♪ host: this week to tap senators proposed an amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices. this morning, your take on this debate. here is how you can join the conversation. if you say yes the term limits for the supreme court, (202) 748-8000.

if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are undecided or have mixed feelings, tell us why at (202) 748-8002. you can join the conversation in a text at (202) 748-8003. or, on facebook.com/cspan and post on x with the handle @cspanwj. senator joe manchin and peter welch proposed the constitutional amendment. here is the language from that proposal. th would have a nonrenewable 18 yea term for supreme court justices. a new term starting about every teedo years. -- two years, and no change to the overall number of justices. this is a constitutional amendment. they want to change the

constitution for the terms for supreme court justices. we are asking if you agree with that or not. if you are undecided, you can join the conversation. ceci aaron -- c-span sat down with joe manchin to talk about his career and legacy. this is what he had to say about proposing term limits for supreme court justices in the closing days of the 118th congress. [video] >> i believe in term limits across the board. i believe simply i would pick 18 years. it makes sense. it is a long period of time. it doesn't do anything right now with the supreme court that is sitting now. whenever they retire, whatever, the new person would have 18 years. >> requires a constitutional amendment, doesn't it? >> yeah. it does.

the constitution says for life. i think the people would support all term limits. i am for one six year for the president. he should be commander-in-chief from first-aid to the last day and not worry about reelection. i am focused. the senate, 12 years is enough. two years and then teedo full terms. -- two full terms. they say you are losing too many experienced people. we have good people, solid people here. i think that would give us a term limit. host: joe manchin, democrat turned independent sitting down to talk about his career and legacy. he is saying let's have term

limits for supreme court justices. do you agree or disagree? according to polls, most of you agree. look at usa today's poll. 63% overall say yes, and 18-year supreme court term limit should be put in place. 51% of republicans are in support of this. 83% of democrats and 61% of independents. ben in altoona, pennsylvania, you say no. tell us what. caller: good morning. i personally disagree with term limits for supreme court justices. we are talking it has to be done by constitutional a minute. -- amendment. i don't know if that is possible to consider. it would invite retaliations from one administration to the

next. each successive administration. this is congress trying to gerrymander the court around which politicians want to hear cases. the crux of my argument, i think it would transfer them from supreme court justices to triple term senators in a certain way. that is my two cents. host: we appreciate that. the washington post story about the proposal, they call it a long shot because of what you just said. it has to be a constitutional amendment. ey amendments require approval from two thirds of the house and senate and ratification by three force of the states, or by convention of two thirds of the state legislatures. only 27 minutes have been

ratified throughout u.s. history -- amendments have been ratified throughout u.s. history. caller: i think that would be the main roadblock. there's not a remote chance of that happening. i don't know why it is being discussed. host: clay in augusta, georgia. you say yes to term limits for supreme court justices. caller: good morning. i have always believed no one should have a lifetime appointment for any job, because when you get old -- jimmy carter. these 100 years old or more i think. if he was a supreme court justice, if he passed, he would still be a supreme court justice. it is hard for people at a certain age to make good decisions in my opinion.

it is just ludicrous for anyone to have a lifetime appointment. i don't know who came up with that were thinking about. host: if you say a supreme court justice gets 18 years, are you really addressing the age issue if they do become a justice until, you know, mid 50's or 60's? caller: like i said, no one should have a lifetime appointment. someone could have a block about things. there is nothing you can do. they will always have it. host: here is the argument against term limits for supreme court justices. in the wall street journal, in the opinion pages, a lawyer who has a supreme court practice rights supreme court limits are a waste of wisdom.

this is what he writes in his piece. one genius of the constitution is the recognition of varying terms for federal officeholders. articles one and two prescribe -- article three specifies all officials exercising the federal judicial power of the supreme and inferior courts retain their authority during good behavior. that is for life, he says. alexander hamilton wrote in federalist number 78, the judiciary was the weakest of the three departments. he also warned periodic appointments of federal judges would be fatal to their necessary independence. judges should not have too great a disposition to consult popularity. experience on the bench generates wisdom that term limits would simply eradicate.

do you agree or disagree with that argument? michael in virginia, you said no to term limits for supreme court justices. caller: good morning. i say no for now. the first thing that should happen is they should give themselves term limits. once they give themselves limits then everybody would be more open to not having term limits for justices. the reason i say that is because everybody knows the supreme court right now is more conservative. we have read off the amount of democrats and republicans that agree with term limits. there should be -- 51% of republicans.

i'm pretty sure if the supreme court was split and it was more liberal they would be -- the statistics would probably flip. 86% of republicans would say they should have term limits and maybe 50% of democrats would say no. for right now they should not until congress gives themselves term limits. host: why is it important for congress to go first and give themselves term limits? what would that do? why is that necessary? caller: because they write the laws. everything starts with them. they pass our laws. they go to the senate and its signed in the senate. if you look at the judicial system, let's take it on the street. police officers have number one

discretion on the street whether they will give someone a ticket or arrest somebody or decide. they use discretion. then he goes to the court system. the judges use their own discretion. it should start from the very beginning and work its way up. host: thanks for sharing. we appreciate it. your take on this debate in washington prompted by teedo senators -- two senators prompting term limits for supreme court justices. mike, undecided in ohio. caller: good day. how are you? host: good morning. caller: eight years would be long enough with the majority federalist society court. they also should repeal citizens united and reinstate the fairness doctrine.

host: why it years? -- eight years? caller: that is plenty of time for them to rig the system like they have done with the community clause and arrests of these cover-ups. this is ridiculous. the rest of the world thinks these people are here listening and thinking about this and putting up with it is out of their minds but they don't realize that because they are all suckers. host: you obviously do not trust the supreme court justices. it sounds like it started with citizens united, the campaign-finance decision that was made. caller: yeah. made all this big money bribe system legal one is lilliputians don't have a chance. it's ridiculous. host: what went eight-year service -- would that instill trust back for you in the high court?

caller: now. . we need more oversight, accountability and transparency, which we don't have. host: what about ethics rules for the justices? caller: they threw those out the window with citizens united the way it looks to me. host: let's listen to what supreme court justices have had to say about this. justice ketanji brown jackson discussed term limits earlier this year on pbs news hour. she says it is up to the public to decide. [video] >> here's how i think about that. there have been debates about term limits since the beginning of our republic. hi talk about this in the book a little bit -- i talk about this a little bit. the constitutional process was such that he won the debate and that is all we have now in our

system. it is a political process to make a determination as to whether or not that should be changed. our democracy, people are engaging that debate right now. host: the idea that it's a good thing to have more consistency in the process and 18 years, as he suggested, is a good approach. >> i am going to let the political process play out. people are engaged in the decision right now. it will be interesting to see what we decide. host: just as kentucky brown jackson was sitting down with -- the time -- justice ketanji brown jackson sitting down with pbs. you heard a reference to president biden. he is behind term limits for the court. you will recall this summer in july, here's the headline of his opinion piece. my plan to reform the supreme court and ensure no president is

above the law. we can and must restore the public's faith in our judicial system. he's supporting 18 years for supreme court justices. we are asking you your thoughts on it this morning. one more supreme court justice to listen to before we go back to calls. just as amy coney barrett spoke about term limits during a 2022 interview at the ronald reagan presidential library. [video] >> do you have a view on how long some witches stay on the court? >> i think it's a personal decision. it really depends. people age differently. justice ginsburg used to say as long as she can do the job well. i think that is the philosophy many have about their working lives. it is a personal decision each justice makes for him or herself. host: just as amy coney barrett says it should be a personal decision.

do you agree with what she had to say? tad in harrisville, rhode island. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for taking my call. i think term limits -- yeah. i'm in favor of term limits but we have a florida system -- flawed system where conservative presidents nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents nominate liberal judges. the better way is the way they do it in germany. you have to be a lawyer to become a supreme court justice. that is not required in this country. in germany, if you want to become a supreme court justice you have to pass civil service tests. the high scorer is the one that was to be any kind of judge, whether it is district court or whatever. politics is totally taken out of it.

you have to be the high scorer and prove you are qualified and be independent. there is no politics involved. i think that's a better way to go. we are too far down the road now. term limits will have to do. host: thank you for bringing that into the conversation this morning. comparing how other countries appoint their supreme court justices. steve, lake placid, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to have what michael said as far as eight-year term limits. they should have the same code of ethics that a federal judge has to have. it is too much corruption going on in the supreme court right now with some of the justices taking all kinds of money and all kinds of trips and all this stuff for political favors.

that is all i have to say. i believe in term limits. eight years is good. there is too much corruption in the supreme court. i believe big money talks in this country. i believe the big money in trump's administration, the new administration is coming in. they are all billionaires and trillionaires. all the money musk has, he could not buy what i have in my heart. host: we will leave it at that. two senators proposing resolutions on term limits. it is a constitutional amendment . you have to change the constitution to make it happen. they want to see nonrenewable 18-year terms foth justices

and a new term starting about everteedo years. note --t years. no change to the number of justices. there was a movement on the liberal side to put more justices on the supreme court. these two senators, joe manchin and peter welch, proposing this week a constitutional amendment to change the amount of time supreme court justices can serve. we are asking you to weigh in on the debate. ben in mississippi, you say no. caller: good morning. this is an easy question and answer. all you have to do is all nine judges have to have a unanimous decision. they are the judge and the jury. why they can make a decision with a 5-4? host: how would you feel as a

plaintiff if you want before the supreme court and they could not reach a unanimous decision and there was no decision? how would justice be served by that? caller: what you have to do is make sure the lower courts have to be unanimous too. host: what is the need for the supreme court? if it is not unanimous, then it goes? caller: no. it has to be unanimous in the lower courts. when it goes to the higher court, it has to be unanimous. those are the best decisions you are going to get in cases unless you want term limits because of the age of judges. if you want term limits because of the decisions they make, it needs to be unanimous. they are the judge and jury. host: michael is undecided in virginia. you are out.

caller: good morning. i like c-span. i can't thank you enough for it. a couple of perspectives. he needs to go back and read some basics on the court and how the justice system works. everything can't be unanimous. i disagree with him. play guy before that i liked. he stole my thunder. my father was a superior court judge in california appointed by jerry brown the first time he was governor. he went to his family who owned a piece of property that was leased to a company with a casino in nevada. he said we need to sell this property. they said why. because gambling is not legal in california. this was pre-internet, lottery, casinos. the reason i bring up this point, the whole impetus behind this to get the justices some

type of regulation or limit is because they have acted poorly. they have shown bad judgment. they have taken all kinds of gifts. one was a helicopter ride down the main drag of paris. i think that is the problem. do you change the law because people behave badly? hopefully not. i think they would be better off not having term limits but at least apply the federal standards of other federal judges. you have to make a declaration. there is a penalty if you don't. a couple of justices could learn a lot from an old county judge in california that had the decency to do what was right because it was a law. it shows disregard for the public and the law. it's an embarrassment to this country. host: are you now in the field as well? caller: no. i'm one of the non-attorneys in

my family. i look back on this and some days i wish i had gone. i took a civil law class when i was at cal poly in san luis obispo. the course i took, they said if you go for a constitutional amendment, when they have a convention on this suddenly someone can say i propose that all bald men have to wear tuxedos. you start opening up the constitution to problems. people playing around with things that you do with them going there. i think there can be an administrative fix that could be easier and quicker and would make more sense. they are coming off like a bunch of slimy grifters. host: michael in virginia on his thoughts if you went this route and were trying to change the constitution, what else could happen. mark in philadelphia, good morning. caller: good morning.

greta, you know, when you look at what is going on here with this court you read from the federalist papers. . it said madison and hamilton basically wanted independence of the u.s. supreme court. how independent is the court now? think about it. with the 14th amend allowing trump to stay on the ballot after january 6. the 14th amend it, section three wasn't written for trump, who was it written for? how could trump remain on the ballot? now we have the immunity decision. now we know clarence thomas's wife is a straight up election denier. do we know if trump is calling

ginni thomas and saying i want clarence and the rest of the maga judges to rule this way? there is no independence with this supreme court. none whatsoever. they are nothing more than maga republicans. let's limit the terms and make sure this does not happen again. even if it is with democratic presidents, we need independence back. not a bunch of maga republicans. host: dave roth of the supreme court watchdog group fix the court joined us on the washington journal in august. he countered the idea that imposing term limits would take away the justices' independence. listen to what he said. [video] >> what we have here is the justices are exerting little power. the idea you would -- term limits would take away their independence. if you read the constitution,

which is more important than the federalist papers, the president is an elected official appointing the justices. you have the senate which is political elected officials confirming the justices. sure. maybe we get the last 20 or 30 years a kennedy or suter or o'connor, but if you look at the founding document of course they will be political. of course they are based on patronage and based on what their political views are. you will not have a republican president -- if you're just reading the constitution -- they will not appoint someone who is liberal. the random flips we have seen in the last -- with suter or stevens, that is happenstance. that is the outlier. what makes more sense is having, given our constitution, the court is a political body. you have regular turnover and ethical guardrails. host: dave roth with fix the court on the washington journal. they put out this statement

yesterday about this proposal by senators manchin and welch to have 18 year term limits. say it is ratified in 2025, this proposal. justice thomas decides to leave the court in 2027. the justice appointed to replace thomas would only serve 16 years until 2043 since the 18-year clock on thomas' replacement or whoever the first justice to retire post ratification is had begun in 2025. that sounds fine in theory. the challenge that arise is if it's justice kagan or justice courses -- the justices replacing would end up serving only a few years, which is not great from a judicial independence perspective. we believe the trend term can be of limited via statute. our preferred method is to give

all future justices for 18-year terms. we do appreciate the section of the resolution where on a rotating basis the seniormost associate justice would become chief justice. the idea justice on his or her first and the job could be the chief always sat a little strange with us. that is what happened with chief justice john roberts when he was nominated and voted onto the supreme court. your thoughts on term limits for supreme court justices. sheila in pennsylvania, you say no. caller: hello. it is sheila and westrick, massachusetts. -- in twister, massachusetts -- worchester, massachusetts. they will be -- there will be no continuity in what the constitution says. right now we have the nine

judges. when they discuss something it will be yes or no, agree or not agree. i believe the forefathers were brilliant and covered so much of what could happen in the future. i don't think term limits is the way to go. as far as these people calling up saying maga judges, the gentleman referred to the democrats as maga people. give me a break. they have to get over donald trump being president for the next four years and let's see what he can do to straighten up this country. we are in a lot of trouble. thanks for taking my call. god bless all. host: that was sheila in pennsylvania. she says no term limits for supreme court justices. we're asking you your thoughts on this. we will weave in other news. sheila talked about the incoming

administration. yesterday president elect donald trump was at an event where he was honored as time magazine's person of the year. he got to ring in the new york stock exchange yesterday morning. here is what he had to say about his team and expectations going into his second term. [video] >> i think we will have a tremendous run. we have to straighten out some big problems in the world. when we left we did not have any of these problems. we didn't have russia and ukraine, israel and october 7, the afghanistan disaster, inflation. we had no inflation. we had a strong economy. we will do that again. i think we will even up because now we will have experience we didn't have. when i first came in, we came down, great first lady -- very popular. she rang the bell. [applause]

we came down and were driving down pennsylvania avenue. it was so beautiful. i have never done this before. i did not know anybody. i got to the oval office and taking these big positions and i didn't really know the people in washington but i got to learn fast. now we do and i think we have an incredible staff and others that are not here. we will do a fantastic job. [applause] [bell ringing] [cheers] host: president elect donald trump at the new york stock exchange yesterday after delivering remarks when he was named person of the year for time magazine. take a look at the cover of the magazine for time. that was yesterday in new york, talking about his second term and what to expect. some other news this morning in

case you missed it. in tel aviv yesterday, national secured advisor jake sullivan s aid ideal appeared close -- a deal appeared close. [video] >> everyday brings risk which is why there is urgency to get the deal. we have seen the death of hostages since the massacres of october 7 and over the course of the past 15 months. as soon as we can close this deal, we should close this deal in the interest of bringing hostages home. no, i do not get that sense. the prime minister is ready to do a deal. when i go to doha and cairo, michael will put us in a position to close this deal this month, not later. we have been close before i have not gotten there. i cannot make promises or predictions to you. i would not be here if i thought this thing was just waiting until after january 20.

i believe everyday matters and we are going to use every day we have to try to close the deal as soon as we possibly can. host: jake sullivan in the middle east yesterday holding a news conference on the situation there. another story to share with you. it's on the front pages of several national newspapers. the washington times. there is no evidence of undercover agents. the fbi had more than two dozen informants in washington surrounding the chaos of the january 6 attack on the capitol. four entered the building as part of the protest. 13 informants were part of the mob that broke onto the grounds and breached restricted space but they did enter the building. none have been prosecuted. the investigation found no evidence undercover fbi employees or part of the protests. all told, 13 informants or

confidential human sources breached the restricted space around the capitol. 13 were connected with the election related protests but did not intrude on the capitol. none of these informants were authorized into the capitol or otherwise break the law and they came here on their own. they were not sent here by the fbi. there is more on this story and we will get to it later when we are an open forum and you can give us your thoughts on the story as well as other news of the day. let's go back to our conversation on term limits for supreme court justices. they are the lines in your screen. jim has been waiting in pioneer, ohio. caller: hi [indiscernible]

host: jim, you are difficult to understand. can you put the phone closer? caller: ok. i have an alternative proposal [indiscernible] host: i apologize. too difficult to understand you. maurice in maryland. caller: good morning. hopefully you can hear me. host: go ahead. caller: no one has made an argument of weather shouldn't be terms. one mentioned continuity on the bench. one mentioned the experience would be broken up. the other complaint about the decisions -- complained about

the decisions in terms of favors and things of that nature. that has nothing to do with term limits. that is the judge themselves making bad decisions or making biased decisions. i am on the undecided. now i have decided. there should be term limits. if you turn the question around and say should there be term limits on the president? no one else has lifelong appointment except the supreme court justices. 18 years is a little long. i think eight years is good. it is not about continuity, experience and those things. it's about qualifications. every time you switch one judge for one that is already on the bench forever, that judge that's coming in is qualified. they are able to follow the constitution and make the right decisions. host: members of congress don't

have term limits. they can run for as many terms as they want to and as long as they get elected they can serve. we have been sitting down with members of congress who are retiring this time around, at the end of this congress. grace napolitano is 88 years old. she's been serving since early 60's and is now retiring. caller: i agree. i don't -- we are speaking about the supreme court. there is no question that should apply to the congress and the senate. i think he would probably have 90% approval of term -- 98% approval of term limits on them across the board, but we are speaking about supreme court justices. i don't agree with the senate and congress. they really need to have term limits. if you look at most of them, they come in making six-figure

salaries. google -- from democrat to republican, they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. how can they be worth that much money when you have been -- you were salary does not fit that? -- when you are salary does not fit that? host: look at their spouses and what they do for a living if you're curious about why members of congress have the wealth they have. they may have also had the wealth before they came in. perhaps what you are alluding to, they gain wealth while members of congress. dan in lincoln, nebraska. caller: hello. i think we do need the term limits. we need to go a step further. over 50 years ago when i was in high school and taking american government class, which was required for all high school students at that time in nebraska, there were nine circuit court of appeals, the

president, the senators from the district would get together and choose a judge to sit for the supreme court and then there was a nomination. you did not have these horrible fights for nomination. that was then. there were nine circuit courts of appeals if i have that right. now there are 12, plus the d.c. circuit judge. it seems like almost all of our justices are chosen from the d.c. circuit, not the rest of the country. there should be representatives from the 12 districts plus the d.c. court of appeals. the proposal is good but does not go far enough. it makes for a court that is in no way representative of the country when they are all chosen from the d.c. court and they all have harvard ivy league backgrounds. host: that is the argument senator welch and senator

manchin are making. this would provide more diversity and opinion and culture and different perspectives on the court if you have term limits. that is what you are arguing? caller: you will never ring politics completely out of it. if the president follows the norm and select from the different d.c. circuit and representatives from all the different federal courts of appeal, then i'm done. host: we are listening. caller: but we have representatives from all 12 plus the d.c., we have 13 justices, not nine. it should not be limited to nine. host: dan, i will share with you

reporting on this proposal that they quote senator welch. "we need people from different iterations of life. you want to make sure you are keeping up with the judges that understand the culture." the constitutional amendment faces long odds for now. an abbreviated timeline. constitutional amendments require two thirds of the house and senate and subsequent ratification by three fourths of the states, or by a convention of two thirds of the state just ledgers. only 27 amendments have been ratified throughout u.s. history. senator joe manchin and peter welch of vermont opposing an 18-year term limit for supreme court justices. we are asking you do you agree with the idea of term limits for the high court? caleb in north carolina, you say no.

caller: good morning. i'm a little disappointed in c-span to talk about the subject. obviously, it doesn't have a snowball's chance of happening. you have a better chance for congress to impose term limits on itself than you do for congress to agree to pass term limits for the supreme court of the united states of america. as far as the guy before me, there are justices who served on appeals courts that were not in d.c. i did a google search before i called. alito and coney barrett didn't. getting back to the main point, being realistic. nixon, reagan and bush senior appointed judges who "grew" on the court or became more liberal than one would -- the nomination

would have wanted from the president who appointed them. blackman, stevens, kennedy, o'connor and souter grew in office. now that trump has solidified the conservative standing, democrats are upset. ok. go cry on the corner if you want. this proposal is going nowhere. i can equate it with the no labels effort. they wasted millions and millions of dollars getting on state ballots and they cannot even find a candidate. thank you. host: caleb's thoughts in north coletta. mark from westwood -- north carolina. mark from westwood, new jersey. caller: i think supreme court justices should get term limits now. things change. the reason why is mostly there is so much corruption on the court. i remember in 2000 when they

decided who are president was going to be. clarence thomas took $2 million in "gifts." it is getting ridiculous. mitch mcconnell would not let obama have his supreme court pick for 11 months, but he pushes trump's three when trump only had teedo weeks left, a twice impeached president. the corruption is ridiculous. i don't want unelected monarchs ruling over my life because i know in american because because i am an american. -- because i am an american. host: do you agree or disagree with any caller you heard from this morning? marilyn in tennessee. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. how are you today? host: i'm doing well. thank you. caller: i totally agree. i agree the corruption is beyond

-- beyond. as a nurse we could not take more than a $20 gift from a patient. those rules apply to us. we had very strict ethic codes. why don't congress and the senate let the public vote on these term limits? they should not be the ones making that decision, because the court represents all people. host: it would have to go to the citizens. if you're going to change the constitution, which is what would have to happen here, that would have to be ratified by two thirds of the states. caller: correct, but it should be on a ballot so the public and make decisions, not the politicians. of course they will make decisions in their favor. that is just the way the world is running right now. it is a very, very sad time for

the united states of america. host: marilyn with her thoughts. let's listen to another justice on this. elena kagan discussing term limits during a 2018 interview at georgetown university. she spoke about the advantages and drawbacks of proposals like the 18-year term limits. [video] >> we have a new nominee for the court. there is the question that gets asked, primarily should justices have life tenure? if you could give us what you think are the advantages and maybe the disadvantages of life tenure for supreme court justices? >> our way retroactively applying this? [laughter] >> you can have it anyway you want. >> i'm pretty happy. seems like a good job. i'm happy with it being life tenure. it is a hard question. the reason for life tenure is an

important one, which is that it makes people independent. it means none of us are thinking about the next job we will have because we won't have a neck job. -- next job. nobody is ever going to be in the position where they need anything from anybody ever again. that is a really important thing to ensure the judicial branch is independent. could you do that with sufficiently long terms? 18 years seems to be the going proposal. maybe. i'm not saying there is nothing to proposals like that. what they are trying to do is to take some of the high-stakes out of the confirmation process and certainly to the extent that work and the people could be a little bit, you know, could feel

as though no single confirmation was going to be a life-and-death issue. that would be a good thing. i think it is a balance among good goals. i would not pretend to have the answer to it. thankfully that is not our call. host: justice kagan on the debate. should there be term limits for supreme court justices? gary in oceanside, new york. caller: good morning, greta. it is not necessarily a term limit but my opinion is every eight years they should go through a -- they should be reconfirmed by a bipartisan group of congresspeople. congress -- the current congress has no term limits, but the constituents vote in the

congressperson. the example of a congressman who has been there for 15 years, a republican, and then a democrat comes in because the constituents change their mind. i just think they need to consul he be monitored so they are doing their job -- to be constantly monitored so they are doing a job. host: wanda, you say no. caller: that's right. i don't think this would be a topic if ruth bader ginsburg was still there or if this was 1973, roe v. wade. they would be totally happy with the court. the liberals always ran to the court to get their agenda through. now that the court is conservative they want to change the court and they want to add judges.

not just limit the years that they serve. they want to change everything on they don't get their agenda. host: van in paris, ohio. go ahead with your thoughts. good morning to you. caller: i believe the supreme court should have term limits just like the secretaries the president appoints. the fbi director is there for 10 years. 18 years would be too long for a supreme court justice to be there. they should be approved by the senate. the senate and the congress should only have teedo terms like the president. elected officials get out. new blood comes in, new ideas and then move the country forward.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i say no. the reason is, when you flashed the article that joe manchin wrote for the reason for his proposal, he wants -- he thinks the supreme court should keep up with the changing times and the changes in our culture. that is really not the reason to put in term limits. the purpose of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. to focus on our constitution and ensure equal justice and protect civil rights. it has nothing to do with the culture of our society. the other reason is, if we start enforcing term limits on the supreme court, how far does that go in our society the people working in companies having to

face mandatory retirement after so many years? does congress have to have mandatory retirement after 70 terms? i make -- so many terms? i am against that. i think the confirmation process is where we need to focus also, to make sure we get the right justices that are not politically influenced. that is my opinion. host: thank you for those thoughts. another new story to share, the new york times. president biden commutes 1500 sentences, a record for one day. most placed in house confinement during the pandemic. that is the front page of the new york times. placenta press secretary karine jean-pierre discussing the pardons issued by president biden yesterday. [video] >> some of the names, it would

be an unusual, extraordinary step. >> this is a preamp to pardoning? -- preemptive pardoning? >> do you want to telecine? -- tell us anything? >> it would be a bad move to preempt the president or preview anything the president was speaking about considering. this is something he is going to talk with his team about. i just on have anything beyond that for you. i think today is a very important day as we talk about the criminal justice system and talk about giving people who have shown that they can reintegrate into their community, back into their families a second chance. that's a big deal. that shows the president's commitment to this. the president talks a lot about what this country has to offer, the possibilities. you see that in every action the

president certainly has taken when it comes to this issue and other policies he has put forward. host: pardons and commutations. the president setting a record. front page of the washington post. biden begins a series of pardons and reduced sentences for 1500 others. sweeping move is one that the president-elect cannot reverse. linda in warsaw, kentucky. you say yes to term limits for supreme court justices. thank you for joining the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i do have very strong issues with no term limits for the supreme court. i am concerned when they start changing the constitution of the united states. we -- it is not just a piece of paper we can throw out the door

and make our own rules as we want them to be. the supreme court right now is very corrupt. when they are taking all this stuff from other people, special pacs, their wives working for political offices. it is our constitution and we should always, always feel we have that to stand on and take refuge through. our founding fathers knew what they were doing and pray to god we can make it through whatever comes next. host: charlie in massachusetts, good morning to you. your thoughts on term limits for supreme court justices. caller: good morning, greta. it is interesting. i would like to say to everybody other with a brain, how come

whenever the liberals lose or feel like they are losing or they don't have the upper hand they want to change the rules? now they want to limit the terms for the supreme court justices. six month ago, they were talking about expanding the supreme court to make it even. whenever -- that is what it is all about. everybody knows it. host: roger in minnesota. you say no as well. caller: this is nothing more than career politicians who want to be able to control the supreme court. we have amy klobuchar who took bribes in her career in politics. she will be there until she's 90 years old. host: we will leave it there for that conversation.

another conversation coming up after the break. we will talk with benjamin johnson of the american immigration lawyers association about donald trump's immigration proposals, including mass deportations and the end of birthright citizenship. later, ashley hayek, executive director of america's first works and former 2020 campaign strategist for mr. trump discusses his incoming administration and how his cabinet is shaping up. stay with us. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span 2, exploring the people and events that tell

the american story. this weekend at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the historical society in missouri host a conference of the american revolution in the west, discussing the weapons of the revolution, the role of native americans in the 1770 nine mississippi river commission. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the second of a two-part lecture by the maryland professor on the 1893 trial of lizzie borden was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an ax. the murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time and lizzie borden became a lasting figure in american popular culture. then the presidency, revisiting the ford presidency and talked about secret house tapes in the ford administration officials could exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturds on c-span 2 and find a full schedule on your program

guide or watch online at c-span.org/history. >> looked tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing latest nonfiction books. a pulitzer prize winner peggy noonan ensures her book, a certain idea of america, a collection of her columns over the past quarter-century. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, economist and investment investor talks about the potential threat ai poses to t global economy and national security in his book "money gpt." he is interviewed by a distinguished professor. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 two and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at any time at tv.org.

>> the house will be in order. c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered view of government, taking you where the policies debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining benjamin johnson the executive director of the american immigration and lawyers association here to talk about president elect donald trump incoming administration. guest: we represent 17,000 immigration lawyers across the country doing almost every conceivable type of immigration from asylum to highly skilled

folks in just about every jurisdiction in the united states. host: what you think about the president elect's call for mass deportation? guest: it is hard to know what to make of that. i think donald trump is famous for what he calls the weave. what he says and what he does could be very different things. if he is true to his words and talking about mass deportation, i think it is deeply troubling and would have been honest ramifications financially, economically and socially. there are a lot of people in this country who have been here for a lot of time and working in the communities where they live. i think that the view will begin to be shaped by the truth and not just by rhetoric and the truth is it is going to be very hard and very disruptive. host: what agency right now is in charge of finding and

supporting immigrants who are here illegally and who are committing crimes. guest: overall it is the immigrations and. -- immigrations and customs. it is the added involvement of the border protection. those working together are primarily working to be responsible for that. host: do they have authorization in law to do so? guest: there is no question, the law that someone who is here without authorization is subject to deportation. i think what is driving most of the way that we enforce immigration law is a reality check. it is the fact that because in large part congress has not done anything to align our immigration policy with economic reality, we have a lot of people here who have been here for a very long time out of

immigration status and randomly enforcing law against all of those would be incredibly disruptive and difficult. primarily, most administrations have operated under the theory of discretion, figuring out who we can focus our attention and resources on because we don't have the resources to say we are going to try to find, arrest and remove somewhere between 11 million people right now. it is sad that we have gotten to the point allowing that to happen but the answer is not to be naive about the reality we are in now. host: of those undocumented immigrants committing crimes, do they have a right to a lawyer before they are deported? guest: they have a right to a lawyer but different than in the criminal context. the proceedings can continue

whether they have a lawyer or not. so finding a lawyer if you have been put in remote detention centers is difficult. many folks going through don't have a lawyer in don't understand it. it is incredibly complex and confusing. so they are not understanding what their rights should be. i also want to underscore, there are folks who are committing crimes in the united states but it is a tiny fraction of the undocumented population. host: what is the percentage? guest: 85% to 90% of the folks here in united states have been here for a very long time, the majority more than 15 years and they have no criminal record. of the ones, 10% or 5%, they have a record but almost all traffic violations.

there is an opportunity to focus on those folks because it is very small number. i know folks have been playing fast and loose with what the number is in the current environment. if they wanted to go after stu's criminals, that is something that is doable and across-the-board people would support. it doesn't help that under immigration law we have a very broad definition of what is a serious criminal. the definition of an aggravated felony can include shoplifting and murder. so that doesn't help with what do we mean by criminal alien. murderers, sure. shoplifters, i am not sure we should make that a priority. host: how quickly are they deported? guest: it can happen very quickly, particularly if it is a serious offense. you could effectually have removals in that context in days or weeks if not hours depending

on the circumstances. i do believe, as a lawyer, that the system can move quickly without losing our core values as americans which is everybody needs an opportunity to be heard. you can lose your case but you have to be able to make a case of what happened and assert your rights. i would be concerned about america in response to this environment giving up the things we believe to be true and sacred, which is a judicial system that is fair. it can beat fast but it should be fair first. host: headline in the new york times, trumbull need help to fulfill his promise of mass deportation. local level cooperation would be indispensable to make the policy work. guest: you are probably going to need either a massive increase in capacity for the immigration and customs enforcement or cooperation with local folks. i think the idea of a sanctuary

cities is a little bit of a misnomer. mostly it means, states are saying i'm going to do my job and focus on enforcement of state criminal laws and let the federal government do their job, but even sanctuary states or cities i think would agree that when we are talking about serious criminals, states would be willing to cooperate. everyone wants their streets safe. where i think there is disagreement is what do we do with the folks that have been here for 15 years and are actually important, productive members of the communities. treating them the same as serious criminals is a mistake. host: let's listen to president-elect donald trump on meet the press last sunday criticizing the leniency migrants face to the immigration process. [video clip] >> somebody walks onto our land and wait now have to say, welcome to the united states.

they could be a criminal or not a criminal. we released them into our country. we now they get a lawyer in the lawyers are good lawyers and do you know how many judges we have? thousands. here is what other countries do. they come into the land and they say i am sorry you have to go and they take them out. once they touched our land, we are into litigation that lasts for years costing hundreds of billions of dollars. we have judges, and you can imagine what is going on with the judges. i have a lot of judges and i know laura about judges in any human in history. we have judges and every time someone clicks to foot for even

one foot on a piece of art land, it is welcome to long-term litigation. to every other country when somebody walks on and they see that they are here illegally, they walk them off and take them back to where they came from. we have to get rid of the system. it is killing our country. host: benjamin johnson, your reaction. guest: what he is saying is that by getting rid of the system would get rid of judges and lawyers, that is a complete remaking of who we are as a country and is what distinguishes us from many of the authoritarian oppressive regimes we have always stood up against. i think he is just dead wrong. if what he means is we need to get rid of judges and lawyers in the system. he is also wrong that everybody that comes in and sets foot in the united states is entitled to stay here. we do have asylum laws. there has been some manipulative

by cartels -- some manipulation by cartels and smugglers up the answer is not to abandon asylum laws but invest in the system to decide who deserves protection and who has to be sent home. we can do that quickly and fairly without getting rid of judges and lawyers in the richest country in the world. host: how do you do it? how do you address asylum laws? guest: you need to hire more judges and create processes that are workable. you have technology and the ability to invest in lawyers that can evaluate these cases. these cases could move quickly and could be made in the matter of weeks or months rather than years. when you talk about people whose lives are potentially at stake, that is what we should make. there is a lot of talk about the manipulation of the silent -- the asylum system but it protects people who are being

persecuted in china for being christians, protects women who are in a pressure regimes where the taliban is treating them like animals. the idea that we can and are a place where people can receive asylum where they are being persecuted is something we should be proud of and invest in a system to figure out who deserves that protection and who doesn't. throwing that away because it is a challenge is a mistake. host: let's go to alexis in detroit, and independent. caller: my question is and i know the guest won't have an answer but i am posing the question for two c-span and if you could do a segment on this on immigration with this angle. how many housing units are going to be opened up once the mass deportation starts and what is the effect going to be on housing costs should bark i

believe millions will open up and housing costs will fall precipitously. this is the problem with having illegal aliens in our country and i just want to say to you, sir, i believe of the current modern immigration lawyers are bleeding heart traders -- traiters. guest: the last comment is wrong. we just believe in the system of justice and work to ensure the decisions that are made by the system have integrity. the integrity of those decisions are improved by their being a real process an opportunity to be heard. that can happen in an expeditious way but it is an important part of who we are. in terms of housing units what you have to remember is if you remove all of those folks, the houses be available, but what about the jobs they are working in and what about them as consumers of goods in those

communities. you have to remember there are places like topeka, kansas, literally paying people to move to topeka, kansas. you move there and get a job, the city will give you $5,000. that is because they are desperate for workers and citizens to be living in that community. maybe what we should do is be thinking about how do we deploy this resource, which is hard working people ready to make a better life for themselves and how do we put them in places where they can succeed in a legal way that allows the communities to benefit from that. that doesn't mean all the folks coming will fit into that equation but it means we are missing an opportunity to say it, how about if those folks came illegally to places and communities that needed them. then the problem becomes an opportunity but that will require congress to look past

the politically expedient solution, the rhetoric of mass deportations and think about, how do we create a system that will work and put immigrants where we want them and need them and create a legal system to do that. if we did that, i think we could absolutely solve this problem. host: we will go to pennsylvania, john, democratic caller. caller: mr. johnson, i was wondering if you could explain to me why immigration is a problem when the very people who wrote our declaration of independence and bill of rights were immigrants. we are immigrants. white is there a wall on the border when mexico was part of the free trade agreement, just like canada. there is no wall in between us and canada. white is trump saying immigration is a problem. he is a product of immigration,

you are a product and i am a product of immigration. host: thanks, john. mr. johnson? guest: i don't think immigration or immigrants are a problem. it is true that we are facing problems in the way that we manage immigration. it is not properly funded. there is too much political infighting and partisanship in figuring out how do we build a system that will work. our immigration system is the problem. i think immigrants are caught up in that. here is the basic reality. when you pick the world's largest economy against an immigration system, the economy is going to win every time. there is a demand for workers and for the unification of families and people living and working in the united states. the 30 plus years we have ignored the economic reality and the community reality and we have not updated our system to meet the needs that we have.

as long as we continue to say, let's see who wins between the u.s. economy and the immigration system, the economy will win and we will see everything they can to come in. that is the problem. let's focus on solving that problem and create legal channels of immigration that reflect the realities of our economy and needs of communities and then we will have a system that will work and it won't be a problem but an asset. host: what do legal channels of immigration look like? guest: one of the highest demand areas is the hospitality and construction industry where we have a lot of homes being built and services being provided and we have fewer and fewer americans entering into that labor force, getting college degrees or looking for different types of jobs. right now in the immigration system there are almost no temporary worker programs that would allow people to go into

those industries because they are not seasonal. construction is a year-round thing. we have good seasonal temporary worker programs but work that is not seasonal, we don't have a temporary system for eight and we have a total of 5000 cards across the united states and industries available for the less skilled workers. that is a ridiculous mitch -- mismatch to the economy. you create a legal immigration system that allows for people to come here to work in places where we need them both in the economy and the communities where we need them and then you will have a legal system that will be the envy of the world. the rest of the world is dying for the talent and resources are immigration system could be providing us in a legal way. it is time to harness the power of that or meet the needs of the united states. host: the senate proposal, bipartisan proposal put

together, would it address what you are talking about? guest: it did address some of that and recognize the need for increase in legal immigration and for the system to move faster, the availability of a lawyer should be a part of that. so funding for a system that had integrity and could move faster but it had an increase in uses and there were other problems with that bill. it is good to celebrate the fact that it was a bipartisan effort. we congratulated the fool's for stepping into a very difficult political hornets nest and trying to solve this problem and not just talk about it. it was a good bipartisan effort. the end result should have been the beginning of the conversation of what we need, not the end of it. it was not a perfect bill. needed significant improvements

in enforcement strategies but a process that has to be replicated. people have to get together and look past the partisan differences and find common ground on an issue that should affect all of us. host: mike, houston, texas, republican. caller: that bill was so bad. it basically was one senator. there was more bipartisanship with a house immigration bill. it is never talked about. guest: there is no bipartisan support for that. host: it passed along party lines. caller: there were democrats who supported it. the thing is, the one that did go through the senate or me the senate had all these kinds of discretionary. they didn't count this and this and all the stipulations that gave so much power to homeland

security. there were so many discretionary parts, it sustain the problem, it didn't solve the problem. you have never talked about the cost to society. you said we are the richest country on earth. look at the debt clock someday. 38 -- $36 trillion. we pay as much on the interest on debt as we do for our military defense. that is not a rich country. we have too many people. why don't we get to choose who comes into our country rather than have the tsa agents on the border. they are doing their job but there have been too many people to process. they come through in the step aside and let them in. the third thing, what about the 300,000 kids missing. you haven't spent one second on the three hundred thousand kids missing in the united states. tom homan has been talking about all the kids missing. what do you think is happening

to them? do you want to go down that path and imagine what happened to them when they crossed the border how many were raped and assaulted and found stranded on their own from the human trafficking cartels. that is destructive. when you talk about these things, you are not addressing the cost to our society. milton friedman said, a nation will fail if it has a social safety net and an open border and it will fail. you can say all you want about the system, trump had it fixed, 80 4% better than what joe biden did. you need to control who comes in. host: i think we got the point. guest: there is a lot there. i will begin where he started talking about the idea of folks getting raped and assaulted on the journey to the united

states. it is true and a tragedy. the discretion he was talking about in the senate bill really was discretion about when do we completely shut down the border. it is something about us struggled with the idea that there would be triggers and we would simply close the border. the reason there is, if you are going to do that, there has to be a lot of discretion but keep in mind, those people who were assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered on the way here, when you close the border, you push them back into the hands of the people he is just talking about. that is one of the reasons that has remained in mexico and it pushes the problem 200 yards away from the border and out of the view of the news cameras but it doesn't solve the problem and deal with the fact that those people will then be pushed back into mexico and is to the abuse of the cartels that brought them here. we should be really cautious

about the whole idea of closing the border. who gets to choose, we get to choose who comes to the united states. we have to have a system that allows us to decide who gets to come in and who doesn't what we should do that under a system that is consistent with our values. our values say that we will hear a case and make decisions based on the facts and circumstances of the case and not just sweep people and issues under the rug. we can choose and do it in a way that is consistent with our values. when we do that, immigration is a net positive by every measure that has ever been done on immigration. other social and safety nets and investments have to be made, it is true with all workers, particularly in less skilled areas. workers are expensive and the they need education and access to a working benefits.

we deny them in the first five years. host: what are they denied? guest: they don't get cash benefits and are not available for those type of welfare benefits for the first three to five years of permanent residency in the united states. there is a bit of a trial period there, you can debate about whether that is right or wrong but it is the reality now. we have a system set up to make immigration a powerful, effective tool for the improvement of our economy. the truth is, we need workers in certain places and should use our immigration system to put them there. we should stop displacing u.s. workers. if it is enhancing the workforce there and the economy, that is a legitimate goal for our

immigration system. how about we focus our attention on doing that right and not on simplistic solutions like border closures and mass deportation. that will not get us the immigration system we want and need. host: the wall street journal headline, president elect prepares for a legal fight over his birthright citizenship curbs. guest: that is a basic tenet of the 14th amendment that if you are born here or naturalized in the united states, you are a citizen of the united states and as long as you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. i would be interested to see what the argument is. donald trump believes he can through executive order say folks born in the united states are not citizens. i guess maybe because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. if that is the case, we will have a very hard time

prosecuting folks here because they are not subject to our jurisdiction. the best example of people not subject to the jurisdiction our diplomats and other folks who have immunity and are not subject to our laws here. so they are born here in that diplomatic space they are not u.s. citizens if you are subject to the laws of the united states and born here, you are a citizen. host: will go to brad, upper marlboro, maryland, independent. caller: i would like to make a few points. the previous caller was right on pre-much all of his points. this lawyer who is on the show it right now, he is blurring the lines between illegal immigration. this morning the guest figure started with the drawbacks of mass deportation and how much that would cost and the cost to society but ignoring the cost to

society of illegal immigrants coming over at the border. he is also way off on his crime stats saying it is a very small percentage. he is nowhere near 10% or 15% with even a fraction of that is violent crimes. no violent crime is acceptable and those are probably the things and he said the other crimes are traffic related. those hit are where they don't have insurance or drivers license or a dui and they hit somebody and i don't want to get deported and sometimes that can be vehicular homicide. but 100% of the people that are here illegally are criminals. they are here illegally. by that tenet, they are in fact breaking the law. host: let's get a response. guest: i'm not sure what to say. if i am perceived as blurring

the lines, let me be clear. we should have undocumented immigration in the united states. we should create a system for the people that we want and need here legally. that will not happen as long as you have laws crafted before we had the internet. the last time we updated immigration laws in any meaningful way was in the 1990's, 19 92 is the closest we came to anything that look like an update of our system. what do we expect? if you have an outdated system, you will have outdated results and i am not trying to blurt lines but let's create an integrated -- immigration custom but not ignore the fact that right now we have people, 70% of the undocumented population have been here 15 years or longer. you're talking about 5 million people or 6 million people that have been here 25 years or longer. to create an enforcement regime that treats them the same as the

folks who are trying to come in in an undocumented status is ignoring reality. let's be realistic and be clear about the system we are trying to build. that is i think what we should be doing. host: the caller doesn't trust your statistics. where'd you go for your statistics? guest: this is one issue that has been tested and studied for more than 100 years, the question of immigrant criminality. the answer is they are not more likely to commit crime. they are less likely to commit crime then the nativeborn population. that is a fact that has been proven over and over again. that doesn't mean that the bad apples that do commit crimes shouldn't be subject to the full force of enforcement of our laws . that is the same whether you are

a citizen or undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. bad people exist in our world and we should look is on punishment, rehabilitation or whatever strategy it might be. let's not pretend those bad apples defined the entire population any more than the folks that commit violent crimes in the united states define all of us. there are bad people. let's focus on that but let's not pretend they are the majority. host: we will go to south carolina, danny, republican. caller: good morning. there are good and bad in every race. why do we pick on the immigrants? why is it all right that president trump married an immigrant and they don't say anything about that? why don't they complain about that? host: ellis -- alice in chicago,

independent. caller: immigrants who come here under the guise of asylum should show they were denied asylum in the nation's they came to an rock to hear. if they came from china and walked through mexico, then you have to have something to show up mexico denied them asylum. also, people relocate all the time from one state to another, one country to another and they take their children with them. they don't leave their children behind. the children go with the family. there is nothing wrong when illegal aliens are sent back to their home country, back to mexico, they take their children with them. you don't leave the kids behind. and the kids are not being punished or hurt because they

are going back to where they have in-laws and cousins in the same language. there is nothing wrong with that. host: let's take your point. guest: i don't know where to begin there. folks that are coming here in an undocumented status for asylum should be removed and we can do that safely and humanely. it may involve the removal of an entire family and that could be done safely and humanely. i don't disagree with the idea that if we had a system that could fairly and accurately and efficiently adjudicate these claims, then i get the fact that their results is removal if you didn't win your claim. if you made your claim with your kids and family, the kids would be beneficiaries and they would be removed if there was a denial. host: a democrat, dayton, ohio.

caller: i don't think that stephen miller or donald trump have any idea or the general public have any idea what one million people look like. i will give you a reference. if you ever watched a football game at ohio state, that stadium holds 100,000 people, one hundred thousand people. you need 10 of those stadiums to get you a million. where are you going to put those kind of people? host: mr. johnson? guest: first of all, goa books -- go bucks. my daughter goes to ohio state. the population in the prison is 1.9 million could we have incarcerated more than the rest of the world. think about what he is saying, to attempt a mass deportation would result in mass

incarceration, like we have never seen and could end up involving some replication of the entire jail system we have now. those are huge numbers. it will have huge economic consequences. i think the reality is a lot of this is rhetoric. i think it is reflected and i think donald trump if i give him the benefit of the doubt, i think he is speaking to an anxiety and not to a policy. he is good at capturing people's fears and anxieties and came to them and often inflaming them. i think the truth is that at some point the desire to get control of our system is going to collide with the economic success he is reaching for as well. and then we will have to figure out when the overlap happens. a lot of pain can happen in the

meantime, families divided and communities will see that i didn't know you were talking about removing that person. i sit next to that person in church or work next to that person. there is a reality that will settle and as this is happening and there will be an economic consequence we will have to deal with. it just isn't true and donald trump says this and recognizes this, we need immigration. it is a powerful tool for us and we better get out not just deportation part with illegal immigration target because it is part of our superpower, the ability to choose the best and brightest in the world and there are people literally dying to come to the united states is something most of the rest of the world would want. we also take stuff in the fact that this is not just a u.s.

problem. the world is moving and in motion and lots of countries are struggling with the rise of nationalism and nativism. it is happening and lots of countries as they struggle to figure out, how do we set up regimes that allow us to control our borders in an effective way. we have an opportunity to lead the world in showing the world how that can happen and i think that will involve us resisting the temptation to do the politically easy and challenge ourselves to do the politically difficult, which is built in immigration system where we will be the envy of the world. host: earlier this week the senate judiciary committee took up the question of mass deportation, talking about the consequences, economic, military, etc.. cameras were there. we covered the hearing in its entirety. you can watch online at c-span.org or our free video mobile app c-span now.

we have gold stars at the rate of your screen indicating points of interest throughout the hearing if you don't have hours to sit through it. you can click on those and get an idea of the questions and answers lawmakers got on mass deportation. this week on capitol hill with c-span coverage. laverne in texas, democratic caller. caller: i would just like to say that i do believe the president elect of this country has no -- he is an ignorant man. he has no understanding of the constitution 14th amendment. number two, because he has money he was able to get his current wife, an immigrant, a green card. makes her a genius, being a nude

model? i don't think so. father was a member of the communists in yugoslavia. i have no words. the other thing i would like to speak about is the betrayal of those people from europe yet in ohio. host: in springfield, ohio? caller: saying they were eating the cats and dogs, when that was splendid and proven false. those people were invited there by the city. host: it was the haitians in that screenful, ohio invited there? are you familiar with the story? guest: who wasn't familiar with that story at the time. i believe that mike dewine, a

good solid republican around for the issues was absolutely right when he said it was disgusting. it was a low point in political rhetoric in the united states that there is sort of the disinformation being spread in horrible ways. those were valuable, computing members of that community. they were there helping to build and provide and support the economy of springfield and the governor knew that and spoke out about that. i hate the politics of personal destruction. it is what i dislike most about the president elect that he goes after people in vicious ways. i will not say he is an idiot for maligning his wife, that will not get us where we need to be. it is time for us to step back and start finding common ground on issues that should matter to all of us. the immigration system is it

something that should matter to all of us. someone has to try to beat the adult in the room and the politics of personal destruction, in know that we are willing to work with anyone willing to solve this problem. i will not call anyone names that they are willing to sit down. host: we will go to michigan, dave, independent. caller: your lawyer has ways to try to verify other immigrants leaving the country. what i'm trying to get at is trying to go around the moneymaking deal with the coyotes and everything. i feel there must be a way that the united states can tell all of the immigrants from other countries to file for a signed and sealed by government readers

a document that says, and they will pay the leaders to leave the country to go work for somebody else. that means they are not coming back or whatever. they come over here and we have verification that that government has been paid a certain amount of money to leave their country and come into ours. and then wait charge them to come into ours. if they don't pay, we go back on their government to get the money that they filed for in order to come into this country. host: let's take your idea. guest: the reality is, most of the places people were fleeing when they were coming to the u.s. border were places that were not going to be able to negotiate those deals. they were failed at dictatorships, such as venezuela, cuba, haiti, the has

devolved into chaos. so that is the point that those folks were fleeing places that were collapsing. doesn't necessarily mean they were entitled to asylum under u.s. law but i get why they were leaving. it is kind of sad that the only line they could go to stand in was aligned at the u.s. -- was the line at the u.s. border. what would've been great is if we could have had them stand in lies at the u.s. consulate at home. we could do that in places that needed them, they wouldn't have had to walk 5000 miles risking their lives and being subjected to the abuses in terms of the cartels. when the only line to stand in to have a valid shot addressing those challenges they were facing with the line at the

southern border so that is where they are going. so our challenge and obligation to figure out how do we address that, you don't address that by pushing them 100 yards away from the u.s. border and calling it a win. they are still trying to get to the line. the answer is, how do we deal with the country conditions driving them out and how do we create opportunities for them to stand in line other than at the southern border. host: can viewers find recommendations from your website? guest: absolutely. aila.org, we have been trying to be for solutions for a long time. we need to focus a little less on random acts of anger and outrage and we ought to focus more on solutions. that is what we have been focused on.

the organization we have worked with for a long time, the american immigration counsel also have a lot of solutions based work and research and analysis. have a great map of the impact on where you can go and select what does it mean in economic terms in ohio, arizona, wisconsin. it tells the story of the resource we should be trying to manage rather than just the story of the deportation that needs to happen. host: benjamin johnson is the executive director of the american immigration lawyers association. thanks for the conversation. guest: thank you. host: when we come back, we will talk about the incoming trump administration with ashley hayek , the former trump 2024 campaign leader and from america first

works. we will be right back. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tells the american story. this weekend at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the st. charles county historical society in missouri hosts a conference of the american revolution in the west. historians discuss the weapons of the american revolution, the role of native americans on that 1779 mississippi river commission. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the second of a two-part lecture on the 1893 trial of lizzie borden, who is accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an ax. the murder and trial received widespread publicity at the time and lizzie borden became a lasting figure in american popular culture. at 9:30 p.m., we will revisit the fourth presidency with

secret white house tapes and oral history interviews with administration officials. exploring, watch saturdays on c-span and find a fulledule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> james bradley a process biography of martin van buren is the first file of that president decades. he teaches in the public history program at the state university of new york at albany. he writes, as this biography will show, reaching the nation's highest office was not vanburen's greatest achievement. he built and defined the party system that define how politics

are wielded in the united states . vanburen is known as the principal founder of the democratic party. >> james bradley with his book martin van buren, america's first politician on this episode of the book notes plus with post brian lamb. available on the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> for over 45 years, c-span has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering wide coverage of congress, open forum call-in and we have done it all without a spent -- sent of government funding. your support helps keep our mission alive and as we close out the year, we are asking you to stand with us. your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% toward supporting c-span's vital work to ensure in-depth and independent

coverage continues to thrive in an era where it is needed more than ever. visit c-span.org/donate or scan the qr code on your screen to make your donation today to make sure c-span remains a trusted resource for you and for future generations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ashley hayek is joining us, the executive director america first works to talk about the incoming trump administration. let's begin with your organization, america first works. what is it? guest: we are an add the city -- advocacy organization in addition to advancing state policy at the state level. we work on federal and also the past year it was exciting because we were very involved in the ground games for the

presidential campaign. there is a rule that was reinterpreted in late march of 2024 that allowed 501(c)4 to work on door-to-door canvassing. so taking that lead, we decided that is exactly what we were going to do. we started by talking to voters about policies and understanding what mattered to the american people in battleground states. we visited voters 5.7 million times in those battleground states and sent over 30 million text messages have conversations about the policies that drove people to want to go to the polls and using that information we turned out voters of those who didn't not typically vote in did not turn out in the last election and we had voters going into election day in those ballot -- battleground states.

it was more in the margin that we lost by in 2020. host: when you went into the battleground states and talked to the voters, what issues did they tell you would drive them to the polls? did it differ in the battleground states? guest: the number one issue we heard as you can imagine is the economy. it really depended upon states. in some states like nevada it came in the form of housing. in other states it came in the form of inflation. the wording was a little bit different but the number one issue by a large margin was the economy. the second issue we heard was border crisis. people were really scared and people were upset at what was happening and that the border was open and there were drug cartels running the southern border, a lot of talk of human traffic in the tragic cases of lake and riley and -- laken

riley and others. door-to-door in michigan, education was an issue when kids are going back to school. michigan has some of the more egregious lockdown requirements where kids were kept out of school and i think we saw that in september when voters were sending kids back to school and realized they were still far behind from an education standpoint written host: -- education standpoint. host: did you send them and what sort of messages did they receive that drove them to the polls? guest: on door-to-door canvassing we visited 5.7 million times. some of them we visited three times and some we only visited once. we had conversations and wanted to hear what policies did they care about. we had information we would

leave with them. we had messages showing the prices for groceries in 2020 versus today and just comparing the cost of items. we were able to have a conversation. we had another piece focused on the border. as we got closer to election day , we had a piece that was shaped like the state of california that said don't let kamala harris california are country. there were conversational pieces of are you ready to vote and would you be willing to vote. and just using president trump's message on what his solutions are, extending the tax cuts and making america affordable again, securing the border. he was able to provide the communication strategy and provided the policy and we just

have the conversations with the american people. i will say that the big contest we heard out the door it was that the other side was not able to provide the solution that they could buy into and that is white people turn out and voted for president trump. host: in these voters you described earlier as low-frequency voters, i believe. what does that mean? what did you know about them? guest: we knew the party affiliation, some were independent and some were conservative. some were mixed households where there may be a democrat that lived in the household and they work mainly people who don't regularly vote in elections. you have low, medium and high propensity voters. hyatt voters are those who vote every single election and they are going to make sure that their vote counts and you have people who are mid in vote maybe in every presidential election or any big election and you have low where they may skip

elections and maybe one in four or people who have just stopped voting in heaven voted in the last four elections. that is what we knew about them and wanted to understand why didn't they vote in 2020? what were they looking for in their candidate and what policies will be looking to address and so having the conversations. after the election, we reached out to every low propensity democrat, republican and independent and say what you want to see in the first 100 days and the answer was still economy and secure the border. we will continue to monitor that and make sure we have policies ready to go. host: what role world your group play in the upcoming trump administration? you touched on it that you provided the information by going back to the voters in what they want to see, what else would you do? guest: a lot of it will be about education. how do we continue to have the conversations with the american

people the sister organization to america first works has eight cabinet secretary nominees that will be going in for education, epa. veterans affairs in the list goes on and on. pam bondi is one of our chairs and will be going in for department of justice. we view our opportunity to educate the american people on the policies that are coming on the administration and what is happening and how they impact your life and we will continue to do the work for the state policy. we believe the power belongs to the american people. the state policy matters a lot. a lot of people overlook state policies and we will continue to do that. on the america first side we will advocate for the policy and states and work with grassroots and make sure that we get through the nomination we can help provide support on the

ground with grassroots to make sure our nominees make it through the confirmation process. host: when you talk about the first 100 days and you say it is still the economy and the border , as you said, the economy is nuanced. some people want to see the process -- the groceries and the housing and the border up with. what will president do on the economy, on the different issues? guest: there are a couple things he has already talked about. he has talked about making the tax cuts talking about making us energy independent once again. talked about stopping regulations that are driving up costs and bringing jobs and bringing work here instead of shipping everything overseas. that has been a huge issue. having to import power and stop

the energy production in the united states, i think there are a lot of different things the president is going to focus on. he talked about no tax on tips in social security and over time. made in america. there are a number of things that do that will alleviate some of the regulations that we have on our economy today. host: is he looking at the first 100 days? is that what you are hearing? guest: i think everyone looks at the first 100 days. the president wanted to say he sent some executive orders within the first month and first day of his administration. i think that is exactly what he is going to do. he has shared a very aggressive policy agenda so far. in one of the things if you recall from the first term in office, i think everybody,

media, american people always look at the first 100 days to see what has been accomplished so far. we did that even in the biden administration. i'm sure that is what we all will be doing at that point in time. host: ashley hayek is our guest. josephine in livingston, new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. yesterday or the day before, the president-elect said "i cannot do a thing about rights of food." finally told the truth. we knew that. a lot of people were sadly duped into thinking that it would change. it is not going to happen. the other thing which concerns me, i can only explain my experience. i had to put an aluminum

drainpipe that cost me $200 and it cost me $800 because of the taxes -- tariffs. so people are not going to be able to afford anything. host: ashley hayek guest: tariffs will be a big issue especially in terms of reciprocity. we did see success in that in the first administration. one of the things the president is going to focus on is make sure that big corporations who have a stranglehold of our domestic food supply and costs. that will be a very important issue moving forward. he has addressed that. costs are high and it is tons of regulations driving up costs. i think we are going to see changes happening, likely in the first 100 days or maybe take a

little longer but i am confident in the president's ability to take on these economic issues. the first three years of his presidency, we didn't have eight dollars for a jug of orange juice. that is the massive spending that happened during this administration and that has to stop. we have to prioritize the american people over foreign interests. caller: good morning, c-span.i', baby, drill. i'm an 84-year-old man and gas prices is not going to go down, i don't care how much he drills. it's not going to go down. it's going to stay the same. now gas prices, when i first started out my driving license, gas prices were 15 cents a gallon. and i barely had 15 cents to put in my father's car when i had to go out on a date or something. host: let's take your comments that he cannot with drill, baby,

drill bring down gas prices. guest: well, i think the goal from this administration is to restore american energy dominance and that's going to cut back on inflation overall. it will cut american energy prices in half. hopefully within the first year. the idea is to really help support jobs and economic growth and expand economic incentives so that we can have energy infrastructure investments here in the united states. so i know that there's a longstanding goal that they have for energy independence and a lot of it has to do with the regulations that people are experiencing. host: kenty erie, illinois. republican. caller: give me a second before you pull the plug. i got two different comments for ashley. the first, i wonder how much trump should be so constrained about worrying about the legalities of deporting illegal people. they're illegal. you don't go up to a bank robber

and say, now, i don't want to hurt your sensibility, you robbed the bank but we want to make sure all your legal bases are covered before we put you in jail. that's insanity. the people are illegal. nobody said to biden, hey, you're taking your first thing that you're supposed to be responsible for and just ignoring it. letting millions of people come in. host: all right. ashley, when you went door to door, your group in these battleground states before the election, and you talked about securing the border, did you propose or talk about mass deportation, what the president -- the candidate was talking about at the time, how did people respond? guest: people are very much in favor of having a deportation effort. i mean, also understand that what you're seeing, especially -- even in very, very blue places, some of these very democrat governments have prioritized illegal aliens over the american people, over the

people in those communities. and it's frustrating. when your kids are getting displaced out of their schools, when social services are going to people other than the tax paying citizens in those communities, when they're getting free handouts, free health care, free everything, and there are people that are americans that are putting in -- they're going to work, they have jobs, they're paying into the tax system, it's very unfair and then also not to mention the drugs that are pouring into the communities right now because of the border crisis. this is a very serious issue. and then not to mention all of the crime that we're seeing, whether it's in new york city or you saw it in springfield, ohio, people are fed up. and so it is very clear the president said he will close the border, he's going to stop the invasion at the southern border, and force the immigration laws, defeat the drug cartels and make sure that we end human trafficking. and so that's going to be a day one priority of this administration. host: we'll go to macon, georgia. ralph, democratic caller.

caller: yes. i had a question please about the border, but remember reagan opened the border, but then he was telling gorbachev, tear down that wall. i would like to know, those people that were sent from texas and florida by their governor, were they vetted to see if they had a criminal record in their hometown before they were sent to new york? host: what's your point, ralph? with asking that question. caller: asking that question because we're talking about all these people, all these criminals that we have around the cities here that are committing crimes. we're saying that, hey, all these people are committing crimes here in the states. and the other thing is, these people that are coming from the border, they are not bringing in drugs. congress not being true to us

because it's a sophisticated operation and the drugs, they are not bringing drugs, they are coming in here. and the worst day in america is better than the best day in these countries. that's why they're coming here. host: all right. ashley hayek. guest: because your country is not as great as america isn't a reason for you to illegally enter into our country. that's just a fact. and we have seen from this current administration tens of thousands of criminals who are, because of the policies of this administration, caught and released into the country. so if there's anyone who is upset, if you're upset with what those rules are, it is this administration to blame as they are the ones who set forth those policies that have allowed rapist, murderers, criminals into the country, released with maybe a court date. so -- and by the way, it was taxpayer dollars that moved the murderer of laken riley from new

york to georgia. so if you're upset with that, it is this administration that allowed for those policies. that's exactly what trump is going to address on day one of this administration. host: richard in savannah, georgia. a republican. caller: good morning. and thank you for taking my call. ashley, i would like for you to get to the trump organization and to change the white house press briefing room. the people that have been sitting on the first three rows have lied about trump for the last three years. four years. eight years. they've had a big part of hurting what's going on in america. and i think they've even driven to helping -- calling him hitler, etc., to the assassination attempts, etc. i'd like for you to, if you can, get podcasts from rogan, kelly, tucker carlson, etc., in there, and change up what we've been doing. our press is destroying this

country. and i would like to see you possibly help getting that white house press briefing room where it's honest because the last four years have been disgusting. and i thank you for your letting me talk. thank you, greta. host: all right. ashley. guest: first of all, i love that idea. i love the idea of bringing in some of those podcasters to be a part of the media class and i think you're exactly right. people are really frustrated which is why you've seen so many ratings go down. i have no authority over the white house briefing room but i'll tell you a quick story. in the first administration, president trump was doing a press briefing and he did not go in order of row of how you're traditionally supposed to call on reporters. and that just completely blew the establishment media's minds and that's -- i think you'll see more of that. i think you'll see j.d. vance and president trump doing the podcasts, reaching out to nontraditional forms of media, and going directly to the people

where they are. i think we're in a new time. we have to meet people where they are and talk to people on those different platforms. that's a really great idea and thank you for sending that along. host: on those that are intending to serve in the next trump administration, let's talk about his nominees. as it stands today, what are the chances of president-elect's choice for defense secretary, pete hegseth, getting enough republican support in the senate? guest: i think he will absolutely get enough support in the senate. you know, unfortunately it's the left, the media, the swamp special interests are the ones who are speaking out against pete hegseth. you're not hearing the american voters. we are hearing that there's a group of over 100 navy seles who will be -- seals who will be going to the capitol in support of pete hegseth. but it's the bureaucratic state that pete hegseth threatens the most. that's a good thing as far as the american people were concerned. this is a change election. not only do we have republicans

in control of the white house, the senate and the house but the popular vote and also a majority of the governors. if americans wanted the status quo, they would have kept things same old-same old. and trump wouldn't have won in the way that he did. so there's a lot here and i think that pete hegseth will be very successful. we're going to see him be able to increase recruitment finally. i think there's going to be a change to the warrior mindset so we have a strong military and that's exactly what our country needs right now. host: what did you mean by not listening to the american people when it comes to this defense secretary nomination? guest: i'm sorry, say that again? host: what did you mean when you said they're not listening to the american people on the support for pete hegseth to serve as defense secretary? guest: anybody who votes against pete hegseth is not listening to the will of the american people, period. so that is the number one message. pete hegseth is -- this is

chosen. this was a mandate by the american people to put forth president trump's vision and pete hegseth is a part of that vision. and so if those senators, you know, i think a senator said it best. he brings up a great point about republican senators, that a sickle democrat senator voted against any of biden's nominee, so we need to do the exact same thing on our side. any republican that has said they're a no for any of trump's nominees, that he going to likely -- they're going to likely face a primary or there's going to be repercussions because of that. that's what i mean. host: charles, port collins, colorado. independent. caller: if trump influences 25% tariff on mexico and khan, our -- canada, our two largest trading partners, mexico has already said they're going to retaliate. it is going to drive inflation up higher. costs are going to go up on the normal people and then he's

going to cut the corporate tax rate to 16%? i don't see where this works at all economically. it is just insanity. guest: what i did see is trudeau and the president and many other world leaders having conversations with president trump, which is by far more than what we have seen from this current administration. having a president who is able to sit down, have those conversations, discuss policy in a meaningful way, bring people to the table. we are already in such a better place compared to this current administration and i have absolutely complete trust in the president to be able to help us with economic growth, drive down inflation, and make us prosperous again. host: how do you think this next trump administration will differ from the first one? guest: i think that the president has a lot more experience in terms of what's going to work and what's not going to work.

he has an incredible team around him. he did -- what this team brings, they've been there, they understand, they know the rules, they've been preparing. i think they're going to be more prepared than ever before to lead this administration. host: rich in marion, ohio. republican. caller: yeah. great discussion. one thing on food prices that could change right away, pennsylvania does not charge tax on clothes or food. some other states do. if they would straighten the taxes on the states that food and clothing does not get taxed, it could drop the food prices down right away. the other one is we have problems in springfield where people don't have driver's licenses and it's been causing problems. we also have people required to get vaccines or that's u.s. citizens but if you're not a u.s. citizen, you don't need to have any vaccination and that also causes sickness and death.

we could just close the border until we figure this out and it would stop a whole lot of problems and then we could go back and take care of the problems. under reagan he agreed that he would drop the things on the border but they were supposed to stop the illegals, the two million people a year we have already. they like the part about letting people in but they never got the other side to regulate it. i'll hang up. listen to your answer. host: all right, ashley hayek. guest: there's a lot to unpack there. there's a lot the states could do to help reduce the costs and to reduce taxes in general. that's something that america-first policy institute and america-first works has looked like. in states like wisconsin, for example, you have a massive state budget surplus in the state of wisconsin, yet they have higher tax rates than other states. well, they should cut back taxes and let wisconsin people keep more money in their pockets. and this administration is going to extend the tax cuts and is going to really work on reducing regulation and, yes, i think

that will have a big impact on cost of food and cost of goods across the board. there's so much you can do from a state level and there's also work you can do from the federal level. and as i said, we really believe that a lot of work has to be done in the states as well. in terms of illegals receiving driver's licenses, health care, all of those things, again, it's been very unfair and that's what we heard at the doors from people and from voters. all of these different rules that don't apply to them but were forced on the american people or the services that they get, if the american people did not get. and those are part of the issues that i think this administration will take on. host: we'll go to california, san bernardino. norris is watching there, an independent. good morning to you. caller: hey, good morning to you. i wanted to ask, if we're going to send all the immigrants back to their respective countries, respectively mexico, and shut them off ated border, i got a two or three-part question. how is that going to do anything

for food prices going down? as a matter of fact, it's not. and i notice you brought up laken riley. it's funny that the republicans never bring up molly tib ets who was -- yeah, during the trump administration, but you guys never bring that up. that proves you guys are politicizing it because they were both just as tragic. but more than that, how can you explain -- how is anything going to get cheaper if you're getting rid of all these immigrants, you're going to have to charge more for things to get picked. out here in california we got some of the biggest crops that are sensitive, how -- can you please tell me how are things going to go cheaper if you're getting rid of people that are going to actually pick these vegetables and fruits out here? how is that going to happen? guest: well, there's a couple things. first of all, we're not deporting -- or the trump administration has never said they're going to deport all immigrants. it's people who have entered the country illegally.

illegal aliens. not people who are here working on a green card. the people who are not here legally. that's the first issue. the second issue is i would never consider california being a place where i would want to have any state have those types of standards, where you have crazy employment loss, rocket sky high price, tons of regulation and a lot of fraud and corruption. i am from the people's republic of california and that is not the gold standard for any state whatsoever and it does not spur economic growth. in fact, you have tons of companies that have been leaving california to go to other states like texas and florida. we need to make sure that americans have the opportunity to obtain some of these jobs as well. so there's a number of issues here. the other thing is the people that are coming across the border are not all people that are looking for a job to go work a farm. i think that's a little stereotypical. there are a lot of people that are -- that have been identified as potential threat, terrorists to the country, there have been

people from a whole variety of backgrounds. military-aged men. people from china, around the world. so i would just be very careful on how these folks are being stereotyped and who exactly the president would be sending back. remember, there have been foreign countries that have emptied their prisons and sent their prisoners into america through our southern border because they didn't want to have to support them in their prisons. they need to go back to those countries' prisons. we should not be paying the price for what they have done to our country. host: delia in new york. democratic caller. hi. caller: hi, good morning and thank you for taking my call. good morning, ms. hayek. i am so glad to get you on the phone and thank you for what you're doing to put america first. i live in new york, i live in harlem. and i can tell you yesterday i was looking at the mayor, eric adams, after his talk with

mr. hoeman about the illegal alien situation in new york city which is who are endowels. it is so who -- horrendous. it is so horrible i can't even put it into words and it has affected me, let me just say, you know, i'm african-american. and i can tell you that we have been so ill-affected in new york state, it's really not discussed like -- and i can't understand why it's not being talked about in new york. like it is in chicago. and out there they're making a bigger deal about it, but going back to eric adams and that meeting that they had yesterday. i'm thinking that mr. homman, i'm praying, he seems to be pretty savy, as is mr. president trump. i voted for him. mind you, i'm a democrat. but after seeing what's going on in the state, how i'm being affected, i'm homeless or technically i'm homeless or not

homeless, i should say, you couldn't imagine what i'm going through right now with trying to get help from my situation and i'm -- i was born here. i'm a citizen of this country. and i can't get help while i'm watching the illegal aliens not just come here and get all of the benefits, things that i paid into when i was working, and they're just coming here and they're getting it all and i'm praying because when i heard eric adams, you know, i have to say, i am not -- and i did not vote for him by the way. i'm not confident that he is going to really -- from listening to his response yesterday, i am not at all confident that he is going to change a thing. i'm not talking about mr. holman. i did hear that he did say that he was encouraged behind that meeting. i can say from watching

mr. adams' response, i am not. host: ok. ashley hayek. guest: i think she summed up what we were hearing from the doors from the american people and answers questions from the previous call% the crisis that's happen -- callers about the crisis that's happening in our country. a lot of new yorkers won't forget the fact that new york not only didn't stop illegal aliens from entering the state to gobble up the resources that were taxpayer-funded, but they opened the doors and welcomed it. a lot of these sanctuary states and sanctuary cities did that. we saw in new york where they provided housing and playstations and card games and warm food and hotels and then they didn't like the food so they threw all the food away because they wanted different food. i don't see any new yorkers getting that level of service from their government the way that the government has rolled out the red carpet for the

illegal aliens coming into the communities. and what that caller just stated is exactly what we were hearing across the country and why this has become a top issue for the american people, as well as this administration. this new administration. host: brett, a republican in texas. your turn. caller: yes. you remind me of my granddaughter and you look almost exactly like her. i think you're a wonderful person. all these people that want these illegals to come over and these criminals and child molesters and killers, we'll just send them over to their house. biden, he's real quick to let them in. we'll just let him open up his door and let them live with him. i mean, that's what he wants. and not to mention he's a traitor anyway.

and you're going to see this unfold even more. the more we find out about these drones and stuff. just like he did on the chinese spy balloons. he don't ever say nothing against china ever. not against the drugs that they're letting pour into this country. he don't ever say nothing against china. you have ever noticed that? host: all right, brett. ashley, do you have any response to brett? guest: i think brett is correct when talking about our national security, our national security is very much at risk because of this current administration. there was a chinese spy balloon that floated all wait across the country and this administration did nothing. there have been terrorists that have literally been caught in the united states because we have an open border and nothing was stopped to secure the border. and let's be very clear. president biden at any point

could restore the previous executive orders that he undid during his administration to make our country secure and he chose to not do that. in fact, he's currently rapidly selling parts of the border wall before president trump takes office. the materials that were used to put up the border wall. he stopped construction of the border wall. there are so many things that could have been done to make america secure, to stop the drug cartels, to stop the human trafficking. one thing that we haven't had the opportunity to talk about are the tens of thousands of children who are lost in this country, that the biden administration has admitted to losing in this country, or the fact that these children that are being literally used by the cartels, it is horrific. one in three of those young children, one in three women who are making that trip across the southern border, being trafficked by the cartels, are being sexually assaulted. and so where is the humanitarian help there? you don't see it from this administration. they have to secure the border day one of the new administration.

i think that's exactly -- i know that's exactly what president trump will do. host: bernard in new york. republican. caller: good morning. good to talk to you guys. i used to talk to brian lamb some years ago. this is the greatest time i've seen in america. for the last 70 years, the fight has been between the left and the right. it's that simple. it started in russia under lenin in 1918 when he swore to tierveg the world -- to take over the world. stalin them came along and said, we won't have to fire a shot, we'll use useful idiots. useful idiots, you could name -- i used to call them twinkle toes. that was the two that ran for president. it's not funny, it's part of the problem. but it's going to go away.

twinkle toes has shown now i saw on tv yesterday, he's got a christmas tree and instead of putting an angel on the top, he put a roll of toilet paper. this is the kind of mentality that we're losing. this is a great time -- host: all right, i'm going to move on to john who is in pennsylvania. independent caller. hi, john. caller: yes. you talked about crime. the people there, the guy that shot at trump was a white guy, you know, from a republican family. and also the guy that shot the c.e.o. in new york city was not an immigrant. he was from a republican family. so this thing about crime, all these people coming in here are not gypsies, tramps and thieves that trump makes them out to be. in fact, he had undocumented workers working in his properties. so this guy's a real hypocrite.

and as far as i'm concerned, he's not going to lower the prices of food. first of all, he even said the other day, he says, once prices of food go up, it's hard to bring them down. so he's already getting us prepared for all his lies that he told us. this guy's something else. it's really a shame. host: all right, we'll take your points. ashley hayek. guest: a couple of things. i'm not sure where all that information came from but it's factually incorrect. until the facts are right, then we can have an honest conversation. there is a crime crisis in our country. it's a major crisis. and it really started when you have the radical left starting to defund our law enforcement. and that was a huge issue. we saw kamala harris bailing out riders who were destroying even minority-owned businesses in places like milwaukee and that's just unacceptable. one went on to commit murder. so, yes, there is a crime crisis

and it's because we have not adequately funded our law enforcement. again, that's a local and state issue. and it really became a massive issue because when you have national leadership who is just calling for the defending of our police force -- defunding of our police force, the not helpful and all communities are affected by bad policies like that. this is a new day. i'm very hopeful and optimistic about the future of our country and i think that we have an incredible opportunity to put the american people first, to bring prosperity, opportunity, freedom and even safety into our country again. host: ashley hayek talking about the incoming trump administration. steve, to you in cliffton, new jersey. independent. caller: good morning. first of all, to the person who just called. it took 19 bad guys to cause immense damage during 9/11. and to say, oh, let them all in, it's just absurd. all we need is 19 people to cause another 9/11.

but that's not what i want to talk about. i travel to israel a lot and i go through customs. and i am not exaggerating when i say the last time i went through customs, they had a dog smelling everyone's luggage. and they stopped a woman and they literally took apart her whole luggage because the dog was able to smell, get this, one apple. an apple. and she's surrounded with guards and they took the apple away. and all i could think about, here we have customs, people, citizens can't come back into the country with an apple but noncitizens can come into our country with fentanyl or with kids that aren't documented. i mean, the just absurd. the absurdity is just -- like how did we get here? guest: or how about the people who force vaccinations against their will but yet have allowed people to come into the country that are not vaccinated at all? this is the hypocrisy and this

is the frustration of so many people who see that there are rules for the not for me, double standards that have just really frustrated people. and we have to get back to putting the american people first and our safety, security and prosperity and opportunity first. i think you make that point in a lot of ways. but yes, there's a double standard. i remember our family took a trip abroad. we had to come back, it was in 2021, we had to come back with a clean covid test and yet you see at the southern border tons of people coming in and they're not turning people away, they're not testing them for covid. that was a big hypocrisy. we had people forced out of the military because they had a religious exemption for a covid vaccine. yet you don't see forced vaccines of anyone else coming into the country that's not here legally. it's such a gross, awful i had pok aresy and double standard -- hypocrisy and double standard by this current government and administration.

host: next call. independent from tennessee. caller: yes, thank you. she said a while ago that all the countries of the world had entered their prisons and insane asylums -- guest: i didn't say that. i said there have been a country in latin america that did that. yes. caller: ok, i want you to prove that. where can i see that? where can i prove that that that happened? thank you. guest: google it. it's there. it's been covered by the mainstream media. it is absolutely happened. and it's very unfortunate that it has happened. but cn thrvetion has covered it -- cnn has covered it. "new york times" has covered it. new york post $has covered it. you can google it. host: americaworks.com is the website. thank you. when we come back, we'll be in open forum. any public policy or politics that is on your mind, you can

start dialing in, share your thoughts with us. we'll be right back. announcer: american history tv saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the st. charles county historical society in missouri hosts a conference of the american revolution in the west. historians discuss the weapons of the american revolution, the role of spain and native americans, and the 1779 mississippi river campaign. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the second of a two-part lecture by university of maryland history professor, michael ross, on the 1893 trial of lizzie borden who was accused of murdering her father and step-mother with an ax. the murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time and lizzie borden became a lasting figure in american

popular culture. on the presidency, we'll revisit the ford presidency with scholars reflecting on events from a century ago, including secret white house tapes and oral history interviews with ford administration officials. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. announcer: for more than 45 years, c-span has been your window into the workings of our democracy. offering live coverage of congress, open forum call-in programs and unfiltered access to the decision makers that shape our nation. and we've done it all without a cent of government funding. c-span exists for you. viewers who value transparent, no-spin political coverage. and your support helps keep our mission alive. as we close out the year, we're

asking you to stand with us. your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% toward supporting c-span's vital work, helping ensure that independent coverage continues to thrive in an era when it's needed more than ever. visit c-span.org/donate or scan the code on your screen to make your tax-deductible contribution today. together we can ensure that c-span remains a trusted resource for you and future generations. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the "washington journal," in our final 30 minutes here we are in open forum. any public policy that is on your mind or politics, you can call in now and tell us, share those thoughts with us. open forum, there are the lines on your screen. we'll start with the topic that we discussed earlier this

morning in our first hour of "washington journal." term limits for supreme court justices. senators joe manchin, democrat-turned independent from west virginia, and peter welch, democrat from vermont this week proposed changing the constitution to give supreme court justices 18 years on the bench. senator manchin sat down with c-span this week to talk about his career and legacy in the chamber and we talked to him about this term limit proposal. here's what he had to say. >> i believe in term limits across the board. ok. that's the one peter welch and i have done. but i've been on other ones too and i believe simply we pick the 18 years, makes sense, it's a long period of time. and we thought that that gives everyone a chance, whenever it would get implemented, but it doesn't do anything, right now it doesn't do anything with the supreme court that's sitting now. but whenever they would retire, whatever, then that new person coming in would have an 18-year.

>> it requires a constitutional amendment. >> yeah. i think it does, absolutely. because right now the constitution says it's for life. but then i think the people would -- right now i think the people would support all term limits on all of us. so i'm for one for the president. i think the president should be commander in chief from the first day until the last day and never have to worry about running for re-election. do your job, but we need you every day. mine, focused. senate. i've been here for 14 years. 12 years is enough. two terms. i served two years of the extended end and then two full terms. and then maybe five or six terms which would be 10 to 12 years for the house. that's more than enough. you need a turnover. oh, you're losing too many experienced people. staff is where the knowledge is. we have good people, solid people here who can help. so i just think that that would give us a little bit of a turnover. host: senator joe man dhin

talking with -- manchin talking with c-span this week about his career, legacy, and he would like to see term limits. not just for supreme court justices, but all politicians. do you agree with him? you can discuss that here in open forum on "washington journal." here's a couple ocomments from our viewers on social media.

host: term limits, you can talk about here in open forum or any other public policy political issue. john, we'll turn to you in mountain home, arkansas. republican. hi, john. caller: hi. host: good morning, whereas on your mind? caller: thanks for taking my call, c-span. host: you bet. caller: i wanted to talk about the issue of all these people wondering how we're going to get rid of these illegal aliens and how we're going to pay for it. host: mass deportation? caller: yes. and it's a simple solution. what you do is you get these people a job and they pay for their own way to get out of the country. they paid the cartels to get in the country. so put them to work. let them work until they earn enough money to put them on a plane and get them back where they came from. host: john's thoughts there. all right. in arkansas. this week on capitol hill, senate judiciary committee debated the issue of mass deportation. c-span cameras were there. we covered it in its entirety.

you can hear democratic and republican senators questioning their witnesses there about mass deportation. what would be the impact of this on the military and the economy, etc.? democracy unfiltered here at c-span. senate judiciary committee and find it on our website at c-span.org. ray in new york, democratic caller. hi, ray. caller: yes. when the new deal leader gets in office who we keep calling president, there's only one president, that's president biden, you all seem to understand that. he's going to cause a nuclear war to start near the end of his term. and try to stay in power. have an unblessed day, all you horrible people. god is coming to get y'all. good-bye. host: all right. that's ray in new york. there is a story in world news section of the "wall street journal" this morning.

president-elect trump weighs iran options is their headline in the "wall street journal." president-elect donald trump is weighing options for stopping iran from being able to build a nukeler weapon. including the possibility of preventive air strikes, a move that would break with the longstanding policy of containing teheran with diplomacy and sanctions. the military strike option against nuclear facilities is under more serious review by some members of his transition team who are weighing the fall of assad's regime, teheran's ally, in syria. the future of u.s. troops in the region and israel's destination of regime proxy militias, hezbollah, and hamas. "wall street journal," if you'd like to read more. kofi in philadelphia. independent. we're in open forum. caller: first of all, i'd like to say i agree with the manchin proposal. i think not limiting supreme court justice terms means that democracy can't work.

if the people of this country decide they want to do radical change through democratic means, it's going to be harder if you have supreme court justices who resist that change. the second thing i want to say is, i think that this trump era is going to be remembered as one of the darkest times in american history. i've already decided to leave the country and i know that a lot of people are on their way out as well. host: where will you go? caller: mexico. i've been in mexico back and forth for the past year and a half. mexico first and then maybe south america. there's so many wonderful countries on this planet that welcome americans and i would highly recommend that those who are uncertain about the future of this country look into exit options because things are going to get dark here, i believe. host: that's kofi's thoughts there in philadelphia. another headline to share with you and to discuss here in open

forum. is the drone sightings that have taken place in new jersey and new york. john kirby, who is the spokesperson on national security for the biden administration, in the briefing room yesterday ated podium -- at the podium took questions on these drones. here's what he had to say. >> no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat. or have a foreign nexus. the department of homeland security and the f.b.i. are investigating these sightings and they're working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin. using very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities, we have not been able to and neither have state or local law enforcement authorities corroborate any of the reported visual sightings. to the contrary. upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of

the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully. the united states coast guard is providing support to the state of new jersey and has confirmed that there is no evidence of any foreign-based involvement from coastal vessels. and importantly, there are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted air space. that said, we certainly take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems, which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support new jersey and investigate the reports, even though they have uncovered no malicious activity or intent at this particular stage. host: john kirby, spokesperson on national security at the white house yesterday on those drone sightings. morehead lines to share with you -- more headlines to share with you. front page of the "washington times." host: this comes from an inspector general report looking

into this claim. the f.b.i. had more than two dozen informants in washington surrounding the chaos of the january 6, 2021, attack on the capitol and four of them entered the building as part of the protest. host: that's the "washington times" reporting. let's look at "u.s.a. today."

host: the report comes as some republicans have tried to shift blame for the january 6 attack away from the trump supporters who participated in it --

host: and you heard from president-elect donald trump yesterday that he plans to pardon those who have been convicted on that day of january 6, 2021. we're in open forum. matt in new york. republican. hi. caller: good morning. first i want to commend you. i was listening to you yesterday and you were saying about if anybody glorifies the killer of the health care guy, that you would immediately cut them off. i would actually extend that to anybody on either side that decides to call either side names like morons, all that. that they should be immediately cut off. this country is at each other's throats and you guys could help with cutting down some of that

stuff that's going on. as far as the guy from pennsylvania that wants to leave, don't let the door hit you on the way out, buddy. that's as far as that goes. the supreme court stuff, the left had no problem with the supreme court when they controlled it for over half a century. it's not about -- you heard this guy say about radical change. well, that's why they have a constitution. so that the country just doesn't do things for the flavor of the week. the justices' job is to interpret the constitution and that's what its job is. i am totally against any kind of term limit whatsoever. and the other day you had a guy talk about how great the economy was because syracuse area is getting a micron plant. what he failed to mention was what happened to the big amazon

thing that was going to go on in new york city, that would have been a lot more jobs than the micron thing, and what happened with that, with a.o.c. and her cronies helping to keep that out of there. host: i'm going to go to some other calls. susan in pennsylvania. democratic caller. hi. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling in regards to your last guest. i just wanted to comment that her whole presentation, i mean, the gaslighting was off the charts in my opinion. and i would like to point out and hope that c-span maybe implements some standards. i think what's happening, she called illegal immigrants illegal aliens and i noticed that in congressional hearings a lot of republicans do the same thing and i urge the public to be careful because that's what starts where we dehumanize people and so i'm just -- i'm

hoping that maybe there could be some standards that your guests don't refer to people as aliens. i think that would be a good start. thank you for taking my call, i appreciate it. host: all right, susan, that is why we engage with all of our audience and have you call in. so that you are part of the debate. you can respond to our guests, civilly, no name-calling, as the other caller was talking about, and have a conversation with the guests that are at our table and also let lawmakers and other decision makers here in washington, let them know you what think about the issues that they're debating. whether it's term limits for the supreme court, mass deportation, or other issues that are brought up. another headline to share. glen thrush with "the new york times" reporting, plea deal for informant who lied about the bidens. a former f.b.i. informant accused of fabricating a claim that president biden and his son hunter were each paid a $5

million bribe by ukrainian oligarch has agreed to plead guilty to a range of federal charges. host: that's the reporting from "the new york times" by glen thrush this morning. cindy in syracuse, new york, an independent. we're in open forum. what's on your mind? caller: good morning, greta. i just want to respond to the gentleman who called about the -- about president-elect trump, speaking about how food prices, one they went high, it's going to be hard to get them down. and i heard that too. so shame on her for lying about that statement. and if i could say one more thing, i'd like everybody to

look up and see how president-elect trump has invited the president from china to his inauguration. sorry, it's the morning and i'm upset about this. i don't understand why -- i guess people watch bloomberg and all the stations. host: that was news this week as well. that invitation. and the white house was asked about that yesterday as well. speaking of the inauguration, here's a headline in the "wall street journal." amazon is planning a 1dz million donation to trump's inaugural fund as founder jeff bezos and other tech leaders shore up ties with the incoming administration. the donation is being prepared as bezos, amazon executive chairman, is slated to visit the president-elect in palm beach.

host: this from the "wall street journal." john in mcclain, virginia. republican. caller: hi. good morning. i'm calling to disagree with the senator. i think that there should be no term limits for our supreme court justices. we live in a republic. james madison and our founders decided that we're going to use character and wisdom to make our decisions and our constitution was set up to create our constitutional republic and that constitution informs us about what's really important. individual rights and limited

government. we are not a democracy and those supreme court justices should be enforcing our constitution and republican forms. finally, i want to advise or i want to give a suggestion to the new trump administration. i think that they should investigate the conspiracy to deny individual rights and i think they should investigate possible treason, but be very careful not to go too far. host: johns thoughts there in mcclain, virginia. he's talking about the propose albie senators joe manchin and peter welch, independent of west virginia, democrat of vermont. this week they proposed a constitutional amendment to gi supreme court justices term limits and thewant 18 years for themo serve on the bench. nonrenewable. a new term start being every two years and no change to the

overall number of justices. we discussed that in our first hour of "washington journal." you can discuss it now here in open forum as well. take a look at a poll done by "u.s.a. today" on this question. 63% of those polled overall support an 18-year supreme court term limit. when they break it down by party, 51% of republicans are in favor. 83% of democrats. 61% of independents. lawrence, pennsylvania, democratic caller. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to have a comment on drones. that was reported a few days or in the last week. in the news media. supposedly no one knew or the government knew exactly who or what they were doing or if they posed some kind of threat. but i believe that it could only take one drone, maybe from another country, aned a vare,

and -- an adversary, and maybe cause some chaos in our country. that's all i wanted to comment about and maybe there will be some update on these drones. basically i would say that to have a little humor here, i would say you never know from roswell, could there be some extraterrestrial involvement? i don't know. host: lawmakers are calling for -- they want some answers as well, lawrence. so this issue isn't going away. cnn reporting that this morning. lawmakers want some answers on those drone sightings as well. palmdale, california. independent. caller: hey, thank you for having me on the line, c-span. i just want to say many blessings to everyone who is listening for the holidays that are coming up here. i'm just trying to take this on a different note because it's the last guest you had. it seems to me that republicans have won, as we all know and as we can alltel, but now it just

seems that the rhetoric is just continuing to go on and on and further. especially with the demonization of people. and i'll give a perfect example regarding this immigration issue. it gives a real tear to my eye because no one really wants to sit down at the table and solve this issue. and it's very solvable because we all speak of the constitution and how we believe in the constitution, yet we don't want to allow people to utilize the constitution when they're trying to come here to seek asylum or to enter the country to get away from different types of things that are going on where they're at. so we want to sweep everyone under the rug and forget that, yes, donald trump did close the border per se because of covid, as everyone remembers, forcing everyone to remain in mexico, as we do remember. please look back in your

history. what happened is that biden was forced to open up the border because of the supreme court decision that covid was over. so he had to let the people in. host: all right, caller. i'll leave it at that and let you know what we're covering in washington ahead of this weekend's army and navy football game. watch today on c-span as west point and naval academy cadets debate who should receive an additional half billion dollars in funding. the debate is being judged by former joint chiefs of chair, mike mullin, senator joe manchin, and representative darrell issa and pat ryan. that's live at noon eastern. at the same time pennsylvania senator-elect dave mccormick, former nfl head coach bill belichick, and others will discuss leadership, camaraderie and the historic rivalry between the two military branches and that is live on c-span2. also available on our free video mobile app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

donald in omaha, nebraska. republican. donald, what's on your mind? caller: well, i called on the independent line, i verified it with that kid. i'm an independent. host: ok. caller: one of these other causer called in about -- callers called in about 9. that was brought on by -- 9/11. that was brought on by the saudis. now trump's son-in-law is over there getting $2 billion for -- nobody can figure out for what. trump's over there brown-nosing them up. and that guest you had on, that young lady, you weren't going to change her mind. she's an elitist and thinks everybody else is just stupid. thank you. host: henry in alabama. democratic caller. hi, henry. caller: hello. i just want to say, i can't believe that we elected a

president who is going to be the first -- a president that never should have been elected and we're going to have a turncoat for a vice president and an alcoholic for heading up the f.b.i. that's all i have to say. host: all right. we will leave it there then. the conversation continues tomorrow on "washington journal," 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thanks for watching. and enjoy your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

>> today, members of the west point military academy and u.s. naval academy debate which branch should receive an additional half billion dollars in funding during the annual army-navy debate. judges include the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, senator joe manchin, and representatives. watch live at noon on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here' what is coming up this weekend. at eight :00 p.m. eastern, a pulitzer prize winning columnist shares her book, a collection of her columns from over the past quarter-century. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on

afterwords, an economist and investment advisor talks about the potential threat that ai poses to the global economy an national security in his book money gpt. he is interviewed by a george mason university distinguished university professor. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> are you a nonfiction book lover looking for new podcast? this holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts that c-span has to offer. on q and a will listen to interesting interviews with people and author writing books on history and subjects that matter. learn something on book notes plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. afterwords brings together nonfiction authors with influential interviewers

for wide-ranging hour-long conversations. on about books, we talk about the business of books with news about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> what is great internet? is it strong? is it fast? is it reliable? at sparklight, we know connection goes way beyond technology. from monday morning meetings to friday nights with friends and everything in between, for the best connections always there when you need them. how do you know it is great internet? because it works. we are sparklight, and we are always working for you. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public