tv Washington Journal Chris Chmielenski Discusses Immigration Enforcement CSPAN July 1, 2017 8:30am-9:01am EDT
who are not able to feed their children? these are the questions we argue about but often it gets reduced to i don't like this people across the street. you are on with paul waldman. caller: i would like to know why we can't just have single-payer. it would cut the cost of ceo's across insurance and doctors and hospitals. it would save billions of dollars. the other thing i want to say is, if we are so far in debt, 20 trillion plus dollars, where they talking about tax cuts? that seems to be stupid. thank you. isst: on single-payer, rapidly becoming not quite the consensus but a majority opinion and the democratic party we should move to a single-payer health care system. one thing i want to warn people about is to be sure when you say
single-payer you understand what you are talking about. if you look at the rest of the world, every industrialized democracy has a universal health-care system that covers everyone much cheaply -- much more cheaply, but the british system of the socialized system. you have systems were people get highly regulated by private insurance. there are hybrid systems and supplemental insurance on top of it. when we say we like single-payer, we have to be clear about what it is we're talking about. the more socialized the system you are looking at, the more difficult it is the transition from where we are now to what that's going to be. i think that's going to be something that is an important debate democrats will be having over the next three years. by the time we get to 2020, i would happy surprise surprised if most candidate supports event of single-payer. there are a lot of different ways we can go when we say single-payer. we have to understand what it means for we say that.
paul waldman,- thank you so much for joining us today. guest: my pleasure. host: we will have chris chmi elenski to talk about recent immigration enforcement actions taken by the trump administration and congress. ofer on, claire suddath bloomberg businessweek this causes her piece on the gender wage gap in the u.s. and other companies are working to close it. we will be right back. >> coming up over the fourth of july holiday on c-span twos tv, monday john the quarter discusses his book talking back, talking black. >> i wanted to see if i could
make the general public have a more positive view of the dialect that most black americans use in casual situations. >> on tuesday at 7:15 a.m. eastern, author and historian david the college with his book "the american spirit: who we are and what we stand for." >> if you get knocked down, don't live there and whimper and wine. get back up on your feet and continue on. something we all need to be reminded of. and are reminded of by the examples set in this story of her own country. >> cap 1:30 p.m., mike lee with his book "written out of history: the forgotten founding fathers who fought the government." >> title think anyone can comprehend what happened in philadelphia in 1787 unless they read both sides of the argument.
unless you read the arguments of the anti-federalists and the arguments of the federalists, it appears to tilt more in the direction of federal power than the effective. >> at 2:30 p.m., jenna bush hager and barbara peters bush with their book "sisters first: stories from our wild and wonderful life." >> we felt unbelievably protective of them. odd howthought it was protectively were, but we saw ourselves in them. when our grandfather became president and when they left the white house, they were the same age who are when i got became president. being a teenager with you that as president is not always easy, but it's also incredibly rewarding. >> at 8:45 p.m., condoleezza rice discusses her book "democracy: stories from the long road to freedom." >> democratic states they can deliver for their own people don't invade her neighbors. they don't traffic and child
soldiers who are 10 and 11 years old. they don't traffic in the human sex trade so women end up in brothels in eastern europe and southeast asia. europe and southeast asia. they don't harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. as democracies, they don't fight each other. it is called the democratic peace. >> go to book tv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is chris ofielenski, the director content and activists at numbers usa. he is here to discuss the recent immigration enforcement action taken by the trump administration and congress. thank you for joining us today. let's remind our viewers what is numbers usa. guest: where the nation's largest immigration grassroots organization, with more than 8 million activists in all
districts across the country. we help those activists connect with members of congress. we have members in all 435 districts and we have been around for about 20 years. host: let's talk about the action announced this week, a couple of bills passed. the house on thursday passed two hard-line immigration bills that would penalize limit immigrants in localit crimes jurisdictions that refuse to work with federal authorities to support them. both passed a largely partyline votes, with heavy emotion from republicans starting with president trump who tweeted "make america safe again." tell us what you think of those bills and what they do and where you stand on them. guest: first, we are very supportive of the act the house judiciary committee passed. both the thank you very cities
bill in case law were pulled from the dennis oliver act. they wrote the bill into a couple of pieces. we are hoping they address the other issues. it was pass the regular order through the committee process. the important one is the secondary cities piece. the legislation. that is a really good step forward. it better clarifies the definition of sanctuary city, sanctuary jurisdiction in federal law. it is a bit ambiguous right now. it more clearly defines what a sanctuary jurisdiction is and what the federal government is looking for from these jurisdictions. the second thing is impose penalties on cities that failed to cooperate with federal immigration efforts. that is something not currently in federal code so it is needed. basically what it does is it penalizes and withholds grants and department of justice, mostly law enforcement
grants. the cities would be a will to receive host: some mayors in places like new york, san pushedco, boston have back saying it makes it harder for police to investigate and fight crime if you have people who are afraid to report them, which they fear will happen. with the you say to that? guest: on the flipside there are a number of sheriffs that say the opposite. folksaid they prosecute in the country illegally in normal fashion. they don't treat them any differently than they treat folks in the country legally or u.s. citizens and sells. -- themselves. they haven't had any issues. i think it is more of a political issue. you have sheriffs that are a little bit more supportive, a little bit more open to folks in the country illegally. and obviously you have some that are a little bit more hard-line. they are basically just taking political positions.
there was not a lot of data that supports any sort of statement that says that if a city fails to cooperate with the federal government and the efforts to enforce immigration law, that has an impact on everyday law enforcement in those cities. law: the other bill, case penaltiesaw, tougher on people that repeatedly into the country illegally. let's look at john conyers and his remarks on the floor this week about the law. [video clip] >> perpetuates the fiction that immigrants are somehow inherently criminal. nothing could be further from the truth. studies examining this issue conclude that immigrants actually commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than
nativeborn americans. given this legislation's defects, incomes as no surprise that organizations across the nation join with me in opposition. they include the conservative cato institute, which called hr-3004 "a waste of resources that fails to safeguard americans against serious criminals." host: what is your response? guest: unfortunately, is not really relevant to what the bill actually does. it increases penalties for repeat illegal border crossers. it does not impact folks that are in the country illegally now. what it does is it impacts folks that continuously cross the southern border or even the northern border and come through one of the many ports of entries illegally multiple times.
all it does is increase the penalty the judge has discretion with. they have stripped the mandatory sentences for the one that came to the floor the other day. again, it just increases the penalties. it doesn't affect anybody in the country currently, unless they had illegally crossed the border multiple times and illegally present in the u.s. host: dan on the democratic line from ottawa, illinois. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a democrat. we are a nation of laws. i think what we start ignoring laws and ignoring people that come here legally, that sends a message to the rest of the american public that what is next? what is the next law we can ignore? i think the media is complicit is fakeand that cnn news and info wars israel news
-- is real news. guest: i do agree. we are a nation of laws. i think all the trump administration is trying to do is enforce the law fairly and equally. enforce the laws that have already been passed by congress. many of these loss down the books for more than 20 years. some of these immigration enforcement laws on the books. when you start treating some folks differently because they have a certain immigration status, we have lost her folks in the country illegally. we have lost her folks that are not in the country legally, they came to the legal channels, and u.s. citizens. the bottom line is we have a law and it should treat all those different groups equally. i think that is all the administration and these bills passed by congress are trying to do. treat folks equally across statuses. host: what are the chances they passed the senate? guest: certainly the white house
issued an endorsement of both president -- president trump met with families of victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens earlier this week. he push for passage of the sanctuary cities bill, kate's l aw, and reinforced his support for the davis all over act. it will be tough because the filibuster rules. they need 60 votes. you did see some democrats cross party lines on those bills. three or four cross party lines on the secondary cities built. about a dozen cross lines on kate law. it has a chance in the senate. host: we saw the supreme court allowed a partial enforcement of the president's travel ban this --k, allowing some folks allow the president to stop some evil from entering and others are exempt -- stop some people from entering and others are exempt. there are legal challenges in
places like hawaii that quibble about the number of people let in and the number -- definition should be broader. president of the american immigration lawyers association says the government is walking a perilous line by using such a restrictive definition. i think the administration's interpretation is much more narrow and what the supreme court order allows. talk about who is allowed in. is that a definition to restrict? current federal law allows the president to suspend immigration for national security interests. byse countries identified the trump administration were previously identified by the obama administration under president obama. they suspended the visa waiver program for nationals from these six countries that were coming through the visa waiver countries.
they have been identified by both administrations as countries that are hot that for terrorism. -- hotbeds for terrorism. we don't know what the white house has in terms of security threats, national security threats from these six countries. the president felt it was important enough to temporarily suspend a 90 day pause on pause onon and 120 day refugees from these countries. federal law allows the president to suspend immigration in cases of national security. language supreme court says a bona fide relationship with someone here in united states. you can exclude grandparents. the you think the administration is doing to narrow over reading of that supreme court order? we have our leasing the challenges start to come in. guest: that will be up for interpretation certainly.
the supreme court only rolled on the conjunction. they have yet to will on the actual merits of the case. doubled up happen until fall. we will find out how the supreme court decides. -- way the the wave homeland security department will implement it. family members could be affected by this. all the current law calls for, which the supreme court was supporting and trump was trying to go by when he implemented these executive orders, all it says is they can suspend immigration for any class of people in the interest of national security. we will have to wait for the courts to hash this out and for them to decide what a bona fide relationship is. does it only included nuclear family members or include the extended family? host: mike from florida on the independent line. you are on with chris chmielenski.
caller: hi, everybody. i really enjoy your show. chris, this is mostly for mr. walden previously. i am independent. the democrats can work with moderate republicans. you can see in the republican party the moderates are kind of against the tea party, the far righters and the trump administration is a real conundrum. i just feel a lot of the senators and representatives of congress and the house are vehemently opposed to trump. a lot of his policies are very strange. host: we are talking about immigration but i will ask chris, the you think there is room for bipartisanship on immigration policy? that has been a tough thing to
achieve. for a long time -- achieve for a long time. guest: we did some polling in missouri. the senator there is one of the democrats up for reelection in 2018. it is a state that trump won in the election in 2016. the american people want to see changes to the legal immigration system, and also see some enforcement. you see broad support in most polls for some sort of these policy issues. i think the caller hit on a key point. when you connect these issues of century city's to president trump, you see lower levels of support. when you ask a standalone cities, about sentury you get more support. there is support amongst democrats in the country to deal with sanctuary cities in a
productive way, a positive and productive way. the best way to help the federal law enforcement enforce immigration laws. at the same time they want to see legal immigration laws reformed. i think there is a little bit of gamesmanship. they are trying to position themselves with a be coming down the line. -- with what may be coming online. host: you are a former history teacher in gainesville, florida and account executive from waaf in boston. you mentioned my love for the red sox. dhs john kellye, announced a potential expansion visas -- a breitbart report says reformers are pushing back against the department from insecurity --
homeland security's decision so more foreign contract workers can take more american jobs. numbers usa reports secretary kelly will increase the number of visas for fiscal year 2017 are untrue. talk about that a little bit in what is your view. guest: this is an interesting situation. you have senator tom tell us of north carolina who is very pro-enforcement. if these bills came to the senate floor, he was support them. he is pushing for more h2v's. senator durbin will whip against these bills and opposing a possible increase of the visas. numbers usa opposes the increase. the economic policy institute has taken a look at the top 15 industries that use the visas and found there has been no wage increase in these industries
over the last decade. if there has not been a wage increase, how is there a worker shortage? if there is a worker shortage, typically you would see wages increased and some of the low skilled jobs. believe thesewe employers and these industries are simply looking to keep their labor costs down so they can increase their profits and make it easier for them. they don't really want to try very hard to recruit workers. they want the easy way out, which would be simply for secretary kelly to increase the number of visas that it issued. we hope what was said by dhs that ultimately they don't increase them, or it will be small. congress authorized any precept of 70,000. we are here in maybe 18,000. we will have to see how this turns out over the next few months. host: one of the employers that
once more pieces is the trump organization at mar-a-lago. vhey hired hundreds of h2 workers. the president says they want full-time jobs. is that a valid point? guest: no. i believe it was the new york times offers broke that story that mar-a-lago was using visa workers. they found skilled workers in the palm beach area and said they love to work at mar-a-lago. some apply there and when i given jobs. there are people in southeast florida they do want these jobs. there is really no excuse for one of the president's organizations to use it, but he has set on the immigration issue before he may not agree with the law but he will do something and he will take advantage of it if it helps his business. hopefully as president he will change his mind on that. host: we're talking with chris
chmielenski about immigration policies. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. calling from new york. caller: it is all the same. good morning. i have two comments. sixt i understand the countries, nothing was ever proved these six countries and the people coming here are terrorists. as opposed to saudi arabia where the 9/11, the majority came from them. why is it a travel ban on that country? these immigrants don't command for out west in california, the produce net, you don't think lazy americans are going to pick produce, do you?
i don't get this whole thing. ever since he has been in, this country is going down the tubes. your comment on the 9/11 terrorist from saudi arabia and why there is not a travel ban on that country. recent terrorthe attacks united states have easily been perpetrated by people either born here or from countries like pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt. what do you say to that? guest: those other countries the white house selected. we have no idea what their reasoning for choosing those countries are. numbers usa, we support the president's right to suspend immigration from certain countries if it's in the interest of protecting national security. that is what is in federal law. that is what we will defend. how they and that, how they choose to implement that, that is up to the white house. i can't speak specifically about those countries. numbers usa focuses on the
numbers, the immigration numbers. it's a little bit outside of our normal wheelhouse. as for the second question, we are sympathetic for agriculture, performers -- four farmers. -- for farmers. it is difficult to find seasonal workers that may last only days or weeks. harvest seasons can be that short. whereis the h2a program they can bring in an unlimited number of foreign workers to help them work. there is some red tape. there has been efforts in congress to make this easier to but with the h2a program, he still see the north carolina growers association using the program. there are many farmers using the h2a reform program. there is some sympathy for the agricultural industry. they would like to see some sort of reforms. we want them to be able to get seasonal workers that they will
need when they truly can't find an american worker and it will not impact wages negatively. as are some of the other low skilled jobs, we think there is again -- we have not seen a wage increase in over a decade in some of these industries. there are the workers out there, the employers just are not working hard enough for those jobs. host: the trump administration theded not to support so-called dreamers program, indicating it will likely that grante program status the parents of those here in the country, but not children. in today's washington post, pushing trump to unwind the program. top of public and officials in 10 states are threatening to take legal action against the administration if it does not and the obama era program that grants deportation reprieves. nearly 800,000 undocumented
immigrants that arrived in this country has children. attorneys general want them to -- gave the administration until september 5 to phase out the 2012 arrivals program. what is your reaction? guest: president trump promised to end daca on day one. he should end daca. all credit to john kelly to get into the daca program. we oppose both of them. we understand prosecutorial discretion and law enforcement has to prioritize. they have limited resources. typically there are more, in the case of integration -- immigration, they have to allocate resources. they don't have resources to deal with the entire situation. we understand prosecutorial discretion. when we have an issue is that
the obama administration issued recipients, and they were offering work permits as well. we don't see that as federal law . we don't see what the president has the authority to issue work permits on a class basis across an entire class. when you look at the unemployment numbers, especially for recent college graduates and teens, that is the primates for the daca recipient. that is for you see unemployment numbers higher, much higher than the normal national average is. you read all these stories about --lege kids finding it hard it is hard for them to find work when the graduate but we are adding more competition for them in the labor force. host: we want to try to get a couple more callers. jessica from seymour, tennessee. caller: hi. i wanted to talk about the immigration standpoint, which is
the ban confuses me. you don't see other nations doing that to us. we're banning them based on their religion. what if other countries start banning us based on christianity and some of the things they have like there are violence against christians but christians do violence. what if other countries start doing that to us? guest: we don't know what exactly the rationale was from the white house other than these six countries were identified by both the obama administration and now the trump administration as being hotspots for terror. there is evidence for that. law, andder federal allows the president to suspend immigration if it is a national security -- in the interest of national security. all we can hope for is that was the motive for the white house. i don't believe he was trying to
target one specific religious group or one specific type of people. i think the attempt, despite some rhetoric on the campaign i think the attempt there, despite some rhetoric on the campaign trail, i think the attempt, if you look at the executive order, was to truly protect the national security. host: germane is calling from canton, ohio. just a few seconds left. caller: i have a couple of comments. just a few minutes ago, chris was speaking to trump's business interest as opposed to presidential interests. smirk thath a "hopefully the president would." many of his followers are working on a device can rated light the country where they like to have certain people -- on a divide, a divide of the country where they like to have certain people come out and attack.