tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 7, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
talking about a first 45 minutes of this addition of "washington journal." welcome, today is july 7. we will talk about the arizona state immigration law, federal versus state, and we want to get you involved. here are the phone numbers. and this money we have a special line for arizona residents. if you have called in the past 30 days, send us an e-mail. c-span.org. or youucan send us a message by twitter at cspanwj. here is the lead story in "the
wall street journal." one of its authors joins us by phone to get us going this morning. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: what are the grounds for the justice department's action, in their opinion? guest: in their view, it is pre- empted by federal law that governs immigration going back 100 years, and the federal courts have used that, especially as an extension of foreign affairs. it is under the responsibility of the federal government. that is the basic premise of the lawsuit. host: what is the legal process now set into motion? guest: there are already a couple lawsuits filed by local,
civil liberties, activists groups in arizona. so, when this comes into play, first the justice department is asking for an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect july 29. eventually, you'll probably see a combination between this and the federal lawsuit and the others. host: who will have the decision over whether that injunction gets enforced? the arizona law will not go into effect at the end of the month? guest: a federal judge will hear that question. i am not sure which judge has it. host: will there be a final arbiter as to whether this law is unconstitutional? guest: yes, eventually be expected to get to the supreme court. some conservatives use it as a chance to litigate something never got to see the end of,
which is proposition 187 in california for many years ago. many of these people would like to see something like this go all the way to the supreme court to into the question of whether or not states aae allowwd to do this. there is a lot of law that says the federal government gets the upper hand on this, but some conservatives would like to see it go all the way. host: overall how does this lawsuit fit in with the obama administration as immigration policy? guest: the president did a major immigration speech last year. he has been trying to prod the political parties to address illegal immigration, and what they called comprehensive immigration reform including the pathway to citizenship, and to increase border security.
there are some democrats to feel this will help to energize latino voters on the side of democrats and alienate them from republicans. it is not so clear -- with a midterm elections coming up -- that that will work. longer-term, the next presidential election, the republicans face the danger that they couud alienate latinos in that election as well. host: you can see evan perez' article on line and in the paper this morning. thanks for joining us. more from this article, the lawsuit filed tuesday sets up a likely supreme court clash over state versus federal power that some supporters of the measure
precedent. usually, state and local governments steer clear of the prea is considered the jurisdiction of federal aathorities under established law. so, we want to talk about this for the next 40 minutes in this first segment -- the arizona immigration law, federal versus state. the numbers are on the screen.
and arizona residents, we have a special line for you this morning. our first call comes from riverside, california, on our line for republicans. david, you are on this show. david? are you there? all right. let') go to the op-ed page in this morning's "the wall street journal" -- suing arizona. they read that the arizona law is above all else, a cry for federal help. mr. obama could have used a lot to be launched a constructive debate on the urgency of reform and consequences of further delay.
on the phone, on our line for independents, they've rom the north carolina. caller: most people in this country do not realize there is a law called the public do the doctrine in this country. it is applied on the federal and local, and state levels. it goes like this -- government and its agents have no legal duty to protect it a duty to protect society as a whole, but not the individual. if the federal government abdicates its responsibility to protect the southern borders and all these other issues, financial, that have been going on, the states also can apply the public duty doctor that they have the duty to protect the
whole, not the individual. that is what i think arizona ought to do. to declare they're going to opt for the public do the doctrine. they have a duty to protect the whole because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility. host: on the line for democrats out of california, juan. caller: yes cannot comment on the last caller -- i don't know where this guy is coming from, but basically, the federal government has always had jurisdiction over matters having to do with immigration law -- yes, i want to comment on this last caller. in matters they made recently where they announced corporations can contribute at will, i don't think they will do two heavy things back to back.
luckily, we will have justice sonia sotomayor there to straighten out these issues. but the states have no jurisdiction over this issue. if it comes down to it, it is a matter of states' rights versus federal like a man and a loss that a long time ago. host: how you see this moving the administration's policy forward? caller: the department of justice at their leisure has followed the case, and have spent enough time researching this to file a lawsuit now. they're asking for an injunction, don't want any irreparable harm to happen to these residents of hispanic background. people are already beginning to leave the state because they are afraid. it is something president obama
has properly handled. the justtce department will handle it. the supreme court should rule in favor of the federal government. host: let's move on to arizona and ken. this is the one for republicans. caller: yes, i have a comment no one has covered so far since i have been listening. the law that the state of arizona has adopted is the same as the federal law. the only thing the governor and others here wanted to do was that they wanted the federal law to be followed. they gave permission to officials within the state to, the police officers and border control, to do the job that the federal people refuse to do.
host: the attorney general says all those states may exercise police power in a manner that has an incidental effect on aliens, the state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state law in a mattemayor that interferes withe federal immigration laws. what do think about what the attorney general has to say? caller: he is wrong. the law passed in the state of arizona is exactly the same as the federal law. they are refusing, i.c.e. is refusing to follow federal law. the other thing that irritates me, such as juan, people live here -- and that includes legal
aliens, do not like the illegal aliens coming in here and taking all the obs. i know quite a few of them, and they speak for the law just as most of i guess you would say, white people do. host: on the line for independents, of washington. caller: it is disgraceful that the individuals will lead to congress have allowed it to get this bad. illegal immigration is one of the biggest scams perpetrated against this country since its independence. everyone is down on arizona because they want to protect themselves. these people down there have been inundated with illegal immigrants. there is crime. and i'm not saying that all the illegal immigrants come here to commit crime. the majority are decent people who come here to work, but how do we know who they are?
had we know the good from the bad? and overall, what do we expect the people of arizona to do? host: curtis, what do you see as the solution? caller: i think we enforce the laws that are already on the books. and there has to beesome compassion and mitigating circumstances, but overall, anyone who enters illegally, should be deported.. host: "the washington post" in their lead editorial says states are free to determine those laws and policies within their borders, even if the results are reprehensible and charts of the debt they cannot pass laws that prompt or ignore the federal government. the suit filed in the phoenix federal court correctly calls to resign on this breach, noting the constitution and congress have a vested the federal government, not states, with exclusive authority to establish immigration.
back to the phones, hope, kentucky, on the line for democrats. caller: hello? yes, i think what we're doing, our government, is supporting mexico's failed economic policy. if they would work on their own economy down there they would not have to send people over here. they're not coming just by chance. the government is keeping them together and sending them so that they can send money back to mexico. if mexico would get their own economic policy together, they would not need to come here. we're just a welfare state for mexico. we're taking care of their unemployment problem when people here are outtof work. if we would stop immigration, we
would have enough jobs for people here. those people up there have no idea what is going on out here in the country. we have no jobs out here for our own citizens. host: what about the employers to say if americans would do these jobs, they would not have to hire these illegals in the first place? caller: these people will do these jobs if given the opportunity. none of these jobs are advertised. americans would swamp them. having americans filled these positions. i know it, and they note. just give american citizens the right to get them out of here, and they would be home by dark. -- arnold, and they know it. here areethe phone lines.
caller: yes, i'm all for the arizona law. and of the last caller who called -- i got taken off of three construction sites, me and 100 other americans, and were all replaced with mexicans. it is not fair to us. we're losing homes and everything else. americans are out there on the sites we have been on for years. it is not fair to the american people, and we need to deport, get them deported. it might help obama with the latinos, but will not help them with the american vote. host: so, you are working and your boss came in and said it -- caller: not only me, but over 100 other americans on the side. it is all being built by mexicans only. this is ridiculous. this is america.
host: tenn., on the line for independents. caller: yes, with the last two colors, ultimately, the federal government will win based on discriminatory -- the way the states will handle it -- based on the last two callers. i see the government stopping it all the way around. host: you don't think that the state government can prevail? caller: no, there are other issues, such as here in tennessee. this is a great issue that can cause problems both internally and abroad. i can see where the last two callers are coming from, the more illegals who come in, it
weakens our it infrastructure. from the federal standpoint, americans could be more discriminatory towards those to come into the states, both legally and illegally. ultimately, the policy would be left to the government, not the states. host: let's move on to chandler, ariz., on the line for democrats. caller: i am a student in have been living here about three years. induutry, and i personally know about nine or 10 people who have moved away from the state. i assume because there were illegal, mexican. of all those, only one went back to mexico. the rest went back to other ptates. this lal will have to be repealed because if it is not done on the federal level, those people are just moving to other
states. they are not returning to mexico. businesses here in arizona. we were one of the hardest hit with the housing crisis. people moving away will hurt our economy. we need to keep them here as guest workers and their reform under the federal level. host: the people moving away, they come from mexico, work a little while and then move to other states? caller: welcome i have co- workers whom i know are from mexico. i don't know how long they have been here. some do not speak english, and i do not know them well. but i do know that the ones who have left have not returned to mexico. host: those amino, whether they stay here moving to other states, or in arizona, the know if they are applied to become u.s. citizens?
caller: i do not know. but i'm just concerned with the reality of people living here in arizona. i get tired of people attacking the president over. he is not doing anything different from the last five presidents, none of them have done anything about this. there is no way to round them up. how'd you do that? there is no one who has the money to do that. we have to deal with it in a rational way that makes sense. host: in this article, and the challenge expected for weeks, justice department attorneys said the law of arizona violates the constitutioo by turn to supersede federal law and by impairing the right to travel and conduct interstate commerce of illegal immigrants.
the next phone call comes from bakersfield, california. caaler: the way that i see it the federal government has done apparently all they can about illegal immigration. the state of arizona is just trying to say, hey, we know what is going on. we know that we have people who aae crossing the border illegally, so we will try to put a stop to it. the federal authorities are not doing much of anything about it. so, the state is stepping in and deciding to do away it can. if the federal government wants to step in, great. host: how far is this concern reaching from arizona to california?
do the people in your area in bakersfield see this as a good move? caller: most of them do. most of them are in agreement with the arizona law because of the same problem. you have people crossing the border, looking for work, taking the work away from the american people, and nobody is really doing anything about it on the federal level. host: this morning the lead editorial here says it hurts chances for immigration overhaul. it's those that what this arizona law does not do is hastened the comprehennive immigrrtion reform that
president obama called for last week. good morning, bob. caller: 1 me explain something. i am in my 70's, so i have seen a lot of history in this country. first of all, i believe the reason emigration has gotten so far out of hand is not illegal immigrants. it is illegal employers. it is slave labor, no matter how you look at it. it is slave labor. they pay these people peanuts, even up here in massachusetts we can see that. as far as the arizona law, the arizona law is similar to those i have seen from of the book oin my lifetime. i remember white only drinking fountains, white only restrooms.
i remember it being legal in some states for people of two different races to marry. host: let me get your thoughts on this statement released in response to the lawsuit by the governor's office. she says the best thing the government can do is predict a stable, predictable government. caller: yes. it sounds wonderful, but it is plain to a group of people who just do not get it. there's not that much air out there as far as this is concern. we already have laws governing this. they're just not being utilized. we have been hearing for five
years now that we need away of helping employers to find out if people are legal or not. when you think about it, they're collecting taxes and social security from these poor people. where's that money going? i'm sure it is not going to the government. it is just plain exploitation. host: next up is at tucson, arizona. go ahead. caller: good morning. the reality of living in southern arizona is that+ comprehensive immigration reform is being used by the politicians to avert the issue. the law in 1070 was drafted it originally for border safety. my uncle was killed and murdered by an illegal immigrant who just murdered him at a party by running him over.
he just skip across the border. i'm fourth generation hispanic. i live a couple of blocks from corona's street where there are multiple incidence of home invasions. i think that comprehensive immigration reform has nothing to do with water safety. that is a separate issue. the obama administration is arizona. i believe republicans are using this issue for november. host: have you ever been approached by law enforcement and asked to show proof of citizenship? caller: no, this county is predominately democrat and hispanic. another county is mostly opposite. the majority is caucasian,
mostly republican. we are the first major city, a major drug hub by proximity. we understand the law which is about border city. this is just a political issue to be used in november it is what many of my friends believe. host: we have aamessage by twitter from lynette. next up, riverside, california on the line for republicans. caller: our president i think should be put into prrson, basically jailed for not enforcing immigration laws. -piiam in california where we ae inundated with illegals on welfare, housing. the programs that we give these
people to come here illegally is out of control. p just want something to be done. if you cut out the magnate which are the entitlement programs of california, it will cure everything we have problems with. that is the bottom line. i think that mr. obama should be jailed. host: let's look at some other items in the news as we continue our discussion. this is from "the washington post" with the headline -- army intelligence analyst is charged in wikileaks case. the case against bradley manning reflects the tough stance that the obama administration appears to be taking against disclosure of classified information, a memo by defense secretary robert gates warned such leaks would not be tolerated and would be
prosecuted when proved. it is an attitude some analysts suggest could carry a cost. that article here. the same topic, different paper -- soldier faces charges in clique. on tuesday, the u.s. military announced it would pressed criminal charges against this 22-year-old soldier for allegedly transferring classified information to his computer and "delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source. you can read more about that in both washington papers, among several other papers. las vegas, nev., on the line for independents. kay, would you think about the arizona emigration law and a lawsuit filed by the u.s. government? caller: that will be an interesting case to watch
through the court system. i see both sides of the argument, but it has got to stop. i want to remind people we're coming up to the ninth anniversary of 9/11. all the hijackers were illegals with expired visas, student usevisas. and it is not always about just hispanics, but about canadians or others -- those not getting a good deal in their own country are coming in here anyway that they can. obama better watch it. it could be an act of treason. we are under war. host: washington, d.c., on the line for democrats.
caller: i'd like to make a few points, and the one that you keep making -- first of all, i want americans take these jobs, you ask? some claim they have offered these jobs to americans at $10 per hour. for 20 years to dollars per hour made people enough money. let's take your job, for instance. i haae an illegal alien over there was a great answer it will take your job for $5 per hour with no benefits. because he makes $5 per day if he is lucky in mexico. but, if you are opposed to that, obviously you are racist, so we will snare you with the racist claim. these people are breaking the bank in california and arizona with benefits. if you think it is bad now, mexico gets 60% of its federal budget from oil. so, in three yearr there will no
so, the federal government which is virtually failed because one- third of the provinces are now controlled by drug gangs, the whole country will be a failed state. so within three years you will have up to 60 more million illegal immigrants across the border. the democrats and republicans point fingers at each other because they want the illegal immigrants for their votes slicking get the next generation. the republicans want illegal immigrants for their cheap labor. host: let me get your response to this editorial from "the washington times to get the right is president obama's policy not to secure america's southern border.
caller: i agree with that. the democrats and republicans do not want it. the republicans are against abortion, but when they control if congress and the presidency, they did not introduce one bill at all to limit abortion. it is all lip service by republicans. when the government can no longer defend the border or protect people, it is no longer legitimate government. that is my view. host: good morning. this is on the line for independents. caller: i live in an area where it is mostly mexican. there were some illegals here, not as many now. the majority of jobs here are
picking. if you eat cantaloupe, it was probably picked by a mexican. host: how much do they get paid? caller: between $7.90 dollars per hour. host: and the you know any non- do that? other people in your area who say they're taking jobs? caller: i do not think any of the white people want the jobs, and i don't see them complaining about it here. it is 110 degrees out there -- i don't want it, bbt i am retired and on disability. my landlord is mexican. he came here several years ago and doing it right. he did it right. they have a business here. host: what you mean when you say
doing it right, dan? caller: when they came here, they came legally and went through the system. i don't see anything wrong with coming here, doing it right, son in your name, speak english. if you are illegal, do not do it. send them back. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer" this morning, prepared to pay more for mail starting in january. the postal service is facing an estimated $7 million -- $7 billion shortfall in 2011. lynchburg, va., on the line for republicans. caller: good morning.
i have a few quick points. the first is that some people -- which should not misunderstand -- this is not a republican or democrat issue. this is an american issue and concerns our national security and identity. the second point is, anyone who comes here illegally -- how can illegally to abide by legal laws? we need to recognize and remember that. host: let me ask you, even though a person comes here illegally, do you feel there are avenues with which they can establish legal residency here? caller: i believed if they are here fewer than five years they should not be allowed to establish legal residency. if they are here longer than five years they should be penalized and given a certain amount of time to establish
legal residency. host: so, if they are here fewer than five years there should be sent back to their place of origin? caller: yes, this is still one nation. if we don't maintain our national identity, then we are destined to fail like most of the latin countries where these illegal immigrants come from. host: our next call comes from phoenix. caller: thank you. one issue is the cost of this whole process of illegal immigration. arizona is a retirement state. people living on fixed incomes. in the past five years.doubled%- 65% of pretax is in one town to go to the school system. 94% of the sense in my high
school system are hispanic. a good portion of them do not speak english. the repercussions go far beyond just losing jobs to the illegals. it is a cost factor that is incredible and is forcing other people to pay for those were not paying their oww way. these individuals come here and reap benefits without paying for them. you go to an emergency room and it is filled with people who did not speak english. it is an incredible process. the second thing, who can ever trust the federal government to live up to their and of the -pbargain under comprehensive immigration, a bill, if they can't live up to the existing laws? host: this person writes that arizona is doing a great thing to kick out the illegals.
next up, cleveland, ohio, on the line for democrats. caller: hi. i cannot believe what i am hearing from those calling in this morning. before you can even speak on the subject it is best to be educated about it. this immigration problem began with rrnald reagan in the 1980's. he did the deal. he let two or 3 million illegals, and deemed them legal. but he did not put any type of
stopgap provision in place to stop the rest of illegals from the other part is that the republicans made it deals with businesses to give these illegals jobs, and that is what got us into this problem. obama just got in this seat. he is dealing with all of these issues -- we have problems because of the republicans. that is what is going on here. but you have the bailouts that were one by republicans, the subprime crisis that was also done by republicans. every problem we are dealing with except for bp -- bp is a problem, but even that mms goes back to the republicans when they put who they wanted in
there. this is ridiculous. host: the arizona emigration law, federal versus state is our topic. caller: sir, i just want to say that i back the government of arizona 100%. i am so thankful to god that it took a woman to get something done. you know what? we have to put a stop to all this illegal immigration because it is not right. it is not fair. we should not have to deal with it. until we have something with our borders that we're never going to stop all these drugs from coming in, and wonder why we have all these robberies and shootings. it is because of these drug addicts not wanting to go to work, but wanting to stay high all the time. it is not the economy. it is because we have so many drug addicts. when the border patrol.
i hope mr. obama gets with the program. host: in a book with the washington post" clean air rule seeks to limit emissions. the epa says the new rules represented its most comprehensive ever yet to tackle pollution -- in an editorial inside a. the washington post." -- inside "the washington post." next up, annapolis, md., on our line for independents. what you think about this
arizona law and the federaa lawsuit against them? caller: the federal government, your congressman and all are sleeping in bed with the business and want to change the face of the country. we can be over protecting other people's waters, but they're leaving our back door wide openn until we get a lot of these congressman out and peopll to think about their votes -- we can be protecting other people's things. we shhuld not give them amnesty. if people from africa or haiti were coming over like this, ask yourself, with the federal government allow that? no way. i think we should eliminate the president, the congressman, and start fresh all ovvr again. when you break laws, there's a price to pay. host: the prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu is here in washington to meet with
the president among others. the president and he met yesterday to talk about thh ongoing peace process. covering the story for political is carol lee on the phone with us now. welcome. you have the story about the two men trying to mend fences. tell us a little about what happened in the white house and whether or not the fences are being mended. guest: yes, it is certainly better than where it was. this meeting had been rescheduled. it should have been held on june 1. but then, at that point, israel had launched an attack on the gaza-down flotilla. so, benjamin netanyahu abruptly canceled his visit and return to israel -- because of the attack on the gaza-bound flotilla.
they finally met and it was a drastically different meaning than the previous one in march were there had been no cameras. president obama had left the prime minister sitting in the roosevelt room while he wwnt to the private residence and had dinner with his own family. the white house never released a statement or photo. this time it was an 80-minute meeting in the oval office and -pthe should cans in front of cameras, took a couple of questions from reporters. they later had lunch and after that walked out together with cameras rolling. at the end -- they shook hands in front of the cameras and took a couple of questions from reporters. so, this is seen as a meeting for the president and prime minister are on and do wera newt
footing. host: how much of it involves elements? guest: the talked-about gaza. the president was asked if he had got agreement with the promise to extend the moratorium on settlements that will expire in september. it was interesting that he put a time frame for peace talks for the first time since taking office. he said he expects prime minister netanyahu and the palestinian president abbas to have talks before the moratorium expires in september.
then, netanyahu said he would take concrete steps in coming weeks to get the talks moving. the question is what the prime minister intends to do. he was just interviewed a half hour go on "good morning america" and he sounded opening to extending the settlement freeze, but did not say for certain. he repeated he would take concrete steps in the next couple of weeks. host: here in "the washington post" director poses this question. alliance, or dysfunctional relationship? how would you characterize the relationship? guest: israel and the u.s. obviously have a long history of close ties. both men said yesterday those ties are not workable. they have a special bond, and certainly they do.
-- both men said yesterday that those ties are unbreakable. the tough approach they said was not working. the tensions were highest in recent months, higher than in some time. so, you see the president and what else trying to shift to try someehing new. it is a much friendlier approach. i think they have made some strides yesterday, but they still have a ways to go. one interesting aspect of the hall meeting is that the president was getting a lot of pressure from members of congress from democrats up for election in a couple of months who are very worried about the position and tough stance he sticking with israel and with netanyahu.
they're concerned he was being too harsh, and it would hurt them in the midterm elections in november. host: one final question for our white house correspondent for political. how long will netanyahu be in the washington, and who else is the meeting with this week? guest: he met with hillary clinton and with robert gates. he will leave today and head over to new york where he has speeches and meetings there. host: all right, carol lee, a white house correspondent for political. you can find her article on politico.com, or in hard copy if you get poliiico delivered in your area. we will take a short break and when we return we will talk about the relationship between the economy and housing market
with dan mccue of harvard university. today is wednesday, july 7. you are watching "washington journal." ♪ >> before the senate judiciary boats upper down watch the entire commission hearing for elena kagan. you can watch it on line at this c-span video library. to purchase a copy of any part of the hearing, just click the button to "by now." -- "buy now." tonight, this author concerning micro credit.
in the next book, maria on living through hard times. the nobel prize-winning economist joseph stieglitz talks about the 2008 collapse and what is next. primetime, all this week on " book tv." here is the c-span congressional directory. it is all at your fingertips. you can order online at c- span.org/store. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and non- fiction books. it is all the public service, created by america's cable companies. host: joining us from boston, mass., is dan mccue, the
research analyst with the joint center for housing studies at harvard. he is here to talk to was about the housing market and jobs. guest: good morning. host: tell us about this report is in that job growth will be a key factor in whether the real estate market can extend a recovery afttr the end of the federal home buyer tax credit. guest: first, let me tell you about the report. it is basically with the joint center here does every year to assemble, analyzed, and explain as much data as possible about housing over the past year. this year we -- it was hard to get away from the relationship between housing and the economy. part of our analyses we did for the report look into when housing turns around and what
could signal it. one of it was the relationship with jobs. there is all lot of talk about employment being a lagging indicator of a turnaround. and a lot of talk about the housing market's being a leading indicator, so we want to see the relationship between them. when we laid out the data we saw that in the last few housing downturns, even though housing might have led us into a recovery, the magnitude and the seed of the recovery was dependent on the number of jobs created. so, you can learn a lot and get a lot of information about the size of the recovery in housing market by looking at the picture of jobs. host: it would seem an obvious
link between jobs and housing markets that people would have to have jobs to buy houses or move into rental properties. what are you trying to explain to the american people with this report? host: that is only one part of the report. the report covers aspects of a broad demographics, long-term -pdemand trends, home ownership trends, trends and the rental market. it looks at the state of affordability and the challenges faced by american households over the past year, and this year we looked at the affordability of the past 40 years. we are trying to give as much information -- and maybe with the employment part, tried to seek what to expect.
that would be based on demand coming from job growth, like you said. these are two things to watch, to see the trend in the past, and what we can really expect. say that you are looking to buy a home -- should you be worried that prices are low in the might spike back up as they did in the past? or does it seem like you will have time? and based on what has happened in the past, what can i expect for house prices in the future? host: we're talking about housing markets and the job situation, and the overall economy in the u.s. with dan mccue from harvard university. if you would like to be involved in our conversation give us a
call. here are the phone numbers. you can also send us messages by both e-mail and twitter. a to first call for dan mccue comes from springfield on the line for democrats. caller: hi. i want to ask if you are taking into account the inventory of homes across the country that are now vacant due to the crisis in foreclosure? and are you looking for new construction, are looking to see people being moved into existing structures? and i want to follow up with that if i could, please. guest: ok. the huge overhang of existing units is a big story, and a big
hurdle in terms of any recovery in housing markets. it is something that is still growing in terms of rental properties even though the number of renters are increasing, the number of properties that have switched into rental have increased even more. so, as a result, you have higher vacancy rates for rental properties. over the past year there were many firrt-time home buyer purchases as well as investor purchasing. what investors thought were low prices. so, that brought down the inventory for the for sale homes. but the rent just overtook that. now we have a huge number of housing off the market what we call "a hadow inventory" -- at least as large as the number of homes for sale and bacon.
it is a big factor. it kept creeping up. the biggest increase was in 2008, the this is a huge number of the vacant properties out there that need to be worked through before construction can return to what we would call more normal levels. host: what is your follow-up? caller: he brings up two issuus. you have to be able to north 1 afford to buy a home, regardless of whether the federal government has a special program for first-time home buyers, or not. and the issue with the builders -- the builders would continue building and kill every spot of earth was covered. again, the focus, and sorry to segue into the previous segment, but the whole onstruction industry has been essentially taken over by builders to only
use non-american or illegal labor. so, you have essentially cut off the ability of people to buy a home because they have no jobs. and also the fear of not having a job. and then you have an unstable banking and mortgage industry that is skittish about providing reasonable mortgages at to the average person. . .
and in this past year we were, you know, what we were looking at was kind of a disconnect between the increased affordability based on prices -- prices of homes went down so much that for first-time buyers and people able to qualify for much more affordable on a price level, and when you add in an interest rate, interest rates are at record lows still today, which has led to affordability levels that -- the numbers we looked at went back to 1971. i'm sure it goes back further. but then on the other side, you have affordability in terms of
what people have to pay. people who aren't monthing and aren't first-time home buyers. but month-to-month how much your rent or mortgage takes out of your paycheck. our research is severe cost buudens. that means people who pay more than half their incomes on housing. and those numbers are steadily increasing. during the boom times when home prices were going up along with rents and housing costs, we saw this as a reflection of the costs are just getting out of control. and now the costs of rent and utilities and things like that are till creeping up. rent nottso much, but utilities are still going up, and now unfortunately, incomes are going down, so even after the boom, we're seeing cost burried
rns increasing because of -- cost burdens increasing because of lower incomes. we talked about this -- we have numbers that look like it will be the first in generations where real incomes are lower at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning. even accounting for cycles where incomes go in cycles with the economy and employment. even taking those into account, you know, real incomes are going down, and it's putting real pressure on affordability of housing. for those of us who don't move, you know, and are subject to the continuing increases in housing costs. >> host: dann, let's continue with this twitter -- why does government support subprime
mortgages? it's cheaper to subsidize building affordable homes. your thoughts? guest: i'm not -- i guess i haven't really looked at, you know, what's cheaper to do. but you know, in terms of our research, the concern for low-cost rental units is something we talk about in this year's report. the need to supply low-cost units is, you know, whether or not their owner or renter, just the units themselves are porn. in analysis we did this year, looked at 10 years of low-cost renting units. so we looked at all units renting under $400 a year asqust justed for in --
adjusted for inflation. we saw from 1997-2007, it was nearly 800,000 low-cost rental units were lost. from the housing supply. that equates to that many lost forever. po the need to replace them is important. if incomes aren't going up, and if the new rentals, if it's hard to construct units new at levels that are affordable to the -- someone making the minimum wage or even just the lower quarter of households, which is a lot of people. host: viewers and listeners can fine the facts at jc hs.harvard.adu. some of the facts and figures
include 40.3 million households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2008. 18.6 million spent more than 13.8 million in 2001. one in seven homeowners has a home worth less than what they owe on their mortgage and 5 million need their home price to rebound by 25% before they are, again, above water. these facts and figures, dan mccue, seem to be related to issues that don't necessarily have anything to do with the job market. yes? no? guest: um, well, affordability, definitely. but in terms of underwater mortgages, you know, it's hard to tell. but yeah. affordability, the number of homeowners paying more than 50%
of their incomes, that's something that keeps risiig. that's definitely linked to employment. when we look -- one of our charts looks at, you know, how much income you would need to live affordabby. in these ranges. we continue, just because the numbers are so high, we look at the severe burdens, the people paying half their incomes on rent or mortgages. but yes. the more common number of the 30% or more is unaffordable. but it's definitely linked to the economy. one of the, you know, whether the amount of burden you're facing paying your housing bills is linked to your -- sounds obvious. but it's linked to your income. so you know, people with one to two times the minimum wage, we
see that 40% of them are paying more than half their income. so if you have a household with two earners, both making the minimum age, 40% of them are paying more than half their incomes on housing. but that goes down in half, about 20% of households making two to three times the minimum wage -- so raising your income really takes a big chunk out of your housing cost burden. and the way a lot of households the number, if you look at housing cost burdens by the number of workers in your househood, it goes up dramatically. the burden goes down, dramatically, sorry. with each additional worker. but we see that from 2007 to 2009 there are, i believe 2.7
million fewer households with multiple earners. it jjst dropped. when jobs declined by 8.4 million, thh number of household workers dropped as well. multiple workers are actually in a better position, because they have other workers in there giving them income, but to drop by 2.7 million in two years is huge. and at the other hand from 2007 to 2009, 2 -- i think it was 2.2 million households with no workers were added. so that means maybe a single-worker household, maybe they lost their jobs, and the cost burdens are unavoidable, you know, without an income, because you lost your job. so it's really tied ith the affordability.
host: letts take a call from washington. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. one relating to jobs and one relating to the housing market. regarding jobs, how are we going to create more jobs in the u.s. in terms of jobs that are really substantial in terms of supporting a family? when we talk about jobs or when we hear our politicians talking about jobs, they never differentiate between a job at a fast food restaurant or a well-paying job in i.t. or in the financial markets or anywhere else, a lawyer and so forth, professional salaries. number two, or the second question is, what numbers can i refer to, reliable nuubers can
i refer to, to sort of get a feel for when the housing market is recovering. because there's so many numbers being published. one month the numbers are up and one month the numbbrs are down, and i cannot figure out what are reliable numbers. thank you for your answer. two.t: let me start with number reliable numbers is something we struggle with day-to-day-to-day. and this report spent a lot of time looking through trying to get the most reliable numbers possible. you know, just really kind of doing a lot of data checks and relyibility measures, and talking to people -- kind of checking what the numbers tell us between different sources of the numbers, just to see if numbers are in the right neighborhood.
but really -- we focus on getting the most reliable numbers we can get. and that are available. and i know -- personally, in helping create this reportt trying to weed through all of the conflicting numbers, as well as the numbers that -- one day, one number will go up, and then the next day, sounds like the same measurement will be, like, go down. so i think one thing is really, you know, start -- you know, + start by looking at a lot of numbers. pe try to assemble as many as possible. our report is jam-packed full of numbers. it's 40 pages long. we kind of take a step back
the latest reporting number. and in having an annual report, we kind of step back and say, what's the trend? what's the overall kind of trajectory of things? are recovering, i guess we're growth. keep an eye on housing sales. host: dan mccue, let's take this call from st. st., missouri on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to say something about the credit ratings. i lost my house about three years ago. and ever since, my credit has been going down because of it. i thought i was getting a fixed
loan when i refinanced, and later on my interest rate steadily went up, and up and up and up, three times what it initially started at. and every day i see commercials on tv about your credit rating and all this, when people are subject to what businessee, companies, want to do or force you to do. if you don't do it, they turn you in as haviig bad credit whether you're guilty of it or not. and when you get a few things on your credit, it's nearly next to impossible getting it taken care of.3 really simple, but it isn't. shoot, my house was up to $3,000 in payments. and it's not that we can't afford to, it's just that i'm
not going to give my money away over being cheated out of my home. host: dan mccue, go ahead. guest: well, in terms of credit, i guess part of what we looked at in our report is that there are so many people in the same situation, unfortunately. and you know, what we saw, it was 6 million forclosures since 2007 started. and right now we're on pace for 2.5 million forclosures a year. add on to that the number of seriously delinquent mortgages and people who are behind by two or three payments on their
mortgage. it's a huge and unfortunately, a common situation that's going to have to be dealt with. and we continue to deal with it. host: if there are -- a lot of people or significant number of people who through no fault of their own have had their credit messeded up because of their current housing situation, how will they be able to get back into the housing market? and increase the number of houses either being built or being sold? guest: yes. well, i know the credit agencies are working on you know, dealing with such high numbers of people with impaired credit.
and to see if there's more accurate measures so that someone who got into a mortgage that was not as advertised, i guess. you know, that might reflect differently on their total credit report as someone who has not done as well on their credit card bills and other forms of debt payments. as well as their mortgage. you know, i think as far as repairing your own credit, just making the other bills that you can make is what i've heard, and there's -- housing has become succ a big problem that it seems to be differentiating itself on credit reports, and in erms of getting back into
the housing market, the studies i've seen out show just continuing to pay your other bills and once you've become delinquent, just -- the more you pay your bills, the quicker you can recover, but it's still going to be seven-to-10 years before your credit ratinn gets back to normal, from what i've read. host: let's take this call from mike in beaver to know, oregon. on the line for democrats. hi, you're on the "washington journal." ccller: hi. i'm from oregon. i have basically worked for a bank, and because of bush and the first bush and reagan, this is all coming from all that,
and that is why we have a housing market and job crisis. it comes from that. i am autistic. and basically, i was living on an apartment complex where you can't make more than a certain amount per year or per month, and basically, when i was fired from the bank for having autism, my parents had to buy me a condominium right next door to the mmx, which is the the apartment i was living in. the apartment i was liviig in, which was rent e-restricted. -- rent-restricted. in other words, you can't make
over $15,000 a year. well, they had people that were basically, smoking marijuana. they had drug -- host: all right. mike, we're going to leave it there. dan mccue, on top of his call, he was talking about the previous administration of the first president bush and president reagan. now we got a twitter message from oversight of government and they write quit blaming anyone other than the current president. obama's president now. so he caused this. thank you. where does the responsibility 3 implemented by certain administrations as to how we got to where we are? guest: well, i mean, i guess it was a combination of a lot f
different policy actions, as well as personal actions and business actions that all kind of culminated in the housing bubble. you know, one of the prime kul prints really is -- culprits is the extension of subprime loans deeper and deeper into less credit-worthy borrowers. without documentation of income or reasonable income, based on the assumption that house prices will continue to rise. that delinquencies will not go beyond a certain amount that they hadn't been in the recent past, and the policies and the oversight allowed these kind of
experiments in risky credit. and lenders offered them. not all -- but they offered them, and borrowers took a good deal. and you know, some for better some for less good reasons, i guess. but it's hard to assign blame. it's hard to assign blame to anyone, a single thing. but because there are so many culprits, i think there's a lot of different areas for improvement. you know, to try to keep such a huge inflation in the housing market, as well as such a large
subsequent crash from happening, or at least at such an extent that happened this pastime. host: let's take this call from new port richie, florida. on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: hello. i'm glad that you have this topic tying housing with jobs.. i have two questions, although there's so many. this is a regionnal problem, here in florida. i'd like to ask you the center for housing there at harvard, is that a for-profit or non-profit? second of all, not related to that, is there ny way that in your statistical studies that you founn an overall default in the nation for housing markets? and was it more regionnal, or was it scailed at different times? can you tell me about your
statistics there? and then your third question if rob will let me you can to about jobs for a second. host: quickly. caller: when you looked at the jobs versus being able to get back into the -- these homes that were defaulted on, what was the ratio for that? so i'll hang up. host: dan mccue? guest: ok. well, first of all, the joint center for housing is a harvard-affiliated research center. so we're just an academic research center. we don't have any products or anything. we have our research. it's all free. it's all on our website. and it's, you know what we attempt to do in this state of the nation's housing report instead of it as research, like
the earlier caller was saying, there's so much data out there and conflicting data, we tried to put a lot of work in getting the most clear and accurate story each and every year. we keep that as a resource that can be cited by advocates, legislators, business people, in order to make certain arguments or to learn about what's going on in the housing markets, and to go back through the years. see how the story has changed in housing over the years. this is our 22nd report.+ in terms of the regionnalty of this. definitely, part of the reason that -- we tend to look at housing markets regionly, locally. you can even look at it
neighborhood-by-neighborhood, as we do in this report, looking for forclosure rates so concentrated in certain neighborhoods. but this time around, as didn't happen in past housing declines, this time around, it seemed all the regionens really kind of went down at the same time, which made the national numbers so much worse. and the third part about the relationship between jobs and getting back into a house, well, we know after a default, i'm not sure. i mean, there's been surveys out there. nationnl income housing coalition cited some showing that what generally happens after a forclosure, losing a home, moving in, doubling up is what it's termed, with others,
that tends to happen for short peeiods of time, and then it turns into generally a rental, once you get your income back, a renter and eventually maybe homeownership if maybe that's what you want to do again. but also when thh employment market turns around, it tends to help rental marks -- ental markets more quickly. foremakeses because of a new job. if you put off forming a new household, the new households tend to be rentals, so that tends to help the rental market first, then the for-sale market. host: and we have to leave it there. dan mccue for the joint center for housing studies from harvard university, you can find their report the state of
the nation's housing online. thank you very much for being on the "washington journal" this morning. guest: thank you. host: in just a few minutes the supreme court with david savage of the "los angeles times." but first a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:28 here in washington, d.c. and in the headlines. oil from the rupptured well in the gulf of mexico is seeping into lake pontchartrain north of new orleans, threatening another environmental disaster for that huge body of water that was rescued from pollution in the 1990's. meanwhile in london bp has received a demand from u.s. authorities for advanced notice of any asset sales or significant cash transfers. the company confirmed a report in today's financial times that u.s. assistant attorney general tony west wrote to the company last month. normally the u.s. justice department does not require advanced notice of such deals..
hawaii's governor ended months or speculation by vetoing legislation that would have granted gay and lesbian and opposite sex couples the state provides to opposite sit sex couples. the bill was approved by the legislature in late april. >> nato mistakenly killed five of its afghan allies in the country's eastern sector and three americans were reportedly killed today by a roadside bomb in the south and a german official has filed a legal complaint against facebook. people were complaining that the private information was saved by the networking site without their knowledge or consent and their office got complaints by people after
facebook obtained their names and addresses after people listed them as a contact. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> before the senate judiciary committee votes up or down, watch the entire nominee of elaine kagan. elena kagan. it's washington your way and to purchase any part of the hearing, just click the "buy now" button. book tv continues tonight with a focus on economic issues, mohammed eunice won the nobel peace prize for development and in the 10 laws of enduring success, also nobel prize-winning economist jozel
talks about the economy and what's next in "free fall." 100 million homes, bringing you a direct linn to public affairs, politics and history all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: david savage covers the supreme court for the "los angeles times" and joins us here at the "washington journal" to talk arnt the supreme court and its past or just-completed session. tell us in your opinion, sir, what was the biggest news to come out of the court this term that just ended last week? guest: probably the campaign finance decision back in january. 5-4 vote basically saying corporations and unions and such have a free right to spend as much as they want in elections.
for years congress state companies cannnt contribute court money to campaigns and since world war ii the same was true for unions. but in the last 30 years the supreme court continued to say when it comes to election spending, if i have $1 million and want to spend it on an election race, i'm free to do it and this year they said the same applies to corporations and unions, that is a for-profit corporation could put $1 million or $10 million in elections and that's easily the biggest decision of the term. host: and are we likely to see the ramifications of that in the off year in november? guest: i've been reading mixed reports. i've read that unions have been spending more than corporations. unions, of course, are people -- groups of people really
interested in laws and a lot of corporations i think wish government would just go away. but ssme corporations are very interested in campaign and election rules. so i think it's too soon to say whether there's going to be a lot of corporate money flowing into elections. they say this changes the balance of power in a number of different ways. for example, many states allow corporations to spend and for a long time have. people have said in the inner circles of the state legislature, people will say oh, we can't do that, the contractors will go crazy and put a lot of money into the elections next queer, so we shouldn't even consider that rule. so just the fact that corporations know they can put a lot of minute into elections and the members of congress know they can, probably has some affect that is very hard to measure, because it's just
sort of a power and potential threat if the pharmaceutical industry or energy industry is really mad at you as a senator, you have to know they could choose to put a lot of money into the next race the next time you're up for re-election. host: what was the decision this court handed down that surprised you the most or caught you off guard? >> well, let me think, it was not the decision on guns. it was a 5-4 vote, five justices in favor of the second amendment right to bear arms. boy, i can't think of one that really was a big case that surprised us. i was a little bit surprised. there was one important victory, i think on the liberal side this year. it was a 5 decision to say that it's unconstitutional to send juveniles to prison for life without parole for crimes
other than homicide. and the reason i say that's a mild surprise is that the supreme court had never before used the cruel and unusual punishment clause to limit prison terms. they've been asked mmny times to set a rule that limits prison terms, for instance, the three strikes and you're out and for someone whose third strike was a petty theft at kmart and got 30 years, they said it's cruel and unusual. but the supreme court said we're not going to get into that. so this year i was a little surprise that had five justices said it's unconstitutional to impose life without parole to a juvenile when there's no murder involved, and chief justice roberts actually agreed to the results in that case.
a 17-year-old in florida that had been involved in two robberies. 17 years old. got life in prison without the possibility of parole. and the chief justice said that is excessive and didn't want to make it a rule for all cases involving all juflse. so that was a little bit of a surprise. host: before we went to the phone you made reference to the pight to bear arms. review that for us and tell us how that's going to change the way people can buy handguns, particularly in large metropolitan areas, going forward. guest: yes. the two big consequences to the that a city or state cannot have a total ban on private possessions of a handgun at home. they struck it down in the district of columbia and in this case it's a national rule. it applies to cities and states.
but relatively few cities have law that is stribblingt. i think the bigger consequence is down the road. because it basically says that we're going to allow lawsuits in federal court challenging gun laws, based on the second amendment. and it's really hard to know how that's going to play out. because we don't really know the supreme court think it is amendment protects. all we know is so far a handgun ban goes too far. so it will be years before we know what it means in practice. host: we're talking about the supreme court and with david savage, supreme court reporter for the "los angeles times." the numbers on the screen if you want to get involved in the conversation. our first call comes from woodstock, illinois on our line por independents. lydia, go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm very interested to ask if there's a possibility that this supreme court ruling, giving a
person who is a corporation, could in a strange way go up to the immigration movement in arizona. from the -- host: lydia, just tell me why you think those two cases may eventually be tied together. caller: ok. excellent question. because in this procedure that gave a person who corporations, it said any person that a state does not have the right to deny, quote, any person. in fact,, it was never ruled on. it connects up to the santa clara case that goes back, i think it is, to 1886. but the supreme court never discussed personhood of corporations. it's only a short paragraph.
if i could just read it to you, maybe c-span could post on your website this procedure that all of this is connected -- if i could just quickly read it. in an unusual precedence, chief justice -- observed that he court would not consider the question quote whether the provision in the 14th amendment to the constitution was forbade a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the constitution applied to these corporations. we are all of the opinion that it does. they never even discussed it. it was a quote unusual preference. host: and we'll leave it there. david savage? guest: well, that's a big deal and an often-told story in the latter part of the 19th century. the 14th amendment stayed states cannot deprive you of
life, liberty or property. suppose you're a railroad and the state set low rates for the freights and they were saying the states are denying us -- we built these railroads and can't make any money and the supreme court said we're going to decide without debating it that a railroad or corporation can go to court and challenge unreasonable rates. that's been the rule ever since. it's not really controversial today. what was controversial in this case and was decided this year was to say that as a matter of free speech law that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money because there was this rule that corporate money was different. you and i could spend our own money freely but exxonmobile could raise so much money that we don't want corporations pouring their money. that's what changed this year. i must say, though, i don't understand the connection to
the arizona immigration case. host: let's move on to louisville, kentucky. on our line for democrats. you're on "washington journal." caller: this morning i was watching msnbc and they were talking about clarence thomas' wife being active in the tea party movement and she and clarence thomas were both endorsing candidates. not a tea party movement person, they get off their rear ends and participate but my point is after the gore-bush decision for president, i know cheney and ask alya used to go on hunting trips, i don't think the supreme court is -- justices are supposed to be blind, and i just don't think it is, because every time there's a key decision, and it works both ways, by the way. i'm not just totally knocking the republican side.
they always come down exactly according to whoever appointed them. clarence thomas went through all this hell when he was confirmed. it's like he has a personal a vendetta, but i think these people are way too involved in politics and a huge concern for me and a lot of people that the court, it's just -- i just don't see these people. it's a joke to me that the blind justice is just not there. host: david savage of the "los angeles times"? guest: well, it's going to be interesting to watch in the next couple of years. because elena kagan takes her seat in october. we're going to have five republican apointees and four democratic appointees. for most of the last 30 years there's been seven republicans and two democrats. now we're going to have a 5-4
court based on the party who appointed them. -pand i think a lot of people, that's going to have the effect of even accentuating what the caller was saying, that there's going to be a lot of 5-7 decisions because the republicans are the more conservative justices. phere's so many big areas of the law where there is a real divide between the sort of conservative liberal view. you know abortion, race and affirmative action. gay rights, gun rights. environmental protection versus private property. take that for example,. if we get a case involving private property right and -- it's in the case that private property should be protected -pand the liberal justices lean
to saying the environment should be protected. no that's not political in the sense of cheap partisanship but it is a different view of the law. so i think actually, we're going to get more of those decisions this year that split 5-4 that from the outside could be seen as a political divide. i don't know what the answer to it is. and i should add that it doesn't happen in every case. i mentioned the case in florida aboot the juvenile, chief roberts voted to limit the punishment. so it doesn't happen in every cass. but in a lot of big cases, that is the divide. host: we're talking with the supreme court reporter david savage of the "los angeles times." our next call comes from florida. on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes.
go ahead. caller: ok yes. i'm looking at the fight that we have between the two parties with the republican and + democratic on the society meyer confirmation. and when i look at elena kagan, i think i'm pretty much a conservative, and i don't agree with this nomination. however, when i look at the fight and republican party, politics play tremendously in favor of kagan, because of who she is. now, if she had not been of a jewish descent, she probably would have been a tough questioning from the republican party. the game is being played in politics. in the meantime, we're talking about the supreme court. and i would like to ask david whether or not, if this
observation, for me, is it a little bit bias, or is it what you see when you compare the two nominations, society my your and kagan. >> guest: i'm unclear on your point. i thought both sonya society meyer and elena kagan got tough questioning from both. maybe lindsay gram was the only one who seemed friendly. i thought kagan did just fine. articulate and didn't tell too much what she thinks about the constitution. but i didn't sense a differeece, if that's your point, between how she was treated and how sonia sotomayor was treated. host: were they based on the fact that now justice sonia
sotomayor has bench experience and elena kagan did not? guest: elena kagan's experience was mostly at harvard law school and in the clinton white house. so it is true that most of the questions sort of play off your experience. in her case the clinton white house. or there was a lot of questioning about the military recruiting at harvard. questions were similar and i would guess most of the republicans or all of the republicans will vote against her with the exception of lindsay graham. i've been doing this, and the old rule used to be if you were a qualified nominee and had no particular ethical problem came up, you would get 90-plus votes
president's party and the opposition party. but as each decade hassgone along, we're now on to a situation where the president's nominee gets the votes of his party senators, and the -- in this case, the republican party, the party that's out of power votes against the nominee even when they think the person is qualified. barack obama voted against john roberts and samuel alito and a 3 are saying we don't feel any obligation to vote in favor of barack obama's nominees. host: next up is new jersey on our line for independents. you're on with david savage of the "los angeles times." caller: good morning. guest: good morning, james. caller: i have a question about the ethnic makeup of the court. i'd like your guest to comment on the fact that there are three jues, and i don't believe
there are any protestant men on the court. what impact this may have on their decisionmaking? guest: i do not know the answer to that. it is clearly in a sense unusual, based on american history, as you probably know. and most of american history it was all white protestant men and there was a big deal when there was a catholic nominee and then a jewish justice. in 1816 ten the first avenue can american -- and in 1816, and then the first african-american justice. we have six catholic justices. and now three jewish justices, and no protestants. i don't know how it's going to play out. it does seem that religion is
just not the dividing line in american politics as it was decades ago. i think it is the case that a lot of the jewish justices have been stronger believers in the separation of church and state, and that's the only area where i can imagine writing a story where you take into account the fact that there's a religious divide on the court. but i don't see it affecting decisions. host: peter on our republican line. go ahead. caller: i want to refer back to a comment your guest made concerning the land rights versus environment. and i'm really more of a rheal realist than democrat or republican. i calculate things in my mind realistically. so when i think of the
constitution and the right to land and freedom and all these thing, what occurs to me is first and foremost is the right to your land is firstened environment was not thought of by the founding fathers. so because of that they are peppering ideas and scenarios that land past the constitution. by saying that,,what i mean is, if we say that the environment is more important than a person's right to land, then you never had a right to land in the first place. so we can sit here and make all these excuses and ruelings and laws and believe you me, this court will always be divided for the rest of our existence, because there's two completely different ways of looking at it. the real issue is kind of like the three states they should have in iraq. people just don't agee.
and the court, whatever way it swings back and forth, it's going to become angrier and angrier on each side. guest: that's why they have a summer recess. they go away and come back in the fall and they are friends again. host: on the question of private property and land -- guest: the rule in this country. on the one hand we all believe property rights are important and fundamental. but it's also the case that you know in your own neighborhood, property is something that is highly regulated. + that's what zoning laws are. if i have a house, no one can move in next door and put a smokey factory next to my house or perhaps build a 10-story condominium next to a residential house. so it is the case that property rights are supported and respected and the government
can't just come along and take your property. but they certainly can regulate. so most of the disputes they've -- for exammle, if you own property along the california coastline, they haveea series of regulations that say for example, you can't block people of the view of the location and you can't build a 10-story high-rise. so those are regulations on how you use the property. that's what iment about this divide between environmental legislation ann property rights. host: we have this email from an anonymous viewer who writes the essential problem with the citizens, it follows or allows c.e.o.'s and boards of corporations to exercise political influence with other people's money. the investor's money can be used to promote a candidate
without consent or anything resemi-aling a vote. your thoughts? >> that's a good argument. but you know, the ruling for the last 30 or 40 years, supposed you and i are a member of the corporation. we were always allowed to create a political action commee. -- committee. you and i could chip in $2,000 and there could be a gold gold political action fund. -- a goldman sachs political action fund. then teachers unions could collect and spend money. what they couldn't do is that the c.e.o. could say i'm not going to consult our executives or shareholders. i or the board is going to decide we're going to put $10 million in to a particullr race. that was the strong criticism that c.e.o.'s shouldn't be able to do that.
but now legally, there's nothing that prevents them from doing that. post: david savage has been the supreme court reporter since 1986 and wrote two books, "turning right," the making of the renquist supreme court. to the supreme court, a two-volume, 1272 -- 12,072-page report on the people of the supreme court. guest: and there's a new version of that coming out this summer. host: look for it in your local book stores. guest: i think they sell it to a lot of libraries. it's been around a long time. i can't claim the 1,200 pages. but -- >> and what would be the -- who would use this book? and who would be looking for
this? >> my understanding is it's a lot of libraries, public, school and ccllege libraries. and this book was created as a sort of everything you wanted to know about the supreme court. you can look up actual information. i actually got interested in writing the forward, because i used it a lot. a case or situation would come up, like the person asking about the railroad of the 18t 0's, and i could look it up in this book. my understandiig is it's sold to a lot of libraries and used as a reference court. host: and for those doing research or want to know a little bit about the supreme court, we also -- c-span has its own supreme court website. and we'll show that to you as we take this next call from
west field vermont. on the line for democrats. you're on the "washington jouunal." caller: thank you. there was a case that went to the supreme court where aa pharmaceutical company got the right as a person, to take the property of other people whose houses they were. and the supreme court rule for the pharmaceutical company. and eventually 3/4 or about 90% of the states made their laws more strict, so that the taking of property, taking it from someone and giving it to quote another humannbeing or person, was harder. it seems like that the corporations are more important than individuals in these type of cases, and that they get
away with a lot more and have killed a lot more people than organized crime, yet very rarely do you see them go to court. the only one was in the 1950's or -- host: sorry about cutting you off there, john. let's get a response from david savage. guest: well, that was called the killo case in 2005. and the issue was in a lot of these redevelopment plans, -- i'm going to state it from the government's point of view first. you want to develop a part of downtown. and there are 400 pieces of property and 398 are willing to sell their property and two people say no, i'm not selling. and they offer them more money and they say no, i'm not selling. so there had been this understanding that since the 1950's, the government could condemn that property, sees it, and pay ttat person just
compensation. this was an appealing case because a woman an several of her neighbors didn't want to sell their house. the city of new london wanted to create a new enterprise district, as he said a pharmaceutical company. their idea was it will create more jobs. the state of connecticut said yes, you can do that. you can sees your property, pay her actually much more than it was worth, and nonetheless, take it. and it came to the supreme court, the fifth amendment said the government shall not take private property for public use without just compensation. they were going to pay her just compensation but was this a private use? >> and the supreme court said there's a public purpose to renew downtown and that qualifies. the four descenters said this is not a public use like a roadway or airport.
this is just a redevelopment plan and you're going to help a pharmaceutical company. as the caller said, a lot of states went back and tightened up their law. , the supreme court may have allowed it but we don't have to so there are more -- host: another case that was looked at during this previous term was thompkins, having to do with the miranda warnings. tell us about that case and why it's so significant. . .
then i can continue to question this is a situation where the suspects sat there suddenly and said, i am not talking. the officer question him for three hours. he said that he was bothered that that happen, that somebody was shot. that incriminating comment was used against him. it came up to the five-member majority who said, there -- you do not have to get an affirmative waiver. if the police officers have read the person his rights and he keeps on talking, anything he says can be used against him. justice kennedy wrote that opinion. he has been the key vote in a lot of these cases across the board.
but he is not willing to overturn the miranda rule, but ii willing to relax a bit. most people think this is a considerable relaxation that will allow the police in some circumstances to keep questioning someone and not try to get an affirmative way for. it would just use the fact that the suspect has not said anything specific, and keep questioning. host: the next phone call comes from decatur, ga., on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, mr. david savage. people are laughing at our judicial system around the world. [unintelligible]
all in all, how much do you trust the report? thank you. guest: was that a question about how fair the supreme court is? boy, that is very much in the eye of the beholder. the supreme court is accord that does not conduct trials, does not grant people as guilty or innocent. they decide leggl questions. and they decide those where judges around the country disagree. this comes up during the confirmation hearings when the nominee says, i will just follow the law. that is not helpful, because
the cases the supreme court gets is when the law is not clear. so, they decide those cases. i have been doing this for a long time, and i will cut of their thinking that this decision was fair or not there. they do the best to follow the law as they see it, but it is very easy for someone who disagrees to say the decision was not fair. so, i find it hard to answer what seems like a pretty simple question. host: joe, from santa rosa, california. caller: good morning, my question concerns the clerk pool. one justice with clerking experience does not participate in that pool. has elena kagan given any indication as to whether she will participate? i believe that she has some
quirks experience. guest: yes, she was a clerk for thurgood marshall. host: will you explain? guest: this is a very inside, baseball queetion. the court gets about 150 bills per week. you can petition. there are about 8000 per year. the justices, rather than having each, all their clerks in each of nine chambers go through these appeals, they divide them as sort of a pool among the different chambers. so that there is one clerk in the building who does, who reads the appeal, the lower court opinion, writes a memo about the issue nd says why we should or should not take that. it has always been the case that one or two justices for
example, john stevens, did not participate. with that, elena kagan did not say she will take time to think about that, whether to joon the pool. if you do not join, you are a newcomer to the court and have only three or four clerks and also have to sit through 8000 appeals. the court will ooly decide about one of the cases of those. it is a lot of work. my guess is somewhere along the line she will say she has decided to join the pool. but i think she passed on the question during the summer. host: next up, ohio, on the line for republicans. caller: we just celebrated the fourth of july, and president lincoln's gettysburg address that makes us a nation
conceived in llberty, having equal rights for people -- and i see the make up of the court now. i'm wondering how concerned you are that a certain kind of law would creep into our digit judil system as it has in britain, and usurp liberty. i would just listen to your comment. thank you, sir. guest: i missed part of the threat to liberty that he foresaw? host: i did not get that, but i think the gist of the question is how much influence might foreign courts, or international courts have on decisions made by
the supreme court here? what do they look at when looking at international decisions, and how much of that is taken into consideration for decisions here in the u.s.? guest: that is a big subject of controversy. of justices, even those to consult foreign law, say it does not decide any case. there are few areas where some of the more liieral members have cited for a long, but i don't think it aside any case -- certainly no case decided on what they think courts around the world think. but for example, the issue a mentioned earlier about the juvenile is an life without parole, justice kennedy wrote that. he said no where else in the world is this done. that is, 16 and 17 year-old are
sentenced prison for life wwthout parole for crimes that are not murder. that is sort of an observation. the word is cruel and unusual punishment. from the point of view of some justices it is interesting to know what they think about cruel and unusual punishment. but no, i don't think any foreign court of opinion is deciding our liberties here in the u.s. host: next up, mass., on the line for independents. michael? caller: good morning. i know that both you and david souter have been working in the ring of law for quite some time. i read that justice david souter has an extremely hard work ethic. now that a new judge is arriving i was wondering if you can elaborate n how it will change the makeup of the court?
guest: sonia sotomayor took over in october for justice david souter who returned to new hampshire. he had a great interest in leaving washington. justice david souter loved his job, but did not like living in washington. he was an extremely hard worker. it is one area where he and sonia sotomayor are very simmlar. both are really hard workers who want to read and digest everything, go through all the briefs. she has finished her first year and i would ssy she has voted very similarly to david souter. on the moderate to liberal side on all big issues. it will be awhileebefore we know down the road whether she -pis really different. the court -- i cannot think of any case this year for you can say the accord was different because david souter was gone and sonia sotomayor took his
place. host: presumably justice stevens has just about pack up and is moving out of his offices sometime soon. what would you say has been his influence on the court and be on the court here in washington? guest: he has been a remarkable justice for 34 years. he is somebody who had a tremendous influence inside the court. he has not made himself into a public figure. he is not someone who has gone out to give speeches, done c- span to abuse. he has not written books. -- or done c-span interviews. all the justices had a high regard for him. he would come to the case wiih an open mind, very smart guy, a man of great integrity.
he has influenced a whole series of areas of law. one the public may know the best is that he wrote many of the opinions in the guantanamo cases. he was a world war ii the iran. he was a clerk during the 1940's at the supreme court. he said it was a very important that the u.s. try its enemies, both japanese and germans, with fair trials, real evidence, to make sure those convicted and punished had actually convicted war crimes. he brought the same view into the guantanamo situation, very insistent the american law give these prisoners some hearings, some rights to be tried fairly. he wrote a series of opinions. he was the key figure who put a check on the bush administration's handling of the guantanamo cases. he will be very much missed. i have nnver seen anyone who in
his --the grid is parts of his career were after the age of 70. he became the leader of the liberal wing of the court. -- the great part of his career was after the age of seven. he was great to watch in oral arguments after 85. -- the great part of his career was after the age of 70. host: you can see interviews with justice stevens on our supreme court documentary which can find on our website. new hartford, new york, on the line for democrats. caller: i have a problem with some who argue the decisions of the supreme court should be made according to the original intent of the founding fathers. that is that the founding
fathers ordered a government and which only white male property owners could vote. slavery was permitted. shouldn't the question be not what was the original intent then, but how would those founding fathers be dealing with the issues today? for example, environmental issues? they never considered eevironmental issues than. does it mean there should bb no environmental issue decided? guest: well, for example, justice scalia is one of those most a believer in following the original meaning of the constitution. he does not have a rigid view. has been amended.he constitution
his argument has always been that the original meaning and text of the constitution gives you a strong hint about what the constitution was supposed to cover. from his point of view, one obvious example would be the 14th amendment said no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law. in the 1970's the supreme court cited that to say there is a right to abortion. the deal of justice scalia -- there are things to say about liberty, but it is hard to read the original, when the word was put in during 1960 -- 1860, that it concerned abortion. he thinks you ought to use the original meaning as a guide, not that we are imprisoned in what people during the 1790's but about issues today.
host: good morning, from pensacola, florida. caller: god bless c-span. this question for mr. savage. back in the 1960's which in this i was a clerk at the justice department in washington, d.c. i remember the city in the 1960's as a transitional place, a great place to live. i felt it was my calling to be there at that time, and to work there. however, i went on to northeastern university in boston, to a suburb, and became a paralegal. i was wondering if mr. savage knows if in the supreme court
there are any paralegals working? secondly, i learned there is a computer program called lexus nexus used for looking up data on previous cases at the same time rather than going through certain law books. thank you. guest: you would not miss washington if you were here this week, as it is 102 degrees and humid. but it is a great city, and a great place to work. i do not think that there are paralegals at the supreme court, but i don't sit up for sure. the justices have four clerks. you are correct to say that any of these computerized things, if
you are a lawyer or paralegal, are wonderful resource. paralegals can do a lot of legal research on the computer now without hhving to look through a bunch of old books. host: from here you go to meeting with justice seein stevens. do you have any idea what he will be talking about? is it his farewell address to the troops? guest: yes, just an informal get together. some asked him if he wanted a press ccnference, and he is not much for that. but he said he would like to invite some of us to have a cup of coffee and talked a few minutes. he is a wonderful guy, and i think we will all miss him. he has been a great credit to
the lot into the car. host: davvd savage is the supreme court reporter for "the los angeles imes." thank you. in just a few minutes we will talk about the obama administration efforts concerning immigration policy with steven camarota of the center for immigration studies. now another news update from c- span radio. >> that gushing bp oil well could be just one of thousands of wells leaking into the gulf of mexico. an ap investigation shows there more than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in the gulf, and either the industry nor the government are checking to see if they are leaking. environmental groups have told exxonmobil they intend to sue over violations of air pollution
over baytown, texas, the largest in the country. the sierra club and environment texas say 10 million pounds of illegal pollution including cancer-causing toxins have been released from the factory over the past five years, but they say exxonmobil has escaped fines, or not been forced to fix equipment. americans are not as far behind on the bills as one year ago. the number behind on the credit card payments fell to an eight- year low in the first quarter of this year, according to a new report by the american bankers association. overall, delinquencies across a wide range of consumer debt categories have also fallen. the association says that high unemployment and plummeting, the news appeared to have spurred consumers to shore up their finances, and caused banks to limit their lending, all resulting in fewer americans being late with payments.
finally, a top toyota executive in japan says the automaker is adding about four weeks to its vehicle development time to check for quality because of the massive recalls. the executive vice president said at a news conference in japan today that toyota expanded too quickly in the u.s. in the years leading up to the recalls of more than 8.5 million cars and trucks. >> before the senate judiciary committee votes up or down watch the entire hearing for elena kagan, including her testimony. you can watch online at the c- span video library. to purchase a copy click of the "byuy now" button. tonight, this author won a nobel peace prize for his development
of the micro credit initiative. in the 10 laws of enduring success, maria on living through hard times. also, the nobel-prize winning economist tells about the 2008 economic collapse and what is next in his book "freefall." c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history and non- fiction books, all as a public service. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who have served on the bench. read the latest book from c- span. candid conversations with all justices, active and retired. now available in hardcover and also as an e-book. host: steven camarota joins us
to talk about u.s. immigration policy unner the obama administration. let's start with the lawsuit announced yesterday. how does this plan to the administration's overall policy toward emigratioimmigration. guest::the administration is trying to show they are serious, wanting to move against the arizona law, wanting the courts to stop it from going into affect. they argue thaa there are constitutional issues. host: could have come to some sort of terms to work together on something like this? it seems this is more of a turf battle over who will do the enforcement, rather than addressing the question of the
need for enforcement. guest: i think there is some compromise possible. it is hard to see that here. the state wanted to do something. it had overwhelming suppoot in the state. the obama administration has a different opinion. it is tough to find compromise with that. host: one of your pieces earlier from the tennessee paper, what is to try to get there? guest: many people would say that we have to start enforcing the law first. let's stop talking about the idea that we will let illegal immigrants stay, that they will get a kind of amnesty -- whatever we call it. the public and common sense suggests the first thing you
must do is restore the rule of law. collector employers. keep track of those coming in on a temporary basis. if you constantly say we will, right now -- you are going to do tto things. you encouraged illegal immigration, and at the same time destroy morale of those whose job is to enforce the law. host: on the other side there are those who say that at some point you have to offer amnesty because you cannot take those who are already here illegally and send them back to their country of origin, then expect them to get in the back of the line. that we would be moving millions and it would not be possible. guest: yes, there are an estimated 11 million illegal here. but sometimes we face a false choice. either we deport everyone as quickly as possible, or we have to give them eventual
citizenship. i hope we don't face that kind of false dichotomy. a more moderate ground is let's enforce the law. the illegal population has declined by 1 million in the last two years. let's keep that going. let's enforce the law. we know from research that up to 300,000 leave on their own each year. they either decide to return to family, and sometimes get deported, as well. we need to get more to make that choice, reduce the number arriving, and overtime the problem can take care of itself. if down the road we decide we want to have amnesty after enforcing the law for years, we could consider that. right now makes no sense. is putting the cart before the horse.
-- it is putting the cart before the horse. host: steven camarota is the research director with the center for immigration studies and is here to talk to was a bell policy for the next 30 minutes. as at the beginning of the program, we will have a special line for arizona residdnts. if you have called within the last 30 days, send us an e-mail or message by twitter. tell us a little about the center for immigration studies? guest: it is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to setting immigration in the u.s., we are non-partisan, and
we provide many research on the impact of immigration on the nation. all our publications are available for free. everything we have ever written is on cis.org, available for download. host: our first call comes from the line for democratt from michigan. caller: i have seen a document on cnn that shows we are paying $1 million or more per week to house these people. murderers, rapists, and all kinds of people like this. we should either send these people back or charge mexico for their room and board. guest: the caller is certainly correct. crime is a big issue. the overall issue for illegal
tough.ants and crime is very in the state of arizona looks like 11% or more of their prison population are illegal immigrants based on a program where they try to check status and then ask the federal government for reimbursement. it is true that in a certain to they have found 22% of all felonies committed their were committed by illegal immigrants. it would seem to indicate at least in arizona there is a fair amount of illegal immigrant crime. as we're trying toobill a foreign government -- as for that, good luck. it is not likely. this is an issue, one of the main concerns in the arizona. it is one of the reasons that arizona passed the law. but whatever the costs, we will have to absorb them because we cannot recoup them from another country.
host: on the line for republicans, from california, go ahead. caller: we have of course in silicon valley -- we have, of course, many illegal immiggants. north 1, my question, when the u.s. -- number one, when we took the japanese and put them into camps, how many? it was over 1 million. this precedent was already said. i was on and if you did talk to the key constitutional issues regarding the obama filing agaanst arizona law. what are the key things they're talking about? i understand something about the commerce clause.
can you drill down and tell us the reality of the worthiness of the holder filing? thank you. guest: in terms of the interment of the japanese during world war ii, the supreme court ruled in many cases it was not constitutional. we actually to people who were american citizens. but that is not really the issue of illegal emigration, but more one of national security at a time of war with foreign nationals in the country. let me give this warning that i'm not an agenda. one of the main questions is whether the state of arizona can make policy in an area that is clearly one or the primary responsibility is the ederal government.
in general courts have ruled in several cases that it is ok for a state to make laws to discourage illegal immigratioo. they have also ruled that it is ok for state policeman, and local police tooenforce federal statutes. it seems that arizona has met standards defined by previous federal court rulings. with the brief prayer really argues is that it is upsetting the balance. the department is arguing sometimes we enforce the law, sometimes we do not. we do this based on complex the race of various policy goals. if arizona says, look, we're going to enforce federal law. that is what they have done.
their law is a mirror of the federal law. the brief says they cannot do that. but it does not seem there is any court prescedent or legislation passed to indicate that. the brief itself has barely any citations of previous court rulings. so, it will be tough for the justice department to make the case. there is also a civil rights argument that the way the law is deserted is inherently biased. it is hard to make because the losses you can use ratrace to determine status, and it is harder for the government to make the argument the law has not yet gone into effect. you have to say you think it will be biased. but it doesn't seem that is likely to pass muster with the caller: hello.
yes, thank you for suspending a finally you have someone there who understands the laws of immigration. and those are that ronald reagan put into effect back in the 1980's. it is to go after the people who own businesses who are these i am sick and tired of thess people coming on these shows and talking about why we need new immigration laws. just put the laws you have into effect. if i break the law, i'm doing something -- they don't turn around and make a new law for . the go by the law that is on the books. ttat is exactly what they should do. i'm all for immigration because we all come from different lands. but the germans or the irish or the norwegians -- they did not
come by the illions. they came by big bunches, but they stood in line and got their citizenship. guest: the caller makes a reasonable point that there are lots of laws on the books not currently in force. for example, it is illegal to employ someone not authorized to work in the u.s. but that law which we passed in 1986 has largely been an enforced. we originally envisioned having an employer ata base to check. that is still not fully implemented. it is only a voluntary system. the caller is correct that we allow people in on a temporary basis, and then do not keep track of whether the person leave sometime. these include foreign students. they could be 40% of the population of illegal immigrants. we don't keep track of people.
a large section of our border remains unpoliced. it is not that hard from either the southern or northern border to enter. what is important about the political sentiment is is very unlikely the public will support amnesty unless they believe the law has been enforced. right now they're correct to say it is not happening, and we doubt it will, unless we begin. once theee is an amnesty, will we repeat the same process? and in 1986 we said we would crackdown, and we gave amnesty to about 3 million. since then, the law has been and enforce, and now we have about 12 million in illegal immigrants. the caller's question reflects the view of most americans -- first enforce the law, then come back to talk to me about amnesty. host: the next call comes from
mike, on the line for republicans. caller: i'm interested to hear you talk about a couple of persons past. as complicated as it is, there needs to be a central force to resolve all those issues. i thinn i found one in the prticle one, section 9 of e constitution that says congress -- the migration of persons of any of the states entering and proper to admit shall be not permitted prior to a certain there by congress. the constitution gives congress not only the right, but the duty to handle it. it is not obamm or ron reagan
responsible -- is congress. because of the supremacy clause in the constitution, that says this is shall be the supreme law of the land, and all state judges are bound thereby to support. host: we will leave it there. guest: the way that the laws constructed in arizonaa specifically says a non-citizen must carry documentation with them. it takes the exact language of the federal emigration language. there is no conflict with that. the courts have ruled that kind of situation is allowed in the sense that police can enforce local laws, and local communities can adopt laws to
discourage illegal immigration. the cannot have a law in conflict with federal law. this law is specifically designed to mirror federal law, designed not to be in conflict. at least on its face it is not in conflict with federal law. but obviously, the lawsuits argue otherwise. host: i want to show the viewers discharge from "the baltimore sun" regarding states and immigration laws. and following the lawsuit against the arizona bill, the u.s. department is arguing the federal law supersedes state legislation.
with that as a basis, why is there some attention on this arizona law, and not so much on the other 71 enacted by these other 34 states? guest: it is a criticism people are making of the administration. it does seem they have picked+ out arizona. they have left these other dozens of laws and ignore these court precedents that say that the states can. that the states caanot do anything here. since the law is designed to mirror federal law, it would seem to get around issues of supremacy and pre-emption. host: here they show a picture of the arizona governor who was to host a conference of mexican and american governors, but the
mexicans are unhappy about the new law and protest. from left to right, california gov. schwarzenegger, texas gov. rick perry, and new mexico gov. richardson. is this law that arizona is trying to enact -- will have far reaching implications beyond the borders in arizona? will other governors look to it to see where they can and cannot go up against the fed steps guest? guest: missouri has a similar law. but it is more likely that many governors will not choose to do what arizona has. a program called e-verify -- arizona said a few want to hire
you must use this data base to check if you're a worker is illegal or not. it seems to have had a big impact. there is an 18% decline in the illegal population compared to 7% nationally. but since all agree that kind of law is moving through the states. several have alleady dopted parts of that for contractors. so that is probably where arizona is leading the way. it is not clear whether more will do what arizona haps in terms of law enforcement. host: steven camarota is here to talk to about u.s. immigration policy.
from san antonio, texas, on immigration policy. caller: people are getting tired of these politicians. arizona is fed up with what bush did and obama is doing. we want our orders secured firss. then we will talk. the business people here in the u.s. have screwed this country over. all the what to do is lower our wages and get away with all the money they can. we have to secure our borders. the terrorists are here. it is not he mexicans. it is the other people who come with the drugs and everything else. guest: believe what the caller
said to stand on its own, but enforcing the law is what most americans want. that is where we have to start. that is where the biggest agreement is. then we can debate amnesty a couple of years down the road. you have to go after employers, and get more cooperation with local law enforcement. track the arrival and departure of people. another big area involves when we order someone deported, following up on that. we have about half a million people living here illegally who have been ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. that is another area. once we take those steps, then
maybe we need a national debate about amnesty. but like the caller, you must do first things first. host: next up, metarie, louisiana, on the line for republicans. caller: we had hurricane katrina here and it did not of illegal immigrants as we did after hurricane katrina. humans in going after employers to hire illegals. what will happen to these people when they did not hire them? how will these people survive? -- you mentioned going after employers who hire illegals. i don't see how it will help the situation with illegal immigrants who are here. they will not go home. guest: some people do argue that, but the federal government
has estimated that the illegal population between 2008 and 2009 did decline by 8500000. one of the main reasons that happened is many more went home. maybe 300,000 went home then, and it may be up to 500,000 going home now. so, it is possible if you cut off jobs to encourage a return migration. recent trends demonstrate immigraaion is not a permanent phenomenon. it is not so prominent as some have previously believed. people do go home. they always have. mmny more have been going home recently partly because of some stepped up enforcement efforts, and partly because of the economy. we can use that as an example. not every illegal immigrant is here to stay. the facts demonstrate otherwise.
host: good morning, from mesa, arizona. caller: these people in the california who want to boycott of us might want to look at their immigration law which is as is the federal law, as is the mexican law for immigration. this is ridiculous. it is not just mexicans coming across our border. it is also terrorists like hezbollah, iraqis. anyone coming across the border, whatever. the idea that obama will not enforce the immigration law is really outrageous. he wants more votes. in the long run, that will hurt everyone. the u.s. government has already given 80 mills of arizona land to drug cartels.
they're down there sitting on hilltops as lookouts for the drug runners. this is ridiculous. enforce the laws we have in this country. guest: yes, one thing the caller said that is particularly interesting is that a country like mexico has complained bitterly, but they have similar laws. in general mexico's immigration laws are pretty harsh. as the illegal immigrants from guatemala can tell you, and abuse by both the government and bandits -- it is not great down there. so it is hypocritical for mexico to say that. many other states do similar things. not exactly what arizona has. but making a state adopting policies and laws designed to discourage settlement of illegal
immigrants is nothing new. arizona is in keeping with a longstanding tradition. it has already passed court muster. host: this e-mail came by a viewer from colorado. guest: yes, 287g is a program that deputizes local police. it allows them to explicitly ennorce federal immigration law. it creates a corporation between the local law enforcement and federal emigration a 40's, both in terms of a working relationship, and the ability to access databases. when someone is arrested or in jail they can search databases to see if this person is likely illegal. it involves several things.
in general, in places where they have had it it has received a lot of praise. there are some critics. the one county in arizona had it, but the federal government is dissatisfied with the sheriff there. they have discontinued the program as a result. it has been extremely helpful to identify illegal immigrants. it is unfortunate the federal german is not pursuing the expansion of it. there is another program called "secure communities" which lets jails excess government databases. host: what is an moa agreement? guest: it is an agreement that a
locality can enter into with the federal government. it would help coordinate immigration enforcement in that locality, including things like the ability to access government databases. host: back to the phones, charlie from chicago. caller: we hear conflicting reports about the economic impact of illegal immigrants. you mentioned you have expertise in the area, so we do talk a little about that? guest: yes, it is a big question, and i will try to be brief. basically, illegals make up 4% of the population. in the aggregate, illegal immigration will not make a huge difference one way or the other. a big area of concern is job competition. the short answer is, most americans do not compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. primarily because the illegals
or to the bottom of the labor market. most have not even graduated high school in their home country. the problem is, precisely in that part of the economy where believe is due to be with the native-born competition is with the poorest and least educated parts of our country. overall unemployment is 11%, but that for college graduates is 6%. but for american high school dropouts and is 20%. if we look at those with only a high-school degree and our young, the kind of person who does compete with illegal immigrants over construction and food service -- that is where illegals are mostly concentrated. unemployment for high-school dropouts in america is 20%. we have a paradox. most americans did not compete, but those who do are
overwhelmingly those were the least educated and already the poorest. concerning taxes paid and services used, illegal immigration is a drain. the illeggl immigrants use more services than they pay in taxes. it is especially true if you count any of the costs associated with the children have once they arrive here. we probably spend about $15 billion educating illegal immigrant children, those illegally here. but we probably spent more like $35 billion if we also count the u.s.-born children of illegal emigrants. the costs get very big ones recount their children. the primary reason illegal immigration creates large fiscal costs and look of their taxes compared to the services they use is not their legal status or because they did not work, but rather their educational attainment.
people with relatively little education did not pay much in taxes. legal emigrant's without much education are also a fiscal drain, as is the native-born population without much education. so, does it make sense to bring in many unskilled immigrants? host: next, a kalamazoo, mich., on the line for democrats. caller: about three years ago i sent a letter to senator kennedy on immigration, nd also complemented that he was always the hero of mine, the way he fought for those who cannot defend themselves or did not have enough money. but getting to immigration, he
read my paper and asked if i would be willing to work with his legal department. and i did that for about one year. when it was done if it would have been implemented and brought to committee, it would have found every illegal immigrant within the u.s. and a little over year except for those 100% getting their money from drugs. the company in my own hometown had an illegal emigrants working for them. i turned them in. they got 250 people including the company was given them an extra $1 per hour and health insurance, and telling them to keep their mouths shut, and it
paid no social security or unemployment tax, or income tax, or state income tax. host: we will leave it there and move on to arizona on the line for republicans. caller: illegal immigrants and the state of arizona drain our education and social programs. is there a law stated in the federal law that prohibits them from coming to social services and receiving food stamps and all of that? also, when it comes to educating their children, and my little town we have seen a huge decline because of the lack of jobs. our education system is basically supported by property taxes. they are draining our education services.
so, can we, or do we have as a nation of laws prohibiting them to use of these particular services? guest: the short answer is both yes and no. in education, no, the state cannot bar illegal immigrants from receiving an education from kindergarten through 12th grade. this is a well-known decision from the 1980's. congress can bar them from receiving it, but states can on their own say no education for illegal immigrants single-family on other programs, in most cases illegal immigrants and not supposed to get them. if they have a fake id, then it can happen. more often a sign of their children, so that children can get free school lunch, can be enrolled in medicaid, it can sometimes get food stamps. a pregnant woman who is illegal can be enrolled in medicaid, and can also get the wic nutrition
program for low-income women and children. there are several programs that illegals can get, but they don't use them that muuh. there are many children of illegal immigrants signed up for these programs. the caller is correct that there is this fiscal drain, but it will be hard for arizona to do anything about that. the on a thing arizona can do is encourage illegal immigrants to go there, and to avoid the cost for arizona. the to and can sign up for emergeecy medical services. about one-third of the unemployed in arizona are illegal and they will be provided that medicare and education. host: the line for independents from connecticut. caller: hhllo.
we'll let me finish if i talk fast? i was a deeocrat and became an independent because i'm fed up with the democrats. i can see right through them and their stand on immigration. they only want the vote. a mother and her sisters came to america from poland the legal wait many years ago, through ellis island. you did not see polish, italian, the other ethnic languages written on all of our products as you do today with spanish. and the spanish people have babies like rabbits. i have had it with asking salespeople in states and asking the question, and not understanding them because they don't speak english properly. what happens if they refuse to hire illegal immigrants forward? see how long they stay around. with all these immigrants coming into the country, look at the bedbug situation -- what has