on the ability of the government to remove all asylum seekers haven't changed. people still have a right to seek asylum, but it's worth noting president trump as well his administration released hundreds of thousands of migrants on the border in 2018 and 2019 when they saw similar operational limitations and the situation has evolved dramatically since then with people coming further abroad. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> and that is "all in" on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now good evening, alex. >> we're going to have legal on from aclu to talk about that and whether there might be a lawsuit coming down the pike for the biden administration. it is a quickly moving storm on

that. thank you, my friend. today has been a lesson how every accusation from the republican party these days is really actually a confession. >> are you weaponizing the house the same way you say the democrats were weaponizing the doj to get what they wanted? are you just doing it on a bigger platform from the entire house of representatives? >> no, there's a very clear distinction in what we're doing and what they are doing. what we're doing, neil, is the opposite. we're trying to adhere to the rule of law. >> that was republican speaker of the house mike johnson this afternoon saying the republican party is just trying to adhere to the rule of law. now, a few hours before that interview speaker johnson made a huge decision, which shows that is plainly not true. one of the most important things johnson does is decide who from his party sits on house

committees. and among the most important committees for the rule of law in this country is the house intelligence committee. today speaker johnson appointed far-right congressman scott perry and far-right congressman ronny jackson to the two open on seats on that committee. and when i say this decision flies in the face of the rule of law it is not only because both perry and jackson are big time election deniers, they most certainly are. but there are also the individual actions these two particular congressmen have taken that demonstrate just how little respect they have for the rule of law and for the institution of democracy on whole. congressman scott perry had a very significant role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. he was the congressman who tried to get trump's chief of staff, mark meadows, to investigate the conspiracy theory that italian satellites were swapping out trump votes for biden votes. he was the congressman who met

with mark meadows right before mark meadows literally set fire to papers in the white house office. he was the congressman who introduced an obscure justice department employee named jeffrey clark to president trump in an effort to get president trump to appoint the very malleable mr. clark as attorney general and to help steal the 2020 election. trump ultimately did appoint jeffrey clark to serve as attorney general for one hot second, by the way. we know that now. congressman perry was also one of the people president trump talked with about going to the capitol on january 6th. and he was one of the people who asked president trump for a preemptive pardon after january 6th. and then when the house january 6th committee subpoenaed congressman perry to ask him about all of the above, perry refused to comply. but, wait, there's more. then last year the fbi seized congressman perry's cellphone as part of the special counsel's investigation into the attempts

to overturn the 2020 election. to this day congressman scott perry is in an ongoing lawsuit against the department of justice trying to keep the doj from using the information on his phone. but rule of law. rule of law here, folks. this guy, he's one of the guys speaker johnson believes should be overseeing the fbi. then there's the other guy, congressman ronny jackson. he was the white house physician under president trump. do you remember him? he was the one putting out those glowing statements about how healthy president trump was and how he just might live to be 200 years old. ronny jackson is far right from texas who pushes conspiracy theories and says fellow doctor anthony fauci belongs in jail. here was congressman jackson responding to trump's guilty verdict last week. >> president biden should be

ready because on january 20th of next year when he's former president joe biden and what's good for the goose is good for gander, and i'm going to encourage all my colleagues and anybody i have any influence over as a member of congress to aggressively go after the president and his entire family. >> subtle. these are the guys -- these are the guys speaker johnson is giving a seat on the committee that oversees our nation's intelligence agencies. one congressman who is not only actively involved in a plot to overturn the 2020 election but is actively refusing to cooperate with law enforcement about all of it. and another congressman who last week out loud on television said that congress should be using its powers to go after president biden and his family. >> look, we're the rule of law team. i mean we believe in the rule of law. >> team rule of law. yesterday speaker johnson laid

out plans to weaponize the house's oversight powers to gin up retaliatory investigations against democrats and president biden as sort of a republican response to trump's conviction by a jury of his peers in new york city. and you can bet a good chunk of those investigations will probably come out of the house's republican-led committee on the weaponization of the federal government. again, every republican allegation here is actually a confession. but what makes all of this so much worse is that these revenge fantasies aren't just coming from speaker johnson, this is where the whole party is. the gop is the party of vengeance. this is what florida senator marco rubio said after trump's conviction. it's time to fight fire emoji with fire emoji. >> i'm talking about tit for tat

you just wait, and it won't be hunter biden the next time. it's going to be joe biden. it could potentially still be barack obama. it could still potentially be hillary clinton. >> you have to get in the game, republicans. is every house committee controlled by republicans using its subpoena power in every way it needs to? right now with republican d.a. starting every investigation they need to right now? >> we need some brave district attorneys in the united states to step forward and to take aggressive action. >> they need to be put on defense, the only way to put them on defense is to hit them with a blowtorch. >> it's a terrible precedent for our country. does that mean the next president does it to them? that's really the question. it's a terrible, terrible path they're leading us to, and it's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them. >> joining me now is massachusetts senator democrat elizabeth warren. senator warren, thank you so

much for being here. i remember a time when marco rubio, your colleague in the senate had at least a residence on earth one where facts are facts and reality is reality. i have to get your thoughts on his statement, his tweet today saying our current president is a demented man prauched up by wicked and deranged people willing to destroy our country to remain in power. it's time to fight fire with fire. your thoughts, senator? >> you know, this revenge fantasy is truly alarming. i understand that these are people who have taken their oath of loyalty to donald trump, not to the constitution, not to the people of the united states of america but to this one man. and they suck up. they do whatever it is that he wants them to do, but the direction this has now gone -- we all understand using our court system for retribution is

wrong. and there is absolutely zero evidence that the 34 felony convictions against donald trump had anything to do with political retribution, and yet the republicans in this fevered moment have decided that the only way they can explain that their candidate is a convicted felon, can i say that again? a convicted felon who has said he wants to be dictator on day one, that the only way they can explain that is to head off into they're planning to do retribution, and somehow they think that will spillbackwards into what happened in the courts in new york. none of this makes any sense. it doesn't add up except to say it's about tearing down our government. it's about tearing down our

institutions. and i believe the reason they want to do that is they don't want a government that functions. we're trying to show we can actually make government work for people, we can actually make government be an instrument of roads and bridges and things that work better for the rest of america. we can cancel student loan debt and get $35 insulin, the kinds of things joe biden has been doing. what these republicans want is they just want to use government for power, for donald trump and for themselves, and that is truly a threat to our democracy. >> yeah. i'd love to follow up a little bit more an that because now scott perry and ronny jackson are going to by sitting on a house committee that oversees five agencies and has access to sensitive information. i mean as a democrat does that scare you? >> yeah, it really does. i am alarmed by every step they're taking and by the fact

that people who are less and less attached to reality are moving into ever more powerful positions in the house of representatives. and i worry that we're getting some evidence that the senate on the republican side doesn't look like it's far behind. this is an alarming moment. five months from today we'll have an election. and when people say democracy is on the ballot, this is a big part of what we're talking about. do you believe in government? do you support government indo you make your loyalty to the constitution and the people of the united states, i or is it all about one man and however much you have to distort the facts, however much you have to lie, however much you have to engage in ugly and mean retribution fantasies, you'll do it if it satisfies that one man.

that's the choice in front of us, and i've got to say i'm glad i'm on the democratic side. i'm with joe biden who's at heart a decent and good man who wants government to work for people. >> i have to ask you because as we talk about republican revenge fantasies, senator katie brit of alabama another colleague in the senate passed a bill to tank the right to contraception part of a partisan scare tactic. >> okay, so let's just be really clear what she's really saying is that if we talk about what the republicans are threatening to do we really would scare america, and i think that's right. because look at it this way, what have the republicans done so far?

now, they told us 2 1/2 years ago no one was going to touch roe v. wade. and donald trump gets his extremist court in place, and the first chance they get they tank roe v. wade. they don't take a little bite out of it, don't say, yeah, on the other hand. they just throw the whole thing out, and while they're throwing it out clarence thomas says as long as we're throwing out roe, let's take a look at throwing out griswold, which ten years earlier had protected access to contraception. in addition to that the speaker of the house and a majority of republicans in the house of representatives are cosponsors on a bill about life begins at conception that would actually make illegal certain forms of contraception, iuds, plan b. in addition to that there are extremist groups out there that

are aggressively lobbying to take away access to contraception, and then we've got donald trump himself who just two weeks ago said, yeah, he was going to take a look at putting restrictions on contraception. and then as if all that were not enough, understand that today in the united states senate all but two republicans when given a chance to vote on what about a federal law to protect access to contraception -- that's all the bill really said, only two republicans said, yeah, i'll support that. the rest of them either voted no or ran for the hills so that they wouldn't have to say in public how they feel about taking away access to contraception. you better believe that americans should be scared about what republicans want to do

because they're coming after abortion everywhere in this country. they're coming after ivf in this country, and they're coming after contraception not just in red states but nationally, red states, blue states, purple states everywhere. it's an extremist agenda, and america should be alarmed. >> senator elizabeth warren, thank you for joining me this evening and offering your wisdom and perspective on all this. really appreciate your time. >> you bet, thank you. >> i want to turn now to jamelle buoy, an opinion columnist for "the new york times." we were talking to senator warren about these revenge fantasies, and i think part of the reason you've seen such a shocking response from the republican party is because they're legitimately shaken by the 34 felony counts. how do you interpret what is here to for just kind of an unprecedented spoken out loud plot to break the law in a partisan agenda?

>> i think that's absolutely right. i think this roar we're seeing from republicans, this furious anger over the conviction is an expression of the fact that they're more than aware it's not good for our party's standard bearer to be a convicted felon. it's not good. and we should go through the polling released so far about american's attitude on convictions, not good. when consistently a majority of americans are saying, yeah, that seems about right. it seems about right donald trump is guilty of fraud and that the conviction was the right choice. there's very -- i mean honestly somewhat surprising little divisiveness among the public about the justice of this ruling. and i'll note you have not really seen republicans actually deny the charges against trump. you haven't seen republicans try to speak to his good name and say donald trump could never

have done what he's charged with. and that to me is a clear sign republicans know this is not an ideal situation. >> you have an opinion piece about the myth of trump. the myth of donald trump is he's immune to scandal, that there's nothing he could say or do to undermine his political prospects. yes, he's shameless. yes, he's surrounded by a cultive personality, but neither has made him invulnerable to the blows of political combat. and then that polling you were talking about jamelle, before the verdict this is the new york times siena college polling. before the verdict he was up by 3 points, after the verdict he's up by 1 point. i know that is not a sizable enough margin to assuage the concerns of a lot of folks, but the fact of the matter is we're a couple days out and it is however incrementally having an effect especially, jamelle in the most pronounced fashion

among young white voters disengaged from the political process. how do you read that? >> i think we're still at this stage in the election when your typical voters aren't paying that much attention. but as we move through the summer and the fall and i expect we're going to hear a drum beat about the president being a convicted felon and his sentencing in july before the republican national convention, that will be a big moment for this story as well. i expect as more voters tune in and internalize what they think about trump and think seriously not just about their preference but their vote intention, this is the thing that might at the very least keep trump from consolidating voters he needs to actually win the election. i mean the way i've been thinking about it is if trump were acquitted we would all

recognize this was a big victory for the former president, so him being convicted on 34 counts, which i was surprised it was all 34. him being convicted, it stands to reason it is an obstacle to his efforts to win a second term. >> it says something about the wurl in which we're living in we have to reiterate maybe getting convicted on 34 counts is not a boon. in one of the tightest senate races in the country tim shihi, and john tester he's trying to run on a senate race that could decide the upper chamber. everyone's looking at this differently thank you so much for being here, my friend. we have a lot this evening including revelations of a secret plan to influence democratic lawmakers like house democratic leader hakeem

jeffreys. we're going to tell you what that plot is. plus the judge overseeing the criminal prosecution of trump in florida makes the latest in a long series of decisions that seem to be helping the guy who appointed her. that's next. that's next.

craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment!

there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities. . donald trump may have lost his new york city criminal case, but the delays in his criminal prosecutions in florida and georgia are dealing him a pretty winning hand. today in georgia the state's court of appeals put the election conspiracy prosecution against trump on hold until at least october when the court takes up trump's motion to disqualify fulton county d.a. fani willis. and down in florida in trump's federal prosecution of mishandling of classified documents, judge aileen cannon

continue said to entertain a very long list of specious arguments to dismiss this case entirely. in the next hearing later this month trump's attorneys will argue that jack smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. judge cannon is not only taking valuable courtroom to hear a case already adjudicated in other carts, she's also taking the remarkable step by allowing lawyers who are not part of the case to come in and join in on oral arguments. joining me now to help understand what is happening here, my good friend joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and co-host of the sisters in law podcast. joyce, she was on the show earlier and said she had never in her career seen what judge cannon is doing right now, effectively inviting guest conservative lawyers to sing their song. how unusual is this in your estimation? >> right, so mary and i talked

about this earlier today, and we are hard-pressed to think of any situation where a district court judge, a trial court judge not only entertained these amick s briefs from wild parties but permitted them to come into court and argue their case. it's like inviting random folks off the street who don't have a stake in the case to come in and express their views. you extremely rarely will see this with a government entity. perhaps the justice department in a case between private litigants where the government has a stake in the issues. but this is just a little bit off-the-wall to put it politely. and this is a judge who has complained she can't set a trial date in this case because she has such a backlog of motions. here she's taking a day just to hear one issue in a motion that could have just as easily been decided after she read the briefs. trial judges only hear oral argument if there are

outstanding issues that they have concerns about after reading the briefs. here all of the issues are adequately addressed in the briefs submitted by the parties. >> does it suggest to you she's looking for a way to dismiss the case? and i know this all seems far-fetched but everything she's done so far seems far-fetched. do you think this is her way out of this case? >> so i don't think the amicus give her ammunition she doesn't otherwise have. there's a district of columbia court of appeals decision from the mueller investigation era saying this form of appointing a counsel is constitutional, end of story. the court of appeals reached that decision unanimously. they didn't struggle in their opinion, but it's fair for judge cannon who's in a different circuit, the 11th circuit that hasn't decided that issue, to make her own independent decision. that doesn't require a couple of days of hearings that include this sort of unusual amicus proceeding in order to get there.

and here's the reality, by the way. if she dismisses the case on this basis, jack smith will go straight to the 1 # 1th circuit. i bet he already has the notice of appeals sitting on his desk just in case she rules that way, so she can jump onto it. i don't think it will take the court of appeals in atlanta very long to reverse her if she rules that way. >> i would assume she's prepared given her track record thus far. speaking of court of appeals, i've got to ask your opinion what's happening down in georgia. to some degree it's not surprising the court of appeals would say let's work out this other issue and put the rest of the case on hold, but i do wonder, you know, your assessment about how imperilled fani willis is in terms of prosecuting this case and taking it to trial. >> you know, i think it's hard to say judge mcafee wrote a detailed and serious opinion based on a day's worth of taking evidence. he may well be affirmed ultimately by the courts of appeals in georgia, and of course again the issue as it is

in southern florida is delay how much time it takes before we get to a point where this case can move forward whether it's with fani willis at the helm or someone else. >> do you have a sense, joyce, of when we talk about any of these cases getting back on track, do you have any sense -- what are you most hopeful about? there are three big ones effectively in various states of limbo. do you have a lead horse if any? >> so hopeful is a little bit of a tough word here. i think, you know, the case we would all like to see tried is the case about january 6th, the case that impacts each of our rights as americans and whether or not a former president tried to deny our right to cast a vote. and that case could get on track depending on what the supreme court does and how quickly they do it. but, of course, the florida case, the southern district of florida case is extraordinarily serious because it involves how

a candidate for the presidency mishandled classified information in some potentially catastrophic ways. i think it's extremely unlikely that we'll see a trial in that case before the end of the year. but, you know, the interesting thing is we all i think buy into the trump narrative, right, these cases won't get to trial, that it's too late, forget it, everything is about what voters do. and that's very true in a sense. voters will ultimately make a decision on trump's fitness to serve. but if trump is not elected, these cases will go to trial shortly after the first of the year. and that's one way of bringing this situation to a close and seeking justice. >> yes, and that's exactly sort of the intention of my question. i mean, we shouldn't dismiss these cases as wiped away in november because if joe biden wins, trump's going to trial more than once. joyce vance, thank you for making the time. it's great to see you. >> thanks. still to come this evening,

there is a thing senate republicans really, really do not want to get on the record about, and today senate democrats forced their hand. we'll explain coming up. plus how speaker mike johnson is using israel's war in gaza against democrats. we're going to have more on that coming up next. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

okay, this was the bombshell headline today from "the new york times." israel secretly targets u.s. lawmakers with influence campaign on gaza war. according to "the times" israel paid a private firm $2 million to push pro-israel messaging through hundreds of fake social media accounts and fake news websites. in particular the firm targeted black democrats such as house minority leader hakeem jeffries and senator rafael warnock. that revelation comes as the tension over the democratic coalition already fraying over this war is exacerbated by top congressional leaders led by speaker mike johnson formally inviting prime minister benjamin netanyahu to speak before a joint session of congress. politico reports if speaker mike johnson is hoping to unite republicans and invite democrats by inviting the polarizing israeli prime minister, he's already succeeding beyond anyone's wildest expectations. joining me now is ben rhodes,

former deputy national security advisor of president obama and co-host of "pod save the world." i feel in the podcast today the term self-owned was bandied about as what the democrats are doing here. i do wonder if you have a working theory about how and why this is happening. >> it's very clear what's in it for bibi netanyahu. he's more unpopular at home, he has no plan to achieve his objectives in gaza, and this comes as a lifeline for him to get a boost at home, to show he can resist pressure from president biden, that he can stand up and get standing ovations in the u.s. congress. it's pretty clear what's in it for mike johnson and republicans and donald trump who i'm sure netanyahu would like to see as the next president. and if they get to highlight their support and the israeli military operation in gaza, they

get to divide democrats who have different views of the subject, and what is kind of astonishing to me the democratic leadership announced in the senate would go along with what is so transparently an effort to exploit their divisions for the political benefits of the republican party and bibi netanyahu. we saw this movie before in 2015 when, by the way, the democratic leadership did not join republicans in inviting netanyahu to speak to congress and attack obama's foreign policy. this is at a very precarious time of the war in gaza and american politics. >> because i think a lot of people have forgotten. can you talk about the dynamics or was it an issue of the leadership in the white house? what are the meaningful differences between then and now? >> well, back then the speaker of the house and republican shawn boehner took it upon himself to invite netanyahu directly without telling the

white house, the white house didn't tell us before he accepted the invitation. that was a partisan exercise design today undercut and attack barack obama's foreign policy and his presidency essentially. this time this has been brewing for a longer period of time, but let's be clear, alex, this was not something joe biden had anything to do with. by all reports mike johnson was negotiating this directly with netanyahu. that's very unusual. i cannot think of any other country where the foreign leader negotiates his appearance before a joint session of congress directly with the opposition leader in congress. that tells you everything you need to know about the kind of political overlapping interests here. and this time around they essentially jammed leader schumer and jeffries with this decision, and they, you know, for whatever reason decided to give it the bipartisan cover, and that's important. sure he might have come anyway, but now he has the cover of bipartisanship. he has the cover of schumer who literally gave a speech calling for netanyahu to be oulsed as israel's leader a few weeks ago

and rollout the carpet. and that's going to give netanyahu a boost at home and make it harder to press netanyahu into this cease-fire. >> it's coming all at the same time we're learning from "the new york times" israel is basically contracting out an influence campaign to target democrats under the radar using a.i., fake social media accounts, fake news websites. i mean what's your reaction to that as someone who has had his own interaction with sort of oppo research endeavors. >> a friend of mine, alex, you may remember it came out that a group of musod agents have been hired. we've seen these kinds of tactics before. i think what is striking about this one is that tactics that are being used are literally the exact same tactics russia uses. fake social media accounts trying to drive the algorithm, using a.i. to microtarget

certain audiences, targeting black members of congress as a contingency you want to make sure is divided and maintain some support for israel. when russia is doing this kind of thing, the democrats are very vocal in calling it what it is, which is foreign inference in our politics. this is exactly the same. it's the exact same play book. and if we don't have antibodies to this, and one of those antibodies would we maybe not inviting the leader of the country that's doing that to address a joint session of congress, it's going to keep happening. >> yeah, and i guess i also wonder, you know, part of the reason it didn't really succeed this effort is because it was sort of ham handed and not that convincing and the intelligence the a.i. used was not that sophisticated. but just in terms of the future and what we're look at in terms of rogue governments or even allies trying to meddle with a pretty frayed democratic system in the united states, what are the implications?

>> i think what we see from a lot of governments, and this one i think it's not just israel and russia, i think a lot of foreign governments, forinterests do this is they look for areas where there are divisions already in the united states, right? issues around the black lives matters movement, issues around the war in gaza, issues around anything in which americans are arguing with each other online, and they kind of come in and they either pour gasoline on that fire as the russians often do or they try to put their thumb on the scale. they create a volume that kind of makes people think that these decisions are sharper than iappear or biased in direction of one side of the argument as israel is trying to do in this case. it goes to show our information environment is so broken and people are living in a space online that is absent the objective of reality, why wouldn't all manner of people including foreign interests come in and try to exploit that? i think the starker message here

is why can israel feel they can make these arguments directly to members of congress about what they're doing in gaza? if you think you're winning the argument and confident in what you're doing, you don't necessarily to create a lot of bots to pressure people. >> once you're using bots it says a lot about the merits of your argument. ben rhodes, thank you for joining me tonight. i appreciate you. still ahead tonight in an election year when something is univrly popular across party lines members usually go out of their way to align themselves with that policy. given the opportunity to do that today republicans in the senate turned tail. i'll tell you why next.

a few hours ago senate republicans tanked the right to contraception act. the bill that would have made access to contraception a federal right. but every republican senator besides lisa murkowski and susan collins decided to take a pass on it. now, according to a 2023 gallop poll almost 90% of this country sees contraception as morally acceptable. even among republicans data shows 72% said they had a favorable view of birth control. but that did not stop the gop from killing the bill in the senate. a few hours ago majority leader chuck schumer offered his analysis as to why. >> of course we're already

hearing the same predictable, tired, unpersuasive rhetorics from the other side, that this bill is unnecessary, that birth control could never possibly be at risk, that this could be about nothing. that's not true. as i said go ask the people of virginia what they think. go ask the people of florida, idaho, or iowa. each of these states republican voters and legislators are on record blocking protections for birth control access in one form or another. >> even in a post-roe america republicans are still saying enshrining contraception into law is much to do about nothing, even though "the washington post" reports republicans in missouri and louisiana and idaho are now falsely claiming that contraceptives induce abortions. even though a supreme court justice openly invited legal challenges to contraception when he voted to overturn roe, even

as multiple states are actively remedying access to contraception or refusing to protect it. even then with all that the republican position is essentially nothing to see here, folks. now, senator schumer just announced a vote on a new bill, the right to ivf act. that's coming next week. for the record public support for ivf is 70%. republicans will no doubt say there's no real threat to ivf, which probably means that right now is exactly the time to start protecting those rights. still ahead tonight, earlier this year president biden promised to shutdown the u.s.-mexico border, and today those wheels are in motion. how is biden's new executive action limiting asylum on the southern border? and how quickly might the courts intervene here? i'll speak with the leader of the aclu about just that coming up next. the aclu about just that coming up next.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! today the biden administration's executive action to limit the number of

u.s. border crossings officially took effect. the order temporarily shuts down most asylum requests at the mexico border once daily encounters pass a certain threshold. some of this is similar to actions taken by president trump. the deputy director of the aclu's immigrants rights project who successfully sued to block some of trump's policies from taking effect said in a statement it was illegal when trump did it, and it is no less illegal now. joining me is deputy director of the aclu immigrants rights project. great to see you. let me first if it was illegal then and illegal now is the aclu going to file -- >> we are for sure. and we are deciding when the timing is in the works but that's definitely going to happen. >> i want to get your thoughts on the illegality of this because donald trump was on another cable news network this evening speaking with the host about this biden executive action, and this is what he had

to say. >> yesterday he implemented a new policy, however 2 million illegals a year. >> millions of people are allowed today come in, it's a joke. everybody knows it, it has nothing to do with border security. >> okay, so it's meaningless, it's a joke, it has to do with border security, what's your reaction to it, first of all? >> i think we shouldn't be listening to president trump on immigration. a lot of people talk about the american people want something done opon immigration, and we're not dispewing that but i think they want something balanced. they don't want to go back to what trump did with family separation. what's disappointing and illegal about this new policy and i think it went too far to one extreme. i mean if you just take a family who's fleeing persecution because they're christian or some other religion and they're in grave danger, you would want

that family to get screened for asylum. this policy if they enter in the wrong place does not allow for that and send them back to danger. we need to stream line the asylum process and make it more efficient. this goes too far by ending screening and i think the american people knew even if it was because of your religion you still wouldn't be screened if you entered in the wrong place, and i think we need to find some balanced approach, and the reason it's illegal is very clear. congress has said if you get to u.s. soil, even if you enter legally, you should be screened for asylum. it doesn't mean you get asylum, and the reason is very clear. >> you're talking about the port of entry, right? >> exactly. so the port of entry you could be traveling with a child, the cartel is going to push you away from there, and there are very few spots there. so congress has said for decades if you get on u.s. soil, we will

screen you no matter how you get here. it doesn't mean you get it. the other think, frankly, is have more legal pathways. i don't know a single economist who says we don't need more workers and more immigrant workers. that would reduce backlog at the border. let's have pathways for workers. let's make the asylum system more efficient. no one is saying we should have year delays, so put asylum officers there. i also think there's too much focus on enforcement. as you've seen families come over the border, they sit down on the ground and wait to asupply for asylum. what we need is more asylum officers to screen them, not to say throw enforcement at it. >> the asylum piece is greatly constrict said as you say because right now if you come in not at a port of entry, it's not available to you. you're not getting in an asylum claim. do you think the biden administration intended on being so retributive towards asylum

seekers. >> president biden he hadn't demonized immigrants. he hasn't said immigrants are bad and i think that's what the prior administration did and that causes ill will. i do think this policy is coming about and i think there's a lot to be said for it. and i think there were other options for him rather than going to this level of we're not even going to screen you for asylum if you come in the wrong place. i think if people are in danger and we need to screen them, no one is saying don't make it more efficient. we need to make it more efficient, but this is too much to say a family, you know, fleeing persecution because of their religion, if they don't enter in the right place, they don't know where to enter, we'll just send you right back, and that's really a dangerous proposition.

>> i will say immigrants are the backbone of our economy, and i do wonder if there's been enough defense of the integral role they play in propping up our country. >> yeah, for sure. i think, what i always say to people think about the immigrant you know and do they fit the narrative of the trump administration or president trump is putting out there, that they're all gang members they're not. and you know it when you think about the immigrants you know. i think the polarization has led us away from basic solutions like pathways for workers, more asylum officers to screen the system, and force people's hands into this kind of extreme measure. >> yeah, let's not forget our shared humanity and shared fates. thank you so much. it's really great to get your perspective on a complicated issue. that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. president joe biden is set to meet with world leaders and veterans to mark the