downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> for over 45 years c-span has been your window into the workings of our democracy offering live coverage of congress, open for them calling programs and access to the decision-makers and we have done it without a cent of government funding. c-span exists for you. your support helps keep our mission alive. as we close out the year we are asking you to stand with us. your gift new matter the size goes 100% towards supporting c-span's vital work. helping to ensure we continue to thrive in an area where it is needed more than ever. visit c-span.org/donate. together we can ensure that c-span remains a trusted resource for you, for future

generations. >> joining us this morning is benjamin johnson. he has the executive director of the american immigration lawyers association here to talk about president-elect donald trump's immigration fan. who do you represent? 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 peoe. 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. >> next week on the c-span network the house and senate are in session for their last scheduled week of work for the 118th congress. both chambers are facing a deadline to pass government funding to avoid a shutdown in the senate -- on tuesday charlie baker, the presint of the national collegiate athletic association testifies in front of a senate group. watch next week live on the c-span network. or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand any

time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker, "play your c-span radio." important public affairs events throughout the day and every week they catch c-span today. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> former nfl coach bill belichick whose father coached at the naval academy designated in a discussion on leadership values. he also talks about his career transition from the nfl to his new position as head football coach at the university of north carolina. the national matter of honor society for leadership hosted this event. -- hosted this 90 minute event.