill the indigenous people and take their land? are you going to teach that? i bet they will not and i bet they do not. i just want to promote christianity. it is ridiculous but i would say teach it factually because if you teach it factually you will put religion out of business.

that is what we need to do. host: education week has a story about these efforts in multiple states to bring more religion into public schools, saying that historically attempt like this are not unusual. experts say recent measures could be teeing up efforts to go before the u.s. supreme court. the core conservative majority has been paving the way in recent years for public dollars to go toward religious schools and rule in favor of a football coach postgame prayers at midfield. i'm agile legal scholars would say it is kind of an uninteresting case from a legal perspective because it seems like the law is clear, set a professor at the university at buffalo suny. this court has not appear to show a lot of deference to president and cases that have nothing to do with religion, so i think it could be interesting.

let's get back to your calls. leroy is in kansas and is not sure. caller: i am not sure about it, but the main thing is if you are going to teach religion in needs to be put in a book form where you are actually talking about all of the religions throughout the two semesters. and that will be a good thing. then i am still for the coach doing prayer. host: do you think this is what students should be focusing on in school and using time in their school day for this? caller: it is one of them deals. you got your seven hours of school. basically you let one hour to explain what religion is and then as the curriculum for the school. host: lee is in new jersey and

says no. caller: good morning. i believe religion as a subject, not having personal practice, should be, in the historic sense we learn for example like constantinople, empire building, something like that where it is labeled and how christianity or buddhism, etc. played a role in how we view society. personal practice, no. in schools, what we have with space for a silent period of reflection. in school, it started off -- i remember parents had a moment of

prayer and there were parents who were against that wording because it is like they do not believe in prayer in their own home. they did not want a school to have it or require our student body to have it. however, once we had a moment of reflection you could pray if you wanted to or if you wanted to sit in silent reflection if you wanted to there was space for that, so i believe that. i do not believe a regimented bible or anything like that should be used or introduced in school. thank you. host: hillary is in south carolina and is not sure. good morning. caller: i am not sure. i do not think maybe religion but the bible should be taught in school.

it is in the constitution about the separation of church and state. i'm sorry. host: i did not say anything. what do you think of the first amendment establishment clause in relation to that? caller: the first amendment speaks about the right to serve any religion you want to. that can be a variety of different things and there are many religions out there. if you follow the bible and what the bible says, you can make an idea of what religion you want to serve. to teach religion, you have to teach a variety of different things, but if you teach the bible you teach what christ left for us and a lot people get confused on separation of church and state. that letter written by prompt --

president thomas jefferson in 1802, if you check the constitution, it is not in the constitution. they say it is part of the constitution, but it is not. and i think the bible will be good to be taught in school. host: matt is in iowa and says no. caller: the guy from connecticut took my thunder away. good job, mike. i was watching on youtube if you years ago. in tennessee, they've a replica of the ark of the covenant during the flood and they have animatronics of dinosaurs living in harmony with men, so these are the people that come if we allow them to teach this kind of stuff in our public school as

just -- it is just ridiculous. that is what we got private schools for her. if they want to teach this in private schools, let them. if they start doing this in public schools, which are already being defunded by republicans especially in our state of iowa that is run by republicans, they are going to just set this country back 50 years. that is all i have to say. no. host: thomas is in california and also says no. good morning, thomas. go ahead. it looks like we have lost thomas. let's hear from mimi in virginia, who also says no. caller: good morning. i taught for 20 years. in the state of virginia, we have a law that says you have a minute of silence so we spent almost three hours a year on a moment of silence, which is really used for prayer.

a lot of my colleagues were seeking in religious cut mainly christian, religious paraphernalia and all types of teachings from just the bible. i am not a christian. one thing i believe that christians need to own is that this is what the new york caller had said. this is about keeping especially african-americans down, if you know your history. let's start with the bible. jesus is not a christian. he was a jew. he will not recognize christianity if he were alive today. he looks nothing like the image being promoted. if people would read their history, he said the slave master did not give you anything else but his religion. you have to wonder why.

also, i want people to understand that children are impressionable and also taxpayers are from all religions that fund the schools. if you are going to have representation of religion, and needs to be taught truthfully and equitably, but it is not. if people would watch roots, the first scene tells people why they are on the ship that we have to quickly convert these africans to christianity so they will obey us. so this is a christian national, far-right agenda and people of color, especially african-americans, need to wake up and school divisions need to be dissolved from taxpayer funding if they are going to engage in this and the first amendment backs that up. host: louis in north carolina also says now. good morning. caller: the chaos begins.

napkin answer also was a person in the bible who stated you have to worship this one idle and he made it mandatory. if you do not cut you will be cast into a furnace of fire. we have seen this before, what happens there is one religion for a group of people. you have some saying they hate america, this one group of people. if you look at the evangelicals, they already got it on the board about critical race theory. now picture this. we already know back in the day they were all black people. we all know that. but right now congress last year tried to take song of solomon out of the bible. how are they going to teach our children when they get to the point about who crucified

christ? it was the romans. it was light-skinned people or anglo-saxons. europeans. they are the ones who crucified christ. christ, if you ask ai to give a depiction of what he looks like, it would be a black man but i will tell you now they are not going to teach that in schools. they will teach just like the lady said, blonde hair, blue eyes, and looking like a woman. i am not going for that. my lord is bigger and better than that. they can keep talking about it, but they chaos is going to continue with this administration here it has just begun. host: nikki is in new york saying there should not be religion incorporated into publix will curriculum. good morning. caller: good morning. no, it should not. i am right now speechless because the last couple callers

have took the words right out of my mouth. it should not be taught. there should be separation of church and state and it is just another part of a far-right agenda. to oppress others. that is pre-much it. -- pretty much it. host: darlene is also saying now. -- no. caller: the reason i'm calling is the contradiction of the bible itself. i went to the bible museum and was reading about how people use the bible to justify slavery and the people on the others use the bible to abhor slavery.

there was articles that when the bible itself has contradictions, how can people take the bible seriously as far as teaching it one way or the other? people have to realize the bible was written and contradicts itself. i do love the bible. i love all the bibles of every religion. i think they are trying to teach people how to live and have good judgment, but i do not think one should be taught. if they are going to be teaching religions, that would be different. in the way they are teaching the religions with how they contradict each other how they are the same, differences and similarities of all the bibles and every religion, that would be one thing, but when they are teaching the bible one way and

told how to teach it, it takes people to how they understand it and read it. they have people who are -- study the bible today and still cannot understand all the teachings of the bible and realize that it contradicts itself in many ways. host: let's hear from roy and georgia who says religion should be incorporated into publix will curriculum. caller: i think it said. -- i think it should. people need understand the three major religions in united states all worship the same god. the jews, christians, and muslims. i listened to speeches about jesus. a few weeks ago, the governor of florida wanted to ban gender

identity in the school. everybody came against him because they want to gender identity to be taught in school. he was actually sued. but here we are trying to teach our kids commonality between religion and people are coming out in an uproar. it is ok to teach our kids once they are in prison and incarcerated. you welcomed the church to go in to teach the kids, but to teach them before they get incarcerated? to teach them about love and giving? we want to forbid that? they can be taught, but how are they taught? the book of genesis is a great book to read for all religion. it talks about god, a sovereign god. people need to understand and read that. they need to understand there is something greater than them. and that god loves.

host: let's get in one more caller before we have to end this segment. scott is in texas and says no. caller: i grew up in the dallas independent school district in -- with religion in schools. they disguised it as nondenominational. it was far from it. do interrupt math classes to pass out bibles. the interrupted half a school day to put on a religious program in the auditorium at my high school and you had either to sit in the lunchroom or attend the service. but you could not go home. it is exclusionary. it is just wrong. if you want your kids to have a religious education, that is what church and temples are for.

when i went through my religious training, which went through the seventh grade, one of my classes was comparative religion. but this has no place in public schools. if you want to pray, you can pray before school. you can pray silently to yourself. you can pray after school. this is nothing but fish and nationalism and a way to take public dollars, tax dollars away from public schools and transfer them to vouchers, which is probably going to pass in texas. what private school can you go to for $10,000 vouchers question mark -- vouchers? host: thank you to you and everyone else who called in with thoughts on this topic.

before we move on, i want to point out giving tuesday is almost here and this year your gifts to c-span can go twice as far. generous supporter has agreed to match the first $10,000 in donations, doubling or impact. by supporting c-span, you can help ensure transparent coverage of your government. so you can visit c-span.org/donate or scan the qr code on your screen to make your matched gift today. we thank you for your support. coming up next on washington journal, we will have republican strategistdam goodman and democratic strategist michael rosa incoming -- trump administration as well as political news of the day. and ter, katrina burgess will join us to discuss the history of mass deportations in america including an eisenhower

campaign arrow to deport many mexicans and president trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. we will be right back. ♪ >> kickstart your holiday shopping season and avoid the crowds with c-span during our black friday sale going on at c-spanshop.org. save up to 30% off. save on hoodies, sweatshirts, accessories and more. there is something for every c-span fan. shop c-span's black friday sale at c-span.org or scan the code on the right. >> according to brown university

professor cory brad schneider, the following presidents in history threatened mock pursue. john adams waged war on the national press, prosecuting as many as 120 six who dared criticize him. james buchanan colluded with the supreme court to deny constitutional personhood to african-americans. andrew johnson urged violence against his political opponents. woodrow wilson nationalized jim crow by segregating the federal government and finally, richard nixon committed criminal acts, ordering the watergate break-in. >> brown university professor cory with his book, presidents d the people. five presidents who threaten democracy and the citizens who fought to defe it on this episode of book notes plus, with

our host, brian lamb. but notes plus is available now on the c-span free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span now, the free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and watch scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio. plus, a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> listening to programs on

c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays, catch washington today. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back for our political roundtable. we are joined first by adam goodman, a republican strategist and the host of the 13th and part podcast. good morning, welcome. guest: great to be here. host: we are also joined by democratic strategist michael larosa, the democratic press secretary for first lady, jill biden from 2021 through 2022.

tell us about your background. guest: i was a tv producer for cable news channel hardball with chris matthews for several years before i went to capitol hill government, assisting senator maria cantwell from washington state. i joined speaker pelosi's office in the new congress in 2018. as a communications director for the caucus. and then i joined joe biden on the presidential campaign early in the primary season of 2019. i was the traveling press secretary for jill biden and was her spokesperson into the white house, a total of three years with the bidens before joining ballard partners in d.c. host: the same firm that you are working with, adam. tell us about your background. guest: my dad was one of the original madman of advertising who got into politics with a campaign in maryland for spiro

agnew, going back into the 1960's. they thought he had no chance to win. he wins the governors race and goes on to be vice president under nixon and is removed from office before it is all said and done. i've been the tv guide. i write and direct television and other media for candidates all over the country. i have done 46 states and all sorts of different countries. i've had a front row seat to democracy, as i see it. in all of the good ways and interesting ways. i joined ballard because, like michael, -- ballard, like michael, maybe four years ago. we have a reputation for our connection to the incoming administration, which is real. host: why don't you talk about that connection to the incoming administration. guest: brian ballard has a tremendous relationship with the president elect. we also have our partners, susie

wiles was a long time partner. she is chief of staff president. marco rubio, great friends with marco. we have those kinds of relationships. but, it is nice because we were born in florida. a lot of our florida friends are in the national spotlight. we see them first and foremost as friends. for we do -- before we do the things that we are going to have to do for the country. guest: so many of the old guard of the d.c. consulting class did not have connectivity to the new president back in 2017. and ballard has really managed to keep their model and their relevance after trump and now again for trump part two, there

are democrats, robert wexler from florida, myself, we have connectivity to democrats and republicans in congress. host: what role if any did you play in the last campaign? guest: i was the traveling spokesperson for the first lady, jill biden. traveling with her. the biden campaign in 2020, the primary campaign, in 2019, i joined in september of 2019. i was with that campaign for a little over a year before we went to the white house. i was her primary spokesperson. the way that they used dr. biden was as a, sort of like a principal, similar to the way hillary clinton was used when her husband was running for president in 1992. we were doing 3-4 events a day in iowa and new hampshire. raising money in california and

new york. it was quite -- it was an interesting time because it felt like whiplash. we were behind. we had no money and we lost those early contests to secretary buttigieg and bernie sanders. it felt like a political whiplash. after south carolina, we were really able to unite the democratic party and go on and win super tuesday and then covid hit. we were down for a little bit. and then got back up in august. and we were able to make some history and win. host: let's fast-forward to current day. you mentioned the nominee for attorney general. do you see any lasting impact of matt gaetz having to withdraw or choosing to withdraw? his nomination for that role and what is your take on the transition announcement so

far? guest: i see no impact with the transition from matt gaetz to pam bondi. i have worked with pam for a long time. her run for attorney general was something that began with a discussion we had together, attorney journal of florida. host: you were her chief media strategist. guest: and we are great friends. she's going to be terrific. she's one of those people that is central casting for the role. the confirmation hearings overall will be fascinating. i think all of america is waiting for the rfk jr. appearance. that is one where a lot of questions have been asked, obviously. he is an outside the box thinker, to put it mildly. in an administration that is intent on changing the way washington and the country in a way does business. you can expect some very direct

questions about where he stands on health care, which is something all of us are concerned about. host: you mentioned the senate confirmation hearings. the president has made some indications he would like some recess appointments. what do you think of the prospects of that? guest: every president wants recess appointment because they want the process to go quickly and smoothly. i think it's a good opportunity for the american people to get a good taste of people who are significant in their lives. i like the confirmation in the hearing process. it's not going as well for robert bork and linda chavez and others who did not quite survive it what i think it will be healthy for america. host: we have received a number of announcements from the incoming trump administration about how he plans to fill his cabinet. he intends to make patel head of the fbi.

what is your assessment of the people he is choosing to fill these key positions? guest: if i were a senator on the floor, what i support the president's nominee? the role is advise and consent. they should give their opinions, thoughts and then consent to the president's nominees. he has a prerogative to keep the members of the team he wants -- pick the members of the team he wants. i like the idea of marco rubio. he's a china hawk. they have a competition to out china each other and they are being remarkably consistent. i watched marco rubio as a tv

producer doing 17 debates during 2015 and 2016. he has grown enormously in his confidence as a communicator and i think you will represent the country very well. i'm a big fan of sean duffy, the transportation secretary. i think he will do a great job. he is the heartland. he gets it. i was surprised by his choice for labor secretary, congresswoman morgan, who i think lost her seat. there were some choices where you could tell he is pushing the envelope and really testing the leadership in his own party. i don't know if -- i think back to bill barr, attorney bill barr book when he said, president trump the time, wanted to appoint cash patel to deputy director of the fbi and he said

over my dead body because he has no experience. that's going to be a concern. host: last month, you spoke up publicly against some democrats for their criticism of pete hegseth, specifically them calling him a white supremacist. you got quite a bit of pushback for that. guest: i would say i got more praise than pushback. i don't recall getting much pushback from anybody that i can recall. if i were a senator, i wouldn't vote for hegseth, but because he's not qualified. not because he -- not because of his views about dei. the point i was making when i sent that tweet on x, it was a

response to a back-and-forth on progressive, very left-wing, left of center, a tv show on nbc where there was no debate or dialogue. it was a one-sided conversation. i don't like the part of politics where you smear people just because you disagree with them on policy. and that was my larger point. was that you can disagree with how pete hegseth feels and his writing and his record on dei and policy but that does not make him a weitzer premises. that was my larger point. -- a white supremacist, that was my larger point. host: do you agree, adam? guest: i do. american people have said we don't like what's going on. you see that in poll after poll. the right direction, wrong direction question.

the wrong direction got 75% by election day. if we really want change, change from what we have, win people put up something that represents remarkable change, whether you like it or not, it's going to be a remarkable set of changes under president trump, if you have to take anything to the bank, it's that. it scares people too. change is scary for a lot. if you are doing something different, you are pushing the envelope. if we really mean it, if the american people really mean it that we can do better than what we have done, not just over the last four years but over the last 20-20 five years, change is the only way to get there. that's why i advise everyone to fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be an interesting ride that it will be a ride into something new and different. host: it's interesting you

mentioned the idea that change is scary. there is gallup polling looking get america's reaction to donald trump's reelection and the difference in reaction between democrats and republicans, finding republicans are feeling optimistic, relieved, excited and proud's. democrats feeling surprised -- and proud. democrats feeling surprised, angry and afraid. guest: they are very edgy and emotional. everyone is invested in what's about to happen. i'm ok with half the country or more to be in doubt with how it's going to work out. we don't understand how it's going to work out. what we do know is where we come from for many of us is not good enough. and i think those emotions will give way to the reality of whatever is going to transpire in the next four years. which, again, will be a seachange in the way we do business. and something i think americans

are at least ready to take a shot with. those emotions on the democratic side will change if what happens from all of this turns out to be positive and even progressive in certain directions for the country. host: we are welcoming your questions for our roundtable guests about the presidential transition in washington. our line for democrats is -- republicans is (202) 748-8001. for democrats it is (202) 748-8000. for independents, it is (202) 748-8002. i want to ask you a question about immigration because, last week, president elect trump -- tom homan threatened funding for states refused to cooperate with the federal government's deportation plan. do you think that is good?

guest: we have not seen the policy it. tom homan is a no nonsense person. he has advocated for what president trump has. security at the border. are they in favor of all of the things that will be required to get there? i think they have exposed the entire approach. i think when you see the numbers go down of illegal crossings. we are not just talking about illegals crossing into the country, we are talking about fentanyl coming into the country. sex trafficking, all sorts of things that are perilous, not just to people who live on the border. you ask the people living in arizona and the southern part of texas how they feel about this, it used to be a different take from what you would here in chicago or new york or boston. it's not quite anymore. those other cities in the north where a lot of the illegal migrants have migrated, they are also understanding the impact of what happens when you don't have

control and have not secured the border. i think it will be a popular idea when it is all said and done, when we do that. in terms of deportations, where they are going to start, they will start with people who have committed criminal acts. that's where it will begin. they don't, in my opinion, they don't deserve to be america. if they are here illegally in america and then they break the law, it's hard to build a case for why they should be here. guest: i don't disagree with what most of adam said, especially when it comes to the deportation of people who have come into the country illegally and are committing crimes. i don't think that will be an unreasonable executive action. but i don't think that, i think part of the challenge that every president since ronald reagan has had is that there is not an executive solution to our immigration problem. it has to be a law.

and there needs to be a congress and an exec at of who are willing to work together to come to the table. we have had that in the past. we saw it in 2007. there was a bipartisan group in congress and president bush worked together to try to get something accomplished. there was an attempt in 2013. but really, nothing -- there are plenty of actions the executive can take at the border. all of them are temporary. and none of them will fix the problem. we have been operating under the same law that was signed by a republican president and passed by a republican senate in 1986. we are still operating under that law. it's going to have to -- the good thing about the transition and this new congress is that

president trump promised quite a bit. now it is their job to hold them accountable and make the immigration problem go away. host: politico has a story about this being the new progressive strategy, particularly held out by elizabeth warren. highlighting this idea of holding the trump administration to some of the promises made on the campaign trail with senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts saying there will be places where it is appropriate. for example, if trump follows jd vance in trying to ban access to abortion nationwide, there will be massive resista if trump follows through on his promises for more taxut for billionaires andonaire corporations, we wille in that at the same time, she said if trump is going to lower interest

rates on all consumer loans to 10%, count me in. guest: those are great, substantive fights that are very etiological. -- ideological. those of the fights democrats have been opposed to for a long time. and that they would be fighting in the fight, resisting, no matter who or which republican was president. whether it was trump, haley or bush. i argue that it is a good find. that we will not resist for resistance purpose. i would hope most people are rooting for success. they promised quite a bit that the immigration problem was going to go away now. even though he was president for four years. as a democrat, i would say he was not the solution to the immigration problem. but now that the american people have decided that we will make sure his promises are held

accountable. host: quickly and then we will get you some questions. guest: i'm a republican, right, so i shouldn't be giving advice to democrats. but they should take a good, hard look at what happened. first, get through all of the stages and figure out what they have to do to get back. the biggest message from 2024 was the working class, america's working class went into the republican camp. that was unexpected. african-americans, hispanic americans, working americans. that is something the democrats concede which has been there -- for so long. that's a problem. it's not about objecting for objection's sake. they have to take a hard look at themselves and figure out how they can refocus on what america and americans want. clearly there was not enough of

that this year. host: lots of questions coming in from callers. we will start with alan from cleveland, ohio on the line for independents. caller: i've identified myself as an independent and i voted for trump three times. i consider myself an independent because when i was in ohio, i voted for sherrod brown. i can easily switch back and forth. i am a graduate of cleveland states urban affairs college. i was on the left side for a while. there still part of me that is quite liberal. over the years, i have changed. close the border now. also, what i wanted to mention is -- who is or who isn't qualified to be in these positions. we don't know everyone's qualifications, if they have

been anointed by colleges in the u.s. were helping to ruin the country. i believe all of these people are qualified. we are the ones, the voters. pete hegseth is qualified. why? because alan voted for donald trump and i picked trump to pick a transition team. so who is going to call me on the phone? do i have the opportunity like mr. larosa to spew my opinions? host: alan, you are giving your perspective on television about whether people are qualified, right now. guest: i believe they are qualified by the -- caller: i believe they are qualified by the merger of the fact i voted for donald trump. i hear all of these people on tv, they have good intent. but who are you to tell me who is qualified? guest: i'm not telling you who is qualified and who is not. i'm giving you my opinion.

pete hegseth, of course he is not qualified read of course is not qualified to run a federal agency, how many million people work for the pentagon? he's a weekend talk show host. he couldn't even take the weekdays. in all seriousness, i have no problem with pete hegseth as a person. but as a defense secretary, of course not. and i don't believe he will be confirmed. guest: change is difficult. from where we began, kimberly, pete hegseth has qualifications. he served this country. i appreciate your question. he served this country and i think he brings a different perspective. you expect someone with a couple of stars on their uniform. pete has experienced all sorts of things, having to do with the

military and the nation's defense. if you want to take a fresh look at everything, including how we defend ourselves and the world and what it takes to have an effective military, i think it's good to have an outside perspective. he's a smart guy. he's well educated. i think anyone who is willing to risk their lives for this country deserves a shot. guest: i agree with adam that it is. i am open to disruption. the president can choose outsiders and disruptors to the system. absolutely. but we don't have to break the system. i think that is what people, at least on the democratic side, view some of these pix as -- picks as, at least they have voiced before that they would like to break the system and that is scary for folks. host: wilger is on the line

for republicans. the morning. caller: i have a question. host: ok. caller: what do you think about ronald reagan? guest: i think ronald reagan would be a democrat today. i think he was a democrat and then became a republican in the 1960's. i think he would go back to being a democrat today. i think democrats represent more of the anti-communist, national security sentiment that reagan actually reflected. actually, reagan himself was a compassionate conservative who wanted to treat people humanely who came into this country and voiced the importance of immigration in his farewell speech. host: obviously i know you have eight response. wilbert, did you have a follow-up question or was that it? caller: i have one follow-up question.

the smile on donald trump's face, will it reappear? host: i miss that. guest: will dismount reappear? absolutely. i do think that, you talk about ronald reagan, his principles worked -- one of his prince was that worked well for the country -- principles that worked well for the country was peace through strength. there are 70 things that ronald reagan did. you're talking back in the 1980's. he was, in his own way, a real disruptor. he was not expected to be president of or even when the california -- of the united states or even when the california governor's race. he did it his own way. kimberly mentioned the idea of great communicators.

he was a great communicator. he gave america a shot in the arm. i think if donald trump and this administration are able to succeed in what they are setting out to do, we will have that kind of jolt of confidence that we've been missing for a long time. i am optimistic about that. i think you will see donald trump smiling even more as we move forward. host: flint is in washington, d.c. on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a lifelong democrat, the way i have voted. sometimes you win and sometimes you lose but the one thing i respect is the office of the presidency. i think we need to stand behind whoever is the president and let them go into power. you knew the policies when they were running for office. donald trump won and is trying to secure the border. we knew that eight years ago. they took a personal vendetta against him.

now, they are bringing up the idea again. let's stick with one program and try to compete. instead of trying to change every four years with this bipartisan type of thinking. another thing, living here in washington, d.c., we still have taxation without representation. we have no senators and no voting member in congress. we are here, just unaccounted for. we need to work on that, first of all. as a d.c. citizen, i don't feel accounted for. let's stick behind one idea, ride with it and get the most out of it and stop trying to change everything. it's like walking on a treadmill. host: i want to give a guest a chance to respond to your points. i'm guessing donald trump will not prioritize statehood for washington, d.c.

guest: i don't think it's the first thing he will do as president, no. i appreciate the call and what he said. whoever is president, we have to get behind, thank you for that. i wish there was more of that, as opposed to people who don't like a certain result and start to rebuff. in terms of the border, the border has been broken for a long time. this is being real about this. it was not just the last four years under president biden. it was not the four years before that under president trump, who i think did better than president biden but the problem itself was not fully resolved. you go back to obama and george w. bush. we have had an issue for quite a long time at the border. we have to figure this out. i will tell you who is looking at this, not just america, it's the rest of the world. i was traveling recently in north africa in morocco and i had people from morocco coming up to me when they found i was from america, asking me questions and a lot of it had to do with the border. border security is an issue.

maybe not as much in north africa but certainly in europe and other parts of the world. we really want to lead the world by example and get things done. we have to know there is a ready audience for that that goes well beyond our shores. host: the border issue obviously has been so important to american voters. the consequences of what trump is talking about could have real repercussions if that is carried out. u.s. groups are asking trump to spare their workers from deportation, pointing out roughly half of farmworkers in america, of the nation's 2 million farmworkers, lack legal status. so, you have agriculture groups asking for exemptions. how do you actually see the administration carrying out what voters were asking for on immigration and border security,

without pretty massive economic and humanitarian consequences? guest: it's a valid point being raised by the agricultural community. the biggest challenge is not in continuing to innovate to grow more crops and food for the world. that's, you might say, collateral damage to the earth. it is labor. labor is the biggest problem the farm movement has. the farm population in america is aging and we need to find a way to refresh that. we need workers to be able to grow that food that the world desperately needs to survive. you are going to have these kinds of discussions under the umbrella of immigration. border security, i think the one thing president biden, not to give advice to democrats, should have done is all but closed down the border at some point during his presidency to make the point that we are serious about it, as opposed to sending his vice

president, dispatching his vice president out there to try to speak to the issue. i think we are going to have a conversation about what is good, what is right. we talk about citizenship. the last time, kimberly, that citizenship in this country was addressed, what is it? what does it mean to be a citizen? in the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was instituted in the 1800s, after the civil war, the reason they passed that commitment was to make sure that future congresses did not turn their back on newly emancipated slaves. we have not had that discussion for over a century. i think maybe it is time we get there. host: what are your thoughts? guest: to the caller's point, sorry, going to adam's point, there are a lot of amenities who feel similarly to agricultural

workers who want exemptions. business has always been for getting immigration reform done. it's different from a border issue. -- is that a four year low thanks to some of the executive actions the president has taken. the vice president was not sent down to the border, she was sent to bring investment from the private sector to countries in central america. host: but the idea that building economic development in central and south america would decrease -- guest: the flow of migration up north. she was successful. it speaks to a much broader munication problem they had. and they never addressed it, even before she was selected as the nominee, that she would not

be the borders are. -- border czar, she encouraged the private sector to invest. to help resolve issues of poverty and the economic struggle. so that we could extend the flow to those coming to our country. otherwise, i think the house republicans impeached the wrong person. host: we will have another segment looking at border security but from a historical perspective, about the history of mass deportations in the united states. that will be coming up shortly. let's get back to your calls. patrick is in minneapolis, minnesota on the line for republicans. morning. caller: good morning. it looks like we have a lot of macroeconomic things we have to clean up. a fascinating topic and conversation.

on the pentagon discussion, we have to clean up our economic system. how to inaugurate things. and leadership to everything that needs to be done. you have a young guy, a new guy coming in who is a disruptor. weapons that we have not thought about are going to be more realistic. they sound futuristic. but we are living in an era that we have not lived in before. your thoughts on the wall, maybe

it needs to be completely rebooted. i think it is that we shake the dirt out of everyone's cleats and allow a younger -- host: this is a follow-up to the nomination of pete hegseth as the defense secretary with patrick pointing out, as many people have, that the military could use some revamping in certain sectors. guest: absolutely. if we don't challenge assumptions, the assumptions continue to be the rule of the day. the ones who are most worried about this, kimberly, i believe, and patrick, thank you for the question. the ones who are worried about this are the bureaucrats, the bureaucracy. the permanent government. because there is a certain way they have done things and continue to do things, whether

it works or not. and government is never seemingly judged on efficiency. they want a lot of funding for the american people. but how are those funds going to be applied? you talk about the navy, china is about to overtake america, in terms of naval ships. you talk about a real existential threat, it is there. the old thinking is not going to simply resolve something that is a fairly new phenomenon. china, 25 years ago, was still trying to get help, trade help and other things from america and from the rest of the world. today, they are now taking us on. and they are taking us on not just economically, but militarily. i think, again, to your point, that being willing to say tell me why we need this stuff over here, when the army and navy is giving way to more taxable

deployments to keep us and the world safe and what will it take to get there? and then challenging relationships with defense contractors, who have had tremendous success in getting government contracts for weaponry. whether everything that is in the channel, everything that has been proposed or is being made is absolutely necessary to secure our safety. i think having someone willing to question that is a good thing. host: greg is in whitewater, wisconsin on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i like this format. having a republican and democratic strategist talking about issues. the thing i want to talk about is ai. in the 2024 debate, not one question was on artificial intelligence. when the election ends, we see elon musk and mark zuckerberg going to mar-a-lago. we see all of this happening and yet what i'm curious to know is

now we have full party control with the house and the senate and the supreme court. the supreme court is very old. now you're dealing with technology that is dealing with us -- affecting us for the next 20, 30, 40 years. what will ai look like during this trump transition and i am worried about a kleptocracy and i am worried about corporations taking control of ai and data. that is dangerous to me. i'd like to know from both, what are the plans. thank you. i will hang up. host: let's start with you, michael. guest: i appreciate the question because it has not been addressed. i think the biden white house under domestic policy laid out core principles for ai going forward. but we need to codify those. what we don't want, and i think we need to get ahead of this in the next administration, i don't profess to be a tech expert or an ai expert but i do remember

microsoft in the 1990's. they were playing by their own rules until congress and the executives past legislation to bring them in. we are going to have to update those statutes and those laws to address ai. and i agree with this in terms of the theme of the new administration. we do need different policy thinkers and advisory policymakers. pressure minds, fresher perspectives. and i think the callers sentiment is exactly right. it can be very scary. this is an area where the government needs to regulate and set some rules. guest: i love this question. thank you for that. the fact that it did not come up in the debates and it was not a

major part of the conversation in the 2024 campaign cycle is mind-boggling. how could it not be? i'm excited about elon musk. it's one thing to see him cheerlead on the campaign platforms next to president elect trump. it's another thing to know elon musk and zuckerberg will bring an outside the box thinking -- way of thinking about ai and its impact. the rest of the world is competing against america for leadership in the ai technology movement. we don't have it locked down as an american preserve. we have created this and we are going to drive this. it is a very competitive situation. i can tell you some of our adversaries abroad are trying to get there as quickly as we are. i hope it will be powerful and

productive and i'm thrilled elon and others will be whispering in donald trump seer about what to do. host: armand is in florida on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thanks for having a democrat and a republican on. i've been waiting for this for a long time. please bear with me. the immigration problem we have, ever since nafta when companies started seeing they could get cheaper labor, they moved companies out of the country and into other countries. then you had companies in the united states that could not move their companies out of the united states. and they had to find cheap labor. ever see snapper, we have an immigration problem. -- ever since nafta, we have an immigration problem but we don't have an immigration problem. we have companies that want to find the cheapest labor. i'm talking about big businesses and corporation. i'm talking about small

businesses and medium businesses that can find that cheap labor. they want the cheap labor but they don't want to pay the benefits. and that is where social security and medicare part going broke. now you have a workforce that are not paying into this. now, we want to get rid of them now that we have had decades of them sitting here, raping the system and the corporation. host: i want to make sure you get to your question but i want to give our guests a chance to respond. caller: we are still going to have cheap labor coming into the country and not paying their fair share of the taxes. host: ok. we will go with adam first. guest: i was fascinated by this question and your observation. thank you for calling. also, thank you for appreciating the fact that we have a democrat and a republican in studio with

kim billy today, and you cannot only get different perspectives but there is common ground as well. michael and i share things ideologically, believe it or not, that are parallel. i think we should tread carefully. there are dramatic economic effects of taking a new role and completely putting it into 100% effect without considering everything that it will impact. the number one issue of 2024, the number one issue of 2020, the number one issue of 2016 was and will remain the economy. if we do something that inadvertently impacts that, we have to be very careful. one thing that all of us should start looking at, especially with the new secretary, marco rubio, if confirmed, which we are excited about, is our relationship in latin america. you talk about the situation on the border, michael pointed out earlier, it starts far south of there.

i think we have an opportunity. we have not fully explored, no offense to the current administration, strengthening our relationships throughout the hemisphere. we do that, we keep nickel national assets closer at hand. -- critical national assets close at hand. we have less concerns about gaining an economic and potentially military edge. north and latin america in particular, we have neglected them and it is time to wake up. guest: i traveled with the first lady to central america, south america, panama and ecuador, for that reason. to show gratitude for everything that they were doing to invest in their workforces and their education system, to alleviate poverty. but also, to be partners. to be our partners. china is contesting us in some of those latin american countries.

and it's important that we do keep our america -- keep our eye on america and strengthen our partnerships there. that is something that we need to do at the surrogate level. i didn't understand much about it before i traveled. it was a great learning experience. it's important because if we are not there, china will be. host: david from maine is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the two strategists. there is a lot to resolve in this country but i would like to hear their opinion on, i guess what i would consider, the morality, i'm talking about right and wrong, and how this country, i considerately dumbing of the american voter. i truly appreciate the news that is provided by respectable news

outlets versus social media and hyperbole. i am curious as to how and why -- electing a person with such a criminal background to the presidency. i don't think it should have been allowed. somebody who has been convicted. i don't care whether he has been sentenced or not. we know the character of this person. and how they actually think this is a good choice. i do worry about the democracy of our country, on the slide downhill to the proverbial autocratic state that trump is headed for. host: i will let you take that one first, michael. guest: not an easy question to answer, obviously. i'm a democrat. i did not vote for him, in part

for that reason. that was the choice we were offered and that was the choice that was provided to us. i will have to leave it to adam to address white republicans selected the nominee they selected after what we do know about his, what would you call it? legally challenged background. the felonies in the new york trial, correct. i got into politics because of bill clinton. he was my inspiration. i started paying attention when i was six or seven years old because he was running. and, you know, trump, i think there was a lot of attention over the course of the cycle on the new york trial. and what basically was a state, i'm not trying to diminish the felonies.

but it was a state trial. and it was more a statute that he violated. in what actually had to do with a consensual relationship he had 18 years ago. and that i think back to me, as a democrat, who loved and endorsed bill clinton -- and adored bill clinton, who committed a crime while he was president because he was having an affair, a consensual affair with somebody in the white house. and when you look at the two, there is remarkable similarities. and there are remarkable differences. i think, personally, the charges in georgia, when he was caught trying to steal votes, to me,

that is much more disqualifying than the state felony he was brought up on. the larger point is a little under 50% of the country decided that it did not matter to them. what mattered to them was what was he going to do for them. host: the caller referenced the dumbing down of the american voter and the moral assessment of the president-elect. what's your take on the callers opinion? guest: first of all, i think americans are tired of prosecutions of public officials that goes on and on and on and takes us farther away from the business at hand. the number one issue of this campaign, not coming from me, it was consistent across all polls, was the economy. and it was the word inflation. inflation has really hurt a lot of people.

one of the reasons i think the working class reacted the way they did, they couldn't do it anymore. they are having trouble making ends meet. living a proverbial paycheck-to-paycheck life. 65-70% of americans are worried it will get worse and not better. you talk about what is more important, that was priority number one. you look at 2016 and 2024. what americans said is it's not worth it for us. it just isn't. and yes, we, it was an interesting showcase up in new york with the trial. there were other judicial actions that were threatened against the president. they have almost all now been dropped. i think we are tired of it. let's get back to doing what we do best. and if we do that and we get away from one side versus the other, i think this country has a chance to heal and pull together.

guest: it's hard for democrats to swallow a lot of that because we felt the prosecution and destruction of politics and politicians started in the 1990's against bill clinton, by a series of flurries of investigations that wasted taxpayer dollars that lead to nothing. i think that was probably part of the, you know, sort of the birth of what we see transpiring today. host: we have a question for michael in massachusetts who asks about immigration. do we know how much of the money we invest in central american countries actually reach the people? this is in relation to the vice president and her efforts to stop or at least limit migration. guest: sure. i don't know the specific

commitments they received from the private sector. i do know that i believe one, and it escapes me, right now, but i believe there was a really large investment from a renewable energy company that was setting up shop in either mexico or central america, to create jobs and spur the economy and keep people working. that was the goal of the vice presidents diplomatic mission. it was more of a state department diplomacy type of situation. it was not homeland security or a border immigration role. guest: we civilly have not done well enough in latin america. we just haven't. the big thing is, and i credit

the vice president, you have to show up. how many times have leaders actually gone to latin america and shown they care? not enough. host: speaking of showing up, the current president, president biden is heading to africa. a long-awaited africa tap a win against china. he sets off for angola today that will deliver on a promise to go to africa. he aims to divert critical minerals away from china. this is in relation to u.s. investments in sub-saharan africa. this sets up a question we received from kristin in portland, maine. can you speak aboutur future relationship with afca countries? donald trump has repeatedly called them s-whole countries. guest: we have got to do a

better job in that continent. we have been awol. having traveled to morocco and felt the enthusiasm that people from morocco have for america and frankly for donald trump because of his actions in the western sahara, it is a real threat that china and russia too , they create inroads into africa. if that continues, with all of the vital assets and critical natural resources and assets that are there, we are asking for trouble. i'm telling you, we are way behind. china, who is big into entertainment and movies, it set are, they have gotten to a point where villages barely have electricity. they have put satellite dishes on everyone's roof in that village, so they can communicate chinese based programming directly into those villages. that's a way of building from the ground up.

we have to stop that. i applaud the president, president biden for going to africa. i wish he had done it more. i hope president trump does that and takes it seriously. i guarantee you that marco rubio , the confirm secretary of state, will be doing that. guest: the president traveled to we traveled to liberia and tanzania and kenya and ghana. but i will say part of the america first slogan, sometimes i worry that it leads to this isolationist type of feeling and i think what adam is describing are the reasons why we need to be connected to the rest of the world and be involved in the rest of the world. the reason by partnerships and alliances at her so much. i was driving here and listening to a news radio station and

somebody was talking along those lines about the war in ukraine and mentioned putting america first and the best interest of our country. being president -- you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. there is a reason why it is a difficult job. it reflects the best interest of our country, but also what is in the best national security interest of our country overall -- abroad? that sometimes involves the plummeting and investment. host: we are going to have to leave it there, although i'm sure we could continue talking for hours. michael larosa and adam goodman, thank you for your time this morning. later, professor katrina burgess will discuss us to -- will join us to discuss the history of

mass deportations in america and present electronic's pledge to support -- to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. after this break, we will have more of your calls and comments in our open forum. the numbers are on your screen. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, the author of my two lives talks about surviving nazi germany as a half jewish member of the hitler's youth and the day his jewish mother was arrested by the gestapo. >> we got out of the subway come around the corner from where we lived. i saw all kinds of gestapo in front of the building.

this was a large building. there were many families there. and my brother and i decided rather than going in and going there with all these assassins -- we waited on the corner and watched it from there. we decided to ask her mother why these cars were there and what the gestapo was doing there. we would go home and ask our mother. after a while, it was my mother they were bringing out of the building in one of the cars and they took her away. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcasts on our free c-span now app.

>> are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast? try listening to one of the many podcasts c-span has to offer. you listened interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter. learn something new through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. afterwards brings together best-selling authors with interviewers for wide-ranging conversations. and we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free app wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are in open forum, ready to hear your comments about politics of today. our number for republicans is (202) 748-8000. for democrats, (202) 748-8001.

for independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you're a fan of c-span, we hope that you will support us. giving tuesday is almost here and we have a generous supporter who has agreed to match the first 10 thousand dollars in donations to our nonprofit, which would double your impact. if you support us, you can ensure transparent, no spin coverage of your government. you can do that by visiting c-span.org/donate or scanning the qr code on your screen to make your matched gift today. let's go to fairfax, california and our line for republicans. good morning. let's hear from a lease in oregon on our line for democrats. -- elise >> in oregon on ally for democrats. i watched c-span for years.

i am concerned about our country . i am 50 nine years old. and the propaganda being put out is destroying common sense of our youth. they work ethic is very different and i do not know what to do about it. what i am first time in my life very concerned about the future generation, the denial of people on climate change. i live in florida. i survived a hurricane and trump

did nothing to help us. he denied funds, 283 days. and i live in florida, so most of the people do not know how awful things will happen here, so i encourage all the listeners to really fact check information because i will not be alive when the hatchet descends, so i am the least hopeful in my whole life about this country. host: let's go to david in florida on our line for republicans. good morning.

caller: i wanted to congratulate the nominee for fbi director. i think it is safe to say that chris wray went too far sending a truckload of agents to read mar-a-lago with shoot to kill orders. it is a good idea that he is replaced. wray pulled that stunt on many of joe biden's political opponents. i think on the mar-a-lago situation that was unnecessary and will not he trump was furious about it and she had a lot to do with trump replacing christopher wray, who in many ways was, i hate to say it, believed like a comp -- behaved like a common street thug as fbi director. he was very harsh on joe biden's political opponents. rating them and pointing automatic weapons at their heads

when all he had to do was call their attorneys and have them turn themselves in. but thank you. host: let's go to bob in illinois on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: hello, c-span. i am 72 years old. i love my era. except a very young lady like you. i wish i was young. let me get my question. i hate that i missed mr. larose a because that is where my question was going. and maybe someone could call in and answer this question. maybe they will or maybe they will not. to me, entertainment was the major reason the american people

voted for that man, entertainment. they made a mistake because if abortion did not get harris to the finish line, no other monday morning quarterback would have. so she would have lost anyway. my question is this. if there is a number of americans, 75,000, 100 -- 75 million cut 100 million cut to sign a petition -- trump is very not smart to me. will they be able to get him out of office? if more than 100,000 people sign an eviction? with the american people finally realize they made a mistake? host: are you suggesting a national petition that would

cause the president to be removed from office? caller: yes, i wonder. host: no, we choose our presidents through elections unless congress makes a decision to impeach him, so that would not work. let's go to stephen in illinois on our line for democrats. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i think president biden should step down and let kamala be the 47th president for a month and a half and then use her new immunity powers to arrest trump and send him to guantanamo. how about that? host: that is a strategy. robert is in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning, robert. caller: thank you. the mother of all living, introvert, introvert, homophobic homophobic. host: jim is in missouri on our line for democrats.

caller: good morning. i was surprised at your previous guest mentioning ronald reagan. i have been thinking about reagan. apparently he was faced with the same large number of migrants in the country. instead of trying to deport them , which would have devastated the workforce, he gave them amnesty. the idea of being able to round up 20 million, deport them, no matter what it does to our workforce just does not make sense. i would like to see joe biden give amnesty to the 20 million migrants instead of trying to get rid of them. we need them. thank you. >> host: linda is in new jersey on our line for independents. can you turn down the flame on

the tv and go ahead with your comments? caller: i am sorry. is that better? what i wanted to say was the only thing the people of the united states have in their favor now is donald trump's ignorance of the law of the land and the constitution. because he really is using his head. he wants to get rid of government workers. when they collect on their pensions and file for unemployment, what is that going to do to his record? when he wants to deport people that have been working here on his properties in the state of new jersey and florida, how is he going to replace that? so the unemployment rates will go up.

his immigration and international rates will go down. and the best thing of all is his ignorance to the constitution, which says after he takes the oath of office he can be court-martialed, except for the insurrection and for his it -- ignorance to what the people need, and taxing without representation, which is what he is kind of doing to people that he did not win by a mandate, he won by 1.2, and joe biden won by a mandate, 4.3. now, there is a lot of people out there that are not being represented by this man and i think he really ought to read up . they credit him for being a good businessman, but he failed business.

host: let's go to josie in indiana, pennsylvania on our line for democrats. in morning. -- good morning. caller: there was a gentleman who called in and said the fbi went into mar-a-lago with guns blazing, using deadly force when they did their search warrant. that is totally untrue. fbi officials testified before congress and gave the procedure they did, so that was a blown out of proportion talking point that again took away the authority of a given court order to go in and have a search warrant. it is amazing to me how many people who voted for the incoming president -- host: i'm glad you brought that up because i was looking for the article on that. there has been a fact check on

that particular point about the deadly force language in the fbi document for the mar-a-lago search. former president trump -- this is an article from may -- pointed to standard language in an unsealed fbi document to baselessly claim the biden administration wanted to kill him during a search of mar-a-lago in palm beach, florida nearly two years ago. this is where he alleged or said that the fbi have been authorized to use deadly, lethal force. the claim was boosted online by his supporters come up with the language he referenced is a standard policy statement used for issuing search warrants and was not unique to the fbi search of his property. it is actually meant to limit the use of deadly force. so that is the response to that point, but please go ahead and finish. caller: i also believe a point

was made that when the fbi did that rate they worked in -- with the secret service so there would not be any pushover or any of that nature. we are going again on baseless tweets. i am a constitutionalist. i called in on the democrat line. i do vote democrat. i have voted for republicans. i'm a constitutionalist. when i hear these people praising the ideas coming forth before the new administration even takes place, where is the constitution in all of this? do we not remember that the president takes an oath to uphold the constitution? and much of what i am hearing and reading is in opposition to

our constitution. host: i want to get a couple for -- a couple more folks in before we have to finish our open forum. kc is in norman, oklahoma on our line for independents. caller: imagine it came at cares act he went out doing the same thing that the republicans to this whole time. it would be hilarious. the orchestration of all of that would be unimaginably -- and we all forget about the elect doors. they have a right to choose whoever they want. they are going to vote for the right -- their own because they do so many things for their party, but when you think about it, if you find out who this man is, donald trump, he does need

to go to guantanamo bay. they are all going to be hating life or they find out he is the antichrist. host: judith is in missouri on our line for independents. caller: i did not vote for trump. i do not like him, but i wish he would get a stylist. i am tired of looking. if i have to look at that outfit for four more years, the blue jacket, white shirt, and red tie -- get him a stylist. thank you. host: sue is in michigan on our line for independents. caller: i am most disturbed by the fact there is no discussion surrounding the immigration and the real causes for it, by global interests out of centralized europe and also of

dual citizens running our own government. that are a minority but seem to be overrepresented in the banking industry and in our upper government levels. so get a grip, folks. it is not about the workforce. it is about tearing apart culturally our country so it can be reassembled by larger interests who have -- it is not donald trump. donald trump is a nationalist who is i think trying to save this country. but we really need to look at that. why are you not presenting people on here who are discussing how ngos are getting the migrants into the country and how george soros is paying for it and other globalists who are interested in seeing our

country torn apart? that is what is going on. the words are for the same purpose. israel and ukraine are serving the same interests, not our interests. host: next, professor katrina burgess will join us to discuss the history of mass deportations in america as well as president-elect's trumps -- president-elect trump's pledge to deport undocumented immigrants. we will be right back. >> weekends bring you book tv featuring authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's what is coming up this weekend. former california republican christopher cox takes a look at the life and presidency of woodrow wilson in his bookn our about book segment.

and the books that inspired and shaped her and her book club turned nonprofit. book tv present coverage of the 75th annual national book awards , hosted by the national book foundation the awards celebrate the best literature published in united states. author and actor kate mckinnon hosted the ceremony and awards were given for best fiction, nonfiction, poetry, translated literature, and young people's literature. watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> attention, middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span's studentcam documentary contest is here, your chance to create a documentary that can

inspire change and make an impact. your documentary should answer the question your message to the president. what issues most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories must studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world with 100 thousand dollars in prizes, including a prize of $5,000. this is your opportunity not only to make an impact but to be rewarded for your creativity and hard wk. enter your summatiday. scan the code or visit studentcamrg for details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is katrina burgess, a political economy professor at us university's -- tufts university's fletcher

school. we are here to talk about the history of mass deportations in united states, on the campaign trail and elsewhere. present electron has referred to the eisenhower era program of mass deportations that trump has said he might use as a blueprint for his deportation plan. i want to flag that was called operation wetback, with the term obviously being a derogatory term often considered a racial slurs by many. can you talk about that program and where the terminology came from? guest: sure. it referred to a mass deportation initiative to remove our ghibli millions of mostly mexican farmworkers and the term wetback comes from a spanish term because mexicans were crossing the rio grande river to come into the united states

without documentation, mostly to work and farms of the soutrn uted states, so that is where the term comes from but it is very derogatory and it was used commonly at the time. there was less sensitivity to not using disrespectful terms in political parlance, so the operation that was created by border patrol was called operation wetback. the idea was they wanted to suddenly and massively relocate millions of mexican farmworkers back to mexico. however there was one important difference between that program in the 1950's, over essentially eight months in 1954, and what we are looking at today. that is the context of a massive program which was in place from 1942 until 1964 and the purpose

of operation wetback was not to immigration to the united states but to force particularly texas growers to hire mexican workers through a program, which was legally, rather than contacting undocumented workers who were cheaper, so it is a very different kind of scenario in many ways than what we are seeing today. host: how did the program impact undocumented immigration at the time? guest: well, obviously the program itself was very traumatic for a lot of communities and families. essentially, it was called the immigration and naturalization service. they would go into the fields and create blockades on highways , go into communities, and essentially round up mexican workers and send them to large

detention centers, although usually briefly, and load them onto trucks or buses or boats, send them to mehand them to the mexicannment, and the mexican government would put them on buses or trains into the interior of the country, so it was disruptive for people. initially, it had an impact on border arrests. they plummeted after around 1955, but the main reason is because now mexicans were being contracted under a program. between 1953 a 1956, the annual number of legal contracts more than doubled to nearly half a million, so it is not that mexicans were coming to the united states to work. it is that they were coming through legal channels rather than having to cross without documents and be subject to arrest or deportation.

in that sense, it worked come in that it did push immigration from being more illegal to more legal. however, as soon as the program was ended, it went right back up. they reached nearly 2 million by the year 2000. the underlying reasons for mexicans to leave mexico and for u.s. employers to hire mexicans did not change. rather, the way they got here changed, so went from being largely some legal, a lot of undocumented to mostly documented, back to mostly undocumented because we closed an important legal pathway for these migrants. host: how has the makeup of the undocumented population in united states change since this program?

guest: it has changed dramatically, particularly talking today. even as opposed to 10 years ago. in the 1950's, the undocumented population in united states was almost entirely mexican. this was true until recently and the implications for a mass deportation program is that you send mexicans across the border, they are in mexico and the mexican government has to take them because they are mexican citizens. now, mexicans in terms of border crossers account for less than a third of all migrants crossing into the united states without authorization, so to deport those people is more complicated and expensive. so you need the agreement of the country from which they come or mexico has to agree to take them , which has to be negotiated. if you are going to put them on planes, which the u.s. does, it

is very expensive. the other difference is that now the undocumented population, two thirds of them as of 2017 have been in this country for at least 10 years, so these are people who have families and jobs. many of them have u.s.-born children, which means their kids are citizens. if you are going to deport those people, and this happened during the obama administration and during the trump administration, if you deport parents of u.s.-born children, either families get divided or u.s. citizens are effectively deported. back to their parent country of origin. so that is a big difference. another big difference is about 42% of undocumented immigrants to the united states did not cross the border.

they came on a work visa, student visa and just stayed. they are called over stayers. it is a different population. you will have a lot of well-educated people who have successful careers. it is a much more diverse population in terms of income, education, national origin. i think haitians are the fastest growing undocumented population in the country, so it is a different tapestry in the united states than it was in the 1950's. >> some numbs on the undocumented popation in united states. there are 11 million unthized immigrants as of 2022 living i6.3 million households, including more than 22 million people if you include

everyone living in their household. that means almost 70% of these households are considered mixed status with 4.4 million u.s.-born children under 18 living with an unauthorized immigrant parent. we are taking questions from our callers. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8000. democrats at (202) 748-8000. here in independent -- and independence at (202) 748-8002. you mentioned the cost of the potential mass deportations that president-elect trump has suggested. the american immigration counsel ran the numbers on this and estimated that in total we find the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation aimed at both of those populations would cost an estimated total of at least $315 billion.

we wish to estimate this figure is a highly conservative estimate. it does not take into effect long-term costs of a sustained mass deportation operation or the additional costs necessary to acquire institutional capacity to remove over 13 million people in a short period of time, incalculable because there is no reality in which such a singular operation is possible. when you go back to the eisenhower era mass deportation, president eisenhower rejected the use of the army on u.s. soil, something president-elect trump has said he would be willing to do. how would he do that and actually carry out the kind of deportation he is talking about? would it stand up in court? guest: i can talk a little about it. i am not a lawyer and this is not my main area of expertise. i have done research on it.

there is an act from 1878 that prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, but there are some exceptions. one of the main exceptions is when the president invokes the insurrection act which came together in 1792 with the purpose of suppressing rebellions. there were a couple -- what is a rebellion? what is an invasion? it is not defined those terms, so some courts have tried to clarify under what conditions the president can use the act and what the role of the courts are and there was an 1827 supreme court decision that basically the president had exclusive authority to decide whether the -- the insurrection act applies to a particular situation but in 1932 the

supreme court ruled the courts may still review lawfulness of actions once deployed. so what this suggests to me as a nonlawyer is that president trump has quite a lot authority to decide we are experiencing an invasion, and he uses this term a lot. he has declared a national emergency before and used that declaration to basically overrule the act. then, if and when he does that, courts can then rule on whether it is being done lawfully. i know immediately the day if you were to do this, there would be lawsuits being filed left and right by a vast number of organizations preparing to try to block trump from engaging in unconstitutional activities president, but it seems to me based on the little bit i have read he has quite a lot of

latitude and could indeed do this. it has been used in the past, probably the most well-known example is when eisenhower and kennedy both invoked it to send federal troops to schools in the south to desegregate, so it was essentially used to enforce the law because it was after the supreme court decision of brown v. board of education, which mandated desegregation. host: let's get to callers with questions for you, starting with when a friend in new york on our line for democrats. -- winifred in new york on our line for democrats. caller: i called to ask a few questions. first, what happened to decency, morals, character, and truth? host: why don't you ask your other questions as well and we will try to answer them all at once? >> is inflation the only concern

to voters, republican and democrat? host: i believe dr. burgess' expertise is in immigration history. i will let you respond to any of those points you would like to. >> i wish i had an answer to that question. i think we as a society need to change how we talk about immigrants. they are human beings. and we should talk about them respectfully and give them the dignity they are due. it is a complicated issue, but we do not need to dehumanize people, so i think we are on the same wavelength on that. about inflation, another cost we do not talk about is the economic cost of deporting millions, even hundreds of thousands. if you could pull off to boarding millions, it would have

a negative impact on our economy. undocumented immigrants contribute an estimated $1.6 trillion to our economy each year. they pay at least $100 billion in taxes. the account for 4.4% of the u.s. labor force, particularly in sectors like agriculture. if these workers were to be deported, we would have labor shortages. housing costs would go up. and inflation will get worse. so there is a clear connection between what happens on immigration and what happens to inflation and deportation is effectively an inflationary policy so if it does come to pass people are going to -- maybe they will not realize the connection, but they will be disappointed because prices will co-opt rather than down. host: -- go up rather than

down. host: juan is in nebraska. caller: from my reading of the mass deportation by eisenhower, halfway netted states -- half were united states citizens. that might be a problem because a lot of people look like what we consider immigrants now. that was back in the days of jim crow and segregation, but i think there was more -- it seems like kind of a racist move. i was talking -- i was listening to the new homeland security secretary or the one that is nominated and he was addressing this issue as well, like what if you take someone who's mother is a u.s. citizen or whose daughter

is a u.s. citizen? he said they could just go with them. what is your opinion of that? host: i will read from a piece you wrote in the conversation about this where you talked about this exact issue, talking about the operation. by mid august with this was enacted, agents had deported more than 100 thousand immigrants across the u.s. southwest. fear and apprehension, thousands more reportedly fled back to mexico on their own. most of these immigrants were young mexican men, but the ins also targeted families, removing nearly 9000 family members, including children. there is evidence of u.s. citizens getting caught up in the sweep. guest: if i could just add to that, i actually did not find a lot of evidence of u.s. citizens being removed. there is more evidence for that happening in the 1930's when

there was another mass deportation of mexicans from the united states. i think at least there is less evidence. half is inflated. i do not think it was half of them, but certainly there were some that got caught up. in those days, immigrants really had very few enforceable legal protections. i think today when advantage is that immigrants to have more protections that are monitored and enforced by a lot of ngos and legal organizations, so there would be some u.s. citizens who got caught up in mass deportations that would be carried out by present electron, but i think the bigger problem is with the caller mentioned at the end of the call, which is families will get divided and parents and children and siblings possibly will end up

going back, being voluntarily going back to their country of origin because they do not want to split up the family. i think this is particularly true for children. do you want to leave your kids behind if you are being sent back to el salvador or are you going to take them with you? that is effectively making it difficult for u.s. citizens to uphold their rights and stay in the country in which they were born. host: drema is on our line for independents. caller: they were talking about the cost of deportation and i also wonder about the cost of -- when the biden administration took over flying in immigrants

like this man arrested and charged with lincoln riley's death was one of the ones they flew in and we had flights coming in in the middle of the night. host: i'm not sure we mean about the biden administration flying in people. where did you hear about this? caller: they have flights. you can sign up in different countries and they have been flying immigrants into the united states. i am sure if you check into that you will find it because i have read it several different places. and i do follow all the different news organizations, msnbc, cnn, fox, all of them. that is one thing. you also talk about the workers and the need for them here. and we all -- this is a drain on our economy. medically, we have -- host: i want you to be able to answer question, but regarding

the biden administration flying people into the country, that does not seem to be accurate. here is an ep fact check. claims the biden administration is secretly flying migrants into the country are unfounded. in his super tuesday victory speech, from march of this year, former president, now present elect donald trump elevated false information that had gone viral and social media claiming the biden administration secretly flew hundreds of thousands of migrants into the united states. many posts showing the claim referred to a report by the center for immigration studies that said the administration refused to list individual airports but migrants are not being flown into the u.s. randomly under a biden administration policy in effect since january 2023 up to 30,000 people from cuba and venezuela can enter the country monthly if they apply online with a

financial sponsor and arrive at a specified airport. biden exercised his parole authority, which under 1952 law allows him to admit people only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons. but going on the ap says this is not an accurate claim and so i wanted to follow-up on that. there is more you can find from the associated press, but go ahead and ask her question and then we will let professor burgess respond. caller: i was talking about illegally they could get flights in. the question was on the economy. because of the expense, we have to provide medically for them but also i feel like we would not need all the workers coming in if we had the 60 million babies they had aborted. they would be taking citizenship now and we would not need to

have all this. it seems like everything has just gone crazy. host: i will let you respond to which ever of this once you would like to. guest: let me start with the way people are coming to the united states. the folks who are getting commended terry and parole are refugees or we have something called safe mobility offices in various countries where people can apply for entry to request asylum while they are still in their country of origin or on the journey. all of these people are vetted. especially refugees are very deeply vetted. it is very difficult to get refugee status, to get permission to come to the united states. the people at the border and requesting commended terry and parole have to go through -- they have to have -- requesting

humanitarian parole have to go through and establish they have a family member or sponsor who will be as possible for them while they are here. that is one thing. people are not being let in willy-nilly by the government. some do sneak across the border, largely because they cannot access legal pathways. i have interviewed hundreds of migrants and most of them are just trying to give their kids a decent life or fleeing terrible violence or -- it is not some plot of politicians to bring migrants to the united states. a lot of countries are in rough shape. people are fleeing for their lives. i think if you met some of the people i talked to you would understand where they are coming from and realize this could happen to anybody if you just happened to be born in a different place. i think there is this misconception that migrants

commit a lot of crime. the truth is that they commit crime and a far lower rate than nativeborn americans. every group will have a few bad apples in it. it is inevitable. but relatively speaking immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, are less likely to commit a crime, especially a violent crime, than people born in united states. the other thing to keep in mind is undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most medical assistance. they are not eligible for insurance. they can go to the emergency room. it is true if you have a lot of undocumented immigrants in your community you are as might be fuller than otherwise they would be given the amount of taxes they pay, i think they pay their way because a significant share of undocumented immigrants do not get any of the benefits for which they are paying taxes.

if you kinda flip it, they are actually subsidizing us, especially those of us who are older who use the health system a lot, who need workers to be in the nursing homes and hospitals but also the tax money and social security payments that are helping us have a decent life when we get older. host: jess is in michigan on our line for republicans. caller: how are you doing? i cannot believe the gas lighting continues. you need to talk about the cost of the immigration right now, the illegal immigration. 300,000 children missing. they do not know where they are. that is incredible. what about one third of the women that come across the border who are raped? nothing is said about that.

this is incredible. they are paying taxes? i don't think them people in the gangs that are taking over apartment complexes that just got picked up in new york city are paying taxes. this is incredible. the gas lighting continues. thank you very much. host: i want to point to a house budget committee hearing in may which was called the cost of the border crisis. they found -- this was the gop majority, that the cost of the border crisis was $150 billion -- 100 to $7 billion and counting, citing information from the federation for american immigration reform and texas public policy foundation, among

other points. here it says the federation for american immigration reform had done a great job and studies suggest the cost was upwards of $400 billion but their cost estimate is $150 billion. a share of that cost is borne by state and local governments, which cannot borrow or print money like the federal government so they have to balance budgets by absorbing the cost through raising taxes or cutting services to citizens. >> i think the facts are out there. the real numbers are out there. nobody is trying to gas let you. i want to knowledge that immigration, especially the numbers of people arriving without documents because they are fleeing from desperate situations, the government has not managed it well. it does play -- place a burden

and stress on local communities, particularly when lots of people arrive at once, so want to acknowledge that. it is not that there is no issue or problem, but we need to think differently about what the problem is and where responsibility lies. i wish our government would take a more proactive approach to trying to manage significant numbers of people arriving at our border, to alleviate burdens on particular localities who are bearing these costs, the need to shelter people. and especially when the rules are that they cannot work right away. the other thing i have seen or heard when you talk to immigrants, almost always they say i just want to work. i am a hard worker. i want to support my family. if legally they cannot work, then they are dependent on local

government and state government to provide them with shelter and food. so i agree that the challenge is not being well-managed. it does not help in certain governors put migrants on buses and send them to other cities with no warning. then they show up and they are in tc or new york or chicago, but it also does not help that the federal government is not taking charge of this process and helping come up with a more coordinated system to share the burden of helping these people when they arrive. there is a cost but i think if you look at the whole picture the cost is balanced out by contributions that migrants make the problem is some communities bear the cost of the short term where others are benefiting in the medium to long-term, so politically it is a challenge but i think the less we look at the big picture we will come up with solutions that actually

make the problem worse, which is generally what has been happening. host: a couple more callers we can get in before the end of the segment. let's go to gary on our line for republicans. >> good morning. my question is for dr. -- i apologize. host: dr. katrina burgess. caller: i have kind of a personal question. if you do not answer, i understand. from a republican standpoint, my question is i would like to know who -- what is your primary source of income and your exact -- how you get paid for your primary income for life? the reason i ask that is that

you are paid i believe and please explain that in order to satisfy that entity you have to create a particular narrative from a particular point of view and as a republican i have seen this money scale go up to very top of the world structure for finance and humans at this point have seen enough of this narrative and we do not -- we are taking a deaf ear. host: i want to let dr. burgess respond to your point so we can get more callers on immigration. guest: i'm not sure quite where this question is going but i would say nobody is controlling my narrative at all. one of the privileges i have as a tenured professor at university as i can pretty much say whatever i want.

so i am not channeling the narrative of some larger institution. this is based on my own research and set of values. a lot of interviews and reading. so you may not agree with my narrative, but is not manufactured by my employer by any stretch of the imagination. host: we have a comment from david of south carolina, who says reagan want amnesty f about a 10th of the number of illegal aliens we haveod. it is a solution that does not work on the current scale, especially with the border still being open. what is your take on david's comment? guest: the first part of the comment, which is it is not feasible on the current scale, i think that is an empirical

question. that would require some careful research as to what would be the implications of legalizing a significant share of undocumented immigrants who are here now. i suspect they would be more positive than negative, but i do not know. we would have to investigate. on this idea that the border is open, i want to challenge that. i have spent quite -- quite a lot of time on the border and it is anything but open. you have urban crossings and massive infrastructure, surveillance drones, towers, border patrol, whose budget has increased dramatically since the reagan administration. then migrants were crossing through different countries to our south have to evade immigration authorities in mexico, who tend to be corrupt and abusive. it is dangerous and costly to migrate to the united states.

it is actually unbelievable the people are doing it because it is so difficult. it is not an open border. it was a little that way before the 1990's. now, absolutely not. if you're going to go across a part that has no wall, there is a decent chance you are going to die of dehydration or some other overexposure in the desert and thousands of migrants have died in the desert trying to cross. i think we need to challenge the idea that the border is open. what is true is people are coming anyway. and they are trying to find a legal way to do it. but they are so few now that some of them end up trying to cross with a smuggler and end up getting sick or dying in the desert or in other -- in hospitals -- hostile terrain along the way. on implications of legalizing

undocumented immigrants, probably in united states things would not change much. because we already have a percent of on document immigrants who have already been here for decades. the fecteau, they are members of our country. they are not legally members of our country. what it would do to incentives for micah's to come, it is not clear. they are coming even though it is incredibly difficult. if it got easier, i do not know. host: we will have to leave it there for today. thank you very much for joining us this morning on washington journal. for everyone who called in today, thank you for your questions and comments. if you would like to support c-span, with giving tuesday almost here we do have a supporter willing to match donations up to $10,000 or the first $10,000 in donations so

there is opportunity to double your impact. you can do that by scanning the qr code on your screen to make that matched gift today. thanks to everyone who tuned in this morning. we will be back tomorrow with another e dish and of -- edition of "washington journal." have a great day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

's next live. join the conversation. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, december 1