congressman michael grim who once threatened to throw a reporter off a congressional balcony. president trump has endorsed his opponent. polls in new york close at 9:00 p.m. mitt romney is favored. polls close at 10 p.m. time. that's it for us. time to hand it over to chris. >> all right. thank you, anderson. i am crisco mhris cuomo. it is on. the battle of us versus them that the president trump hits at every turn has become a fight for the soul of this country. the latest salvo from the right, the attorney general desperate to stay in president trump's goodish graces refers to democrats as radicalized as in the terrorism term. and cracked jokes about separating kids from their parents. congressman steve king upped the ante saying america may be headed for another civil war.

the division is so intense king refuses to delete a tweet even though he says he doesn't agree with the hateful things sponsored by the guy he tweeted. why? he's here to tell you in a second. the battle may come down to immigration. tho the supreme court authorized the president's travel ban as good law. but left whether it is a good policy up to you, the voters. it's watered down from the original, but the message is clear. all are not welcome. so who are we? what are we about in america? they are big questions that must be answered. that's why we've all gathered tonight. so let's get after it. we didn't start the fire. no, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it. remember those words from the 1989 song? it's an anthem for what's going on rightow right here.

but president trump has changed the lyrics. he isn't trying to fight it. it's a flame thrower charging fears, concerns about america being changed for the worst by others. there is a fundamental battle afoot. is our future as a nation one of inclusion or exclusion? now, our first guest is a leader of the part of the republican party that the president needs most, the hard liners on immigration. iowa republican congressman steve king. welcome to prime time, sir. >> good to be back, chris. >> all right. congressman, help me understand this thing with the tweet, the guy that you retweeted. i'll put it on the screen for people. you've said, look, i was looking to retweet an article about people becoming more suspicious of who comes into their country. that's what i was trying to get at. i don't agree with colette. i'm not in a neo- nazi. i don't imbrace what he's about. that's true, right? >> it's generally true. i don't know if that's an exact

quote. what i'm trying to say is here's a story that says at 65% of the italians under 35 have had enough with immigration. >> but the guy has espoused ugly, neo- nazi type principles, and you do not agree with those. is that true, sir? >> obviously not, but that's what you all say. i have no idea who he is. i don't know whye're giving him a world famous name now into the news. i'm not obligated to do a full background check on anybody. >> it's pretty obvious what he's about. i'm not saying you knew. >> absolutely. you know i didn't. >> that's what the part is that i don't understand. i don't believe that you recognize his values as your own, but you say, but i won't delete the tweet. >> right. >> i don't get it. >> it's pretty simple. >> why? >> i tweeted a breitbart story. i didn't create a message from him. i tweeted a breitbart story.

i tweeted it. i went back a little bit later when some folks pointed this out, and i went and got the tiny url and tweeted the breitbart story off their website. i said this is what i intended to send. i'm not deleting at. then you pile on me and said king apologized. he's wrong. he knows he's guilty. i don't feel guilty one bit. i'm human. >> right, but i don't get it. it's human to error, right? >> yes. >> that's why i corrected it. you saw me correct it. >> you said don't give the guy a platform, but you won't take down the retweet, so you're giving him a platform. >> i don't have him on cnn. >> you won't pull back from the position. >> that's not why. >> not because you believe in what he's saying. i give you that. i'm not here to say you're a neo- nazi. i'm here to say you're so caught up in the us versus us thing with the left and right that you don't want to give ground on even something you acknowledge is wrong.

>> no. i retweeted a breitbart story. that wasn't wrong. he was an anonymous individual until you and others highlighted his name. let's not get wrapped around the axle about this. it's a nothing story, chris. >> but here's the thing. when you gave him a platform, and when you have refused to take it down, you have given license to people who share his thoughts. i'm sure your staffers have pointed out to you that on social media you got a lot of ugly people using your name, waving it as a flag as someone who accepts what they are about and getting into their ideas because you retweeted this guy. >> i'm not aware of any of that. i am aware of leftists attacking me trying to get me to take this down. i'm not taking it down. it was simply a breitbart story that i tweeted. it had a guy's name on it that i'd never heard of. now a lot of people have heard his name. it's going to stay on my website. >> even though he's about ugly ideas.

even paul ryan who is in the mode of getting into fights said there's no place for this in the dialogue. >> paul ryan didn't say anything. his spokesperson made a general comment that didn't have any name in it. that's not a story either. you cannot assign someone, and you didn't at this point. i reject the values. my ancestors fought naziism. i'm about freedom and god given liberty. this is a great country we live in. i believe in this country. i believe in the pillars of american exceptionalism. i want to restore them. i don't want to tear them down. we have freedom of speech in this country. i'm watching that be suppressed with intimidation attacks on my colleagues. i think they waited about a year for the shooting of steve scalise and others and now they're starting to challenge the members of this administration out in the restaurants and around the streets of america. that is something we should be concerned about. >> well, look, we've been talking about it on the show. i don't think this hostility

helps anybody on either side. it's getting worse and worse, congressman, and you're part of the mix on this. it seems so clear to me that immigration has become the ultimate battle ground of all these competing ideas, and you seem to represent one very specific school of thought which is this is going to be a shuttered nation. you'll say it's about the rule of law, but it's about only wanting certain kinds of people here, whether it's the travel ban or what we see with separating families. it's a very us versus them mentally right now. and you're part of it. >> you're assigning me a belief system. those things never came out of my mouth. i'm about people that want to become americans. i do say that. i have an op ed out there today that says so. i want to welcome people who look at america and say i want to achieve the american dream and help the country i'm coming to, and american values count. we are a christian country and believe in free m of speech, religion, the second amendment. we know what made america great. and there's another piece, this

we don't talk about. i think we'd agree on this. there's been a self-selecting vigor that's come into america. the people that decided to immigrate from the united states of america were the ones that had the ambition. the ones that wanted to achieve their vision of success, and so if there were ten children in a family in any country, the ones that came to america were self-selected with more vigor than those that didn't to select to come here. that's one of the reasons this is a great country as well. >> i don't say -- why do you say we don't talk about that? it seems to be a part of the conversation. right now it's about whether or not the people will still get the chance, because really, the battle with you guys isn't so much on illegal immigration. we can talk if you'd like about the insistence of saying the left is about open borders. i try to get one of them to admit that they're about open borders. they gave you the wall. chuck schumer said i'll give you the wall for daca. they're not about open borders

or lawlessness. >> it doesn't look to me like they're ready to give us the wall for daca. >> have you heard a democrat say i want open woborders, no law, d for people to come in whenever they want. why do you say they're for open borders? >> we served it up to them. in this congress it was voted on last week. the a bill went down that had wall money and enforcement. they rejected it. that doesn't mean they're for open borders. here's the proof. i have proof. i interviewed chuck schumer about it. i don't know if i used it in the interview. it goes to this point. just listen to this. >> i put that deal on the table in the oval office, in a sincere effort at compromise. i put the wall on the table in exchange for strong daca protections. >> this is in january. he said it in the interview and said go back and look. he had said it. the idea of saying they want open borders every time they

don't accept what you want, it feeds the us versus them. it makes them a punitive enemy to the republican base that they're about something different than you are. why do that? >> they are about something different. >> but they're not about open borders and lawlessness. it's about how we invite people to this country. it's fundamentally different. >> chris, they're defending ms-13. >> they're not. nancy posi never defended ms-13. >> when president trump referred to them as animals, there was a hyperventilation going on among the left that you couldn't talk about people in terms and call them animals. that was defending ms-13 by about anybody's standard, and by the way -- >> no. it's what you made it about. but go ahead. >> i didn't get involved in that dialogue myself. i believe i recall president trump saying chuck schumer withdraw that offer, and -- >> no. he rejected the offer. they put the wall on the table. then it became about money. schumer says you guys not you,

you're in the house, but republicans in the senate wouldn't give him more money to earmark for the wall than the $25 billion that was for. whether it's true or not, saying they're for open borders is selling a lie that's making them look like an enemy. >> you can define open borders differently. they're promising citizenship to nearly everybody that can get into america unless they're the kind of criminals that cause them to be political criminals. i stood near the capitol building in 2005 or so when teddy kennedy went out to the west lawn, stood at the podium. the law was full of bussed in people. he said to them. he had an interpreter. i heard it in english. he said some say report to be deported. i say report to become an american citizen. >> even that wouldn't be an open

border. >> when i heard that, the hair stood up on the back of my neck. i knew he uttered the axiom that was going to lead that party into the next generation. that was the promise, and hillary clinton made that promise over and over again during the campaign. >> many members of you party in both houses of congress believe that the dreamers should have a pathway to citizenship. i know you don't. and it's a legitimate policy debate, but it's how you define the debate that i wanted to bring you on for tonight. you say while it's just about the law, law enforcement, i'm not seeing it. you say i'm not part of the ms-13 mess. i'm just pointing out what the democrats did. that's an unfair reckoning. you put out a picture of kids saying they look like perfect recruits for ms-13. you don't know anything about these kids. >> i can see a picture. i can see a picture. they were declared to be young boys by let's see, stormy daniels' attorney. he put that out and said they're

young boys. i look at that and say no, these boys are, as i said, old enough to be tried as adults. they're old enough to serve in the military. the prime gang recruitment age. >> why? why paint them with that brush? the first two a true. the first one is a little suggestive of malintent. >> i didn't suggest intent. >> you're making it sound like they are would be gang members. when you talked about muslims working in your work plants and say i don't want muslims working in my pork plant because they need extra explanation. >> i didn't say that. you need a sense of humor near. >> here's the sound bite. you judge it. >> you do that. >> the rationale is that as infidels eating this pork, they're not eating it. as long as they're preparing the pork for infidels, they're going to hell and it must make them happy. i don't want people doing my pork that won't eat it.

>> fair enough. >> fair enough? you're saying they're trying to kill us. >> would you want somebody running a winery that wouldn't drink the wine? >> i wouldn't think they're trying to kill me. is that what you think? >> i didn't say they were trying to kill me. >> you said infidels -- >> i want people preparing -- >> you're talking about terrorists. okay who think that? >> i didn't say terrorists. >> you said infidels, muslims who believe steve king is an infidel are terrorist types. they are radicalized people who believe a perversion of their own faith. >> that's an exact quote from an authority. >> what if vegetarians are working in their meat plant. do you want them out too? >> i'd be worried about that. >> no. that's my point. this us versus them thing. you're picking on these people and trying to point out to their constituents that they're

different. i think it's dangerous. that's how i got here. i was one of these subgroups, as you call them. that's who we are, steve king in this country. >> let's go to the subgroup piece. nobody has ever answered that question i asked. it was rhetorical in a way. >> obviously not if you want it answered, but what's the question? >> i mean, the point that when you said subgroups that i discussed before, i said what subgroup has contributed more than western civilization. >>. >> no. you said white civilization. >> i didn't. i did not say that. >> i have it in front of my face from the daily beast. it's an old article, but it's not an old idea for you. >> in print means nothing these days. i read a lot of that stuff in print, even your own print. if it's videotape, i'll listen to it. >> do you think i'm unfair and get your words wrong? something in print that says it's a quote from me, that doesn't mean it's a quote from me. if you have a video, run the video. i know what i said. i'll post it tomorrow.

>> why keep painting people who are others as somehow suspici s suspicious? >> why do they attack somebody in western civilization? the greatness of americas western civilization. we are we talking anybody who defends it. you embrace western civilizat n civilization. >> i just see people like me as part of it. i see people who come -- >> would you say to people who come here, you should take a look at this and embrace these pillars of american -- >> i think we do that. that's by the asim -- why the assimilation of different people into america as americans has been our strength and greatness. the chinese who worked on the railroads, the mass of melting pot of immigrants that built our tunnels and bridges and thought up our technology, and the rules for our civilization. they're not all white. >> but they came here to embrace

americanism. today the left is teaching them to reject assimilation. >> that's not true. what's teaching them to reject assimilation is people who call their -- you need to hear this. what's making people thibout the value of assimilation is when their kids get called would be gang members and when they hear themselves being hinted at as maybe wanting to hurt the rest of us and they shouldn't work in places if they won't eat the food. that's what makes people think they're not being accepted. laws like a travel ban. watching kids get separated from parents in the name of enforcing the law. that's what makes people think they don't belong, steve king. >> never thought that out of the tweet i sent. that is these young men certainly come from one of the top ten most violent countries in the world. >> america is one of the top ten most violent countries in the world. that doesn't make us all violent people. >> they come from places where it's 92, 94 violent deaths per

so 100,000. >> i'm talking about countries with fully formed economies and opportunity who should be doing better. we have our own struggles as the president of the united states likes to say all the time, north korea? like other people haven't done bad things? russia, like we haven't killed some people. he's so ready to admit the fault of america when it serves him. you should admit it now. we're not a perfect place. >> i don't want to admit the faults of america. i want to embrace the greatness of america. >> it's our diversity. >> and we have people on your side of the aisle doing citizenship -- >> don't say my side of the aisle. i look to the left. jokers to the left of me. what's the rest of the song? >> we were going to get to humor. you're not on the left, no. >> jokers to the right. here i am. >> someplace in the middle. >> steve king, let me see if we can agree on one thing. the strength of this country has been found in its composition which has always been about

diversity, especially in times of need, the waves of immigrants who have come into this country have helped america be her greatest. will you acknowledge that? >> it's not diversity that is our strength. it's assimilation that binds the diversity together that is our strength. and we have people that come from all donor countries in the world that have added to this culture in civilization. many of them in vigorous ways as i described earlier and the reasons for that. but if weon't have assimilation, we not going to have the strengths of zwedivers. >> and if we want people to assimilate, we have to embrace them for who they are. >> and they need to embrace us for what we are. i thank god for our liberties. >> the statue of liberty has words we never want to forget. >> we never voted on that. i don't reject the words. they've inspiring, but it's not

a national policy. >> that's a sad statement. >> it's just true. >> it can be sad and true at the same time. we'll see what the policy is as this war over immigration is settled. thank you for being part of the conversation on the show. >> thanks, chris. all right. so look, i know there are parts of you out there who say i don't want to hear from steve king. i get it. i get why you feel that way, but it's not a good way to feel. you have to hear the part of the republican party that king represents is vibrant and a big part of what trump is lobbying on the immigration battle right now. tweet me. tell me what you didn't like and we'll read some of the responses later in the program and see if we can bridge where people are on this. okay. what do we know about the trump administration it's demanding civility, but it reminds me of a line from the movie "the princess bride". remember when they septembkept with the word inconceivable?

they keep saying that word. i do not think they know what it means. this sets up the great debate. look at these two handsome men. van jones, jason miller, next. own your prettiness, van jones. and get netflix included for the whole family. so you can get lost in space in your own backyard... or get pumped up for your grand entrance. only t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free.

i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.

all right. it's a battle of us versus them. t, the tariffs, the bad ombrés, the law of exclusion. we'll explain in a second. and m for muslims. what happened with the kids? it's a message of harshness. that was the point all along. come at your own risk. the proof? he didn't even prepare for his own productivity. the administration knew they were going to explode the population, but no provisions for accommodations or due process. trump wasn't about the practicality. he was about the animus. it's not over. for some reason we're just not talking about it enough. they're still not being reunited and not sure what they're going to do. why? because that's what they wanted. now, what did we see?

well, with the ban today, can we do this? yes, the supreme court said the law does allow a president to limit immigration, over phenomenon he wants to do it from places he doesn't like. trump's tion? the wall comes next. why would he step on the headline about the ban by talking about the wall? it's part of hisplan. the key phrase, the law of exclusion. this is about enforcing the law. we do have to be a nation of lawing la laws. his main rule is a law of exclusion. us versus them, and them are not just brown skinned people or muslims. it's about ideas. jeff sessions alling the rhetoric -- calling the rhetoric of opponents about taking children from parents radicalized. >> the rhetoric we hear from the other side on this issue as on many others has become radicalized. we hear views on television today that are on the lunatic

fringe, frankly, and what is perhaps more galling is the hypocrisy. i liked the security around themselves, and if you try to scale the fence, believe me, they'll be even too happy to have you arrested and separated from your children. >> so, you saw the joke there at the end. that's for his discretion. you saw he read the word radicalized. that does that mean? it's intentional. and yes, it is the kind of word that we reserve for terrorism. it was used on purpose. us versus them. also there's another kicker in there. sessions is hungry for approval and also an example of the capitulation of a party. what did we see with the gop? mcconnell. smiling with the justice that helped the travel ban through, gorsuch. and the justices that -- the judges they're getting through are an untold part of the story of reinforcing the us versus them cultural priorities. we'll take that on in this show over time. we also saw paul ryan.

once a moral standard who called out barack obama for unpresidential rhetoric but never once has told trump to apologize for any of his ugliness as president. he gave a soft stance on steve king retweeting a neo nazi saying that shouldn't be part of the dialogue, but maxine should apologize. why? telling people to protest the administration, we don't need that. take a listen. >> that's dangerous for our society. it's dangerous for our democracy. she should apologize and there's just no place for that in our public discourse. >> i could play you a dozen examples of the president saying things that are so much more inflammato ryan, crickets. now, trump is getting what he's been asking for. a fight. waters calling for a shame campaign. people harassing administration officials in public, and private. what has trump company?

he kpaexaggerated water's intentions, saying she was calling for harm. that's not true. why? here we are ugly and ugly on both sides. there will be no winning. but there is a battle. and it all comes down to immigration. how this policy battle goes, so goes our country. so there is a lot to debate. let's get into it with van jones and jason miller. it's good to have you both. van jones, i start with you. the battle of us versus them. is it real? is it in effect, and what's the intention by the administration? >> well, i mean, it's clearly real and the president of the united states has found a formula to kind of keep this conflict going. he throws punches, and if anybody throws a punch back at him he says we're being victimized. i was especially disappointed to see paul ryan. you're correct, paul ryan had the chance to be a moral leader and a moral giant. his big hero jack kemp who

always stood up to bigotry, pau during the campaign of donald trump, but then he backed down from it. he brought the taxes down, which jack kent would like but did not bring the moral rhetoric up when he had the opportunity. if anybody should apologize, paul ryan should apologize to the country and jack kemp for not doing his job to hold everybody to a high standard. one of the big disasters in this country is there's nobody on the right that's been able to hold that moral standard high and paul ryan had that opportunity and failed? >> jason, that's over, that fight. right? we know what the party is now. the party is the party of trump. separating families. that's not reagan republicanism. we know what their immigration policy was for the party back then. nobody is going against trump. isn't it over? >> well, i think people are definitely embracing the policies of president trump. that's the reason he got 306 electoral votes and won over

states that republicans don't traditionally win whether it's michigan or wisconsin. i think there's something that's going on over the last week where i think things have gotten way too inflammatory and way too heated. >> what did you expect? >> hold on. chris, people -- van and i can have civil debates on issues back and forth. and i appreciate the opportunity to come on this show and do such, but you look at the comments that congresswoman waters made over the weekend where it might not have been inciting mob violence. maybe it was a level below, maybe harassment, but encouraging people to form a crowd, she said create a crowd and confront them at gas stations and restaurants and say you're not welcome here -- >> i hear you. let's compare. i want to see if your emotion stays equal. let's play something by somebody else and what they say. >> get them out. try not to hurt him.

if you do, i'll defend you in court. don't worry about it. if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. i'd like to punch him in the face. i don't know if i would have done well, but i would he been out there fighting. i don't know if i would have done well, but i would have boom boom, beat the -- >> why is it now, my brother? >> well, i think they're apples and oranges here. i think the president was joking around. don't take it from me. there was a write up on this this evening where they had a lawyer from the aclu -- >> you're citing plito fact? every time i use it, you say it's a left -- >> i don't remember that conversation. but they even had a lawyer from the aclu saying that did not rise to the level of inciting things the same way. but again, it's not even just congresswoman waters saying get in the face of people. the fact that we're targeting staff and targeting members of administration -- >> look, i don't like it.

i don't think it's productive or good. >> and chris, to be clear, i don't like it when they do it. >> but hold on. let's bring van back in. van, here, i dealt with this last night also. i have people on the show. i want a lot of different kinds of voices. i believe it's important for people. don't shut out everybody, even if you don't agree with everything. but they're never full throated about what the president said. it's always qualified and okay. there's always an escape hatch, and then congresswoman waters says something and it's civility time. >> i have a problem because i don't like double standards. i wrote a whole bookhastising liberals and conservatives for this type of stuff. if i want to challenge it, i have a clear re my problem is the people who don't have a clear record on th own side. bobby kennedy who died 50 years ago this year said moral courage is not standing up to your enemies. anybody is going to stand up to their enemies. moral courage is when you stand up to your friends.

all the people jumping up and down on congresswoman waters have never h thee level of passion challenging a president on their own party. and i disagree. i don't care who. if any grown man stands up in front of a crowd of people or grown woman and said the things donald trump said at the rallies, they are irresponsible. if it was our kid or husband, or employee, they would be in deep do do, yet we apologize for the president doing it, and it's wrong. >> and it was last night. he pointed to the back of the room, fake media. you see the way they treat the media? it's encouraged and reinforced. it's ugly. that's why i said what did you expect? not because i think it's right. as soon as they put out the called, they said be careful. if you've had enough of trump, why would you use the same tactics as trump? i don't know how that's making us better, sweeter, smarter or more productive. when i say, what did you expect,

this is what you invite. >> well, no, i disagree on that. i think it's the ultimate game of what aboutism. look, president trump has said he's a counterpuncher. when people swing at him verbally, he's going to punch back. if people want to criticize people, that's fine. that's your free speech. you have the right to do so. but it's different what maxine waters was doing. >> she ner -- when the president says she wants to harm -- >> she said create a crowd and tell them they're not welcome here. chris, what about the wanted poster with steven miller and the wanted poster, i don't care what the fine print says in two point font at the bottom. when you're making wanted posters for someone who works in the white house, the clear message you're sending is it is a call to action that you want some harm to happen to that person. >> and you know what? i don't like it. >> i'm glad you say that. >> van jones, when the president of the united states, and a

citizen is trying his hardest to convince people that the president is a muslim who doesn't born in this country, that was pretty dangerous too. and you didn't hear jason miller or anybody else opposing it. >> yeah. look, i can't disagree with that. part of the thing i want to take a step back here. why are you seeing people like waters and others getting to this level of exasperation? the president has done this act with regard to the children at the border and other things and people are starting to feel helpless. they're starting to feel that congress isn't doing anything. the supreme court seems to be going against them. people feel helpless. i would say moral witness on behalf of your views is a good thing. it has to be in a nonviolent an constructive way. nobody else is put at risk. that's the dr. king standard.

i don't want to be in a world where people say you can't bear moral witness. want to be so civilhat we use we can't bear moral witness, butyo. i will be tough on my liberal and progressive friends saying we're not going to low er our standard. we h to do it the right way. >> so you would agree that maxine waters did not reach that threshold. i would be curious by your definition about what you think of sarah sanders being kicked out of a restaurant? >> i'm a civil rights guy. for me, open public accommodations is something my family fought for. the idea of anybody being asked to leave any restaurant, a gay person not being able to access a wedding cake, those things bother me. at the same time, i'm consistent about that. my concern is when you have people saying it's okay to throw somebody out of a restaurant if

they're gay, but then you can't ask somebody to leave a restaurant if their politics are, frankly, very, very troubling from a human rights perspective. let's be consistent. i try to be consistent. my problem is a double standard and the hypocrishypocrisy. at a certain point people on your side of the aisle, you have the house. you have the senate. you have the white house. and now you have the supreme court. would you please take responsibility for the conduct of people on your side and quit worrying about every little thing every little democrat does? >> i'm going to take a little bit of a different perspective and say i think ultimately everybody needs to watch their own actions and their own behavior. it's up to each individual person to make sure they're treating others with respect and so i would say whether -- nobody should be kicked out of a restaurant for any reason. i think that's ridiculous. nobody whether you're a political opponent or someone on the other side should be harassed in public or yelled at or screamed -- >> you feel the same way about

lesbians and gays trying to get a wedding cake? >> look, supreme court has already gone in -- >> here we go. >> and decided that. >> but you personally? >> i think as long as it's not absolutely tearing up someone's values, that you shouldn't be going denying people's services. >> it's always easy to criticize the other side. people are holding onto their own. that's why we're stuck. all conversation that's decent helps. this goes in the books as that. jason miller and van jones, thank you. today's supreme court ruling. google different thoughts. it's not surprising on the law. they never said it is a good policy. to be sure, politically, it throws more fuel on the fire of an already explosive debate. we have a lawmaker who is actively trying to overhaul our immigration system here, and his name is senator ron johnsen. he's also fighting to keep migrant families together.

he is the chairman of the homeland security committee. he is there. good to see you, sir. i'll get to you in a second. sign to quit cable, inga then here's some signs. it came from the toaster. now you can quit cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card. more for your quitting cable thing. that's our thing. call 1 800 directv. ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup!

hi! this is jamie. we need some help. if you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain.

and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.

the president is claiming a tremendous victory after this supreme court upheld his travel ban. he originally called for a total ban of muslims entering the country during the campaign. it later morphed into what he called a watered down and polically correct version. he is still celebrating because it still feeds the us versus them culture war that he relished. is it a win for you? let's ask it for the chairman of the senate homeland security. ron johnson. the travel ban, you had said that you saw this as a reasonable accommodation from the first version of it. are you okay with the court's finding today? >> i think the court's finding is correct. we have given the president a great deal of latitude in terms of running our refugee system and our immigration laws. from the standpoint of national security, this was a clear cut court decision. i was kind of surprised at the

lower court's decision. it doesn't surprise me the supreme court ruled in the president's favor. >> they said they didn't like the policy. >> it was judicial activism. >> everybody says that when they don't like the outcome. >> no. we're trying to confirm judges that apply the law and don't alter it. that's a famous quote by neil gorsuch. >> gorsuch who said he would be his own man and he has voted not only in consistency with scalia but with clarence thomas. he is farther to the right than he ever suggested he was possible of being. and that's okay, because elections have consequences. let's not make it like there's one standard more pure than the other. >> we what we ought to do is find areas of agreement. i came onto talk about the immigration. we don't want to separate families. >> hold on a second.

>> we -- >> one at a time. you said we don't want to separate families. >> no. >> i just heard you on fox saying, you know, when trump tries to enforce the law, everybody gets upset. so if you don't want to separate families, then you should be upset by the way that he was enforcing the law. i know it's a different audience now. >> but first, i don't. >> i don't think that's a quote, chris. >> i watched you. >> what i'm talking about is the fact that we have laws and legal precedent, and loopholes that incentivize people to come to this country illegally. there's nothing -- people attracted that die in the desert. we need a legal immigration system. ours is horribly broken. we need to end the incentives for illegal immigration and get control of the system. i think people of good faith can

work together and try to solve the problem. i come from the private sector. to succeed in the private sector, you have to pursue areas of agreement. in politics people exploit divisions. i don't like it. i don't like rhetoric. i don't like demagoguery. i came here to try to solve problems. >> but you can't solve problems if you don't own what the problems are sometimes. you say i don't want to separate families. but what you don't say is trump was wrong to separate the families. he was wrong to do it this way and it was calculated to be done this way, because they didn't prepare. they didn't have accommodations in place. what does that tell us? it tells us the message, the animus was more important than the policy. but you don't say that. you don't call that out. why? >> again, i'm trying to positively influence the process and trying to solve the problem, chris. so the way you have to do is that is recognize reality. recognize that since 2012 with

unaccompanied children and family units about 9,000 people have flooded the borders. we don't have the capacity. neither the pres administration or this administration has the capacity to deal with this flood. what we also do know is from 2005 when the dhs secretary faced 31 brazilians coming to the country. it was texas hold 'em. he an hended the people, processed them, and those that didn't have valid asylum climbs -- >> he set up procedures first. go back and look. look how much time he put into the procedures. >> it was 31,000 under a current system in 2014 alone we had 52 children unaccompanied children. >> i know, but the scale. >> that's at least 140,000 people. the scale isn't even close. >> i know. but the scale only makes the point more, senator. if you knew you were going to be dealing with more people and more volume, you would have prepared more in advance if that's what you cared about.

they didn't do it here. my suggestion is because they wanted the message of harshness, not the policy. you said also on fox the problem is here we let them in. they come in and never show for their hearings. >> that is just a statement of fact. >> 75 % do they got it to 90% with programs that you were okay with trump administration cancelling. >> if they're detained. if they're not detained, they don't show up. the fact of the matter is more than 2 00,000 unaccompanied children, 96% are still in this country. we haven't deported then. so we haven't reduced that incentive for illegal immigration. those children are still in this country. they're using social media. and they're acting as -- >> hold on. 75% shows up for hearings. if they were detained, you'd get 100%. obviously they're detained. so they're going to show up for the hearing. what i'm saying is it's not none of them. it's 75 %. the number is too low. i agree.

you have programs to get you over 90%. you cancelled them. i don't know how people in detention don't show up for a hearing. do they get lost? >> the ones in detention show up. the ones caught and released don't show up and they're still in the interior and haven't been deported. that just creates a greater incentive. that's why we've seen a surge of families. >> understood. what i see is this. i see impasse based on completely different theories of america. and it is us versus them. you have a president who is pushing that the people who want to get into this country should be -- you should be suspicious of them. steve king was on. he echoed it. he said the words on the statue of liberty were never voted on. they are not a policy of this country. do you believe that the words of the new colossus of what's on the foot of the statue of liberty, do you believe it's an add >> no, i believe we are a nation

of immigrants in the history of this nation coming here to seek an opportunity that america offers. they come and work hard and it needs to be legal process rather than illegal process. that's what i'm trying to accomplish. i really don't think we probably have enough legal immigration, but we need to have a legal immigration system that's focussed on -- >> but the president -- i've never heard you a pose it. uential as possible in termss of getting the right types of policies. listen, i tried to work with president obama and get him to succeed in making this a secure nation. i'm trying to do the same thing with president trump. i don't agree with everyone 100% of the time. -- >> i hear you. >> i just want to solve problems. >> i get you, but who had you on to work the magic board and talk

economic realities? i did. >> no i appreciate it -- >> whose waiting for you to get a vote on tariffs, if they give you a vote on tariffs, who will have you on to discuss it? i will. what i'm saying is, when i hear you talk about the other side here, you say you want to find an accommodation. i hear you say, hey, i didn't see any illegal registers because i believe their for open boarders. i've never heard a democrat say they want an open border. why would you describe them that way if you're looking for solutions? >> it's an open border type of policy. it results in people big dispersed all over the country. we gotten particular with children of apprehending and dispersing. we actually dispersed self-admitted ms-13 gang members. when we round up those gang members, a quarter and a third

of those gang members were brought into this country and dispersed -- >> yeah, and -- >> it's a problem. >> everybody should be able to agree on it. >> that's why we have to secure or border and we haven't, we haven't done it fordecades. this administration is trying to do it but is babbling league question law -- >> it's more than law. fist who up to be and how up to be. you're always welcome here to discuss the arguments. >> i appreciate that. have a great night. >> senator, i'll see you son. don lemon standing by. he's got a preview of cnn tonight just minutes away. don, you're keeping an eye on what could be a big deal for the democrats -- >> ten term incumbent, maybe upset, looks like it's heading that way by a liberal pr

progressive woman. it's going to be a good night for the progressives. what does that mean for the mid term elections and so on and so forth? we'll figure that out. also we're going to talk about the topic you were talking about. do you know what we did three years ago? till this day, supreme court voted in favor of the same sex marriage. then you have the president eulogizing the people killed in charleston. now today, you have the supreme court and the travel ban. as i always say to you, we have to figure out woo kind of country we're going to become after this or in this moment. so, just give you some perspective on where we were and where we are right now and what the hell is going on. >> the big question is, what will be? we'll see. good show, i'll be watching. thank you, don. >> see you. let's take a break. hit me on twitter, tell me what you like requested what you didn't. richard: no. is this too hard for you? ernie: woo! we're playing catch now! richard: ugh!

ernie: sorry, sorry, sorry ! join t-mobile. and get netflix included for the whole family. so you can get lost in space in your own backyard... or get pumped up for your grand entrance. only t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free. -i think it'll look really good without the stripes. behr marquee presents: it's got potential. margo and sam had a vision, brought to life in one coat.

whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. guaranteed in 1,000 plus colors. find it exclusively at the home depot. gonna make it rain "tre tres". kids 'cause d's he's saying he's gonna score a bunch of three-pointers on you. yeah, we ball til we fall. there are multiples on the table: one is cash, three are fha, one is va. so what can you do? she's saying a whole lotta people want to buy this house. but you got this! rocket mortgage by quicken loans makes the complex simple. understand the details and get approved in as few as eight minutes. by arica's largest mortgage lender.

are those my shorts? does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. it's your turn to tell me where i'm wrong. here's what peter tweets. demonstrates to rip steve king that words are important. king is skilled at mastering a

dangerous e months but good on cnn. i haven't heard a full conversation with steven king before. peter you got to remember, be open. gina tweeted. i don't like kids about separated from their parents but illegal entry into the u.s. has to stop. last administration talked tough by accomplished nothing. >> you're making a strong point, one that must be dealt with within the system that is inefficient at a minimum. not all people are coming for the same reason, member, some are running for their lives. adam tweeted, faming the high road is not reasonable. civility's for another day went we're dealing with civil people. there's a time to be ideal and a time to be real. now is a time to be real. #call them out. i think you always have to appeal to what is best in yourself. that's your guide. thank you for your comments as

always and thank you for being with us here on cuomo prime time. "cnn tonight" with don lemon starts right now. i was sleeping on the primaries but you got a -- >> i'm glad you said that. now there is a projected winner in the district here in new york. it is the 11th -- new york 11th primary. this young woman, very young, newcomer is going to set a ten term incumbent. this is on the democratic side. chris, we've been paying so much to the republican side. we were talking about here in new york, mitt romney, maybe you think we should be paying more attention to the flask side? >> 100%. they have to figure out what their messages that will be presented as better for voters than what they're getting from trump. they can't just win on hostility, they're seeing that in realtime. joe crowley, who