believe. i agree with neal, and the supreme court just might say we are not going to touch this, but i agree with lisa, if they do decide to touch this, they will be the reason why donald trump does not get tried before the election. as for the hush-money case, all of the acts in the indictment occurred in 2017, which was during his presidency, so that's where that presidential immunity defense will come up. >> thank you all so much. obviously much more to come in our special coverage with josé diaz-balart who picks it up right now. good morning, 11:00 a.m. eastern, and 8:00 a.m. pacific. we begin this hour with the breaking news at this hour, and the d.c. appeals court denies trump immunity claims.

joining us to break this down, andrew weissman, an nbc news contributor. what are the top lines of the ruling, the 57-page ruling that has a lot of information in it. >> good morning, josé. it sure does. this is an unsigned ruling by a three-judge panel of two, appointed by democrats and one appointed by a republican. a unanimous ruling that rejected trump's arguments about why he should be immune as acts of a president. and quoted from an 1882 supreme court decision that says all officers from the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and bound to obey it. and the judges added it would be a striking paradox that the

president with the duty to take care the laws be faithfully executed is the sole officer of defying those laws with impunity. the opinion makes clear other presidents assumed they could be prosecuted, and therefore ford pardoned nixon for the watergate crimes after leaving office, and this is the first time a court has ever rendered this kind of ruling because there has never been a former president that has been indicted before or been able to make these sweeping claims of immunity. this court has rejected them. now the question will be, of course, mr. trump will be appealing to the supreme court, and the question will be does the supreme court take this case? if it doesn't, we can see a trial in this election suppression case rather quickly, as soon as may. if the supreme court agrees to take the case, it could delay it more. and it's worth engaging with

donald trump's response this morning. mr. trump said if a president -- in a statement he said if a president is not immune, as soon as he leaves office he will be prosecuted by his opponents, and that's more places where the branches are ripe with corruption. the justice department was reluck opportunity to pursue this case initially, and it was after the january 6th committee confronted the american public with overwhelming evidence that a special council was appointed and mr. trump was indicted. there's nothing political about what jack smith investigated or charged here, and nevertheless that's mr. trump's claim, josé. >> so for trump and his team,

how does it go? he can request the onblanc opinion, and it's hard to imagine they don't go in that direction and say take it up with the supreme court. we have heard several legal experts say this morning they don't believe the supreme court will take the case. that's one possibility. the other possibility is they agree to hear it and that will delay this case going to trial, and it doesn't mean it wouldn't go to trial at some point this year, josé. >> what stands out to you the most -- i am reading as we read through it, and ken was referring to this. the appeals court rejected all of the former president's legal perspectives and what he and his team claim and the four motions to dismiss the indictment, and all four rejected. >> i have two thoughts.

one is substantive and one is the procedure what is going to happen going forward. substantively this is a unanimous body blow to each and every one of donald trump's arguments. it's a huge victory for the government and completely vindicates judge chutkan and her ruling, and it affirms it in every way shape and form. the court calls donald trump's arguments irrational. a brief quote for you, he said at bottom, this is the court's opinion, at bottom, former president's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. it describes the president's position as saying that a former president would be free to commit all manner of crimes with impunity, and it fundamentally

rejects that in every single way. now turning to what can happen next, the court gives essentially donald trump one week and one week only to go to the supreme court. it says that it will issue its mandate, and that is sort of handing the ball back to judge chutkan at the end of february 12th, so basically the morning of february 13th, a week from today. the only way it will not do that is if essentially one of two things has to happen, that a filing is made in the supreme court seeking review, which is by no means clear that that is going to be taken because this is such a resounding victory in every way, but that's something donald trump can do, he can seek to have this heard by the supreme court, but the supreme court does not have to take it. the other way in which donald trump could try and stay this is

by seeking the d.c. circuit itself to rehear this, but the court says on that, there's no automatic stay that the mandate will still issue even if donald trump seeks that unless and until the d.c. circuit says no, don't do that, and eventually what they are telling donald trump is don't look to the d.c. circuit for assistance in staying this case, you really have to go to the supreme court. all eyes right now should be on a filing that donald trump will certainly make in the next week, asking for supreme court review and what the supreme court does, because it's quite possible they reject that quickly, and this case will be back on before judge chutkan. >> if the supreme court does, indeed, in one way or another say we are not going to deal with it, it's back to it, what, andrew, this would mean is that,

indeed, this is what takes effect, and everything goes forward in d.c.? does it have, andrew, an impact on any of the courts, and in georgia he's claiming some of the same things he claimed here in d.c.? >> it won't have an affect on the manhattan case or the mar-a-lago florida case. why? because those are charges that are either before donald trump was president or after donald trump was president, so this whole claim of immunity doesn't apply because the conduct is not for anything that was something he did while he was president. you are right, with respect to georgia this decision knocks that out as well, saying there is no presidential immunity for criminal conduct, and it could not be more resounding in its language.

it also, as you have noted on page 39 and 40 of the decision, makes clear the court's view of the charges here about the president being charged with undermining fundamental democratic processes and values. in short it says these are allegations and remain to be proved but it's clear if they are proved it views this as the most serious criminal conduct one could imagine anyone engaging in, let alone a former president of the united states. >> rebecca, i mean, in this very detailed description, the court -- the appeals court goes into case law after case law and specifically issues that dealt with the separation of powers, and what does it signal, rebecca, saying that the decision was unanimous? >> it's an important signal and

it's a signal that reaffirms this notion that the criminal justice system is not in the hands of the administration or the current, you know, democratic or political control, and the judges and the judicial system, the same. essentially it's a battle between two different visions, trump's vision where he can control the prosecutors that worked for him, and they do what he wants them to do, and the judicial system is run by either democrats or republicans and do what is in the interest of their political party than this court, and prosecutors have been affirming our country works in a different way, and we have an independent judicial system and independent prosecution system that follows the law. in this situation, you have the court voting for its view opposed to the former president's view. the strongest argument is what

will happen if a former president steps down, and the way the court rejected that argument was to say, first of all, we have things built in to prevent that from happening. second of all, it's not politically motivated. i think that's an important message to take out of this opinion. >> andrew, there is more than just one specific case, you know, focusing on one specific individual. this is a truly consequential statement and decision by this court of appeals. >> absolutely. because, yes, it's dealing with the circumstances that have risen with respect to donald trump, but it's fundamentally saying no person is above the law no matter how high they have risen in the political sphere up to and including the president of the united states, and so for all-time, whether it's for donald trump or president biden

or any future holder of that office, it's saying you have to comply with the criminal laws and you can be held to account. it is a bedrock principle. it remarkably has never been decided by the supreme court, and that is because we never have been in a situation where any president or senior official thought to raise as a possibility, but it's, i think, an important precedent for our country in terms of what the rule of law stands for, and it does bring us back to our founding fundamental principles in this country about the rule of law, the fact that we do not have kings and queens, that we are a nation of laws. that also means that because we are a nation of laws that donald trump, like anybody else, as is stated in this opinion, is now a

citizen and is entitled to all of the rights of a criminal defendant in defending himself against these charges, but the main thing that we are all going to be waiting for is what the supreme court does here because in order for that to occur, the case has to be back before judge chutkan. the earliest that would be is, you know, a week from now we will have certainly the filings by donald trump seeking to appeal this to the supreme court, and that could take a week or so for the court, maybe longer, to decide. if they decide against that in a matter of let's say two weeks or so this case could be green lit and back before judge chutkan, so you could have a trial date at the end of april going forward on this, the most important of the four criminal cases against donald trump. >> i am just going to quote what

you are referring to in this ruling, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump. any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. rebecca, it's such an important, you know, 57-page decision that they released today. i am wondering, these four motions that the former president and his team brought forth asking to dismiss the indictment, and for folks watching at home, it's absolutely about blanket immunity, and the four motions all of which were rejected, rebecca, if you can give us more of a layman's understanding of what they are referring to. one presidential immunity, two constitutional provisions including impeachment, judgment claws and principles stemming

from the double jeopardy clause, and selective and vindictive prosecution. they are all different, and part of one, i guess, four-pronged approach that the trump team had on this. just for layman's terms, can you describe these? >> i think the importance is the various different arguments that were made, and that multiple arguments make it such that there could potentially be a situation in which the supreme court could accept some of those, reject some of those, send it back down to the district court to revisit some of those questions, and by addressing each one of these separate arguments distinctly, what the district court and aappellant court has done is make it hard for that to happen, because it's so thorough and addresses each argument separately and some of them

based on the language of the constitution and some based on the broader understanding and some more stat based, and if the supreme court grants the stay they will decide it on an expedited basis, and if the supreme court agrees with the appellant court on some level in a timely fashion such that the prosecution could go forward. >> thank you so much for being with us on this morning. up next, we will talk about the politics surrounding the d.c. court of appeals ruling that former president trump is not immune from january 6th prosecution. plus, our other breaking story. president biden is due to speak soon from the white house to urge congress to pass

legislation that includes border funding as senate republicans threaten to sink the new bipartisan deal. you are watching "josé diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt.

it's 17 past the hour. we are following breaking news this hour. an appeals court ruled this morning that former president donald trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged criminal acts he committed as president in trying to overturn the 2020 election. it took minutes for the trump campaign to put out a statement crying foul over the decision and vowing to appeal. vaughn hillyard joins us from las vegas, and lisa ruben, and a republican strategist. what is trump team saying? >> we have a statement here in the last few minutes from the team, in which they write if immunity is not granted for a president every future president that leaves office will be

immediately indicted by the opposing party. trump respectfully disagrees with the d.c.'s circuit decision and will appeal it to safeguard the constitution. they give them one week to request the supreme court hear their appeal, and of course, this puts the timeline of the federal election interference case up in the air here, and we are talking about a potential decision if the court were to take it up, and judge chutkan said with the stay in place both sides will be granted the full amount of time to prepare for the case, and with the stay in place that furthers the delay, putting it in jeopardy if the supreme court were to take up the appeal, would it come before the election. and the ramifications of that would be extensive, and if the

hush-money payment trial in new york were to go forward, those are state charges and donald trump could not pardon himself. when you are looking at this politically for donald trump, winning the white house is paramount to him, and we in our new nbc news polling here, there's a clear indication that the american electorate looks at donald trump differently if he were to have a felony conviction next to his name. the head to head match-up to joe biden shows donald trump with the five-point lead nationally, and if he was to be convicted it shows a seven point swing and biden would beat trump by two percentage points. politically for him being able to avoid this criminal prosecution and potential

criminal conviction on the felony counts would be key to his electoral success, josé. >> let's talk about the potential scheduling of this and what it would mean, vis-a-vis the supreme court, whether they decide to take it or not. if they decide to take it, what is that process like? >> if the supreme court does decide to take this case, josé, the question is really when? the supreme court has a lot of latitude. in the ordinary course without expedited briefing trump would usually have 90 days to file a petition, and according to this court, they will only stay the mandate, meaning not send the case back to judge chutkan for further proceedings, if and only if donald trump finds that cert petition by february 12th, and they are trying to avoid his

gamesmanship. things could move fast, and they could require a reply from jack smith, and then decide to send the case back to judge chutkan. on the other hand they could hold on to the decision to even hear the case for weeks if not months on end and decide as politico wrote about last week, that they don't even want to hear the case until next term, and that would guarantee that this trial does not happen before the november 2024 election. josé, a lot is up in the air right now with respect to timing. again, the d.c. circuit doing its part to say we are not going to be a party to holding this off for you. if you want to appeal, you do it by monday. >> lisa, so the whole decision of the lawn blanc court of

appeals, it's in the hands of the appeals court? >> the appeals court issued an order today along with its opinion, and it's telling donald trump you can see en blanc review, and that means getting a hearing from the full panel of d.c. judges, but if you do that, we will not stay the mandate. the mandate is what issues and allows lower court proceedings to continue, and if instead you go directly to the supreme court, we will stay our mandate and there by preclude judge chutkan from proceeding until -- >> that's a fascinating aspect of it, decide to do one thing or the other with deep implications

with what each of those choices will have. how do you think this will play out on the campaign trail? >> i think donald trump is made it to the forefront of his political campaign. let's be clear. none of these legal issues has he run from, and he talks about them as if he is a legal analyst himself from the campaign stage, and the 14th amendment is what his lawyers will argue that colorado is wrong and the court should order his name should be able to appear on the constitutional ballot, and donald trump openly suggested his own concern that the three justices that he nominated to the supreme court could even try and potentially rule against him to seem politically fair. donald trump is somebody not publicly suggested as having great confidence in, despite its

conservative tilt. he just one year ago blasted him a year ago when they ordered to turn over tax returns to a congressional house committee, and so for donald trump he realizes he has control of his political future on the campaign trail in winning over a jury of voters, but when it comes to within the courts, not only juries for the trials to come, the stakes are much higher because he has less actual control over the legal consequences and the legal decisions coming out of the courts compared to those that the voters are making politically around the country. >> amy, voters are, in your state, are actually voting today. does this ruling have any impact on trump's candidacy? >> ironically enough, the nevada republican party, who actually has six indicted individuals

that spearhead our caucus in two days from now, and that includes our state party chair for being a fake elector, they actually threatened the candidates and said you are not allowed to participate in our state mandated primary and the nevada republican caucus, so today we're actually going to the polls and donald trump will not be an option. we will have nikki haley and then maybe a few others that really have not polled at all. we have our own problems here. it's due to the fact that you have these complete trump dots that have taken over our state party, and not only do we have fake electors that have been indicted, and we also -- it was well documented, and we were invited to an event to get ready

in preparation for the election at mar-a-lago, and they are on the record and say participate in our caucus so we can give donald trump all 26 delegates, even though there's still another individual participating in the caucus. it's incredible to watch, really, unfold. i find it quite embarrassing. even with this situation today, you have people out there that believe at every turn there is some type of political persecution being thrown at donald trump, and he's done an excellent job of making sure his followers also believe they are victims. his email fundraising blast that went out last night was titled i am your retribution. he's making sure with every hearing and every trial and every decision and every indictment, there's no personal

responsibility or personal accountability, it's somebody else's fault and he wants to make sure his followers will follow him to the edge of a cliff. >> amy, i just -- on the issue of the primary, and then the caucus two days later, how did your stake in that party get to where it is today? >> that's an excellent question. i don't think it has happened overnight. you know, the secretary of state is following our laws. in 2021 we actually switched from a caucus state to a primary, and we have all mail-in ballots and we have what is called ballot harvesting, and those are new areas to the election system, and the secretary of state has done an excellent job to make sure he's revamping areas that need to be updated and making sure everything is safe and secure, and you can track your ballot from start to finish, and yet the nevada republican party chair at that time posted on

social media that he, too, was in favor of a primary because the caucus system is too confusing. we are 24/7 economy out here, and it doesn't work well for our voters, and no matter what, this whole thing is basically a pro trump caucus scheme. >> thank you so very much. appreciate it. still ahead, we are keeping our eyes on the white house where biden is urging congress to pass a bipartisan deal in the senate to address the border while sending funding to ukraine, israel and taiwan. we will ask senator murphy what is in the bill and what is not. you are watching "josé diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response.

most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. i'll be honest. by the end of the day, my floors...yeesh. but who has the time to clean? that's why i love my swiffer wetjet. it's a quick and easy way to get my floors clean. wetjet absorbs and locks grime deep inside. look at that! swiffer wetjet. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. delicious too. just ask my old friend, kevin. nothing like enjoying a cold one while watching the game. who's winning? we are, my friend. we are. always dry scoop before you run. the hot dog diet got me shredded! the world is full of "health experts"... it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with b vitamins to help convert food into fuel. science that matters.

is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution

that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

33 past the hour. the d.c. appeals court ruled trump is not immune. the bipartisan bill aimed at dealing with the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, and we are keeping a close eye on the white house where president biden is expected to speak about the bill. that bill appears to be on life support in the senate after republicans predicted their party would not provide enough votes to move forward with the bill earlier this week.

a short time ago house speaker, mike johnson, had this to say about the legislation when he declared it dead on arrival at the house. >> we have immigration provisions, and it's not a border security bill and doesn't do anything of the sort, and after careful and thoughtful review of this, if those provisions become law it could make the situation worse. >> this comes as a republican-led house is set to vote later today on articles of impeachment against mayorkas, and he will be the first cabinet secretary in nearly 150 years to be impeached. and joining us, kelly o'donnell and ryan. >> these are remarks added to the president's schedule, so it gives you a sense of the urgency, and the president want to go weigh in on this

supplemental, which, of course, addresses matters related to immigration and the border, and also funding for israel, ukraine, taiwan. key priorities for this white house. expect frustration from the president who believes that his team, along with the bipartisan group of lawmakers, have been negotiating in good faith for weeks now, and this began before the new year, trying to come up with a package that would address some of the issues and the president has been more forthcoming in terms of acknowledgment about problems at the border, failures there, and a crisis in certain respect with the flow of migrants coming over in numbers that are too great, and also trying to address that. so from the biden perspective, he's moving toward the right on this issue in order to try and get a deal, but a deal does not seem to be in the offering based on the kind of responses we have seen on capitol hill from republicans. for the president this is an

opportunity to make the case not only on the immigration issue but on the other important national security provisions as well. josé? >> ryan, you have republicans, some democrats opposed to the bill. where do things go from here? >> probably nowhere, josé. at least that seems to be the trajectory of this piece of legislation. the senate majority leader schumer spoke moments ago from the house floor and said he still plans to push a vote, and this would continue the debate around the bill. the negotiators said it does not have to be the final product, and they could add amendments and there seems to be a real resistance to go down the road, and it seems in many respect we are done talking about the specifics of the policy here. it's become such a political

issue now that republicans decided they will surrender the conversations about substantive conversation until the election. one of the highest ranking republicans said this should be put in the hands of voters for november, and that's kind of a different perspective when you consider that republicans have been saying for months and maybe even years that the crisis at the border needed to be dealt with immediately. this is, you know, not a very good prospect for this piece of legislation. there doesn't appear to be an opportunity for minds to be changed, and if anything they have hardened in the past 24 hours, josé. >> turning to the impeachment effort towards secretary mayorkas, how does that look? >> this is going to be a very close vote, josé. there's no guarantee that republicans will have the votes necessary to impeach the homeland security secretary, as you point out, the first cabinet secretary to be impeached in 150

years. the margins are so incredibly tight. it depends on who shows up today, but we believe republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still win this impeachment article vote. we know two republicans that put out a ten-page memo saying he is opposed to the impeachment proceedings, and there's three or four more republicans that have not specifically stated their intentions, and it's one of the situations where we will count the votes as they come down to see if it happens. it's important to point out, even if does pass the house, it's going nowhere in the senate where it would require a super majority in order to convict secretary mayorkas, and that's something democrats have no appetite for. >> with us now to continue our conversation, connecticut senator, chris murphy, that helped to negotiate the

bipartisan border bill. thank you for being with us this morning. it's important we get to dissect with you issues on the bill, and i would want to get your take on the appeals court rejecting former president trump's reports that he's immune. >> it sounds like a common sense ruling to me. presidents of the united states don't get to be immune to the laws of the nation, and that would be a free pass for presidents to commit all sorts of heinous crimes, but in particular the crime of trying to overturn our democracy. we are a nation of laws, and there's nobody exempt from the laws. it's an expected ruling, and i hope if it makes it up to the supreme court, it would be a 9-0 ruling there. it's important to our democracy in the future to preserving our democracy. >> senator, i want to turn now

to the border bill. president biden is expected to speak on the legislation any minute now. what do you want to hear from the president? >> listen, i know what i am going to hear from the president. i will hear him talk about how serious he is about fixing the border crisis, and that will only happen if we pass legislation to fix a border. right now it takes ten years for somebody to get their asylum claim process, and many are rejected and that's not fair for people to be here that long if they don't have a legitimate asylum claim. none of that will happen because republicans decided yesterday and today that they want to preserve chaos at the border. donald trump said do not pass any bipartisan legislation, because chaos at the border is good for me in my upcoming election. that's the decision republicans have made. that's heartbreaking to me as the lead negotiator having spent

the last four months every single day, every saturday and every sunday trying to craft a bipartisan compromise, and it's also heartbreaking to the american people that don't see immigration as a constant political issue to be fought over. they want there to be a solution and the two parties to come together, and the republican party has made it clear, they do not want to secure the border or fix the problem with immigration but keep it open as a political sore. that's bad for the country. >> senator, i'm interested in your description of what is going on at the border. you call it chaos at the border. you co wrote this 370-page piece of legislation to deal, among other things, specifically with what you describe as chaos at the border. lot of people are commenting on it, and i would venture to guess those commenting on it have not read the entirety of the bill. what, if i could with you, let's dissect a little bit of it.

some republicans say the border will only be shutdown after 5,000 people arrive every day for seven days. they are saying if there's less than 5,000 the chaos would continue. what specifically does this trigger mechanism call for in this bill? >> well, listen, i think this bill first and foremost speaks to where the vast majority of americans are on the question of immigration. people in this country don't want to shut off the ability for people to come to the united states, but they want it to happen in a more orderly manner. the people i represent in blue and red states, they are proud of the fact that the united states does help rescue people from violence, terror and torture. but when 10,000 people are crossing every day, we don't have the resources to process all of the people. this bill says on those days where there are way too many people presenting for asylum, you can shutdown asylum in between the ports of entry where it's hard to process people in an orderly way.

the bill also allows for different legal pathways to come to the united states by expanding visas so the asylum system is not the only way to come to the united states, and it fixes the system so the claims are decided in a matter of months and not in a matter of years. you don't have that many people show up at the border if they know their invalid claim is going to be decided in a matter of months. it's a comprehensive set of reforms that will give the president exceptional emergency powers, that had the sign off of one of the more conservative republicans. >> senator, does this fix the asylum system, or as some are claiming, does it essentially eliminate the asylum system in

our country? >> so there is no day in which the entire asylum system is shutdown. we know it's dangerous for people to cross the border in the desert, in between the ports of entry. what the bill does is say we will set up a process by which people are encouraged and funneled to present for asylum at the ports of entry, right, at places where you can safely manage the flow of individuals into the asylum system. then it's going to create a much faster ajude indication system, a fair ajude indication system. >> senator, if president biden, who supports this bill, and we are waiting to hear from him any minute now, and this is what he had to say yesterday about a specific aspect, dreamers.

>> one thing i am disappointed in that we didn't get done in the senate is i think it's about time that we have all those young people that came and now are dreamers. it's ridiculous. can you imagine you are four years old and your mom is crossing, no, mom, leave me here, i don't want to go. come on, what is going on here? they are contributing to america and doing good jobs, decent -- >> senator, if i could quote the president again, what the hell is going on here, vis-a-vis the dreamers, and is there anything in the bill for the dreamers, is there anything for the 11 million undocumented immigrants that have been here for decades with u.s.-born children, anything in there for them? >> i agree with president biden that it's unacceptable that you cannot get any republican support for a pathway to

citizenship for undocumented americans or any protection for these dreamers, these kids who came to the country when they were, one, two, three years old, and who are americans in every way, shape and form, and are risk of deportation if donald trump becomes president. we fought hard to get negotiations for dreamers, and then republicans at every step of the way told us they would not give us a single vote for these protections for dreamers, if they were ultimately in the final bill. we did get important protections for migrants in the bill, additional rights for counsel, and early work permits, but republicans is a problem we will have to deal with with the dreamers for a long time. >> there are more than 5 million people that live in a mixed immigration status home, and are those people also not dealt with

at all? >> right now we cannot find any republican support to deal with all of these americans who are living in the shadows, who are working in our communities, whose kids go to our schools, and they deserve a pathway to be able to apply to stay in the united states. this long has been a priority for most of the folks i represent, and most americans support that pathway but donald trump doesn't, and right now donald trump controls the republican party, so any progress for dreamers or undocumented americans appears to be on hold while donald trump controls every part of the republican party. >> what about the 6 million plus migrants that arrived and requested asylum and gone through the system and have been accepted into the country while their asylum requests are being handled, which could take, as you said, who knows how long,

and what about them in this bill? >> this bill only applies individuals who after its passage arrives at the border, the new asylum system is prospective, and those already hear will have their hearings in the new system. >> senator, your thoughts on this as someone who has deep, profound experience and passion and compassion for these issues, and i am just wondering, senator, when you look at what our political discourse is like these days, and i'm thinking last comprehensive immigration reform was 1986 when reagan was president, and there had been some profoundly significant

efforts to change our immigration system, the gang of 2013, and i am thinking 2010, i am thinking of dreamers and efforts under george w. bush and barack obama, to have something and yet it has all gone to -- it has not happened. is it over? is this just -- there will never be anything that will deal with what you call chaos in many ways? >> it can't be over. listen, it's chaotic when you have 10,000 the united states of america, why there aren't 10,000 people lined up to come to any other country in the world. it is because this is a great country. for all of our faults, for all of our flaws, this is still a place where people want to come. but it is also because it's in our dna for people to come here who are fleeing persecution and violence and destitutdestitutio.

we cannot give up. it represents the best of who the country is. republicans in the past have understood that. there have always been demagogues in the republican parbut they saw this. all the republican party is is a group of nativists who want to shut down america's history and tradition of immigration. that's dangerous for this country. but it doesn't mean our fight is done. we have to go out and win this fight in this election on behalf of the best traditions of this country, which, of course, involve a robust asylum system and an ability for people to come here to seek a better life. >> i can't thank you enough for being with us this morning. there's so many questions i had for you. i hope you come back soon.

there are still a lot of other questions that i have for you. i profoundly thank you for being with us this morning. >> thanks a lot. we are moments away from president biden urging congress to pass that bipartisan border security bill that the senator has been working so hard on, among others. we will take you there live. reaction to the appeals court ruling that former president trump is not immune to charges in his election interference case. you are watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. n. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add a new footlong sidekick. like the ultimate bmt with the new footlong pretzel. nothing like a sidekick that steps up in crunch time. [laughing] not cool man. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick.

growing up, my parents wanted me to become

a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

56 past the hour. back to our top story. a d.c. appeals court rejected former president trump's claim that he is immune from criminal charges in his federal election interference case. joining us now laura jarrett. great to see you. this decision was unanimous in its rejection of trump's four motions to dismiss, which is the most significant one? i think we are having audio problems with laura. can you hear me? i don't think she can hear me. what we're going to do is try to establish communication with laura. it's important she can give us her take and her analysis of what this is. laura, i understand that now we can hear each other, which i'm eternally grateful for.

>> of course. >> thanks. there was a complete rejection by the appeals court to the trump team's four motions to dismiss. what do you think is the most significant one of these as far as what the court said? >> jose, the issue of immunity, i think, is the thing that you want to focus on the most. if, in fact, the court had found that he was immune, completely shielded from prosecution, then the entire case against him as it results to his efforts to overturn the last election, jose, it would have all gone away. you saw the three-judge panel in washington very skeptical of his claims. that's why many wondered what was taking them so long to reach this result. usually, they take months and months. this one we thought we might see it sooner than the four weeks it has taken to reach this decision, because they seemed so skeptical of the claims. jose, the timing piece of this is really, really important

here. they have given the former president only a week to go up to the supreme court, if he wants to appeal this, which we assume he will, they given him a week to do so. that's because they are mindful of the clock as well, knowing that judge chutkan has wiped out the march trial date, they probably want to make sure it doesn't slip further, if, in fact, the supreme court decides to take this up. they can sit on it as long as they want. they want to guard against the idea of the former president's ability to drag his feet on this. >> the options for the trump team are going right to the supreme court in under a week, right? >> yeah. >> or asking for -- >> they have made clear if he tried to go to the full d.c. circuit, then in that case, it doesn't stay all of the proceedings. the only thing that will freeze everything is to go to the supreme court. if he goes to the full d.c. circuit, this case will go back down to judge chutkan, the lower

trial court, by february 12. he has no incentive to do that. they have taken that off the table as a strategic move for him. >> laura jarrett, thank you very much. i'm glad i can listen to you. appreciate that. >> any time. thanks. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. you can reach me on social media @jdbalart. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," immunity denied. in an historic move, the d.c. court of appeals unanimously ruled former president trump does not have immunity against criminal prosecution or charge charge he tried to overturn the election. >>