asking you whether you think jeb bush will be overshadowed by his presidential father and brother on the issue of foreign policy. give us a call, republicans can call at 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. democrats, 202-748-8000. outside the u.s., 202-748-8003. a very good thursday morning to you. jeb bush is speech in chicago making the front page of papers. bush steps gingerly into the domain of foreign policy is the headline. "usa today" -- jeb bush and thousand to be his own man. -- thousand to be his own man -- vows to be his own man. we are talking about the speech, did you watch it, what did you think, and do you think the former governor of florida will be overshadowed by his father and his brother if he is given the chance to lead this country? a little bit from jeb bush's speech in chicago. governor bush: i had a father and a brother who helped shape america's war and policy and recognized that my views will be held up in comparison to theirs. this is a fascinating thing in the political world. sometimes in contrast to theirs. for the record, i love my brother, i love my dad i love my mother as well, i hope that is ok. [laughter] i admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions they have to make, but i am my own man and my views are from my own experiences. each president learned from those who came before. their principles, their adjustments. we know that every president and harris a changing world and changing circumstances. in the 1991 gulf war timeframe hardly anyone knew that the internet existed or who al qaeda was. and 2003, at the beginning of the liberation of iraq, neither twitter rises existed. -- or isis existed. here is how the "new york times" put it -- even has you begin the process of his own political identity, that was reminiscent of the first bush presidency. he said he would increase the pentagon budget and praise the aggressive surveillance effort of the national security agency that began under his brother calling the agency's data a hugely important program. mr. bush did not indicate whether he would support sending ground forces to confront the islamic state militants. we are getting your reaction this morning and we will bring you more clips from yesterday's event and you can watch the entire event on our website. we will start this morning with larry calling in from south memphis, tennessee. line for democrats. caller: good morning. i listened to the speech. john: what did you think? caller: i think he would be more hawkish than his brother. you think they are not going to start new wars? i believe he will be worse than his brother. thank you and have a nice day. john: that is larry from south memphis talking about jeb bush. breaking down a list of advisers that have been released by jeb bushes exploratory committee. his foreign-policy team is your really familiar to those who know the previous bush administration. the list of advisers here. the pink dot on the left, those advisers who worked in the george w. bush administration michael hayden, michael chertoff, michael mukasey, some of the names. those from the h w bush administration, apollo points, some of the name -- paul wolfowitz a name in there. 19 of the 21 people released in the issue of for policy worked in the administration of his father or his brother. the washington post noticed that foreign-policy teams of any republican president would probably draw heavily from the past three republican administrations. it notes that the romney team branched out a bit more. we want to get your thoughts. ohio, line for independents. caller: thank you for c-span. that was nice hearing an adult, but i cannot hear you. john: i can hear you, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. it was nice getting up and hearing an adult perspective. we have to face the fact that america has to take part in leading the world from the standpoint of foreign policy, we cannot lead from behind. it does not work. our power, our values, not they we are forcing them on people, but these are important to the world, and without us in the lead, it will not happen, things will get worse and somebody will visit us across those unprotected orders that we do not like. we cannot wait until that happens. john: do you think in a potential jeb bush presidency does his foreign-policy get overshadowed his father's administration, his brothers administration or what other country see jeb bush differently? caller: i can only go by the way he handled himself -- i cannot hear you. john: just turn down your tv and go ahead. caller: i can only go by the way he handled himself, i think he is his own man. i think he said things we would not hear from his brother or father. john: phone lines are open for about the next 40 minutes on this topic. we will be showing you bits of a jeb bush's speech in chicago at the chicago council event there. new york, line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. jeb bush i am so sick of this. don't they realize fox news is pushing them so hard, and i am a republican that has never voted for a democrat. if they think we stay home for romney, no real conservative republican, no real republican is going to vote for jeb bush. he is a democrat on every issue. he only wants to talk about the foreign-policy because he knows that they cannot make any mistakes. he will say the right things, which he will, and everyone will. of course obama is screwing that up. obama is a muslim. going back to bush -- john: the president has made it clear he is a christian. jeb bush, you are concerned about his views, what specifically do you think he has democratic views on? caller: on immigration, for amnesty he wants to register 11 million, but it will be 30 million before it is through and he wants to register them all as democrats because he is a democrat. i wish i could talk to my kids on this common core education that he is pushing. if the truth be known on the social issues, he is no republican on any of them. john: we are taking your calls throughout our first segment of the "washington journal" on the issue of problems jeb bush might have any primary. a "washington times" piece on jeb bush's speech saying he will never be able to distance himself from his brother or father. he and his brother agree on immigration, he said that he is willing to raise taxes if congress cuts spending. his father infamously did the same thing and spending was never cut. conservatives oppose the no child left behind laws left by ted kennedy. talking about some of the issues jeb bush might have any primary. redmond, washington, democrats line. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to say that, a couple years ago, one of my concerns with jeb bush, he made a comment , i cannot remember where i read this, it went something like, he had a distrust, it was on nigeria, i have a distrust for -- caller:john: we are taking calls all morning long. william, line for independents. caller: thank you for your program. my comment is about george bush. rumsfeld, on september 10, 2001, told america that they lost $2.3 trillion. this is at the pentagon. the next day, it looked to me like a cruise missile went into the pentagon. it left a hole the size of a two car garage. they are saying a jet flew in there and evaporated. i do not believe it. millions of americans don't believe it. especially airline pilots, you cannot fly a jet that big that low. john: we will hold off on some of the conspiracy did risk and focus on jeb bush and 2016 and foreign-policy issues he talked about yesterday. he was asked about the issue of iraq and his brother's efforts there. here is a bit of what jeb bush said yesterday. >> there were mistakes made in iraq. using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not accurate. not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of hussein was a mistake. iraqis wanted security more than anything else. my brothers administration, through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president has done, because there was no support, and it was hugely successful and created a stability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more stable situation that would have not allowed for the void to be filled. the void has been filled because we created the void. whether it is the united states the lesson is engaged. when you have a failed state or a week state, and you leave, the first thing that happens is they turned to iran and their influence has replaced the united states in a significant way. if you are serious about protecting the status of nations state, you have to protect that integrity. john: a spokesman for the democratic national committee released a statement after jeb bush's speech. this from that "washington times" article. "we know if jeb bush were in charge, our brave men and women would be stationed in iraq indefinitely. that damage the country's reputation abroad. we want to get your response this morning on the "washington journey>' ." colorado, line for independents . caller: i watched the program it was pretty good. i thought he was on point with a lot of things. one thing he did not touch on, was some of the domestic issues that were happening here. there was a question asked to him in regards to the fact that in south chicago there -- kids do not live for too long. he really did not touch on the police issues that we are having right now. the immigration issues we are having and domestically i know his speech was on foreign-policy , and i agreed with him in regards to isis. i think he needs to be very aggressive in regards to eliminating that and i think that what a lot of people do not understand is that they are dealing with a completely different generation. these are young people, the internet age is the millennial's that you are dealing with. the strategies have to be different and i agree that they have to be more blunt. i would have liked for mr. bush to touch on some of the domestic issues that are very serious in this nation. john: as you pointed out it was a foreign-policy focused speech. how important -- you are on our life for independents -- how important is it for jeb bush to draw a distinction between himself and his father and his brother? caller: it matters in a way. what i noticed watching him was that he says the right words and has the right type of swagger to a peel to the right people -- to appeal to the right people. i am independent. the bushes, at least where i come from, they do not have a good name, but i did think that jeb bush did set himself apart from his father and his brother. he showed that he a -- he does have his own opinions, he was very very in depth with his answers, which i did appreciate. he tried to answer the questions the best way he could. i did appreciate that about him. in regards to foreign-policy, everybody looks at it -- when you talk about iraq and things that happen in afghanistan, pakistan, all of those places the younger generation, all they are thinking about is a loyal. it was an oil war. everything that is projected in the media, that is what is given. and then you have facebook twitter, everybody in the world has their own opinion. when you look -- when you talk to the masses, the war was for that reasons, and i think that jeb bush has to -- it is imperative he is able to set his own policy -- i do not know. without war obviously, that is his way. that is something he firmly believes in. john: we have several people waiting to talk this morning. want to give them a chance and bring in comments from our facebook page and our twitter feed. on facebook ehrenreich's, that she did not hear anything new. obama bad, we need leadership enhancement and to strengthen the military. john: a couple comments from our twitter feed, you can follow along @cspanwj. bring back bush, cheney, rumsfeld, and rice. how soon we forget. from yesterday's these, it is clear that jeb bush's campaign slogan will be "a return to unpaid for belligerents." betty in washington, north carolina. for democrats. good morning. john:turn down your tv so we can have a conversation. caller: ok. i was saying that i am very impressed by former governor bush's statement that he is his own man. i think we should keep that in mind. i am a democrat, i do not want to vote for a republican however, if that republican can't think for himself and can get congress to do something that is positive for the people of the united states, then i would say, yes, mr. bush would make a good president. i would also like to add that romney could be his vice president. i am very serious about that. john: how much of a factored to you think foreign-policy will be in the 2016 election, as opposed to 2008 and 2012? caller: i think it will have a tremendous influence. a tremendous one. had congress been able to deal with the president as congress should have dealt with them, i think we would have probably had a better for an situation than we do now. john: what are the foreign-policy issues that are most concerning to you? caller: i agree with the president's diplomatic way of handling it. i do not believe that war is the answer at this point. it would be the ultimate plan but i believe trying to work with the people in foreign places would be much better than trying to go to war with them. john: that is betty in washington, north carolina. here is the "politico" wrapup of jeb bush's speech. there is a picture there of jeb bush with former presidents tort h w bush and george w. bush. at the christening of the aircraft carrier. gresham, oregon, line for independents. caller: good morning. i was going to mention that, when he made the statement, i am my own man, that's at like a dictatorship. his family has represented the military-industrial core for a long time. especially when his dad was vice president with ronald reagan. i was in the military then. it is the same old story, he does not need to be in the presidency. obama did what he could with the advisors he had, the secretary of state he had. foreign-policy is a hard thing to get over, because there is so much cultural difference. you cannot blame a religious group for a certain amount of people going around doing the hypocrisies that they do because there are a lot of people in this country that goes around and does hypocrisies as well. especially the route our history as christians, or so-called christians. john: getting back to the speech did you watch the whole speech? caller: i tried to choke it down as much as i could. to watch a guy like his family is may be prejudiced on my part towards his family, but i thought it was all just face value. if you ever put him in power, he will be like his brother and dad and they will turn and start being puppeteers by those who are the well-to-do one who put them in office. john: here is another headline from his speech. jeb bush tax brother data snooping calls obama weak. here is more from the address. governor bush: we must be prepared to address the new asymmetric am a non-state-sponsored threats that consuming the news, but have emerged as the greatest security threat we face for our homeland. these threats come nearly every day. they come in the form of the most evil and horrific barbaric acts on innocent life. passengers on an airplane or a subway, office workers, shoppers at a kosher market, congregants at a synagogue, children at a school, cartoonists after drafting tables, or christians simply practicing their faith. al qaeda, isis, taliban, and others set their sights on the softest of targets. exploiting the freedoms of the west to attack western life. we must be prepared for a long-term commitment to fight this battle. these attacks require a response on many levels, but we should focus on preventing them. that requires responsible intelligence gathering and analysis, including the nsa metadata program which can take gas contributes to the awareness of potential terror cells and interdiction efforts on a global scale. i do not understand the debate has gotten off track, where we are not understanding and protecting -- we do protect our civil liberties, that this is an important program to use these technologies to keep us safe. john: we were getting our viewers reaction to that speech and specifically, jeb bush talking about being his own man on the issue of foreign-policy. creating separation between his presidential brother and father. water very, connecticut, line for democrats. good morning. caller:are you there? we will go to a line for independents. caller: how are you doing? john: good, go ahead. caller: i do not see -- i do not want anybody to be the president of the united states who still believes to this day that the illegal invasion of iraq and the stabilization of the area, when they refer to it as a liberation , jeb bush referred to it as a liberation of iraq in his speech earlier. i do not know how anybody can consider that a liberation. maybe that's what george bush thought it was when he went in there, but it certainly was not a liberation. i think -- they say that president obama is at fault, because he could have made things better when he got into office. it was george w. bush's policy to have the troops pulled out of iraq by a specific date, which i believe was sometime in 2013 or 2014. you just can't seem to win for losing. that is pretty much my comment. john: who is saying the right things on foreign policy. who would you support? caller: honestly, i do not like any of them. they are all -- they all have their own little place that they live in their own world, every one of those politicians, just about everyone. i am not sure about elizabeth wharton or bernie sanders -- elizabeth warren or bernie sanders. if you look at all the other politicians, a are pretty much all in the bag for the things they want to see happen for themselves and the people they care about most. most of those politicians -- they do not represent the people of america. they really don't. john: one person jeb bush has butted heads with on these issues, especially foreign policy, is rand paul and some of his libertarian views. what is your take on rand paul? caller: i do not know much about rand paul. his father seemed interesting. rand paul seems a little bit creepy, but i do not like to generalize. i do not know. they are also very strange. i do not know why people cannot put their heads together and come up with what is best for the people as a whole, as opposed to having a policy here and a thing hear anything here and let's go invade here and let's destroy them over there. what about here, what about in the united states of america? our infrastructure is crumbling, our school system is horrible. debt is out of control. it is unbelievable. i hate to be such a downer. john: we have lines for republicans democrats, and if you are outside the united states and want to join the conversation. brian talking about george w. bush and some of the issues he thinks that a jeb bush candidacy would have relating to george w. bush. here is a story from fox.com. a chart showing it is the perfect time for a bush family renaissance. the favorability of george w. bush, that chart showing that your study bush recovering -- george w. bush recovering from a low approval rating at 32% in 2008, steadily increasing over the past six years, up to 53% in mid-2014. looking back at the legacy of george w. bush. george is up next, maryland, line for republicans. caller: good morning. i wanted to call and say that i probably would not favor jeb bush. if my only choice were between him and hillary, i would probably go with him. i agree with other colors that most likely what will happen is more war, he would support the same policies his brother supported. it depends if america wants to do this, yes, we could do it what i do not see -- i would much rather have a rand paul, a marco rubio, or someone else. if you want to go with bush, sure, whatever. john: democrats line, brenda. caller: i have to say it is more of the same. we do not need any more bushes in office. i listen to him say that, like iraq would have been in better shape if the president had left things the way it was. i do not think so, because he would've left malarkey in charge, just like his brother put him in charge. we would be at the same point we were at at the first place. war is nothing we should take lightly. we should not invade another country, because they do not want to live the way we do, there is something wrong. the whole country over there has been in disarray since we went over there for the iraq war. john: who are you looking at in a potential democratic primary race? caller: i am not really sure right now. i do not want to put all my eggs in one basket, though i know hillary is there. i note there are other people out there as well. john: plenty of time to decide. very early in the 2016 contest. the i will caucus is under a year away. -- the iowa caucus is under a year away. the road to 2016. more of your cross and a second, but want to point out other headlines in the papers this morning. -- more of your calls in a second. people gathered to denounce a judges talking about reaction in the wake of decision earlier this week. we will have a roundtable later in today show, specifically talking about the president executive actions and the federal judges decision. with the center for immigration studies, a legal analyst and crystal williams, executive director of the american immigration lawyers association. that is coming up at about 8:30 this morning. before that, we will be joined by reuters supreme court correspondent to talk about the federal cases that are working their way through the system including this immigration case but also cases having to do with the president's health care law climate regulation, and gay marriage. that is coming up in about 10 minutes. we are talking to our viewers about jeb bush's speeches in chicago, him saying that he is his own man. ohio, line for independents, good morning. caller: mi on? -- am i on? john: >> yes, you are. caller: i do not support any bush for president, i think they're fascists. their grandfather ran nazi banks. george h.w. bush ran the cia. he -- all of the sudden you see him as a director of the cia. john: who do you like in 2016? who could you support as an independent? caller: jesse ventura, rand paul , i would go with jesse ventura 80 day of the week -- any day of the week. john: springfield virginia, line for independents. go ahead erica. caller: i wanted to comment that i feel -- [indiscernible] i do not know that much about hillary clinton, but elizabeth wharton has captured my attention -- warren has captured my attention when she talks about the middle class student loans, decreasing the minimum wage pay, because i'm a single mom, i have 2 jobs. i wait for the end of the month to pay my rent and bills. she says it is unacceptable that a full-time 38, 40 hours a week worker can still live in poverty, even in the united states, when we hold the flag of the leadership in the world, we still have these kind of conditions in our state, inside the united states. i like it when she looks into the united states situation and speaks for us. i do not like the traffic of influences in washington that would allow this, and the representatives not governing for the people. for the people, by the people, to the people. they are not respecting that democracy. they only represent a minimal amount of people. the people with the money and the corporations for them to be there. john: talking about elizabeth warren, if she were to run, she would be up against a potential candidacy of hillary clinton. there is a front page story. clinton's foundation, a financial juggernaut. a global network overlaps with the family's political base, breaking down close to $2 billion that have been raised by the bill, hillary, and clinton foundation that was created in 2001 and the money that has been raised since that time. according to new initial disclosure reports from that group. alan in fort pierce, florida. caller: i am not for any more bush is running for president. i am not for the privileged class only being in presidential politics. it is important we have other people. i like what the last caller had to say about elizabeth warren. the direction that it had in the past with eisenhower and cairo's about an -- and teddy roosevelt and abraham lincoln is the direction that the republican party should go which is for the people, the middle class, the average person, for what is right in this country, and not for the privilege of big corporations or the wealthiest class. john: who embodies that right now, is there any potential candidate that in bodies that? -- embodies that? caller: only elizabeth warren. people need to recognize that corporations have greater advantages that the average person, and that is because the people in politics have given them a those rights and we need to change that. john: you are calling in on a republican line, is there anybody on the republican side that embodies that? caller: i wish him would come forward. john: if not, would you end up voting for elizabeth warren? caller: i probably would. i wouldn't push my vote to hillary, because i am tired of these privileged class people getting into politics and staying in their. john: julian largo, florida. live for democrats. caller: i live here in florida and i am a democrat, all my life. i found that jeb was a very good governor. i do not think it is right to compare him to his father or his brother, because he is an entirely different personality. i know that for a fact, i met george and his mother way back in 1964. jeb is a totally different personality, just like i am different from my brother, we have different views, different ways of approaching things. the one thing that has me concerned, as far as him being his own man, is the been diagram showing so many of the same culprits that worked with george w. and it was part of their -- most of their recommendations that got us into iraq that cause the void, not just because of george, also because of obama and all of the agreements. on the other hand, those are the kind of people with their hawkish attitude of foreign policy, that might very well be needed at this point in time to overcome this threat of these rogue extremist people, regardless of whatever faith they profess to be. john: that diagram you are talking about in the "washington post" -- did you have something else to say? caller: the other thing is, regardless of who is president republican, democrat independent, they are pretty much at the mercy of those people that we send to congress. i am thinking the quality of our congresspeople, house and senate it is way less than what it should be. thank you for taking my call. john: that diagram talking about the crossover between the announce list of advisors for a jeb bush potential candidacy advises on foreign policy and the crossover between the reagan administration, the h w bush administration and the w. bush administration. james baker on their. paul wolfowitz as well. undersecretary of defense for the first bush administration under dick cheney. a few other names are michael chertoff and tom ridge. they are bush -- george w. bush's secretaries of homeland security. you can go through the list and the breakdown that is on the "washington post" website. other publications reporting on that list of advisors. in its wrapup, noting that one name is missing from that list is former secretary of state condoleezza rice. she is still a close ally to the bush family as anyone listed on that list, she has consulted with the former florida governor. the absence of her name suggest that he is sensitive about being seen as a carbon copy of his brother. more on that story on "washington post.com." life for independents. good morning. caller: i am an air force veteran. i do not want any more neocons in office starting wars. we have too much to take care of in our country, the roads are falling apart in the bridges are falling down. i do not want another neocon and do not think it would help us at all. as far as immigration, the people have to get out there and fight for the rights. nothing was given to us just by -- you have to demand your rights. they should be included into society and let them pay taxes and they can help pay down the debt. that is my comment and god bless. john: we will be talking about a lot more -- a lot more about immigration and about the president's executive actions on immigration later in the day. philadelphia, pennsylvania, line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. john: go ahead. caller: there is a major issue. here is the american public tired of war, wanting the troops out. policy by the first bush, his brother will double down, put troops on the ground, some will go on the ground, knowing the result. we just had a policy, now we are going to sell them drones. we have arms over there we cannot get back. we did not get the arms away from them. and net -- and now, we are going to talk about putting their young people there. if we ask everyone of them politician, would you put your son on the front line -- they would turn away as quickly as they could. john: jeb bush did not indicate whether he would support sending ground forces to confront the islamic state in iraq and syria but you believe he eventually will? caller: look at who he is putting around him. how are you going to get a different result? that is insanity, you're going to get a different result with the same players. ? mccain told you to listen to the generals, colin powell was a general, he said do not go in there. the american public follows and we are trillions of dollars in debt. we do not have a policy of how to get out. we are trying to get the troops out, it is not working. what do you want to do -- continue to stay in iraq and syria, knowing you don't have a way out? that is insanity. john: angela, college park maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. the previous color just stole my thunder. he was voicing the thought of a lot of americans. we are a glutton for punishment. intelligence is being dumbed down by these politician so we do not realize another bush is a threat to our democracy. we are not a monarchy. we have the father, the son don't we have other qualified competent americans to run? it's a shame that jon huntsman is not running. he is one i could vote for. i am stunned that we are considering another bush. what gave us al qaeda isis -- bush gave us al qaeda isis. america, mind your business. john: last caller of the segment, but we will be revisiting this subject at the end of our show and have open phones and happy to hear your thoughts for those who did not get in this segment in the 9:30 -- 10:00 timeframe. we will talk about the legal ruling of the president immigration executive action and other high-profile court cases and what they could mean for the obama administration's legacy. later, we will focus on that texas federal judges decision to block president obama's executive action and what it means for illegal aliens, states, and future immigration policy. worse, -- first, the first lady of afghanistan spoke at the center for strategic and international studies on women in afghanistan. she talked about the need for aid to that country and how she believes it can best be used. >> humanitarian assistance is wonderful. but, it is a short -- it is not change the situation. bringing food, blankets tents floor cover. all that is wonderful for people who need it, you come back the next year, and there are more people that are there. i do not think that humanitarian assistance is the answer. especially, do not send clothes. we have a whole market of secondhand clothes. what i think needs to be done is to get to the root of the problem. why are these people in camps? they have been displaced maybe because of civil war maybe the cause some warlord this attitude take away their land. maybe because there has been a flood or a landslide. the solution to this problem is not to bring them sugar flour or cooking oil blankets. basically, what i would like from the agencies, international agencies, stop thinking in terms of humanitarian assistance and start thinking in terms of development. >> washington journal continues. john: we welcome lawrence hurley the supreme court correspondents. president obama's immigration action was put on hold after that ruling by federal judge in texas. the latest legal battle for an issue that administration sees as possibly part of its legacy when it leaves office. how much is the obama administration going to have to look to the courts during its last 2 years? guest: several big issues before the courts, whether the supreme court or lower courts. the in ministries and not likely -- the administration not likely to get much through congress the focus will be on the courts. john: rundown those legacy issues and when we are expected to hear about them and when cases will be argued, whether it be the supreme court or lower courts? guest: the big one coming up most quickly is a big health care case, which the supreme court is hearing. their hearing oral argument on march 4, this is the case that challenges the subsidies available that allows people to buy health insurance on the federal exchange. the question is whether the obamacare law allowed for the subsidies to be available in the federal exchange, and not just in the states to set up their own exchanges. it could affect millions of people around the country who are seeking to buy health insurance. john: climate regularization that -- climate regulations are another key issues, where are we on several cases? the environmental protection agency is due to finalize those rules this year. there is a preliminary court challenge to one of the rules affecting power plants, which will be heard in the appeals court in washington in april. a separate case the supreme court is hearing in march on the rules for power plants. john: the argument for the gay marriage case that is coming up, when does that happen? guest: april, also in the supreme court. eventually that will lead to a ruling in june that will decide once and for all if gay marriage can be banned by the states. john: is it usual for administration to have this many cases in the courts in the final year or two in office. guest: it is quite common for them to have regulations being challenged in the courts, but it little bit unusual to have so many high-profile, hot button issues in the courts. immigration, health care, and environment, which you can't get much bigger than that. john: we are talking with the supreme court correspondents at reuters. if you want to talk, we had him for the next 40 minutes. republicans can call --202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independence, 202-748-8002. phone lines are open and we will look for tweets and e-mails and facebook postings as well. want to focus on that immigration action by the federal judge this week. today's "washington times" lead editorial focus is on that coast, noting the order on the texas federal judge is an obstacle in the crucial word is "temporary." there is speculation that the case will put the question to the high court for a final determination, possible as early as june. how far are we away from that and how would the process go? guest: that would depend on what decision the justice department makes. i do not think they have said clearly what exactly they are going to do. they can seek to immediately reverse that decision, which could lead in theory to it ending up in the supreme court quickly. guest:john: can you break down the base of that decision? guest: the federal judge issued an injunction that prevents the program from going into effect. he says the government should have gone through a more deliberate rulemaking procedure which the government did not do, because the government says it did not need to, because it is an issue of enforcement priorities. in terms of challenging it, the government did either appeal the ruling in regular courts, which takes months and sometimes years to finalize, or, in the short term, a good try and go to the appeals court or eventually the supreme court to try and immediately reverse it. pending the litigation. john: that is the timeframe to get us as early as june? guest: i am not sure if the government will do that or not. john: the white house and its response to the immigration ruling by the federal judge. they are struggling for a response that came out very late monday. a top administration official said it was unclear whether the department of justice would seek an emergency order at would allow the president's immigration program to go into effect while the appeals process played out. no decision had been made on an emergency application. she pledged to fight the challenges to the presidents action. breakdown that language. guest: that goes back to what i was saying earlier -- they have not said whether they will seek emergency application, which would mean the court decision would not be in effect while the litigation continues. alternatively, they could do a regular appeal, which would mean the injection would stay in effect while they appeal, if the litigation was to drag on, that could take us to the end of obama's term. john: this gets as high as the supreme court. do we have any idea of where the justices would fall -- are there previous rulings you have looked to to understand their support of issues of executive action and immigration specifically? guest: this is interesting -- not interesting, depending on how you look at the law, the way the law -- lower court judge decided on it was an administrative law issue, the question of whether the government followed the correct procedure in issuing this order. he actually did not address the issue of whether the government could do what it wants to do. that makes it a much narrower legal question. the supreme court, and other courts, have cases all the time on these issues whether government agencies dotted the is and cross the t's. how they approach the case might be affected by that and the immigration aspect might not be as prominent as it would be in another type of case. john: lawrence hurley here with reuters to answer your legal questions. we're talking about the health care case that is coming up, the gay marriage case and some of these climate change regulations, all high-profile cases that will work their way through the federal courts. phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents. we will start with detroit, michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. when these cases come up to the supreme court, when the president, as a constitutional scholar, ted cruz are also constitutional scholars, does this have to be determined by the supreme court, what does this say about the constitution when people set differences are pointing to the constitution -- how does it help us resolve the issue when people who have studied this, our scholars, and they come up with different points of view. guest: it is the beauty of the constitution that so many people can have different views, even people who have studied it a lot. ted cruz was a clerk at the supreme court and president obama taought constitutional laws and they have different views. some might say -- some might say that is how the founding fathers intended it. obviously, even at the time, people had very different views about what the constitution should be. that is, you know, partly the supreme court's job to resolve. john: on the immigration a -- executive action and the move by the judge this week, basing his ruling on the administration procedures. i understand there is a place with a little bit more gray area. there is less law here from -- here to draw from. guest: this case will be about whether the government was even confined by that law. because the government said that the types of action they want to take is not rulemaking, which is the type of action that is bound by the acts. so the real legal fight is whether they are taken by that. that will be the central of the legal debate. john: key west, florida. the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. it was my understanding that the acquittal -- the of what will care act was loved by the court. but it seemed to me that it was taxation without representation because congress did not vote on the affordable care act as a tax. and what happens to those people who are taxed, if it is $95 this year if they didn't join the of what will care act, and somewhere between, as i understand it, up to $1500 next are for those who do not sign up , what happens to those people who do not have a return that covers that amount of money? how are they going to be taking care of? are they going to be, in essence, the final analysis and be charged that the tax return does not cover? if so, what are the legal steps that are going to be taken against those people? thank you, gentlemen. guest: out have to ask my accountant about that one. although the tax issue was the center point of the 2012 case where the court upheld the affordable care act unconstitutional grounds. the case that is being heard in march is focusing purely on this issue of the subsidies. so those issues are kind of done for now. john: march 4 is when we are going to hear. other any pieces to be the head of that case and what justices to watch? guest: the court was split 5-4 last time around when they upheld the law, so the starting point for a lot of commentators is the fact that in that case, chief justice john roberts was the conservative who sided with the liberty will -- with the liberals to uphold the law people -- law. so some people might think the focus will be at him again. but this is a different type of case. it may bring other types of justices into play. including justice kennedy, who is often the swing vote in big cases. the government lawyers will be looking at those to come in particular. and maybe even some of the other justices. we'll find out a lot more on march the fourth. john: crissy is up next in brighton, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment. i think it will be a waste of time for the supreme court to talk about this stuff because they are going to legalize everything that obama wants. thank you. do them are you still with us? i think she hung up. george is up next. on the line for republicans. george, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. what i want to say is the constitution, as is written, is not open to any and all interpretation. just like the bible, it is written in a certain way to -- to be used correctly. it have to be interpreted in one way. to interpret it 100,000 different ways, you get the chaos that is in churches. we need authority. and the authority that the found father said was god. and it said an alien will rights, which governed what the constitution should say. no way would any of the founding fathers ever think to say that gay people should be treated like normal human beings and that they should be allowed to be married. that in no way was with the ever thought. that is modern stupidity at its height. john: george, you bring up the game marriage case that the court is getting ready to hear. a recent story by one of our guests, the pros of gay marriage -- pro-gay marriage signal seen in the u.s. supreme court action. some recent actions by the supreme court. walk us through what some of those signals are that you're reading. guest: well, the biggest one was recently with alabama, where a federal judge shot down the gay marriage ban in alabama. in the state asked the supreme court to step in. setting the fact that the court already agreed to hear the other gay marriage cases. and the court said no. we're not going to stop it. they don't really explain themselves very well with these kind of emergency orders but what we do know is that two of the justices objected to that. that was anthony scalia and justice clarence thomas. both conservatives. john: they seem to explain a little bit more about what happened behind the scenes in these objections right? guest: scalia wrote that he said the court's action in allowing gamers to go ahead and alabama and other states sends a signal that come you know, the court -- people are going to think the court's authority decided. which some people think could well be the case because a couple of years ago there were 12 or 13 states with gay marriage, another i-37. and the supreme court, although they haven't issued a sort of definitive ruling on this, is kind of not allowing those movements to be made. john: let's go to gym awaiting in florida. jim, you're on. caller: -- john: are you with us? go ahead john. caller: my son does not have insurance, is he going to get charged? he applied and said that he can't have it because he has no job. and he has no money to pay for any kind of insurance. john: and is your son somebody who might be able to apply for some of the subsidies? caller: we don't understand the subsidies. if he has to pay now and get it later, we can afford to pay now because we don't have any money. john: lawrence hurley, the subsidy issue still up in the air. if you could walk us through a little bit more of the crux of this case? guest: sure. the government has said the way that the federal exchanges set up is designed to encourage people, as many people as possible, to get health insurance. one of the ways the government was seeking to encourage more people to be involved and that is to provide -- the subsidies, which make it a lot more makes it a lot more and foldable -- provide the subsidies, which makes it a lot more affordable. the government says people can get health insurance as low as $100 a month with the subsidies and without the subsidies, it would be more like an average of 200 and $70 -- $270. so they say that, you know, the whole system would not really work if you get rid of the subsidies because obviously the whole point -- the holy that insurance works is to pool risk here so it cannot threaten the whole premise of what the of what will care act was designed to do. john: we have about 15 minutes left with lawrence hurley, the supreme court correspondent with reuters come here to answer all your questions about the status about some of these high-profile cases working their way through federal courts. we will go to south plainfield new jersey. the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is that we are so polarized in this country. and when you are angry, you lose focus. about what is right and what is wrong. i am also concerned with ourselves individually that we are not thinking about our country and progress in this country. i was in the hospital a few years ago, and i had a charge that i had not seen. when i questioned the bill, they told me that the doctor was on call and he had to be paid. my question was, if we had 100 people in the hospital for that weekend, is it 100 times 200 something dollars? that raises a lot of questions. with the informal care act, we have better opportunity for better coverage. and we can be a much better nation if we just think about each other as being one. thank you very much. john: in south plainfield, new jersey concerns about polarizing this country. perhaps no more polarized the day, at least outside the supreme court, then on the days that some of these big decisions come down. can you talk about your experiences as a reporter on some of these major decision days? whether it is the a ford will care act are some of these other cases. guest: well, certainly, on those days, there are a lot of people outside the courthouse demonstrating, holding up signs. shouting and so on and so forth. usually i don't get to see much of that since i'm in the courtroom or leading up by -- writing up my stories about the decisions. on the days when they are issuing the decisions, there is a certain tension in the building. obviously, we are waiting to the court is going to say. as reporter, we are giving ready to disseminate that information. john: and some tension, the first to talk about, the afford will care act case. one in which there was -- it took a little while for the right information to get out and what the courts decision was -- court's decision was. guest: yes, you want to be first, but you also want to be right. so that is what we try to do. john: mark is up next, the line for democrats. mark, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment about the penalties for not paying the tax. under the code -- the law in reference to that come the irs code, the filing of leads and levees otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. the penalty for not having insurance. in addition, if it waves from the penalties for noncompliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage; however, the ability to offset credits is not limited by this provision. so it looks like they can only take it from your holding. john: lawrence holy -- florence really, some of the arguments a part of this case? guest: well, i think the gentleman is talking about the tax penalties, which i believe we discussed earlier. the focus of the previous case. john: dan is up an iron rich, wisconsin. the line for republicans. dan, good morning. caller: good morning. i think the whole thing is a joke. for them to force insurance about people, make them pay, and if you don't pay, they put you in jail. i have to pay $6,000 before my insurance company even -- and i have insurance. and i had to pay $6,000 before they will even pay anything. now, before this all came into effect, i could afford insurance. and the coverage was even greater. and i didn't have so much of a deductible. ever since this has gone into effect, i think it is just sucking people's bank accounts dry. i think it is a shame. just, i think it to be eliminated. basically. thank you. john: with his experiences in iron rich. on twitter, a question on the immigration executive action. what would it take for the courts to answer the question of whether this it executive -- this executive amnesty exceeds the president's authority? guest: they did not base their junction on that issue. while the top of my head, it could lead -- if the government and it up issuing -- ended up issuing a new order and comply with everything the judge said and the jet -- the judge still finds it exceeds the president's power, i think that at moment -- at the moment, at least, it is focused on the law issue. john: at it look like this case is headed to the fifth circuit court of appeals. talk a little bit about the circuit court of appeals. why wouldn't go there? and what do we know about the judges there? guest: so, the fifth circuit court of appeals is the regional appeals court that hears appeals from texas. so that is the kind of next up up from the district court before you go to the supreme court. and it is known as being quite a conservative court. it still has quite a lot of republican appointees on the court. and for that reason, some people are speculating that it might not be a from the court for the government to go to. so that is one of the issues that the justice department has to consider. while it is working out what the legal strategy will be john: so some circuit courts are considered more friendly or less friendly to this administration's opinion. guest: yes, based on the fairly simplest the grave looking at it. but based on who appointed the judges. obviously, over the last six years, obama has appointed quite a lot of judges. some of those court now have majority democrats. but other courts still have quite a lot of republican appointees. john: are there certain records that get more cases picked up by the supreme court than others? guest: yes, there are -- not on headline grabbing issues but the ninth circuit, which is in the west coast, it gets a fair number of cases reviewed because of the supreme court which tilts conservative m.i.t. at a somewhat -- as being somewhat of a -- and it might see it as being somewhat of a liberal court. and it is an important court because of the hear a lot of the regulatory challenges, things like environmental regulation. and that is switched now from being a majority republican to majority democrat. so some people might say that that makes it a little more family to the administration. john: and that is what is happening during the lifetime of the obama administration. how many appointments does the obama administration make to that court? how many judges serve on that court? guest: well, i think obama has made for appointment -- four appointments to the court. and i think there are either 10 or 11 judges on that court right now. so obama has a decent chunk of them. a couple of clinton appointees still there, and then some bush appointees. john: steve is up next with our last 10 minutes or so with lawrence really. the life you democrat. steve, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. a question for mr. hurley. this aca case for march 4, it was not educated in the lower courts. is that correct? it was not appealed up to the supreme court? guest: exit, it was appealed but i think what you might be thinking up is that there wasn't a split in the appeals court which is usually one of the issues the supreme court looks at before they take up a case. john: steve, did you have a follow-up? caller: yes, mr. hurley, what is your rationale or what is your opinion as to the rationale for actually hearing the case? it is a 1400 page law. it seems to be focused on one word, the word state. what does that say about the roberts case? guest: i think there are a couple of different ways of looking at it. and i think we'll know a lot better in june, when the court has decided. but one way of looking at it is a timing issue here, which is the challengers to this regulation have raised. you know, if this is a legal you want to know that in the but for too many people are relying on the subsidies. so that may have played a role in the court taking it as early as it did. other people speculate that, you know you need for justices to agree to hear -- four justices to agree to hear the case. maybe because we do like this -- what is going on here. but that doesn't mean that the court is necessary going to rule against the government. so we will know a lot better injured. john: alain is up next. olympic, washington. good morning. caller: hi. i have a question. when we set up our republican government, i mean our republic, there was a check and balance system. in other words, of the three portions of our government each one was equal in -- equal and one did not usurp the other. but it seems like we are thinking that the court is the end-all, which would give more balance -- i mean, more weight to what the court would say. i was speaking to the attorney general from texas and he had a really good arguments that when the court issues a decision, he cannot -- it cannot usurp the power of a state. in other words, they issue a decision, and then the state can come back and -- it is something like veto power. and i was wondering what you thought about that because they made a lot of sense, and he was quoting things from the constitution. and, you know, cases. i was just cares what you thought about that. guest: it is certainly the case that states sometimes object for a strongly to supreme court decisions. what happened in alabama with gay marriage is one example where the chief justice of alabama has rejected to implementing gay marriage there. but it is pretty well-established that once the supreme court issues a decision, the states pretty much have to follow it. you know, this happened over a lot of objections in some of the civil rights cases. it happened in the past, and in the end, the supreme court held its way. john: here are a few tweets from governors about this case. the immigration case. governor abbott of texas president obama is our star witness in texas's lawsuit to stop the immigration action. he said 22 times that he doesn't have the authority. governor scott walker, a federal judge overseeing the lawsuit, we joined with 25 other states against the administration for executive actions on immigration . it's elevating that as a victory this week. and the jerry brown, california california stands firmly with the white house. for the delay will not fix our broken immigration system just a few of the tweets. we are going to talk a whole lot more about that immigration executive action decision in our next panel on the washington -- "washington journal," with john. -- with jon feere and crystal williams. so stick around for that discussion in our next segment of the "washington journal." next, the line for democrats. jerry, good morning. caller: yes, the district court judge in texas also addressed -- they are overstepping the bounds of prosecutorial discretion. he said that they could just look the other way. they don't have to grant all the benefits of amnesty to the illegal aliens that are here. john: any thought to jerry? guest: well, i'm in the case -- a lot of the kids had to do with the government -- a lot of the cases had to do with the government's saying that we are not going to deport people. and a separate toward a related question is what that means in terms of whether people can get drivers licenses and that kind of stuff. which is kind of one of the key issues that the states are raising. john: the question from twitter how many legal actions are settled by arbitration? is arbitration used mostly in monetary, international, or trade conflicts? guest: well, that is a big question. arbitration has become quite a big legal issue. i have seen quite a lot of cases in the supreme court because a lot of companies ask to sign arbitration agreements when, for example, you buy a cell phone plan. you often will sign something that saying you agree to arbitrate if you have some problem that. and some consumer advocacy groups object to that and try to challenge those agreements, saying that it benefits the company's for to go to arbitration rather than to allow people to go to the court. john: let's go to david waiting in alabama. the line for republicans. david, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, why is the federal government making so many of these decisions that the states should be making? such as the one you have been referencing and the state of alabama. i think that the poll here is 81% of the votes are against you know, this proposal. and yet the federal government is choosing to enforce this on states where the majority of people really don't want to hear. in other words, i don't think people and temperatures go want to live like people live in alabama, but we don't want to live like they live in san francisco. my question is, why isn't this a state issue? why don't we the people get to vote on this? guest: that is sexy one of the issues raised by some -- that is one of the issues raised by some of the judges, saying that this is an issue that is not addressed in the constitution, and it is something that the people should be allowed to vote on. but the way the other court several is that this is a constitutional issue. and was against the that level and that the supreme court rules that it is a constitutional issue and that states cannot ban gay marriage then it is a supreme court case and there is not much states can do about it. john: let's see if we can get in al calling in from washington. you are on with laura turley of reuters. caller: hey, good morning. the rest are good job. my comment is in reference to several colors back that is -- callers back and that is we should all come together. reach out for each other. the last thing is on the insurance. if you had a single-payer system, everybody is going to be paying. get capitalism out of private insurance. and people complain about the insurance. if they didn't like the auto industry, people get used to it. people are helped. there are a lot of books to workout. i my last comment here is, i'm really glad to be an american. i have been an american since 2000. i'm kind of objective when i listen to both sides. this country is built on position. people are not supposed to think for themselves. they are deliberately divided. and people could get away from the divided advertising rhetoric, and start thinking with each other and for themselves, you would come up with some good solutions. but to have a brain game, it makes a good puppet show. it really is. everybody is willing to point the finger, you know? [indiscernible] it is not the figurehead. quit being ashamed of your brothers on the other side. and thank you. thank you for letting me have my say. i sure do like this country. have a good day, now. john: al calling in from washington. recover this immigration executive action case, health care, gay marriage, some of the climate regulations. what is the most important case besides those that you are watching that are not getting as many headlines? guest: well, there is a case on discrimination suits brought under the fair housing act of federal law. and the court is going to decide whether certain types of discrimination cases are actually allowed to be brought which the civil right groups are going to say that this whole slew of cases cannot be brought anymore. they have been being brought for the last several decades. so that is a case that hasn't got huge amount of attention but it is bubbling up here at john: and what is the next -- bubbling up. john: and what is the name of that case? look for lawrence police reporting on it. he is with reuters, and we appreciate you joining us what again. guest: takes for having me. john: up next on the "washington journal," will focus on the texas decision to block president obama's executive action and what it means for illegal aliens. and later, we will talk about the new secret service direct your that was appointed yesterday. and then we will open up the phones to our viewers for the last half hour. we will be right back. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and "american history tv" on the road. this weekend, we partnered with time warner cable for a visit to greensboro, north carolina. >> and after months and months of cleaning the house, charles halpern, who had been given that task, was making one more walk through. and in the attic, he looked over and saw an envelope with a kind of grey seal on it. and walked over and noticed the date was in 1832 document. he removed a single male -- nail from a panel and discovered a trunk and books and portraits. stuffed up under the eaves. this was this treasure of his thanks. we have the story available to the public. on display, different items from time to time, but trying to include her life story from her book to her death in 1849. some of the items that we currently have on display, and ivory calling card case that has the card enclosed with dolly's signature along with that of her knees, anna. and a pair of silk slippers. that have tiny little ribbons that tie across those arc -- our java put. and those two are tiny reproductions of an early silk gown that you were early in life. at a red velvet gown, which is incredible that it has lasted and it is a part of this collection. it is not part of a legend that accompanies this dress. >> watch all of our offense from greensboro, saturday at new disparate on booktv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on "american history tv" on c-span3. keep track of the republican led congress, and follow its new members through its first session. , best access. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. john: and we will be focusing on the legal challenges now facing the president's executive action. we are joined by jon feere, he is with the center for immigration studies. and crystal williams, with the american immigration lawyers association. we want to begin with you. your work with some of the folks who are looking to make use of this executive order and some of the expansions of it. can you talk about the immediate impacts of this federal judges decision this week? and what you're not telling some of these folks you are working with? guest: well, areas -- it is obviously deflation. those who come out of the saddle -- out of the shadows and be able to get work authorization and this was without here. so at this point there is a lot of disappointment, a lot of concern about what will happen in the future. and there is a lot of concern among the families, your citizen families, of the people affected. by definition, almost everybody affected by the executive action are people who are in a mixed families of mixed status families. some people in the families are u.s. citizens, some are undocumented. at the undocumented members of those families now are stuck in limbo, remain in limbo. john: and what you're telling them on expectations for the judicial and legal hold appear -- hold up here? guest: well, we cannot predict timing. the best we can say is that the decision was legally wrong and i, at least, have faith in the judicial system that it will sort it out. john: and we want to bring you into the conversation, as well. guest: yes it is a gray area of law, no doubt. we are looking at whether or not the administration was acting in accordance with the act when it decided to move forward with its unilateral immigration program. and i think that this is going to continue for quite some time, like you mentioned. it will be in the courts for months, if not longer than that. and it seems to me that this holding is actually pretty well reasoned. and the judge did his best to go through the process and look at the different aspects of the 26 states's claim. and he found that basically because this action was a substantive rule, it should have gone through the process, a requirement of the procedures act. the administrative procedures act. so the fact that this did not happen is an indicator that perhaps this administration should have slowed down a little bit, should have thought about maybe going to that process opening up to comment, letting the public way in. it did it because i think it knows the public would have been pretty much opposed to what he is doing. john: and if you had your way with the administrator procedures act been the point of law that you have moved forward with on a case against the executive action? guest: well, the state had a number of different things there were looking at. that is the one the judge decided to use. when it comes to a pretty light this or an order like this, the judge is not required to look at every single claim. he needs to find one that fits a reason to stop, temporally stopped some sort of program like this. that was the one he chose. it seems fine to me, but we will see when this gets to a trial. john: and year -- and you are a legal policy analyst, for folks who are not familiar with cif. guest: yes, we are small nonpartisan, nonprofit. we look at the various impacts that this has on the american society, whether it is national security impact or environmental impact. and our focus is aimed at a more rational immigration policy. more in line with what the barbara jordan commission found in the 1990's under president clinton. and that is a policy that is more beneficial to the american citizen know what we have now. john: and ms. williams, can you talk about the american immigration lawyers association? guest: part of our mission is to seek justice and seek the best testable justice for the -- best possible justice for the immigration system. so we, too, are looking for the best immigration system. and the one or two points that are organizations agree on now is that this is not it had this is not it. we are looking for a process and a system that recognizes all of the different interests and imperatives of the united states, which is our values of family, our economic interests and indeed the interests of u.s. citizens. which are deeply tied with what happens to the people who come here are want to come here. john: and the five years what to talk to our guests, we are happy to get your questions and thoughts. republicans can call-in at (202) 748-8001 for. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-0003 for independents. he writes that -- in arguments there on how it is impacting the states themselves. that's them yes, i think that was a discussion on whether or not the states were looking at whether or not they should bring their case to the court. in this instance, the states were arguing, and the judge found that, yes, they are going to be impacted by a lot of costs, health care cost, educational costs. the administration tried to argue that, well, states have in this -- have a decision on whether or not they want to issue drivers licenses. by that the same time, they haven't arguments that they do have to issue drivers licenses to those who have the status. so the states do have standing. they are impacted at the decision this administration is going to make him an asset, they have the right to sue. john: and the states that are bringing these cases, mostly republican governors. do you agree with the impact here? guest: i found that that entire line is disingenuous because the initiative that the administration was taking was not to make people illegal. the a document to people are already here you whatever impacts are already on the state are already there. this is talking about people who have long-term ties to than i did the aids, family ties -- long-term ties to the united states,, ties to the modest rates. by getting them work authorization, it in fact took place couple of decades ago for that particular project and rules. but aside from that, the judge was talking about an influx of undocumented. but that has nothing to do with this particular issue. those folks are already here. the drivers license bit of it that was, quite honestly, and embarrassing gaffe. it is a relatively minor thing. and the basis for standing is that the economic impact must be significant. it was an exaggerated impact. the economic analysis of what it costs to issue a drivers license ignore some very basic facts about fixed versus variable costs. so it was really almost a desperate grasp at anything. john: and when we have the term stock and debt the -- can you give us a quick rundown of the two programs? guest: the first one was for childhood arrivals. it would give cause i legal status, not dividing exec or what that is, but it exams a large number of people from deportation. it provides them a work permit, a social security account access to earned income tax credit, drivers licenses in their state, and a number of other benefits that is basically as close to green card like, if you will, not the full green card, but sort of a -- as close to a green card as you can get. basically it means that they are very unlikely to be ever returned home. president obama decided to expand it with age cut off. you couldn't be older than 31. but now there is no upward a -- upward age limit. it has been expanded to a three-year process. then the one for the parents would give the same benefits to the parents who are here illegally, but are parents to a child who is a u.s. citizen. john: some numbers from the migration policy institute, that we have shown our viewers in terms of those who would be eligible if these executive actions were a lot to proceed. the total unauthorized population about 11.4 million individuals. those who be impacted by the dapa program, coming to about 3.7 million. and the original daca about 1.4 , for a total of 5.2 million. or about 46% of the total unauthorized population. guest: instantly sounds like -- john: and we want to talk to our viewers, as well. the line for independents. eric, you're on. caller: good morning. take your for the chance you are giving me to express my opinion. i will try to be very brief. i am an independent now. i used to be a democrat, but i am very disappointed by the democracy -- the democratic party because what i'm realizing is that they are thinking about the interests of the party. that is not in the interest of the country. like when the president said more than 20 times that it was his constitutional prerogative to give amnesty to the illegals, and all of a sudden he changed. he said many things that he is not enforcing that he was elected to enforce. and the president is also saying that they cannot enforce the borders. what is the point, right? imagine that right now we give amnesty to all the illegals. and one year later, we have the same problem because our border is not secure. what have we really achieved? so i think that the border should be secure first. and we are the united states of america. we sent people on the moon. we have the most powerful military in the world. and you are telling me that we cannot force our own borders? john: take the first part of that the president saying that he doesn't have the authority again and again to do this. and then the executive action. guest: well, he doesn't have the authority to grant green cards to people. he doesn't have the authority to legalize. what he has the authority to do is to withhold enforcement action against people, and that is exactly what he is doing. he is saying, if you are in the united dates and to meet certain criteria, primarily that you are -- that your record is clean that you have been here for a while, that you have ties to the night is dates, we are not going to try to deport you right now. under our law, again that has been in place for a couple of decades, if the government takes that action against you, if you can show economic need, the government can give you a work authorization. so he is following the law to the limits of what he can do. i actually think he could have done more, but the fact is, what he is doing is well within his authority. and when he said, i can't grant legalization to everybody, he can. and this is not legalization. this is a temporary ability to stay in the united states to basically turn yourself in and getting work met. guest: it is more than that, though. i'm going to quote this. he said, with respect to the notion that i can suspend deportations through executive order, that is just not the case because there are laws in the books that congress has passed. to ignore these congressional mandates would not be in accordance with the law as president. i agree with that. he was putting out that this is something that is largely unpopular with the american people are -- with the american people. they found that 57% of registered voters felt that president obama up on immigration actions work, quote should be blocked. and they found that only 38% of americans supported president obama action. i think that there is a feeling that the market people have artie have this debate. we stopped amnesty back in 2006 2007. the call the legislators and said no, we don't want this to happen. because president obama couldn't get what he wants, he basically decided to go and do it on its own. john: is go to new york. frank is rating -- waiting. frank, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my comments. i'm absolutely mystified by the think ollie like powers by the president. whatever issues he comes up with, groups seem to be in favor of it. when, in fact, it seems like they can insurance are most -- it seems like their constituents are the ones most going to be hurt by it. it just doesn't make any sense. it seems like the congress doesn't have rule of their own to represent their own constituents, but instead seems to favor the party lines. john: do you want to target about that and some of the polling data? guest: well, we are bipartisan organization, and i'm not going to get into the partisan bickering as to who support what. i will say that i do wonder why there is an assumption out there that the generally lower paid, lower skilled jobs that undocumented immigrants are naturally the african-americans that there is one race that should be taking those jobs. that, to me, is a little bit offensive to but putting that aside, the polling data i think first of all is based on how the question is asked. second of all, it is largely based on a lot of misinformation that is out there about what has happened here. this initiative, again, is actually a way to have a rational enforcement program. you cannot deport 11 million people, other than physical and fiscal implications of that when so many of the people involved are deeply integrated into the fabric of american society. they say, ok, we are going to throw you out, closed on a factory. that is not feasible. again, the people who are the targets here are the people who are already intertwined into american society. and it is trying to minimize that disruption simply by collecting and better selecting how enforcement is being conducted. and that being rational about the people you are not acting against. rather than having them being here without work authorization so that they, essentially, are taking underground economy jobs and undercutting the -- or competing with companies that are paying for wages, give them the work authorizations and let everybody compete. john: i will give you the next call. mary is waiting in woodland hills, california. the line for democrats. caller: good morning. could either of your speakers address whether they know if from the got a federal subsidy -- if romney got federal subsidies for romney care in massachusetts? that is my only comment. guest: i cannot answer that question, but i would like to answer the previous question. i do find it offensive that people say that, well, these are jobs that americans won't do. there are no jobs that americans won't do. high skill, low skill. office cubicle jobs. americans fill every profession that is out there. it is when i hear that those are immigrant jobs, that is to me what is exit pretty offensive to this other idea that if we start enforcing our immigration laws and requiring our foreigners to respect the laws, that is when factories are going to close down. multiple administrations have not been enforcing the laws against employers. this is one of the main enforcement revisions of the 1986 cover might on immigrations -- 1986 compromise on immigrations. we don't have a lot of examples of businesses being, you know prosecuted for doing this. but there was one example. this was at the end of president bush's term. he sent agents into the midwest and enforced the law at a number of meatpacking plants. the advocates were very concerned about the plants that immigrants were being removed from the jobs. not only were they being removed from jobs, but what happened was that americans, legal residence, lined up to take those jobs. and wages and bonuses went up on average as a result of that because they had to finally start competing after offering decent wages. my concern is if you write now give work permits, as president obama is doing, to people who are here working illegally, it is not just amnesty for the illegal immigrants, it is more of an amnesty for the illegal employers. because a basically says come you know what, we are not going to find you are breaking the law for years and undercutting wages. we are, in fact, going to reward you. you can keep you employers. most of the immigrants are not working for illegal wages. they work for decent wages, but they are substandard wages than what they would have to be paid. so you give the work permits you summits that substandard wage. i think they should be enforcing the law and access to offering better wages. john: we are having this conversation, if you want to read more on his work, it is see i s.org. crystal williams the american immigration lawyers association. it isaila.org. jim is up next. the line for independents. good morning. caller: yes, i'm a big watcher and supporter of c-span. the last point the gentleman made was exactly right. watching c-span over the years i have heard carpenters, drywall hangers painters, all call in and say -- and at this point, it is going to be truck drivers pretty soon -- lose their jobs. this lady needs to get out of her office a little bit more. i have seen people pick up these people and bring them into their neighborhoods and have them do this work. so don't tell me that they are doing jobs americans won't do because i have seen it firsthand. i know you are a lawyer, but i could debate you life on this issue. being a veteran, i took the own. but you are a traitor to this country. john: i apologize for that, miss williams. guest: let me just point out that what we are talking about is giving people work authorizations. so that they can be paid competitively. so that they can vote with their feet away from employees that might be exploiting them. that is the whole point. i do agree that as long as people are undocumented, there's somebody who is going to exploit that fact. and they're going to utilize that fact to compete unfairly in the marketplace. but if someone has work authorization, they have power. and that power is the power to vote with your feet. to go to a job where you can get better wages. john: a question on twitter. why would an illegal alien who has hidden successfully for years open up to the possibility or probability of changing policy? jody says they won't. guest: well, that was the case with the original daca. several hundred thousand, in fact, did. the chance for work authorization, the immediate need to get legal work is so important. it cannot be overstated. that if you are living in the shadows, if you are living a life where you cannot get a drivers license, you can't get a job legitimately, just the chance to come out, even for a couple of years, and live a better life and build a better life for your family is enough to bring many people out. it is not enough to bring out the entire numbers that we're talking about here, and people would need to think very carefully about it, but indeed, the people do do it, and they do it because they are desperate. john:. 5.2 million number that we talked about earlier is that those who would be eligible, not necessary -- necessary the ones who would come out. the life or republican -- line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you taking my call. i was just wondering, under the obama nullification, can a future president repeal obama's tax increases by saying that it will only enforce a 15% federal income tax rate? if not, why not? john: a question there on a presidents being set by the executive action. guest: it is kind of more than immigration reform. where talking about a separation of powers issue, and really how a president can go about putting into law policies that congress has had no two. and i think the tax code is a good example. the irs falls under andy presidents curfew. if they want to, the president could try, maybe not successfully, that they could try and say you know what, i have asked congress to change a couple of taxes. i have asked them to change the income tax in this country. they refuse to, so i'm not directing my agencies to make those changes. you can go into other areas. what about the issue of birth what citizenship? there is no actual supreme court ruling on that specific issue. if they say, i'm not authorizing -- i'm directing might state department tonight give u.s. passports to children born to immigrants who are not in the country permanently. it is sort of a lawless way of going about it. i'll prefer congress addressed these things, as they do on this issue, but the -- it is a dangerous precedence. guest: if i may, on the dax -- tax, many of president has, in fact, done exactly the same thing that obama is doing with respect to immigration. choosing who they are going to enforce the law against. making choices. you can go after every tax violator, so you go after certain tax violators. that is what is being done here. with respect to immigration. the prioritization. it is not tainting the tax level , just as it is not changing the level or number of visas that are issued. it is prioritizing enforcement. guest: but it is different than that because i get a better president has power to prioritize how toprioritization in this discretion as part of enforcement. it means you have to deport these people first, you go after the worst of the worst. then you deport these people who are the misdemeanor folks, and then you deport everyone else. everyone gets deported, that is prioritization. obama is saying he is only going to deport people who are serious security risks. it is hardly the equivalent of saying if you may under $180,000 , i'm going to exempt you. host: usa today talked about this today. one of the letters came from ronald. how do you round up everyone? there is no viable solution to deport at all. they are already here paying taxes and doing jobs americans will not do. we need to find an answer. suing is not it. that is just one of the letters to the editors this morning. dan is up next, a los angeles california. caller: a few want to see how negatively the impact illegal immigration has been on a community, come to los angeles. the black community has been overran by illegals. this is going to have a negative impact on the black community. black people do take these jobs, not because they want to or necessarily have a right to have them, but the jobs for the most part are confined because racism still exists in this country. i have been a democrat all my life. i am considering becoming an independent. i listen to c-span every day. i hear african-americans calling every day complaining about illegal immigration. it seems to be it is -- on their fears. i do not see what the problem is. any black congressman will to you the employment rate is horrendous. this immigration is having a horrible impact on the black community. host: about 1.5 million unauthorized individuals in california would be eligible for these deferred action programs. in los angeles specifically, about 466,000 would be eligible under these two problems. guest: they are able to compete on a more equal, fair basis they will not be undercutting wages of u.s. workers to get jobs. they will be able to have work authorization and vote and go to other, better jobs. it will improve the unemployment scenario by eliminating the unfair competition or at least reducing and because this does not impact everybody. the idea that this is somehow creating illegal immigration when it is actually addressing the illegal immigration that is happening. reduce the number of people subject to deportation, who are truly here without ties, who should be rude moved because of criminal activity. host: glenn, good morning. caller: we are deviating from what is going on here. these people have broken the law , this president has changed the wall. they're going to be able to get tax returns now. he has changed the law. there is no means testing in those numbers. they are incorrect, by far. who goes to the health apartment to get health care and welfare everyday? that is probably an everyday number. host: they are from the migration policy institute. you can check out their website migration policy institute, if you want to look at some of the numbers. let's go to bill. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions for miss williams. who is paying her salary and number two, i listened to a comment earlier that said she is a traitor to the nation and i believe that. host: do you want to talk about your group a little bit more? guest: we are a membership organization of 13,000 plus lawyers. funding comes from dues paid by members, books that we sell, law books, and from the education programs that we put on for lawyers. our funding comes fundamentally from lawyers. host: same question for you. guest: our funding comes from small donors, people who agree with us on the issue. we are the small david versus the multiple goliaths out there. all of the big business groups on the side of open borders, mass emigration, the different companies, marriott, facebook, they are pushing for more immigration. the chamber of commerce, the aclu. it is interesting. what we are hearing from your viewers is that this is not a right versus left, republican versus demonstration -- republican versus democrat issue. the average american tends to want to see lower levels of immigration and better enforcement. that is the divide here. host: one more facebook post from usa today's conversation that they had with their readers. david writes in about the decision to block the executive action. thank you, the checks and balances are starting to rain in. let's go to barbara waiting in lakewood, florida. caller: thank you. i have a question. when these illegals go to the hospital or doctor's who pays their bills? who pays their bill and they do not have insurance? guest: the same people who pay anybody's bills when they do not have insurance. the problem is they do not have work authorization and they do not have access to insurance. we set things up that way. that is another reason to get work authorization to these folks so they can get insurance. host: do you have a follow-up? caller: no, that is all i had to ask. i still work to pay my insurance. when these people go to a hospital and they do not have insurance, i feel like a are charging me extra if i go to the hospital to pay for these people who do not have insurance. guest: these of the things the am migrants -- these of the things the population is concerned about. we should have an immigration system where we are welcoming and high skilled people, the einstein's of the world. instead, we are getting people who are very poor, limited skill sets, unlikely to have a high school education. it does not make them bad people, but should we have a policy in place that fits the demographic? i think most americans would say no. guest: i disagree. they are coming here for a reason. the reason is to work. if they are coming here, the economy is telling us something. there is a need for workers in this segment. our policy should reflect the realities of what our economy is telling us. there is a need for the -- the reason we have as much a undocumented immigration as we have is because the jobs they can fill are here. there is a demand for workers. the president is doing the little that he can. bills folks of their, they need to get off the stick and do it. guest: the difference between an economic need and demand. a lot of employers are demanding they have access to more foreign labor, despite the fact that there are tens of millions of americans unemployed at all education levels. there is no lack here in the united states. host: al, good morning. caller: both of them make good points. it is a hot topic. i do not know where i stand with it. i'd like them to talk about, one of the reasons i was listening to the oral arguments is that congress would not fund the deportation of all of these people. that is why he was pride toward -- prioritizing the emigration. i would like them to talk about that a little bit. guest: prioritization is excessive -- is acceptable. you can prioritize how you enforce immigration laws. the administration reports they can only deport summoning people year. the irs cannot go after every person who fails to pay their taxes. they are going to prioritize. they are going after people who have millions of dollars in the bank account. that does not mean that anyone who makes $20,000 a year is exempt from paying their taxes. they have to prioritize. they only audit about 1% of taxpayers. the united states only deports a small percentage of illegal immigrants. if you are a run-of-the-mill emigrant, your odds of getting deported are close to zero. if you are here illegally, you should be concerned that you are going to be deported. you should feel concerned that you will be held accountable for that. we are exempting large numbers of people from deportation. could you deport all people overnight? of course not. he could deport 400,000 people next year and the year after that. we are seeing internal enforcement of going down. host: joel, churchville, new york. caller: very informative discussion today. i am 18 party member. i am against illegal immigration, mainly for the cost of imposes on the schools in the house bills area and what i would like to see is a solution and a compromise. mr. obama says he does not think 11 million people -- 11 million deportations can take place. i believe we could let them stay if they paid for what they have stolen. i estimate that at about $100,000 per illegal. host: how did you come up with that estimate? caller: i believe it costs $10,000 per year per student to educate kids. just through the educational loan and the free health care, they have got to pay society. i do not hear that that being discussed. guest: i am a taxpayer. i do not have any children. i have been paying my entire tax to -- i have been paying my entire life to educate other people's children. i think it benefits society. if you are in the united states, you need to be educated. what happens to those edgy -- those children who become educated? they become better citizens and residents of the country because of their education. i do not think it can be imposed on only the parents of the people educated or only the people educated. that is why we have a public education system. those are -- those that are here undocumented should pay some sort of fine or fee to become legalized. that is what passed the senate. it never went anywhere in the house. host: what was passed in that legislation? guest: it was about $1000 per person. guest: there were waivers for most of what which in these bills. host: paul, akron, ohio. good morning. caller: i was having a question if either one of these people -- there's a budget set up to the senate. why is it more important to protect illegal aliens than innocent americans by not going ahead and passing a budget and stopping the executive action of the president? guest: he is referring to the dhs funding bill. the house passed a bill that would fully fund dhs, but not allow the funds to be used for the immigration action. some people say that was an inappropriate place to put it, but this action was a result of 10 memos. it is a perfectly reasonable place to adjusted -- to address it. they do not want to have a debate on the bill. they do not want to bring it up for a vote. they believe that making sure illegal immigrants can stay in the country is more important than funding dhs. now, we are talking about a program that is popular and has been stopped by the court. host: for those opposed to this, does the action to stop this take the pressure off those republicans in congress from moving forward with this? host:guest: it may. some may say we are going to fund dhs, despite having -- that block funding of the amnesty program. guest: i take a different view on that. i am nonpartisan and i am embarrassed by the way our -- is operating on all sides. i think there is enough fault to go around on this. in this case, i think those who are holding up the funding of the department of homeland security in order to have a political tantrum should be ashamed of themselves. host: congress returns next week. they are on recess right now. we have our two guests for the next 10 minutes or so. let's go to jimmy in lexington, mississippi. caller: i would like to know why they are deporting immigrants by the thousands every republican -- and now that he is trying to do something about it, they have made a 360 on this. host: guest: president obama has asked about this himself. he said the numbers are deceptive because of the way in which deportations were counted. originally, there was the understanding that they deported from the -- of the company and returned home were counted as deportation, or as people stopped at the border were not. now we are counting both. he is trying to focus on the border enforcement. we have seen deportations inside the country go down. guest: that is not exactly accurate. they do not include the numbers where people are truly turned around at the border. one of the myths about our border is that it is a line. the bush administration changed the definition of our border to include a 100 mile radius inside the border. this doesn't include the people caught within the radius. there are two agencies charged with enforcement. cvp is responsible for the border. the way they counted is if ice handles that, it is counted as a removal. if cbp picks someone up and gives them to ice and ice puts them in removal, they are counted. i keep hearing people talk about we have to secure the border. here is the administration that has put emphasis on border enforcement. now it is being told you're not enforcing the law because you are emphasizing border enforcement over interior enforcement. i have my argument with president obama, many related to immigration. on this one, i think he is being unfairly maligned because he has concentrated on border enforcement. he cannot win. a lot of the motivation behind his exasperation is no matter what he does, he cannot win. guest: the reason he plays with those numbers is because previously, those people stopped at the border in turn home without processing as extensive as it was now. the process is a little different and make sure numbers of little higher. guest: the number puts them into the system. this system, they can identify those who were previously caught and returned. that was part of enhancing border security. the question is whether or not the administration is doing as much as they can. some of the judges were saying we will set you up with a court date. basically, processing them means keeping them here longer. we call it no process removal. they are not able to go before judge unless they can show they have a credible fear of persecution. host: crownsville, maryland. good morning, judy. caller: i agree with joel. in this part of maryland, the federal contribution to schools is $7,000 per student per year area that is $14,000 a year. you throwing kindergarten four year olds, you're looking at $150,000 per student in the system. i agree with your gentleman who says there is top-down support for legalizing illegal immigration. to overstay your visa is a felony. these people are committing felonies and so are their employers because a person who aids or abets a felony is a co-conspirator or a similar party. guest: not only is overstaying your visa not a felony, it is not a crime. it is a civil violation. employers, there are a range of employers. there are those who know that their employees are undocumented. there are those who should know. there are those who do not know. condemning them in the same basket is a violation of our due process and our rights, but let's be rational about the reality of the thing. most employers do not know. guest: it is not a felony. reentry after deportation does become a criminal matter. i think there's a point that cannot be made enough. you look at articles in california, the l.a. times, how they're not enough schools for up-and-coming preschool kids, not enough grade schools these newspaper reporters never want to get into a discussion. they do not try to adjust and it harms them. as far as the employment issue goes, there are a lot of employers who are breaking the law. if present obama wanted to, he could have mandated e-verify. it is very easy to use. the president did not do that because he wants to keep these illegal workers in the positions they are in. host: ernest, miami, florida. caller: good morning. i want to comment about what the young lady said. i think you are wrong about what you said pertaining to immigration. it is hard enough to find a job. obama and you guys are trying to legalize people to come here to take away the jobs we need. americans who have family and children they need to feed. you guys are more concerned about illegal aliens then you are about your own citizens. terrorists can come over here get a job, a social security number, they can plot, make money and destroy our country. guest: i am sorry for your situation. trying to pit one minority against another two of skewer the big picture. it shows that immigration benefits the economy by putting more money into the economy and creating more tax payers, by building up the economy. those who are authorized to work do become contributors to that. this initiative by the administration to not enforce against certain people is very explicit as to the fact that if someone has an issue that would make one believe they have terrorist ties, they are not going to get the work authorization. they are not going to get the withholding removal. they will not be eligible for any of these benefits. it is disingenuous to look at this population and say they are terrorists, because they are not. guest: problems i have is we want to bring people into the work force to compete with americans. shouldn't they be competing with americans for jobs? i don't think so. i hear from a lot of employers who say he is latino and they work harder than everybody else. i think some employers have racial curling when they say that. they do not want to hire certain people in our society and the ink latino -- and they think latino people work harder than others in our society. the question is whether or not the government has the capacity to -- that application. even for the deferred at hisction program, it was found that there was vetting. i suspect some bad apples will make it through. host: not the end of the discussion, but the end for today's show. we appreciate your time this morning. we will talk about the new secret service director that was appointed yesterday and open up our phones in our last half-hour. we will be right back. >> barbed wire and guard towers are gone. memories come flooding back for some new people who had lost such a big part of their childhood. some buried the memories. with it, the history of this camp, more than 60 years later. >> this sunday, the only family internment camp during war war two at crystal city texas and the real reason for this camp. >> they say we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your families in the crystal city internment camp if you agree to go voluntarily. then, i discovered the real secret of the camp. they also had to agree to voluntarily repatriate to germany and japan if the government decided they needed to be repatriated. the truth of the matter is is the crystal city camp was humanely administered by the ins , but the special war divisions used it as roosevelt's primary prisoner exchange program. >> sunday nine at 8:00 eastern and pacific. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there are also the first women veterans in the senate. keep track using congressional chronicle. the congressional conical -- chronicle page has statistics about each session of congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are opening up our phones to viewers to talk about any policy you want to. we continued the immigration, or any other debate you want to talk about. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can start dialing in. as you do, one update on news of the white house. joseph clancy named head of the secret service. not necessarily a new name at the white house. guest: he worked for the secret service until he retired in 2011. he was the head of the presidential protection detail. that is one of the more visible and important jobs at the secret service. he developed a relationship with president obama. he retired to take a job as the director of corporate security and comcast. president obama brought him back last october in the wake of high-profile very well-publicized security breaches, to be the acting director. yesterday, he said i am going to make him the permanent director. host: what changes has he made as acting director? talk about those changes and are we going to continue to see some departures from the secret service? guest: i can't predict what will happen in the future, but there is a whole level of upper management that mr. clancy has pressured out. the head of public affairs, the head of presidential protection, about four or five upper level managers have left. they have put a second barrier in front of the white house fence so there is a no man's land between the sidewalk and the white house fence. they are beginning to institute more permanent security fixtures . host: you talk about recommendations from a panel set to study the secret service in the wake of these issues. that panel is part of this report. one of the suggestions from that report, the next director should be a strong leader from outside the agency who can drive cultural change in the organization and move the secret service forward into a new era. guest: this is what is controversial. some members of congress, among them, and jason who says president obama should have followed the advice and not outside the secret service to find the next director. criticized the secret service for being far too insular. it has a culture where people will start as a uniformed secret service officer and work their way up. the panel recommending going outside. clancy spent 27 years prior to secret service. mark phillips was a deputy attorney general was part of the panel and said he is an insider, but he has done significant work outside the secret service. president obama said, or the press secretary said there is a balancing act here. you want someone from outside to give fresh perspective, but you need a little bit of its too small knowledge to protect the president. host: we appreciate your time. it is open phones in our last 20 minutes, talking about any issues you want to bring up. caller: the hypocrisy on this issue that i have heard from many of the callers is breathtaking. this is business against labor. these people are calling in, calling that poor woman a traitor, when the tradersitors are in congress. we pay them to do a job. they are supposed to solve this issue and they are not doing it. they are throwing it in the lap of the president because they want to leave him hanging in the wind. the local chambers of commerce, the supreme court, citizens united these are all the players who are playing us pitting us one against the other. people believe unions are a bad thing. unions were our way forward out of messes like this. if everyone was playing on a level playing field we would have an equal seat at the table. we have pitted each other against each other and divided ourselves so much that this plantation called america is continuing. as far as isis is concerned the police departments that are killing poor innocent black people, shooting them on the streets, eight times, executing them, being judge, jury, and executioner, these people who are not going to go fight those people, leave those people to their own devices. host: jolene is up next. good morning. caller: i have one comment and one question. i have a neighbor who is an illegal alien. she has seven children with five different men. she gets 1500 a month. it is a four car garage, three and a half bath, $900 worth of food stamps. she told me she makes about $55,000 a year. she says illegal immigrants get treated better than citizens and that is correct. her total is over 55000 and that does not include medical and dental. host: lee is up next. caller: good morning. i was concerned about what senator gutierrez said the other day, that if the executive action is overturned, there will be militant action in opposition which sounded strange to me as far as the administration is concerned there has been so many fragmentation of a constitution that i am worried along , maybe not today or tomorrow that maybe we would be so oh preston overregulated -- that maybe we would be oppressed and overregulated. it seems to me that somehow, we will end up with a one-party situation like other countries. host: speaking of the president he has been speaking at a summit battling violence and extremism. here is a bit from his appearance yesterday. [video clip] >> we have to confront the ideology used to incite people to violence. there is fair debate about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge. al qaeda isil, groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. they try to portray themselves as holy warriors in defense of islam. that is why isil presumes to declare itself the islamic state. they propagate the notion that america and the west is at war with islam. that is how they recruit, that is how they try to radicalize young people. we must never accept the premise that they put forward. it is a lie. nor, should we grant these terrorists the legitimacy they think. they are not religious leaders. they are terrorists. host: that was the president at the summit that is ongoing this week. you can check out that today at 10:30. some news in the paper about the fight against the islamic state. the story notes that in saudi arabia, military chiefs involved in the coalition conducting airstrikes against the islamic state began a two-day meeting. it left a security vacuum that was filled by extremists. we are an open phones for the last 10 minutes or so. fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i want some historical fact in respect to this immigration system. people talk about obama will allow people to come here. no, they have to be here for five years. some factual points. when the president took office in 2000, there were 7 million illegal aliens. when he left office, there were 11.3. one obama came in office, there was 11.3. the number has basically decreased since obama has been in office. they went up to 12.3, but one million of them went back. everyone was upset when the number of illegals went from 7.9 to 12.3 during bush's time in office. obama has basically kept it where it is. host: 11 .4 unauthorized aliens in the united states. the actions the president imposed would affect about 5.2 million of those. caller: my granddaughter has a mexican father who was brought here when he was young. his parents ended up when he became a teen he went back to mexico. he came out of the shadows as a right to work if you are brought here as a child. he did it right away, got himself a different job than cleaning dishes at a restaurant. he is doing very well. two years ago, my daughter and this gentleman had a baby. he did not have insurance. the state still gave him a $10,000 bill. it has been two years. he has almost got that bill paid for. when he went to get this registration, i wish i would have talked to the lawyer. when he went to get the registration, it cost him $1000. now he tells me he was notified it is only a two-year registration. i said go renew it. he said no, now the lawyer wants $5,000. he is working legitimately and the lawyers have their books and him to keep him here. the price goes up and up. these lawyers are so pro-immigration because they are getting the money from these people as they are here. host: what is the solution here? caller: from what he tells me i can understand why his parents brought him here. in his opinion, not only do you have the cartels and the gangs that the police department in the village he lived in, people were buying themselves guns to protect themselves. he said if you are caught with the gun, you have to pay fine, you do time, and the cop takes the gun and then the police department sells the guns back on the street. that is the kind of corruption going on down there. he says to come up to, that is why a lot of people spend the money to come up. . i understand that, but mexico has to clean up their own problem. in talking to him, he changed my mind. once they are here, you talk about the coyotes bringing them across and i think it cost him 7000. it is going to cost him 7000 to stay here legally. host: thank you for sharing. mark minnesota, the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on president obama's credibility and related to a comment which you made earlier this morning. with regard to president obama's credibility, i think he has not been truthful on many occasions. if you like your health, you can keep your shovel ready jobs. just a few weeks ago, david axelrod wrote in his memoir that president obama lied with regard to his position on same-sex marriage and that was the original headline. this morning, a caller called in and made a reference to president obama being a muslim. i do not care if he is or is not, but you are very quick to say he is a christian, he has said that on many occasions. the problem is when you have people who continually lie and not tell the truth they have credibility problems. while i do not care about the original religious affiliation of the president, i do care about the fact that if he lies it goes to an integrity issue. host: colorado springs, karen good morning. caller: i just want to say, this is a short statement, we have immigration laws on the books. congress is under no mandate to change our immigration laws to accommodate those who have come here illegally. according to section three of our constitution, our president can only enforce our laws, they cannot make our laws. would this also has created is that we have a language problem and here in colorado springs there are a lot of neighborhoods that are turning into barrio'ss. half the time i am shopping, i hear more speed -- i hear more people speaking spanish than english. host: do you think there should be a requirement that everyone should learning was? caller: i think that has to be mandated. host: do you think it is something colorado should do or a federal mandate? caller: according to the laws right now governing immigration people come in here are mandated to learn english. what we have right now is an influx of illegals that are not under any mandate. we are having a lot of cultural divides because of this. i think everyone here illegally no matter how long, ought to be deported. come in through the front door rather than try to come in through the back door. the other argument that families have been split up and it is the humanitarian thing to bringing them back together and to reunite them, this is not a problem that we americans have created. this is a problem that these illegals have created for themselves. host: that is karen, calling in from colorado, on the issue of integrity, which one of the previous callers talked about. john, north carolina wrote on twitter about jeb bush and his potential bid for the presidency. if the next president has an open competent administration, he will look magnificent and contrast to this current administration. the affordable care act, the case coming up on the aca in the supreme court. here is a headline. the administration cheers obamacare figures as of 11.4 million in role in plans -- enro ll in plans. 8.6 million customers signed up on the federal health carecare.gov portal. the total easily beats the $9.1 million target the administration had set for itself at the beginning of the three-month enrollment period. the total is still short of the 12 million enrollees that the congressional budget office had projected. we have time for a few more calls. larry, westville, indiana. good morning. caller: i want to make a comment about what has been going on in congress. i am a lifelong democrat. i am getting frustrated with the democrats while they debate the immigration issue. they have calculated and allow these immigrants to become naturalized. they know that they are probably going to vote democrat and they are afraid of that. i wish the democrats would expose this and i want to talk about isis. i think isis is the result of worldwide income inequality emanating from the united states. host: larry indiana. our last caller. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the summit on battling violent extremism beginning in about half an hour on c-span. have a great thursday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] coming up in half an hour, the president addresses the white house about the terrorism summit. and to look for ways to develop executive strategies. live coverage at 10:30 eastern. national security group advisor susan rice will be concluding a summit today and we will have our remarks live starting at 5:45 today. and three nights of tech will wrap up tonight with john chambers. here is the preview. >> what you are out to see will connect these devices, think about 500 billion devices where this will go. the challenges how do you get the right information, at the right point in time to the right device to the