Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
And then we'll discuss the incoming Trump administration and other political news of the day with Republican strategist Adam Goodman and Democratic strategist Michael LaRosa.
And Tufts University professor Katrina Burgess joins us to talk about the history of mass deportations in America, including the Eisenhower era campaign, Operation Wetback, and President-elect Trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
Washington Journal is next, live.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Sunday, December 1st.
Many Americans will spend this morning in houses of worship, but some states are passing laws to allow for a greater role in religion during for religion during the week in public schools.
Advocates want to see more of the Bible in classrooms, while opponents argue it runs counter to the Constitution.
This morning, we want to hear your opinion.
Should religion be included in public school curriculum?
If you believe yes, call in at 202-748-8000.
If no, 202-748-8001.
And if you're not sure, 202-748-8002.
If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
Please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
You can also find us on social media.
We're at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
Now, there have been several recent developments in efforts in multiple states to incorporate more religion into the classroom, including in, as reported here by the Christian Science Monitor, Oklahoma and Louisiana.
And now, Texas will be next to try for Bible lessons in schools.
While Bible-based lessons will not be mandatory, schools that incorporate them will receive additional funding.
Boosters say the Bible is a core feature of American history, while critics point out the lessons will alienate students from other religions.
Texas's Education Board voted November 22nd to allow Bible-infused teachings in elementary schools under optional new curriculum that could test the boundaries between religion and public classrooms in the United States.
The material adopted by the Texas State Board of Education, which is controlled by elected Republicans, passed 8-7 in a final vote over criticism that the lessons would proselytize to young learners and alienate students of faiths other than Christianity.
Supporters argued that the Bible is a core feature of American history and that teaching it will enrich lessons.
Now, as reported here in USA Today, there has been other news, including in Louisiana, Louisiana law ordering 10 commandments in schools ruled unconstitutional.
What's next?
This is from November the 12th, when a federal judge ruled on Tuesday of that week that a Louisiana state law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms is unconstitutional.
Every public classroom in the state, from elementary schools to colleges, would have been required to display the Ten Commandments starting in January 2025 under a law signed by Governor Jeff Landry on June 19th.
In Tuesday's decision, U.S. District Judge John de Gravolas said the law conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, violated the religious rights of people who opposed the display, Reuters reported.
Now, as you go down into this article, it should be pointed out that while Louisiana has drawn national attention by passing the law, it's not the first to attempt it.
Over decades, more than a dozen states have tried similar bills, including Kentucky's landmark Stone versus Graham case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s.
This is a map of the states that have tried or are trying to pass bills to allow the Ten Commandments into the classroom.
classroom.
Now for a bit more of an overview of exactly what state action has been happening on religion in public schools.
In Texas in November, the state school board approved an optional optional Bible-based lessons for K through 5 schools by that 8 to 7 vote.
In Louisiana in June, the GOP Governor Jeff Landry signed the law requiring public classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.
And that's the one that was blocked by the federal judge and will remain on hold until the case is argued in January.
And then in Oklahoma in June, GOP State Superintendent Ryan Walters mandated that public schools should teach the Bible in 5th through 12th grade.
And a group of teachers and parents have recently filed a lawsuit to stop that plan.
Last month, Texas's State Board of Education debated and approved that inclusion of Christian-based curriculum as an option for elementary school education.
And at the school board meeting, Stacey Childs, a Democratic State Board of Education member, expressed her concern about possible constitutional conflicts in that proposed curriculum.
I just wanted to talk very briefly about Blue Bonnet ELAR.
As I said Tuesday, I spent a lot of time reviewing Blue Bonnet in terms of its stab at including black history references.
It is a great start.
I appreciate TA's work with me on going back and forth over this summer and even this week on trying to make it as inclusive as it could be.
I know that there are people that have emotions on both sides as to whether or not to vote yes or no on Blue Bonnet, but in my profession we deal with the facts.
So when it comes to will Blue Bonnet Elar materials potentially violate the Establishment Clause, I'm thinking about two words, excessive entanglement, right?
In the kindergarten materials, Christian Christianity, Christians is referenced three times.
First grade, referenced four times.
Second grade, referenced 17 times.
Third grade, referenced 190 times.
Fourth grade, referenced 81 times.
Fifth grade, it's referenced 66 times.
So if those facts alone, if a parent or a teacher who didn't feel comfortable teaching this were to bring this up to a court, I believe they would be successful.
And in my good conscience in protecting my bar license, I just do not feel that these materials are yet reflective of the experiences and the nuance of Texas students.
So I have to vote against ELAR materials specifically.
Now, Texas State Board of Education member Will Hickman gave this defense for why this should be incorporated into classrooms, saying, these religious curriculum stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy.
And there's religious concepts like the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule and Moses that students should be exposed to.
And we would like to hear from you all this morning on your thoughts about whether there should be religion incorporated in public school curriculums.
If yes, 202748-8000.
If no, 202-748-8001.
If you're not sure, 202-748-8002.
Let's start with Maria in New York, who says no.
Good morning, Maria.
Go ahead, Maria.
Hi, I'm not interested in having religion in school.
Why is that?
Oh, sorry.
All right, we'll go to John in Mechanicsville, New York, who also says no.
Good morning, John.
Thanks for taking my call, Kim.
Religion, as a subject matter itself, I don't think should be incorporated in school.
I mean, I'm a former teacher, and I really believe in the separation of church and state.
But this whole case really goes as far back as an event in our history called the Scopes trial, when a young science teacher tried to teach the theory of evolution in Tennessee.
And there was a tremendous backlash.
You know, the people did not want that to happen.
So it was a clear conflict between science and religion.
But if there's any component of religion that has historical value, I don't see anything wrong with incorporating that in a lesson.
I really don't.
And, you know, comparative religions might be a good thing to teach as long as the teacher doesn't prosthetilize.
You know, it has value.
And in that respect, I wouldn't have any objection.
But to teach religion and to try to, you know, convert some student or student, I think would be wrong.
But nevertheless, let me at the risk of repeating it.
If there's any historical value in any of the world's great religions, and I believe there is, you know, something to that, I don't have any problem with that.
So thank you for taking my call.
Bye-bye.
John referenced the Scopes trial, which according to history.com is also known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.
And it was the 1925 prosecution of science teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in a Tennessee public school, which a recent bill had made illegal.
The trial featured two of the best-known orators of the era, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, as opposing attorney.
The trial was viewed as an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the bill to publicly advocate for the legitimacy of Darwin's theory of evolution and to enhance the profile of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Let's go back to your calls.
Dee is in Baltimore, Maryland, and says yes.
Good morning, Dee.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
I'm saying yes, but I think that they should teach religion in the courses in school because it actually, to me, it corresponds with how we teach our children social skills and the Bible and those type of courses.
We'll teach our children how to behave, how we should interact with one another, how we should love one another.
And so to me, it's no different than teaching them those same similar social skills.
So I think I know as a child when I was in school, we had prayer in school.
And to me, I don't know.
It seemed like the children were better.
We acted better.
We knew how to love one another.
We just had a different type of love in our schools, and we respected one another.
And nowadays, it's like, it's so different now.
I'm an older woman.
And to me, during that time when we had prayer in schools, it was just a different atmosphere.
It just changed how we thought about one another and how we respected one another, because those are the kind of things that the Bible teaches us to love one another and to respect one another.
And so I think those things may change how our children interact with one another and get along with one another.
Well, yes, I agree that we should have those type of curriculums in school.
All right.
Gina is in Pikeville, Kentucky, and says she's not sure.
Good morning, Gina.
Yes, I really think going to open a bag of worms because if we do change the law, then what religion is your child going to be taught?
Since there's hundreds of different religions.
Now, people's not thinking it through, but if the law was to change, there's a possibility your child could be taught any type of language.
But really, the Bible says it's left up to you to make your choice.
He doesn't say you have to be baptized.
He says it's your choice to enter into heaven.
So I really think this is going a little too far, and I think it'll backfire.
And I thank you.
All right.
Ray is in Memphis, Tennessee, and says, yes.
Good morning, Ray.
Can you turn down the volume on your TV, Ray, and then go ahead?
Yes, so long as I can.
All right, go ahead, Ray.
Uh-huh.
Yes, I think it should be taught in school.
It'd be a whole lot better word today if the kids didn't know about the Bible.
It'd be a whole lot people can feel for.
And it wouldn't be all involved in stuff going on in the world today.
All right.
Joseph is in Boston, Massachusetts, and says no.
Good morning, Joseph.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
I'm a true believer in the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin.
I think evolution, theory of evolution, should be taught from grade one to 12.
That's essential.
Because if you look at the problem of America and the problem of the world, it has to do with religion.
People don't like to step on religion because it's offensive to other people.
But the people in power use religion to keep people down, especially black people.
They use Christianity to keep black people enslaved for 200 years.
By saying black people was a result of Ham and Abel and from the mother race, they still use religion to discriminate.
You look at what's going on in Ukraine, what's going on all over the world.
The moral of the story is people will do better if they understand evolution and the theory of evolution, natural selection, origin.
So, Joseph, what do you think of the role of religion in school?
Should they be teaching that as well?
No, they should not.
I mean, in historical reference, you could.
I went to Catholic school.
I went to Church of Christ University.
And in Catholic school, we learned the theory of evolution.
In Church of Christ University, I always say, how could a religion affect a psychology major?
But they taught the theory of evolution when it's needed.
These people that's running the world use religion to keep us divided, not to bring us down.
You must have separation of church and state.
That's what America has been known for.
That's what makes America great.
And that's what's going to make America continue to be great when they bring back separation of church and state that we never really had.
Anyway, thank you for taking my call.
Have a nice day.
Joseph referenced the separation of church and state, which is often a point drawn from the First Amendment of the Constitution, which reads, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is also known as the establishment clause.
Let's hear from Karen in Joliet, Illinois, who says, yes, there should be religion in school public school curriculum.
Go ahead, Karen.
Hi, yes.
I am a product of a Catholic school from kindergarten through 12 and grew up in a Baptist church.
I think it starts at home, but I do feel the curriculum should be introduced in the schools, and a child should have a choice of if they want to learn about religion.
And maybe you can present possibly different religions and they can choose it as a curriculum to learn.
Because right now we don't know our history.
And if you teach in a historical manner, people may learn better and respect each other better because this country is full of so many, like the gentleman said, so many different religions, so many different people.
And if you learn better, you might respect better.
So I feel like it is okay to teach it as a curriculum.
You don't have to force it on anyone.
All right.
Thank you.
Fran is in Holderness, Holderness, New Hampshire, and says no.
Good morning, Fran.
I was in education for over 40 years.
And one of the things that I noticed is that most teachers don't go to church anymore.
They have no affiliation with any regular religious organization.
This means that you're asking teachers who have a blank slate of a topic that they're going to teach, which sounds very ineffectual and unnecessary.
What teachers are focusing on now is respect for each other, respect for the young child that is handicapped, inclusion, helping others by going out on the playground and looking for new friends.
This is what children need.
They need that kind of experience, not some person who has been raised in a particular faith and feels that, and apparently a government that feels that they need to force that particular faith on all children when it is not necessary.
What we need to be stressing is love and respect for each other, which is what's going on in schools today.
Following that decision in Texas, the group Families Engaged for an Effective Education said, the group's Mary Lowe said, I am a Christian and I do believe that religion is a part of our culture, but our nation does not have a religion.
We're unique in that.
So I do not think that our school districts should imply or try to overly impress to young, impressionable children that the state does have a state religion.
Erin is in Silver Spring, Maryland, and says, yes, there should be religion in our public school curriculums.
Go ahead, Erin.
Hello, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think that in order to have a well-informed citizenry, students must have at least a basic background in religion and in the Bible.
How can a student truly understand the great works of art, the great works of literature, understand the currents of history without understanding religion?
And yes, what the Bible says and how the Bible has been interpreted and misinterpreted over the years.
You know, President Lincoln said during the American Civil War that each side, North and South, invoked the Bible in their own cause.
Well, I think students should understand how did different groups interpret that Bible to support their cause or misinterpret the Bible to support their cause.
This is not about establishing a state religion.
It's making sure we have a well-informed citizenry because whether people like it or not, religion and the Bible and the Quran and the Old Testament have shaped civilizations.
And I think in order for children to be well-informed citizens, they have to have a basic understanding of that.
Thank you very much.
Arlie Aguilera on Facebook has a similar point to the one we just heard, but with a different takeaway.
I have no problem with students learning about different religions and how they weave into other cultures, but I am, however, strongly opposed to exclusively teaching a certain religion in public schools.
Donnie Abnar says on X, in terms of historical context and cultural understanding, it needs to be up to the school district and ultimately the states to decide if it needs to be incorporated in public schools.
However, the founding fathers didn't establish a religion because they believed in freedom of it.
Annette Besseman says, I am a strong Christian, but I do not believe that religion should be taught in public schools.
The Constitution clearly forbids it.
My guess is that most people would say it's okay to teach their religion, but not others.
As a Christian, I don't want to relinquish to public schools what I'm supposed to be doing through my personal relationships to share about my faith.
There's been a case in Oklahoma that has been causing additional debate, as reported here in the Oklahoma Voice.
The Oklahoma court deciding the Oklahoma superintendent has no power to make schools show a Trump prayer video.
That was according to actually the Attorney General's office.
State Superintendent Ryan Walters had ordered schools to show a student a video of him praying for the president.
Oklahoma's top education official has no authority to force schools to show a video of himself praying for incoming President Donald Trump.
The state attorney general's office found.
Not only is this edict unenforceable, it is contrary to parents' rights, local control, and individual free exercise rights.
Attorney General's office spokesperson Phil Bacharach said on Friday.
This story was from November the 15th.
And state Superintendent Ryan Walters sent a video statewide on Thursday and ordered public schools to show it to all students and parents.
Some Oklahoma school districts had said that they did not intend to comply.
Now, and last month, Oklahoma's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, also announced that he was establishing the State Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism.
Walters had ordered those schools to show it to all students and parents, and then the state attorney general said that he had no power to do so.
Here is that Walters announcement.
We are excited to announce a new office here in the Oklahoma State Department of Education.
That will be the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism.
For too long in this country, we've seen the radical left attack individuals' religious liberty in our schools.
We will not tolerate that in Oklahoma.
Your religious liberties will be protected.
We've also seen patriotism mocked and a hatred for this country pushed by woke teachers' unions.
We will not tolerate that in any school in Oklahoma.
We want our students to be patriotic.
We want our students to love this country.
And we want all students' religious liberty to be protected.
I will now say a prayer.
And to be clear, students, you don't have to join.
But if you so wish, I'm going to go ahead and pray.
Dear God, thank you for all the blessings you've given our country.
I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions.
I pray in particular for President Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country.
I pray for our parents, teachers, and kids.
They get the best education possible and live high quality lives.
I also pray that we continue to teach love of country to our young people and that our students understand what makes America great and that they continue to love this country.
Now, also last month, Oklahoma GOP Senator Mark Wayne Mullen expressed his concerns about letting Oklahoma public school educators teach the Bible and recent actions by that Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters.
Let me ask you about the head of basically the top educator, right?
The superintendent there in Oklahoma, Ryan Walters.
He's been on this show a bunch, Senator.
Here's what he has said about Bibles in the classroom and I'll get your reaction on the other side.
I believe that if you're teaching American history, the Bible absolutely has to be included.
You have to have it in the classrooms.
We will ensure that history is taught in every class.
That means kids will know American exceptionalism.
That means kids will know the role that faith played.
How do you come down on this issue, Senator?
There's obviously the talk of it should or shouldn't be.
There's other aspects to look at it as well.
And I wonder how you come down on this.
We all make decisions based on how we're raised in our life experiences.
I was raised in a very strong Christian family.
I've raised my kids in a very strong Christian family, assembly's a guide.
And I want them to know the Bible, but I want it to be taught by someone that was taught the Bible themselves, too.
I think it's a slippery slope when you put it in the hands of teachers that may not be believers.
That's going to be teaching the word that can easily be taken out of context.
So if the state is going to require that, then the state should also be required that it's taught by someone that graduated from seminary school.
If you just leave it in the hands of a public school teacher that may be not able to actually teach it because they weren't taught it themselves, then it can cause a tremendous amount of confusion.
Keep in mind that that may be the only time that child gets the word taught to them.
And if it's not taught right, the Bible warns of that.
So I do think the state should express Edward Ryan Walters the same way.
Unless they're going to require a person that was trained in the Bible and graduated from seminary school or a different type of Bible school, then yes, I think it's a, I do believe that's probably the wrong move.
Let's get back to your calls.
Steve is in Florida and says, yes, that religion should be included in public school curriculum.
Go ahead, Steve.
Good morning.
After listening to the Oklahoma guys, just because you're taught it don't mean you learned it.
But if you're going to teach religion in school, you need to teach all religions.
You need to teach the history of religions.
And you also need to teach philosophy because that's what religion is, is a philosophy.
And Steve, do you think that schools should prioritize making that part of the curriculum over other subjects given the limited time in the school day?
No.
Not on the basis of what they want to do.
Basically, they want to teach the Bible and they want to teach Christianity and forget about all the other religions and philosophies of the world.
And it's a slippery slope.
And Like those guys in Oklahoma said, I think it ought to be taught by somebody who thinks the way we think, but not everybody thinks that way.
Okay.
Selena is in Rochester, New York, and says no.
Good morning, Selena.
Good morning.
I am definitely opposed to religion being taught in the schools.
And the reason that I believe this, I think that for black Americans, religion has been used unwillingly, us knowing, to oppress us and to dumb us down.
And so I go all the way back to the time when we were in slavery.
We were in the hot sun.
We were bent over, working, and we were singing songs, hoping God would deliver us.
God didn't come.
Now, to go from that time to the current time, I think that religion has something to do with people voting for Donald Trump.
And anybody who knows anything knows that Donald Trump is not for black Americans.
So therefore, these are my, I think, compelling reasons for why religion shouldn't be any place in your school.
Thank you.
Walter is in Bridgewater, New Jersey, and also says no.
Good morning, Walter.
Hi.
Thanks for having me.
First of all, every time I hear this discussion, it reminds me of something when it was in either fifth or sixth grade, and the substitute teacher asked us to say the Lord's Prayer, and I never heard of it.
I just stood up and walked out of the room.
My mother got a phone call.
It also reminds me of a book.
The title is The Religions of Our Founding Fathers, where there's a long proof of how George Washington was religious.
He was seen in many churches, but if he stayed in someone's house, they wanted to show him off.
So they brought him to their church.
Therefore, because he went to church a lot, he was religious.
When we get down to the Bible, which one?
And you have some religions that don't follow anything near the Old or New Testament.
So what are you going to teach them?
If you take almost any sentence in the Bible, there are going to be five or six opinions or more.
So that really does not belong in the classroom to have a conflict of interest to talk about any given sentence to a classroom of kids who are not in the classroom to learn the Bible.
They're there to learn to read, write, do math, science, and everything else.
Thank you.
All right.
Walter mentioned prayer in public schools and the substitute teacher that once suggested doing the Lord's Prayer, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, put out a statement on November the 26th related to prayer in public schools as a memo to President-elect Trump.
Prayer in public schools exists, but it can't be compelled, saying that as President-elect Donald Trump has released a list of education priorities, one of which is bringing back prayer to our schools.
The idea that there can be absolutely no prayer in public schools is such a persistent myth that it's worth debunking in some detail.
While the facts that follow aren't likely to persuade ideologues like Trump, we hope you can use them when talking to family members and friends who have fallen for Christian nationalist distortions, saying that voluntary prayer exists in public schools.
Students have the right to pray in public schools in a voluntary, non-disruptive way.
If students want to pray at the start of the day over lunch before they take a test or at other points in the day, that is protected.
What's not protected and, in fact, is not allowed is anything that smacks of government-sponsored religion, force, or coercion.
And make no mistake, that's what used to happen in many American public schools.
Prior to the Supreme Court rulings of 1962 and 63, school officials in several states broadcast prayers and passages from the Bible over the loudspeakers, and everyone had to participate or at least listen.
One of those cases being specifically Engel versus Vitale in 1962, and that was a 1962 Supreme Court 6-1 ruling, which declared school-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional.
Let's get back to your calls.
Bert is in Camp Hill, Alabama, and says, Yes, there should be religion in public school curriculum.
Good morning, Bert.
Good morning.
How's everybody doing?
Good, thanks.
This is what I want people to know.
I'm not a person that go to church, but can you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you just fine.
Okay, I'm not a person that goes to church, but I'm this way.
I don't got a problem with the religion.
The problem that I have, if people was just to go back and read the Bible and get a good, clear understanding of the Bible, it's in the book of Matthew 6, 6, 18.
And you go to the book of Jeremiah chapter 10 through 5.
We're getting ready to celebrate a holiday that Jesus, you never read in the Bible with Jesus born on December the 25th.
But if you read Jeremiah chapter 10, 1 through 5, it will tell you you ain't supposed to be cutting that tree down.
So you got a lot of these religious people saying that they are religious, but they're not really going by what the Bible says.
Jesus didn't even teach none of that stuff.
So y'all have a good day now.
A couple more comments from social media.
Alicia Lim says, I think it will open a can of worms.
All these parents pushing for religion aren't thinking about.
There are so many sects of Christianity.
What kind of fit will they throw when their specific religion isn't taught?
Christine Melton says, teaching of world religions, not theology, including atheism, should be a part of a history curriculum.
A basic understanding of the historical context of religion promotes tolerance.
And then Roberta Crandall says, when I was in elementary school in the mid to late 60s, we had what was called religious education.
Every Friday afternoon for the last hour of school, we could go to the local churches for what was basically Sunday school.
You had to have permission from your parents to do this, and no one was forced to do it.
I, for one, loved it.
Now, back to your calls.
Dennis is in Toledo, Iowa, and says no.
Good morning, Dennis.
Yes, in Iowa, I believe it was in the 1970s.
They had a vote on it.
Should religion be taught in schools?
And people overwhelmingly voted against it because they said, What religion are you going to teach?
The Catholic religion, Methodists, Baptists, Lutheran, that's why it was voted down.
Because people, you know, have that different beliefs, and they didn't want religion taught in school because of that.
That's my comment.
Katie is in Lansing, Michigan, and says, yes.
Good morning, Katie.
Good morning, Katie.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Yes.
I'm 90 years old, and I went to school.
And every morning we pledged allegiance to the flag.
We did not have the criminals like we have today.
Let them put that back in the schools.
The children need that.
I'll bet you 10 kids can't say the Pledge of Allegiance.
And what about religion in public school curriculum specifically?
And I know the Pledge of Allegiance has one nation under God, but do you think that religious teaching should be part of public school curriculum?
Looks like we've lost her.
Alvin is in Houston, Texas, and says no.
Good morning, Alvin.
No, I do not believe religion should be in the public school.
Whose religion?
It would be one big mess.
Everybody wants their religion taught in school.
Teach religion in your house.
That's good enough.
Thank you.
Linda is in Lorena, Texas, and says, no.
Good morning, excuse me.
Wanda is in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and says yes.
Good morning, Wanda.
Good morning.
I got the Georgia, Georgia, Danny and Maharaj.
Actually, the songs I think will be better out for the children because of the critical thinking it takes to dissect the words of the Bible.
Now, the civics that they took out of school to help with the temperament of the children as well as the music.
So I think civics and biblical music would be great for our children.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
All right.
And now we'll go to Linda in Lorena, Texas, who says no.
Good morning, Linda.
Good morning.
I think that they definitely should not mix religion in the schools.
In every town, USA, there are tens of tens of churches that can afford the religious ideas and ideals.
Why?
When there's only one or two schools or libraries, and what are they going to do when they want a Muslim religion?
That's going to be the first time they're going to shut it down.
Okay.
Karen is in Longview, Washington, and says no.
Good morning, Karen.
Good morning.
Yes.
Many callers have already said that they will want to teach all religions, you know, so they would have to do like historical, you know, religion class.
And who's going to make up the lessons plans?
When I was in high school, I think it was like 1972, we had a class, Bible as literature.
That's how they did that.
So you can study it like that.
But they were all religions.
I mean, like even Satanism and stuff would want to be in there.
Okay.
Karen was calling in from Washington.
And in Washington state, there was actually a 2022 case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
It was Kennedy versus Bremerton School District.
And this was a Supreme Court 6-3 ruling which upheld the right of a public school football coach to offer prayer on the 50-yard line after a game saying that this conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
Let's hear now from Tommy in Rockaway Park, New York, who says no.
Good morning, Tommy.
Yes, of course not.
Why did people come to America?
They came here for religious freedom because they were being oppressed in England, in France.
So Quakers came here.
Catholics came here.
Protestants came here.
And we decided at that time that there was no one state religion.
Now, you can have a state religion, but that will be just like the Taliban.
That'll be just where you can only teach one religion, and you must teach it.
And this is that this is such a divided, divisive thing.
More people have died because of religion and politics.
And when you intertwine the two of them together, boy, that pot will boil over, and there will be a religious war in America.
That's what I got to say.
Good luck.
Kerry is in Bay City, Michigan, and is not sure.
Good morning, Kerry.
Yes.
I'm not sure because I'm a Christian, but yet the stories are all good in the Bible that teach morals and stuff like that.
But as far as religion goes and church and state, it is the First Amendment that talks about it.
Not the second or down the road, the First Amendment.
That's how important it is.
And Christians have really let me down with Trump with what he's done.
And, you know, he's guilty of the felonies, sexual assault.
We're going to put him in as president.
Please, I just don't understand none of this.
Thank you anyway.
Kerry was referencing the First Amendment to the Constitution, once again, that language saying that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Michael is in Essex, Connecticut, and says no.
Good morning, Michael.
Yeah, you know, if you're going to teach the factual truth about religion and the Bible and the Koran and the Torah, then yes, teach it.
But they don't want to do that.
These places that are talking about religion and schools, what they want to do is promote Christianity.
But let me give you an example.
If you're going to teach the truth about the Bible and religion, are you going to teach children Jesus was not born December 25th?
Are you going to teach children the doctrine of discovery, which is the church's divine authority, giving the early settlers of this land the authority under the by way of the Lord to kill the indigenous people and take their land?
Are you going to teach that?
I bet you they won't.
I bet you they don't.
They just want to promote Christianity.
It's absurd.
It's ridiculous.
But I would say teach it factually, because if you teach it factually, you'll put religion out of business.
And that's what we need to do.
Thank you.
Education Week has a story about these efforts in multiple states to bring more religion into public schools, saying that historically attempts like this aren't unusual, but experts say the recent measures could be teeing up efforts to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court's conservative majority has been paving the way in recent years for public dollars to go toward religious schools and ruled in favor of a football coach's post-game prayers at midfield.
I imagine legal scholars would say it's kind of an uninteresting case from a legal perspective because it seems like the law is clear, said Suzanne Rosenblith, a professor at the University of Buffalo, SUNY, who specializes in education politics and legal issues.
This court hasn't appeared to show a lot of deference to precedent in cases that have nothing to do with religion.
So I think it could be interesting.
So let's get back to your calls.
Leroy is in Kansas and is not sure.
Good morning, Leroy.
Well, I'm not sure about it, but the main thing is if you're going to teach religion, it needs to be put in a book form where you're actually talking about all the religions throughout the two semesters.
And that would be a good thing.
And then I'm still for the coach doing prayer.
Thank you.
And, Leroy, before I let you go, do you think that this is what students should be focusing on in school and using that time in their school day for this?
Well, it's one of them deals.
You know, you got your seven hours of school.
Basically, you let one hour to take an explain what the religion is and then as the curriculum for the school.
Okay.
Lee is in Plainfield, New Jersey, and says no.
Good morning, Lee.
Yes, hi, good morning.
I believe that religion as a subject, you know, not as a personal practice, should be taught.
In the historic sense, we learned, you know, like, for example, like Constantinople, the pursuits of, you know, empire building, something like that, where even in slaveholding, in slaveholding South House, Christianity or, you know, Buddhism, et cetera, played a role in the way that a society thought and how it was used in society.
However, it's personal practice, no.
In school, what we did have, though, was space for like a silent period of reflection.
Now, in school, it was, it started off, I remember the fight that we had, or parents had, it was a moment of prayer.
And there were parents who were against that wording because it's like if they don't believe in prayer in their own home, they didn't want school to have it or require their own, our student body to have it.
However, once we had a moment of reflection, you could pray if you wanted to, or if you wanted to sit in silent reflection if you wanted to, there was space for that.
So I believe that.
I don't believe that a regimented Bible or a regimented Torah or anything like that should be used or introduced in school per se.
Thank you.
Hillary is in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and is not sure.
Good morning, Hillary.
Yes, I'm not sure because I don't think maybe religion, but the Bible should be taught in school.
A lot of people believe that it's in the Constitution about the separation of church and state.
I'm sorry.
I didn't say anything.
What do you think of the First Amendment's establishment clause in relation to that?
Well, the First Amendment, when it speaks about Religion, the right to serve any religion you want to.
Okay, that can be a variety of different things.
There are many religions out there.
But if you follow the Bible and what the Bible says, then personally, you can make an idea of what religion you want to serve.
To teach religion, you have to teach a wide variety of different things to teach religion.
But if you teach the Bible, you're teaching what Christ left for us, you know.
And a lot of people get confused with separation of church and state.
That was a letter that was written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist in Danbury, Connecticut, back in 1802.
And if you check the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
It's said all over that, yeah, it's part of the Constitution, but it's actually not part of the Constitution.
And I think the Bible would be good to be taught in the school.
Okay.
Matt is in Iowa and says no.
Good morning, Matt.
Yes, I just want to, the guy from Connecticut, Mike, he kind of took my thunder away, but good job, Mike.
I was watching on YouTube probably a few years ago.
Down in Tennessee, they've got actually a replica of the Ark of the Covenant or the Ark, you know, during the flood.
And they actually have animatronics of dinosaurs living in harmony with men.
So these are the people that if we allow them to teach this kind of stuff in our public schools is just ridiculous.
If they want, that's what we got private schools for.
If they want to teach this stuff in private schools, let them.
If they start doing this in our public schools, which are already being defunded by these Republicans, especially in our state of Iowa, that's run by Republicans, they are going to just set this country back 50 years.
So that's all I have to say.
No.
Thomas is in Taft, California, and also says no.
Good morning, Thomas.
Thomas, go ahead.
Looks like we've lost Thomas.
Let's hear from Mimi in Virginia, who also says no.
Good morning, Mimi.
Good morning, Kimberly.
I know a first-hand account because I taught for 20 years.
In the state of Virginia, we have a law that says you have a minute of silence.
So we spend almost three hours a year a moment of silence, which is really used for prayer.
A lot of my colleagues were sneaking in religious, mainly Christian, religious paraphernalia and all types of types of teachings from just the Bible.
I am not a Christian.
And one thing I believe that Christians need to own is that this is what the New Yorker caller had said.
This is about keeping, especially African Americans down, if you know your history.
Let's start with the Bible.
Jesus is not, number one, a Christian.
He was a Jew.
He wouldn't even recognize Christianity if he was alive today.
He also had bronze skin, hair, and wool.
He looks nothing like the image that's being promoted.
If people would read their history with Carter G. Woodson and the miseducation of the Negro, he said, hey, the slave master didn't give you anything else but his religion.
You have to wonder why.
And also, I want people to understand that children are impressionable.
And also, taxpayers are from all religions to fund these schools.
So if you're going to have representation of religion, it needs to be taught truthfully and equitably, but it's not.
And if people would watch Roots, the first scene in Roots tells people while they're on the ship that we have to quickly convert these Africans to Christianity so they will obey us.
So this is a Christian national far-right agenda, and people of color, especially African Americans, need to wake up.
And the school divisions need to be dissolved from taxpayer funding if they're going to engage in this.
And the First Amendment backs that up.
Lewis is in Salisbury, North Carolina, and also says no.
Good morning, Lewis.
Top of the morning.
You know, the chaos begins.
Look, Nebuchadnezzar also was a person in the Bible who stated that you have to worship this one idol.
And he made it mandatory: if you don't, you'll be cast into a furnace of fire.
We've seen this before: what happens when there's one religion with a group of people?
You got some saying they hate America because it's one group of people.
But look, if you look at the evil evangelicals, they already got it on the board about critical race theory.
Now, picture this: we already know that back in the day, they were all black people, people of color.
We already know that, but they won't.
Right now, Congress last year tried to take Psalms of Solomon out of the Bible.
Now, how are they going to teach our children when they get to the point about who crucified Christ?
There was the Romans, there was light-skinned people, or Cockazoors, or Anglo-Saxons, Europeans.
They the one who crucified Christ.
Christ, if you ask AI to give you a depiction of what Christ looked like, it will be a black man with dreads.
But I'm going to tell you now: they're not going to teach that in school.
They're going to teach, just like the lady said, blonde hair, blue eyes, and looking like a woman.
I'm not going for that.
My Lord is bigger and better than that.
So they can go ahead and keep talking about it.
But the chaos is going to continue with this administration.
It just begun.
Nikki is in Albany, New York, also saying no, that there should not be religion incorporated into public school curriculum.
Good morning, Nikki.
Good morning, Kimberly.
No, it shouldn't.
And I'm right now speechless because the last couple callers have took the words right out of my mouth.
It should not be taught.
There should be a separation of church and state.
And I do believe it's just another part of a far-right agenda to oppress others.
Okay.
That's pretty much.
Darlene is in Massachusetts, also saying no.
Good morning, Darlene.
Hi.
The reason I'm calling, you know, to say no, well, there's many reasons, but one of them is the contradiction of the Bible itself.
I went to the Bible Museum and was reading about how people use the Bible to justify slavery, and the people on the other side use the Bible to abhor slavery.
Now, there was articles that when the Bible itself has contradictions, how can people take the Bible seriously as far as teaching it one way or the other?
People have to realize the Bible was written and it contradicts themselves.
I mean, I do love the Bibles.
I love all the Bibles of every religion.
I think they're trying to teach people how to live and have good judgment, but I don't think one should be taught.
If they're going to be teaching many religions, that would be different.
You know, in a way that they're teaching the religions with how it contradicts each other or how they are the same, the differences and similarities of all the Bibles in every religion.
That would be one thing.
But when they're teaching the Bible one way and told how to teach it, you know, it takes people to how they understand it and how they read it.
They have people who study the Bible today and still can't understand all the teachings of the Bible and realize that it contradicts itself in many ways.
Let's hear from Roy in Woodstock, Georgia, who says, yes, religion should be incorporated into public school curriculum.
Good morning, Roy.
Good morning.
Yes, I think it should.
People need to understand what the three major religions in the United States, we all worship the same God.
The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims.
I listened to Farrakhan speak about Jesus.
And so, you know, just a few weeks ago, the governor of Florida wanted to ban gender identity in the school.
Everybody came against him because they wanted gender identity taught in school.
He was actually sued, had to go with Disney.
But here we are trying to teach our kids something, commonality between religion, and people coming out in an uproar.
It's okay to teach our kids once they're in prison and they're incarcerated.
You welcome the church to go into there and teach the kids.
But to teach them before they get incarcerated, to teach them about love and giving, we want to forbid that?
Yeah, they can be taught, but how are they taught?
The book of Genesis is a great book to read for all religions.
It talks about a God, a sovereign God, omnipotent God.
People need to understand.
They need to read that.
They need to understand that there is something greater than them and that God loves.
They need to understand what love is all about.
All right, let's get in.
One more caller before we have to end this segment.
Scott is in Dallas, Texas, and says no.
Good morning, Scott.
Good morning, Kimberly.
No, I grew up in the Dallas Independent School District with religion in schools.
And they disguised it as non-denominational.
It was far from it.
They'd interrupt math classes to pass out Bibles.
They interrupted half of school day to put on a religious program in the auditorium at my high school.
And you had either had to sit in the lunchroom or attend the service, but you couldn't go home.
It's exclusionary.
It's just wrong.
If you want your kids to have a religious education, that's what churches, synagogues, and temples are for.
And when I went through my religious training, which went through the seventh grade, one of my classes was comparative religions.
But this has no place in public schools.
And if you want to pray, you can pray before school.
You can pray silently to yourself.
You can pray after school.
This is nothing but Christian nationalism and the way to take public dollars, tax dollars, away from public schools and transfer them to vouchers, which is probably going to pass in Texas.
And tell me, what private school can you go to for $10,000 vouchers?
Most people.
So, Scott, we're just about out of time for this segment, but thank you to you and everyone else who called in with their thoughts on this topic.
Before we move on, I want to point out that Giving Tuesday is almost here.
And this year, your gift to C-SPAN can go twice as far.
A generous supporter has agreed to match the first $10,000 in donations, doubling your impact.
And by supporting C-SPAN, you can help ensure transparent, no-spin coverage of your government.
So you can visit c-span.org/slash donate or scan the QR code that's going to be on your screen to make your matched gift today.
And we thank you for your support.
Coming up next on Washington Journal, we'll have Republican strategist Adam Goodman and Democratic strategist Michael LaRosa here to discuss the incoming Trump administration as well as political news of the day.
And later, Tufts University Fletcher School professor Katrina Burgess will join us to discuss the history of mass deportations in America, including an Eisenhower campaign, an Eisenhower-era campaign to deport many Mexicans, and President-elect Trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
We'll be right back.
Kickstart your holiday shopping season and avoid the crowds with C-SPAN during our Black Friday sale going on right now at cspanshop.org, our online store.
Save up to 30% off site-wide.
Save on hoodies, sweatshirts, accessories, and more.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop C-SPAN's Black Friday sale going on now at cspanshop.org or scan the code on the right.
According to Brown University professor Corey Brettsnyder, the following presidents in history threatened democracy.
Here are his words from the introduction of his book, The Presidents and the People.
Quote, John Adams waged war on the national press, prosecuting as many as 126 who dared criticize him.
James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans.
Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents.
Woodrow Wilson nationalized Jim Crow by segregating the federal government.
And finally, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts ordering the Watergate break-in.
Corey Bretschnyder teaches constitutional law and politics at his Providence, Rhode Island-based Brown University.
Brown University professor Corey Bretschneider with his book, The Presidents and the People, Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV networks and C-SPAN radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org slash c-SPANNOW.
C-SPAN Now, your front row seat to Washington anytime, anywhere.
Listening to programs on C-SPAN through C-SPAN Radio is easy.
Tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio, and listen to Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Important public affairs events throughout the day.
And weekdays, catch Washington today.
Listen to C-SPAN anytime.
Just tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio, C-SPAN, powered by cable.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back for our political roundtable.
We are joined first by Adam Goodman, who is a Republican strategist and the host of the 13th NPARC podcast and also an Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Tufts University Fletcher School and a Republican strategist.
Good morning, welcome.
Great to be here again.
We're also joined by Democratic strategist Michael LaRosa, who's a former press secretary to First Lady Jill Biden from 2021 to 2022.
Welcome to you as well.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
And so, Michael, while we're with you, tell us a little bit about your background.
Sure.
So I was a TV producer for Cable News Show, hardballed with Chris Matthews for about seven years before I went to Capitol Hill to government to work for Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State.
And then joined Speaker Pelosi's office in the new Congress in 2018 as a communications director for the caucus.
And then joined Joe Biden on the presidential campaign early in the primary season, 2019 for the 2020 Democratic nomination.
And I was her traveling press secretary and stayed with her as her spokesperson into the White House for about a total of three years with the Bidens before joining Ballard Partners in D.C. as a partner.
Same firm that you are also working with, Adam.
Tell us a bit more about your background.
Well, my dad was one of the original madmen in advertising who got stumbled into politics with a campaign in Maryland for Spiro Agnew going back into the 60s, and they thought this guy had no chance to win.
He wins the governor's race.
He then goes on to be vice president under Nixon and then, of course, was removed from office before it was all said and done.
For the better part of 40 years, I've been the TV guy.
I write, create, direct television, and other media for candidates all over the country.
I've done 46 states, all sorts of different countries.
I've had a front-row seat to democracy, as I see it, in all the good ways, all the interesting ways.
And I joined Ballard just like Michael, I think maybe four years ago.
The nice thing about the firm, it's bipartisan.
As much as, you know, we have a reputation, I think, for our connection to the incoming administration, which is real, it's also a firm where we...
Why don't you talk about that connection to the incoming administration?
Well, the founder of the firm, the head of the firm, Brian Ballard, has a tremendous relationship with the president-elect.
We also have our partners, Pam Bondi, who is up for Attorney General.
Susie Wiles was a longtime partner, obviously.
She's chief of staff to the incoming president.
So Marco Rubio, great friends with Marco.
So we have those kinds of relationships.
But it's nice because we're kind of Florida, we were born in Florida, this firm.
And a lot of our Florida friends came really suddenly are in the national spotlight and we see them first and foremost as friends before we do the things that they're going to have to do for the rest of the country.
What's really interesting about Ballard, one of the reasons why it appealed to me was because so many of the old guard of the DC consultant class didn't have connectivity to the new president back in 2017.
And Ballard has really managed to keep their model very relevant after Trump and now again for Trump Part II so that there is Democrats, former Congressman Robert Wexler from Florida, for example, one of the Democrats at the firm, myself, have connectivity to Democrats in Congress and Republicans in Congress.
What did role, if any, did you play in the last campaign?
Yeah, so I was the traveling spokesperson for the First Lady, for Jill Biden, traveling with her as, and you know, the Biden campaign in 2020, the primary campaign, 2019.
So I joined in about September of 2019.
So I was with that entire campaign for about a little over a year before we went to the White House.
And I was her primary spokesperson because the way that they used Dr. Biden was as a sort of like a principal, as another principal, similarly to the way Hillary Clinton was used when her husband was running for president in 92.
So we were doing three to four events a day in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, the early states, raising money in California and New York.
It was quite, you know, it was an interesting time because it felt like whiplash, right?
We were behind.
We had no money.
And then we lost those early contests to Secretary Budigej, to Bernie Sanders.
And, you know, it felt like a political whiplash because right after South Carolina, we were really able to unite the Democratic Party and go on and win Super Tuesday and then the mini Super Tuesday.
And then kind of COVID hit and we were down for a little bit and then got back up in August and able to make some history and win.
So let's fast forward to current day.
You mentioned Pam Biondi, who's a nominee for Attorney General.
Do you see any lasting impact of Gates having to withdraw or choosing to withdraw his nomination for that role?
And what's your take on sort of the transition announcements thus far?
Well, okay, big question.
First of all, I see no impact in terms of the transition from Matt Gates to Pam Bondi.
Just for disclosure, I've been working with and around Pam for a long time.
Actually, her run for Attorney General was something that began with a discussion that we had together, Attorney General of Florida, way back when she was a media strategist.
Yes, and we're great friends.
And she's going to be terrific because she's one of those people that is like central casting for the role.
The confirmation hearings overall are going to be fascinating, obviously, on at least two or three fronts.
I think all of America is waiting for the RFK Jr. appearance because that is one where a lot of questions have been asked, obviously.
He is an outside-the-box thinker, to put it mildly, in an administration that is very much intent on changing the way Washington and the country, in a way, does business.
So you can expect some very direct questions about where he stands on health care, which obviously is something all of us are concerned about.
You're mentioning the Senate confirmation hearings, but the president-elect has made some indications that he would like some recess appointments for some of his Senate nominees.
What do you think of the prospects for that?
Every president wants recess appointments because they want this process to go quickly and smoothly.
I think it's a good opportunity, frankly, Kimberly, for the American people to get a good taste of those people who are going to be significant to their lives one way or another in the years ahead.
I actually like the confirmation hearing process.
It's not always going well for people as Robert Bork and Linda Chavez and some others that didn't quite survive it, but I think it's going to be a healthy thing for America.
We've received quite just a deluge of announcements from the incoming Trump administration about how he plans to fill out his cabinet.
Even this morning, front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, that he intends to make Kash Patel head of the FBI.
What's been your assessment of some of the people that he's choosing to fill these key positions?
Sometimes I think of myself when I'm looking at the appointments, like, if I were a senator on the floor, would I vote to support the president's nominee?
You know, the role is advise and consent.
So in theory, they should give their opinion, give their thoughts, and then consent to the president's nominees.
He does have sort of a prerogative to keep the members the team he wants.
Some of them have been, I thought, were expected picks, sort of what I would consider mainstream for President Trump.
I like the idea of Marco Rubio.
He is a China hawk and everything.
The two parties right now, at least, are on this, they have this competition to outchina each other.
And I think he's been remarkably consistent.
And I think he's, I watched Marco Rubio as a TV producer doing 17 debates back in 2015 and 16.
And he's grown enormously in his confidence as a communicator.
And I think he'll represent the country very well.
I'm also a big fan of Sean Duffy for Transportation Secretary.
And I think he's going to do a great job.
He's from the heartland.
He has a populist feel to it.
He gets it.
And I was pretty surprised by his choice for labor secretary.
The congresswoman from, I believe, Oregon, who I think just lost her seat, but pro-labor, Howard Luttnick, I thought was an interesting choice.
And then there were some choices where you could tell that he is pushing the envelope and really testing the leadership in his own party.
I don't know if, you know, I think back to Bill Barr, Attorney Bill Barr's book when he said when President Trump at the time wanted to appoint Kash Patel to deputy director of FBI, and he said, over my dead body, because he has just virtually no experience.
And so that's going to be a concern.
That's going to be an appointment that will concern a lot of Democrats.
Last month, you spoke out publicly against some Democrats for their criticism of Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegset, and specifically calling him a white supremacist and getting, you've gotten quite a bit of pushback for that.
Give me your assessment.
Well, I would say I got more praise than pushback.
I don't recall getting much pushback, to be honest, at least from anybody that I can recall.
No, I mean if I were a senator, I wouldn't vote for Hag Seth to be the DOD secretary, but because he's not qualified.
Not because he, you know, not because of his views about DEI.
And the point I was making when I made those, or when I sent that tweet on X was a response to a back and forth on a progressive sort of very left-wing, you know, left-of-center TV show on MSNBC where there was no debate or dialogue.
It was kind of a one-sided conversation.
And I don't like the idea.
I don't like the part of politics that you smear people just because you disagree with them on policy.
And that was my larger point, is that you can disagree with how Pete Hegseth feels and his writing and his record on DEI policy, but that does not make him a white supremacist.
And that was my larger point.
You have something to add?
I know.
I have enjoyed this conversation.
Do you agree, Adam?
I do, actually.
You know, Kimberly, American people for a long time have said we don't like what's going on.
You see that in poll after poll, the proverbial right direction, wrong direction question where the wrong direction, you think things are moving in the wrong direction got to like 75% by election day, right?
If we really want change, if that's what we're really looking for, change from what we have, then when people put up something that represents remarkable change, whether you like it or not, it's going to be a remarkable set of changes under President Trump.
If you have to take anything to the bank, it's that.
It scares people, too, because change is scary for a lot.
You're doing something different.
You're kind of pushing beyond the envelope.
But if we really mean it, if the American people really mean it, that we can do better than what we've done over the last, and not just the last four years, I think over the last 20, 25 years, then change is the only way to get there.
And that's why I advise everyone, Kimberly, fasten your seatbelts.
It's going to be an interesting ride, but it's going to be a ride into something new and different.
It's interesting that you mentioned the idea that change is scary.
There's some Gallup polling, looking at Americans' reactions to Donald Trump's reelection and the difference in reaction, obviously, between Democrats and Republicans, finding that Republicans are feeling optimistic, relieved, excited, proud.
Democrats feeling surprised, devastated, angry, and afraid.
Now, here's the good thing.
They sound very disparate, but they're very edgy and emotional, meaning everyone's kind of invested in what's about to happen one way or the other.
I'm okay for half the country or more to be in doubt about how it's all going to work out.
We don't understand yet how it's all going to work out.
But what we do know is where we've come from for many of us is not good enough.
And I think those emotions will give way to the reality of whatever is going to transpire in the next four years, which again is going to be a sea change in the way we do business here and is something I think Americans are ready to at least take a shot with.
And those emotions on the Democratic side will change if what happens from all this turns out to be very positive, even progressive in certain directions for the country.
We are welcoming your questions for our roundtable guests about the presidential transition or politics in Washington in general.
Our line for Republicans is 202-748-8001.
For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And for Independents, 202-748-8000 and 2.
I actually want to come back to you, though, and ask you a question about immigration because last week President-elect Trump's pick for borders are Tom Holman threatened funding for states that refuse to cooperate with the federal government's deportation plans.
Do you think that's a good policy?
Well, we haven't seen the full policy yet.
I can tell you that Holman is a no-nonsense player in the Trump administration.
He, for years, has advocated what President-elect Trump has, which is we've got to secure the border.
Are Americans in favor of getting control there?
Absolutely.
Are they in favor of all the things that will be required to get there?
I think they've yet to kind of be exposed to that entire approach.
I think when you see the numbers go down of illegal crossings, and we're not just talking about illegals crossing into the country, we're talking about fentanyl basically coming into the country, sex trafficking, all sorts of things that are perilous, not just to the people who live on the border.
You asked the people living in Arizona, southern part of Texas, how they feel about this.
It used to be a different take than what you would hear in Chicago or New York or Boston.
It isn't quite anymore.
In those other cities in the North where a lot of the illegal migrants have migrated, they are also understanding the impact of what happens when you don't have control and have secured the border.
I think it's going to be a popular idea when it's all said and done when we do that.
In terms of deportations, where they're going to start, obviously, is people who have committed criminal acts.
That's where it is going to begin.
And they don't, in my opinion, they don't deserve to be in America.
If they're here illegally and then they break the law, it's hard to build a case for why they should remain.
I saw you writing notes.
You have thoughts.
I don't disagree with most of what Adam said, especially when it comes to deportation of people who have come into the country illegally but are committing crimes.
And I don't think that will be an unreasonable executive action that they'll take.
But I don't think that, and I think part of the challenge that every president since Ronald Reagan has had has, is that there isn't really an executive solution to our immigration problem.
It has to be a law, and there needs to be a Congress and an executive who are willing to work together and come to the table.
And we've had that in the past.
We saw in 2007, there was a bipartisan group in Congress, and President Bush worked together to try to get something accomplished.
There was an attempt in 2013.
But really, nothing's going.
I mean, there are plenty of actions the executive can take at the border.
All of them are temporary, and none of them will fix the ultimate problem.
I mean, we have been operating under the same law, I think Simpson Marzoli, right?
And that was signed by a Republican president, passed by a Republican Senate in 1986, and we are still operating under that law.
And so it's going to have to take.
Now, the good thing about the transition and this new Congress is that President Trump promised quite a bit.
And so now it is the minority's job to hold them accountable to making the magic immigration problem go away that they've been promising for a while.
I want to follow up on that point because Politico actually has a story about this being the new progressive strategy, particularly held out by Elizabeth Warren, highlighting this idea of kind of holding the Trump administration to some of the promises made on the campaign trail with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts saying there'll be places where resistance is appropriate.
For example, if Trump follows his VP, JD Vance, in trying to ban access to abortion nationwide through the FDA, there will be massive resistance.
If Trump follows through on his promises for more tax cuts for billionaires and billionaire corporations, we're going to be in that fight all the way.
At the same time, she said, if Trump is going to lower interest rates on all consumer loans to 10%, count me in.
Those are great substantive fights that are probably very ideological, but those are the kind of fights that Democrats have been opposed to for a long time and that they would be fighting in the fight, resisting no matter which Republican was president, whether it was Trump, Haley, or Bush.
So I view that as a good sign that we're not going to resist for resistance purposes.
I think, well, I would hope most people are rooting for success, but they did promise quite a bit that all of a sudden the immigration problem was going to just go away now.
And no taxes on tips.
Even though he was president for four years.
As a Democrat, I would say he was not really the solution to the immigration problem.
But now that the American people have decided, we will make sure that his promises are held accountable.
Very quickly, and then we'll get some questions.
Sorry.
I'm sure we'll hear a lot from the callers.
And I'm a Republican, right?
So I shouldn't be giving advice to Democrats.
But where I asked, they should take a good hard look at what happened.
You know, the first, you go through all the stages, right?
And then figure out what they need to do to tack to get back.
The biggest message from 24 was the working class, America's working class, started to come much more forcefully into the Republican column.
That was unexpected, frankly, by a lot of people.
And African Americans, Hispanic Americans, working Americans.
And that's something that the Democrats concede, which has really been their kind of their bailiwick for so long.
That's a problem for them.
So it's not about objecting for objection sake, as Michael said.
They've got to take a deep, hard look at themselves and figure out how they can refocus on what America and Americans want.
And clearly, there wasn't enough of that this year.
Lots of questions coming in from callers.
We'll start with Alan in Cleveland, Ohio on our line for independence.
Good morning, Alan.
Hi, good morning.
Yes, I'm just calling.
I identified myself as an independent, and I did vote for Trump three times, but I consider myself an independent because in Ohio, I voted for Sherrod Brown while I was voting for Republican presidents and this and that, so I could easily switch back and forth.
But, you know, and I'm a graduate of Cleveland State's Urban Affairs College, and I was on that left side for a while, you know, and there's still a lot of me that's quite liberal.
But over the years, I've changed.
And number one, close the border.
We'll decide what laws need to be passed later.
Close that border now.
But also what I wanted to mention is that I see a lot of folks on TV talking about who is or who isn't qualified to be in these Trump positions.
Now, of course, we don't know everybody's qualifications if they've been anointed by the wonderful colleges of the U.S. that are helping to ruin the country.
But I do believe that he is qualified.
All these people are qualified.
We are the ones, the voters.
Pete Hegseth is qualified.
Why?
Because Alan voted, and my name is Alan, because Alan voted for Donald Trump, and I picked Trump to pick a transition team.
So who's going to call me on the phone?
Do I have the opportunity like Mr. LaRosa to sit there and spew my ideas about who is or hasn't qualified it?
Oh, I have a college degree also.
So Alan, you are giving your perspective on television about whether people are qualified right now.
Well, I believe they are qualified by virtue of the fact that I voted for Donald Trump.
And I hear all these people getting on TV, and I think they have good intent.
But the bottom line is, who are you to tell me who's qualified?
All right.
That seems directed at you.
Go ahead.
I'm not telling anybody who's qualified.
I'm not telling him who's qualified and who's not.
I'm giving my own opinion.
The fact is, no, Pete Hegseth, of course he's not qualified.
Of course he's not qualified to run a federal agency.
What is it?
How many millions serve or work for the Pentagon?
He's a weekend talk show host, sir.
Weekend talk show host.
Trump didn't even pick the weekday.
But no, in all seriousness, I have no problem with Pete Hegseth as a person, but as the defense secretary, of course not.
And I don't believe he will be confirmed.
Change is difficult.
Remember where we began here at Pemberley.
Pete Hegseth has qualifications.
He served this country, right?
Alan, I appreciate, by the way, your question.
He served this country, and I think he brings an entirely different perspective.
You expect for a defense secretary, someone with a couple of stars, right, on their uniform and with deep, deep experience in all sorts of things having to do with the military and the nation's defense.
Again, if you really want to take a fresh look at everything, including how we defend ourselves and the world, and what it takes to have an effective military, I think it's good to have a good outside perspective.
He's a very smart guy.
He's very well educated.
Again, I think anyone who's been willing to risk their lives for this country deserves to have a shot.
Real quick, and I just want to say I do agree with Adam and Nicola that it is, you know, I'm open to disruption.
The president can choose outsiders and disruptors to the system, absolutely.
But we don't have to break the system.
And I think that is what people, at least on the Democratic side, use some of these picks that at least they voiced before that they would like to break the system.
And that's scary to folks.
Wilbur is in Portland, Oregon, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Wilbur.
I have a question for Michael.
Okay.
Michael, what do you think about Ronald Reagan?
What do I think about Ronald Reagan?
I think Ronald Reagan would be a Democrat today.
I think he was a Democrat and then he became a Republican in the 60s.
I think he would go back to being a Democrat today.
I think Democrats represent more of the anti-communist national security sentiment that Reagan actually reflected.
And also Reagan himself was a compassionate conservative who wanted to treat people humanely who came into this country and voiced the importance of immigration in his farewell speech.
Obviously, I know you have a response, but I think Wilbur, did you have a follow-up question or was that it?
I have one follow-up question.
The smile on Donald Trump's face, will it reappear?
I missed that, but go ahead.
Will the smile reappear?
Absolutely.
I think life's been very good for the former and soon to be again president of the United States.
I do think that you talk about Ronald Reagan.
One of his greatest principles, of course, that I think really worked well for the country and for the world was peace through strength.
And I think Donald Trump really believes in that, will embrace that.
I disagree a little bit with Michael.
I think that there's so many things that Ronald Reagan did.
You're talking back in the 80s, right, Wilbur?
He was, in his own way, a real disruptor.
He wasn't expected to be President of the United States, to even win the California governor's race back before that.
He did it.
Pat Brown.
Pat Brown.
But he did it.
He did it his own way.
Kimberly mentioned the idea of great communicators, right?
So he was a great communicator, and he gave America a shot in the arm.
I think if Donald Trump and this administration are able to succeed in what they're setting out to do, we will have that kind of jolt of confidence I think we've been missing for a long time.
So I'm very, very optimistic about that.
And I think you'll see Donald Trump smiling even more as we start to move forward.
Flute is in Washington, D.C., right along with us on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Flute.
Yes, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I'm here from Washington, D.C.
And the thing is, you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat.
You know, the way I voted, you know, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
But the one thing I do respect is the office of the presidency.
And I think that we need to stand behind whoever is the president and let them go with their policies.
You knew the policies before when they were running for office.
So, I mean, Donald Trump won, and he's trying to secure the border.
But we knew that eight years ago.
He was trying to secure the border, and they took it as a personal vendetta against him.
And it was the best thing to do back then.
And now they're ready to bring up the idea again.
And you know, there's a lot of spending on all or whatever activity comes across that border that we're trying to prevent.
You know, let's just stick with one program and let's try to complete it.
You know, instead of Trump changing every four years, you know, with this bipartisan type of thinking.
And another thing, living here in Washington, D.C., we still have taxation without representation.
We have no senators and we have no voting member in Congress.
So we're here just, we're just here in America just unaccounted for almost.
So we need to work on that.
First of all, as a D.C. citizen, I don't even feel accounted for.
But the thing is, let's stick behind one idea.
Let's ride with it and get the most out of it.
And let's stop trying to change everything because it's like we're walking on a treadmill.
So I want to give our guests a chance to respond to many of your points.
Adam, I'm guessing that the incoming Trump administration is not going to prioritize statehood for D.C.
I don't think it's the first thing that Donald Trump will do as president.
No.
First of all, I appreciate the call.
And I appreciate what he said, that I'm going to look directly at you, that whoever is president, we got to get behind.
Thank you for that.
I wish there was more of that in this country as opposed to people that don't like a certain result and start to rebuff.
In terms of the border, the border's been broken for a long time.
Let's just be real about this.
It wasn't just the last four years under President Biden.
It wasn't the four years before that under President Trump, who I think did better than President Biden, but still the problem itself was not fully resolved.
And you can go back to Obama and George W. We've had an issue with the border for quite a long time.
We've got to figure this out.
This seems, and I tell you who's really looking at this, not just America, it's the rest of the world.
I was traveling recently in North Africa, in Morocco, and I had people from Morocco coming up to me when they found out I was from America asking me questions, and a lot of them had to do with the border.
Because, you know, border security is an issue, maybe not as much in North Africa, but it's certainly in Europe and in other parts of the world.
If we really want to lead the world, if we really want to lead by example, if we really want to get things done, we know that there's a ready audience for that that goes well beyond our shores.
The border issue obviously has been so important to American voters.
And the consequences of what Trump is talking about, though, could have real economic repercussions if carried out in the way that he's discussing it.
I'm looking here at a story in Reuters that U.S. farm groups are now asking Trump to spare their workers from deportation, pointing out that roughly half of farm workers in America of the nation's 2 million farm workers lack legal status.
And so you have agriculture groups asking for exemptions.
How do you actually see the administration carrying out what voters were asking for on immigration and border security without pretty massive economic and humanitarian consequences?
Well, that's a valid point being raised by the agricultural community.
The biggest challenge they have is not in continuing to innovate, to grow more crops, to borrow more food for the world at less, you might say, collateral damage to the earth, right?
It is labor.
Labor is the biggest problem the farm movement has because the farm population in America is aging, Kimberly, and we need to find a way to refresh that.
We need workers to be able to grow that food that the world desperately needs to survive.
So you're going to have these kinds of discussions under the umbrella of immigration, but that's different than border security.
Border security is, we had it from the previous caller, about closing down the border.
I think the one thing that President Biden, again, not to give advice to Democrats, should have done is all but have closed down that border at some point during his presidency to make the point that we're serious about it, as opposed to sending his vice president, dispatch his vice president down there to try to speak to the issue.
I think we're going to have a conversation about what is good, what is right.
You know, we talk about citizenship.
The last time, Kimberly, that citizenship in this country was addressed, like, what is it?
What does it mean to be a citizen?
Was Kodak codified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which, as you know, is a student of history.
It was back in the 1800s.
It was after the Civil War.
And the reason they passed that amendment, the 14th Amendment, was to make sure that future Congresses didn't turn their back on newly emancipated slaves.
And we haven't had that discussion.
We haven't been willing to have that discussion for a sequel or over a century.
I think maybe it's time to get there.
Do you have thoughts to add?
You know, I mean, to the caller's point, I'm sorry, going back to Adam's point, I think that there are a lot in the business community who feel similarly to agriculture workers who want exemptions.
Business has always been supportive of getting immigration reform done.
And so I see it from that perspective.
And he's right.
It's different than a border issue.
I will say border crossings are now a four-year low, the lowest they've been in quite a while, thanks to some of the executive actions that the president has taken.
Just to correct the record, the vice president was not sent down to the border.
She was sent to Latin America to bring investment from the private sector to countries in Central America.
With the idea that building economic development in Central and South America would decrease the need for people, the flow of migration up north.
And she was actually tremendously successful when it's a it speaks to actually a much broader communication problem they had, you know, and they never addressed even before she was selected as the nominee that she was not the border czar, she was not the Homeland Security Secretary.
She was going to these places in South and Central America to bring, to encourage the private sector to invest in like what you said, in to help resolving issues of poverty and economic struggle so that we could prevent, so that we could stem the flow of those coming to our country.
But not the borders are.
Otherwise, I think the House Republicans impeached the wrong person.
I'll point out that in about 20 minutes, we're going to have another segment looking at border security, but from a historical perspective, about the history of mass deportations in the United States.
So that'll be coming up shortly.
But let's get back to your calls.
Patrick is in Minneapolis, Minnesota on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Patrick.
Good morning, gentlemen.
It looks like we got a lot of macroeconomic things we have to clean up here.
So fascinating topics and conversation.
But what I was, you know, pinpointing earlier on the Pentagon discussion was: you know, here we have to clean up our economic system on which it approves things, how it inaugurates things, how the teams collaborate about things, and leadership to stiffen up everything that needs to be done and not have it be obsolete before it's completed.
So they have a young guy like this new guy coming in as a disruptor to allow the Pentagon to focus on things it's going to need in the future.
And space is going to be the future.
Weapons that we haven't even thought about are going to be much more realistic.
They sound futuristic, but we're living in an era that's going to transcend into something that we haven't really lived before.
So, you know, Adam, you know, your thoughts on, you know, the Navy needs to be completely rebooted.
We're drastically behind.
But then what is the Navy going to reboot in and for?
Why?
So I think this is very prudent that we just shake the dirt out of everyone's pleats here and allow a younger.
So this is a follow-up related to the nomination of Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary with Patrick pointing out, as many people have, that the military could use some revamping in certain sectors.
In a word, absolutely.
I mean, if we don't challenge assumptions, the assumptions continue to be the rule of the day.
The system is basically the ones who are most worried about this, Kimberly, I believe, and Patrick, thank you very much for that question.
The ones who are most worried about all of this are the bureaucrats, the bureaucracy, I'll call it the permanent government, because there's a certain way they've done things and they continue to do things, whether it works or not.
And government has never seemingly judged on efficiency.
They want a lot of funding from the American people, but how about the scorecard and how those funds have been applied has been successful?
You talk about the Navy.
China is about to overtake America in terms of naval ships and possibly naval strength.
You talk about a real existential threat.
It's there.
And the old thinking is not going to simply resolve something that is a fairly new phenomenon.
China 25 years ago was still trying to get help, trade help and other things from America and from the Western world.
Today, they're now taking us on.
And they're taking us on not just economically, but militarily.
I think that, again, to your point, that being willing to say, tell me why we need all this stuff over here.
When the idea of a large standing army maybe is giving way to more tactical deployments to keep us and the world safe.
And what will it take to get there?
And then challenging relationships with defense contractors who have had, you know, tremendous success in in getting government contracts for weaponry.
Whether everything that's in the, the channel, everything that's uh been proposed or is being made, is absolutely necessary to secure our safety, and I think having someone willing to question that is a good thing.
Greg is in Whitewater, Wisconsin on our line for independence.
Good morning, Greg.
Good morning.
I really like this format.
This is a great format, having a Republican and a Democratic strategist talking about issues.
The issue I want to talk about right now is AI.
In the 2024 debate that we had, not one question was on artificial intelligence.
And then when the election ends, now all of a sudden we see Elon Musk.
We see Zuckerberg going to Mar-a-Lago.
We see all of this happening.
And yet, what I'm really curious to know is that now we have full party control with the House of the Senate and the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's very old.
And now all of a sudden they're dealing with technology that's coming and it's going to have an impact on us for the next 20, 30, 40 years.
What is AI going to look like during this Trump transition?
And I'm really worried about a kleptocracy.
I'm really worried about the fact of corporations taking control of AI and data.
And that's dangerous to me.
And I'd like to know from both what are the plans.
Thank you.
And I'm going to hang up.
Let's start with you, Mike.
Yeah, I really appreciate the question because it hasn't really been addressed.
And I think, you know, the Biden White House under domestic policy advisor Bruce Reed laid out core principles for AI going forward.
But we really need to codify those.
I mean, what we don't want, and I think we need to get ahead of this in the next administration.
And I don't profess to be a tech expert or an AI expert, but I do remember sort of Microsoft in the 90s, and they were sort of playing by their own rules until, again, Congress and the executive passed legislation to rein them in.
And we're going to have to really update those statutes, those laws to address AI.
But that means, and I agree with this in terms of the theme of the new administration.
We do need different policy thinkers and advising policymakers, fresher minds, fresher perspectives.
And I think the caller or his sentiment is exactly right.
I mean, it could be very scary, and we need to, this is one area where the government does need to regulate and set some rules.
I love this question.
Greg, thank you for that because the fact that it didn't come up in the debates, it wasn't seemingly a major part of the conversation in 2024 and the campaign cycle is like mind-boggling.
How can it not be, right?
And I'm excited, frankly, about Elon Musk.
I mean, it's one thing to see him cheering on the campaign platforms next to President-elect Trump.
But it's another to know that Elon Musk and Zuckerberg and the others are going to bring a completely outside-the-box way of thinking about AI and its impact.
And believe me, the rest of the world is already competing against America for leadership in the AI technology movement.
We don't have it locked down as an American preserve that will, you know, that we're going to, you know, we created this and we're going to drive this.
It is a very competitive situation.
And I can tell you some of our adversaries abroad are trying to get there as quickly as we are.
So I hope that this new thinking is going to be very, very powerful and productive.
And I'm thrilled that Elon and others are going to be whispering in Donald Trump's ear about what to do.
Armand is in Lakeland, Florida, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Armand.
What's your question?
Good morning, Ceasepin.
And yeah, thanks for having a Democrat and a Republican.
I've been waiting for this for a long time.
And please bear with me.
The immigration problem we have is ever since NAFTA, when companies started seeing that they could get cheaper labor if they moved their companies out of the country and into other countries.
And then you had the companies in the United States that couldn't move their companies out of the United States, and they had to find cheap labor.
Now, ever since NAFTA, all of a sudden we have an immigration problem, but we don't have an immigration problem.
What we have is companies that want to just find the cheapest labor, and they don't want the E-Verify program.
I'm talking about big businesses, corporations.
I'm talking about small businesses and medium businesses that can find that cheap labor.
They want the cheap labor, but they don't want to pay the benefits to the, and that's where Social Security and Medicare are going broke.
Because now you have a workforce that are not paying into the federal, state, and social security system.
But now we want to get rid of them now that we've had decades of them sitting here raping the system and the corporations.
Armand, I want to make sure you get to your question, but I want to give our guests a chance to respond.
When are we going to have E-Verify in this country?
Because we're still going to have cheap labor coming into the country and not paying their fair share of the taxes.
So we're going to go with Adam first.
I was fascinated by this question and your observations.
Thank you for calling in.
And thank you also for appreciating the fact that with a Democrat and Republican in studio with Kimberly today, you actually can not only get different perspectives, but also understand there's common ground as well.
Because I think Michael and I share a lot of things ideologically, believe it or not, that are parallel.
In terms of e-verifying everything, I think we have to trade very carefully because there are dramatic economic effects of taking a new rule and completely putting it into 100% effect without considering everything that it's going to impact.
The number one issue of 24, the number one issue of 2020, the number one issue of 2016 was and will remain the economy.
And if we do something that inadvertently, I think, impacts that, I think we have to be very careful.
And by the way, one thing that all of us should start looking at, especially with the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, have confirmed, which we're very excited about, is our relationship in Latin America.
You talk about the situation on the border.
As Michael pointed out, I think, earlier, it starts far south of there.
I think we have an opportunity.
We have not really fully explored, no offense to the current administration, about strengthening our relationships throughout our hemisphere.
We do that.
We keep critical national assets closer at hand.
We have less concern about our adversaries basically gaining economic and potentially military edge and advantage in different parts of the world.
It's a win-win, but we have ignored Latin America in particular for so bloody long.
It's time for us to wake up.
And just on that subject, you know, I traveled with the first lady to Central America, to South America, Ecuador, Panama, for that reason, to actually, you know, show gratitude for everything that they were doing to invest in their workforces, in their education system, to alleviate poverty, but also to be partners, to be our partners, because China is really contesting us in some of those Latin American countries.
And it's important that we do keep our eye on Latin America and strengthen our partnerships there.
And that's one thing we did try to do, at least at the surrogate level.
And I didn't understand much about it before I traveled and was briefed.
And it was a great learning experience, but it's really important because if we're not there, China will be.
David is in Maine on our line for independence.
Good morning, David.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I do appreciate the two strategists.
There's a lot to resolve in this country, but I would like to hear their opinion on, I guess, what I would consider the morality.
I'm far from a religious person.
I'm talking about right and wrong and how this country, as I kind of consider it, the dumbing of the American voter.
And I truly appreciate the news that is provided by respective, a respectable news outlet versus a lot of social media and hyperbole.
But I'm just curious as to how and why they think that the American voter thought that electing a person who has such a criminal background to the presidency, I don't think it should have been allowed, number one, somebody who's been convicted.
I don't care whether he's been sentenced or not.
We know the character of this person and how they actually think this is a good choice.
And I do worry about the democracy of our country and the slide downhill to the proverbial autocratic state that I believe Trump is headed for.
I'll let you take that one first, Michael.
Sure.
Not an easy question to answer, obviously.
I'm a Democrat.
I did not vote for him in part for that reason.
Though, you know, that was the choice we were offered, and that was the choice that was provided to us.
I mean, I'll have to leave it to Adam to discuss, to address why Republicans selected the nominee they selected after, you know, what we do all know about his, what would you call it, I guess, legally challenged background.
But I would say, yes, yes, the felonies in the New York trial, correct?
And, you know, look, I got into politics because of Bill Clinton.
He was like my inspiration.
Or, you know, I started paying attention when I was six or seven years old because what he was running.
And, you know, Trump, I think there was a lot of attention over the course of the cycle on the New York trial.
And what basically was a state, I'm not trying to diminish the felonies, but it was a state trial.
And it was actually more of a clerical Statute that he violated, I think, trying to pay off.
And it actually had to do with a consensual relationship he had 18 years ago.
And then I think back to me as a Democrat who loves and adores Bill Clinton, who committed a crime while he was president because he was having an affair, a consensual affair, with somebody in the White House.
And when you look at the two, there's remarkable similarities and there's remarkable differences.
I think personally, the charges in Georgia when he was caught trying to steal votes, to me, that is much more disqualifying than the state felonies he was brought up on.
But the larger point is the rest of the, or I'm sorry, about 50%, a little under 50% of the country decided that that didn't matter to them.
What mattered to them was what he was going to do for them.
The caller referenced the dumbing down of the American voter and the sort of moral assessment of the president-elect.
What is your take on the caller's opinion there?
Well, first of all, I think Americans are tired of prosecutions of public officials that just go on and on and on and take us farther away from the business at hand.
You know, the number one issue in this campaign, that's coming from me, Kimberly, it was, you know, pretty much consistent across all polls, was the economy.
And under the economy, it was the word inflation.
Inflation has really hurt a lot of people.
One of the reasons I think the working class reacted the way they did in this election, they couldn't do it anymore.
They're having trouble making ends meet.
It's a proverbial paycheck-to-paycheck life.
And now 65 to 70% of Americans are there, and they're worried that's going to get worse, not better.
So you talk about what is more important.
That was priority number one.
And if you look at 2016 and 2024, what Americans said is it's not working for us.
It just isn't.
And yes, we, you know, we, it was an interesting showcase up in New York with the trial.
There were other, you know, judicial actions that were threatened against the president.
I think they've all almost all now been dropped.
I think we're tired of it.
Let's get back to doing what we do best.
And if we do that and we get away from one side versus the other, I think this country has a chance to heal and pull together.
But in an effort to show some partisanship here, I will say it is hard for Democrats to swallow a lot of that because we felt like the real prosecution, the personal destruction of politics and politicians started under in the 90s against Bill Clinton by a series of flurries of investigations that wasted taxpayer dollars that led to nothing.
And I really do think that was probably part of the, you know, sort of the birth of what we see having transpired today.
We have a question specifically for you, Michael, from Albert in Brewster, Massachusetts, who asks, this is about immigration.
Do we know how much of the money we invest in Central American countries actually reached the people?
This is in relation to the vice president and her efforts to spur economic investment to stop or at least limit migration.
Sure.
I mean, I don't know off the top of my head the number amount, and I don't know the specific commitments that she received from the private sector.
I do know that there, I believe, one, And it escapes me right now, but I believe there was a really large investment from a renewable energy company that was setting up shop in neither Mexico or Central America to create jobs, spur investment, spur the economy, and keep people working and provide.
And that was the That was the goal of the vice president's diplomatic mission.
It was more of a State Department diplomacy type of situation.
It was not a Homeland Security.
It was not a border.
It was not an immigration role that she was playing.
We simply have not done well enough in Latin America.
I'm sorry.
We just haven't.
And you know, it's a start.
But the big thing is, and I credit the vice president, you've got to show up.
Part of it is showing up.
How many times have leaders actually gone to Latin America and shown they care?
Not enough.
Speaking of showing up, the current president, President Biden, is heading to Africa.
He's got, as reported here in Reuters, a long-awaited Africa trip to a win against China.
He sets off for Angola today on a trip that will deliver on a promise to visit Africa during his presidency and focus on a major U.S.-backed railway project that aims to divert critical minerals away from China.
This is in relation to U.S. investments in sub-Saharan Africa.
And this sets up a question we received from Kristen in Portland, Maine.
Can you speak about our future relationship with African countries?
Donald Trump has repeatedly called them ass-hole countries.
China is making enormous headways in Africa and the taking advantage of the riches and resources they have there.
We have got to do a better job in that continent.
We just have basically been AWOL, I think, and we have to do more there.
Having traveled recently again to Morocco and having felt the enthusiasm of the people of Morocco, I think, for America and frankly for Donald Trump because of his actions on the Western Sahara, it is a real threat that China is, and Russia too, made great inroads into Africa.
If that continues with all the vital assets, critical natural resources and assets that are there, we are asking for trouble.
And I'm telling you, we're way behind.
China, who's very big into entertainment, movies, et cetera, they've gotten to the point where in villages that barely have electricity, they have put satellite dishes on everyone's roof in that village so they can communicate Chinese-based programming directly into those villages.
That's a way of building from the ground up support for China over all commerce.
We've got to stop that.
I applaud, frankly, Kimberly, the president, President Biden, for going to Africa.
I wish he had done it more.
I hope that President Trump does that, takes it seriously.
I guarantee you that Marco Rubiov, confirmed as Secretary of State, will be doing that.
The vice president traveled to Africa on several trips.
And the first lady, my time with the first lady, traveled to Liberia and Tanzania and Kenya and Ghana.
But I will say, you know, part of the America First slogan, sometimes I worry that it leads to this sort of isolationist type of feeling.
And I think what Adam just described are the very reasons why we need to be connected to the rest of the world.
We need to be involved in the rest of the world.
And the reason why partnerships and alliances matter so much.
You know, I was driving here and was listening to a news radio station, and somebody was talking along those lines about the war in Ukraine and mentioned putting America first, and it's all about sort of what's in the best interest of our country.
But being president is not just, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
There's a reason why it's a difficult job, right?
And it is to, yes, of course, act in a way that reflects the best interest of our country, but also what is in the best national security interest of our country abroad.
And that sometimes involves diplomacy and investment.
We're going to have to leave it there, although I'm sure we could continue talking for hours.
We don't have it today.
Michael LaRosa, who is a Democratic strategist, and Adam Goodman, our Republican strategist.
Thank you both very much for your time this morning.
Thank you for having me.
All right, later on Washington Journal, Tufts University professor Katrina Burgess will join us to discuss the history of mass deportations in America, including an Eisenhower era campaign on this and President-elect Trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
But after this quick break, we're going to have more of your calls and comments in our open forum.
The numbers are on your screen.
We'll be right back.
Tonight on Q&A, Jochen Jack Werfel, author of My Two Lives, talks about surviving Nazi Germany as a half-Jewish member of the Hitler Youth, the steps taken to conceal his identity.
and the day his Jewish mother was arrested by the Gestapo.
As we got out of the subway, which was right around the corner from where my mother lived, where we lived with my mother, I saw all kinds of Gestapo and SS cars in front of the building.
Now, this was a large building.
There were many families in there.
And my brother and I decided that better than going in and going there with all these SS and Gestapo people, we waited on the corner and watched it from there.
And we decided to ask our mother as to why these cars were there and what the Gestapo was doing there once they were to leave.
We would go home and ask our mother.
Well, after a while, all of a sudden, to our surprise, it was my mother.
They were bringing out of the building, put in one of the Gestapo cars, and they took her away.
Jack Werfel with his book, My Two Lives, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
Are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast?
This holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts C-SPAN has to offer.
On QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.
And on About Books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We're an open forum ready to hear your comments about politics of today.
Our number for Republicans is 202-748-8001.
For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
And if you're a fan of C-SPAN, we hope that you will support us.
Giving Tuesday is almost here, and we have a generous supporter who has agreed to match the first $10,000 in donations to our nonprofit, which would double your impact.
And if you support us, you can ensure transparent, no-spin coverage of your government.
You can do that by visiting c-span.org/slash donate or scanning that QR code on your screen to make your matched gift today.
Let's go to AI in Fairfax, California on our line for Republicans.
Good morning.
All right, let's hear from Elise in Portland, Oregon on our line for Democrats.
Hello, this is E. Lee.
Thanks for taking my call.
I watched C-SPAN for years.
I'm very concerned about our country.
I'm 59 years old, and the propaganda being put out is destroying the common sense of our youth.
The work ethic is very different.
And I don't know what to do about it, but I'm first time in my life.
I'm very concerned about the future generations, the denial of people on climate change.
I moved from Florida.
I survived a Cat Five hurricane, and Trump did nothing to help us.
He denied funds 283 days, and I live in Florida.
So most of the people don't know how awful things will happen here.
So I encourage all the listeners to really back-check information because I won't be alive, you know, when the Hatchet descends.
So again, I'm the least hopeful in my whole life about this country.
So let's go to David in Orange Park, Florida on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, David.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I wanted to congratulate Kash Patel for being nominated as the new FBI director.
And I think it's safe to say that Chris Ray went just a wee bit too far sending a truckload of agents to raid Mar-a-Lago with shoot-to-kill orders.
So it's a good idea that he is replaced.
And Ray pulled that stunt on many of Joe Biden's political opponents.
But I think on the Mar-a-Lago situation, that was totally unnecessary.
And I think that Melana Trump was furious about it.
And she had a lot to do with Trump replacing Christopher Wray, who in many ways was, you know, and I hate to say it, but behaved like a common street thug as the FBI director.
He was very harsh on Joe Biden's political opponents, raiding them and pointing automatic weapons at their heads when all he had to do was call their attorneys and have them, you know, turn themselves in.
But thank you.
All right, let's go to Bob in Illinois on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Bob.
Hello, Ceasefam.
And I just want to say, I'm 72 years old.
And if I was any, I love my era.
My era, I wouldn't take nothing from my era except a very pretty young lady like you that I wish I was young.
Now, let me get to my question here.
I mean, I hate that I miss Mr. LaRosa, because that's where my question was going to.
But I missed him.
So maybe someone will call in and answer this question from me.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
To me, entertainment was the major reason the American people voted for that man, entertainment.
They made a mistake to me because if abortion didn't get Harris to the finish line, no other Monday morning quarterback would have.
So she would have lost anyone.
But my question was this: if there's a number of Americans, who knows, 75,000, 100, I mean, 75 million, 100 million, that sign a petition, because Trump is very not smart to me.
Will they be able to get him out of office if more than 100,000 people sign to evict him?
When the American people finally realize they made a mistake.
Are you suggesting a national petition that would cause the president to be removed from office?
Yeah, I wonder.
I'm not sure if that's what I want to say.
No, we choose our president through elections unless Congress makes a decision to impeach him.
So that wouldn't work.
Let's go to Stephen in Wilmington, Illinois on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Stephen.
Thank you for taking my call, and I can make it quick.
I think that President Biden should step down and let Kamala be the 47th president for a month and a half and then use her new immunity powers to arrest Trump and send him to Guantanamo.
How about that?
That's his strategy.
Robert is in Newark, Ohio, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Robert.
Thank you.
The mother of all living introvert, introvert, homophobic, homophobic.
Okay.
Jim is in Cairo, Missouri on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Jim.
Morning.
I was surprised that your previous guest mentioned Ronald Reagan.
I'm not thinking about Reagan.
Apparently, he was faced with the same large number of migrants in the country.
Instead of trying to deport them, which would have devastated the workforce, he gave them amnesty.
Now, the idea of being able to round up 20 million, deport them, no matter what it does to our workforce, just doesn't make sense.
I would like to see Joe Biden give amnesty to the 20 million migrants instead of trying to get rid of them.
We need them.
Thank you.
Linda is in Vineland, New Jersey on our line for independence.
Good morning, Linda.
Good morning.
And can you turn down the volume on TV?
Then go ahead with your comment.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Okay, is that better?
You could turn it down a touch more, but go ahead with your point.
Okay, what I wanted to say was the only thing that the people of the United States have in their favor right now is Donald Trump's ignorance of the law of the land and the Constitution.
Because he really isn't using his head.
He wants to get rid of government workers.
Well, when they collect out on their pensions and when they file for unemployment, what's that going to do to his record?
And when he wants to deport people that have been working here on his properties in the state of New Jersey and Florida, you know, how is he going to replace that?
So his unemployment rates will go up, his immigration and international rates will go down, and the best thing of all is his ignorance to the Constitution, which says that after he takes oath of office, he could be court-martialed for the insurrection and for his ignorance to what the people need.
And taxing without representation, which is what he is kind of doing to people that he did not win by a mandate.
He won by 1.2.
And Joe Biden won by a mandate, 4.3.
Now, there's a lot of people out there that are not being represented by this man.
And I think he really ought to read up on the law.
They credit him for being a good businessman, but he failed business.
Let's go to Josie in Indiana, Pennsylvania on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Josie.
Good morning.
I've been listening all morning, and there are several things.
There was a gentleman who called in who implied that the FBI went into Mar-a-Lago with guns blazing, using deadly force when they did their search warrant.
That is totally untrue.
And FBI officials testified before Congress and gave the procedure that they did.
So that was a, what do I want to say, blown-out of proportion talking point that, again, took away the authority of a given court order to go in and have a search warrant.
It's amazing to me how many people who voted for the incoming president.
Josie, I want you to finish your point, but I'm glad you brought that up because I was looking for the article on that.
There's been an AP fact check on that particular point about the deadly force language in the FBI document for the Mar-a-Lago search.
Former President Trump, this is an article from May, pointed to standard language in an unsealed FBI document to baselessly claim that the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search of Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida nearly two years ago.
This is the tweet where Trump alleged that or said that the FBI had been authorized to use deadly lethal force.
The claim was also boosted online by his supporters.
But the language Trump referenced is a standard policy statement used for issuing search warrants and was not unique to the FBI's search of his property.
It is actually meant to limit the use of deadly force.
So that is the response to that point.
But please go ahead and finish, Josie.
I also believe that the point was made that when the FBI did that raid, they worked hand in hand with the Secret Service so that there wouldn't be any pushover or any of that, anything of that nature.
So we are going again on baseless tweets.
We are holding up.
I'm a constitutionalist.
Yes, I called in on the Democrat line.
I do vote Democrat.
I have voted for Republicans, but I'm a constitutionalist.
And when I hear all these people praising the ideas that are coming forth before this new administration even takes place, I'm wondering, where is the Constitution in all of this?
Do we not remember that the president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution?
And much of what I'm hearing and reading is absolutely in opposition to those tenants that are in our Constitution.
So I want to get a couple more folks in before we have to finish our open forum.
Casey is in Norman, Oklahoma, on our line for independence.
Go ahead, Casey.
Hello.
Happy holidays to everybody.
Man-made holidays, that is.
Hey, I just got a question for you.
Imagine if Kamala Harris actually went out and started interlisting all her dominions into doing the same thing that the Republicans did this whole time.
It would be hilarious, wouldn't it?
That the orchestration part of all of it would be just unimaginably fun, you know.
And we all forget about electors.
You know, these electors, you know, they have a right to choose whoever they want.
You know, of course, they're particularly going to vote for the right, their own, because they do so many things for their party.
But, you know, when you think about it, if you find out who this man is, Donald Trump, you know, who does need to go to Guantanamo Bay, they're all going to be hating life when they find out he's the Antichrist.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Judith is in Nevada, Missouri on our line for independence.
Good morning, Judith.
Well, I'm just going to try to lighten things up.
I didn't vote for Trump.
I don't like him, but I wish he would get a A stylist.
I am sick and tired of looking.
If I have to look at that outfit for four more years, the blue jacket, the white shirt, and the red tie.
Get him a stylist.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Sue is in Cadillac, Michigan on our line for independence.
Good morning, Sue.
Oh, yeah.
Hi, good morning.
I am most disturbed, I think, by the fact that there is no discussion surrounding this immigration of the real causes for it, and that is by global interests out of centralized Europe and also dual citizens running our own government that are a minority, but seem to be overrepresented in the banking industry and also in our upper government levels.
So get a grip, folks.
It's not about the workforce.
It's about tearing apart culturally our country so that it can be reassembled by larger interests who have, and it's not, it's not Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is a nationalist who's, I think, trying to save this country.
But we really need to take a look at that.
And why aren't you presenting people on here who are discussing how those NGOs are getting the migrants into this country and how Soros is paying for it and other globalists who are interested in seeing our country torn apart?
That's what's going on.
And the wars are for the same purpose.
Israel and Ukraine are serving the same interest, folks, not our interests.
All right.
Well, that's all the time that we have for Open Forum.
Up next, Tufts University professor Katrina Burgess will join us to discuss the history of mass deportations in America, as well as President-elect Trump's pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
We'll be right back.
Weekends bring you Book TV, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
Former California Republican Congressman Christopher Cox takes a critical look at the life and presidency of Woodrow Wilson in his book, Woodrow Wilson, The Light Withdrawn.
On our About Books segment, Gloria Edom shares her book, Gather Me, about the books that inspired and shaped her, and her book club turned nonprofit, Well-Read Black Girl.
Book TV presents coverage of the 75th annual National Book Awards, hosted by the National Book Foundation.
The awards celebrate the best literature published in the United States.
Author and actor Kate McKinnon hosted this year's ceremony and awards were given for the best works in nonfiction, fiction, poetry, translated literature, and young people's literature.
Watch Book TV every weekend on C-SPAN2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question.
Your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, Student Cam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000.
This is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
Joining us now is Katrina Burgess, who is a political economy professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School.
Welcome to Washington Journal.
Thank you.
Very nice to be here.
We're here to talk about the history of mass deportations in the United States.
On the campaign trail and elsewhere, President-elect Trump has referred to the Eisenhower era and a particular program of mass deportations that Trump has said he might use as a blueprint for his deportation plans.
I do want to flag that this was called Operation Wetback, with the term wetback obviously being a very derogatory term, often considered to be a racial slur by many.
Can you talk about that program and where this terminology came from?
Yes, sure.
So it referred to a mass deportation initiative to remove arguably millions of mostly Mexican farm workers.
And the term wetback comes from the Spanish mojado, which means wetback.
And it was because Mexicans were crossing the Rio Grande River to come into the United States without documentation and mostly to work in the farms of the southwest of the United States.
And so that's where the term wetback comes from, but it's very derogatory.
It was used commonly at the time.
There was less sort of sensitivity to not using disrespectful terms in political parlance.
And so the operation that was created by the Border Patrol was actually called Operation Wetback.
And the idea was they wanted to very suddenly and massively relocate millions of Mexican farm workers back to Mexico.
However, there was one really very important difference between that program in the 1950s.
It was implemented essentially over about eight months in the year of 1954 and what we're looking at today.
And that is it was in the context of a massive guest worker program called the Bracero program, which was in place from 1942 until 1964.
And the purpose of Operation Wetback was not to end immigration to the United States, but rather to force particularly Texas growers to hire Mexican workers through the Bracero program, which was legally, rather than contracting undocumented workers who were a lot cheaper.
And so it's a very different kind of scenario, I think, in many ways than what we're seeing today.
How did that program impact undocumented immigration at the time?
Well, obviously the program itself was very traumatic for a lot of communities and families.
I mean, essentially, at the time, it was called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the INS.
They would go into the fields, they would create blockades on highways, go into NIC communities, and essentially round up Mexican workers and send them to large detention centers, although usually very briefly, and then load them onto trucks or buses or boats, send them to Mexico, hand them over to the Mexican government, and then the Mexican government would put them on buses or trains into the interior of the country.
And so it was very disruptive for people's lives.
Initially, it had an impact on certainly on border arrests.
They went down, they plummeted after around 1955.
But the main reason is because now Mexicans were being contracted under the Bracero program.
Between 1953 and 1956, the annual number of legal contracts more than doubled to nearly half a million.
And so it's not that Mexicans weren't coming to the United States to work, it's that they were coming through legal channels rather than having to cross without documents and be subject to arrest or deportation.
So in that sense, it worked in that it did push immigration from being more illegal to more legal.
However, as soon as the Bracero program was ended in 1964, border arrests went right back up.
And they got to over 1 million by around 1976.
And they reached nearly 2 million by the year 2000.
So the underlying reasons for Mexicans to leave Mexico and for U.S. employers to hire Mexicans didn't change.
Rather, the way they got here changed.
So it went from being largely sort of some legal, a lot of undocumented, to mostly documented back to mostly undocumented because we closed a very important legal pathway for these migrants.
How has the makeup of the undocumented population in the United States changed since this program, since the 1950s?
It has changed.
Yeah, it has changed dramatically, particularly talking today, even today as opposed to, say, 10 years ago.
So in the 1950s, the undocumented population in the United States was almost entirely Mexican.
And this is actually true until quite recently.
And the implications for a mass deportation program is that you send Mexicans across the border, they're in Mexico, right?
The Mexican government has to take them because they are Mexican citizens.
Now, Mexicans, in terms of border crossers, they account for less than a third of all migrants crossing in the United States without authorization.
So to deport those people is much more complicated and much more expensive.
So you need the agreement of the country from which they come, or Mexico has to agree to take them, which has to be negotiated.
And if you're going to put them on planes, which the U.S. does, right, we have deportation flights to send people back to their country of origin.
It's very, very, very expensive.
The other difference is that now the undocumented population, two-thirds of them as of 2017, had been in this country for at least 10 years.
So these are people who've settled, who have families, who have jobs, who are members of communities.
Many of them have U.S.-born children, which means their kids are citizens.
So if you're going to deport those people, and this happened during the Obama administration and actually to a lesser degree during the Trump administration, if you deport parents of U.S.-born children, either families get divided or U.S. citizens are effectively being deported back to their parents' country of origin.
So that's a really, really big difference.
Another really big difference is that about 42% of all undocumented immigrants in the United States did not cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
They came on a tourist visa, student visa, work visa, and then they just stayed.
So they're called visa overstayers.
It's a very different population.
You're going to have a lot of sort of well-educated people who have successful careers, not to say some of the undocumented, those who cross the border aren't the same, but it's a much more diverse population in terms of income, education, national origin.
I think Asians are the fastest growing undocumented population in the country, primarily people from India.
So it's just a vastly different sort of tapestry in the United States than it was in the 1950s.
Some numbers from Pew Research on the undocumented population in the United States that there are 11 million unauthorized immigrants as of 2022 living in 6.3 million households, including more than 22 million people, if you include everyone living in their household, whether they're undocumented or not.
And that means that almost 70% of these households are considered mixed status, with 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 living with an unauthorized immigrant parent.
Now, we are going to be taking questions from our callers.
Republicans can call in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats at 202-748-8000.
And Independents at 202-748-8002.
You mentioned the cost of the potential of these mass deportations that President-elect Trump has suggested.
The American Immigration Council sort of ran the numbers on this and estimated that in total, we find that the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation aimed at both of those population at these populations would cost an estimated total of at least $315 billion.
We wish to estimate that this figure is a highly conservative estimate.
It does not take into account the long-term costs of a sustained mass deportation operation or the incalculable additional costs necessary to acquire the institutional capacity to remove over 13 million people in a short period of time.
Incalculable because there is simply no reality in which such a singular operation is possible.
When you go back to the Eisenhower-era mass deportation, President Eisenhower rejected the use of the army on U.S. soil, which is something that President-elect Trump has said he would be more willing to do.
How would he do that and actually carry out the kind of deportation that he's talking about?
And would it stand up in court?
So I can talk a little bit about it.
Let me just clarify that I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't my main area of expertise, but I have done a bit of research on it.
And so there's something called the Posse Comitatus Act, which I'm hopefully pronouncing correctly, from 1878 that prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.
But there are some exceptions.
And one of the main exceptions is when the president invokes what's known as the Insurrection Act, which came together in 1792.
And its purpose is to suppress rebellions and repel invasions or enforce the law.
There are a couple of, I mean, it's very vague, right?
What's a rebellion?
What's an invasion?
It doesn't define those terms at all.
And so some courts have tried to clarify under what conditions the president can use this act and what the role of the courts are.
And there was an 1827 Supreme Court decision that basically the president had exclusive authority to decide whether the Insurrection Act applies to a particular situation.
But then in 1932, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts may still review the lawfulness of the military's actions once deployed.
So what this suggests to me as a non-lawyer is that President Trump has quite a lot of authority to decide that we are experiencing an invasion and he uses this term a lot.
He's declared a national emergency before and then use that declaration to basically overrule the Posse Comitatus Act.
Then, if and when he does that, the courts can then rule on whether it's being done lawfully.
I know immediately the day that if he were to do this, there would be lawsuits being filed left and right by the sort of vast number of organizations that are preparing to try to block Trump from engaging in unconstitutional activities while he's president.
But it seems to me, based on what I've, a little bit that I've read, is that he has quite a lot of latitude and that he could indeed do this.
It's been used in the past.
The most, probably the most well-known example is when Eisenhower and Kennedy both invoked it to send federal troops to force the schools in the South to desegregate.
So it was essentially used to enforce the law because it was after the Supreme Court court decision of Brown versus Board of Education, which mandated desegregation.
All right.
Well, let's get to some callers with questions for you, starting with Winifred in Suffolk County, New York on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Winifred.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
How are you?
Good.
What's your question?
Yeah, I'm going to ask a few questions.
The first one is, what happened to decency, morals, character, and the truth?
Why don't you ask your other questions as well, and we'll try to answer them all at once.
Yeah, and is inflation the only concern to voters, Republicans, and Democrats?
I believe Dr. Burgess's expertise is more in immigration history, but I'll let you respond to any of those points that you'd like to.
Sure.
Well, let me first say I wish I had an answer to that question.
I actually think we need to, we as a society, a lot of politicians need to change how we talk about immigrants.
They are human beings, and we should talk about them respectfully and give them the dignity that they're due.
It's a complicated issue, but we don't need to dehumanize people.
So I completely, I think we're on the same wavelength on that one.
And then just a quick note about inflation.
Another cost that we didn't really talk about is the economic cost of deporting millions, even hundreds of thousands, but if he could pull off deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, it would have a massively negative impact on our economy.
Undocumented immigrants contribute an estimated $1.6 trillion to our economy each year.
They pay at least $100 billion in taxes.
They account for 4.4% of the U.S. labor force, particularly in sectors like agriculture, construction, hospitality, food services.
So if these workers were to be deported, we would have labor shortages, wage costs would go up, housing costs would go up, and guess what?
Our favorite issue, inflation, would get worse.
So there's a connection, actually, a very clear connection between what happens on the immigration front and what happens to inflation.
And deportation is effectively an inflationary policy.
And so I think if it does come to pass, people are going to maybe they won't realize the connection, but they're going to be disappointed because prices will go up rather than down.
Juan is in Omaha, Nebraska on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Juan.
Hi.
From my reading of the mass deportation by Eisenhower, half of the people that were taken were United States citizens.
And I think that might be the problem because a lot of people look like what we consider immigrants now.
And, you know, that was back in the days of Jim Crow and segregation.
But so I think there was more, I mean, it just seems like it's kind of a racist move.
And I was talking, or I was listening to the new Homeland Security Secretary or whatever, the one that's nominated.
And he was addressed this issue as well.
Like, well, what if you take someone whose mother is a U.S. citizen or daughter who's a U.S. citizen?
And he said, well, they could just go with them.
What's your opinion of that?
I'll just read, if you don't mind, Dr. Burgess, from a piece you wrote in the conversation about this where you talked about this exact issue talking about this operation.
By mid-August, when this was enacted, INS agents had deported more than 100,000 immigrants across the U.S. Southwest.
Fearing apprehension, thousands more reportedly fled back to Mexico on their own.
Most of these immigrants were young Mexican men, but the INS also targeted families, removing nearly 9,000 family members, including children from the Rio Grande Valley in August.
There is also evidence of U.S. citizens getting caught up in the INS sweeps.
Yeah, if I could just add to that, I actually didn't find a lot of evidence of U.S. citizens being removed.
There's more evidence that that happened in the 1930s when there was another mass deportation of Mexicans from the United States.
I think there seems to, at least there's less evidence that a significant, half is, I'm sure, is inflated.
I don't think it was half of them.
But certainly there were some who got caught up.
And in those days, immigrants really had very few enforceable legal protections.
I think today one advantage of being in 2024 rather than 1954 is that immigrants do have a lot more protections that are out of monitored and enforced by a lot of NGOs and legal organizations.
And so there would undoubtedly be some U.S. citizens who got caught up in mass deportations if they were to be carried out by President-elect Trump.
But I think the bigger problem is what the caller mentioned at the end of the call, which is that families are going to get divided and parents, children, siblings possibly are going to end up going back, voluntarily, right, going back to their country of origin because they don't want to split up the family.
And I think this is particularly true for children who have, you know, do you want to leave your kids behind if you're being sent back to, say, El Salvador, or are you going to take them with you?
And that is effectively, in a sense, kind of making it very difficult for U.S. citizens to uphold their rights and stay in the country in which they were born.
Dreama is in Daniels, West Virginia, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Dreama.
Yes, I just had a couple points.
I had a question about, they were talking about the cost of deportation, but I also wonder about the cost when the Biden administration took over of flying in, going in and flying in immigrants.
Read and that this man that was arrested and charged with Lake and Riley's death was one of the ones that they flew in, and we had flights coming in from uh in the middle of the night, so to speak.
Um, i'm i'm not sure what you mean about uh, the Biden administration flying in people.
Where did you hear about this?
Yes, they have flights and you can sign up in different countries and they, they have been flying immigrants into the United States.
I'm sure if you check into that you'll find it, because it's.
I've read it several different places and I do follow all the different news organizations, Msnbc CNN FOX, all of them.
That's one thing.
And then you also talk about uh, the workers and the need for them here and um, but we all you know this is a drain on our economy.
Medically, we have, you know, we have to do I.
I do want uh, you to be able to ask your question.
But regarding um, the Biden administration flying people into the countries, that does not seem to be accurate.
Here's an AP fact-checked claims the Biden administration is secretly flying migrants into the country are unfounded.
In his super tuesday victory speech former this was from march of this year former president, now president-elect Donald Trump, elevated false information that had gone viral on social media, claiming the Biden administration secretly flew hundreds of thousands of migrants into the United States.
Many posts sharing the claim uh referred to a report by the Center FOR Immigration Studies.
It said the administration refused to list individual airports.
I'm just going to go down.
But migrants are not being flown into the?
U.s randomly.
Under a Biden administration policy, in effect since january of 2023, up to 30 000 people from Cuba Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela can enter the country monthly if they apply online with a financial sponsor and arrive at a specified airport.
Biden exercised his parole authority which, under a 1952 law, allows him to admit people only on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons, and but going on, the AP says that this is not an accurate claim and so I just wanted to follow up on that.
There's more you can find from the Associated Press, but go ahead and ask your question Drima, and then we're going to let professor Burgess respond.
I was talking about the legally that they could, you know, get flights in, but the question uh was on the economy.
Um, because of the expense we do have to provide medically for them, but also I feel like we wouldn't need all the workers coming in.
If we had the 60 million babies that they have aborted, they would be taking uh citizenship now and we wouldn't need to have all this.
It seems like everything's just gone crazy.
All right uh, professor Burgess, i'll let you respond to whichever of those points you'd like to sure um, Let me start with the way that people are coming to the United States.
So the folks who are in getting humanitarian parole or refugees, or there's also, we have something called, we've had something called safe mobility offices in various countries of Latin America where people can apply for entry to request asylum while they're still in their country of origin or on the journey.
And all of these people are vetted, right?
Especially refugees are very deeply vetted.
It's very difficult to get refugee status to be able to get permission to come to the United States.
The people who are at the border and requesting humanitarian parole, they have to go through, they have to have an interview with an immigration authority and they have to establish that they have a family member or another sponsor who will be responsible for them while they're here.
So that's one thing.
So people aren't just kind of being led in willy-nilly by the government.
Some do sneak across the border largely because they can't access legal pathways.
I have interviewed hundreds of migrants in Latin America, and most of them are just trying to give their kids a decent life or they're fleeing terrible violence or it's not some plot of politicians to bring a lot of migrants to the United States.
It's that a lot of countries are in really rough shape and people are fleeing for their lives.
And I think if you met some of the people I talked to, you would understand where they're coming from and realize that this could happen to anybody if you just happen to be born in a different place.
The other thing I would say is I think there's this misconception that migrants commit a lot of crime.
The truth is that they commit crime at a far lower rate than native-born Americans.
Every group is going to have a few bad apples in it, right?
It's inevitable.
We're human beings.
People are flawed.
But relatively speaking, immigrants, and particularly undocumented immigrants, are far less likely to commit a crime, especially a violent crime, than people born in the United States.
And then the other thing to keep in mind is that undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for most medical assistance, right?
They're not eligible for insurance.
They can go to the emergency room.
So it's true that if you have a lot of undocumented immigrants in your community, your emergency rooms might be fuller than they otherwise would be.
But given the amount of taxes they pay, I think they pay, they sort of pay their way, right?
Because a significant share of undocumented immigrants don't get any of the benefits for which they're paying taxes.
So if you kind of flip it, they're actually subsidizing us, especially those of us who are older, right?
Who do use the health system a lot, who do need both workers to be in the nursing homes and the hospitals, but also the tax money, the payments into Social Security that are helping us to have a decent life when we get older.
Jeff is in Warren, Michigan on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jeff.
Hey, how are you doing?
Good, thanks.
I can't believe the gaslighting continues.
You need to talk about the cost of the immigration right now, the illegal immigration.
300,000 children missing.
They don't know where they are.
I mean, that is incredible.
What about one-third of the women that come across that border are raped?
Nothing said about that.
I mean, this is incredible.
They're paying taxes.
I don't think them people in the gangs that are taking over apartment complexes that just got picked up in New York City are paying taxes.
I mean, this is incredible.
The gaslighting continues.
Thank you very much.
So before you respond, Professor Burgess, I want to point to a House Budget Committee hearing back in May, which was called the Cost of the Border Crisis.
And they found this was the GOP majority, that the cost of the border crisis at $150 billion, $150.7 billion and counting, citing information from the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, among other points here.
It says the Federation for American Immigration Reform had done a great job.
Studies suggest this cost is upwards of $400 billion, but their cost estimate is $150 billion.
The lion's share of that cost is borne by state and local governments.
State and local governments can't borrow or print money like the federal government, so they have to balance their budgets by either absorbing this cost through raising taxes or they have to cut services to their citizens.
Yeah, well, let me just, I mean, I think the facts are out there.
The real numbers are out there.
Nobody's trying to gaslight you.
But I do want to acknowledge that immigration, especially the significant numbers of people who are arriving without documents because they're fleeing some desperate situation, the government has not managed it well.
And it does place a significant burden and a lot of stress on local communities, particularly when lots of people arrive all at once.
So I want to acknowledge that.
It's not that there's no issue, there's no problem, but I think we need to think differently about what the problem is and where the responsibility lies.
And I wish our government would take a more proactive approach to trying to manage significant numbers of people who are arriving at our border to alleviate the burdens on particular localities who are bearing a lot of these costs.
I mean, to shelter people and to mostly to shelter them, and especially when the rules are that they can't work right away, right?
The other thing that I've sort of seen when I talk or heard, whenever you talk to immigrants, almost always they say, I just want to work.
I'm a hard worker.
I want to work.
I want to support my family.
But if legally they can't work, then they're dependent on the local government, the state government to provide them with shelter and food, et cetera.
So I completely agree that this challenge is not being well managed.
It doesn't help when certain governors put migrants on buses and send them to other cities with no warning, right?
And suddenly they show up and they're in D.C. or New York or Chicago.
But it also doesn't help that the federal government is not really taking charge of this process and helping to come up with a more coordinated system to sort of share the burden of helping these people when they arrive.
So it's complicated.
There is a cost, but I think if you look at the whole picture, the cost is balanced out by the contributions that migrants make.
The problem is that some communities bear the cost in the short term, where others are benefiting in the medium to long term.
So politically, it's a challenge.
But I think unless we look at the big picture, we're going to come up with solutions that actually make the problem even worse, which is generally what's been happening.
I've got a couple more callers.
We can get in before the end of our segment.
Let's go to Gary in Odenton, Maryland, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Gary.
Good morning.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Hi.
My question is for Dr. Your name was, I apologize.
Dr. Katrina Burgess.
Dr. Burgess, hi.
I have a kind of a personal question.
If you don't answer it, I understand.
But I would, from a Republican standpoint, my question is: I'd like to know who, what is your primary source of income and your exact how you get paid for your primary income for your life.
And the reason I ask that is that as you're paid, I believe, and please explain, that in order to satisfy that entity, you have to create a particular narrative from a particular point of view.
And as a Republican, I've seen this money scale go up to the very top of the world structure for finance.
And humans at this point have seen enough of this narrative.
And we don't, we're taking a deaf ear to the narrative.
So Gary, I want to let Dr. Burgess respond to your point so we can get to some more callers on immigration.
Dr. Burgess?
I'm not sure quite where this question is going, but I would say that nobody is controlling my narrative at all.
In fact, one of the privileges I have as a tenured professor at a university is that I can pretty much say whatever I want.
And so I am not sort of channeling the narrative of some larger institution.
This is based on my own research, my own sort of set of values, a lot of interviews and reading.
So you may not agree with my narrative, but it's not manufactured by my employer by any stretch of the imagination.
We have a comment via text from David from Monks Corner, South Carolina, who says, Reagan wanted amnesty for about a tenth of the number of illegal aliens we have today.
It's a solution that does not work on the current scale, especially with the border still being open.
What's your take on David's comment?
So first of all, the first part of the comment, which is not it's not feasible on the current scale, I think that's an empirical question that would require some really careful research is what would be the implications of legalizing a significant share of the undocumented immigrants who are here now.
I suspect that they would actually be more positive than negative, but I don't know.
We have to do a you know investigate it.
On this idea that the border is open, I really want to challenge that.
I've spent quite a lot of time on the border, and it is anything but open.
At the sort of urban crossings, you have massive infrastructure, surveillance, drones, towers, border patrol, whose budget has increased dramatically since the Reagan administration.
And then migrants who are crossing through different countries to our south have to evade immigration authorities in Mexico, who also tend to be very corrupt and abusive.
It is incredibly dangerous and incredibly costly to migrate to the United States.
It's actually unbelievable that people are doing it because it is so difficult.
It is not an open border that you just waltz across.
It was a little bit that way before the 1990s.
Now, absolutely not.
And if you're going to go across a part that has no wall, there's a pretty decent chance that you're going to die of dehydration or some other overexposure in the desert.
And thousands of migrants have died in the desert trying to cross.
So I think we need to challenge this idea that the border is open.
What is true is that people are coming anyways and they're trying to find a legal way to do it, but there's so few now that some of them end up trying to cross with a smuggler, end up getting sick or dying in the desert or in other inhospitable terrain along the way.
On the, you know, what would be the implications of legalizing the undocumented immigrants?
I think probably in the United States, things wouldn't change much, right?
Because we already have 66% of undocumented immigrants that have already been here for decades.
So de facto, they're members of our country.
They're not legally members of our country.
What it would do to incentives for migrants to come, again, it's not clear they're coming even though it's incredibly difficult.
Would that many more come if it got a little easier?
I don't know.
We'll have to leave it there for today with Dr. Katrina Burgess, who is a political economy professor at Tufts University.
Thank you very much for joining us this morning on Washington Journal.
Thank you.
And for everyone who called in today, thank you for your questions and your comments.
And if you would like to support C-SPAN, a reminder that with Giving Tuesday almost here, we do have a supporter who is willing to match donations up to $10,000 or the first $10,000 in donations.
So there is an opportunity to double your impact.
You can do that at c-span.org/slash donate or by scanning the QR code on your screen to make that matched gift today.
Thanks to everyone who tuned in this morning.
We'll be back tomorrow with another edition of Washington Journal at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Have a great day.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Monday morning, Sky Perryman, president and CEO of the progressive group Democracy Forward, discusses legal efforts to challenge the Trump administration's agenda.
And then Taylor Barkley, Director of Public Policy at the Abundance Institute, talks about oil, drilling, and energy policies of the incoming Trump administration.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
On Monday, a view of Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia and the role of U.S. and NATO support from former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
From the Council on Foreign Relations, watch live at 1 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, a free mobile app, C-SPAN Now, and online at cspan.org.
Weekends bring you Book TV, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
Former California Republican Congressman Christopher Cox takes a critical look at the life and presidency of Woodrow Wilson in his book, Woodrow Wilson, The Light Withdrawn.
On our About Books segment, Gloria Edom shares her book, Gather Me, about the books that inspired and shaped her, and her book club turned non-profit, well-read Black Girl.
Book TV presents coverage of the 75th annual National Book Awards, hosted by the National Book Foundation.
The awards celebrate the best literature published in the United States.
Author and actor Kate McKinnon hosted this year's ceremony, and awards were given for the best works in nonfiction, fiction, poetry, translated literature, and young people's literature.