Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
kimberly adams
cspan36:59
m
miles yu
28:27
Appearances
brian lamb
cspan00:41
chuck schumer
sen/d01:08
donald j trump
admin02:50
karoline leavitt
admin01:05
kristi noem
admin00:53
peter navarro
admin01:18
willie nelson
01:00
Clips
c
charlie daniels
00:27
j
jim marrs
00:05
r
rick steves
00:25
Callers
bob in new york
callers00:07
joshua in pennsylvania
callers00:04
mark in california
callers00:12
?
Voice
Speaker
Time
Text
Trade Tensions Polling Data00:03:57
unidentified
Buckeye Broadband supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
And then a look at the trade tensions between the U.S. and China amid escalating tariff threats with the Hudson Institute's Miles U. Also, Vanessa Cardenas, executive director at America's Voice, discusses the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policies.
President Trump is again dialing back the scope of his wide-ranging tariffs, now ordering exemptions for some electronics.
The back and forth on tariffs has many Americans and American businesses struggling to plan for the future.
But the White House says the strain will be temporary and improve America's position in the global economy over time.
In the meantime, economists predict financial instability at home and abroad.
We want to know how you're feeling.
What's your biggest economic worry right now?
Republicans can call in at 202-748-8001, Democrats at 202-748-8000, and Independents at 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.
And we're on social media at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
Now, let's look at some polling data in terms of what Americans are saying are their biggest economic worries right now.
This one from the Quinnipiac poll on April the 9th saying that the price of food and goods is the top concern, 47%.
Cost of housing and rent is the next top concern.
20% of respondents said that.
The stock market as a top concern, 17%.
Their job situation, 6%.
And then something else or don't know, 10%.
Now, obviously, the stock market responding very much, as well as prices in some cases responding to the tariffs that the Trump administration has been rolling out.
But there have been some changes in the last day or so on that.
Here's a story in the New York Times.
Trump orders exemptions on phones and computers.
The tariff reversal gives tech giants a break.
After more than a week of ratcheting up tariffs on products imported from China, the Trump administration issued a rule late on Friday that spared smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other electronics from some of the fees and a significant break for tech companies like Apple and Dell and the prices of iPhones and other consumer electronics.
A message posted late Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection included a long list of products that would not face the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed in recent days on Chinese goods as part of a worsening trade war.
The exclusions would also apply to modems, routers, flash drives, and other technology goods, which are largely not made in the United States.
Now, there's quite a bit of polling in terms of the view on those tariffs in the United States right now.
72% of Americans, according to that same Quinnipiac poll, say that tariffs will hurt in the short term.
Now, going back to some numbers from that Quinnipiac poll I mentioned earlier, Trump's job approval when it comes to trade in particular, 55% disapprove of the president's performance when it comes to trade.
39% approve.
His overall approval ratings on the economy more broadly, 55% disapprove, 40% approve.
Again, our question this morning, what is your biggest economic worry right now?
Let's go to your calls, starting with Ralph in Manoa, New York on our line for Democrats.
unidentified
Good morning, Ralph.
Good morning.
I'm a UAW worker from upstate New York, and my union has come out in support of these tariffs.
And the last time that we had a surplus in goods in this country or trade was in 1975, many years ago.
So I support the tariffs because it's what the market can bear.
If you look at the Dodge 150, our Dodge 1500 truck, my wife bought one made in the USA.
You can buy that same truck built in Mexico for a lot cheaper, but they come out at the same price at the dealership.
Another example is Nike sneakers.
They're produced by virtual slave labor.
I remember the New York Times had an article about $2 it costs to produce those Nike sneakers, and they're sold to the consumer in the U.S.
So, Ralph, I understand that you support the tariffs, but I'm wondering what your biggest economic concern is right now.
unidentified
Well, I really don't.
My economic concern is the anti-worker policies of the Trump administration because they're right on trade, but they're rolling back collective bargaining rights.
And the Trump administration is mostly known for what they've done to people instead of what they've done for them.
Next up is Ben in Baltimore, Maryland on our line for independence.
Good morning, Ben.
unidentified
Good morning.
Good morning, Kimberly.
And I know the economics is right up your alley, so you can correct me if I'm wrong with this.
But my main concern is especially this tariff war with China, because China is in a very strong position when it comes to the United States, because I'm afraid that this can expand to the debt issue, which China owns quite a bit of American debt.
I don't think we in America know just the depth of how a trade war with China can be, even with food and other things.
Food as a commodity is a very dangerous thing.
And I just, my biggest fear is that we'll see a lot of empty shelves if this thing with China doesn't get resolved in some of our stores and just things that we take for granted may not be there or the prices may just increase to a point where we can't afford it.
So, Ben, if you stick around for another hour or so, we'll be speaking with Miles Yu about specifically the trade relationship with China, and you may get some more information on those things.
Thank you for your call.
I will point out, though, that at least for now, consumer prices actually fell in March.
This is a story we have in Axios about the consumer price index numbers that came out last week and showed that consumer prices did go down in March and that inflation was notably cooler than expected in March.
The overall consumer price index dropped as energy prices plummeted, while the core measure that excludes food and energy rose just slightly.
Inflation moved down as President Trump began ratcheting up the global trade war last month, a relief after warnings that inflation progress had stalled out, but concerns about inflation remain.
Trump's, at the time, 10% across the board tariff that took effect this month could hit consumer prices as well as the higher levy of 125% on imports from China.
Obviously, those numbers have changed a bit since then.
Let's hear from Jeffrey in Greensboro, North Carolina on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jeffrey.
unidentified
Thank you.
Good morning for taking the call.
And I hope you give me the opportunity to fully address this very fortunate and high-level stress situation.
To just go back to some of what you just said when you said the prices dropped of the economic showing, it is very confusing because to the average person, I'm an average person.
There is nothing showing anything is falling off in these supermarkets.
That's one.
Is guaranteed because when you explain that, it's not really added into the people who are living week by week, day by day.
We are definitely feeling this disaster situation.
And as far as how he's doing this turf situation, a terror situation with China, it makes no sense because he is standing one week saying, in principle, I'm not doing it this way.
In his heart, he knows this is what he's saying.
We need to build America strong again, economically, this, that, and the third.
And then 24 hours later, he's changing his mind on cell phones, computers, this, that, and the third.
This is unbelievable.
And nobody really is standing up, addressing how disastrous this is.
People are just, for whatever reason, who made it there with their stellar careers in politics, are afraid to say anything.
Whatever he says is happening, and it's happening to the poor.
The people, get the middle class.
The middle class is still going to be in this equation.
And I don't understand where people are justifying how the stock market is one day up, and then they think the losses that they've seen for two or three days are recovered.
There's nothing showing of a recovery at all.
It is damaging out here.
It is stressful.
People are very nervous.
And only the super powerful know how to move their money around when that stock market is about to, whatever's going to happen based on how it's happening, they know.
And the people in the middle and on the bottom, we are the ones that are picking up or putting it on our backs.
It is ridiculous where this is in the communities devastating.
And as far as the prices, everything from probably what you're wearing today, sitting there in there, everything, China, overseas, something that is in front of you, our television, China.
So why all of a sudden in this miracle of him being reelected that none of this from Bush's Reagan, all of this situation political-wise, I can't explain it the best way.
I do want to follow up on the point that you mentioned at the beginning of your statement about prices not going down.
I just want to clarify when it comes to the consumer price index, which were the numbers I was talking about, that's about the rate of prices increasing, not that prices actually went down.
So the CPI dropped by 0.1%.
That just means that the speed at which prices were rising has gone down, not that the prices themselves are going down.
And then in the 12 months through March, it rose 2.4%, which is less than the 2.8% year-over-year that we saw in February.
So your point is correct in that we're not necessarily seeing prices drop in every single category, although it has in some areas.
unidentified
Well, let me ask you this then.
Why isn't it, you know, and very much thank you for clearing that up?
Why do we not hear on the news networks, regardless on who you pick and choose, that the severity of this, the danger of it, the struggle that people every day you know exists, why is nobody trying to, you know, really confront this?
They're making it appear like it's okay.
It's not okay.
He's changing his mind on certain explanations that he has.
Well, some of those points that Abel raised about inflation and other economic concerns started showing up in the data as well this past week.
Here's a story from CNBC: Consumer sentiment tumbles in April as inflation fears spike.
That's according to the University of Michigan survey.
The University of Michigan's Consumer Survey's mid-month reading on sentiment fell to 50.8.
It's an index and not a percentage of a poll or anything.
Down from 57 points in March and below the Dow Jones consensus estimate for 54.6.
I'm going to read a little bit here.
Consumer sentiment grew even worse than expected in April as the expected inflation levels hit its highest since 1981.
A closely watched University of Michigan survey showed Friday.
Skipping down, the move represented a 10.9% monthly change and was 34.2% lower than a year ago.
It was the lowest reading since June of 2022 and the second lowest in the survey's history going back to 1952.
A sentiment moved lower.
Inflation worries surged.
Now, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt in Friday's press briefing was asked about Americans' faith in the administration's policies when it comes to the economic actions.
Look, I think there's a great optimism in this economy, great optimism for the American people, a lot of reason for people to feel optimistic.
The president is, as I just said, trying to renegotiate the global trade agenda that has ripped off the American people for far too long.
As he said, this is going to be a period of transition.
He wants consumers to trust in him, and they should trust in him.
Look at what he did in his first term.
And I just want to reiterate all the reasons to be confident since you asked, Jeff, for those watching at home, yesterday, the CPI report, inflation declined massively.
Consumer prices are dropping for the first time in years.
Energy prices are down.
In fact, oil prices are down 20% since this president took office.
Wholesale prices fell again.
There have been trillions of dollars in investments into this country.
Every day, the president is signing executive orders to cut regulation, especially when it comes to the Environmental Protection Agency, our energy industry.
That's going to unleash the economic boom in this country that we saw in the president's first term.
So Bubba mentioned about Democrats' previous stance on tariffs, and there's a story in the Washington Times making some of those points that Bubba was making.
Here it is, saying that top Democrats previously backed reciprocal tariffs and demanded punishing tariffs on China, pointing to some C-SPAN clips, actually.
Democrats haven't always been the anti-tariff party, with some of the party's leaders previously calling for reciprocal tariffs, especially against China for unfair trade policies.
The Democrats' pro-tariff past has been highlighted in a viral social media post of decades-old C-SPAN video clips in which party leaders demand action against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. good.
Those pushing for tariffs in the 1990s and 2000s included former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Charles E. Schumer of New York, and Senator Bernard Sanders, the Democratic Socialist from Vermont.
That was back in the 1990s and 2000s.
But more recently, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer was on the Senate floor on Thursday, and he had harsh words for the President's current tariff strategy.
Was it, as some sycophants and cabinet secretaries have claimed, some 4D chess move to call China's bluff?
No.
Everyone knows that isn't true.
This was not a week of 3D chess, 4D chess, nor even checkers.
Again, to paraphrase a former Trump official, people think Trump is playing 3D chess, but most of the time, the staff is just trying to keep him from eating the pieces.
Let's get back to your calls on your biggest economic worry right now.
Iris is in South Lyon, Michigan, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Iris.
unidentified
Good morning.
You look lovely today.
I like your hair.
I like your suit.
You look great.
Thank you.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that our president doesn't work alone.
He gives a lot of advice, and he depends on our system of government to advise him as to what is going on.
I think we have a very big problem with total indifference by too many members in our government.
We've got a lot of young people coming in that don't even know what life is about.
They look like your children in government.
And they do take care of themselves.
And that's a problem because as they take good care of themselves and travel a lot and make a lot of trips and stuff like that, I think they really are indifferent to the people, everybody in this country.
I don't do much of the grocery shopping anymore, but I wouldn't be able to afford it in today's market because the dollar just isn't worth what it was when you go shopping for groceries.
I used to spend like 25% of what it costs now for the same food.
It's just ridiculous, you know.
And you see the way people are even shopping.
Their carts had less food in it, and they are more cautious in what they spend.
Stuff is not moving in the stores.
I see a lot of stuff that's put on the reduced shelves, not because nobody wants them, it's just that they're prioritizing their needs when they go shopping.
It's the same thing in the department stores.
Everything is increasing in the price of things, and our government just goes over the same things over and over again.
If they show up, you just showed Chuck Schumer on the floor.
There was nobody behind him was there.
And it's like the place is empty most of the time.
Even when they open Congress in the morning, I watch that because it's right after your program.
There's nobody there except the people that are coming in to go to the dais.
My personal biggest economic worry is that you the previous caller, not that one, did mention concerns about what the Trump administration is doing in relation to social security.
And the Trump administration has changed course on some of the in-person requirements it had previously issued when it comes to social security.
Here's a story on that from NPR about those changes, saying the Trump administration is further backing off the in-person requirements it announced for Americans seeking services at the Social Security Administration that were set to go in effect.
They had been set to go in effect on Monday, but the story is from April 10th.
Going back there, Liz Hustin, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement to NPR on Thursday that telephone services will continue for people seeking services through the agency.
So that has been a recent change in that regard.
Tom is in Albany, New York on our line for independence.
Good morning, Tom.
unidentified
Good morning.
My concern is about America putting this trust in a man who's failed at every business endeavor that he has ventured into.
And his mendaciousness of his presentation of what he does is astounding.
He continues to lie and he continues to make outlandish statements about the economy.
And in turn, I think that if they had more people around him who went and done their own grocery shopping, all the people are very well positioned.
They're millionaires and billionaires.
They're not the common people.
So if they're not interested in us, and he's not interested in us, I think American people are kind of foolish to follow that type of a leader.
Guys, I thank y'all for the show, and I appreciate the fact that we have such a show with the Washington Journal, C-STAN, that folks can call in and express themselves.
So what I would want to comment on, and I know we're talking about what is the effect of what's going on on me.
And what I'm going to say is I'm going to speak for people, the American people, the American voters.
You know, I've listened to a lot of the callers that have called in, and everybody has a right to their opinion.
I would like to say, if you look at the many years of past presidents, many of them have never done what we're experiencing now.
What I'm seeing, it's something similar to what would be called like an overhaul or overall, where somebody goes in and does what we're witnessing now, and all previous presidents never done that because that was not necessary, and it's still not necessary now.
In my opinion, and I'm going to make this short, what I'm seeing and what I'm witnessing is a catastrophe.
It's an American disaster.
And I'm watching those folks that we have in Congress.
You know, we have some for, some against, because it's the party thing.
It's the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and then, of course, we've got the Independent Party.
Bottom line is, guys, what we're witnessing again, a catastrophe.
I listen to some of these older people, like that woman says she doesn't go shopping, but yet she knows that everything's higher.
She looks at baskets, food baskets.
People are just led.
And that's what the, that's my worry about it, that the Democrats, they're putting so much BS out there that they want to win in, you know, the next term here, the next election.
Hey, Jeff is in North Carolina on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified
Good morning.
My biggest economic worry is the 20-plus million illegals Biden led over here to vote Democrat when they get on Social Security and Medicaid and they milk the system.
It's already in trouble.
It's just these people call in the Democrats talking about Social Security and Medicaid.
I didn't hear a peep from them when he was letting all these illegals come in and milk the system.
So there has been a little bit of news when it comes to, well, some significant news reported in the New York Times about immigration and Social Security.
This is a story that Social Security is listing thousands of migrants as dead to prompt them to self-deport.
By placing migrants in Social Security's death master file, the Trump administration is seeking to cut off their access to credit cards, bank accounts, and other financial services.
And then since taking office, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were allowed into the country under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Now the administration is taking drastic steps to pressure some of those immigrants and others who had legal status to self-deport by effectively canceling the Social Security numbers they had lawfully obtained, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times in interviews with six people familiar with the plans.
David is in Hamden, Connecticut on our line for Democrats.
So the Time magazine interview was summarized in an article for NBC News.
Trump says it will be hard to bring down grocery prices, pins hope on lower energy costs and better supply chains.
This is an article back from December the 12th, 2024, so about a month after the election.
President-elect Donald Trump is acknowledging it may be difficult to bring down grocery prices despite making it a key tenet of his presidential campaign.
In an interview with Time magazine, which named him person of the year for 2024, Trump said he nevertheless believes it'll happen through lower energy costs and supply chain improvements.
Asked whether his presidency would be a failure if grocery prices don't come down, Trump responded that it would not, while blaming the Biden administration for the way it handled inflation that led to higher food prices in the first place.
Tony is in Iowa City, Iowa, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Tony.
unidentified
Thank you.
Good morning.
I want to mention that the amount of money, the hundreds of billions that are pouring in from foreign investors, should be sign number one that manufacturing in America is going to make a comeback.
I know people aren't going to like this analogy, but I like to think that Trump is putting this on a fat diet, you know, where he's like a personal trainer, and we're not going to like this.
unidentified
We're going to be really working hard to maintain the same amount of living.
Well, Tony, before I let you go, how long you mentioned the deadline of sort of the midterm elections, but how long do you think you personally could deal with any kind of difficulty related to the trade war yourself in terms of how you manage your own finances?
unidentified
Well, it just means less luxuries, really, less going out to eat.
Just like any other time when the economy takes a downturn, you just got to tighten your belt and live through it.
But the difference is at the end of this dry spell, it's going to be a lot brighter at the end of the tunnel, is all I'm saying.
We're not just getting through the tunnel.
We're getting through a tunnel where it's a lot brighter at the end than when we went in.
Christy is in Augress, Michigan, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Christy.
unidentified
Hello.
What worries me the most is America going bankrupt.
I feel like we're already in a recession right now.
You can ask any builder.
My husband's a union worker, and he has hardly any new jobs coming in because the Trump administration has shut down entities that were enabling the unions to bargain for jobs.
So these smaller companies, they're being shut down out of work.
I mean, I'm really concerned about America and our future.
So you mentioned the risk of a recession, Christy.
To point to an article in the Wall Street Journal that the stock market was going up despite recession fears.
One of the most tumultuous weeks in years for stocks ended with U.S. indexes higher, highlighting market volatility unleashed by President Trump's trade war.
And there are other scrolling down a little bit.
New York Fed President John Williams warned that growth could slow and inflation could rise to 4%.
JP Morgan's Jamie Diamond said the economy faces considerable turbulence, even as his bank reported quarterly results aided by blockbuster trading volume.
And there are multiple reports here about different consumer sentiment numbers.
And Christy, I wonder what in particular makes you concerned about a recession.
You mentioned what you're seeing in terms of jobs for your husband's company.
Is there anything else that makes you worried about a recession?
unidentified
Christy, they're holding on to their money, and I think for the companies overseas to actually bring their factories here, that would take 10 years.
We'll go bankrupt waiting for 10 years.
I mean, I just, I do.
I think a lot of people are concerned.
And, you know, this going back and forth, blaming Democrat, blaming Republican, that don't help the situation.
Demonizing each other is not helping the Americans.
I'm born and raised in Ohio and worked all my life.
I just retired a little like three years ago.
I don't understand how the Democrats can blame a man that's doing everything he can, and they didn't touch the tariffs because they were going to have trouble too with these people backing,
you know, like Pelosi said, she had a chart and she said 35%, and that was in the 90s, our companies were paying tariffs into China.
2.5% of America was charging China.
So how can people not understand that the man's doing everything he can and at least he's acting and trying and helping?
He doesn't want to take anybody's bank accounts, nobody's money.
And I just pray for all of us because we should unite and be together and work together.
I want to go to a comment we received from Jason Reeder on X. One of my biggest concerns is that the Trump kleptocracy is deliberately tanking and juicing the stock market for personal gain while hobbling regulatory agencies for the benefit of corporations and to funnel wealth upwards to the moneyed class.
The grift is in plain sight.
Back to your calls on your biggest economic worry right now.
Harold is in Tennessee on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Harold.
unidentified
Yes, ma'am.
I have several concerns.
I know a girl who's 55 years old.
She's hoping to get ready to retire.
Well, her 401k went down $44,000 the other day.
And it'll take her a long time to ever get that back.
Other concerns is that look at this bill that proposes that women, you know, going to have to show an ID in her marriage because she changed her name is not going to work.
You can talk a little bit more about that.
But the big concern on this is, if you remember, Donald Trump is only, what, the second president to ever leave office for less jobs than what he had, what he went in.
The man has filed bankruptcy six times.
He's not a business manager.
He's just not.
I mean, he's not personal with anybody.
He's just not.
You know, it's just like you and me put the jobs with ain't capable of doing, and he's not capable of doing this.
And these tariffs, farmers, look at what it's going to do to the soybean farmers.
It's going to really just tear them all to pieces.
But that's really, you know, my biggest concern is that jobs will start going down.
And who's going to fill these jobs of picking fruits and vegetables these Mexicans are not going to have anymore?
They're not going to be here and fail.
You need to think to the long run, what's the result?
It all sounds good up front, but what is the result and the end of all of this?
There's a story here in Bloomberg that MA voters will be patient with tariffs.
President Trump's blue-collar supporters like his message on trade and trust his business savvy.
Wall Street is freaking out.
Main Street isn't exactly anxiety-free either.
The concern is justified.
President Trump, Donald Trump, has imposed import tariffs on virtually every commodity and product under the sun, with the aftershocks of his experiment threatening to produce persistent inflation, stunted wages, mass layoffs, and a global recession.
But Trump may yet have significant political latitude to see through his attempt to radically overhaul global trade.
A Reuters Ipsos poll conducted March 31st through April 2nd, the day of Trump's big announcement, showed a majority of Republican voters approved of his handling of jobs, trade, and the economy.
Only on inflation was his support softer.
Even in the immediate aftermath of the president's big trade reveal and the economic turbulence that has followed, you should expect Republican voters and conservative populace to retain substantial amount of trust in Trump's management of the economy.
The benefit of the doubt stems from their faith in the 45th and 47th 47th president as a businessman who knows how to manage the economy.
Let's get back to your calls.
Tony is in Claypool, Indiana on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Tony.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
My biggest concern is that I'm in my 60s.
I was starting to plan on retiring.
My 401k, that's my biggest concern.
I just got it built back up to where I thought I might be able to think about retiring.
And now it's like, oh, no, that's not going to be able to happen.
And I don't think Trump knows what he's doing.
He can't make a plan and stick to it.
I do the majority of grocery shopping.
And like everyone else says, prices are just out of this world.
So there have been quite a few allegations of insider trading around the market swings related to these tariff decisions, including from some members of Congress.
This is a story from Politico.
Democrats go all in on unproven insider trading allegations as they target Trump's tariffs.
Chuck Schumer is the latest top party leader to raise concerns following Wednesday's sudden U-turn.
Congressional Democrats are raising increasingly pointed concerns about potential financial malfeasance by President Donald Trump and his allies surrounding his dramatic recent tariff moves, despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Friday joined the growing number of Democrats formally calling for investigations, zeroing in on the wild swings in the stock market amid Trump's escalating trade war.
It's one of the central messages the party has coalesced around in the 48 hours since Trump partially reversed his implementation of sweeping trade barriers.
Next up, we have Miles Yu of the Hudson Institute joining us to discuss the rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China in particular and which country might blink first in the war over tariffs.
Then later, we're going to be joined by Vanessa Cardenas, who is Executive Director of the Immigrants' Rights Group America's Voice to discuss the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policies.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, travel writer Rick Steves talks about his 1978 journey along the hippie trail and the 60,000-word journal he kept of the trip, which he recently published as a book.
During the 3,000-mile trek, the then 23-year-old Steves and a friend visited Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Nepal.
He recalls the people he met along the way, the challenges of traveling in foreign countries in the 1970s, and the lifelong impact the trip had on him.
And I will say this is probably the biggest shock of this 21st century in terms of economic and trade policy because this is quite, I use the word revolutionary, because change the pattern, change the pattern, also change the global system as well.
In the ideal world, tariffs were antithetical to free trade.
But we're not living the ideal world.
We're living in the real world.
The real world biggest problem is that in 2001, the world free trade system embraced, granted full membership to a non-market economy, that's China.
And that is basically the beginning of all the trouble we're facing right now.
The global systems, free trading systems, fundamentals were challenged, even sabotaged by China's active economic and trade policies ever since.
So now, we're now facing this situation where we have to take action.
So that's why it's a realistic response to China's membership in the WTO and the global trading system.
And everything that Mr. Trump has said and has done is in response to what China has done to the system.
So he, well, this is sort of almost like a self-defensive system, a response.
I just saw before I came on the show, I just saw a survey by, it's not really scientific, but the internet survey of people in China.
What are the most important reasons for all this?
Well, close to 40% of them say this is really the clash of systems, two systems.
It's uncompromising, and that's very true.
People in China realize that.
How it's going to end is if you look at it, think about this, over 75 countries in the world have responded to President Trump's tariff policies.
They come here to negotiate, to make compromise, except one country, that's China.
The Chinese system is not wired, it's not built for negotiation and compromise.
Everything China has done has to be tough because they don't want to look weak in front of the people.
And China also believes that the system as existed is fundamentally unfair.
So for China, we accuse China of cheating, of stealing, all the other acts of mendocity and against the rules.
For China, it's not that.
For China, it's just a matter of strategy, how to sort of game the system.
So I don't think that this is going to end very soon because even if we make some compromises and President Trump reduce the tariff amount and the bigger wave of trouble will come sooner or later.
So I think this is one of the very good opportunities for us to change not only the behavior of Chinese government, but also to set a new set of rules against what we have right now, which is not working.
The Trump administration has said, similar to the point you just made, that China should come to the United States to negotiate over this, whereas we're hearing from Chinese officials that they don't need to.
Who actually has the upper hand in this negotiation, do you think?
If you look at it, surely from the economic point of view, we have China export to the United States is about $400 billion each year.
United States export to China is about just over a little bit over $130 some billion dollars.
So the trade surplus China has with the United States is close to $300 billion.
So the tariffs obviously is going to be to China's disadvantage.
So and I think on the other hand also what the Chinese government fears most is not really the United States.
It's fear about the people inside China.
So they have to act tough.
They revoke the ghost of Mao.
I mean, the perpetrator of the incredible suffering of Chinese people.
So to show how tough China is, because China cannot really afford to show weakness.
So if we keep the pressure on and do not expect China to blink and we keep pressure on quietly and proceed with that, at some point, you know, somebody should make a direct appeal to the Chinese people saying, all this problem you are having right now, the unemployment, the rising cost for your exports, is not caused by the United States, but by your own government.
The same way the Prime Minister of Netanyahu, of Israel, spoke very eloquently to the people of Iran to isolate the regime from the people.
So that's actually a very, very good approach.
I think at some point, either President Trump or Secretary Rubio should address to the Chinese people directly to talk about the current crisis.
Just pick up the phone, call President Trump, but that will show his weakness.
Remember, the entire Chinese Communist Corporate regime is based upon three basic concepts.
Number one, their party is infallible.
Number two, their party is invincible.
Number three, the triumph of the party, whatever they try to do, is inevitable.
The three I's.
So that's why he cannot really show that he's the one who would blink first.
This is not just Xi Jinping.
Every Chinese Communist Party leader is like that.
So that's basically what they control the entire information system inside China and they try to inculcate the three I's to the people inside China.
So that's why one of the most effective way to break that Chinese intrigues is to talk to the Chinese people directly to break the bubble of that three I's.
Well, for example, China, its currency, is the only major currencies in the world that is not convertible internationally.
So the value of the currency is entirely decided by the Chinese Communist Party Politburo leadership, right?
So that's basically not following market.
Secondly, there's no IP protection in a real sense.
And thirdly, I would say China's state-owned enterprises receive enormous subsidies from the government.
So that basically is a way to basically favor the state control enterprises and kill all the global competition, driving the price down so China could get all this.
So forced technology transfer.
There's a long list of things, the on-time market methods.
Earlier point, one is the full membership of China in the international global trading system, which China is not qualified for if they apply today.
Secondly, it's really through this high tariffs.
Don't forget, China also raised high tariffs on American imports.
Now, many other countries do the same too.
But other countries like Japan, for example, they have high tariffs on some American exports.
But also, Japanese companies, many of them, have shipped their manufacturing capabilities to the United States to make cars like Toyota cars most likely are made in the United States.
But China is different.
They raise tariffs for one strategic calculation, that is, to force the American companies to manufacture inside China, and then through which they can also get Chinese Americans' technology and do it.
Thirdly, I would say it's really about state subsidy.
I mean, the U.S. government, the power of the state, to encourage its domestic companies to become global competitors.
Some of the points that you raised were also brought up by Peter Navarro.
The Trump administration points regularly to China's unfair trading practices as a reason for these tariffs.
Let's listen to what Peter Navarro, the White House Senior Council on Trade and Manufacturing, said about China's trading practices in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday.
Problem with China among cheaters is that it cheats us in every possible way.
So that's a big challenge for America.
And another problem, Lindsay, which is a little bit more subtle, but we understand here at the White House, is that China is using other countries to basically what we call trans ship.
In other words, they take their goods to avoid and evade our tariffs.
They'll send it to Cambodia.
They'll send it to Vietnam.
They'll send it to Mexico.
They'll send it to Thailand.
They'll send it to Malaysia.
They'll send it to Indonesia.
I mean, the root of a lot of the problems in the international trading regime is the excess capacity and dumping of communist China into our markets and in markets around the world.
And so we've got to get back to a world where trade is fair.
And the best thing China can do really is not just stop the cheating, but develop its own domestic markets.
I've been saying that for the better part of a decade.
China exists and works off their growth by dumping products around the world.
Meanwhile, their people at home work in sweatshops.
They're not allowed to consume.
They're forced to save.
And we have this system that's very skewed against America.
I think Mr. Navarro really hit the nail on the head.
I mean, he really, really addressed to three major issues.
Mr. Navarro wrote a book in 2011.
That book's title is long, but address three key aspects of our dilemma today.
The title is called Death by China.
That means that China is killing Americans in manufacturing and gain advantage over trade.
And the subtitle, the first one is Confronting the Dragon.
That means we have to really take action to confront this problem.
And the third line is what Mr. Neroro spent most of the time in this clip he showed, that is global call to action.
That is, the United States alone cannot solve this problem with China on trade.
It has to have global response.
That's the, I think, is the theoretical foundation for Mr. Trump's current global reciprocal tariffs.
Everybody has to do this to prevent the phenomenon Mr. Neraro just mentioned, transshipment.
That is, China may be imposed heavy tariffs and cannot really dump in its cheap goods to the United States as much as before.
But China can ship those really cheap products to other countries like Cambodia, like Vietnam, to the United States.
Even certain degree, the theoretical foundation for this 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico is based upon that.
Because ever since the USMCA, China set up the plans in Mexico and used Canada as conduit to ship a lot of stuff to the United States.
And that's one reason why you have to be a global response.
And that's why, and actually it's very, let me just one final point.
This is actually very, very effective because China initially, when the global reciprocal tariff was announced, China was very giddy because it thought this is the opportunity for China to rally the world against the hegemonic United States.
But the world is not responding to China.
China has reached out to Japan, to South Korea, Australia, to EU.
I want to be the leader of the anti-Trump coalition.
It failed.
Nobody is responding to China's call for this anti-U.S. coalition.
So that's why I think this global reciprocal tariff strategy is actually working very well.
There are nearly $582 billion worth of goods traded between the U.S. and China.
The U.S. imported around $438 billion worth of goods and services from China.
China imported just $143 billion from the U.S. Our phone lines, if you have questions for Mr. Yu, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and 202-748-8002 for independents.
Let's hear first from Janice in Wake Forest, North Carolina on our line for independence.
Good morning, Janice.
unidentified
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Yu.
I'm wondering about the, well, my concern about the U.S. economy is, of course, the value of the U.S. dollar.
When people are talking about inflation and the cost of goods, they don't bring up the U.S. dollar.
The value of the U.S. dollar is the key to inflation.
And in terms of China, I'm wondering how the Chinese yen is doing during this.
And I'm also interested in who is cashing in bonds, what countries are cashing in the U.S. Treasury notes.
So that's three questions there about the value of the dollar, the value of the yen, and then the value of who's selling bonds.
Before you respond, Mr. Yu, I want to point to an article in CNBC from April 10th that the U.S. dollar index suffered its biggest drop since 2022, hit a new low for the year.
Yeah, well, U.S. dollar definitely suffered some setback in this round of a tariff war.
You know, all medicine, good medicine is better.
So I think, you know, overall, the U.S. dollar still is the standard bearer of international settlement currency.
China's yuan is devalued artificially by the Chinese government recently in response to the tariff.
That makes Chinese goods cheaper and cheaper.
So in response, that's another reason to justify the 125, 145 tariffs on Chinese goods, because it is also sort of a proportion to China's devaluation of its yuan.
Now, bond market, I don't know how much, China basically is trying to add more chaos to the dollar and bond.
I don't know.
China holds American Treasury by about just under $800 billion in comparison to Japan's $1.4 trillion.
That's significantly small.
Even if China sold all its Treasury holdings, and that would not probably affect America's economy fundamentally because American debt is, again, $36 trillion.
It's a very small fraction of that.
I don't think it's going to be ultimately successful.
U.S. dollar is still very strong.
It's still the sort of the standard of international settlement.
Let's hear from Tom in Richmond Hill, New York on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Tom.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
A couple of questions, topics regarding the mixed messages that the administration has been given related to the goals of all this tariff effort.
On the one hand, we hear from certain officials that the tariffs are permanent.
They're moving towards a permanent status.
And then other officials say that it's a sort of a bargaining tool in negotiations.
The typical Trump supporter that makes up the MAGA movement is supporting Trump, I believe, under the notion that we're going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, to specifically all the deindustrialized areas that have suffered for so many years.
So if that's the goal, then the tariffs are not a bargaining position, but more of a goal in and of itself.
So how do you say to your supporters, we're going to bring manufacturing jobs back, and yet to the countries you're negotiating with, what we're working for is a freer trade environment, which will not necessarily bring the jobs back.
And also, how long do you think politically the administration can put up with this pain-for-gain strategy, which is in the short term going to be very inflationary?
I think the caller makes some very interesting points.
I'm sure it's on the minds of a lot of Americans.
First of all, President Trump is known for his deal-making capabilities.
Deal-making is really about negotiation and compromise.
Remember, there's a compromise part of that.
About the, so I don't think there's a mixed message at all.
It's all about the approach to tough issues like this by the president that is well known to Americans for being a deal maker.
Making deals is not just transactional without principle.
I mean, deal-making is a presidential legacy.
Theodore Roosevelt, he called his entire policy a square deal.
Teddy Roosevelt, the FDR, called his policy New Deal, and President Truman, his entire policy is called the Fair Deal.
So I don't know what to call President Trump's deal.
Maybe it's called a beautiful deal, but it's the deal making.
Deals have to be really fair.
And I know for this, I think Americans should also know this.
President Trump is somebody who will not take a bad deal.
A bad deal is not going to, for example, his deal with the North Korean regime during his first term.
That's a bad deal he didn't take.
So back to the manufacturing issue.
I was just reading this morning President Clinton's 2000 speech urging Congress to pass PNTR, that is a permanent normal trade relationship status to China.
And in that speech, I mean, if you read this today, it's almost like Americans' economic suicide note.
For example, I quote in here.
This is Mr. Clinton.
I believe the choice between economic rights and human rights, between economic security and national security, is a false one.
And then he goes on to say, you know what?
He said, for the first time, we will be able to export products without exporting jobs.
I mean, that is a stunning statement.
The fact is, ever since that, 25 years later, Americans not only exported fewer products to China, but also we export a whole bunch of jobs and the whole industry to China.
So what I'm saying is, this is reality.
I think Mr. Trump is trying to reverse that tendency and to try to bring the American manufacturing job here.
One of the first things you have to do is, as you say, to create a freer international trading system.
This is how, I think this is the ultimate goal of the whole who drama.
Now, you mentioned about Americans been losing jobs since the 1960s.
It's true.
But, you know, quantity itself is also a quality.
So that is to say that since 2001, Americans lost jobs and maritime base at a much, much faster rate.
So that's why I think it's not necessarily the continuation of the 60s and 70s.
Secondly, you mentioned about Taiwan.
Taiwan is a very touchy issue.
We used to think that Taiwan is a tiny island and played the insignificant role in international global politics.
That is not the case.
Taiwan right now is a giant in some key aspects of our modern lives.
For example, you mentioned about semiconductor.
Absolutely.
Taiwan makes about like, you know, over 90% of the high-end chips that drive the modern economy.
So Taiwan also is the probably number eight or number nine trading partner of the United States.
Taiwan is an international good citizen in that sense.
And I also think that Taiwan is very open and democratic.
And that's what the Chinese government is really afraid of.
It's the impact of the open society on the Chinese population, which goes back to my earlier points about the three eyes the Chinese government is trying to sell to its people.
So I think that this is one reason why China wants to take Taiwan.
Now, China wants to take Taiwan is not just for the sake of Taiwan.
Taiwan is but the first of the chain of aggression by China.
China has border disputes with most of its neighbors.
You name it.
Taiwan is one, obviously.
India, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines.
The list goes on.
So what I'm trying to say here is that if we do not defend Taiwan, we have a lot of problems going on down the road.
And another thing is, you know, everybody is concerned by what's going on in Ukraine.
I mean, Russia invasion of Ukraine is based upon exactly the same logic of aggression that China wants to take Taiwan.
That is, if a region, a sovereign country that shares an ethnic linguistic link to Russia or to China, and then Russia is justified to invade that country.
So China's invasion of Taiwan is the same thing.
So what I'm saying is not only to uphold the principle, but also economy.
Keep in mind, Taiwan is geographically located in a very important pathway of global trade.
Over something like $3 trillion of goods passed through that on an annual basis.
Number even bigger than that.
So what I'm saying is it's global economy, modern life depends on Taiwan maintaining free and open and economically dynamic country.
While we're on the topic of sort of other issues that may be tied into this, the TikTok deal is also being affected by the trade war.
There's a story here in the Hill.
Trump's China tariffs derail push for a TikTok deal.
President Trump's new tariffs on China have thrown a wrench into efforts to negotiate a deal over TikTok's divestment from its parent company, ByteDance, as Washington and Beijing sink deeper into a trade war.
After the White House finalized a deal on TikTok last week, Trump's tariffs upended negotiations, prompting China to decline to approve the deal without further discussions on tariffs.
How much is this going to be, is the trade war going to be spilling over into other areas of politics?
It's, as I say, a lot of people agree, U.S.-China's problem is not really about economics or military.
It's about the political system.
The two systems were completely wired differently.
TikTok, for example.
Now, Chinese government has been able to sell in the three eyes, infallibility, invincibility, and inevitability to the Chinese people, mostly through total control of information.
You go to China, you ask 10 people about the origin of COVID.
Nine out of ten people will tell you is from the U.S. Army biodefense lab in Fort Ditch, Maryland.
That's because they don't have any other information.
Government tells them this, that's the only thing they can get.
If you ask 10 people in China who are the Uyghurs, none of them will tell you they're terrorists.
So this is one reason through the control of several key information outlets in China is WeChat and the Chinese version of TikTok, which is Daoyin.
This is the fundamental harm danger of TikTok in the United States.
It captures enormous population, a portion of population in the United States.
At some point, they're going to ask the TikTok people in this country: is American democracy better than the Chinese democracy, as the Chinese government always said, their democracy.
And the Chinese government always hoped nine out of the American people will say no.
Karen is in Alabaster, Alabama, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Karen.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
Yeah, so first of all, I just want to say I agree with 100% what Trump is doing, however he's doing it, I agree with it because I know in the end it'll work out okay.
But for the guests today, so yeah, so China's been a big problem for a long time as far as trade.
China's Economic Threat00:13:01
unidentified
Earlier you had said there's supposed to be free trade, but China, well, and then there's the real world, but China, they take it the next level, I think.
I mean, they lie to their trading partners, they cheat, they steal our products.
And they're currently in our country right now buying our farmland, hacking into our system.
So they're just kind of a bad actor.
And why no one has ever pushed back on them all these years?
Nobody has.
I don't really understand why they haven't done that.
And you guys were talking about Taiwan chips.
I thought that Trump said that Taiwan is bringing a manufacturing, the manufacturing to America.
They're investing a billion dollars in the chips in America.
I'm assuming they're building some kind of manufacturer, but I don't know that for sure.
But my questions are, how can Xi be removed from his seat?
I mean, if the Chinese people realize that he's a bad actor, then do they just, you know, I mean, how would they ever remove him?
That's number one.
Number two, what's the difference between the sanctions?
Because we have sanctions on China too versus the tariff.
And then how can we talk directly to the Chinese people if they control all that information?
So Karen, before I let you go, I want to give you some follow-up details on what you mentioned.
This is a story from the Associated Press.
Taiwan says chip makers move to invest $100 billion in the U.S. wasn't because of U.S. pressure, but Taiwan's president and top chip maker, TSMC, held a joint news conference on Thursday.
This was a month ago, by the way, to defend the company's decision to invest $100 billion in the U.S., saying it stemmed from customer demand and not pressure from the Trump administration.
But that investment that you referenced is indeed happening.
I agree on every point that I've got to make, particularly the last one.
Yeah, that's a very good question.
Taiwan's TSMC make an additional $100 billion investment in the U.S. to build two more what are called foundries, factories, chip making, in addition to the $65 billion they already committed during the Trump first term.
This also reflected the Trump administration's grand strategy of security.
That is, they normally try to integrate economically, technologically, with the countries the United States want to protect.
For example, Ukraine, and also Taiwan is another one.
Through economic integration, the United States can provide security guarantee because attack on Taiwan could also be interpreted against American interest.
So having said that, you ask a very good question, Karen, about how to address the Chinese people.
You know, if you're a Xi Jinping sitting there in the Chinese Communist Party's compound called Zhong Nanghai, what keeps you up at night is not just the United States.
It's about whether the Chinese people are going to wake up someday and say, listen, enough is enough.
So that's why the Chinese Communist Party's real enemy, real enemy, biggest enemy, is Chinese people.
That's why they built up this Aurelian surveillance system and the build up of all kinds of police state inside China.
So that's one reason why to break the information firewall penetrate into China is very important.
Unfortunately, we actually have sort of committed some kind of self-harm.
That is, we dismantle most of our very powerful tools of information, such as Radio Free Asia.
And so those things have to be restored, in my view.
And I think that's one of the few channels that we can do that.
Another thing is I think American politicians, senior leaders, particularly like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, would do something like Secretary Pompeo did during his tenure as Secretary of State.
That is directly talk to the Chinese people.
Explain to the people in China that the relationship between the United States and China is not just bilateral between two governments, but also between American people and Chinese people.
That's what the Chinese government fears remote.
That's why China has enacted all kinds of laws, regulations preventing Americans from studying in China.
We have right now close to 300,000 Chinese students studying in the United States.
But there are fewer than 1,000 students, 1,000 students studying in China because China made the conditions untenable for Americans to be there because they were afraid of marketing's impact over there.
So those things were very, very important for us to do.
The real power of the United States is not the economy.
Well, I think Obama, during his first term, he realized China was a threat.
And since 2008, we had during his administration, first term, and then there was a pivot to Asia.
So that's instinctively very correct one.
The problem during second term, when John Kerry becomes Secretary of State, he totally not interested in China at all.
He's interested in Europe, in France, riding bicycles over there and speaking French.
So I don't think that's really good.
So there is no consistency.
However, I must give the Obama administration a little bit of credit.
That is, it is the Obama administration that started imposing very heavy tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum.
And President Trump during his first term imposed additional tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum, which have been dumped to the United States.
But that March 2018, steel and aluminum executive order had one major problem.
Now, problem is it has too many exemptions.
Over a dozen countries has exemption.
Australia, Canada, UK, Italy, Vietnam, you name it.
It is those exemption countries that really began dumping Chinese cheap steel and aluminum to the United States through transshipment.
So that's one reason why right now President Trump says, you know, enough is not, we're not going to give no more exemption to that steel and aluminum tariffs.
So this is basically to try to try to sort of stop the loophole.
I think we can get in one more caller before we have to let you go.
Ed is in Maine on our line for independence.
Good morning, Ed.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for C-SPAN and Mr. Yu.
I'm a huge fan, and I read all your stuff.
But that being said, you're being incredibly insincere to the American people about how we got into this mess.
It has very little to do with what China is doing to us.
It has much more to do with the idea of the draw for cheap labor.
And I spent 36 years in manufacturing, and I watched those jobs go over when I was working.
And you know that the people who sent our manufacturing infrastructure overseas knew what they were doing.
And they sent our infrastructure that is a part of national security, and they got rich off of it.
And now you're imposing tariffs on guess who?
The poor slobs like me that worked in manufacturing, and now I'm going to pay the tariff.
And you know better than this.
You also know that the best way to handle this would be to take some of that money out of those fat cats that got rich off of this and take some of the money from them and incentivize manufacturing in this country.
Otherwise, they should go to jail.
Just like the bankers in 2008, this should have done time.
Okay, now you've done it to us twice, and you expect us at the bottom to pay that to pay that penalty.
Well, this is my best friend, you know, who is read everything I wrote and also still very critical of my arguments.
So, I really appreciate that the criticism.
Let me just respond by this.
First of all, thank you.
And secondly, I think there is truth in the fact that international capital always goes after cheap labor.
But think about this.
Cheap labor is not really cheap in the case.
That's one reason you have to incur cost to cheap goods out of China made by cheap and slave labor.
So, that's one reason, the way to level the play field.
Number one, number two, I don't think Wall Street really likes President Trump that much.
I mean, as a matter of fact, if you look at the kind of vitriol reactions from the street, I mean, so I don't think international capital really, really cares about what Trump is doing and care for much about that.
Another thing is that you mentioned about the cost of inflation as a result of tariffs.
Let me just agree with that.
I think the prices go up.
But let me just add a couple of caveats over there.
A lot of people market buy the cheap goods from China are discretionary.
You go to Walmart, you buy cheap shirts made in China, maybe cheaper by $3, but how many shirts can you buy?
So, in other words, it's discretionary.
You can buy stuff made in, say, Argentina or Vietnam or Indonesia, which is increasing in value.
Number two, there's another issue of safety.
The Chinese products, a lot of them, were not safe and also not durable.
I'll give you one example.
How many American dog owners would buy dog food made in China?
You know, we have cases where dogs get ill or killed by food made in China because a lot of chemicals and toxic elements are in there.
So, what I'm trying to say here is that I would personally spend a little bit more money to buy something that's much safer and much more durable.
So, I do not want to go to stores that sell 100% Chinese tools, for example, and knowing that its life will end sooner than another very good quality market.
And coming up in about 30 minutes on Washington Journal, we're going to have a conversation with Vanessa Cardenas, who is executive director of the immigrants' rights group America's Voice.
We're going to talk about the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policies.
Richard Overy is a British historian who has spent most of his professional life writing books about war, primarily World War II.
Professor Overy's current work is called Reign of Ruin: Tokyo, Hiroshima, and the Surrender of Japan.
Liner notes on the cover of the book say, quote, with the development of the B-29 Superfortress in the summer of 1944, strategic bombing, a central component of the Allied war effort against Germany, arrived in the Pacific theater.
1945, Japan experienced the three most deadly bombing attacks of the war.
Professor Richard Overy is 77 and lives in Great Britain and Italy.
He has written close to 30 books.
unidentified
Author Richard Overy with his book, Reign of Ruin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and the Surrender of Japan.
On this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
Next week, watch a primetime encore presentation of our 10-part series, First 100 Days.
We explore the early months of U.S. presidencies from George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2017.
We'll learn about the decisions made and how they shaped the White House, the nation, and history.
I am prepared, under my constitutional duty, to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.
All I have, I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
unidentified
Each program includes historians, authors, and archival footage from the C-SPAN video library, providing rich context and analysis of presidential leadership during the critical opening stretch of new administrations.
Watch first 100 Days, starting Monday, April 14th at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2 or online at C-SPAN.org.
We're in open forum ready to hear your comments about public policy or whatever news items are on your mind.
Mike is in Rockford, Illinois on our line for independence.
Good morning, Mike.
50th Anniversary Concerns00:04:31
unidentified
Good morning.
Happy anniversary 50th.
A few things I jotted down since my last phone call that keep kind of sticking out.
The 40% of our naval ships are out of commission.
No one can tell me why.
Also, the delijitimizing of Wall Street by bankruptcy with insider trading is apparent.
I think your last guest kind of had a fruit-in-slip about an international market wanting to be formed with China and other people.
I think we just watched Trump destroy Wall Street last week with insider trading and they can't trust no more.
Also on this, recently I watched the ag show before Wall Street Journal, and they're promoting this new company called Rooster, the buy the farmland and run it back to you secretly without your neighbors knowing.
I thought that's very alarming.
And also for Doge, we find out that U.S. Mail lost $9.5 billion last year and $6.5 billion the year before.
If Doge wants to do so, maybe go over to U.S. Mail and check that out because the reports Doge is giving us seems one-dimensional.
They're almost like a referee.
They won't tell us who formed this snowball money that's in there that's been paid out and how many years it's been paid out.
It's very one-dimensional.
They're just showing one payment.
Okay, and then they're privatizing the AI with our info on a private instead of the government saying, hey, we're going to buy the AI and call it Uncle Sam painted red and white and blue to put our information in there.
No, they're saying we're going to give our information in the private server and then buy it back, which is really weird.
And the Pentagon doing investigations on the executive branch is very alarming.
With the frant mentality, the intelligence agencies doing these strikes like a video game, and they're all high-fiving each other and chatting back and forth with no records being kept on this chat line.
Next up is Bill in Jefferson, Pennsylvania, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Bill.
unidentified
Yes.
Good morning.
Thank you for C-SPAN.
I was listening to that man talk about China.
And I think that what we need is no tariffs.
I think we need free trade, zero tariffs around the world.
I think tariffs will not be good for the economy.
They'll just increase the inflation, the cost of everything.
And if we can, if Trump can get us or at least equal tariffs, in other words, if somebody is charging us 50% tariffs, we can't, that means that we can't sell them anything.
So it should be reciprocal.
In other words, we should charge them 50 if they charge us 50.
But the ideal is no tariffs at all.
And that would be conducive to the free flow of business and free trade.
Let's not be hostile to.
Let's try to make friends with all nations and not be hostile to any.
So, Bill, in an environment of no tariffs at all and open free trade, would you be at all concerned about maybe countries where the cost of labor is cheaper, taking jobs from the United States, which was one of the points that Mr. Yu was raising in terms of what happened when China entered the World Trade Organization?
unidentified
Well, that could be a problem, but what we have to do is compete.
Con Man Trump's Deceptive Tactics00:02:53
unidentified
We have to, with either the quality of things or, you know, business is about competition.
And that's what makes it healthy.
If we can't compete, you know, we, you know, we should strive to do it.
He's saying things that nobody else seems to want to talk about with how the Chinese government is.
And one of the things that I haven't heard anybody talk about is the fact that when we first started doing trade and they wanted companies to come over,
like he mentioned, they have to come over and give them their technology, which has allowed China to build up their military to be equal to or stronger because they have so many people than the United States.
Concerns About Healthcare Quality00:04:20
unidentified
And I think we're going to end up in a war not too long with about Taiwan and possibly the Philippines.
So none of our congressmen or senators don't care.
They're not interested in thinking about the future.
Next up is Vivian in Dakala, Georgia on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Vivian.
unidentified
Hi.
Yes.
Thank you, Washington Journal, C-SPAN, for having me.
I appreciate it.
I have questions about health care.
Healthcare is right now needing to be fixed in many ways.
I work in health care, and especially our elderly, we should have something where they can go in and get seen, where our insurance are taking care of them person by person.
We heard the beginning of your point about health care.
unidentified
You were talking about healthcare, and I believe that we need to fix health care.
By the time we get patients into the hospital, there are about 10 things wrong with them.
And you can't fix all 10 of them in one visit because there's only a certain amount of time, certain doctors that can see them for the illness that are coming against them.
We have an issue where our patients are now not getting 100% care.
And that is because we're rushing them through the system.
Instead of them having good primary care doctors, that are taking care of them on a regular basis and making sure that they come in and they make their appointments, whether it's cardiac, whether it's pulmonary, or whether it's lung disease.
We need to do a lot of preventative care with patients and preventative sense that we're going to prevent you from having lung disease because we need to educate you on smoking.
We need to prevent you from having cardiac.
We need to educate you on what foods not to eat.
I understand that we have someone as far as in the White House right now that's going to be our health czar.
The health czar needs to look at the whole body: eyes, ears, mouth, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys.
And when you look at the whole system, everything has a different doctor, but everything works together.
I'm going to go ahead and get in some other callers.
Let's hear from Kenneth in Fayetteville, North Carolina on our line for independence.
Good morning, Kenneth.
Kenneth, go ahead.
Yes.
unidentified
Yes, I've been sitting there watching these politics, and I cried on January the 6th.
The United States of America has lost our way.
How is it that we can sit here and congratulate our leader who absolutely lives in insurrection?
Talk about all the evil people in this nation, but sit here and congratulate the ones that commit the evil, who threaten us inside the border, who absolutely kill us inside these borders.
America is not going to be okay until we change our wicked way.
That means our racism and our hate.
And when it comes to the jobs and economy, we have to make more money according to the cost of living.
If we weren't so greedy from the top to the bottom, then we all can live comfortably.
Next up is Sam in Hillsdale, Michigan on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Sam.
unidentified
Hi, I'm glad you mentioned earlier the government proclaiming several people dead on Social Security because Barton O'Malley was on CNN recently, interviewed by Caitlin Collins, and he just talked about that and warned, of course, that if it could happen to them, that could happen to you too.
And he said, welcome to the beginnings of the Pinochet government, referring to Pinochet in Argentina or Chile.
And anyway, there's a book, a documentary called Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
And exactly this happens.
A culture or a civilization or a city, even can have a suffer a shock by weather or earthquake, anything could shock the community.
And that gives the government a chance to take over and change the workings of that community.
And that's exactly it can happen.
The government could cause the shock and take it over.
And that's exactly what's happening right now.
The government is shocking our country, and we are in danger of being taken over by the wrong people.
Who you're referencing is PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
And also speaking was NPR President and CEO Catherine Maher.
unidentified
I think it was Miss Maher.
And thank you so much for that, Kim.
But I also wanted to say that, again, just tremendous coverage, all the things I learned in that.
And again, just I pulled out of that slightly questioning that perhaps she could be evenly fair in this role.
Okay.
And I just wanted to also mention, please, that yesterday, Jeff Mason was questioning Donald Trump on the airplane about this man who had been deported to El Salvador.
And I want you to correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't hear this mentioned.
My understanding is that he was marked for deportation as an MS-13 member, but not to El Salvador.
And the mistake was that he was sent to El Salvador, not so much that he was deported.
But anyway, just one last quick thing, and I'll let you go.
I thought Donald Trump missed a tremendous opportunity there as Jeff Mason, intrepid reporter, was questioning him.
And he asked him about the basic facts of the case.
And I didn't appreciate the way Jeff Mason kind of played like he didn't know the facts there.
I'll bet everything I have, he knew the facts there.
And when Donald Trump questioned him, he said, well, is that the guy who was actually MS-13 and not Salvatruccia?
So, Scott, I'm just looking at an article here on NBC News.
The Maryland father, a legal resident protected from deportation by a 2019 court order, was mistakenly sent to the Salvadoran prison along with other men who were alleged to be gang members.
The Trump administration claims Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, though he has never been charged with or convicted of a crime.
His attorneys said that there's no evidence he was in the gang, and immigration officials have conceded he should not have been sent to El Salvador, his country of birth, calling it an administrative error.
Stopping Vapes00:05:41
unidentified
Okay, well, again, I completely appreciate that, and I just thought that perhaps in some of these situations, I know that we have to follow the law.
I know that we have to adhere to these people's rights.
And I also consider what has happened to some of our citizens at the hands of some of these people.
I do want to get a couple more folks in in open form.
Thank you for your call.
Let's hear from Billy in Anderson, Indiana, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Billy.
unidentified
Good morning.
I just want to talk a little bit about the legal drugs that the Biden administration let come in in the four years.
These vapes, especially, that's killing off our kids and all the vodka that's flooding in the United States and it's killing just so many people's getting liver damaged from this vodka that's coming over here from Russia, especially, I think.
But we need to stop these vapes.
Our kids, our young kids, is smoking these vapes and they can't breathe no more.
They can't run.
They can't even play.
And it's going to be an epidemic here if we don't get rid of them right now.
Trying to do it, but it's just in our system so bad right now.
Where I live here, we got vape shops all over the place.
And it's just Chinese coming in to right into your neighborhoods and killing your kids.
So, our guest isn't with us anymore to answer any questions.
But what was the comment that you wanted to make?
Oh, it looks like we've lost our guest or our caller.
But thank you for everyone who called in on open forum.
Coming up next, we're going to be joined by Vanessa Cardenas, who is executive director of the immigrant rights group America's Voice.
We're going to talk about the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policy.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Watch our signature interview program Q&A all week on C-SPAN 2.
On Monday, we'll talk with National Geographic Explorer Tara Roberts, who travels the world documenting underwater wrecks of some of the 12,000 slave ships that operated during the Atlantic slave trade.
In her memoir, Written in the Waters, Roberts discusses the training and preparation required to undertake the diving missions and the work done by the nonprofit organization Diving with a Purpose, which is primarily composed of African-American divers.
When I saw this picture in the museum of these women, and it turned out that they were a part of this group called Diving with a Purpose, and that they spent their time searching for and documenting slave shipwrecks around the world.
I was like, oh my God, there are people who look like me who are living a life of adventure.
Maybe this could be for me too.
Dara Roberts, with her book, Written in the Waters, Monday at 7 p.m. Eastern on QA on C-SPAN 2.
You can listen to Q&A wherever you get your podcasts or on our free C-SPAN Now app.
C-SPAN's student camp competition challenged middle and high school students nationwide to create documentaries with messages to the new president.
Our panel of judges evaluated over 1,700 thought-provoking student films on their use of multiple perspectives.
C-SPAN awarded $100,000 in total cash prizes, and our grand prize of $5,000 goes to Dermot Foley, a 10th grader from Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Congratulations to all our winners.
The top 21 winning entries will air on C-SPAN this month.
You can also watch all the award-winning documentaries anytime at studentcam.org.
We're joined now by Vanessa Cardenas, who is Executive Director of America's Voice, here to talk about the Trump administration's immigration and deportation policies.
Can you tell us about America's Voice, your mission, and how you're funded?
Deportation Costs Clarity00:15:27
unidentified
Sure.
America's Voice is a pro-immigration, nonpartisan advocacy organization, and we believe that our immigration system should be fixed in a way that's consistent both with our needs and our values.
And we are supported by foundations and everyday Americans who believe in our mission.
So your organization recently launched a campaign called At What Cost, urging members of Congress to oppose funding for deportations.
And that campaign is centered around the cost of President Trump's mass deportations agenda to Americans.
Can you give us some examples of what you're talking about there?
unidentified
Sure.
Well, what we're asking ourselves is, you know, just what the goal is of moving so much money towards an enforcement agenda.
And by doing so, removing funding from key domestic essential programs.
And what we mean by that is that we have limited resources and our immigration system is already very well funded.
And right now, congressional leaders are asking to invest over $200 billion for enforcement activities.
And what that means is that we will be moving money away from programs like Medicaid, like food stamps programs, and other programs that really are essential for our families to fund the efforts around deportations and family separations that we have seen in the last few weeks and months.
And that's what we're trying to drive home, that there's a real cost.
And I will end by saying that we all agree that our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it.
And I think the way to fix it is by coming up with a program that legalizes the people that have been here for a long time, that, yes, invests in our borders.
So we have a functional border system as well as legal pathways.
And if that is the interest, and that should be the interest, then we should be working on policies that do that versus just focusing on enforcement-only policies that are hurting our families and our communities.
Now, meanwhile, Congress this week actually approved a budget blueprint with more funding for immigration enforcement.
And polls show Americans largely approve of the president's deportation efforts.
There's a CBS News YouGov poll that looked at this finding 58% of Americans approve of Trump's deportation policies thus far and 43% disapprove of it.
Despite all of these lawsuits surrounding them, what do you make of that and how do you think you can change people's minds on that?
unidentified
Yeah, thank you for the question.
Well, listen, I think that what these polls reflect is the deep disappointment and just impatient with our government and the fact that we are not able to tackle, we have not been able to tackle this system.
Pro-immigration advocates have been for decades saying that our system is broken.
It does not work.
It's outdated.
We need to improve it.
And I think what we're seeing in the polls and the support for Trump is this desire to bring order to our system so that it functions in a more effective manner.
However, I think that the more people see the real impacts that this deportation agenda is having on people's lives in their neighborhoods, in their communities, in their places of work, the more they're going to reject it.
Because we know, based on all the research that we have done over the years, that actually the majority of people, the majority of Americans, want a system that first and foremost provides a path to legalization for people that have been here a long time.
Those essential workers, farm workers, dreamers that have been in a country for sometimes decades, making significant contributions to our economy.
The second piece is Americans do want a functioning border system that is resource and that puts in place smart enforcement measures at the border.
And the third piece is creating legal pathways so people can come here with a visa and not with a smuggler.
And we know that's what Americans want.
And I think again, the more they see that this enforcement only approach that creates panic and fear in communities and that is in many ways not just affecting immigrants but American families, the more they're going to reject it.
This past week, the Supreme Court actually backed the administration in a controversial deportation case involving Venezuelan migrants.
Can you first remind us how these deportations have been carried out and what the court decided there?
unidentified
Sure.
Well, a couple of things.
You know, we have seen again an effort to deport in the president's work words people who are criminals.
But what we are finding is that a lot of people that are getting on the dragnet are actually not criminals, do not have a criminal record, do not have convictions.
And in this example of the Venezuelan men that were sent to prison in El Salvador, we've already heard of many stories of many of them not having any type of criminal record in the U.S. nor in Venezuela.
And in fact, there was a media report by 60 Minutes that said that almost 70 and even to 80% of the people that were sent to El Salvador, El Salvador did not have criminal records.
So it is deeply, deeply problematic that we are not only arresting and detaining people here, but then sending them to another country and then abandoning them without any access to due process.
And let's remember, these men were not allowed the opportunity to talk to any lawyers.
And they're in a prison right now in El Salvador where they cannot talk to their families.
They have not seen their families.
They do not have access to, again, lawyers.
They do not have access to medical care.
So this is deeply, deeply, again, I think, un-American and not consistent with the rule of law and this fundamental right, which is due process.
But as you said, the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that they can use this power around the Alien Enemies Act to detain people.
However, the Supreme Court also said while the administration can use that power, they must provide legal access to the people that they are detaining.
And if they want to deport them, they have to provide counsel.
So while it's a mixed decision from our perspective, we are very pleased that the court has said to the Trump administration that they have to provide legal counsel to those detainees.
The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement says that it mistakenly deported an immigrant with protected status.
What has been the reaction to the story among immigrant communities?
And has it had anything of a chilling effect?
unidentified
Oh, 100%.
Listen, the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia is so, so just egregious because it is this person, this father.
He lives in a community, in an immigrant community in Maryland.
He is from El Salvador.
Again, no charges, no criminal records in the United States.
And or as far as we know, in El Salvador.
And he was taken from his family and sent to, again, prison in El Salvador, has not spoken to his family or his lawyers.
And here's the point.
He had legal authorization to be in the United States.
And the government, the Trump administration, admitted that it was a clerical error.
Now, imagine having a family member being taken, not being able to communicate with him, and now this person being in another prison in another country, again, without access to any communications.
And the government is now stalling.
And the recent Supreme Court order was that he needs to come back.
And we see that there's a stalling effort and not really making the efforts needed to bring him back as soon as possible.
And again, I think the message that this is sending is that the administration is not being careful about who they're picking up, who they're sending to these other prisons, and that even when they are making a mistake, they are actually not moving fast enough to bring them back.
And that creates a lot of fear, that creates a lot of panic.
But again, I think it's a question for all Americans whether this administration is following the rule of law and is following the really important process of providing due process for the people that they are detaining and deporting.
The topic of the case of Mr. Obrego Garcia came up in open forum, and we had this reaction from someone on X. Host read about the deported MS-13 gang member, which had a carefully worded statement that said he was deported by mistake, a lie, but did not deny he was an MS-13 gang member.
So any judge who wants him here is corrupt.
El Salvador is his home country and where he belongs.
Before I let you respond to that, Vanessa, I'll just ask, read here from an article in the Associated Press, An Administrative Error Sent a Maryland Man to an El Salvador prison.
I said, President Donald Trump's administration has acknowledged mistakenly deporting a Maryland man with protected legal status to a notorious El Salvador prison last month, but is arguing against returning him to the United States because of his alleged gang ties and the U.S. government's lack of powers over the Central American nation.
Lawyers for Kilmar Amondo Abrego Garcia, 29, maintain he is not affiliated with MS-13 or any other street gang and argue the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence that he does.
Ms. Cardenas, do you have any thoughts on what our viewer mentioned on social media there?
unidentified
Yeah, well, listen, I think the key word here is alleged.
There is no proof that Mr. Brego Garcia actually is or was a member of a gang.
There's no proof that the government has produced.
So I think, again, this is a, as far as we know, they made a mistake and now they're sending him to a prison and now they don't want to bring him back.
And I think that should raise an alarm to every American who cares about their own safety and security and access to due process before our government implements these policies.
But also, let's be clear again, the United States is paying millions of dollars to El Salvador to imprison the people that this administration is sending to El Salvador.
So this idea that they cannot bring him back is, for me, is also not real.
I would also make the point that the president of El Salvador is coming to visit the White House this week on Tuesday, and I think it will be a great opportunity for President Bukele to bring Mr. Brego Garcia back.
I should also note that there's a large Salvadoran community in the DC area, and I think that hopefully Mr. Bukele cares about his El Salvadoran families, and he should also hopefully bring Mr. Garcia back.
Now we have consequences for people who break the law.
Now there is enforcement of our laws that people know that it matters when you do right and there are going to be severe consequences when you do wrong.
These families behind us stood up and told about their grief and their suffering, what their children went through, what their siblings went through.
And because they did that, American families rallied around them and they put a president in the White House that now is willing to take tough actions to take our country back.
Let me be clear, we have enemies living among us.
Because of what the Biden administration has done by opening our borders, they have allowed terrorists, people that are on the terrorist watch list, dangerous criminals, gang members, and criminals to enter our country and to perpetuate violence on American families.
Listen, I think that, let me make something clear.
Somebody has been convicted?
If there is somebody is a threat to public safety yes, our government has all the rights to to deport that person if if, there's a threat.
And however, what we know is that most immigrants are actually assets to our country.
They make significant contributions to our economy.
They are our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers.
So I think to just issue a blanket statement and say that all immigrants are criminals, which is what often we're hearing from this administration, is actually inaccurate.
I also would like to say that if if again, if somebody has uh, has a conviction and it's a criminal and the government can show that that's the case, then then I think most Americans would agree and it's common sense that this person should not be here.
But what we're seeing is not a an a targeted effort to go after people with convictions.
We're seeing an indiscriminate effort in which even people with status, with legal protections, are being caught in the dragnet.
We're seeing legal permanent residents, we're seeing even U.s citizens, even native Americans, being caught in the dragnet.
And that is our concern, that it is an indiscriminate effort and it's not again targeted, and and it's also not a a sincere effort to actually fix our system.
You know, I believe that this administration has a lot of support on this issue, and what we would like to see is for them to actually work with Congress to actually resolve this issue in a way that's consistent with our values and our interests, and what that means for us is taking the people that have been here for a long time and providing them a path to legalization, because they are people that are already incorporated into our economy,
Essential Contributions Disputed00:15:34
unidentified
are making contributions, are deeply rooted in our communities, while also investing at the border.
So we have smart enforcement and we have an orderly process for people to come to the United States.
That is what our country needs.
But I think mass deportation efforts do not address the fundamental problems and are actually creating real, again, real concerns about our freedoms, not just for immigrants, but for all Americans.
Well, we have some callers ready with questions for you.
Anyone can call in.
Republicans at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents at 202-748-8002.
Let's start with Jackie in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Jackie.
unidentified
Good morning.
I was wondering if your organization was doing anything to work with other countries in Latin America that maybe could be places where some of the people who are actually in asylum, I agree with you, and in the legal process, but are still getting deported could actually go.
Are there any policies like that based on the fact that people with no criminal record in their native country of Venezuela or America are being deported to a terrorist prison and then cut off from all contact from their attorneys and the U.S. government?
And I was wondering if now that the cases are before the courts in terms of the AEA, which you had noted the Supreme Court said is not going to be open for judicial review,
and based on the criterion that they're using to determine whether or not someone's a gang member, which a lot of it can be built upon insignia and association when a person may not even know who they're associating with.
If there is a push by the nonprofits that help immigrants to maybe self-deport, and again, if there are any countries in Latin America regarding the Venezuelan situation that are trying to help here so that these men don't end up as terrorists yes, thank you for the question.
My organization does not work with other countries, but here's what I can tell you.
Many countries in the region have taken Venezuelan migrants because of the terrible conditions that Venezuela has been going through for the last almost decade.
And this is actually an important point.
Many countries like Colombia, for example, have taken millions of Venezuelans and they have integrated them in their communities.
And this is why, from our perspective, there is a way for the United States to manage migration in a smart and compassionate way.
For example, the United States set up a program for Ukrainians in a matter of weeks and processed over 100,000 Ukrainians and resettled them here.
So which shows us that when we want to actually, when we lean in and try to tackle this problem, we can create systems so that people can migrate here again with legality.
And I think that is the lesson that we should take away from this.
There are other countries in Latin America that have absorbed the migration of Venezuelans because they have not only come to the United States, they've also gone to other countries.
But there's also this other piece that our asylum system is deeply, deeply underfunded.
And what we need to do is invest in our asylum process so the adjudications are fair and fast.
And yes, not everybody's going to be allowed in, but we also have to make investments so we have more judges, more staff into our asylum system so that people can actually have a chance to present their case.
And that is part of reforming our immigration system again in a way that functions.
Velma is in Ashland, Kentucky on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Velma.
unidentified
Thank you.
I disagree.
We need to invest in taking care of American citizens and not illegal aliens.
You know, there's constant rhetoric about we need to fix the broken immigration system is rhetoric.
It's not broken.
It was never enforced in the first place.
And why should the government, taxpayers, spend millions of dollars to prove anything about when someone's deported from the country or about to be deported?
You know, they're not legal.
They're not entitled to due process.
And if they end up in another country rather than where they came from, that's their own fault.
You know, and due process that people keep talking about for illegal aliens would take years and years and cost millions of dollars.
And that is, again, is on the taxpayer.
This is just so ridiculous.
I can't think of a correct edge to the board, but I'm just so tired of hearing all this.
And listen, I agree with your frustration, and I agree with this sort of sense that things are not working.
Completely agree with that.
And that's why we need a system that works.
I think that we can do both.
From my perspective, I think we can take care of Americans and also have a system that works that's consistent with, again, our rule of law, but also our values.
I think this question of due process is a fundamental idea and I think a fundamental right for most Americans.
And I think the question for me is when you start not using that for some people, it's a very slippery slope.
And I think we've seen examples of people that, again, as in the case of Mr. Obrego Garcia, he was here with legality and he was still sent by mistake.
And that is a big red flag for us.
Because how do you prove that if the government is telling somebody that this person is alleging has gang associations, but they don't present any proof, and then they sent them overseas and then they abandoned them in a prison, that's a big red flag.
And I think that presents a lot of problems.
And again, it's not just about immigrants.
It could happen to any of us.
How do I know if I'm not being targeted?
And again, I'm a U.S. citizen.
I was actually born here, but I do have an accent and I look different.
So, you know, I also want to just say that there are many concerns in our communities that these efforts are targeting people.
And again, not following the law.
And many folks we already see are being caught in this dragnet.
And what we're asking is if there's somebody that has a record that's a public safety threat, we understand.
That's common sense.
But I think that the government, if the government is going to offend someone's life and remove them from their families and their communities, they should be able to show proof on why they're doing that.
Excuse me, Patricia is in Chesapeake, Virginia on our line for independence.
Good morning, Patricia.
unidentified
Yes, ma'am.
Good morning, Tua.
I was calling to ask about, well, one, the Garcia.
I read that, I forget which post, but I thought that he overstayed his visa.
And number two, you mentioned about the Native Americans being deported.
Could you be more elaborate on that?
Yes, yes, thank you.
No, we have seen cases, press reports of Native Americans being detained and questioned.
We've also seen examples of U.S. citizens being detained and questioned.
And there have been many press reports in the last few months.
I have not seen an example of a Native American being deported.
But the point being is that if this administration is making a mistake with one person and again, not bringing this person back, I think that's deeply problematic for all of us.
And just for Patricia's benefit, I was able to quickly find a story from NBC News about Trump immigration raids, snagging U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, raising racial profiling fears.
A U.S. veteran and Navajo residents have been asked for identification.
Critics are complaining of racial profiling as the raids and deportations increase.
Let's hear from Chuck in Syracuse, New York, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Chuck.
unidentified
So our guest says she's nonpartisan.
Apparently, she's against deportations because if I, as a white American, moved to Montreal illegally, learned French, which is the official language, English is now the official language here, open up a French pastry store, was in there for 10 years, and they allowed it, and then a new leader comes in and he says, I'm going to crack down, you're getting deported, they're going to deport me.
So this, and there was an example in New Jersey of a sushi joint guy who's very popular.
He's Chinese.
He's been in the country decades, but he was convicted of spying for China.
And now he's being deported.
And by the way, I left a gas station the other day and I was stopped in question because my car looked like the car that was involved in a robbery.
They pulled me over.
I pulled over.
I was let go.
But people are stopped in question every day in this country who are illegal, who are born here.
One case does not mean we need to get rid of our entire legal immigration system.
Okay, Mr. Cardano, Ms. Cardanas, would you like to respond?
unidentified
Listen, I again agree that we need to make sure that we have a legal system.
And I think that the best way to do it is to make sure that the people that are here and contributing and are deeply rooted in our communities are able to have a path to legalization.
Let's also not forget that many of these immigrants actually are essential to different industries, whether it's the healthcare industry, the farm workers, hotel workers, and construction workers.
So I can go on and on.
The fact is that the United States has always needed immigration.
That's what actually makes us stronger economically.
Immigrants are essential for our future prosperity.
And immigrants have always been part of the American story.
So I think, again, it's not an either-or.
I think that, again, there are people that have been here for many years, and I think there should be a path to them to become legal because they are making contributions, they have built families, they are essential to different industries.
And the question for me is: if we really want to tackle this problem so that we can put this issue to rest, which has been in the political discourse for so many years, let's get Congress to work in a bipartisan way so that we legalize the people that have been here, again, making billions of dollars in contributions, being essential to different industries.
Let's have an enforcement mechanism at the border that actually works in resourcing our asylum system.
And let's create legal pathways so people can come here again with a visa and not with a smuggler.
I think that is the conversation that we should be having.
I think that, again, based on what we know about what America, most Americans support, that's the combination of reforms that they want.
And of course, deportations for people that should not be here that are public safety threats, that's common sense.
We understand that.
So it's not that I'm against deportations of people that have committed a crime.
But the question is, it has to go beyond that.
We have to have a functional system that has the elements that actually help us, not just today, but in the future, because as long as we just not address those pieces of our immigration system, we're always going to have this problem.
And just tackling the border or just implementing enforcement measures do not address the roots of the problem, as well as the fact that we have people here who really, you know, again, are essential to different segments of our economy and our communities.
So Robert, I want to give our guest a chance to respond to some of the points that you raised.
unidentified
Yeah, no, I will tell you that I was one of those kids.
I didn't speak English when I came to the United States.
What we know for most immigrants today, most of them integrate within one generation.
And I can tell you my kids, for example, they only want to speak English.
I have to actually fight with them to speak Spanish.
So I think immigrants, the immigrants of today still have a desire to integrate into America.
I would also say that most immigrants want to come here.
As far as we know, most immigrants want to come here legally.
And if you give them a path, they will follow the law and get into the land if you create a path.
And we saw that with the parole program that President Biden instituted for Cuban, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
So we actually know that when you create legal pathways, people will get in a line.
But they have to know that there is a line.
And I would also say, you know, that, again, immigration has always been part of our DNA.
That's actually what makes our country what it is today.
And I know that there's a lot of concerns right now on our immigration system.
And that's why for many years, advocates have been saying we have to reform our immigration system.
So I think, you know, the last thing I would say is that most of us, most people that come into the United States, we believe in what this country stands for.
We believe in the promise of America, and that's why we decide to come.
And by far, immigrants make contributions.
They're an asset to our country.
And I think as we tackle with this issue and as we struggle on how to fix it, we have to also recognize that they are, again, part of our values.
And I think we really need to demand our lawmakers to come to the table to compromise and to come up with solutions because there are policy solutions and that this issue needs to stop being used as political football.
It needs to be used to stop being used as a political strategy to anger people.
We need to come to the table and talk about solutions that actually are going to fix the problems that we are seeing in our immigration system.
And I think there's a path there.
The question is whether there's the political will and the desire to come to compromise on this.
Nathaniel is in Irvington, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Nathaniel.
unidentified
Hi, how are you guys doing?
Good morning.
Love this show.
I just have one comment for your guests.
I definitely have empathy to what's going on with a lot of the different immigrants in the country, but I think there's haven't been a discussion about accountability.
As a person of color, we try to warn a lot of immigrants that this was coming.
You know, and a lot of immigrants voted in line with this administration, and now they're crying wolf.
But, you know, people of color have been trying to tell them during the whole time that Vice President Harris is running that if you vote for this administration, these kind of tactics was going to happen.
So I think also we have to talk about the accountability of voting for against what our best interests are.
And I think a lot of immigrants did that and now they're facing a ramification.
So we all have empathy for what's going on, but I think it also has to be coupled with a little bit of accountability because this wasn't forced upon us.
You know, this was voted into this administration.
And I do agree that a lot of the sentiments that people are expressing on the calls are sentiments across the board.
And like I said, there's a lot of frustration with our system.
And I think in the absence of solutions and in the absence of a strong vision of what our country needs to do when it comes to immigration, the Trump agenda kind of came in and has garnered support.
But I think what we know is that we need to tackle this issue for the benefit of all of us.
And I think what we're seeing right now are a lot of red flags in terms of, again, how this administration is implementing their policies.
And I think we need to sort of turn the page and say, okay, how do we actually fix the system in a way that works and hopefully protects our rights?
But I get your point about accountability.
I think that, yes, there is a sense that Trump is doing what he promised he will do.
But as I said earlier, I think the more people see the actual impacts that's going to have, I think they're going to want to see other solutions that are more aligned with our values.
Next up is Anna in Chicago, Illinois on our line for independence.
Good morning, Anna.
unidentified
Good morning.
I I have a few suggestions for immigration repair or broken as you call it.
One, anyone who comes here expecting to get asylum must show that they were denied asylum by the country they came through.
If they came from someplace farther in South America and they came through Mexico, they have to show what Mexico denied them that asylum before they could even apply for it here.
Also, I'm going to talk about language, make the English the official language.
And if you're here illegally, you cannot own a business, you cannot own real estate, houses, land, buildings, or businesses.
Any state that gives a non-citizen an ID that can be used to vote, then everyone in that state must have a federal ID to vote because the state ID will be voided to help prevent fraud of illegal voting.
And the two others, one is, well, the 14th Amendment was enacted solely to give the slaves citizenship because they were forced over here not to be hijacked by the world to come here in their ninth month, have a baby, and then go back home and now that baby's a citizen.
That's not what it was meant, and it should be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court to stop this.
That's my comment.
So just a few comments on that front.
You know, birthright citizenship is a constitutional right.
It's in our constitution.
And I think it is one of the most cherished rights in our constitution.
And I think it's also the reason why there's a lot of integration by immigrants in our country because by having access to citizenship, people are able to integrate and be part of the broader society.
So again, I think birthright citizenship, it is a constitutional right, and I think it's a very important right for everyone.
I think on the question of the asylum, listen, our asylum system needs reforms, and that's why it's really important to resource the asylum system so that they could adjudicate cases in a fair and fast way.
I think somebody, it is the law that people have the right to request asylum, and that's international law.
And this nation should be able to manage that by making sure that people have access to a judge so they can present their case.
If then they don't qualify, then that's a decision that, again, should be made and should be accepted.
But I think the question is that right now we don't have enough judges.
We don't have enough staff to actually process our asylum petitions.
And that is part of the problem.
And it goes back again to the question about how to actually reform our system in a way that works.
To end the segment, could you tell us a little bit about your story?
It says on your bio page that you came to the United States when you were 14.
Can you tell us about that?
unidentified
Yeah, well, I have a complicated immigration story.
My mom migrated to the U.S. in the 70s, and I was actually born in Brooklyn, New York.
I hope your viewers heard my Brooklyn accent, but maybe not.
And then she left.
We went back to Bolivia and I grew up in Cochabamba, Bolivia for many years until I was in high school.
And that's when my mom decided to come back to the U.S. and we came back.
And, you know, I have been very, very blessed.
And I am very grateful for what this country stands for.
And I think all of us really believe in again what America stands for.
And we want to protect the American dream, not just for us, but also for future generations.
And I believe that most Americans also want that.
And my hope is that both political parties in this country will stop using this issue as political football and come to the table so we can have real solutions for a functional system that actually works for our values and our interests.
And thank you to everyone who called in with your questions and comments to Washington Journal.
We'll be back with another edition of the show tomorrow morning, starting at 7 a.m. Eastern.
We hope you'll tune in then.
unidentified
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy.
From Washington and across the country.
Coming up Monday morning, Republican strategist Adam Goodman and Democratic strategist Michael LaRosa discuss the Trump administration's first 100 days in office and other political news.
Then, Francesca Chambers, USA Today White House correspondent, previews the week ahead at the White House and Politico's Ankouche Cardori on President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms and why some of them are reaching agreements with the 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 video app or online at c-SPAN.org.