tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 29, 2010 7:00am-9:34am EDT
centers around the arizona immigration law and the federal judge's decision yesterday to block key parts of it. we would like to hear your reaction. democrats, for democrats, 202- 737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. good thursday morning to you. let's take a quick sweep of the headlines all around the country as we get your reaction to the situation in arizona with the federal district ruling yesterday on the preliminary injunction in the arizona law. let's take a quick look at "the washington post." it has aspects of the ruling from district judge susan bolten. "the portion of the law that drew the most objections,
requirements that required officers to check deal status whenever possible, making warrantless arrests, and a provision making it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in undocumented places, and the provision to make it a crime for immigrants not carrying their papers at all times." there have been reactions from groups all across the state and the country. we would like to hear yours. let's begin with dallas on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i am a lifelong democrat. i supported president obama. i am very disappointed that president obama has worked to defeat this lot.
i feel that illegal immigration has devastated the african- american community. no one seems to be expressing that. we do not hear anyone showing in the polls about how african- americans feel about the legal immigration. i feel that president obama has let down the african-american community. i would really like to stress to african-americans this morning that we need to voice our opinions to our black leaders. we need to be supportive. we need jobs. we are suffering out here. part of the reason is the legal immigration. we have been led down not only by this president also by our leaders in the democratic party. i am a democrat in have always supported the democrats, but if we continue to be on the wrong
side of this issue, i will not be able to support president obama for any other democrats going forward. host: thank you. "we are deeply disappointed in the court's ruling in disagree with the opinion that it will do leon bearden the federal immigration law. a instead of wasting taxpayer resources complaining that the mall would be burdensome, the obama administration should have focused on efforts from congress to support the state where the federal government has failed to take responsibility." one of the key people urging lawsuit was congressman raul grijalva, and he will be our guest in 45 minutes. our next phone call this morning is from canton, michigan. dexter, independent line, good
morning. caller: good morning. the legal immigrants in this country, -- the illegal immigrants in this country, i have conflicting views on this. we need to do something to control the borders. i do not know why there is not more work to go after the employers. if we go after the ones that aren't knowingly hiring illegal immigrants it would come to a decrease in the ones coming over. why are we focusing on the other side of the lot. signing everyone to the letter of the law. thank you. host: new castle, delaware, republican line. caller: i cannot believe that we have a judge that will
preemptively make a law like this. she simply use hypothetical as opposed to any real violation of a civil law. how can she get in -- how can she get up there and talk about larry that might come to the country? there was no actual anything in her decision. we can affect the united states legal policies through hypothetical these days? people should be outraged. we know that in her coming down the issue she used this kind of tactic and it makes me regret that we have these kinds of people on the court. host: open -- "the wall street journal" has more on the judge this morning. she has a bachelor of arts from the university of iowa.
what the judge said about the statute, "arizona cannot make police officers tried to determine the immigration status of those they have directed. they cannot require that some remain in custody until immigration status is verified. states cannot make it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job. they cannot authorize a warrantless arrest." the next reaction comes from augusta, georgia. caller: good morning. how are you doing? my problem is that of this law is indicated with other states taking the reaction to it, people coming from other
countries, they could go and target people in vermont, people from canada. this does not make sense. this entire country is nothing but immigrants. we already have a system that is the social security system where everyone who was born is supposed to get a social security card. that is technically a federal i.d. card. what is the problem with putting a fingerprint on it? update the card, but your fingerprint on it and have people check that way. it really breaks down to people wanting jobs. if you have that implemented, this would not be a problem. they would leave. host: illinois, david, independent line. caller: i am a tea party coordinator from the state of illinois.
president obama and their agenda has shown that he is not only against the people but against states' rights as well. if any normal citizen gets pulled over by the police, we show them our driver's license, insurance card, and registration. if you do not have those, you go to jail. it does not matter what or race, had the background, or culture it is. area -- a legal immigrant, there is no problem with that. host: here is the editorial from this morning from the state newspaper in arizona, " byproducts of a misguided immigration law. few of these emotions will change with the federal judge's decision.
the battle goes on. the temporary injunction with the federal government and judge in crystal clear agreement that this is a federal responsibility, making this much more it than a bump in the road, it is in fact a road map and a clearer federal failure to do the jobs. despite all of the criticism, our state is a victim in this international drama. we came this way because of federal and action. the immigration law is wrong for a number of reasons but arizona is not the only state striking out. this is the job of uncle sam, refocusing on culpability hand solutions."
republican line, good morning. caller: i was listening to the comments made by the first caller. i believe that arizona, along with the rest of the 50 states, should follow the same plan. identification is important. coming over to this country, you should have the right paperwork. i am a supervisor of that a job site where some of the guys that we are using now have no identification. if you have no identification you need one to get in the building. my boss would tell me to go out there and let these guys in. that is just something that the first caller was talking about. many of our jobs are getting stolen from us.
i am with a collar. maybe police should check on that. host: absent the other big political story today, charlie rangel and the ethics committee in congress and the investigation into alleged wrongdoings. richard is on the line with us. he is on the region he is a reporter and has a co-byline in his newspaper, "of the new york daily news." bring our viewers up-to-date on where the process stands right now. caller: mr. rangel had a book out a while ago, an autobiography, called "never had a bad day since." referring to his time in the korean war where he earned a bronze star and a purple heart.
i think he might have to update that biography today. at the moment, things could still be headed off where you will have a meeting of the ethics committee. all eight members. what it amounts to is a markup of the charges against mr. rangel. they are scheduled to have a readout of these charges with anything new added to the existing charges run out earlier this month. we do not know yet if mr. rangel himself will appear at this hearing. negotiations continue in the meantime on a possible range and on what mr. rangel might admit
to to sort of cut short this process and end proceedings. there we are with it is 1:00 deadline and lots of stuff going on behind the scenes to see if it will be headed off. host: do you know from your reporting who wishes to have this public hearing and who wishes to avoid it? charlie rangel said that when it was first announced that he maintains his innocence in the charges, suggesting that record keeping with no bad intent. he said that he welcomed a full public airing of his revocation. is that really his position? caller: they do welcome it to an extent. the thought is that a lot of that is was sought in the sense of increasing his own bargaining
position here. that he would like to go forward with this. this puts pressure on the democrats, who would like to avoid the whole thing because we are facing reelection on the house side. no one wants this hanging around from there and go. republicans would, of course, like to keep this going and have a public airing of the charges. what is worse than for the democrats if this goes forward, september 13 would be what amounts to a public trial for mr. rangel on this. again, closer to november would give the republicans the corruption issue. there is pressure on mr. rangel from both sides.
the republicans, are they so dug in that they will not go along with an agreement if one can be reached? there we are. we are looking at 1:00. a lot of abuzz yesterday was that mr. rangel might go ahead and latest out through today. and then you have further negotiations continuing from november through the recess, going over their heads, democrats under more pressure to give out their position. more and more you see them deserting mr. rangel. there was another democrat
yesterday, filled patrick of arizona, joined others in saying that mr. rangel should resign if there is truth to these allegations. host: thank you. as that deadline approaches, 94 keeping us up-to-date on the issues. thank you for being on the phone with us. going back to phone calls, we are talking about the arizona immigration law. with major provisions blocked by a federal district judge, we are getting your reactions. manhattan, bill, democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span. as a democrat he might be restored -- surprised how i will respond to this, but i think we are making the mistake of focusing on individuals in this lot rather than on the
businesses. a previous caller indicated the same thing. it is political, making individuals angry against other individuals when we should be focusing on the businesses that are doing the hiring. fremont, neb., a city i heard in the news that put into effect some kind of city ordinance, which is very interesting to me. i am not clear on the whole story. it requires employers to only hire the legally documented workers. we need to focus on businesses who are hiring rather than individuals who may not be driving around with the proper documentation. last week, if you will, there could be a change in business liability insurance and worker'' compensation insurance that covers business downstairs --
business for incidents and accidents that arise out of the employment of undocumented workers. we need to focus on the businesses that are hiring illegals. that is the way out of this mess. host: i am looking for a story on the nebraska law. if i can find it, i want to put it on. there has been movement in there as well. let me shuffled papers as we listen to another caller. her car, new york, charlie, what are your thoughts? caller: the issue of legal immigration is going to be on the front burner through the november election. obama also demonstrated once again that he is at war with america. since he became president he has
gone after the cia, and navy seals -- and sheriff joe in arizona. i am one of the four or five conservatives in america that still watches this program. what we would like to see is obama treat iran the same way that he treats arizona, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and florida. host: clayton, ga., richard, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. nothing to be more basic to our country, for our citizens, and the responsibility for our central government to protect the lives of the american people and its citizens. slowly ignored by the obama administration. it is just another failure of this president that he was
elected to do. kind of light covering the black panthers up in philadelphia when they were intimidating people. the attorney general, eric holder, failed to do his job to arrest these thugs. this is going to go on and on. now it is a question of how much damage this president will do before it is brought to a conclusion. thank you. host: than that, if you were sent this e-mail. -- linda, a viewer sent this e- mail. "everyone cool their jets. this is a temporary restraining order the purpose of which is to maintain the status quo pending the court's opportunity to hear the case and make a decision based upon the law, not uncommon."
shirley, good morning. caller: glad i was able to get through you. regarding immigration, if people could come to manhattan and see how many mexican people that are here. children in candy shops. black children, they definitely cannot get in because they knew that speak a second language. [unintelligible] we are talking about the construction jobs that we see.
my and higher residential area is having a big community center building. it was supposed to give jobs to residents that live in there. we saw entirely mexicans in there. these people went against us. the mayor went against us. everyone wants to have a big protest against the arizona law. what about the 11 million eagles that we have here that are protesting? host: from high point, "u.s. citizenship may not mean much to matter -- may not mean much to some people, the sentiment here is that i will vote for anyone
against anyone." "it started with the irish immigrants in new york. it is one thing for them to support cheap labor but another four the democrats to turn their backs on the african-american and poor white communities." anthony, you are on the air. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? host: speak up, what is your comment? caller: is this. immigrants are ok. i mean, it is illegal and everything. what they should do is if they come into the country, they should go, it favors, and it would not have anything to worry about except border patrols.
this country was built on immigration, you know? since the beginning. i believe this. everyone should just take this and, you know, basically just pass this thing and understand that immigration is all over the place. host: thank you for your comments. "i will not show my papers to get to work. no checkpoints. tucson, sarah, you are in the middle of all of this. your reaction? caller: i grew up of around a lot of people from mexico, people of different races. not everyone in america has experienced what i have experienced. very close to the border is where i live.
americans are so busy arguing, we are forgetting the facts. millions of mexican citizens, they come here to find work, get an education, building families and communities. they live here. all of a sudden we are saying that you have to have your citizen checked and go back to mexico. it is not that simple. host: "the new york times" this morning, in a story related to yesterday's ruling, but this photograph was front-page. these are bodies being stored in the refrigerated area of the morgue as the number of immigrants found dead in the desert around arizona have soared." inside the article are
discussions with the officials there. "even though the number of border crossings are down, according to the federal government, they are saying that as we gain more control, smugglers are taking even more people into more remote areas. they are not prepared for the journey and do not make it." annandale, virginia, democratic line. caller: i would like to point out that my wife is a legal immigrant and we have to pay thousands of dollars and way through immigration mistakes and delays to get her documented. the thing that bothers me is i am not a racist, ok? i am willing to let in millions of mexicans but i do not want to
live next door to people that are afraid to call the police of a fire department. the earlier caller said that individual americans are not the ones that cause trouble, but they are. a higher illegal immigrants to do their yards -- a higher -- day -- they hire illegal immigrants to do their yards. we are letting in all of the lot -- all the wrong people, the most ambitious with the least respect for law. host: traci, good morning. caller: reiterating what he just said, these guys are coming in here talking about breaking the law, these people coming into our country, i started looking at the arrest rates.
all the law enforcement agencies across the country are mandated to put these people in jail, they are to be listed as a white person or a black person, only 1% of the time do you find one listed as hispanic. when you ask them why they do this, they say it is because they're not a race, they are and ethnicity. that is a pretty big problem at the end of each year, because this is how they base their funding programs. so, when they do this they are shortchanging the white people and the black people in this country, because they are being blamed for the crimes committed by a legal immigrants. host: clearly, immigration policy is a federal issue but this is more complex than that. anyone willing to pledge an oath of loyalty should be accepted as a citizen."
bill, democratic line, you are on the air. cholera in ashamed of the black folks calling in, talking about how they support the deportation of immigrants. it was not long ago when they were trying to send black people back to africa when they were trying to pass legislation. go to any city, the only people you see in the courthouses are poor whites and blacks for traffic violations. thank you. host: this morning in "the wall street journal," there is an op- ed piece from the commissioner of the u.s. customs border protection patrol and u.s. customs and immigration enforcement. the case that they make is that the illegal crossings were down
23% last year. "the move from the federal judge is an important affirmation of the federal government's responsibility in enforcing immigration law, but regardless of what happens with this case, we will continue to enforce the law as we have been doing for the past 18 months, with a clear commitment to yielding important results." last year illegal crossing was down 23% to a fraction of the all-time high. the legal bulk cash, weapons, and drugs, by all measures crime in border towns has remained flat for most of the last decade." those of the words of the people responsible for border protection. back to your phone calls and reaction.
jeff, independent line, good morning. caller: if we wanted to stop the illegals from coming into this country, we just need to stop hiring them and they would stop coming. they are here to make money. i am surrounded by illegal mexicans living the american dream. i can look through the window and see three family houses with mexicans in them, but they are illegal, and they're working with citizens in our schools. i do not know how they do it, but they get driver's licenses, mortgages finance, cars financed. i know a lot of americans whose unemployment ran out and they cannot find any work but all of these mexicans are working. it is very upsetting. i know that they need to live, but americans should come first. i remember when veterans used to
come first. now americans do not even come first in this country. if the government would just pass this thing where they have to check their identification through the social security banks, they could not use one social security number for 15 people. if the government did not want them here, they would not be here. it wanted to shut down the border, they would. they do not want to. there is too much money to be made, too much social security money to be collected illegally. host of this twitter message, "this just has to do with white -- host: this with a message says, "this just has to do with white racists hating people that do not look like them." phoenix, that is the next call from laura, democratic line. caller: good morning. i am a born and raised citizen
of phoenix, arizona. previous calls have talked about going after employers. previously this week, i believe it was monday or tote -- tuesday, the share of made a bust on a cleaning business. four illegal immigrants were arrested. they had social security cards in drivers' licenses. the problem is that they purchase stolen identification and you can get it for less than $100. these businesses want to hire illegal immigrants because they do not have to pay the minimum wage. it goes on both sides, democrats and republicans. i wish that the rest of the country with no the situation that we are feeling down here. it is just enormous.
host: can you tell people where you stand on a lot? -- on the law? caller: the tea party has racism and nazi swastikas on president obama's portrait. if you go downtown, i live downtown, go down to the state capital and you see swastika's next to the share of -- sheriff. i think that the law is not racist. i do not understand what the problem is. if you are arrested for a crime and they check your identification, checking to see that you should be in this country illegally, what is the problem with that? the national news makes it sound like the police will be out there picking up people that appeared to be hispanic, thus
making an arrest. but that is not how it works. of course, that is the fear, but they have to have a reason to stop you. a traffic violation. we can arrest the people that brought the banner downpour on the scaffolding tower here in downtown, phoenix. they were arrested because of the law coming down from judge walton yesterday. they are simply arrested. it is very, very frustrating. i wish that people would understand what we are trying to do with -- deal with. i am not a racist and i am a democrat, not a member of the tea party. host: indiana, good morning. you are on the air.
caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. i wanted to say that illegal immigration is just what it is, illegal immigration. states are becoming bankrupt. these people are making more than just taking jobs, they take their resources. they utilize the schools, they utilize the health care system, utilizing the welfare system. in the end, all of the hard- working, taxpaying americans are paying for these illegal immigrants. how would another country react to a mass exodus of americans into their country? they have to earn those rights. there are plenty of people here that are documented, we except that it is legal and the federal
government needs to support the state in reining in this problem. thank you. host: thank you. this came from mexican officials, "the fight is not over. the speaker of the house of representatives in mexico said that we need to prepare "to generate sources of jobs so that these people coming from the united states can find some kind of employment in our country." michigan, marsha, republican line, good morning. please turn down the volume on your television and go ahead. we will move on. i apologize. joe, south carolina of. -- south carolina. caller: these people want to
work. some of the best people that they have want to come here and we need them. the needs to be some sort of by a letter identification, making it easier for them to come to work and do the jobs that other people do not want to do. host: you like a guest worker program? caller: had worked fervently. -- it works perfectly. people doing the jobs that we do not want to do, you realize the other people crossing the river being bad, you can arrest them. host: thank you. this is from "usa today." "troops will not begin bolstering security along the arizona border this sunday as had been announced by the department of homeland security on july 19. "we do not yet know when they
will arrive." the national guard is still seeking training volunteers to fill 524 border slot." george, independent line. caller: illegal immigrants are draining our resources in arizona of. we have parts of schools and hospitals that have to close. there was a report recently that said for every shift in the system there were three illegal immigrants coming into the hospitals. we need to secure the people. host: how do you feel about the law? caller: i think that it needed to be done. it needed to be taken.
the only part i disagree with is for any lawful stop. if you are in jail, check the immigration status. lawful stocks are a bit much. my biggest problem is the drain on natural resources. jobs, schools are overcrowded, the average taxpaying american in arizona has to fork out the money. we can do things and put our heads together, saying that if we do not want to have this sort of law, maybe we can raise sales taxes. so that citizens can pay a normal tax rate while the illegal immigrants here undocumented can at least contribute towards the state. it is just raining the state. host: next is another arizona caller from cottonwood. steve, go ahead.
caller: i am very upset about what this judge did. in arizona we already have a law for employers to have e-verify. weir's going to have to definitely pressed down on that. -- we are going to have to definitely press down on that. people calling in from other parts of the country, they should come here to arizona. we will see the problem that we have that is just ridiculous. the obama administration seems to want to give a legal aliens it that way to citizenship and we cannot afford it. we are going broke as it is right now. the government is not going to take a terrible law, and we the
people are going to have to start. there are militia groups out there and if things do not change fellow militia will have to take over. thank you for my fault. -- thank you for my call. host: "they should use visas that are temporary and enforce." bobby, democratic line. caller: good morning, susan. there are federal laws on the books back from when reagan was president. similar to the problems they have now. the law is that they find the employees, higher than the second time. if they cannot get jobs, it will
not cause the government anything. if the children that are born here, give them a passport. take them with you or leave them here and put them up for adoption. thank you. host: we have two members of congress coming up, this will be the focus of our the session. raul grijalva is a democrat, two time official in arizona, very much involved in this, urging the federal government to file a suit against the law. later on in the program we will have a congressman from georgia, that as a member of the professional tea party caucus -- signed up as a member of the professional tea party caucus, we will talk with him as well. we will be right back. ♪
>> with charles rangel in the news because of the recent house essex -- ethics subcommittee announcement, used c-span to what is the story and see an oral history of congressman rangel. the c-span video library, washington your way. ralph nader is our guest on sunday on "book tv." he has written more than 20 books, including a novel, "only the super rich can save us." join in the discussion with
ralph nader, sunday on c-span 2's "book tv." the c-span networks, we provide coverage of government affairs and history, as well as non- fiction books. find our content any time through our c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital content vehicle, bringing the resources to your community. the c-span network, now available in more than 1 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen right now is congressman raul grijalva, representing the southern district of tucson and yuma. he served for a long time as
the county board supervisor. for a long time in his public life he has been involved in the immigration debate. the-view. guest: good to see -- host: good to have you. guest: good to see you. host: what is your reaction to the federal judge's decision? guest: my reaction is that we finish the process. we still have an appeals process. once bilal was signed -- once lot -- once the law was signed, but i can assure the people that supported this lot, and elected officials and colleagues in congress, they would not want to tread on the constitution. that is what myself and congressman pastor said to the
government. hopefully this sets the groundwork for some serious, rational discussion about what we will do with security and immigration reform. host: what are your views about the state of the problem and the appropriate address to the problem? guest: there is so much emotion in this issue, it is almost impossible to talk about the facts right now. you are either forelock for against the law. -- for the mall or against the law -- for the of law or against the of law. beyond enforcement, what are we going to do? that becomes the question. i listen to people explain that we have to have enforcement.
i cannot only concede that point, but i understand it. what do we do about people that are here? what kind of fine do they pay? how do we register them? how do we verify that they are law abiding, good people to continue in this country? then the discussion stops. at some point, after enforcement, we voted to the other part. there will not be any progress on this issue until we address both aspects. this is an emotional issue. everything from the economy to crime, underperforming schools, it is all the problem of the immigrants. they caused it. these are hard economic times. people look for someone to blame.
i think that a lot of this is exaggerated. what is not exaggerated is the issue in a crisis on our hands. this is a time when the people in congress need to confront the issue. host: taking this very complex issue into big talks, the first is from "the new york times" article this morning on the increase in the number of bodies found in the desert. a time when people know that there's a big debate. that the law in arizona has passed and that there is more enforcement on the part of the obama administration overall. getting back to the economy in the united states being bad, why do people still come across the border? guest: there's a lot of reasons. poverty, lack of opportunity in
your home country. that is the biggest issue. it has always been that way. until there is a long-term involvement on the part of the country of origin to shore up their economy and keep their people, providing health care, this will continue. the sad thing is that when i was on the board of supervisors for the county, what is happening with this new law enforcement, cartels and human traffickers had taken up the industry, charging $6,000 per person. dropping them off in an accessible places. dangerous, dry, without water. hundreds of people dying yearly in the desert. people forget that part of the
enforcement strategy on the border has to be not putting border patrol agents shoulder to shoulder for 900 miles, we have organized crime. drugs. people being brought into this country, guns going out of this country. we are missing the target with considerable resources and focus on that. the cartels on the border do not care if they have a 1070, if there is more enforcement it actually creates an opportunity for them. until we have a verifiable system here, we need to cut away at their ability to transport people. they see this as an industry to create money. in the process of doing that, making the border more dangerous. host: spending more time on border security, the length and complexity of the landscape, how
do we secure the border effectively? guest: people on the border understand how to deploy resources. if you ask people on the ground having to do the enforcement of the border, they will tell you that they're part of the job is to be more effective on the overall reform. that is their focus and they are holding on to what they can. host: a federal law. guest: absolutely. i said that it was about deployment, but i think it is also about the not simplistic solution to this issue of immigration reform. if they are honest with each other, this will not happen to the full extent where there is a
field, no one comes in, no one goes out? that will not happen. anyone doing the enforcement of the border patrol, whenever, local law enforcement will tell you that that is simplistic. let's go beyond that. concentrating our resources, doing everything necessary to secure the border, going beyond enforcement and talking about the reality here in this country. host: many people were calling for the focus of attention -- focus of attention to be on employers. host: i agree. we have a lot of drugs coming in from through the southern border and into the united states because there is a consumption demand. there is a consumption demand for labor. people are exploited, paying less.
before you do that, you have to give employers the ability to verify who they are hiring. if this person has passed the requirements in order to be eligible, we need to have a strong hammer for those jobs to not be available. united farm workers have a web site that says take my job, it has been or about one month. only a few people have even called in to take a job. there is work out there that, like it or not, no one is going to do. host: the people already in this country, what do you propose? guest: i think that people have to come forward. the need to register. they need to pay a fine. they need to have a background
check. they need to get the back of the line. the background check as to determine whether or not they'll law-abiding citizens. this process is not easy, as has been proposed, including the one from mccain and kennedy a few years ago. it is not a walk in the park. you have to learn english. you have to be able to do all those things. once you do that copper your path to legalization begins. but the status is protected. if you are working, you continue to work. people living next door, they would have a house, children born here, they are working somewhere.
yes, they are neighbors. their kids are going to school. they're working. you are not going to uproot and move people out. another simplistic solution is to deport them all. that is unrealistic and will not happen. second of all, what it would do to this economy, what it would do to the underpinnings of our society as a country would be devastating. host: before we get the telephone calls, you can also send your messages through e- mail and twitter. your welcome to join in the discussion -- you are welcome to join in the discussion. one message from twitter, "what responsibility does mexico have in this"? guest: a tremendous of
responsibility, just like border enforcement. mexico as a country has tremendous challenges in its economy. they have tremendous challenges in being able to adequately provide employment for the people. people, not only mexico, but central america as well, they are the main group of migrants coming to this country and they have a tremendous responsibility. part of the solution must be incorporated into immigration reform. what can we as a nation do financially to encourage development? the current opportunity? of -- in courage -- encourage opportunity? raising their families in their own country would be their
primary choice, they come here to be able to feed a and support their families. that is where mexico has a tremendous responsibility to do more. host: this message from twitter, "we learned from immigration amnesty in 1986 that if you reward illegal behavior, you get more of illegal behavior." guest: it was attempting to deal with a situation they were confronting of a much smaller scale. i think that the biggest mistake that was made was the unconditional granting of legal status. it did two things. those people waiting on line and going through the process for years to get their status adjusted, they were pushed back. i think it we learn from that that there has to be a more
involved, complex process with a lot of checks and balances. at the time it was worthy and necessary, but the same strategy cannot be applied in this situation today. host: joyce, republican line, good morning. caller: hello. with the delay -- can you hear me? guest: yes. caller: the delay makes it confusing on how to respond. are you talking with me? host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: i tried to call in. every 30 days i tried to call about illegal immigration. this has become an absolute prices for this country. .
we cannot continue to not obey our laws. what if everyone says, well, obama will not support immigration law. he will let those laws go away, and not enforce them. what've we don't pay our federal taxes? what if hundreds of millions of us but for get to or do not do that? host: we've got your point. guest: just a general comment. when i said this situation is so emotional, this is a good example. the tone has changed so much in the past six months, especially since 1070 came on the horizon, the tone is so bitter. it is them against us. the tone is more provocative and things are said that normally would not be said.
we are in the economic situation right now, we could argue, because we gave tax cuts to the very rich in this country, and it created a deficit. we have wars that we are not paying for that creates a deficit. there is plenty of blame to go around, without singling out a group of people, identifying them as those mexicans, in making that the sole reason why this country is in the economic downturn. is it a contributing factor? potentially. is it the reason we are in this mess? absolutely not. host: our next phone call comes from ohio, ron, on the independent line. caller: i worked in the construction industry. i was living in north carolina. we had things going good for us. we had our home.
they started bringing the illegals in. they wiped us out. i went from being an employer to being an employee. we lost our home. we had to move back in with family. they are not raising their standard of living. they are lowering ours. i have friends who build houses all their lives, and now they can i get a job. they are taking jobs from american citizens. it is causing us to lose our homes. it is putting us into poverty. where are my rights? and hisalking about him service -- i have two bronze stars and the silver star. i did two tours in cambodia. do you know how much i have seen? i did not fight for mexico, for
the illegals. i fought for this country because i love it. host: your response to that. you talked about the emotion here. guest: and one of the reasons, and inadvertently, the gentleman who made the call -- he makes the argument of why we need to make reform a comprehensive issue. if we have employer sanctions, if people are registered, then the exploitation that happens, many times to migrant workers in the country coming here without documents, is eliminated. my dad made his living, said as, putting a roof over our head, during construction. he was a member of the union. he earned an ok living. my point being, part of the exploitation going on in the nation is taking advantage of people because they know they have no rights, no status.
they are in the shadows. as much as you want to blame the person working on the construction job that potentially might be illegal -- that is the other thing. illegality is not by appearance. we seem to have fallen into a trap that if you look like you might be illegal, consequently you are. that is a dangerous move on the part of money to make that assumption, and conclusion. that is why we have the bitterness over the law in arizona. let's get back to the good wages, good work for the middle class, a protected employer, and take away the ability for large employers to exploit people who have no status. host: this is your agrees with the congressman on that point. -- this viewer agrees.
next, prof. rothstein of georgetown university. we invited him on the phone to give us a quick primer on what happens next. guest: good morning. host: yesterday a temporary restraining order happened against portions of the law. what will happen next? guest: it is a temporary restraining order the judge entered, blocking the law until she can consider it more fully, and consider all arguments, and enter a final order which could take months. this morning i am reading that arizona has decided to appeal this. normally, when you appeal a decision, you have to wait until the final decision, and the judge has not entered that final decision yet. but there is such a thing as a
rush, or emergency appeal. you have to petition the ninth circuit appellate court involved here, covering some western states. you can ask the court of appeals to hear the case more immediately. you could also ask the trial judge, the judge that entered this order, to allow an expedited appeal. so you can get permission from either the court in which the judgment was entered, or the ninth circuit court of appeals. and if that were successful, the state of arizona got that appeal heard, it would only be an appeal of this temporary restraining order that it was not proper to temporarily put the lot on hold while you consider the merits. there's the possibility also if
these tactics do not succeed by the state of arizona, to try to get the supreme court involved. sometimes you can get an individual justice of the supreme court to get interested in the case and take some kind of action, it temporary hold, or temporary reversal of the lower court and tell the entire supreme court can hear it. if the attempt to get the ninth circuit court of appeals, to hear the case, succeeds on the part of arizona, and the ninth circuit hears it, then whoever wins or loses, that would have a further chance to get the u.s. supreme court to take the case. it is a little complicated, and there are a number of chess moves that can be made. it will all probably take some time. i think it will probably be, if
they are successful with getting this expedited and rushed, it might be a week or so. but that is probably very optimistic. more likely, it will take a longer time than that. if the courts make the state of arizona wait until this trial judge in arizona reaches her final decision on merits, that could be many months. looking at the whole thing from this stage through the supreme court, which i am predicting it will eventually go to, it will be over one year or more. host: our viewers are familiar with the supreme court and its five-core balance. guest: it has had the reputation for a long time as being a very liberal court. not as much so recently, but a
lot depends on which the panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals you get to hear your case. there are liberal judges, and a more conservative judges, and you usually get a panel of three from a much larger corps. in a way, it is the luck of the draw. this issue we're talking about may not be straight liberal or conservative of an issue. you tend to think conservatives would be against the hispanic influx, and liberals would be more in favor of it, but there are some conservatives who are very concerned about state power versus federal power. there would like states to have more power. that, but then there are some conservatives on the other side who think federal immigration law, a strong executive power
in the federal government to have strong immigration law. you have some conservatives that could be on either side. host: the ninth circuit is one of two federal circuits and the country that does allow a experimentation with tv cameras. it is something to keep in mind. thank you. we appreciate the road map -- it sounds like a chess game is a better analogy. you agreed with the professor specifically on the politics of it? guest: yes. there is some inevitability that it will end up in front of the supreme court. and i think that is a necessary process. the criticism that myself and mr. pastor got for asking the justice department to intervene
in the case -- the way we answered that, as more elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution -- as elected officials we are. that was the issue. i think it is better to remain the issue. our democracy has a check and balance. one of the branches is judicial. it was a recourse that had to be utilized. i do not think that obama had a choice on this. i don't think the justice department had a choice in this. it had to be tested because of the implications not only for emigration, but on the supremacy clause of the federal
government. that is at stake here. the issue is surrounded by immigration. they're still five or six of the losses that are independent of the justice department. we have not seen the end of the legal wrangling, but this decision now is a very necessary and healthy pause so that people can stop and think. host: when you decided to take a public position, asking the justice department to take on the challenge, has your life changed? have you been hearing more from people nationally? guest: on a personal level it has been a pain. it takes over your life in many ways. on a political level, it is a risk. the smart thing is for -- i'm to stay out of the issue
cannot only talk about enforcement, and rail that there is no enforcement. for me, the right thing to do, given what think are the implications of the law in arizona on a national level, was to take it up, period. what 1070 did -- racial politics have always been the underpinning of the immigration debate. there was a gentleman's agreement that that is not the forefront of the debate. 1070 with that issue front and center in the debate. for many of us there was no choice. this became a much broader issue. you could be a latino in arizona, 10 or 15 generations, and your family has been there, you are a citizen, have been there 15 generations, but suddenly with 1070 you became
suspect. it was an affront to many people. host: good morning, on the republican line from washington, d.c. caller: a small observation -- take the takemyjobs.com --that is pretty much a joke. no one is working on a farm, doing that are there. when they say that some hispanics have taken better jobs there is no greater example when you go to any mcdonald's. if there is of white hiring manager he will hire whites, blacks, and hispanics -- when there's a black manager, the same. but when there is a hispanic manager, he will hire only hispanics. that is one small observation. but as far as making them get in the back of line for citizenship, learning english, paying fines, that is all well
and gravy, but according to most, that will not happen. especially when they have children born here so that they are citizens, you cannot legally get rid of their parents and just leave the kids. that does not seem to make any sense to me. other than that, yes, enforcing our laws much better, making them get in back of line, -- my stepdad for instance is a true african-american, born in africa and then came here. he had to get in the back of the line, pay back taxes. if he could do it, why can't they? guest: the observation is interesting. i would not take that observation of mcdonald's and generalize it.
one of the things about 1070 and his emotional thing we're going through -- someone said 60% of the people in this country [inaudible] the issue of constitutionality and affects of profiling are not a popularity contest. i believe there is some point in our history for the of majority of american people were ok with separate, but equal. i'm sure there was a popular opinion that some people should read, some not vote in parts of the south, but that changed. it changed because of the court, and was changed because people solve the basic unfairness. underlying this entire issue of 1070 was not about immigration, but those of us who opposed it solid there was a fence of
unfurnished to the entire question, and it was not dealing with what it purports to do with which is immigration. host: this message but twitter says that people complain about illegals taking american jobs, and i agree e-verify should be in force, but what will our growth trees cost? guest: one of the issues with regard to farm workers -- they work on big, corporate farms all over arizona and california. if that were to change, the consumer would see the effects of the gross restore when they bought their vegetables, fruits. it would increase tremendously. host: karen from cleveland, on
the democrats' line. caller: i have a couple of comments. one that probably sounds silly -- what if mexico were part of the u.s.? then we would not have any of this. has that ever been discussed? mexico is a mess, or they would not want to come here. does mexico not want to become or do we not want them? aside from that, i think everyone being honest and as this is more about the haves them the have-not. the people without jobs, who are poor -- those people think that mexicans are taking their jobs. the mexican people are not the problem. it is our corporations, people
with money who want to make more money. they do not want all this enforced, or it would be. if people were losing money to have it, this would be getting fixed. we should not blame each other, or mexicans because they want to better their lives. of this country really does have enough to share if we would put our money into different places. if everything were not toward people who hvae. ave. they pass down the wealth generation by generation. host: what do you think? guest: both the u.s. and mexico are protective of their sovereignty.
it's not going to happen. no, it has never been part of the discussion. our economy is suffering from 89% unemployment, as much as 12%, even 17% unemployment. you have a huge foreclosure crisis, arizona with a second- highest rate in the country. these have all contributed to the economic crisis. yes, poverty is beginning to increase, access to services, demands are increasing. i find it ironic that in the middle of all this, that instead of investing in those kinds of issues -- and part of that is to fix this broken system of immigration, i really believe
that for political motives people want to keep the system broken. as long as it is broken, not functioning, then you have something to utilize politically. something to fear monger on, and something to run on for office. if it is broken, keep a broken. there is an unsociable appetite to say no to any immigration reform. when we get to the point about talking about specifics -- no. -- there is an insatiable appetite to say no. at some point, the people loose enforcement only, seal the border. come up with a solution that we can sit at the table and talk about. that has been a problem. the appetite to keep this issue broken and use it politically in coming elections.
it is as simple as that. it is callous, but that is what is occurring right now. host: both sides of the aisle? guest: yes, both sides. we have democrats who are afraid to death of this issue, and afraid it challenges their whole future. at some time there has to be a level of collective honesty in the congress. what is at stake is not just a broken system. it is the very foundation and values of this nation. we are increasingly more divided. it is pulling at the fabric of the country. for no other reasons than you define, we will all have to become adults and deal with the issue. host: david, from ohio, a republican. caller: good morning. congressman, i am so furious with you that i could drink gasoline and give you back
napalm. apparently you and the supporters of this judges and decision are completely ignorant of the u.s. supreme court. in 2005, the mena decision -- the supreme court ruled 9-0 that the police do not have to have a reason to stop you. they can ask for your immigration papers, and if need be can use a racial profiling. under article 3, section two, of the u.s. constitution, the only people who have the authority to overturn a supreme court decision is the u.s. congress. therefore, this a judge's decision is illegal, not enforceable, and the police in arizona can continue, and it makes no difference what you think. it makes no difference what the judge thinks. the constitution has already
been addressed on this problem by the supreme court. they have already stated this is legal. learn your facts, sir, before you speak. legal i'm not a learned scholar, and obviously he is an expert on the constitution and a legal scholar, and he is wrong. this is what we have courts. i can almost guarantee you if we let him make the decision, what it would be. host: delaware, on the independent line. caller: i have a different perspective. i'm a 62-year-old disabled veteran who served over 30 years. i have been watching what is going on in the country for years. this has been an invasion, not migration. every state has been affected. on the bottom you see all the different states calling in the. you are giving people the same
rights that i spent all these years serving four. you give them the same rights with only the stroke of a pen. i'm talking about amnesty. this is getting to be a real hot topic. every state has been effective. i have personally been affected by illegal immigration. i don't want to get into it. we are country. laws. but in 1986 we did not enforce the laws instituted them. we have let this sore faster and faster, and pretty soon things are going to get very dangerous. i served the country, and i don't think it is fair to put someone on equal footing as me, just because they can sneak into the country. i am for immigration, but not for illegal. host: anything? guest: just thank him for his service, for being a veteran.
for standing up for this country. a small, factual footnote -- and the conflict, the war in iraq and of afghanistan, at one time, 30,000 of the troops fighting for this country were non-citizens. as americans, there is a shared sacrifice. we should not generalize and make assumptions. there has been a great contribution to this country consistently by immigrants. stop andoint, let's reflect on what we are as a nation and the contributions made, in the military and everywhere else. host: last night, only hours after the judge's decision was made, and the congress had a debate on emergency supplemental provisions for border security -- what past?
guest: it was stripped from the senate bill in supplemental. if it passes, if it comes before congress, i'm almost certain it will pass. it should. that is one more block in saying, ok, this has been done for enforcement. now what? i support it so we can begin to get that issue off the table, and deal with some other stuff. i find it ironic that some of the bigger border hawks in the senate, including the two from my state were instrumental in stripping that money out 20 came to the senate. there is an irony there. host: and what with the money do? guest: 1200 additional border patrol agents, 500 customs, and supplement the presence of the national guard. host: the last call from canton, ohio, on the democrats' line.
caller: good morning. i thank god for c-span. i am a black, african-american, and i think that america is a great country, but what i find ironic is, we can send our troops over across the ocean to fight a war, 5000, 6000, 7,000 miles away, and yet we cannot border up a 700-mile border and secured. what i find is so typical of america, we see so many immigrants in this country, and still if i wanted to get a couple of constituents and go to africa and bring 1 million starving people over, i would be put into jail.
there are so many other countries that are less poor than we are, yet still, these people think they have the right to come into this country. i am not prejudiced. i'm not biased in any kind of way, but i think they should get this problem solved. the politicians are business people letting these people in, and employers, they should have for employing these illegal immigrants. and basically taking jobs away from americans who could be working, supporting their families in the time we're living in right now. guest: not much to say about the call. i cannot make the assumption that if you go to a retail store, on the construction job,
or at a mcdonald's -- the person serving you might happen to be hispanic is illegal. i think the motion of this issue has led to that kind of generalized conclusion on the part of many. this issue will not go away, and not until congress does something. there is a demographic shift happening in the country. part of the issue around immigration is that shift. as the face of america changes, there will be conflict. this is one example, an ugly example of it, around immigration. there is a demographic shift, and with that comes a threat to some people, a fear. both of those emotions are not justified. i just think congress is allowing this to fester. and by not doing anything, we're
making the situation worse. host: thank you for being here this morning. we will take a break for an update on campaign 2010. after that our congressman will join us, a member of the tea party caucus. president obama is wrapping up fund-raising this week for democratic candidates this fall. he i was in new york last night raising money, and in d.c. today doing the same. joining us is chuck from the ap. you know that a presidential visit can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet your headline is that some are wary of his fund-raising efforts. >> it happens many times with different presidents because this president, like any president, is not entirely popular in every state. unfortunately, for democrats, obama's popularity is dropping
some what in some very important swing states -- missouri being a very good example. he came close to winning it, but now his unfavorables are much either. a candidate must decide on a trade-off, the big dollars he can bring in with a visit, compared to the somewhat-bad publicity, or the republican effort to try to tie that democratic candidate to the president. >> specifically, roy blunt is airing a tv ad, showing his opponent campaign with president obama. >> july 8, 2010, barack obama is raising money for robin -- why? he knows that rabin will rubber-
stamp the nancy pelosi-harry reid bill. >> it would already have been done if i had robin carnahan there. >> i am roy blunt, and i approve this message. >> do you think that kind of advertisement will make other democrats in other states say, i don't know if president obama would come here for me? >> i think each candidate will look at the poll data and make the decision for themselves. if the president is unpopular in their state, they can anticipate the same kind of ad. robin is running very close to roy there in the polls. so, i think you will see the president going into a fairly
large number of districts and states. nobody can bring in the kind of money that a president can. >> where is he headed in august, and for which candidates? >> many of these are for the democratic national committee, or one of its options. it gets put out to different campaigns as they see fit. he has a private event in d.c. tonight, and on wednesday he will be in chicago, the following day in austin, and dallas, texas. on the 15th of august 2 will be doing a specific event for the house committee. there will be others, although he will take some time out to vacation at martha's vineyard. after labor day, you'll probably see him very active, not only raising money, but probably doing rallies. >> alright, charles, what does
reporter with the associated press, two. for more information go to our website, c-span.org. host: on your screen is the congressman of georgia, republican from the 11th district. since the last time he was on the show, he decided to become one of the founding members of the congressional tea partiery caucus. why did you decide to join? guest: i'm proud to be one of the founding members. the number of members is up to 48 in a fairly short time, all republicans. we have reached out, and even asked speaker nancy pelosi if you like to join the caucus. host: it was probably a pretty quick no thank you. guest: we have not heard back yet, but perhaps some blue dog
democrats would like to join us. it is an opportunity to interface with the tea party organizers across the country. we did that last week when we had our first meeting with some very good organizational members of the tea party patriots. we're not speaking for them, no. they for us. they wanted to make it clear, but it is a great dialogue we had on the initial meeting. host: what do you intend to do? guest: we hope to draw from this enthusiasm, the grass-roots enthusiasm across the country. we did a press conference after the initial meeting. there were about 10 members of the tea party organization from various states. each had an opportunity to speak to us. we in turn introduced ourselves to them. at the press event, i said i thought this was the greatest
grass roots movement i have never seen in my political career. it goes back awhile. i voted for the first time in 1960. i think these are great people, and doing a wonderful job of bringing members of congress their concerns. the concerns of we, the people. inside the beltway can become an echo chamber. this is an opportunity for the people to speak out and be heard. host: some say this happens at a time when the larger republican party apparatus is not sure of its relationship with the tea party. and likewise, vice versa. guest: that is a fair statement, part of the intent to make sure the relationship was solidified. the tea party patriots are not really apart. they are grass-roots organization. they do not claim to want to
become a third political party, although they endorse candidates in some instances. some of their activists who decide they really want to run, most of them, i think a republican candidates. there may be some democrats i'm not aware of. it is mainly the principles they espoused, the acronym -- it is enough already. they want limited government, less taxing, and to abide by the constitution. host: one group that seems to be happy about the caucus is the democrats. the former governor of virginia, the head of the party, announced plans to tie the republican party to the french tea party moment. i think we have a clip we can show of the governor talking
about that -- tying it to the fringe party. >> leaders are promising in the recess to hold town halls to develop a contract of their own. the agenda is clear. with the two-party the most potent force in republican politics, and with the recent launch of the caucus on capitol hill, garnering support of republicans and leadership -- the republican party agenda has become the tea party agenda, and vice versa. host: and they released the republican party tea party contract on america that suggests what they see your agenda as. what is your reaction to the democrats formally tried to make hay out of its existence? guest: i think it will come up short. what the governor just said is absolutely not true. we go back into the august work.
beginning friday afternoon, tomorrow. it will last about six weeks. republicans across the board will be holding a lot of town hall meetings. i do not just mean on the phone. i'm talking about the traditional, face-to-face opportunity to hear from people across the country. there will not be specifically labelled betea party town hall meetings, but for the district. we hope the the tea party petraeus will be there, the independents will be there, and we hope that reagan democrats will also show up. i'm not sure what my colleagues on the democrat side of it. one year ago they shied away from the confrontations that put a little heat on them. but i hope they will not do that this time. the american people still want to speak out and let all of us know what they're thinking. host: we would like to get you
involved. here are the phone numbers, and c-span.org, and by twitter. what are the tenants for which the tea party caucus stands? guest: i mentioned it basically unlimited government. the tea party organization feels we do not need all this talk- down control of our lives -- this top-down control of our laws. one example is obamacare. that is wet grass roots, main street america does not one. we are three and half months passed the signature of it into law, and the american people still say that. but what hands-off government.
they want elected officials at every level to abide by constitutional principles. host: the same way about financial regulations? guest: we republicans are very concerned about that bill. not many of us voted for it. the concerns were the fact that the most egregious aspect of financial firms, and the thing needing reform most was these government-sponsored enterprises, such as fannie and freddie. there is nothing in this bill addressing that. indeed, there is still a $1.70 trillion federal line of credit that we, the taxpayer, are extending credit to them, and their ceos are making hundreds of millions per year. on main street, the small- business man and woman can barely get 10,000 all alone from their community banks.
host: this summer there have been acquisitions find back-and- forth about whether the tea party is a racist, or whether some of it encourages some people who hold resist point of view within its ranks. what is your thought about that element of society, and the tea party's stance on people's positions? guest: there is always an element of society that will be racist, unfortunately. and i think today, having grown up in the south, a son of the south, and i saw such racism years ago when i was a little boy in augusta, ga. -- segregation, segregated schools and drinking fountains, back of the bus-type stuff, yet in my lifetime i have seen such tremendous change. the people involved in the tea
party movement and other grass- roots organizations are not racist. i have never seen or racist sign. i'm sure there may have been a few here and there. in any group you have some folks who may be feel that way. or maybe some people just go over the top with unbridled enthusiasm. yesterday was our first, official meeting after the tea party caucus in the house. and african-american businessman, kevin jackson, will write a book about this. he talked about the accusation that the naacp has made. he said that nothing could be further from the truth. host: will you adopt a statement
specifically say that you want a big tent organization? guest: we are, if you are referring to the republican party. i don't think we ever will be as big of one as the democratic party. there dna is different from ours. host: i mean about the tea party itself. will you take an affirmative step as a caucus that you do not support these attitudes, and you are welcoming all people? guest: absolutely, i am sure we will do that. host: this phone call comes from pennsylvania, thomas, on the democrats' line. caller: hi. thank you for c-span, and for the representative on there. but i got one thing, you republicans have been in office for quite a while. first thing, you ought to give us a big apology for biglaws you
did was to let want to get away with what they did. that is why we are in this situation. they will review fannie and freddie. yes, do something about that. i am a democrat. i fought for this country. i don't care about a policy -- i voted for republicans for years. but you guys have got to quit making excuses about the use laws you did away with to let this happen. you are the main ones. guest: thomas, thank you for your call. you make a good point. certainly, there's a lot of blame to go around. you may not agree to sporadically, but no one's hands are completely clean. i have been a member of the house -- this is now my fourth term, nearly eight years. there great people on both sides of the aisle. our basic philosophy of
government is distinctly different from that of biden's. we are for a more limited government and less taxation. give the people the opportunity of entrepreneurship and job creation. the democratic party with its $862 billion stimulus bill from a a year-and-a-half ago, that by anyone's measures -- the unemployment rate, has been a dismal failure. yes, i take full responsibility for my party's perspective. as a democrat should from their perspective. when we had republican leadership and a republican president. president bush tried to rein in fannie and freddie. it was the objection of people like chris dodd and others who blocked that. barney frank, the current chairman of the senate finance
committee -- these are good men, but sometimes will make wrong decisions. really find out about its on monday morning when we see the consequences. host: a couple of stories about the fall campaign in newspapers. president obama steps up money chase, eight fund-raisers in two weeks. related to that, democrats set to spend millions on ads. the democrat said on wednesday they're prepared to spend $49 million on television ads during the final weeks of the midterm elections. later in the story it says there's the two to one edge over republicans and raising cash. what does this say to you? guest: to me it says the democratic party, even though all the polls would suggest that
they will lose their majority, at least in the house, and seven or eight seats in the senate, november 2, they will not roll over and play dead. they are anything but dumb. they're rather shrewd. they do a good job of raising money. this will be a battle royale as we go into the fall elections to determine who will control the 112 congress. it is all or none. every two years you have a bloodbath. this year we have 435 numbers up for reelection, 33 senators, and 37 governors -- there is a lot at stake. we do not want to be overconfident. we will work until november 2 to make sure we regain the majority. we want to install john boehner as a speaker of the house. host: from hawaii, on the
republican line, welcome. caller: yes, it is very early here. i have been watching your show for quite a while. i'm just intrigued. this is the first time i have watched. host: thanks for making the effort to call in, and be part of the discussion. caller: the tea party, i know -- i had a bunch of discussions before this. it took me about three hours to get through. now that we are on the tea party issue, hawaii is kind of last with any issue concerning -- a national issue, government, what ever. and i just have to say, you
know, the tea party is here in hawaii. it is a very strong body. it is made up of a bunch of people who are very genuine, very dedicated to the country. i don't understand the whole the tea party racial issue. everything is peaceful here. [unintelligible] i don't understand where the controversy comes from for the tea party. they want limited government,
liberty, fiscal responsibility, and equal opportunity. and don't understand where the whole controversy is with the tea party. this is the first time i have watched your program, and am very impressed. i would like to know where the controversy comes in? host: have you officially joined the tea party movement? caller: have i? oh. i'm not there personally, because i have a job. i cannot go to the actual release, and everything else, but i hear the testimonies of people. i know they are grass-roots. -- i cannot go to the actual
rallies. it is not racist whatsoever. you had a show on the arizona emigration, which is why i was calling before this. i could not get through. i am from hawaii. i'm about four or five different nationalities. it has nothing to do with nationality. host: thanks ray much, leslie. i wonder if you can tackle explain why there is a much heat around the two-party movement? guest: that is interesting, coming from hawaii. we welcome our legislative colleagues from that state. it was very interesting to know, listening to her, that the tea party word, word of mouth,
activism, grassroots is all the hawaiianhe great hall in aisl isles. it sounds like even if she is not yet officially a member, she has listened and paid attention. the most telling thing she revealed, from her perspective in hawaii, the tea party activists, organization is not resist. is the limit did government, fiscal responsibility, liberty -- the limited government -- and abiding by the constitution. host: we have spent much of the morning talking about the immigration law of arizona, and the federal judge's decision to enjoin key provisions of it. i'm sure you have talked about immigration policy and the tea party caucus? guest: with the tea party activists we have talked with,
and in organizing our caucus in the house last week, we have not had an opportunity to discuss illegal immigration issues. we do have and immigration reform caucus -- a bipartisan caucus. there happen to be more republican than democratic members. it is led by a member from california. i'm on the executive board and we talk about those issues a lot, but not particularly with the tea party organization. host: do you have a reaction? guest: i was reading the papers this morning, and the judge made a decision. essentially, there is an injunction against the major provisions of the arizona law. the governor of arizona has explained over and over again that it is just a law enforcing federal law because our federal
government is not doing their job. i think she is right about that. i think that is why almost 60% of the country are in favor of this. certainly the state of georgia. i have heard both republican and democratic candidates for governor say they endorse the arizona law. i certainly do. it it will wind its way through the federal court system. i feel confident that arizona and its governor will appeal the ruling. i hope this does not mean programs like the 287g per gram, that allows my county, and the sheriff, a great friend, in the county of 650 dozen people -- has instituted a program so that anyone incarcerated for breaking
the law in the jail system of our country, found to be an illegal immigrant, there will at least be reported to i.c.e. if they will be given the opportunity to handle those cases as they see fit. host: upper marlboro, md., lydia. caller: the hypocrisy of the republican party never ceases to amaze me. when george bush came into office he had a balanced budget, a surplus. where was all the outrage of the big spending in the first six years of his administration? he wasted the stimulus. he borrowed billions to give tax cuts to the rich. he fought two wars he was not a dime paid for. i'm so sick of hearing about this big government. bobby jindal was a republican
who did no one stimulus money. as soon as the oil spill he is screaming. the president, they need to get down here -- you only want big government when you have a problem. guest: i'm not going to defend president bush and regards to spending. nor am i going to defend my republican leadership at the time in congress. we spend too much money. clearly, we did some things that were not paid for. obviously, when you are fighting a war, indeed two wars, you are trying to recover from the devastating attack on the twin towers. and after the dot-com bubble could burst, to get the economy going again, it is tough.
the american people spoke loud and clear in 2006 and 2008 when they gave the democratic party a strong majority in both the house and senate. indeed, in 2008, we elected democratic president, president barack obama. but basically what has happened since then, almost two years now -- three years, in fact -- almost four years of democratic control with ms. pelosi as speaker of the house, the democratic party has quadrupled down on spending policies, if you know, that the republican party is so iffy of. when you get in the whole -- ho le, the first thing you do is stop digging. the democratic party continues
to go in the wrong direction and stop paying for things. there is a lot of blame to go around and much of what you said is true, but goodness gracious, under republican leadership, did we ever have a $1.40 trillion deficit? i don't think so. the highest deficit under the republican leadership in the madrid was 175 billion not -- republican leadership was 102 to $5 billion. way too much. -- $175 billion but way too much r. we want less spending, less government, less regulation, get out of our lives, let's give people an opportunity, maybe like you and others, at entrepreneurship. enough is enough. let's look at the constitution and live by it. host: we are talking about the formation of a congressional tea party caucus. "the christian science monitor"
has done a piece about it. "at any one time, congress typically has about 300 caucuses, known as congressional membership organizations. they form and his band with regularity. some have the brief life of a one-hit wonder and others in madonna."e guest: he ask [unintelligible] a good question, of course. -- he asked a good question, of course. there are probably too many caucuses not just in the congress, but in the 50 states and territories as well, that allow birds of leather -- birds
of my father to flock together. people like to get together and discuss things, an advocacy, as we all know, is a more -- is more effective in numbers than advocacy of one did you have a lot of caucuses forming. new members come in and they want to form our caucus most of these organizations are un funded, unstaffed. organizers themselves may chip in and put up a website. you can look at the official congressional book and it can list -- and will list the caucuses formed by the respective parties and their employees and that sort of thing. but that is a very small number. i hope the tea party caucus in the house to grows. i don't know that we will ever have hired employees, secretary, executive director, whatever.
if we do, of course that would have to be paid for. but that remains to be seen. you are right, we could go through and maybe eliminate some of these caucuses. they have been on the books for a long time and no longer meet. you could say that about many of the laws on the books as well, on the state and federal level. host: "tea party to convene in richmond, first convention in virginia scheduled to meet on october 8 and 9. former gov. tim kaine has unveiled a national democratic party strategy to tight the tea party to the republican party caucus george, republican. caller: congressman, thanks for everything that you do. we're just now getting the
information out to the masses, whether it be through left propaganda war fox news propaganda -- or fox news propaganda, that there is a struggle in our country between not the democrats -- the new left party, pretty much a socialist party, and also the conservative movement, which is the tea party republicans. the two differences -- conservative tea party go where our country is funded, at 76, given rights by god rather than fight government and karl marx. -- than by government and call marks. it is making everybody do an examination, the founders, that declaration of independence, but also making people read "the communist manifesto," marx,
lenin, saul alinsky, and if you look at "rules for radicals" by alinsky, the left is demonizing the opposition. we are seeing the two different schools of thought. it is going to be an awakening for the american public. they will vote at the ballot box, and hopefully, we can change some of the national ization programs, which have produced personal rights in this country, introduced by the new -- reduced personal rights and this country, introduced by the new socialist party -- host: i will stop you there. guest: you are right. the 24-hour news shows like the one i am on today, "washington journal" on c-span -- but yes,
you mentioned fox news, cnn, msnbc, and then the national networks -- but people are so much better informed today than they were in the time of our grandparents. there is good and some bad in that. you go on the computer and all the blogosphere and social networking and facebook and youtube, and our republican party -- you may know this -- we rolled out a web site, americaspeakingout.com, to give not just republicans, but everybody, independents, libertarians, democrats, an opportunity to go to the website and let inside-the- beltway crowd, republicans and democrats, know what the people what, what we're most concerned about. i am happy to know that people are watching. i hope they watched both
channels. we want to get a fair and balanced view, and you probably need to listen to cnn at the time and fox news at the time, if you need to read "the washington post," you need to read "national journal," and watch the sunday morning talk shows, where the talking heads, mostly senators -- wheat house members don't get invited often. the american people need to understand and think for themselves, and then they will know who to vote for. that is hugely important to have knowledge. i think that the country is going to be fine. we are going through a big a crisis now economically. the oil spill tragedy, the wars in iraq and afghanistan. but we are a great country and we have come through tough times in the past. the great depression. this is a severe recession, not a depression. but you have got to have the right policies. that is why we in the republican party are working so hard to
regain the majority, because we feel like we have a policy that will get this country back on its feet. host: as the congressional tea party caucus is getting established, we have seen one instance where the missouri tea party movement is not happy about michelle bachmann's endorsement in the minnesota senate race of roy blunt. should caucus members become independents? guest: wellthe tea party -- well, the tea party looks at candidates, and the principles of the tea party -- limited government, constitutional purity, fiscal responsibility, liberty -- you can understand how they approach. they are looking for men and
women as candidates at all levels of government, not just the united states senator or governor or president, but every level. they have a certain litmus test that they apply. i think we need to be very careful in regards to the states. in new england, the northeast of the country, probably a republican like me, who was so proud to represent the great state of georgia, would have a tough time getting elected, because i'm not only of the school, strong for this -- i not only a strong fiscal conservative, but i am a social conservative, i am pro-life, i stand strong for the second amendment. it may very well be that someone in a little bit more moderate, right-of-center, fiscally responsible, but definitely not
as socially conservative as i am, would have a better chance. when a celebrity like -- well, michelle bachmann is certainly becoming a celebrity, a great friend of mine -- but talking about sarah palin -- when people like that make endorsements from 5000 miles away because campaign workers have submitted her a bill of goods, sometimes mistakes can be made. i hope that the best republican will serve as and each and every election, and we will win these elections on november 2. host: david wants to know why ron paul has not joined the tea party caucus. guest: if he was a founder of the tea party movement, you have got snookered meet this morning, because i had not heard that. we will certainly reach out to
ron, a very independent thinker. indeed, ron paul, like me, it isn't ob/gyn, and i am the co- chairmen -- is an ob/gyn, and i am a co-chairman of the house dr.'s caucus. ron paul is a member of our active but not an member. he was a great doctor when practicing medicine, and is a great member of congress. host: democratic line. caller: glad to get a chance to talk on c-span. i'm listening to the previous callers, and my concern is that, you know, with the fox news, rupert murdoch, his australian wanting to take over american politics, so to speak, i find it in testing that is mostly the
midwest appears -- find it interesting that is mostly the midwest -- what about just an american caucus, instead of the tea party, with the idea of the earlyea like revolutionaries? the bottom line is that we need to have statesmanship, like jefferson and adams that people who stand for america, not just these fringe groups on either side. we just need to get down and take care of the country. this idea of "we want to take over the house and senate," why don't you just want to take over america and do what is right for citizens of this country, no matter where they came from or what they did or anything else? we really need to get down to stop the name-calling and stop making liberals out like a dirty word and conservative or
whenever -- or whatever. we don't need these fringe groups. they have made sarah palin into a rock star. it is ridiculous. host: "the washington post" this morning -- "ads in primary season appears prime to hit new lows." guest: the caller brings up a number of good points, susan. i met with eight members of the parliament in germany. most of these countries have multiple parties and coalitions are formed, and it is hard for any one party to get its supermajority, up 50%-plus one. to have our ruling majority, they have to make coalitions
with other -- to have a ruling majority, they have to make coalitions with other parties. i like that in many ways. in our country, we have been a two-party system for a long time. unfortunately, there is no power sharing. these elections, at the end of the day, you have to wonder 19 members of the house on november 3 -- 219 members of the house on november 3, actually, january 27, and there is a two-vote difference, the democratic party will maintain the full majority, not only speaker of the house, the chairmen and chairwomen of every standing committee and every subcommittee that, and will control policy completely, the rules committee, determining which amendments will be made and debated and voted on. that is why i say every two
years it is somewhat of a bloodbath. i don't mean that literally, of course. but the importance of it, and when you feel, as i do, that the dna of the two parties is so different in regard to how this country should be run, this is the reason why we fight like heck to be in the majority, so that we can put forth policies for the american people that hopefully will get the country back on its feet and win the wars in iraq and afghanistan and bring the troops home as soon as possible, but bring them home with a victory, lower taxes, put people back to work. that is what is all about. host: arizona, republican line. caller: congressman, i am thrilled to have you on right now. i wish i could get on with the congressman grivajal. he said it is hard on him, this
bill. it is not. he is in a heavily hispanic territory. i just had a sixth generation grandbaby did you are telling me that if you loved the state of arizona, but you tell people to boycott it, congressman? he should be kicked out. back to congressman gingrey, i am glad i have a place i can go to. they're talking about letting all of these illegals in. who is going to pay for their health care? we have to pay for these 20 million illegals, social security. the government owes arizona billions of dollars for the school is being given to these illegals, health care, social services. we never see a dime. even napolitano, who i could not stand as our governor, she kept
giving obama bills. we never got a dime. i'm glad that arizona people can go to someone now, tea party, and we need states' rights. we need help in our state. it,t: it is ironic, isn't that the federal government, every appropriately, demand that british petroleum pay every dime of cost for this disaster in the gulf of mexico. and i say it is appropriate that they do. but i would bet that the federal government would not pay one dime to the state of arizona for helping them enforce the federal law. only because the federal government is not doing their job. that is what governor brewer said over and over again. that is why 67% of the american people are in favor of what gen
borrower -- what jan brewer and the law that is to go into effect today, in fact. we will just have to wait to see how that turns out. i think the american people are sick and tired of all of this top-down government control, and they want their freedom back. host: next and final call is from casper, wyoming, independent miline. caller: can you assure me ok? guest: i can hear you quite well. caller: we had years of wide open borders under bush, no attempt to close the borders. his head of homeland security, michael chertoff, went on cnn and said that we don't need to close the borders. he had no fears that any al qaeda agent might come across with all those friendly mexicans
coming here. and now the federal government under obama is indignant over arizona trying to secure the borders, proving that the war on terror is a total fraud. that is conclusive proof. i'm trying to figure out why the republican party and when they said soon -- they subsumed the tea party. the tea party is a rejection of tyranny, whether it is national socialism under bush or communism under obama. i have not heard what you plan to do when you take over congress with this communist patriot act, the restoration of habeas corpus. bush, mccain, senator obama all in lockstep voted for the first 1/5 of the giveaway rewarding the criminals that caused this, paying foreign banks that tim
geithner, under oath, not claiming fifth amendment protection on the grounds that it might incriminated him, simply refusing to answer which a foreign banks he gave all the free money to. obama thinks we are going to pay for this. i am here to tell you, we're not paying $1 trillion in our dollars to pay for and banks. -- foreign banks. guest: casper, wyoming, you have a lot of things on your mind, a lot of things that concern you, and i share your concerns on many of those. since you are from casper, wyoming, a shout out to our former vice-president dick cheney, route is in a hospital and i hope he will fully recover. great man. in regards to what you say about why president bush and the republican leadership in its 12 years of having a majority in the house and most of that time
in the senate, i was -- individually, you asked me what i would do -- i was very proud to be the original co-sponsor with the chairman of the house services committee, duncan hunter, a senior, as we passed the bill to construct 700 at miles of fencing on the southern border. i think we're getting very close to completing that fencing. no, the entire border is not fenced. 2000 miles long. cameras, miles and miles of patrol, and these are dedicated men and women. i don't think that the national guard is trained to patrol our borders. we certainly hope that that will not be necessary.
but we can control and sealed our border. it did not take us too long, when we decided that russia was ahead of us in the space program, to put a man on the moon. i remember in 1969, just six years after president kennedy made a pledge that we were going to get theire. we can do it. we just need to have the will and determination. this business of trying to get a voting bloc, trying to pander to any ethnic group, is totally wrong, and it is totally wrong for employers who take advantage of these immigrants, even legal immigrants, but especially with a wink and nod to hire illegals and not give the same job protection and celery to american citizens. they should be treated the same, but you should not hire
illegals. we should use e-verify. with the unemployment rate in this country, and you think that the first priority, because it should be jobs, jobs, jobs, we need to secure the border first and foremost we get the majority back, we will do it. host: thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you, susan. host: we will take a break with at c-span radio, and then paul singer of "roll call,", charlie rangel and possible ethics procedures. we will learn more from him about that. >> the labor department says that first-time claims for unemployment insurance dropped last week for the third time in four weeks. five women all of it. average for claims dropped to just above 4 to 2000, the lowest level since may -- hit just
above 450,000, the lowest level since may. the president is speaking to the national urban league conference, a civil rights group that released a report this week saying that the administration's approach to education will not be effective in improving failing schools, and it leaves out many minority students. you can watch the president's speech later on our website, c- span.org. an update on the war in afghanistan from vice-president joe biden. in remarks on nbc's "today show," he says that u.s. forces are inflicting significant damage on the al qaeda network in afghanistan and pakistan could heat dismissed complaints from democrats that the u.s. is there for nation-building, saying that the aim is to defeat al qaeda which "poses a clear and present danger to us." 3 people in the alaska national
guard and one on active duty at, air force base were killed. those are the latest headlines from c-span rid of. -- c-span radio. >> the senate homeland security and government wrote affairs subcommittee looks at mismanagement at arlington national cemetery. committee chaired senator claire mccaskill will travgavel the heg into order. that is today on c-span. and ethics charges against congressman charles rangel, who faces charges for alleged wrongdoing. we will have live coverage of the meeting today starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern. also on c-span3. "washington journal" continues.
host: this is paul singer. his publication, "roll call," has this article on charlie rangel, democrat from new york, long serving member, lon chairman of the ways and means committee, who stepped aside from that position because of ethics charges he is facing. thank you for being with us. at 1:00 today, the ethics committee is prepared to do what? guest: to essentially open a trial on a series of ethics charges against congressman rangel. it would be much like you would see in a regular court proceeding, and would begin, as it happens, with a reading of detailed allegations against the congressman that the subcommittee has concluded there is reason to believe he violated those rules. host: a "the new york times" has
a headline on the story, "r angel and ethics panel brinksmanship continues." guest: there have been discussions over the last several months to see if they could come to an agreement where mr. rangel would accept responsibility or admit to having done something wrong in exchange for canceling the proceedings. it is not clear at this point whether they are still going to -- whether there are still negotiations today and if there is still an attempt to head them off before the trial begins. host: there has been discussion in these stories about charlie rangel's appearance before the national urban league in washington. this is the end of his speech. >> whether it is personal political, we all know that life is not know crystal -- no crystal sphere.
what we have to do as a nation -- equity includes us, and if for any time we find ourselves excluded company we cannot give up -- we find ourselves excluded, we cannot give up and we cannot give in. host: what are you hearing from charlie rangel? guest: classic charlie rangel. he remains one of the most optimistic people. his book is called a " i never had a bad days since." he sees this as an opportunity to vindicate himself. glad to have the charges out, now i can finally respond to them. it is one of the reasons it is so hard, i understand, to get a settlement agreement. he would have to step out and say, "i did something wrong," added to wrongdoing. -- and admit to wrongdoing.
host: would you tell our audience what the most important of these to be? guest: very briefly, the congressman has failed to properly report is income at access on his financial disclosure forms -- his income and access on his financial disclosure forms. every congressman every year has to fill out financial disclosure form to disclose assets they have, and he has done it wrong for years. the question is whether he broke rules, whether he intentionally did it wrong. a $5,000 bank account appears that had not previously been on the form. where does it come from? there is no explanation. he owns a house in the dominican republic, and he gets right from the house, it was not declared engine and he was not paying taxes -- on that he was -- it was not declared income and he was not paying taxes on that.
and the city college of new york having a center with his name on it -- did he make a deal with them to fund that organization in exchange for legislative assistance? we don't know is if there are additional charges underlying this. host: we want to get your telephone calls, and we will right after our conversation with another journalist was been following this case, tim carney. this is a story about charlie rangel and the house of representatives and how it polices itself on internal ethics investigations. if you want to offer your comments on any aspect, we welcome them. first we talked to timothy of "the washington examiner." what are you telling us in this story?
guest: a lot of people don't realize that politicians, especially house members, can use campaign funds for their legal defense. that is what charlie rangel is doing here. in 2009, 2/3 of his campaign fees,went to legal almost every dime having to do with ethics-related charges and the tax situation. in the first six months of this year, 1/3 have gone to legal fees. k street, a sort of the corridor of a lobbyist in washington, figuratively, and the law firms representing him -- two of them have recently been lobbying firms, and one law firm, oldaker, belair & wittie, not only is a lobbying firm, but houses four other lobbying
firms. his legal defense includes lobbying firms. what is also interesting is how much corporate political action committees, union political action committees, and lobbyists themselves or funding -- were funding rangel. that was most of the money that he has raised this year, when everybody giving to him who is politically savvy new that funding his campaign