they've been very strong on deportation, on bored her enforcement, and that this is something that was handed to the house of representatives. the house did nothing. >> and going about it tomorrow to talk about it side-by-side with harry reid. >> exactly. it's 8:00 p.m. here in washington. we want to welcome our viewers just tuning in around the can country and across the world. the president will speak from the east room of the white house laying out executive action he plans on taking immigration, doing a lot of things the majority of americans say they want done. acting without congress, however, he'll be doing them in a way fewer americans say they're comfortable with. now that he's about to get rid for the political fallout and get ready for changes in millions of people's lives. there's a lot to cover tonight, a lot to talk about. helping us tonight jake tapper is here, gloria borger, right

now, though, i want to bring in my friend and colleague, wolf blitzer. >> a huge night for the president of the united states, a huge night potentially for 5 million people living here in the united states right now living here illegally. the president will take this unilateral action to encourage them to come out of the shadows, to go ahead and register themselves and at least be allowed to stay temporarily here in the united states. the president as you know is coming under enormous criticism from so many reapians. part of the president's speech tonight will be to declare that he does have the legal authority to go ahead and do what he is about it to do. we're about to see the president walking in. that's the cross hall over at the white house. the president will go into the east room. he will deliver this speech. we expect it to be about ten minutes or so, maybe 12 minutes, around that time. no audience. . he will look into the camera. he will address the american people. >> my fellow americans, tonight i'd like to talk with you about immigration. for more than 200 years our

tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. it's kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. it has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities. people not trapped by our past but able to remake ourselves as we choose. but today our immigration system is broken and everybody knows it. families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch ours. they say the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. all of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards without taking on the responsibilities of living in america. undocumented immigrants who want to embrace the responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows or risk their

families being torn apart. it's been this way for decades. and for decades we haven't done much about it. when i took office, i committed to fixing this broken imfwrags system. and i fwan by doing what i could to secure our borders. today we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history and over the past section years illegal bo d border crossings have been cut by more than half. although this summer there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is actually lower than it's been in nearly two years. overall the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. those are the facts. meanwhile, i worked with congress on a comprehensive fix. and last year 68 democrats, republicans, and independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the senate.

it wasn't perfect. it was a compromise. but it reflected common sense. it would have doubled the number of border patrol agents while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they started paying their taxes and going to the back of the line. independent experts said it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits. had the house of representatives allowed that kind of bill, a sim is am yes or no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties. and today it would be the law. but for a year and a half now republican leaders in the house have refuse d to allow that simple vote. now i continue to believe the best way to solve the problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. but until that happens, there are actions i have the legal authority to take as president, the same kinds of actions taken by democratic and republican

presidents before me, that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just. tonight i'm announcing those actions. first, we'll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings and speed the return of those who do cross over. second, i'll make it easier and fast faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy as so many business leaders proposed. third, we'll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already had live in our country. i want to say more about this third issue because it generates the most passion and controversy. even as we are a nation of immigrants, we're a nation of laws. untoumted workers broke our immigration laws and i believe that they must be held

accountable, especially those who may be dangerous. that's why over the past six years deportations of criminals are up 80%. and that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. felons, not families, criminals, not children. gang members, not a mom who is working hard to provide for her kids. we'll prioritize like law enforcement does every day. but even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is millions of immigrants in every state, of every race and nationality still live here illegally. and let's be honest, tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isn't realistic. anyone who suggests otherwise isn't being straight with you. it's also not who we are as americans.

after all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time. they work hard often in tough, low paying jobs. they support their families. they worship at our churches. many of the kids are american born. they spent most of their lavs here and their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours. as my predecessor, president bush, once put it, they are a part of american life. now here is the thing. we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. we expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. so we're going to off the following deal, if you've with been in america more than five years. if you have children who are american citizens or illegal residents. if you register, pass a criminal background check and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you'll be able to

apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. that's what this deal is. let's be clear about what it isn't. this deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. it does not apply to anyone who might come to america illegally in the future. it does not grant scitizenship r the right to stay here permanently or offer the same benefits citizens receive. only congress can do that. all we're saying is we're not going to deport you. i know some of the critics of the action call it amnesty. well, it's the not. amnesty is the immigration system we have today. millions of people who live here without paying their taxeses or playing by the rules while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. that's the real amnesty. leaving this broken system the way it is. mass amnesty would be unfair.

mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary it to our character. what i'm describing is accountability. a common sense middle ground approach. if you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. if you're a criminal, you'll be deported. if you plan to enter the u.s. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up. the actions i'm taken are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single republican president and every single democratic president for the past half secentury. and to those members of congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting where congress has failed, i have one answer. pass a bill. i want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. and the day i sign that bill into law, the actions i take

will no longer be necessary. meanwhile, don't 0 let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal breaker on every issue. that's not how our democracy works and congress shouldn't shut down our government again because we disagree on this. americans are tired of gridlock. what our country needs right now is a common purpose, a higher purpose. most americans support the type of reforms i've talked about tonight, but i understand with the disagraemts held by many of you at home. millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. so we don't like the notion anyone might get a free pass to american citizenship. i know some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are or take our jobs or

stick it to middle class families at a time they already feel they've gotten a raw deal for over a decade. i hear those concerns, but that's not what these steps would do. our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. and i believe it's important all of us have this debate without impugning each other's character. because for all the back and forth in washington, we have to remember this debate is about something bigger. it's about who we are a country and who we want to be for future generations. are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a nation where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future? are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from

their parents' arms, or are we a nation that values families and works together to keep them together? are we a nation that educates the world's best and brightest in our universities only to send them home and compete against us or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs here, create businesses here, create industries right here in america. that's what this debate is all about. we need more than politics as usual. we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes not our fears. i know the poll 0 particulars of this issue are tough, but let me tell you why i have come to feel so strongly about it. over the past years i've seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three

jobs without taking a dime from the government and at risk any moment of losing it all just to build a better life for their kids. i've seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them because they didn't have the right papers. i've seen the courage of students who except for the circumstances of their birth are as american as malia or sasha, students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in the country they love. these people, our neighbors, our classmates, our friends, it not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. they came to work and study and serve in our military. and, above all, contribute to american success. now tomorrow i'll travel to las vegas and meet with some of

these students including a young woman named astrid silva. she was brought to america when she was 4 years old. her only possessions were a cross. her doll, and her frilly dress she had on. when she started school, she didn't speak any english. shea caught up to other kids by read iing newspapers and watchi pbs. and she became a good student. her father worked in landscaping. her mom cleaned other people's homes. they wouldn't let her apply to a technology magnet school, not because they didn't love her but because they were afraid the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant. so she applied behind their back and got in. still, she mostly lived in the shadows until her grandmother, who visited every year from mexico, passed away and she couldn't travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported.

it was around that time she began advocating for herself and others like her. and today is a college student working on her third degree. are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like astrid? or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in? scripture tells us we shall not oppress a stranger for we know the heart of a stranger. we were strangers once, too. my fellow americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. we were strangers once, too. and whether our forbearers were strangers who crossed the atlantic, or the pacific or the rio grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in and taught them that to be an american is about

something more than what we look at, what our last names are, or how we worship. what makes us americans is our shared commitment to an eideal that all of us are created equal and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will. that's the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. that's the tradition we must uphold. that's the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come. thank you. god bless you. and god bless this country we love. so there he is, the president of the united states, making a case to allow some 5 million people living here in the united states illegally at least for now to have temporary legal status, no longer having to worry about being deported

immediately and to come out of the shadows, as he says 5 million of the approximately 11 million or 12 million people who are in the united states undocumented. the president saying to congress, go ahead. pass legislation that i can sign into law. in the meantime he makes the legal case that he has the authority to do what he's doing, and he says he knows there will be anger. he appeals to members of congress, the republicans specifically, to work with him on other issues despite the anger that will be generated by what he did during his 15-minute address tonight. there's going to be a lot of commotion as a result of this, anderson, and we will watch it every step of the way. >> no did doubt about it. we have a lot to talk about in the hour ahead. senior political commentator and former white house secretary carney and former house speaker newt gingrich and donna brazile. donna, the white house says the president has the right to do this, essentially prosecutorial discretion. rewriting the law by it's not

just discretion of who not to report or arrest. >> i think the president has laid it out just right. he said, look, i want to secure the border. i want to make sure those who are unauthorized immigrants have a process by which they're held accountable and, of course, the deportation of those who are here, criminals, terrorists, et cetera. so border security to continue to enforce that but, also, he's working within the same framework that every president since president eisenhower. i think he made the right decision and now the ball is in congress' court to finish the job. >> speaker gingrich, what about that? the president said to those in congress who oppose him, pass a bill. if you don't like it, pass a bill. >> it's not the president's right to dictate with the newly elected congress that has repudiated his policies in the election. second, this is a gruber speech, more than prosecutorial.

he's not telling the country the truth. he's setting up an entire system in homeland security. they will have an entire process. they will put thousands of bureaucrats to work trying to find a way to, in effect, legalize behave why are and to describe that as prosecutorial discretion is dishonest and this is a very dishonest speech. >> do you think it will bring even more people to this country illegally? >> every time it's been done in the past it has. every speech like this including things that led to the children coming last summer, every speech like this is broadcast worldwide. there are 160 million people according to the gallup poll worldwide. wait for the next amnesty. >> jay carney, the president all along said he didn't have the power to do this. >> is a reporter conferring then governor george w. bush in the 2000 campaign when jake was on that campaign as well, and he would stand in front of essentially all-white audiences

and say something that was relatively uncomfortable, that he blaeelieved family values di not stop at the ray rio grande. and it's not just necessary because it's morally the right thing to do. it's necessary because we have a broken system where the law itself is constantly being undermined by the presence of undocument undocumented people in the country who live in the shadows who undermine systems across, health care and education. so something has to be done. the president made a strong effort and got a bill through congress with republican support. he negotiated. i was there. he worked with and talked with and cajoled republican leaders in the house to follow the senate's lady to write their own bill that was similar to the senate's including things he would have a hard time dealing with but would accept. they said they would, they said they would, and then they refused. in the end they refused because

most republicans, as newt knows, in the house are in districts with no latinos or few latinos and it's not in their political interest to deal with the problem though it is in the republican party's interest nationally to deal with this. >> does this contradict what the president has said himself repeatedly? i'm going to play some of his past comments now you. >> with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. i can can't do it by myself. the notion that somehow by myself i can go and do these things is just not true. what i've said is there's a path to get this done and that's through congress. i'm the president of the united states. i'm not the empourer of the united states. my job is to execute laws that are passed. >> and of course now some republicans are saying he's acting like an emperor. what has changed? i get why he's doing it. he's frustrated. but from his own standpoint. >> when he was making those

statements he was essentially arguing he cannot change the law. he cannot provide a path to citizenship as a president, and that's not what he's done today. i grant you the fact -- he was going out on a limb trying to make it clear to supporters of immigration reform that it was important to put pressure on congress congress to get a bill done. >> let me tell you what's changed. can we just be clear here and get off the talking points and talk straight with the american people. what has changed that he's no longer a candidate. this is a politically unpopular action. a lot of people, most americans, agree with comprehensive immigration reform but don't want it done by fiaf. today we've already seen every single election that will happen during his term whether he's on the ballot or not has occurred. he is no longer a candidate and he's made a lot of promises to the latino community since he was candidate barack obama in 2007 that he had not delivered on and they were very frustrated. i think congressman gut fwut was

about to chain himself to the white house fence, dog or no dog. i think he had run out of rope. he knew it. i think he wants to fulfill it for the la tino community when e was able to and when he should have. those first two years of the administration he didn't do it. the bottom line here -- >> democrats in 2016. >> the democrats could have done it the first two years of his administration and republicans could have done it in the last year. the truth that we need to tell the american people is that neither of them did it, and that's what brought us to this point. >> donna, democrats could have done it. the truth on the table, it helps a lot of families who are here trying to do right. they want to be americans. they want to stay in this country. they want a path to be legal citizens. this will not solve the problem. that's why congress has had 512 days to act on a bipartisan bill 68 to 32 and they refused.

200 votes right now. speaker boehner could take a bill up before tomorrow. they refuse. this president has acted within the legal immolationslimitation. >> the president said, gee, i was patient for a long time. who is he to be patient? the constitution is a larger system in which he's one piece. in oregon, hardly a red state, the voters voted 66-34 to repeal a law to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. people in the elites underestimate how deeply this country is disgusted with no border control but despite the president's speech tonight with the sense there's going to be another wave of people coming in on top of this and the idea this president having just been decisively defeated three weeks ago can turn around and ram down what he wants to do. >> million people sent home.

>> that's the law. >> for the last years he has been saying he doesn't have authority to do what he just did now. in the meantime 2 million people, 2 million families, have been separated. what does he say to those 2 million families watching from somewhere else separated from their families when for the last two years he's been saying i cannot do what i'm doing now? >> i want to address a point here. i hear the speaker and i hear others on the republican side saying this is illegal, unconstitutional. what you don't hear is legal experts and constitutional experts saying that. they won't likely succeed in a legal challenge as we saw earlier on cnn, and they probably know it. but they want to cast this as a general assault against the president as acting lawlessly, as an emperor because that's easier than explaining why they haven't acted on this priority that the majority of the people in the country think is

important. having said that, this is a big risk for the president. he has no question create add major conflict with this congress just as it's coming into power and that could mean a lot of fights from here the next few years. >> there is precedent for this action. what there is not precedent for is the number. frankly, it is a very large number, 5 million is much bigger than anything we've seen in the past. that's why it's sticking in everybody's craw. >> i want to show viewers, this is across from the white house in lafayette square, a number of demonstrators outside the white house, on both sides of the issue. where does this go from here, though? >> i think ted cruz yesterday and chairman bob goodlow had pretty firm statements. where it's going to go to is the congress, the new congress when he comes in in january, methodically raising the cost of

the president, starting with something as simple with refusing to take up his nominations including the attorney general. we're not dealing with you. you are lawless. until you come back inside the constitution, we're not going to -- they're not going to go to a government shutdown because the news media would promptly switch and decide it's the republicans who are a problem. right now the country is about to decide it's president obama that's the problem. by the way, the term emperor was used by obama not us. the fact we are quoting him may make you uncomfortable, but he brought up the word. >> i don't think the republicans will risk the new majority status by trying to, i would believe, more gridlock and be more obstructionist. i think they will try to figure out a way with an eye to 2016 to figure out how to make some of this permanent so that they can be seen as part of the solution and that's more a part of the

problem. >> polls show the dichotomy of president obama's actions. a recent polling shows a majority, 57%, favor or strongly favor a pathway to citizen shsh for people in this country illegally. as ana mentioned 38% approve of president obama acting alone without congress on the issue of immigration. i want to bring in gloria borger and jake tapper. what happens now? >> i think the public will start taking sides on this, as newt was saying, and i think there's a danger of both sides overreaching. i mean, you have the president now who has laid down the law and said i think this is a decision that will drive the tem graphics of the 201 election. i think they, the democrats, have decided a way to get the obama coalition together without president obama is not to have lukewarm support from latinos. this is important to them. i don't think we can overstate it.

it's huge. the republicans have a problem of overreaching. and who would keep all appointments from going through. and i think the public could react to that, also, and say, wait a minute, we don't like that. and i do think the public believes that the president should not go it alone. what we've to is whether they buy his argument that he had no other choice. >> the next president can overturn this executive order. >> that's right. i do want it to make one note that gloria said, i think it remains an open question whether or not a government shutdown is going to hurt republicans. we saw it was bad for them in the polls a year ago and then they took control of the senate and increased the majority in the house. short term it's bad. long term i don't know that there's a price. in terms of how much republican president, if there is one,

overturns this, i find it difficult to believe in our system. it's easy for presidents to give things or for congress to give things. it's very, very difficult to take things away. and i'm sure it will be a big debate in republican primaries whether or not this executive order should be overturned, but i am guessing that you'll hear some of the more establishment candidates talk about the need for a big comprehensive bill and the way to look at all of the people in this country illegally and and not necessarily doing it. speaker gingrich, giving a very strong statement this evening against what president obama is doing, but he was one of the people who was talk iing about e need for a comprehensive immigration reform, him and governor rick perry and a few others on that stage. so i do think the republican establishment, and i hope you're not offended that i include you in that to a degree, speaker gingrich, acknowledge that more

long term there needs to be a comprehensive bill for policy reasons and also because of political reasons. >> do you see that happening in the next two years at all? >> i wouldn't be spraysed. i've never believed you could could pass a single comprehensive bill. it was too big and would collapse under its own weight. i would not be surprised to see four or five bills produced by the republicans in the house and senate that move us in the right direction. very few americans believe that it's healthy to have millions operating in the gray zone, who are outside the law but are trying to be law abiding. not criminals, just people who don't fit inside our current legal structure. that will be worked on. but i would not underestimate, there is a huge difference in the two parties. the number of republicans who actually believe in the federalist papers and the constitution and are in politics because of their belief is very deep. and those people, i think, the tom coburn comment, the lamar

smith comment, are signals those people are enormously offended and frightened by a president who they see as uncontrollable and outside the constitution. >> i want to bring in congressman steve king, republican of iowa. obviously very outspoken on this issue. thank you for joining us. i know jake and gloria will join in with some questions. i wonder what you heard from the president, what you think about it, and what you believe. you've laid out three steps you believe the republican party should take now. are you still convinced that's the way to go? explain what the steps are. >> i am and i just have this sinking feeling in my stomach about the situation that the president has thrown this nation into. we have a fresh feeling coming off an election. the president know knows what he's doing. 2 times he says he doesn't have the power to do this and yet he stepped out and did this anyway. it's hard to make a clear, concise constitutional argument on this given what the president has given us because they're vague descriptions. if you are a criminal, you will be deported.

we know that's not you true. the criminals are not going to be deported. those who cross the border illegally have commit add crime, by did he haefinition, those wh committed document fraud, they will not be punished. >> when the president says this is prosecutorial discretion, when the white house says the president can do this because of prosecutorial discretion, do you buy that? >> you can tell by my he can pre expression, no. we promised janet napolitano in the morton documents it said seven times on an individual basis only. they did that because they knew they had to argue that prosecutorial discretion is on an individual basis. he created four classes of people with that document. these are classes of people, too. he has no constitutional authority to do this. that resides in their congress. this is a constitutional crisis and i listened to all the humanitarian discussion. what about the rule of law? what about compassion for the rule of law?

this republic and the vision of our founders, this is a crisis. we have some options in the house. the first thing would be a resolution of disapproval that lays this out. we've to get a better look at the documents that will drive this first. the second one could potentially be a censure and that would be at least a direct message to the president. the third thing would be to cut off the funding. i want to fund this government, keep this government open f. they ask for me to vote for an appropriation bill that funds an unconstitutional act on the part of the president of the united states, i'm bound by my oath as he should have been bound by his. >> i want to bring in jake carney. do you want to respond to anything the congressman said? >> i do not doubt that the congressman and others have d p deeply held vaus on this ib you and are passionate about it and that they passionately disagree with the president. i think i would defer to what i've seen which is a pretty large consensus among legal

scholars and lawyers on the issue there is ample precedent for this legally and that the efforts to try to attack this as a constitutional issue will not succeed, at least not in the courts. they may succeed or gain traction as part of the rhetorical argument, we've heard a lot. i guess i'm encouraged by hearing from congressman king we're not hearing more of the inflammatory language we've heard from other republicans that get a little did disservice when they start talking about violence and retribution and anarchy or impeachment. >> you were on jake tapper's program, i believe it was yesterday. you said impeachment would be the very last option but you, quote, would not rule it out. where do you stand on that exactly? >> i've said this to my colleagues many times and to the press over the last couple of weeks. i would like to start with the most minimal thing we can to put the president back into the constitutional guardrails and step it up. a resolution approval, the

second would be a censure. third would be to cut out of the appropriations bills funding of this. but i don't want to do the last thing. i don't want to do the "i" word. no one wants to throw the nation in a that kind of turmoil. the president has thrown us into this turmoil. now there are members of congress who have all taken an oath to uphold the constitution and because he won't do his constitutional duty and he's defying his own oath to the constitution and the rule of law, we are bound then to keep our out to the constitution. that's my view on this, and i'd like to be able to look at the language and get closer how this will be executed. i believe he will be using parole to parole people into the united states. you get a green card, that's a fast track to citizenship. these things will unfold in the next 24 hours and a better lack at what's going on here. the president is not in charge of writing law. that's article one, and i fear

what he has done is torn article one out of the constitution, put it into his own pocket and said i'm now the legislative branch, too. >> i want to bring in jake and gloria. >> can you just tell me the mood of your caucus and whether you believe that this has poisoned the well for anything else that either you or the president might want to get done over the next couple of years? >> i wish i had a definitive answer for that. i can feel that rejection boiling up here. it's not to a boiling point. the president picked the time the most planes were leaving out of town to go back to the districts had already taken off. only about two or three of us left here in town. i've been raising this issue with my colleagues since june and july. i didn't see their temperature going up the way i thought it should have. they had trouble dealing with the hypotheticals, maybe trouble believing the president would do this. now i think people are home. that may be a mistake for the president to time this this way. they'll be going to town hall

meetings. and if america bills over, so will the united states house of representatives. >> congressman king, it's jake tapper. i wanted to ask you what your feelings were when george h.w. bush took a smaller scale -- or it was actually the same percentage of people in the country illegally but the number was significantly less. it was about 1.5 million illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, whatever you want to call them, who were family members of those who had been in the pipeline through the '86 immigration bill. my point being there is some precedent for this. did you object to that at the time? >> you know, i saw that pop up in the news today and yesterday. i have not gone back to review that and i'm wondering what i was doing at the time. i do remember what i was doing in 1986 when ronald reagan signed the amnesty act and there is a dent in my filing cabinet from that day because i knew that ronald reagan had let us down when he signed the law. we then would have to set about

restoring the rule of law with regard to immigration. we surely haven't done that. the promise of the next amnesty has eroded the rule of law and that is our chart. we have to put the rule of law back together. if we let this stand, i can't see that we can ever put the rule of law back together with regard to immigration. not in my lifetime. not in the lifetime of most americans, and that's a tragedy if we're not able to do this. so that's why the house has to take a strong stand and why the senate, i think senate republicans, will take a strong stand to restore the rule of law. that's the most important thing, respect the constitution, restore the rule of law. the humanitarian issues, we all have a heart for that and it's been contributed to by multiple presidents from ronald reagan on. and i want to see it put back together. i was raised in a law enforcement family with great respect for the constitution f. we don't have a law, we don't have a border. this order says if you haven't -- if you came within the last five years, you're not established so we're not going to cover you under it.

but what happens to that group? what happens to those that pack their bags tonight that are on their way to the border now. no prospect only enforcement of the laws in the future, more and more coming into the united states because of this orderer. i'm going to the border tomorrow. >> congressman king, i appreciate you being with us. i do want to focus on talking about the law, to look at the constitutional question that has been raised here. president obama said tonight it's simply not in any doubt. here is what the president said. >> the actions i'm taken are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single republican president and every single democratic president for the past half century. and to those members of congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting while congress has failed, i have one answer. pass a bill. >> joining us now, someone who has advised the president on some high stakes legal issues including separation of powers, roberto gonzalez, who served as attorney general in the bush

administration, and a book on the question of immigration. mr. attorney general, thank you for being with us. some critics of the president are calling this executive action unconstitutional, illegal. we heard from congressman king there. do you agree? is it unconstitutional? >> i'm not prepared to say that it is lawful but, you know, the president's own words really condemn him when you think about the several tiles -- >> what does that mean? you're not prepared to say it's lawful? so is it unlawful? >> listen, this is very difficult -- from my perspective without saying the details of the plan, i think it's a rather complicated question. while he does have the duty to take care of the laws be enforced, he has a discretion in the way the laws are enforced. it's really a matter of degree in thames of whether or not is what he's doing here a suspension? is it a repeal? is it an amendment of the law? the closer you get to that, it's much harder to defend it.

from my perspective, i think the timing of this is terrible for the president based upon his public statements in the past, that he doesn't have the authority to do that. based upon the fact we have a new congress here and rather than waiting to work with this new congress, he takes this action now and he takes this action right after an elected. if, in fact, he had this authority, he could have take ten before the election. but we know that he didn't do that for political reasons. so for all those reasons i think this is a bad way to move forward with this. i think we all agree we need to fix the system. and i think we all agree the best way to do it -- i do agree with the president's comments tonight the best way is through a comprehensive immigration bill, and i'm hopeful this will at least motivate the congress to take action because, in fact, they should take action. we waited long enough for the congress to do something. >> so when the president said tonight if you don't like what just went down, pass a bill, you actually agree they should pass a bill. >> no question about it. obviously that will negate any

kind of executive action by the president but we need a long-term solution and it really is a shame that we've had to wait for so long because this has been a burden sitting on the plate of congress for quite some time and the problem has gotten worse and worse. the burden upon the states have grown heavier. this is an issue that, again, affects our economy, our national security, and it is the job of congress to deal with this issue. >> i know you want to look more at the details. when the white house says everyone else has done things like this, do you think that is true or is it beyond the scope? >> it may be true but i'm not sure it answers whether this is lawful. we're talking about presidential discreti discretion. we're talking about judgment, a president interpreting a law, vis-a-vis what the president has

said about that law. it will be different in every case whether or not a president has a discretion that has been reck nazed by the congress. all we know is that presidents have exercised discretion. whether or not that discretion has been exercised lawfully in this case i don't think the question can be answered by what president reagan did or president bush did in the past. >> attorney general gonzalez, i appreciate you being on. we have our own legal and lieser jeffrey toobin who joins us. do you think the president is on firm ground in terms of the legality of what he's doing? >> you know, anderson, i do. think about the structure of what happened here. we have an immigration law that is -- that says certain people cannot be in the country and need to be deported. similarly we have crippminal la

that say various activities are against the law. in both of those, the courts have long recognize that had we can't apply it to everyone. you can't deport every single person in the country illegally. you can't prosecute everyone who has violated the lob by, say, smoking marijuana. so we leave to the executive the decision of whom to deport and whom to prosecute. and this was an example tonight of the president saying, look, we are going to establish priorities. these are the people who are going to be deported first. these are the people who will move to the back of the line. they're not going to be deported while barack obama is president. january 20, 2017, someone else can completely change these rules but today this seams to me an exercise of what presidents have done for a long time. >> in thames of legal recourse, though, his opponents could still go after him in a number

of different ways. >> they sure can. they can pass a new law that says the rules on deportation are different and that's deportations have to resume. clearly that could be done. they can use the power of the purse. they can say we do not authorize the use of funds for anything related to this executive order. in addition they can impeach the president. i don't think they can go to court. members of congress, the courts have by and large thrown out lawsuits by members of congress against the president for basically almost any reason but certainly there are plenty of options available to congress if they pass laws. >> jeff toobin, thank you for being with us. we'll be back on at 11 chock clock p.m. eastern live with another edition of "360" where we'll talk more about the president's speech. there is other news to cover. in western new york the death

toll from the epic snow rises as the snow runs deeper. we'll go there shortly. michael brown's father making a public plea for calm in ferguson, missouri, for the sake of his dead son's legacy. kid: hey dad, who was that man? dad: he's our broker. he helps looks after all our money. kid: do you pay him? dad: of course. kid: how much? dad: i don't know exactly. kid: what if you're not happy? does he have to pay you back? dad: nope. kid: why not? dad: it doesn't work that way. kid: why not? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab there is no car because there was no accident. volvo's most advanced accident avoidance systems ever.

the future of safety, from the company that has always brought you the future of safety. give the gift of volvo this season and we'll give you your first month's payment on us. sea captain: there's a narratorstorm cominhe storm narrator: that whipped through the turbine which poured... surplus energy into the plant which generously lowered its price and tipped off the house which used all that energy to stay warm through the storm. chipmunk: there's a bad storm comin! narrator: the internet of everything is changing how energy works. is your network ready?" but i've managed.e crohn's disease is tough, except that managing my symptoms was all i was doing. and when i finally told my doctor, he said humira is for adults like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease.

and that in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

tonight in western new york the snow is only getting deeper and the danger is greater. for the past three days the region has seen nearly as much snow as it typically gets all year. the snow kept on coming as much as two feat of fresh snow in some places. the storm claimed two more lives bringing the death toll to at least ten people. the two latest victims died overnight from apparent exposure. the bills and the jets will will not be playing sunday. the nfl game is canceled. there's no way they would be able to dig out the stadium even if the snow were to stop now and it's not stopping. the weight of all that snow is putti putting lives at risk. here is martin savidge. >> reporter: homes and buildings are beginning to buckle under the weight of the snow. >> we're now going to have roof

collapses, we're looking at know two to three feet of snow today and then a warming trend on the weekend which could lead to massive flooding when all this snow starts to melt. >> reporter: it's not the only problem as the snow continues to fall. city craws, national guard troops have thrown everything they have into clearing the snow. but even now most primary routes can only be declared as passable. more snow has slowed the job. so have the endless streams of cars, people, and even snowmobiles navigating the few open routes. many side streets remain white waste lands of shoulder high snow. here shovels join two neighbors trying to clear a drive. >> i don't want to say this looks like an impossible task. >> pretty much. we'll get there. got to start somewhere, right? >> reporter: i guess you do. just gettinging to the front door is a challenge. the deep snow settled making it

heavier and harder to move. the problem you have here is the same problem the city has. where do you put it? it has to go somewhere so that's on top of somebody's car. with the snow too deep to plow, crews dig it up using giant front end load eers that carry to waiting trucks. they wait in long lines where they dump their snowy loads and then head off for more while tractors push it around to make room. this is how it looked wednesday, and this is how it looks a day later, a man made mountain rising stories high in the air. as big as it is, it's nearly 20% of what still needs to be clear. >> incredible that mountain was made in a day. martin savidge joins us now. any idea how long it will take to clear all the roads?

>> reporter: i talked to the commissioner just a short whale ago in charge of clearing the streets. he said probably four to five more days but here is the rub and you talked about it some, that warming trend. he says it's going to make the snow a lot heavier. it may start to melt some. before that it's going to absorb a lot of moisture and the equipment will have an even greater or harder time moving it. they started work on a second mountain, by the way, not just one but two. they're likely to be here come july when many people are thinking not about the storm. >> incredible. martin savidge, thank you very much. ferguson missouri, braces for a grand jury to decide whether or not to charge a policeman for killing michael brown. a decision is expected as early as tomorrow although there's expected to be a 24-hour delay before it's announced -- excuse me, 48 hours. whether or not the news will hold that long is not clear. the public service announcement from michael brown's family that was released. >> hello. my name is michael brown sr.

my family and i are hurting. our whole region is hurting. i thank you for lifting your voices to end racial profiling and police eintimidation. no matter what the grand jury decides, i do not want my son's death to be in vain. i want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the st. louis region better for everyone. we live here together. this is our home. we are stronger united. continue to lift your voices with us and let's work together to heal to create lasting change. for all people regardless of race. thank you. >> joining mae now live criminal defense attorney mark o'meara who defended zimmerman and sonny hoskins. the prosecuting attorney had not

met with the family and they've essentially been left out of the group. are victims families usually much more involved in the process? >> they are much more involved. that has been striking how they have seemingly been left out of the loop. it is not unusual for a prosecutor seeking an indictment to meet with the victim's family to assign a victim's advocate to act as a liaison. i think if you go back to the zimmerman case, you'll remember seeing angela cory standing there with trayvon martin's parents right behind her. they were very much a part of the process. and that is generally how it happens. and so i am somewhat surprised at what ben crump told me, and i'm not surprised that the family seems to be very upset with how the process is going. and ben also said they don't trust the process. >> mark, i should point out that the prosecuting attorney fired back in a statement saying that he'd been in touch with their

legal team and at their direction, he was told, that all contact be made with the family through one of their attorneys, mr. gray. it seems like there are two differing accounts. frankly, one doesn't jib jive with the other. >> someone is posturing. if mccullough said what he said and it's untrue -- because he said he had ongoing communications with mr. gray, and that was not true, that type of pr of posturing is abhorrent. >> mr. crump said, just for accuracy, that he was told that there would be a federal victims advocate that the family wanted, not one from the state. is that your understanding as well? >> it is and that's also what happened, in part, in the zimmerman case as well. they focused more on the doj

involvement. as long as mccullough made the inquiry if they want to use the federal facilities and resources, that's great. they need to have somebody telling them what's going on in the prosecution's side. >> sonny, the prosecutor said this grand jury would be presented with every witness, every bit of evidence. are victims' parents ever called as grand jury witnesses? if they're not eyewitnesses to something. >> you know, not generally. if they're not eyewitnesses and they can't necessarily help the grand jury reach a determination, no, they're not you called. but what it still remains unusual in my mind, anderson, the prosecutor's office has not met with the brown family, has not given the brown family an indication of how they think the presenting is going, what kind of charges they're looking at. that is unusual. it's just simply not the normal course of things. but as we've said before this is not your typical grand jury process. i've never seen anything like

it. >> what is the process for all the information that was presented in the grand jury to be made public? to go before a judge first? the judge decide whether or not it will be made public and what's the time line on something like that? >> it's very unusual because normally grand jury testimony is not make public. the fact that mccullough said in the beginning he was going to make it public is unusual and he has the right to do so. it could be overridden by a judge because the judge sort of has authority over the grand jury and how they present themselves. but presumably with mccullough's statement out in front the judge is not going it get in the way and i hope the department of justice does not get in the way. one thing is for certain with a unique presentment that was made, we have to say what that grand jury used. >> mark o'meara, sonny hoskins, i appreciate it. we're going to be back with much more live coverage of this issue at 11 chock clock p.m. eastern. our panel will be back, also will cover a number of other

stories that we didn't get to in this hour. that's 11:00 eastern time tonight. right now we're going to turn our attention to another major issue in this country, the price tag of higher education. we're going to explore very basic question. is college worth the cost? it's the subject of a new cnn film "ivory tower" which starts right now. cnn films presented by volkswagen. isn't it time for german engineering? ♪ ♪ come down come down from your ivory tower ♪ ♪