tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 2, 2011 7:00am-9:00am EST
extending the tax cut beyond the end of this year. and then a look at america's immigrant population with the u.s. census bureau. host: good morning, it's friday, december 2, 2011. thanks for being with us. two hour program today. house of representatives in at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. last night, the senate rejected both the democratic and republican versions of the payroll tax cut extension. and this morning the white house on its website announced a nearly $4 billion in sector energy upgrades to building saying they would save in energy costs, promote energy
independence. this friday morning we're going to have open phones. we have just a half an hour so we'll use some to hear whatever is on your mind. lot going on both domestically and internationally. our phone lines are open for you to comment on any topic you like this morning. nice to see you on this friday morning. you can see the dawn beginning to break over the capitol. we listen to you with whatever's on your mind, get as many new stories so you can see what's going on. we're going to begin with the offlead in "the new york times" rather with their story on the senate rejection of the two tax payroll tax holiday extensions.
>> this morning, adds more to that report. party of no. ready to say yes. tax package coming together despite gripes from conservatives and g.o.p. as evidence of that let's listen to what house speaker john boehner has to say about the payroll tax holiday extension. >> i do believe there's enough common ground between where the white house and democrats are and where republicans are for us to move this legislation and to do so quickly. i don't think it's any question that the payroll tax relief in fact helps the economy. you're allowing more americans, frankly every working american to keep more of their money in their pocket. frankly that's a good thing.
host: last night in the senate, all of the republicans, save for maine's senator susan collins voted against the democrat proposal. when the republican proposal was put forward, 26 republicans voted against their own proposal. it failed by a vote of 78-20. here are the senate republicans who voted against their proposal. as we look at that we're going to listen to our first call in open phones from new haven, connecticut. new haven, ohio it is. good morning mike, independent. caller: good morning, susan. i'm just stunned. i've been busy working and everything and just recently found out about this. $7.7 trillion that we gave to the banks without congressional hearings or anything like that. i just can't believe this. and another thing that dumbfounds me is how does washington, our congressional leaders figure that insider trading doesn't even affect them? especially when their staffers
and them are privy to all this information even before we are? even stock exchange. and everyone wants no know why we're in trouble. i'm fed up. thank you. guest: thanks, mike. this is charlie, charlie is a republican. what's on your mind today? caller: well, i would like to comment about the statement you did a few weeks ago about the i.a.e.'s report on i ran's nuclear program. because the "washington journal" lacks civility and intellectual honesty you have nothing now that an audience of treason nouse liberals who support a terrorist state over their own country. host: well, all the treason noust liberals who would like to respond to their characterization of them will
have an opportunity after your call this morning. this ised ay, a democrat. good morning, you're on the air. go ahead. caller: hi. they think somebody's going to vote for them? watch this vote, thank you. host: let's take a quick look at the front page of the washington post. first on the presidential campaign, going rich offers up a bundle of big ideas. firing of judges among fans to draw skepticism. this is america under president going rich, he writes. there are two tax systems, two versions of medicare immigration decisions are handled by citizen counsel spread across the country and in the white house is a president eager to do battle with the judicial branch.
new story, signs of a shift in central shift in europe. e.c.b.. the head of the european central bank signaled thursday that the institution might be willing to take more aggressive steps to temp the region's debt crisis. but also on their front page we see lots of coverage of this in various news organization of secretary clinton's trip to burma. open phones friday. next call is from san diego. eric is a republican, good morning, you're on. caller: yes, i wanted to clarify basically people that are doing insider tradings in the congress, throughout the whole entire federal system, there's an easier way to declare whether they're doing it right or wrong.
they simply, i feel a conflict of interest. for example, in order to vote on any bill regarding if it's going to help themselves financially they just need to opt out of the vote. the reason i'm saying this, they simple fli out of san diego some of the mayors and what have you. and one particular one has farm plan regarding some insects is. one gentleman had a farm land. therefore he opted out of the vote in courtesy of the people not having no conflict of interest. in other words, if anybody's involved in any bill they're passing, it seems quite clear that they shouldn't have any access to them having any part of their duty. they should opt out of the vote. i think that would help indefinitely instead of attacking massive bureaucracy for insider trading rules, they simply don't have any say in the issue themselves. so i think if they concentrate on that, if they're voting for
any benefit, it might be quite feasible, honest and fair for what they took the oath for. if they're going to benefit from something they need to opt out of the vote. say they do have interest, therefore if they're not legitimate to be our senators. host: ok, thanks eric. a second caller concerned about insider trading charges in congress. let's take a look at "the baltimore sun" because the pakistan story continues to percolate. pakistan not backing down. public wants to sever ties with the u.s. government forced to take a harder line. this is alex rodriguez who is filing from islamabad and writes --
host: next on open phones, new york city, dickey is a democrat. you're on the air, good morning. caller: yes, i just want to make a comment to all the southern people that continue to vote against themselves. host: all right, we're going to move on. photograph of last night's lighting of the national christmas tree.
the president and the caption on this, president obama touch his daughter's sasha's nose as family sings rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. next up the spring, texas. don, an independent. good morning, you're on the air. caller: yes, ma'am, i'm also calling about tin cider trading and everything else illegal our good friends in congress are doing. there's an old law that's been on the books for, i don't know how many years, stating that our congress and senators cannot pass the law or exempt themselves from laws. that would benefit themselves. i mean, where is our justice department? where is the f.b.i.? this is ridiculous, we need to citizens court. try them throw them in jail.
host: concerns about insider trading. another first family photo. from a former first family. this is in the "wall street journal." mitt romney with ex george h.w. bush and his wife barbara. the bush's haven't backed a candidate as governor romney makes a courtesy call. next up is raleigh, north carolina. good morning john, what's on your mind? caller: well, i was just curious why we're not seeing any coverage in the news over certain situations like andy stern, who is a spotter of the president, and also you've got come to light that he admitted he held a fundraiser. if you read in the "wall street journal," amy stern's statement of how china's beating us because of their perfect economist system, this should
raise alarms to everyone in the united states. this was brought up in 2008 of these two individuals that are around the president. plus a lot of others that are hard core leftists, socialists and the gentleman earlier was talking about he wonders why there's such a double standard of the republicans and democrats and congress being able to not be held the same rule of law as we are. it's called the ruling class. but unfortunately what we have up there now is a leftist radical class that will be a lot worse than what you see now. i just want to know where's the coverage in the media, as always the leftist media is shielding the president and all his, how you would say questionable. thanks and have a merry christmas and merry christmas to our troops who help defend our freedom even though they're being diminished as we speak.
host: mentioning the troops yesterday was the handover ceremony in baghdad. here is "the new york times" international page. it says the tide of conflict is receding. this was filed in camp victory as the u.s. prepared to turn over this military base to iraq. they held a some lem commemoration here thursday of the sacrifices of american and iraqi troops during the eight years of war, marking the moment in a gar rush, marble palace built by saddam hussein.
host: next up is st. louis, floyd, independent. good morning to you floyd. >> good morning. i just wanted to comment on your last caller, he was talking about howard stern and the fact that china -- guest: actually andy stern, the union leader. host: he was talking about him and what andy stern was trying to say was you can't compete with a economist nation because the salaries over here, and the salaries over there are two totally different things. they make change an hour. we make a decent salary. and they use children, minors to do a lot of the work. and their hours are ungodly, 60, 70 hours a week a lot of these people work. you can't compare apples and oranges. matter of fact we shouldn't even be trading with china because of that. and another comment i would like
to make is, where i live at there are a lot of tea partiers. you see nobody talking about this tax thing. when all they talked about was taxes. the whole time they've been in existence. i'm wondering where are all the tea partiers at. they should be up in arms at this not passing. host: from twitter, 80% say they are disfived with the way things are going in our country today. also, from "the new york times" this morning, a story, people across the working spectrum suffer job losses in recent years. brick layers and bookkeepers and marketing. but only a select few workers have fully regained their footing in the slow economy. even though the labor department is expected to report on friday that they add more than a
hundred,000 jobs in november, a new study shows how well like the lost picture here has regained her former life style. the study, which is to be released friday by the work force development just 7% of those who lost jobs after the financial crisis have returned to or exceeded their previous financial position and maintained their life styles. the vast majority say they have diminished life styles and about 15% say reduction in their incomes have been drastic and will probably be permanent. next is columbia, pennsylvania. terry, democrat there. good morning. caller: good morning c-span. what i was wanting to talk about is the republicans, they want to take away unemployment, medicare, medicaid, all central
host: next up, wichita, kansas. william, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason that pipeline is being piped from canada to fort arthur, texas is that where we mainly export oil from. none of that oil that they claim is going to help our oil security or dependence or anything is actually going to stay here. going to end up heading overseas and out of this country. i get so irritated any time i hear america exporting oil as long as we're importing it from the middle east. i don't understand why our natural resources are being able to be sold by these countries when honestly they don't own them, the united states does. and, also when you turn around and you look at every time i
hear these republic conditions lately and any time they hear the word democrat, automatically you're a economist or socialist or anything like that, i served in desert storm. i did my time. so, you know, i believe in the constitution and everything that it stands for, but i don't understand why if you want to talk about croney capitalism that's the thing republican party to a t. host: thanks, william. wichita, kansas. front page of the "wall street journal" this morning. americans embrace s.u.v.'s again.
back to twitter -- next up is greenwood, south carolina. good morning to brenda. republican. welcome to open phones, brenda. caller: good morning. first i would like to say thank you to the gentleman from raleigh, north carolina. i think a lot of us feel the same as he does. also god bless our military and god bless america. my concerns are the lavish life styles in washington, d.c. our problems have started in washington, and they're going to have to end in washington. i would like to know how much money the taxpayers are paying for the campaign of president obama.
we are hurting. the people in america are hurting. and i just don't understand how they can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on dinners, parties, entertainment at the white house. i'm afraid this country is hurting badly. i really thank you and i pray for america to return like it used to be. thank you. host: thank you brenda. next up is rich card. he's an independent there and you're on richard. good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning susan. and gorn to c-span and washington journal. one of our problems and what was concerning me was that the president is now wants to give himself the authority to declare who is an enemy of the state, who is a terrorist. he wants that to come from the executive branch. that means he would have the authority to arrest anyone he
wanted to have them apprehended, thrown in jail without evidence and without a trial. i believe we have a radical in the white house. i'd like to see the media come out and start -- it's obvious. his close assistants like ben jones and jeremiah wright, cody reska, these people are people that are undesirable to most and to say the least. host: ok, thank you richard. next is a tweet writing about the payroll tax holiday. here's what ashley cruise turner says, -- "u.s.a. today," their front page is on black friday
and gun sales. headline guns were big seller on black friday. background check rezests surge to 129,000 plus. host: next up is chuck, independent, good morning, you're on. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. i've called in before and i'm glad to have open lines this morning because i would like to reiterate that we have a senate in the federal government that
is in total noncompliance with the constitution. and i don't know if people realize it or have thought about it or they ought to think about it. the senate is supposed to be representing our sovereign states, the position of these states as determined by our state legislators and our gov nors. and what the senate really represents is the world of big business. they don't represent the people like they shout and they say they represent. or actually they're not supposed to represent the people. they're supposed to represent our state legislators. we have a house of representatives that represents the people. and if the senate were to actually vote the way their states want them to vote, then we would have a completely different face on the federal government. and because the senate is just kind of in the pocket of the big business that's been running ever since the civil war, we don't have a government that operates constitutionally. and i'd like to encourage everybody out there to get ahold
of their heads of their state legislators and their governor and demand that their senators vote the way their state wants them to vote in no other way. i don't think that my state senators here, or rather my federal senators here in florida have a right to decide what they want to do. it's not up to them. we don't elect them for that. yes, we elect them, but their job never changed. from the inception of the constitution. so thanks a lot. host: thanks to your call this morning. herman cane is on the cover. he returns home and he'll know by monday if he will carry on a bid for the white house. much of this coming out of a sit down he had yesterday. >> to what degree did you help her? how much money did you give her? >> because of my attorney and
because of somethings we're looking at i can't talk about that at this particular point. but it was all financial assistance to try and help her with her bills. >> did you tell your wife that you were helping financially? >> no, my wife did not know about it. that was the revelation and surprise. my wife found out when she went pub. my wife now knows, i have explained it to her. >> that's herman cain with the board talking about the latest allegations of a relationship that lasted about 13 years. he's been talking about it since the woman came public this week. other newspaper front page from around the country, the boston globe states big u.s. lenders. skirted rules and spent foreclosures. massachusetts attorney general martha copely is suing five major u.s. banks for allegedly seizing properties unlawfulfully
and to help struggling borrowers keep their homes by lowering mortgage payments. next up is richmond, california. amy, good morning to you. what's on your mind? caller: oh, good morning. thanks for taking my call. i had a few things to say. number one, i think a call back, i think this guy's name was richard and he was talking about jeremiah wright and all these other people connected, so he say to the president. i just want to ask you how come guys won't have a segment where you talk about the fact that there is an article, recent poll that came out that showed that
any viewer, mainly these republicans who are watching it, but the viewers of fox news are dumber than anybody who doesn't watch news at all. so it's almost like no news is good news. the people who are getting their information from fox news, rush limbaugh, they are being so dumbed down by all these word smithers, the lies that come out. when you hear them on the "washington journal," most of the stuff that the republicans are spewing out in the morning is totally false. and let me give you one example. there was a man who just called in who had said that president obama was fighting to have laws where americans would be jailed? he got that screwed. it's the opposite. that's why president obama said he was going to veto that mr. republican! he's vetoing the fact that the
republicans want to have your behind arrested! get it straight! learn some information! get off of fox news and rush limbaugh because you got it all twisted. host: all right amy. just a couple of minutes left. detroit free press, their continuing budget woes, big headline today. governor says he's willing to work with the city but the time is running out. next is a call from gue ian, oregon. this is david on the democrat. caller: thank you for c-span and good morning. host: good morning. caller:. i have one history lesson. i want to remind people that in 1995, newt gingrich removed the truth and advertising so
politicians could lie over the air waves and blame this action on the computer age. as for afghanistan, afghanistan is like a gang member in that they are bad actors relative to their overall community. to stop the gang member from continued violence, you must love them, listen to them, build them up, refocus their goals based on reality and lastly, you must motivate them to stand up on their own using their new learned techniques. god bless america and i hope everyone has a wonderful christmas. i'm a conservative democrat and i don't like peter defazio. host: the attorney general who was involved nationally in the state's health care law is saying he will run from governor which shakes up the g.o.p. race
in that state. and pittsburgh post gazette is telling us that the u.s. justice department is opening an inquiry into prison abuses. one other note. we'll show you a story on the other side. joseph p. kennedy iii, 31 years old and the grandson of robert f. kennedy and a massachusetts prosecutor he is seriously considering a run for the fourth district seat being vacated by barney frank. we're going to take a break. a reminder that our history series on friday night called "the contenders" has just two weeks to go. our feature contender this week is george mcgovern and senator mcgovern will join us himself during this program which originates from mitchell, south
dakota. that's 8:00 p.m. friday night. and our final week next friday, ross perot wraps up the series. we'll be right back. our next segment we'll dig a little more deeply into the payroll tax holiday and the politics of what's happening on capitol hill. >> within 90 days, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle, out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> his pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade of being one of
the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon. but his ground breaking campaign changed american politics, and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's "the contenders" from the mcgovern center of leadership from mitchell, south dakota. live tonight, at 8:00 eastern. >> he didn't have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he saw it for what it was. a dirty business. >> in "the man nobody knew" documentary film producer carl colby examines the life of a c.i.a. spymaster, his father. >> my father changed, in my opinion, after he was thrown out of the agency. if you watch the film closely and study him, he's a soldier. he took on the toughest,
dirtiest assignment given to him by the presidents from icen -- eisenhower, onward. when he had to lie and mislead congress. he couldn't do it. >> carl colby on his father, william colby. "washington journal" continues. host: this is steven sloan, a tax policy reporter from bloomberg news, and we asked him to come in this morning to help us understand what happened in the senate last night when both the democrat and republican versions of the payroll tax holiday extensions failed. guest: well, in a typical year employers and employees split the payroll tax, each paying 6.2% of wages toward the payroll tax. the votes last night were out extending a reduction that they had placed in 2011. the democratic bill which
expanded upon that reduction and made it lower, made the tax break lower than what it has been in 2011. the republican bill would have just kept the current tax break going into 2012. both measures failed to make, to get the 60 vote special. that would have been necessary for them to advance. host: we should earlier that 26 republicans voted against their own proposal. so what was happening? guest: that was the interesting part of the vote. what we were hearing and afterwards was that republicans were saying they put this on the table as an alternative but in the end many of them said they couldn't support it. host: and why not? guest: they were concerned about tim packet of social security. host: take a minute for people who dent understand the connection between payroll tax and social security. guest: sure. the social security payroll tax goes to fund social secure di. so when you've reduced it, there's been a concern that you
are not paying as much money and so that maybe makes social security at risk later on. of course in 2011, it has been a transfer from the fund into social security to cover any losses from the lower from the reduced amount of taxes going towards social security and would have considered going forward. but the political debate is whether the social security is at risk. host: we showed a clip from speaker boehner who sounds very concilatory and we showed a story from your competitors who suggest the party is ready to say yes to them. so what's happening as they come towards the end of the year and with the elections blooming? they're beginning to fact look like they might -- guest: the republicans athere h
agreement yet on how that's going to happen. i think that as we go forward through the weekend and into next week you'll see some discussions between the leaders. between, you might see some engagement from the white house on this, come from some kind of common ground how to pay for it. but we're not there yet. that's really the issue. the issue isn't whether the payroll tax cut will continue into 2012. it's how it's going to come together in terms of how congress will pay for it. host: at the current level, how much did it cost, in other words, or how much less money went into social security as a result of the current one? guest: the current payroll tax cut which was a 2% reduction from 6.2% to 4.2% cost about $11.7 billion according to the
congressional joint committee. host: then if they in fact lower -- guest: it would have expanded it for businesses as well, would have included businesses that would have been about $265 billion. host: now both parties agree and the senate side that there should be a payroll tax holiday proposal put forward. as we just learned from steven sloan the difference was how they would pay for it. the senate democrats proposed 3.25% surtax on people making a million dollars or more. that was permanent? but are there are income
specials for unemployment? guest: the republican proposal included all those, but the vast majority came from reducing the federal work force and freezing the pay for federal workers for another three years. host: what are they trying to do by having a payroll tax holiday guest: the idea it puts money into someone's pocket and helps stimulate demand in 2012 and hopefully helps create jobs. and things like that. host: do studies show that in fact happened? guest: in 2011 we obviously have unemployment around 9%, so there's a lot of criticism this didn't do enough for the economy so why keep going forward? but we heard from economists like mark vandy is that if you continue the grow at its current
pace, g.d.p. would contract maybe by about half a percent. not a question of what will stimulate the economy, according to economists. the question is more whether it would -- whether these kind of measures prevent the economy from going off the tracks even further than it already has. host: so you can send us a question and also tweet us or send us an email if you would like to make a comment over taxes that continues to debate between the democrats and republicans in congress. let's listen to the two leaders. first harry reid. >> they seem to think that our plan to put $1,500 into the pocket of every american with rare exceptions. gifts, the boost they need to hire employees goes too far. they're willing to fight for ever deeper tax cuts.
when it comes to the middle class, republicans here in the senate, not republicans generally, but republicans here in the senate believe the status quo is good enough for struggling families. >> we think struggling american workers should continue to get this temporary relief for another year. there's no reason folks should suffer even more than they already are from the president's failure to turn this job's crisis around. but there's also no reason we should pay for that relief by raising taxes on the very employers we're counting onto help jolt this economy back to life. we wouldn't be helping anybody by making it less likely that small businesses start hiring people again. host: it sounds a bit like the same debate over the break down between the members of the super committee. guest: yeah, we've seen the same debate over taxes kind of come out on a lot of the past year, whether it's tax cut, or the
supercommittee, debt ceiling, things like this. just a different scenario every time. host: we're going to mix in some callers with twitters. let's start with joe, who calls himself american hero. we'll take a call next. seattle, this is jay who's a republican. good morning, jay. you are on the air as we talk about the tax debate in congress. go ahead please. caller: well my question was, don't they limit the amount of cap, like $125,000 when they stop taking out social security? why don't they just raise that cap so they take it out, say $250,000 instead of a certain -- and the other thing was when they talk about job creators, i'm a conservative. i don't know if i'm a
republican, but i'm conservative and i vote republican and i'm retired from the navy. but why don't they -- i forgot what i was going to say. host: that's ok, that happens to us a you will. thanks for your call this morning. guest: the help will be $110,000 in 2012. you haven't heard a lottability moving that cap. but these are things we should keep in mind. host: bill king's comments on twitter is this -- i can't write to hear how -- now in that he's talking about federal workers losing their job under the republican proposal? guest: right. and you heard nancy pelosi talk about that for a moment. host: catch your breath. take a bit of water and we'll get a call from knoxville. linda, democrat.
go ahead. caller: i really am a democrat. i'm not a cloaked republican here. and i voted for ralph nader in two of the last presidential elections. but in this case, i am on the side of the republicans. because using the payroll tax for stimulus is terrible precedent. the first time it's ever been done. you had it a couple of weeks ago who's social security expert. he gave figures on income coming in from social security and going out and this is the first year this social security has ever run an operating deficit. and it's because of the payroll tax cut. i don't understand what the democrats were thinking when they came up with this. the idea is there are things you just don't go there. and the payroll tax has always been a you just don't go there. the same thing as using a debt ceiling as a club is the you just don't go there. the democrats did it and never going to be able to put the
demons back in pandora's box and it's clever but blunder of catastrophic proportions. any baby boomer who wants social security should say no to this. host: thanks, linda very much. guest: i think this is actually a very interesting political point. you have seen some on the left really usher in the validity of this. you saw berny sanders vote against extending the payroll tax cut because of their various issues with social security. host: here is a tweet from james allen. mr. allen writes this, which is economists agree, economy suffers from lack of demand. payroll tax holiday is designed to increase consumer demand. let's go back to telephone calls. the next one here is kevin. republicans from more shal, texas. hey kevin, you're on. caller: thank you, c-span. i'm against extending the
payroll tax holiday. i think it was a brilliant move by the president and the democrats. i mean, a tax cut to republicans is like a bone to a dog. if you can throw one out there they'll chase it every time. but the problem is redistribution, this is exactly what this is. when we have half the country not paying any income tax, some of them do peyton manning roll tax. but if you're going to get rid of that too, you get into a form that more people are not paying taxes than people that are paying taxes. and then every other situation like that in a democracy, the call will always be to raise taxes. i mean why would anyone want to raise taxes if you're not paying taxes. i believe it was huey long who said his campaign focused on don't tax me, don't tax you, tax
that fellow behind the tree. host: thank you kevin. commens for him? guest: well, i think that republicans are trying to figure out where to be on this. you'll see that speaker john boehner is going to have a press conference this morning at 9:15. he and other republican leaders, particularly the house. host: on the other side of the coin, james in southeast, louisiana, picking up from another early caller -- next up is william, an independent. good morning, william, you're on. caller: good morning. i'm also a county commissioner here in jackson county. i guess rather than cutting the payroll taxes i think we need to look to some of the things that are happening. i think whether the world realizes it or not, we're going to pay for the reconstruction of japan after the tsunami because
many of our industries that we needed in the auto industry and the other heavy industry in this country they're being imported from there. i think we need to rebuild those industries. take advantage of what's happened there and rebuild those industries in this country. host: william, can you tell us about being county commissioner? how's the employment there? caller: we've actually had a large tractor company move back to jackson from france. they're going to be bringing on -- host: what brought them back? caller: i think some of the, probably economic climate in europe and also i think the work ethic. i think our work ethic here in rural minnesota is really strong.
and i believe that is what lured them back here. host: that must have been good news for the county. how many jobs are coming back? caller: well, over a hundred on the line, but close to a thouse people. host: as county commissioner, you watch aws these debates in washington. the goal, particularly this debate is economic stimulus. what, as a local official do you think works best to get money back into the economy in a county like the one you serve? caller: well, we currently have a number of wind projects that have come into jackson town. host: are they federally funded? caller: it's all taxpayer money. what the wind company is a windy climate in jackson county so they're putting a lot of wind you are the bins here. that's been a great benefit because we do get a percentage of the electricity produced.
it's a very small percentage but it amounts to a lot of dollars. along those lines of energy, it's my understanding that we have built a line to the west coast to export powder river coal which is the highest quality of coal. i was wondering if c-span could look into that. host: thanks so much for william calling us, county commissioner in jackson county, minnesota. got into a different discussion there. any comments for him? guest: i think the idea of the payroll tax cut is to make sure that you have, is to stimulate the economy in places like where he's represented. host: twitter -- is there a
debate? is there a credible, viable debate going on about either moving or increasing the cap? guest: we haven't seen that yet. host: why not? guest: i think there's a question to how much money that would really generate. that the issue has mostly been focused on where the rate should be as opposed to who all is paying. host: next up is san antonio, mark, republican. good morning to you mark. caller: good morning to y'all. thanks very much. doing a great job. i have a couple of questions. . the first thing is, i was looking at some of the things y'all were talking about in detail here and i'm wondering if there are some foundational things that were missing here regarding some aspects of the original constitution, et cetera, et cetera. and i'm calling as an independent even though i got in on the republican line. recently my grandfather who was a cop for 30 years in virginia recently died and left me in his will.
i got to see how a will worked and i came across also something that had that same foundation as similar to our founding fathers in this hebrew's chapter 9, versus 13-17 which talked about a will and testament four times from a fellow that died and these founding fathers saying they left almost some other thing to continue to follow. it seemed like there's no accountability what's done with these taxes, et cetera, et cetera. you guys seem to have good knowledge on this stuff. i would like to hear your thoughts. host: thanks very much. i think that's on the inheritance tax. guest: the state tax is one of those issues that comes up as part of the bush tax cuts that were extended last year and will be part of the debate at the end of the 2012 and the bush tax cuts are up again. host: here is a comment from a maverick on twitter about the payroll tax cut.
writes funny how republicans like the payroll cut as temporary and bush tax cuts they want permanent. what about an expiration of them? is there inconsistency on what should be permanent and what should be temporary? guest: this is part of the debate right now. i think you've seen democrats kind of complain about this dynamic a little bit. those republicans when they were proposing the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 wanted them to be permanent. they were put in on a temporary basis because that helped with the budget process. so it's kind of defacto reason that they were made temporary. and you can see republicans like john kyle and the super commit tear always try to offer a plan that would make those tax cuts permanent.
host: here's some coverage in this morning's newspaper. we showed you the clip of boehner endorsing it at the beginning of the program. "wall street journal", in their story they write the vote suggests a disconnect who fear the politics of allowing a tax increase to hit all on january 1 rande many rank and file republicans who say the payroll tax cuts doesn't create jobs and propose. is there a disconnect between the rank and file? guest: it appears there is. i think you have seen some senate, some house and senate leaders kind of indicate on the republican side that republicans stand for lower taxes and so there's some concern about doing anything that would kind of go against that. but you have these conservative members, especially those who are newer, maybe some questioning members who were
elected the tea party backing who really insist that this is just bad policy. host: steven sloan there is a question about your organization from one of our viewers is bloomberg news owned by rupert myrrh dom. guest: we are not. host: who owns bloomberg news? caller: we are an independent company. host: let's show you some opinion pages by the payroll tax debate. first the "wall street journal" case, here's what they write.
host: do you have any comments on that? guest: well, i think the millionaire issue is really interesting because it's kind of developed over the past year. we've seen a number of votes where democrats where harry reid as tried to put democrats on -- excuse me, put republicans on the defensive here. and it seems like maybe that plan is working a little bit more than it has. kind of first launching at the end of last year. host: here's from the other side of the spectrum, "the baltimore sun" a lump of coal.
here's some of what they write. it's not simply that republicans would hold the well-being of millionaires over all others but they would do so under the guise that they are looking out for job creators as if the rich were chiefly responsible for growing the economy. guest: this is the whole crux of the debate right now in the tax policy world about, you know, when you tax the wealthy, whether that is really taxing. millionaires or whether that's taxing small business owners who just happen to report their business income on their personal income tax returns, which in turn kind of kicks them up over that million dollar
threshold. and this is absolutely the debate that will go forward. host: next call from pauls valley, oklahoma. hi karen. caller: hi. i know that they are discussing the budget. how come the republicans want to pay for this tax cut, but they never wanted to pay for the bush tax cuts? because their guys under the bush tax cuts was lower the tax cuts for the wealthy where it stimulates the economy and not only stimulate the economy, but the money would be rolling in to the federal coffers and that hasn't happened. and one more thing. while the republicans warrant us, the people that pay income,
that pay income tax, they want us to pay that tax and at the same time, they're telling us that social security is broke. so it's one way or the other. if social security is broke, then they shouldn't be taxing my -- be taxing me for the social security tax. if i'm not going to get it they want to cut, entitlements and at the same time make you continue to pay for them. host: thank you. guest: it's a very interesting point. republicans say right now that it would justen fiscally irresponsible to continue tax cuts without paying for them. but, you know, you heard people like the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi, yesterday say that she doesn't really understand why we didn't have to offset the bush tax cuts when there seems to be such an
imperative to offset the extension of the payroll tax. she said that she's open to it. she's happy to consider what she considers reasonable pay for an extension. i think that's the issue. host: brooklyn is our last caller. hello, jackie, independent. caller: yes. good afternoon. good morning. it looks to me -- how can the republicans continue to try to offset any cuts or benefits in the budget by kicking people out of their jobs? 200,000 more people, government workers -- i don't care whether they're government or private sector workers -- 200,000 people on the unemployment roles. how does that help us in the situation that we currently have at hand? i just don't understand.
sure, we can pay for this payroll tax cut, but we have to pay for it another way. not with someone else's job. that's all i have to say this morning. host: thank you, jackie. the controversial proposal. though it's important to note it's similar to a provision that was included in the simpson report that was a bipartisan deficit lee ducks proposal. host: so to close out here, since we heard speaker boehner is interested in finding a way to move this forward before the end of the year, what's the vehicle for that? what's going happen next after the vote last night? guest: i think the next week will be crucial. we'll see if there could be more message votes, if you will, on different offsets. but i think you've got a number of things kind of tracking to come together toward the end of the year that we should be pay attention to things like the so-called tax extenders, which package of tax breaks that are set to expire at the end of the year. there's a lot of interest in continuing those into 2012.
do those all get wrapped up into the same package before everyone heads home for the holidays? host: the senate is not in session today after votes last night. we'll look to next week to see how this might play out. thank you, steven sloan, writes about taxes for bloom news. -- for bloomberg news. as i mentioned, we're just two hours today because the house is in at 9:00 a.m. our next segment will be our regular friday feature "america by the numbers." we're going to be looking at america's changing demographics, the number of foreign-borne americans, legal and illegal, in the country and how that's changed over the last century. we'll be right back.
>> every weekend on american history tv the people events that document the american story. >> i guess it was 10:00, 11:00 in the morning bring stopped and said, hey, we're at war. then i got scared. >> says to me, help me. and i helped him to the boat, got him down in the boat. and he died on the way to ford island. out later who he was. he was my best friend. >> it's just as tough to go out there to the arizona memorial as it was then, as the day when i saw it burning. when i go out there and read those names up there, i'm done. i'm finished. >> this weekend, c-span 3 marks the 70th anniversary of the
attack on pearl harbor. eyewitness accounts of veterans and survivors, sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. also this weekend on "american artifacts" the founding of los angeles sunday at 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. and the panel discussion an how african-americans will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the civil war saturday at 10:00 p.m. and next weekend on "american history tv" more programs about the 70th anniversary pearl harbor as historians join us to take calls sunday, december 10. december 11. >> i look at why a country does well or why it doesn't. i think it's fundamentally a values thing. it's not natural resources. these are two really crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it, some places they don't. the u.s. we have exaggerated sense of how much control we have. but it's good for us to have that. >> this sunday, your questions
for author and columnist david brooks. he'll take your calls, e-mails, and tweets on a variety of topics including his best-selling books. david brooks, "in-depth" sunday at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2. >> it's so convenient to listen to c-span anytime, anywhere, with the free c-span radio app. you get streaming audio of c-span radio as well as all three c-span television networks 24/7. you can also listen to our interview programs, including "q & a." c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org/radioapp. "washington journal" continues. host: and on this friday morning i want to start this segment, "america by the numbers,"
foreign-borne population, look at two charts. the first one is the snapshot of the country that shows the foreign-borne population a percent of state population 1970. as you can see, just a few states have seen tan colored areas that indicate 5% to 9.9% of their population back in 1970 foreign borne. the highest among these actually was new york state which had between -- it had 11.6%. now, here's a new map. this is the country in 2010. look at the change over the course of the 40 years. now, look at the number of states which have a more significant foreign-borne population. many are now in red, which is 15% and over. and those include california, texas, florida, and new york. also, the states that are in this color here are 10% to 14%. and you can see the swath of states in the west and in the
east coast. we're going to talk about that with our two guests. let me introduce them to you. elizabeth is with the census bureau. her job there is to be the branch chief studying the foreign-borne population in the u.s. she's helped us assemble our numbers for today. rob is a staff writer for "congressional quarterly." and he's been following the debate over gym graduation in this country. thanks to both of you for being here. we're going to start digging into some of these charts and graves we've brought along. but the first one we've got here, elizabeth, is the summary of where this all goes. since 1970, the foreign-borne population has continued to increase in size and is a percent of the total population. today, the majority of foreign-borne are from latin america and asia. and considerable differences exist among the different country of birth groups and various characteristics. we're going to dig into those. and about one in four children under 18 in families have at least one foreign-born parent.
do these numbers surprise you or have you been watching every decade increase? guest: we're seeing a continuous increase since 1970 in both the size and the percent of the general foreign-born population. it has been pretty steady over the last four decades. >> is there a decade among the four where there was the biggest influx? would say one of the most important periods would be the late 1980's, about the 1990's, during that period. we saw a lot of growth in the foreign-born population. host: and robert, you're going to help us understand why. what has changed about the united states that there are so many more foreign-born people here as a percentage of the population over the last 40 years? guest: well, it comes down to employment opportunities. the economy usually drives both legal and illegal. and the conference right now is considering measure that would
either curtail that sorted of immigration on one side or actually make it easier for skilled employees to come over to the united states on the other side of the debate. host: so on the southern border, it's the continuing debate about the border to the south. and economic opportunity has been bringing them here. on the legal grimm immigration, give us an understanding basically how legal immigration works in this country. guest: well it depends on what sort of immigration you're talking about. there are work visas where you can come over, and it's usually a temporary visa. there's a set limit on it. you have to have a sponsor. there is also family -- actually what we call immigration related visas where you would be coming over, you have a family member who is related to you or you are related to someone who's working in the united states. and that's the green card
process. host: back to the charts. this one looks at how the country has looked demographically over the course of 150 years. 1850 through 2010. tell us what we're seeing here. guest: this is one of my favorite graves because i think it encapsulates a lot of our history over the lasted century. this chart shows the size -- how the size of the foreign-born population has changed considerably over the last 50 years this graph shows the size of the foreign-born population. and the percentage of the total population from 1850 to 2010. the red bars are the size of the total population. host: in millions. guest: in millions. thank you. and the blue line shows the percent of the total population that is represented by the foreign-foreign. now, generally the last four decades the foreign-born continued to increase. you can see in 1970, there were 9.6 million foreign-born. and by 2010, there were
40 million. by 2010 they represented just under 13%. we had a historic high in 2010. the one thing i want to point out is that the percent of the total foreign-born -- or the percent of the population represented by the foreign-born is actually lower than during the great migration wave of the late 1800's and early 1900's when it luck in yailted between 13 -- fluctuated between 13% and 15%. host: so near 100 years earlier, between 13% and 14% of all the american people were foreign-born. today it's speculated to be about 12.9%. is the difference that people did so legally? guest: that actually may be a
better question for the census. guest: i think it's hard to -- the immigration laws of the 1800's verse what's we have today. host: especially also european-bound. guest: exactly. guest: and we also, in 1965, with the comprehensive immigration overhaul, a quota system per country for the percent of immigrants that were allowed in. host: in fact, i wanted to put on screen, as we get into this and also invite people to join in the conversation, we asked our producers to bring together -- this is from your publication, as a matter of fact -- the major immigration -- the legislation over the past, oh, 50, 60 years. and here are those. the first, 1965, the immigration and nationality act of 1965, one
of our graphics here, and folks may remember the big debate that resulted in the 1986 simpson-mazzoli act. and 1996, the immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act. and currently under debate, of course, is the debate over the dream act, which is development release and education for alien minors. now, the simpson-mazzoli that passed during the reagan administration, how has that changed? guest: the two major changes made it allowed amnesty for immigrants who were in the country, i believe before 1982. and it also required employers to verify that their employees had legal status to work. those are sort of the two fundamental changes made. host: before we go to calls, we have different phone lines for this segment. we have one for people who are
foreign-born in the united states. if you'd like to tell us either your experience or help us understand how the policies have affected you and your family, and then a line for all others. foreign-born line -- host: we'll mix all of those comments in. can you also tweet us, send us an e-mail as well. before we get to first calls, elizabeth, i would like to have you go back to the maps we opened up with. i'll once again put one over the top of the other so we can look at them kind of side-by-side. what are the most interesting trends to note when we look at a graphic display of the states with the biggest immigration? guest: i love these maps because
it really shows the change in the foreign-born population through time. i think about the 1970 map, that is so exciting to me, is instead of focusing just on new york being the state with the highest percent foreign-born, look at the map overall. the majority of all states had less than 5% foreign-born in 1970. and even today we associate the states with large amounts of highest immigration such as california, florida, new york, illinois. they had less than 10% foreign-born in their total population. now we skip forward to 2010, and, again, the legend is the same. the colors have the same meetings. but one of the striking things, again, if you look at the map overall, it's the color difference. now most states have more than 5% foreign-born in their total populations. several states have over 15%
foreign-born as you mentioned earlier. california, new york, new jersey florida, nevada, texas, and massachusetts. and a couple of other interesting statistics. one in every four residents of new york and new jersey are -- excuse me. one in every five residents in new york and new jersey are foreign-born. and one in every four residents in california are foreign-born. host: so california has the highest percentage of foreign-born population in the nation right now at 27.2% and the second highest, new york state at 22.2%. the third highest in florida, 19.4%, texas, 16.4% of the population is foreign-born. a question that's interesting, what it about illinois, in the middle of the country, that has always, even in the 1907's had a higher -- had the higher percentage? guest: i think it's the industries, job base in
illinois. host: so as robert pointed out, always economics that drives people to migrate from their homes to other places around the world. let's begin with a telephone calls. lorton, virginia. jackie on our foreign-born line. where's your country of origin, jackie? [inaudible] host: and how long have you been in the united states? caller: since 1977. host: how did you come here originally? caller: i came originally to the states as a result of my ambition. when i was a teenager, i was listening to "voice of america," the jazz music, was admiring so much the values of the american people and culture that presented the decency of a human being and the ambition of a human being. and then i came here, i was
employed by one of the businesses here. then, you know, i got married. i met a lady, we fell in love, got married and became a citizen. host: you first came on what kind of visa? caller: a diplomatic visa initially. host: and as you watched and listened to our country debate immigration policy now what are your thoughts about the big debate in this country over immigration? caller: well, i think there used to be the kind of immigration policy that was selective based on mostly business interests, that the laws were supportive of bringing in workers, laborerrers who are cheap laborerrers or
those who can work the jobs that the americans or occasional wouldn't do. and over the years this has actually affected -- what i see here is that the culture of america that has attracted so much -- so many people around the world has been diminishing to such an extent and has actually over the years affected negatively. even the national security of the country. because it's not collective anymore based on education or certain factors that would enhance the united states' stability, innovative ambition.
mostly based on economic interests. host: thank you. i'm going to jump in because our time will run out very quickly here. thank you for sharing your story. any comments for him? guest: there are 140,000 work visas allowed per year. and that is an area where there are qualifications. differentseveral types of visas for specialty education, specialty workers, as well as for non-skilled workers. so that is still a driver. i think one interesting point that he brought up was the debate over economics. i think now that you've seen the economy tighten up a bit, what's entered into the equation much more in the debate is this idea of are americans going to be competing these visa workers, both the high-skill level and the low-skill level so that's something that right now is the immigration debate. host: i'm not sure your staff
answered this question on twitter. do you have projections that will tell us when the majority will be minorities? onst: we have information projections on our census bureau website. but we don't do it by immigration status. host: let's go back to your chart. what's interesting sheer we look at the foreign-born population in the united states by region experts. again, this is a period of 1960 through 2010. the european population declining but not dramatically so. immigrants coming from europe. but the big influx, as we said at the outset, of latin american and caribbean natives come together country and also a huge growth in asians. will you tell us a little more about that? guest: yes. this is another graph i really of what it says about what has happened to the foreign-born population over the last several decades. as you pointed out, the european population has declined, but
it's really stabilized at about to five million by 2010. but you also see that the number of foreign-born from both latin america, the caribbean, and asia, has grown rapidly. especially after 1960. so for example, in 1960, there than one million foreign-born from latin america. and by 1960 there were 21.2 million. another statistic for the asia foreign-born, less than .5 million in 1960 but by 2010 there were 11.3 million. and another interesting thing this graph is that you can see that the portion of the foreign-born from the different regions has changed. in 1960, about 75% of all foreign-born were from europe. by 2010, the proportion was 80% from asia and latin america. so, again, what's happening is not so much the change in the
size of the european foreign-born population but really the foreign-born from latin america and asia. host: so by twitter -- guest: yes. that's it right there. host: it was at about 6%? guest: yes. host: question for you. we talked about one contributor to the latin american up tick, the border question. but what about asians, the jump in asians, coming here? how are they coming, legally or illegally mostly? guest: well that really is a mix. there does tend to be a large legal immigrant population from asia. and, again, i'm a broken record here, but it really does come down to the economy when you look at those percentages, when you look at the countries that are sort of economically stable, offer a the lot of opportunities versus in asia, latin america, we have a lot of people who we live in a global economy, they're look for opportunities,
they're increasingly better educated. and it makes sense, immigration makes sense for those populations. host: next up is barbara calling from new york city. hello. caller: good morning. three quick points, please. people call c-span all the time and complain about illegal aliens coming from mexico. but my understanding is that most of the illegal aliens are students or people who come here on student visas and then simply overstay the visas. and these people come from europe, the middle east and everywhere. it's not just mexico. second point is, i don't understand why we haven't put a moratorium on immigration with our unemployment rate at 9%. it seems foolish to me to keep letting people, more and more people, come here. and thirdly, the other day the house of representatives passed h.r.3012 which they were saying on the floor was supposed to -- it would not increase the total number of visas, but it would
increase the percentage that each country was allowed to send. but when i actually looked at at the amendment, i didn't seat word percentage in there anywhere. i saw an increase in numerical limitations. perhaps your guests could talk about that. host: thank you so much. the first question was mexican versus people coming in on student visas. actually does this particular chart answer that question? guest: not 100%. i want to make sure the viewers understand that the census bureau does not collect data on the legal status other than citizen or non-citizen. what this does show is support in the total foreign-born population the red bars show the size of the foreign-born population in millions, and the column of numbers to the right of the chart is the percent of the total foreign-born population. so, for example, the foreign-born from mexico represents 11.7 million people
in the united states, and 29% of the total foreign-born population. the next largest foreign-born group is from china, including -- which is about 2.2 million people, representing about 5% of the foreign-born. and there are several other countries with at least a million foreign-born in the united states including india, philippines, vietnam, el salvador, cuba, and korea. host: so if we can bring the camera in closer as we listen to our next caller, mexico by far the largest foreign-born population both in percentage and hard numbers and -- in the united states right now. city is next. this is frank who is on our foreign-born line. hello, frank. where is your origin? caller: germany. host: how long have you been here, sir? caller: 70 years. host: what brought you originally?
jewish and i wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the united states. host: so give us your perspective on the way the country is today and the big debate about our immigration policy. caller: i live in jackson heights, which is a tremendous amount of new immigrants. and the bottom line, it's still a land of opportunity. but, of course, today with the communication and transportation, immigrants have still a connection to my country. to me, i wanted to be an american. i didn't want to speak anything but english. so the question is, the new immigrants, how fast -- especially their children -- become, quote, americanized and less concerned about what they consider as "my country." host: thank you very much. can we move ahead to -- i think it answers the question for that caller which is percent yang of
foreign -- percentage of foreign-born population with language spoken at home. guest: this shows the percent of the foreign-born population that speaks either only english at home or speaks another language at home but speaks english very well. and i'd like your viewers to focus on the numbers at the top of the bar. as you can see, about half of the foreign-born population has pretty good language skills. they either speak onliening learn or -- only english or another language at home and speak english very well. as the caller suggested, there is considerable variation among the country in the groups. about 73% of the foreign-born from india either speak only english at home or speak another language but speak english very well. compare this to, say, the foreign-born from mexico where only about 28% have english speaking ability. host: one factor might be the predominance of english in their
country of origin. guest: yes. host: and vietnam also has a low percentage. guest: yes. only about 32%. host: as does china, 39%. the nextel phone call -- next telephone call -- i'm sorry. you have a comment? guest: just to the caller's point of when do these populations become american. even if you do -- it really does depend on environment, percentage, and how much of a population groups together in neighborhoods. but even you go into these areas of the very high concentration from a particular country, they do identify very strongly as americans. host: st. petersburg, florida. welcome to the discussion. caller: i'm calling because i was born in venezuela. i've lived here for 35 years. i came legal. i came as a student. then i got married. i became a citizen. but i made the decision.
i am a citizen because this is my country and my politics and my country is not important anymore. now, my question is when i decide to bring someone to work in my house, i sign papers with immigration that i would be responsible for any expense that that person would occur in the country, like a maid. i would have to pay her medical. and i would be able to bring them legally. what's happened is the government is not enforcing this to corporations and manufacturers and farmers. they rather bring the illegals because they don't have to sign an agreement that if they have to go to an emergency room or they cause an accident they get away with benefiting from cheap labor without assuming the responsibility. who assumes the responsibility? the taxpayers. and they are depleting the country this country, all the american, hard-working people are having to pay for all these
employers of illegal that the government is allowing. so they're bleeding medicare, social security. and i feel, why? what is happening here? host: ok. thanks, adrianna. robert? guest: well, this is one of the stronger arguments for comprehensive immigration overhaul on both sides of the argument. this idea that employers do have to check more thoroughly for immigration status of the basically, if you make it both easier on the immigrant and on the employer, you benefit society as a whole, that you don't run into these situations where the taxpayer is left on the hook. there are, you know, people who argue from one side or the other, but there is a bit of a middle ground there. host: an e-mail, do you think congress will ever pass comprehensive immigration reform?
guest: well, not this congress. it was considered to be sort of -- it's considered dead in the water right now. the administration is pushing for it. there are immigrant advocacy groups who wish it would push for it harder. but it was considered a very tough sell in the last congress where you had a democratic house and a democratic senate. now that you have a democratic senate and a republican house, it is pretty much not going to happen in the session. host: we've divided our lines differently for this segment, half an hour to go. we have a line for people who are foreign-born, all others watching, and then people watching outside the united states. we'll put those numbers on the a littlecause they are different. here's a tweet from tony who just wants us to know, i am foreign-born, i chose to be an american, i am not an accidental accident. and here is dan in ohio who writes about the first chart. how apropos to put the states in the highest level of clearly what sill legal immigration is
red. this is where the states are financially and it is a very positive correlation. the clear cause and effect. this is directly and indirectly the cause of so many of our housing and financial problems, not to mention unemployment and wages. anything for ben? guest: well, i'm sure rick perry would agree, particularly when it comes to the employment numbers. at, for example, texas, which is doing very well. also, when you look at the census figures, that is not an illegal immigration number. that is a total number. of course, there is a breakdown for each side. but that's really not what those numbers say at all. host: and d.w. in seattle, a regular viewer, sends this by e-mail. the melting pot is our strength if it was up to me, i would let anyone willing to swear an oath of loyalty willing to become a u.s. citizen. the oath would only take a few minutes and would be administered in the native language. we do have a graphic that talks about what is necessary to qualify for u.s. citizenship. let's take a look at that.
this is something, again, from the u.s. citizenship in immigration service. you must have a green card for at least five years or three years if the green card was obtained through u.s. citizen spouse or the violence against women act. you have to be at least 18 years of age. you have to demonstrate continue residency, demonstrate moral character. i have to ask how that's demonstrated. pass english, u.s. history and civics exams. pay a $680 application fee. and there are exemptions for members of the military who serve in time of war. guest: to the good moral character question it comes down to a criminal record. and, of course, all immigration cases are watched by c.i.s. and they have a certain list of qualifiers. that's the easiest way to quantify that particular characteristic. host: back to our charts. we'll go through these quickly. this is the percentage of foreign-born population from
central america, from 1960 to 2010. we can see that it has continued to rise each decade with about 37%. the next one breaks down how many of those are from mexico versus other places in central america. and the overwhelming numbers is from mexico. guest: the big drive of foreign-born immigration from central america. the other number has states fairly -- stayed fairly consistent through the decades, 6% in the 1990's, 7% in the 2000's, and about 8% right now. guest: a little growth but not a lot. host: let's see what's next here. this looks 2005 forward. why is this interesting to look at? foreign-born population in 2010 who came to live in the u.s. guest: that just -- it looks at -- this shows the proportion of the foreign-born in 2010, that they arrived in 2005 or later. so it looks at the new arrivals.
folks that came, you know, within the last five or six years. about 17% of the foreign-born came to live in the united states in 2005 or later. but the interesting differences among the country in both groups. so for example, about 14% of the foreign-born from mexico came to live in the united states after 2005 compared to about 28% from india. so what this is telling us is that india has a lot more than, say, the foreign-born from mexico. how. host: friday we get jobless numbers. the new numbers are that the jobless rate in the united states has declined to 8.6% so we've broken that 9% barrier 689 the lowest rate in the united states in two years, the number of new jobs on the payroll in the last month, 120,000. let's go back to telephone calls. jacksonville, florida. lyle on the foreign-born line.
where's your country of origin? caller: it's lionel. i was born in the dominican republic. when you cameed here, how long ago? caller: i was only 6 1/2, about 42 years ago. host: and your parents immigrated under what circumstances? caller: my dad, lionel sr., shoutout to dad, he made the decision to come here for political reasons. he was a student and activist in the dominican republic. host: so you came at the age of 6. did you eventually become a u.s. citizen? caller: actually, no. i'm still a permanent resident/alien. why did you make that decision? caller: umm, i don't know. it just sort of happened. i serve 20d years in the -- 20 years in the service, i'm retired. and now that my dad has finally become a citizen -- did he -- he
did last year, i've decided to do it this year. host: since you came as such a young person, do you follow the immigration debate? and do you have an opinion about it that is different from your friends who were born here? caller: well, i don't know if it's different. i do resent the term "alien." and having served in the military, i see so many people that are from different places that are more recent immigrants that are even higher skilled or have advanced degree that are serving, and i don't know if people would take them into account or give them any value. i don't hear a lot about it. i was wondering -- i called in because i was wondering if you had any numbers as far as how many immigrants are currently serving. host: thank you so much.
i don't think i saw any numbers about people who are serving. but would you explain how it works, the foreign-born nationals in the u.s. military? guest: it depends on how they came into the country. but there is a path of citizenship for all foreign-born legal residents. the military is one of the factors that is considered in immigration application and really does depend on if they're looking for permanent residence versus citizenship. host: this next chart actually reflects our last caller who came and is here legally but never became an american citizen what are we looking at here? guest: this shows the percentage of foreign-born population who are natural u.s. citizens from 1970 to 2010. as you can see in 1970, 54% to
64% of the foreign-born population were naturalized citizens. and by 1990, that number declined to 40% and then increased to about 44% in 2010. host: so 20% fewer people are becoming naturalized citizens. is that how you read that? guest: well, not quite. because this is stock data. one of the factors that determines the proportion of naturalized in the foreign-born population is duration of residents, how long the average immigrant has been in the united states. because the longer they've been in the united states, the more likely they are to have naturalized, generally speaking. so, for example in 1964, the residents, half of the foreign-born, were here 20 years or longer. by 1990 that number had dropped to about 12 years so about half of the population has been here 12 years or more, half 12 years or less, and by 2010 that number
has gone up again to about 16 years. host: francisco is watching us and is calling on our foreign-born line. where's home originally for you, francisco? caller: i am from brazil. i can safely say that 80% of all the latin americans in the united states come from central america, colombia. recently because of u.s. foreign policy, from el salvador, nicaragua, problems in colombia. those people don't go to sweden, they come here. they don't go to italy to moscow. when the war happened in vietnam, same thing. where did go? they come to the united states. i see more than half of the immigration coming to the united states as a result of poor foreign policy. i came here from brazil. i can tell you the average
braziliaen will stay about 10 to 12 years and then return home. more than half of them never take u.s. citizenship. why? it's very dangerous to become a u.s. citizen today because of tax reasons and all kinds of other reasons. more and more educated foreigners do not take the u.s. citizenship for these financial reasons. and finally, i want to say that for this fiscal, january to than one million visas have been issued by u.s. government to foreign professionals. so there's a lot of -- you have all kinds of data. but the main trend -- now adays most countries allow government citizenships. there is no reason to be u.s. citizen. you see? and the main reason, professional people do not want to be subject to rich tax laws.
thank you. host: thank you. let's put some numbers on the air from the u.s. citizen and immigration service about the number of visas issued. said a large portion were economically based. here are the numbers. 226,000 family sponsored visas annually. 140,000. so considerably less, actually. almost 100,000 less employment-based visas. and countries are limited to no more than 7%. so he says it's tax policy in the united states that keeps most immigrants from becoming citizens. guest: i don't think that most immigrants would avoid citizenship as a tax dodge. i do actually -- one of the previous callers said i just don't know why i haven't become a citizen. i think that's a very common case. think it also relates to the idea of, you know, another
caller brought up visa overstays. i think that's an issue where there are people who sort of might not just think about citizenship residency on a daily basis. in fact, a large percentage of the visa overstays are people who just don't realize they have overstayed their visas. so in response to that caller, i it's really a tax issue. i do also think that there is data from, say, the chamber of commerce, that shows that the number of people seeking professional visas, the hard caps aren't really restrange that much i know the chamber of commerce has said for the high skilled visa retreat is capped at, i believe, $68,000 a year. when the cap was up to $195,000 in the early part from 2001 to 2003. they never actually hit that cap. host: back to the census bureau and their statistics. this chart looks at percentage
of the foreign-born top layings who are naturalized citizens by country of birth. what have we learned from this? guest: this shows the proportion of foreign-borns who are naturalized citizens at about 44%. but as we see in most of the social demographic and economic characteristics, there's a lot of variability. so, for example, 75% of the foreign-born from vietnam and 65% of the foreign-born from the philippines are naturalized citizens compared to about 23% of the foreign-born from mexico. one of the things i want to mention really quickly is the homeland security immigration has done research on green card the rate of naturalization, related to the last caller, they are finding that now people are naturalizing actually earlier than they used to naturalize. and the recent green card holders are actually naturalizing at a higher rate
those who have had their green cards for a longer period of time. host: a call from new york. and then we've got some interesting statistics about education and your country of origin. new york city is up next. this is shirley. hello, shirley, calling us from the city. you're on the air. caller: yes. worked with a lot of foreigners from other countries and what not. their goal is they come here, they educate their children, they get all the benefits, you know, they do pay into social security and everything, but in the meantime, they're building homes in their country to take back there for retirement and everything. i think it's very unfair that they take the united states back to another country and don't spend it here. i think that needs to be stopped. one more thing. a lot of the mexican foreigners
that are coming here to this country, i thought they were here to make a better life for they self. how are you going to make a better life for yourself if you're not really getting the education, learning how to speak english here to communicate with other people and all you're doing is just baring children, baring children? and then you see them, they can't get any benefits but their children, they get welfare, they get wic, they get medicaid and everything. if you're going to make a better life for yourself, while you're having four, five, six kids, you know, that needs to be looked into. host: thank you so much for your call from new york city. talks about ability to collect social benefits when you are here illegally. is this fair, is it safe to say? guest: it's been a source of debate lately because there are state laws put in place, for example, the very strict alabama
laws that forbids colleges from accepting illegal immigrants. and i'm assuming she's talking about illegal immigrants there. i also want to go to the point of economic drivers. and i'm going to go back to the chamber of commerce here because they do point out that immigrants are economic drivers. whether or not they're reinvesting their money into u.s. or into their home countries, immigrants, as employees, are good for the u.s. economy. host: you just saw one of three stories found in the papers this morning that have to deal with the immigration state in the country. alabama trains officers on immigrant law, leading to a series of police mishaps. also in "the new york times," arizona see a boom in voting age of hispanics. democrats sense opportunity for obama. and this -- the voting age population of hispanics in arizona has surged over the last nine years to 845,000 from
455,000 and now opportunities 19% of arizona residents of voting age. so the political outcomes of this could be significant. guest: this is the political situation, particularly in the southern states, where you have a very high voting age population that typically would be sympathetic to immigrant causes. you also have a very suckiesful -- successful number of politicians who can play up to immigrant regulation issues and get rose voters who have a probm with immigrant numbers so it's kind of a trap. they want the immigrant vote and yet the anti-immigrant vote is also a very safe demographic. guests are with us until the top of the hour. rob covers immigration policies
for his publication, and elizabeth is at the census bureau. she's a chief at the bureau. a comment from twitter. do you mean to tell me we can arrange oil pipeline from canada to mexico but lack where the with all to create a fair immigration policy? we're talking about how our country looks demographically and foreign-born populations. back to the census numbers. these are about education. guest: the first one shows the percentage of the population with a high school degree or higher education by nativeity status. host: right to the lowest number. guest: the education repayment, 40% of the foreign-born from mexico have a high school degree or higher education compared with over 90% of the foreign-born from india and the
philippines. host: and the interesting thing is the immigrants from india and the philippines actually have higher high school attainment than the entire u.s. population or the native born which is 886% over-- 86% overall in the u.s. guest: and to the next graph. this is the percent of the total population with a bachelor's degree or higher. before it was high school or higher, now it's bachelors degree or higher. host: and here's mexico. guest: india, almost 3/4 of the foreign-born population from india has a bachelor's degree or higher. about 28% of the total population. who areose of you watching might be surprised that just about 28% of all americans have a bachelor's degree or higher, less than 30%. and, again, if you look at folks from india, 74% of them have at least a bachelor's degree. 50% of them coming here from the
philippines, and 50% coming from china. is that partially policy driven? guest: it's driving the debate right now, which is the high-skilled visa debate. i know a previous caller mentioned that the current bill of the house just passed would lift the percentage caps, though it wouldn't change the total number. and the argument behind that from supporters of the bill has been when you do have countries like china, like india that have a very high-skilled, highly educated population why would you cap that at 7% where other countries may not be able to contribute that high of a percentage? there are arguments against that. that is the logic driving the bill. chart is actually the inverse 6 what we just -- of what we just looked at. education is -- [inaudible] this is the percentage of poverty by nativeity status. mexico, which had the lowest
education population, also has the highest in poverty. also we saw the highest education in india and the philippines and china and it exons. only 4% of those folks are in poverty in this country. how do you define poverty? guest: using a set of money income thresholds that varies by a family's size and composition. and that will determine who is in poverty. host: on the education debates, this tweet. it costs about $1 a year for a master's degree in india, maybe it's because we have the highest cost for education. is a call from new york city. this is a foreign-born line. hello. where is your country of origin? caller: i am from middle east, cairo, egypt. host: and how long have you been in the u.s.? caller: about 13 years. host: and what brought you originally?
caller: what? host: why did you come? caller: immigration here. now i am a senior. i have point of view about the person who come from outside to america. i think the american visa is very, very expensive. it should be -- it should be given to anyone who have skills and more education and is not given to anyone else. and also i have a point of view that it should be the person who would come here, as i told you, have more education and skills. and then the demand for other states, states like who have low
low -- the personble] who would come should be directed to the states who have little populations, not in new york and texas and california that is very, very populated states. and there are a lot of the states who have no population like this to prevent more populations in this. this state whoa suffer from religion here because everyone come one or two in the states like new york. host: thanks. we're going to have to run because we have about four minutes left. i'd like to put a tweet on -- looking at our last numbers.
these charts are clearly showing how uneducated our mexican imgrants really are. but let me put this on, which is participation in the labor force. and here, by country of birth, the mexican is among the highest, 71%. what does this chart tell us? guest: what's interesting about this is that there is variability among the country of birth group. it's not that wide. the percent of the foreign-born population does have a higher force participation rate from the native born. but the foreign-born from china, about 67% verse a foreign-born from india and the philippines at 73%. there's a lot of competition -- a lot of effects that could ultimately determine the overall of labor force participation rates. so, for example, education attainment and labor force participation rates, occupational distribution, who's making what, in which occupations, language ability,
average age, for example a high proportion are over 65. also, males tend to participate in the labor force more than women. so part of the variability -- you have to break this down a little bit further. this graph just sort of scratched the surface. host: and this suggests to us that people are coming here and working when they get here which goes to the first point you made. guest: absolutely. and, you know, as far as the education issue, one of the issues that congress will talk about is low-skilled, lower wage workers are also an important part of the economy. so when you're talking about immigrants coming over, you know, you're not just looking for the engineers, the doctors. i are looking for an entire work force. host: you left led us -- just led us into our next chart. the red in this chart are people working in service of course occupations. and you can see the highest among vietnamese at 32% and mexicans at 31% what else can we
learn about this? guest: and the dark blue segment is the management, business, science. host: and once again india knock us out of the park here. guest: and these occupations would be the higher skilled, the lawyers, doctors, engineers, chemists. it's interesting that about better half of the both the native and foreign-born population are in these groups. but, again, there's a lot of dye diversity in both groups. host: we're quickly running out of time. the indians are also making the most money. a lot more than than the native-born. guest: yeah, median range much higher. host: $70,000 from those from india versus the -- mexicans by contrast, $23,000 median earnings. let's get this tweet. in georgia i have to sign an affidavit if i'm a u.s. citizen or not to get my driver's license renewed yet nobody license renewed yet nobody controls our