this synagogue, rabbi schaefer have enhanced the security here and he was cable about what their spikes were. nerves are still pretty fray the around here. sfa to our viewers, thank you very much for watching. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." you can also follow me on x formerly known as twitter and @wolfblitzer@sit room and podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. erin burnett "out front" starts right now. ♪ ♪ out front next, the breaking news, a historic decision by the colorado supreme court tonight. moments ago the court ruling disqualifying trump from running in that state. named to not be on primary

ballot. trump vowing to swiftly appeal. it's a crucial ruling. will other states follow? >> also breaking tonight, israel says it's ready for a week-long pause in the fighting for the exchange of release of more hostages and the live, spectacular pictures from iceland, lava at one point flowing so past it could fill an olympic sized pool in 20 seconds. we are live with fred pleitgen. let's go out front. good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight, the breaking news and this is important. the colorado supreme court ruling just moments ago that former president trump should be removed from colorado's primary ballot. the consequences of this decision be obviously enormous. the court upholding a trial judge's decision that trump engaged in the january 6th insurrection, and the colorado supreme court saying that therefore, he engaged in the

insur eksz and he is not qualified to be a presidential candidate because of the 14th amendment insureccist ban. it says a person is ineligible to be on the ballot, to be president if they, quote, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. tonight's decision tees up an appeal to the supreme court of the united states which could settle the matter over the entire nation before the presidential republican primaries kick up in january and talk about the speed with which this has to move, evan perez live outside in washington. evan, this is not what most people expected and i don't know what they expected, but this was not it. here we are. you have a chance, a 133-page ruling and it was 4 pf 3. this was not unanimous and there are dissents here. what else do the colorado supreme court's decision say? >> erin, i'll read you just from

the first page of this opinion, and it's an extraordinary opinion. it's very long, and it's clear that the justices or the judges here went through all of the record in this case with the district court of opinion. a majority of the court holds that president trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution. as you pointed out, that's the section that says that you cannot be senator or representative of congress or president or vice president or hold office in the united states if you supported or took an oath to support the cob snstitution then engaged in an insurrection. the district court said former president trump did engage in insurrectionist, but out

technicality saying this section of the 14th amendment did not say that president trump could stay on the ballot. what this court says is no. they reversed the ruling saying he does fall under this. i'll review where they review the district court filing. they say in conducting our independent review of the factual findings, we agree that president trump intended that his speech would result in violence or lawless action on january 6th to prevent the peaceful transfer of power upon they go through the actions of the former president on january 6th. they talk about the fact that well before january 6th donald trump had begun laying the groundwork saying that the election was going to be rigged. so they go through all of this and go to his intent. erin, look, it's very important

that the district court first ruled that donald trump essentially was an insurrectionist and this court says we agree and as a result of that, he is disqualified, erin? >> what happens from here? you talk about this supreme court ruling possibly, right? this being sent up to the supreme court. the primaries start in weeks. >> right. exactly. even more important than the primaries, the colorado secretary of state is required to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot on january 5th. so what they've deputy here is they've suspended their ruling and they've stayed their ruling saying if donald trump goes to the supreme court then the secretary of state is allowed to keep donald trump on the ballot pending whatever the federal supreme court decides. now what they say here, though, is that obviously, this ruling will stand until then and so donald trump will be on the ballot. what we don't know is obviously

what the federal supreme court will do. it's almost certain that they're going to want to review this. a reminder, erin, that colorado votes in early march. that's when the republican primary is set to happen in colorado, and so the supreme court, the federal supreme court has until then to make a finding. >> thank you very much, evan. there's a time to print a ballot and logistical issues that goes with all of that, as well when you talk about voting by mail. i want to go to eric olson. he's one of the attorneys who argued this case for the plaintiffs and i appreciate your time. as i said, we knew there was going to be a decision and i don't know many people expected it to be quite like this and maybe you are one of them. the court did not rule in your favor, it was 4-3. what was your reaction what you saw this? >> i was thrilled and proud to be in america where courts can

hear things like this. we had six colorado voters put on equal footing with the former president. we each got to put on our case and the district court found facts and rule on the law and once the supreme court reviewed that work agreed with the factual findings and disagreed with one important legal finding and found that in the end donald trump was disqualified under the constitution to be on the ballot. >> the o ruj nal ruling was inconsistent, right? ? he agreed, and that's what he wassing if supreme court this is where the margin that you mentioned is not ununanimous. it was a slit ruling 4-3.

nonetheless, are you ready for this? this will obviously come very, very quickly. >> yes. we're ready for this. colorado law allows for this to happen very quickly and we filed an appeal and the supreme courys decision and we're ready to present arguments and optimistic about their review of the colorado court's careful and thoughtful approach to both the facts and the law here. >> i wanted to ask you about the dissents and obviously, it was 4-3. the chf juas among the dissents, right? the chief justice or the colorado supreme court is want gray agree -- and the in is believe it, and for example, a prosecution for an insur ekz and

the determination that the former president engaged in insurrection was put in place by a judge in the ruling and not determined by a jury in a full due process setting. what's your response to that? >> i say two things in response. first, president trump had all of the opportunity he needed to put on the witnesses and call the evidence that he wanted to. he chose want to testify. he chose not to use all of the hours of trial allocated to him and he chose not to call witnesses remotely like we did, but he did not take full advanceage of the due process that was here and second, our constitution is clear. you become disqualified once you engage in the insurrection. there is no need by a specific finding from the tribunal to attach and all that the courts did here was confirm that donald

trump led to insurrection and that's the process the constitution expects and that's the process donald trump received in this case. >> of course, when you look at the department of justice and jack something's special counsel, they haven't yet proven that in a court of law. how do you feel about your odds with the supreme court given that? >> well, i think the civil and criminal differences are significant here. there's no fundamental right to be a presidential candidate unlike your liberty interest when you're a criminal defendant, and so we think and hope that the u.s. supreme court does what the two courts that have done so far in colorado, and we believe the factings in the law. ashlgs gen,er with, particular low given the care and hard bork that kl kohl reportses. >> eric, i very much appreciate

your time, and ash obviously a significant win for your time. out front now, david axelrod along with joan . this is seismic. you've run presidential campaigns and you have a primary election in colorado beginning in march and you have to print the ballots and do all this, and now you have the former president of the united states and the colorado supreme court, they said take his name off it. how do you even respond to that if you're a campaign? i think it's safe to say this was a seismic ruling. >> well, there's no question about it, erin. one thing that hasn't been mentioned is three other states have gone the other way. >> right. >> in terms of the how the court handled these challenges. of course, the supreme court will sort things out because you can't have individual states

deciding this question, but if you're -- look, i don't think it's any secret how the trump campaign is going to handle it. they're going to handle the way they've handled everything else. they're going to say this is a judicial fiat to deprive people of their choice and there are tens of millions and look, the guy is 50 points ahead in the republican primary for president here, so they're going to say this is an effort on the part of it, and as you read earlier they're already blaming democrats and biden and all of that to try and deprive people of their choice. it's seismic and the legal question is size mick. the political question is it's size seismic, and it pro pretrents trump from running. by the way, he does have a trial coming up in march where they will hear facts around his activities leading up to the

insurrection, but what is the impact on a country that's already badly divided where tens of millions of americans are told you can't vote for the candidate of your choice. i'm very, very torn about that because i think what he did was the most heinous thing a president can do. on the other hand, you know, we -- we don't want to rip the country apart and we're faced in history from time to time with questions like this and now it's in the lap of the supreme court. >> right. joan, this is the point. as david points out, three other states have ruled the other way and yet you have this coming out tonight. a seismic event and a significant decision, granted, a split colorado supreme court, 4-3 and the chief justice among the dissenting. how consequential is this? >> i can't overstate the consequences of this evening, and i also want to stress how we now have two major, very

critical trump election issues barreling toward the court and they will have to decide both of these one way or another, and the other case is whether he is e mun from criminal prosecution for election subversion and that's the case brought by special counsel jack smith that's pending now and we may know by the end of the week when the justices will hear that one on an expedited schedule or have it first heard by a u.s. appellate court. both of these are huge issues. when we even wrote about the immunity question last week we talked about how novel it was, and how unprecedented in the context of jack smith election subversion controversy, but this one -- this one is really so novel because it's just never been tested in this era at all, the 14th amendment kwir kwry, and as david rightly points out

other state courts have gone the other way. this one, i think both of them need to be resolved quickly and only these nine justices are able to resolve it, and i do want to remind everyone about how even when donald trump was in office and every single case of his from the administration policy, they were all fraught, and these are especially fraught because they will affect his election process, especially the kl kohl one most directly, and i know from what i heard in the discussions so far is that colorado election officials have said that this matter has to be settled by the first week in january around january 5th which is the deadline to get those lists of candidates for the gop primary, but they also have the issue of overseas ballots, as i understand it that there is a deadline when those have to go out and if this whole thing has

stayed and kind of put on hold, what happens to voters who receive the ballots that have donald trump's name on them because, of course, the ruling that just came tonight has been postponed. is some already done? now, again, this is a heavier lift for the challengers than the e munity case. this is a very, very hard case, and look at who challenged they just won and it won't be unheard of if it somehow prevail, the supreme court, but it is a higher higher mountain to climb whereas the immunity question that jack smith is bringing, that has a little bit more grounding, and i can see him prevailing in a way that maybe trump, the challengers here don't prevail. go ahead, erin. >> no, i was going to say, david, the point joy is saying

and i don't want to over emphasize it, it was a 4-3 ruling saying that you have not had a prosecution for causing the insurrection, right? you have to wait for that step before you take someone off the ballot. to that point, and will go before the supreme court. to that point, and i was talking to in, and i, boy the way this person is a republican. what do you say that that's the outcome? >> listen, there is a loud minority in this country that believes that the last election because trump has told them again and again and his supporters have backed him on this that there was something untoward about the last election, that it was stolen and that he was the true winner of that election, and you know, 60% to 70% of republicans believe that. the people who attacked the capitol on january 6th did so

thinking they were doing their constitutional duty. >> right. >> because they thought that something untoward has happened. so you can imagine the reaction if he is taken off the ballot. >> all right. david axelrod, thank you very much. joan biskupic, thank you very much to you. i want to go to ty cobb. 13 pages and the three dissents and i'm trying to work my way through here, from what you've seen, what do you take away? >> so i -- the way i see this is -- is that the supreme court has to take this. they can stay the dates in colorado. they'll move expeditiously. i was struck by the majority opinion and the amount of verbage devoted to the sort of strong man arguments. the real key issue in this case

is is trump an officer of the united states -- in the context in which that term is used in article 3? >> right. >> and in 2010, chief justice roberts explained in free enterprise that people don't vote for officers of the united states. article 2 officers of the united states is commonly understood in the constitution to refer to appointed officials and to the extent that the president or the vice president are included as an officer or included within the admonitions of the constitution, they are typically highlighted like in the impeachment clause which specifically says president, vice president. so i think this case will be handled quickly. i think it could be 9-0 and the

supreme court for trump. >> i can just say, ty, that would be -- i don't ever like about who appointed whom because you like to believe in the impartiality of justice and as trump started to point out, oh, the colorado supreme court was all appointed by democrats. it was a 4-3 ruling. they didn't all vote against you, when we talk about how politicized it is, but if you're looking at 9-0, that would sure be a statement. >> right. i do believe it should be and as you'll recall i was an advocate of this decision and i was on a panel with the professor at the university of chicago and the institute of politics discussing this, and i heard his you haves and his scholarship is

excellent. on the other hand, there's -- there are multiple competing scholars who disagree and highlight the point that i just made about the multiple supreme court decisions which are three that do not conclude that the officers in this context include the president or the vice president, and after -- there have been many constitution professors and the most prominent one who after reading the scholarship changed his mind and he was originally a supporter of the outcome and he later concluded despite his strong feelings against trump that trump would have to be beaten at the ballot box, and i think sadly, that's the case, and it will be a race to get there. the supreme court will not hesitate to move quickly to this. they know what the stakes are. they know what their

responsibility is. >> right. >> and they can delay some of these colorado dates to the extent that they feel they're obligated to or have to. >> right. and obviously, his name remains on the ballot until they rule one way or the other and that was out of colorado. you hear the music, ty. that is from trump's rally in waterloo, iowa. he's there and on stage and right now he's basking in the music and the crowd and then he'll obviously speak. now we have this statement, but i think when i just said to david axelrod that a republican in another swing state who were dealing with one of these issues is that this ruling would super charge the extremists. what do you think as he walks out there, is this something he sees as basically a win in a certain sense? >> oh, totally. oh, totally. this vindicates his insistence that this is political

conspiracy to interfere with the election and that he's a target and the people shouldn't tolerate that in america. it's -- it's doo-dah, but that's the way he tries to sell this. the reality is he committed these crimes in 2021. jack smith's only been job for 13 months at most, so this is -- justice has moved relatively speedy. this hasn't been installed to attack the election. >> no. i didn't mean to laugh. i wasn't laughing like it was humorous, but speedy, i suppose by the rules of the law, to so many it doesn't feel that way, but i understand your point the way the law has, it works. ty cobb, thank you very much. as we get more we'll be back with ty and our bring news has crucial question can let mihm

him veto this news. israel reportedly open to a truce in order to free dozens of hostages and it could be a better deal for hamas than of the last one and the reporter who broke that story along with the ambassador to the united states will both be out front.

breaking news. trump just taking the stage in iowa after a stunning ruling in colorado kicking him off of the presidential ballot. his campaign calling it deeply undemocratic. he is speaking there live as you can see in waterloo, iowa, at a gathering and this is a live image and jeff zeleny is out live at trump's rally. we saw him take the stage, and he took quite a while to actually start talking and there was the music and people clapping. do people in the room know what happened? obviously, he's put a statement out. what's the vibe there? >> erin, there's no doubt that people who have been waiting here for the former president for the last several hours have read the news on their iphones. we talkeded to a couple of supporters and this all sort of blends together and one woman told me, yet another court case for trump. he certainly has gained support and has consolidated his

supporters behind him. we will see if he addresses that this evening. he has not yet. he is now focusing on the iowa caucuses. he's urging and calling for a decisive victory. he said a victory on january 15th can put this to bed and send his rivals home, but there is no doubt, his campaign, his advisers and his team are focused squarely on this colorado decision and you mentioned the statement that came out moments ago and let's take a look at that from his campaign. the colorado supreme court issueded a completely flawed decision today and we will swiftly file an appeal to the u.s. supreme court. we have full confidence that the u.s. supreme court will quickly rule in our favor and put an end to this. and we'll appeal that colorado ruling. we have seen that before in different types of rulings. this case is incredibly different and it's about his name being on the ballot and we know his supporters rally to his defense. his advisers expect him to

address it here tonight at his rally in iowa and we will see if he does, but we know his supporters enjoy coming to his defense at moments like this, and i expect it to be the same, erin. >> thank you very much. jeff zeleny, and of course, jeff is there. so if trump says something work sharing we will share it with you. out front, former chief adviser to mitch mcconnell and the editor in chief of "the cook political report." thanks so much to both of you. scott, jeff talking about the reaction in the room and they've seen the news and it seems to blend together for them, but these are the moments they wait for. they wait for and they will come to his defense and it sort of fits with what the republican strategist told me it will super charge the extremists who believe the democracy has been stolen. what do you anticipate? does his fund-raising record go out and does this move the

needle? >> this is jet fuel. every time he's had interaction with the legal system he's seen a boost and he'll be blessed other than chris christie, a bunch of opponents who will wind up praising him anded of doing him as they have in other instances. for the liberal trump haters out there this is like getting drunk at the office christmas party. seemed like a good idea friday night and going to regret it on monday because this validates everything donald trump has been trying to tell the american people which is that there is a whole system at the federal and state level trying to keep me away from the white house and it's rigged and all of the language he uses. >> eyep. >> i'm sure we'll hear it in iowa tonight and i suspect it will take the sails out of the boom like it's going on right now. >> and that's fascinating. amy, to that point, vivek ramaswamy, he wants to get attention on this and he posted on social media, this is what an

actual attack looks like and i plan to withdraw from the colorado gop primary unless trump is also on the state's built. he's going to jump on to get attention in the moment, but the former bush white house press secretary ari fleischer saying who exactly is the threat to democracy? it's democrats. so you're seeing it from different ends of the republican political spectrum is the point i'm making. what do you think and to what scott's saying? does this take the wind out of the nikki haley surge now that trump has this? >> i agree with scott that there's certainly some jet fuel for donald trump in iowa, a state where he already has a commanding lead and the fact that this is happening just less than a month before the iowa caucuses is pretty good timing on that front and you can keep beating this drum into the time

of the voting making it very difficult for ron desantis most especially who is desperate to show some strength in iowa. remember, he's put his entire campaign and put his chips in the middle of the table in iowa and now what everybody is going to be talking about certainly for the immediate future, but could be going all of the way into january and the caucuses is what happened in colorado. one thing i do want to point out, though is the supreme court is likely, as you noted in the show thus far, we don't know when or what they will say, but let's be clear. when we're thinking about the long game, the supreme court is going to have a lot of influence in the 2024 election. on the january 6th defense on the president's legal team and the former president's legal team and presidential immunity, on the mifepristone case and abortion. so the supreme court and other courts are going to be brought in to this election at different times, and i think you're going

to see a surge and decline. who does it interest or invigorate? one case will be democrats and the other republicans. >> so, scott, the numbers as amy mentioned in iowa it is a commanding lead, 58% and he's got a majority of the likely republican voters. in new hampshire he's ahead and in the majority and he has been positioning iowa as the stronger he is there, and he can just be done. he can just be done. so what does he do now to capitalize on this? what does he do tonight on that stage? >> well, i think he tells the people of iowa that everything i've told you is true. and how do you know it's true? because of what we're seeing in the news tonight and the republican party, 70% of the republican party nationally according to all of the polls want me to be the nominee. we need to end the charade right now that this primary is over and give me the momentum to turn this off so we can focus our

efforts on joe biden and that is the message that i would use. biden is out and his principal message for donald trump is that donald trump is the greatest threat to democracy. now trump will tell the republicans who is the bigger threat to democrat dechl see, me or the people keeping me off the ballot? for many reasons this gives him a chance to make iowa into the election? >> could iowa be the end of this election for trump? >> i don't think it could be the end of the election because new hampshire is so different than iowa. there are a lot more voters in new hampshire who want to turn the page from donald trump much more so than those who are sitting in iowa. so i think he can win both and he's ahead in both as we noted, but i think new hampshire is really the place where we'll see whether any of the momentum for a somebody other than trump candidacy which haily is clinging to right now is gone. >> amy, scott, thank you very

much very much on this breaking news. next, breaking news this hour, new reporting that israel is open to a pause in order to free more hostages, but the reporter who broke this story can explain exactly how it's different than last time and the israeli ambassador to the united states will respond next. plus, live pictures of the bott bottleneck at the u.s.-mexican border. 13,000 migrants were apppprehend in the lasast 24 h hours.. we'l'll take youou there to o s up close..

>> breaking news. ceasefire offer. israel saying tonight it will pause fighting in gaza for a

week in exchange for the release of nearly 40 hostages. longtime israeli reporter breaking that news moments ago. he reports it will include the rest of the women hamas is holding and men over 60 in urgent need of medical care. the idf recently breached two tunnels that the hamas leader yahya sinwar was hiding in just before they arrived. i want to go to our political and global affairs analyst. barack, you are breaking this news rid now. what more can you tell us about the details of the ceasefire and how it compares to the last one? >> good evening, erin. this thing happened yesterday in warsaw in a meeting that the director of the cia bill burns was attending with the prime minister of qatar and with the head of the israeli mossad spy agency, and the israelis came to this meeting for the first time with a proposal for how to

re-launch those talks that were not taking place for several weeks since the last ceasefire collapse and israelis came with the proposal that says we're ready for the release of 40 hostages, as you said, the women, the elderly and the sick ones to agree for at least one week of ceasefire and maybe even more, by the way, and also to the smaller staff like more humanitarian aid and other things. the qataris are now taking this proposal to hamas. hamas until now refused to even re-launch talks and for example, the prime minister of qatar told mossad, hamas says they want you to stop the war before they're going back to talk. so the mossad chief told him, if hamas wants us to end the war they need to do two things. first, they need to lay down their arms and second, they need to turn over all those who are responsible for the october 7th attacks and something that hamas

are not going to volunteer. >> barack, when you lay out the terms that you're saying that israel put forth, 40 hostages in exchange for a week pause, that is much better terms than the last time around than the hostages that were released isn't it? >> exactly. the last times israel agreed ta seven-day pause and this is what israel is willing to to to sweeten the deal for hamas that again for the moment refuses to go back to the table, and i think that this is sort of an attempt to sort of shaken up things and put hamas in front of a dilemma. >> all right. barack, thank you very much for these breaking details. as i said, barack ravid breaking the news of the proposed truce as well as all of the details.

so i want to go now to the israeli ambassador to the united states michael herzog, and ambassador, i very much appreciate your time. you heard barack ravid's reporting and you know where the details of the negotiations stands right now. how closer you with a deal with hamas? has there been any response from this proposal yesterday? >> so i'm not going to go into specific details. i will say that israel is willing to give a chance to another deal to release hostages, as many as possible and if that includes a pause in the fighting then israel is willing to go for that. i think it's premature to tell whether or not if we have a deal because until hamas refuse to do another deal they were hoping for a permanent ceasefire, but for what we're doing on the ground, plus the pressure from

the qataris, they would agree to do a deal, but it's premature in this phase. >> they were reporting for a seven-day pause, israel had put forth an offer for hamas to release 40 hostages. the last time there was a seven-day pause there were 80 hostages. can you explain it all and what the logic would be to give the same amount of pause for half the number of hostages? >> so i'm not going to go into details and discuss this in public. i think things better be discussed behind closed doors and we are hopeful. >> it has, of course, been two weeks now since israel first said when we first got news that the idf forces had encircled the hamas leader sinwar's house. they twice reached the tunnels that they believed sinwar was

hiding in before they got there. how close have troops come to yahya sinwar? >> well, sinwar has many homes in gaza across the gaza strip and we believe he's hiding in a deep tunnel, and we hope to get there, as well. as we move along, hamas built over the years a huge complex of underground tunnels for its military purposes, over 500 kilometers and more than the new metro, it's a huge complex. as we go along there's a learning curve and we learn more and more and we understand more and we develop more methods to destroy this tunnel system and we believe that sooner or later we'll also get to sinwar. >> are you sure? you believe he's hiding in a deep tunnel. it sounds like you're sure from your intelligence, ambassador, that sinwar is still indeed in gaza? >> we believe he is.

>> and if you capture and kill him, does that mark the end of the war as you see it? >> i believe it will shorten the war. we have to destroy the military capabilities. their military infrastructure. we have to remove the threat. israel is not going to live again with that kind of threat in the neighborhood given the events of october 7th. so it's not only about the leadership, but it's also about the leadership that is an important component of the picture and if you get the leadership, i think it will shorten the war. >> ambassador prime minister netanyahu met with family members of some of the hostages. obviously, this has all taken on even more horrible context after the idf shot and killed three israeli hostages. they were shirtless and waving an improvised white flag. one of them was not hit initially and the other two were killed, of course, and the one who was not hit ran to seek

refuge and still ended up being shot and ilckilled by the idf. i know it said it violated the rules of engagement and ariel bernstein spoke to the newspaper "el pais," he said that anyone in the combat zone is a terrorist, and i wanted to give you a chance, mr. ambassador, to respond to that because the chain of events is currently known and put out by the idf do seem to indicate that the idf troops did do what they intended to do in this situation. >> i take issue with the contention that the idf's eyes that everyone in the war zone is a terrorist. these are very complicated situations for our soldiers and as the chief of staff of the idf said publicly, this was a violation of the rules of the idf. i was in uniform for many, many years. it does not represent the rules and the values of the idf.

it was a tragic mistake, a tragic mistake that we will mourn, but that is not representative of the rules of the idf and its general conduct. people are -- you have young soldiers endangering their lives fighting terrorists. these are very complicated situations, and i think we should not judge from far away. at the same time this was a tragic mistake which is being investigated, and i say again and again, it does not represent the rules of the idf. >> ambassador herzog, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you very much. next, we have live pictures from the u.s.-mexico border. mieg migrants there are holed up in a border crossing. what is behind the incredible surge of humanity that we are seeing right now. our rosa flooreres is there.

lava, toxic gas now spewing into the air and our fred p pleitgens at that t volcano lilive.

. tonight, immigration showdown. texas governor greg abbott now being sued over his new law giving local police the power to arrest migrants and send them to mexico. the federal lawsuit filed as there's a major surge at the

u.s. southern border. cnn learning tonight that nearly 13,000 migrants have been apprehended in the past 24 hours. that's an 80% increase from last week. and these numbers, no matter how you look at it, relatively or absolutely, are enormous. r rosa, you have been there these past few hours. what is happening now? >> reporter: well, thousands of migrants are waiting to be transported for immigration processing. but let me set the tone here, erin, because really what is happening in eagle pass, texas, right now, this is the epicenter of the broken federal immigration system colliding with a state, the state of texas, wanting to take matters into its own hands. look over my shoulder, and you'll see there are thousands of migrants here. i can see women, children, men. and right now what you're looking at is a federal issue. the federal government has to

process these migrants, hold these migrants. but governor greg abbott has just signed sb-4. this creates a new crime for illegal entry into the state of texas. and what you're looking at could become a state issue. now, this law is expected to go into effect in march. but as you mentioned, erin, it is already caught in a legal battle. we'll see what happens there. but local communities are very concerned about this becoming a state issue. why? i talked to the local sheriff. he says his deputies are not trained in immigration law, and he says his jails don't have room to jail all of the people that you see behind me. >> where are we going to put them? we don't have the space in my jail. we have to take them somewhere else. >> reporter: now, erin, this sb-4 law does not have monies for local governments, for police training. that's one concern. now, back to the lawsuit,

governor greg abbott issuing a statement, saying that this law is constitutional and that he plans to fight it all the way to the u.s. supreme court. >> court's going to be busy. so why are all the people behind you outside, rosa? obviously it looks very improvised in terms of the red netting or the orange netting that they have up to sort of even create lines. >> reporter: and the easy answer is that border patrol is overwhelmed. right now there's about 23,000 migrants in border patrol custody. that doesn't include all the migrants you see behind me. the holding capacity for border patrol is actually 10,000, so think about that. there's already 23,000 people in custody. so why this backup and this bottleneck? there's a few reasons. of course there's flow, capacity, and also the biden administration is trying to impose legal consequences to illegal entry. erin. >> rosa, thank you very much, in eagle pass tonight. next, iceland. we're going to take you live there. the major eruptionon is still taking p place, and d our r fre

pleieitgen is riright near t th volclcano. hehe's next.

you're looking at live pictures of the volcanic eruption in iceland. at one point, lava was spewing at a rate that would fill an olympic pool in 20 seconds according to live science. fred pleitgen is there. he's outfront in grindavik, iceland, which is less than a mile from the eruption. >> reporter: the arctic night illuminated as the earth breaks apart from the fissure bursts its molten core. weeks of earthquakes led to this display of our planet's fire and force. >> following a volcanic eruption, there's always high levels of toxic gases. the big concern in iceland now is the distribution of this with the wind. >> reporter: it's never possible to say exactly when or if a volcano like this one near the town of grindavik will erupt. officials took no chances, though, evacuating the population after weeks of

tremors. thousands of shakes were felt in november, and all knew what they could bring. thankfully, none were in grindavik town when the volcano, around two miles away, finally did erupt. this crack in the surface of our world, close to four kilometers or more than two miles long, spewing lava. this is as close as the authorities are going to let us to the volcanic eruption in the southwest of iceland. it's a so-called fissure eruption. that means an eruption along a crack that can be several miles long rather than on a volcanic cone. now, one of the good things about these eruptions is that actually usually they don't spew ash into the atmosphere very high, which can -- it has in the past -- disrupt air travel internationally. in a place like iceland, that can have massive effects. previous eruptions in iceland have lasted weeks or even months. >> unfortunately for the inhabitants of grindavik, it's impossible to say how long this

will last. >> reporter: in the town of grindavik, the earthquake damage is clear. the lava may follow. >> if this activity goes on, then the big question is will grindavik be inhabitable in the long run? >> reporter: whether people can ever move back here depends on a new set of geological circumstances being created right now. and those geological circumstances, erin, is one of the things many icelanders are talking about right now. they say this area of iceland was dormant for about 800 years. but now in the past two years, you've had four volcanic eruptions here, none of them nearly the size of the one going on right now. the authorities believe that volcanic eruption could continue for weeks, possibly even for months, erin. >> an incredible thing that you get to witness, fred. thank you so much. and thanks so much to all of you for being with us. "ac 360" starts now.