stock millennials should stock up. >> oef, a basket of large-cap stocks, neil. >> visa. strong reaction to earnings going high over the next six months. >> take it, run with it. >> suddenly a shot rang out and kate fell and looked at me and said, help me dad. those are the last words i will hear from my daughter. >> this is our family's attack on a terror attack. come on down, you can have a pass in our city. heartbreaking stories this week on capitol hill. families whose loved ones were killed by criminal, illegal immigrants blaming sanctuary cities for their deaths. but the white house promising to veto legislation that would strip sanctuary cities of

federal funds. is white house right or wrong? welcome to "forbes on fox." mike, elizabeth mcdonald, sabrina schaefer and bruce jackson. rich, should sanctuary cities lose their federal funding? >> yes, they should. and this republican bill that was just passed in the house may have a lot of flaws to it. it was passed in the heat of the moment, justifiable heat of the moment but federal law. imagine if you had sanctuary cities for income tax evasion or polygamy. it's the same thing. >> bruce, what do you think? >> well, i think it appears to be knee-jerk knipolitics and pandering. if they should do this, given all the reports of the undocumented immigrants that trump has working for his companies, maybe they should extend to sanctuary golf course and resorts. >> not pandering at all. i think that's a bad analogy.

the main thing is if they're not abiding by federal law, these sanctuary cities why should they receive federal money? >> listen, this is a disgrace. an absolute national disgrace what these families are going through. federal tax dollars go to these cities to enforce laws to pacically stop illegal immigration. they're not doing what we pay them to do. so, stop the funding. it is as simple as that. we've got, what? 43 states with sanctuary cities and more than 8,100 criminal, illegal immigrants are now in here. committing, many committing crimes again and again. so, enough is a enough. no more, not one more family should have to go through what those families have endured. >> mike, you're always telling us rsh i thi us, i think correctly, illegal immigrant criminals keep coming back to places that give them a free pass. it's incentives, right? >> you're right about that, david. but i would not stop funding

this way. i think if these people broke the way in the sanctuary cities. i think much better if the republicans had shown some back bone and used the power of the purse with the president's budget. i think that was the time. because then they could have actually made it tougher for these illegal immigrants to come into the country in the first place. >> yeah, but, sabrina, we have options now. we have this law in play. kate's law. this guy, by the way, who killed kate five times he was deported and then kept coming back to sanctuary cities because they give him a free pass. >> no, you're absolutely right, david. it's so disturbing on so many levels. serious immigration challenges in this country. this particular story is just horrific and heart wrenching, especially for any parent out there. the question is, is our federal society being undermined. a lot of oissue issues at play. what rich suggested this knee-jerk politics where we're

rushing to pass laws that i very often feel uncomfortable with that immigration is bad and all immigrants are bad and i don't think that's the tone that republicans want or that's good for the country. we need to address some of the very serious challenges and i'm not sure this law is the right way of doing it. >> the bottom line is, we're focusing on immigrants. we should really be focusing on policies, bad policies create bad behavior. when you have sanctuary cities you have criminals that come back and welfare programs for immigrants. by the way, 47%, over 40% of illegal immigrants receive some form of welfare. the policies that are the problem more than the immigrants. correct? >> i don't think so. the kate steinle story is a tragedy. but the facts are that immigrants are incarcerated at rates a fraction of what the american people are. so, to turn this into something about immigrants is just statistically false. that's for the republicans, shame on them.

they talk a big game about constitutionally limited government. then they use resources taken from the american people that are then smacked around the cities and states they live in. >> john, you're against government spending too much money. i thought you would be fine with starving cities of money. >> yes, and i'm for federalism, too. i don't like the federal government taking money from us and then smacking cities around. >> again, rich -- >> again, it's something that has nuthing othing to do with immigration. >> a question of incentives. if you incentivize bad behavior, you'll get more of it. >> when you flout federal law, you know, you have to be cracked down upon. if we have sanctuary cities for income tax evaders, i personally support that one or child molesters or things like that, you can't have that. >> not all sanctuaries are bad. i agree about texas.

>> mexico outlaws illegal immigration. this is symptommatic of the fact that we have really bad border security. and, you know what, we've done this before. washington, d.c., for example, said to the states, you don't raise the drinking age to 21, we will stop federal highway spending money coming your way. >> bruce, i thought you appreciated that federal law usually trumps state and local law, no? >> well, no. i do. but i will say this, the whole answer to this -- >> if you accept that, then how can you accept the notion of sanctuary cities which have local law. >> okay. the sanctuary cities thing is you're not going to get any undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows to rat on these other people because they'll be deported. so, you have to deal with the 11 million folks that are here. that's why the sanctuary city laws came about because they, they wouldn't be able to help solve crime because people would

be worried they would get deported. immigration reform. it's immigration reform. >> the fact is that they're not helping sanctuary cities are violating rules that save people's lives. >> i agree with you 100%, david. all i'm suggesting is that rather than this funding of the cities and try to stop it there, if these people running these cities are breaking the law, they should be prosecuted. that's the way you deal with something that is illegal. >> john, i love immigration. i married an immigrant. my family is immigrants. all of our families are immigrants. we love immigration. helped build america. but we don't love people or criminals getting cover by these sanctuary cities. >> that's fine. but we're using one instance. >> hold on. it's not one instance. there were several people. >> that's not a statistic. we're using that to act like left-wing people and say immigration is bad because of this. fight crime, but to sit here and run against what is a pure

market signal. people come to this country and for the better and then say, okay. >> sabrina, the concept of giving people cover from illegal behavior is wrong, is it not? can't we just say that? black and white. >> that is wrong. the question is, how do you address it? one of the problems of this law is that you're detracting from larger issues. we have a problem, david, with policies. a problem with illegal immigrants coming here because we have generous public assistance programs and a problem with real people who are educated in skills not able to get here because their borders don't touch ours. those are real issues and we don't want to make all immigrants sound as if they're bad. that's why i'm concerned about this law. i do oppose the idea of a sanctuary. >> i think you agree with me, it's the policies that are the problems and not the immigrants. >> the policies that are the problem and not the immigrants. we are for legal immigration, even hispanic immigrants and other immigrants do not like what is going on in sanctuary cities. >> bad incentives incentivate

the wrong people to immigrate here, correct? >> yeah, yeah. again, just substitute income tax evasion and you have the same thing. it incentivize people. >> incentivize everybody to read your new book. great book. first, our computers and smartphones and now it's our cars. a major recall after hackers show how easy it is to put the brakes on your connected car while you're driving. very scary stuff. we're going to be talk about it next. you owned your car for four years. you named it brad. you loved brad. and then you totaled him. you two had been through everything together. two boyfriends. three jobs. you're like "nothing can replace brad!" then liberty mutual calls. and you break into your happy dance. if you sign up for better car replacement, we'll pay for a car that's a model year newer

with 15,000 fewer miles than your old one. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

now? can i at least put my shoes on? if your bladder is calling the shots ... you may have a medical condition called overactive bladder ... ...or oab you've got to be kidding me. i've had enough! it's time to talk to the doctor. ask your doctor how myrbetriq may help treat... ...oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. which may mean fewer trips to the bathroom. myrbetriq (mirabegron) may increase your blood pressure. myrbetriq may increase your chances... ...of not being able to empty your bladder. tell your doctor right away if you have... ...trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect... ...or be affected by other medications... ...so tell your doctor about all the medicines you take. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms, urinary tract infection, and headache. take charge by talking to your doctor about your oab symptoms and myrbetriq.

find out if you can get your first prescription at no cost by visiting myrbetriq.com

fox" and i'll see you for my show at 3:00 p.m. eastern. well, forget about your computer and smartphone, now hackers are finding ways to hack into your car while you're driving. fiat chrysler is so worried it's recalling more than a million cars after two hackers showed wired.com how to do it to a jeep. take a look.

>> below a certain speed, they can control the jeep steering, as long as it is in reverse. messes with the speedometer and, of course, disable the brakes. >> hold on a second. >> that's a hacker that did that. >> you say these innovations are now making us all a lot less safe. >> some guy, some couch potato sitting on his couch did that. you know, wirelessly. give me a '68 mustang ford bullet any day. i don't need all the bells and whistles. this hacking through the entertainment console is really scary and now we have some french guy who wants to have espresso makers in your car. stop with the cocooning in your car, stop with the living room on wheels. enough is enough. >> john, the problem is that we already had this bureaucracy that deals with car safety.

this is the one that ralph nader inspired back in the '60s. we must reassure vehicle owners that their data is secure and their vehicle is secure and we're looking out for threats from hackers, thieves and anyone else who might seek to tamper with safety-critical technology. >> leave the government out of it. the reality is that experimentation and with experimentation there are going to be mistakes. that's how you get to knowledge that leads to the innovation that we want. we want cars that are more computerized and because we do, there is going to be a market incentive to create ways to deter hackers and let's keep the government out of this. >> if the company is really serious about it. by the way, rich, we had a statement from fiat chrysler about the recall. they say the company is unaware of any injuries related to software exploitation and fiat conducting this campaign out of an abundance of caution and they're a little bit sticking

their haead in the sand. >> they're out front in this issue and i agree totally with john. you don't want the government. the federal government can't protect china from hacking the personnel records and now suddenly they're going to set the standards to protect people from hacking our cars? >> that's a good point, mike. >> well, i don't care what rich says. he's wrong. obama is going to announce any day now, david, there's going to be a computer car czar appointment at the white house. >> a car czar. why did i think we needed a car czar? of course! >> well, bruce, it is, is it not, that some of these safety regulations, seat belts and airbags have saved lives, right? >> yeah, definitely. some of these companies are going to open themselves up to federal regulation if they doni.

some of them are raising the white flag. the blue cross association said we'll offer you free credit checks and whatever if you're hacked essentially is what they're saying. we want to prevent the hacks in the first place. >> so, sabrina, all regulation isn't bad. >> no, all regulation isn't bad and also a lot of times sort of a private incentivation because there is, obviously, a demand for this now. fiat is going back and doing everything they can to make sure their cars are the safest on the road. i'm with john and rich. the idea of being hacked while driving is terrifying, but what is more terrifying is the idea of the federal government to try to come in and fix it. we have to remember that innovation takes a lot of timing and ask you don't have to look at the individual level. the wright brothers didn't just build a plane one day in the back of their bike shop. a lot of innovators before then. >> what about the fact, though, that there have been a lot of advances in seat belt technology and airbags and stuff that the carmakers probably wouldn't have

done unless they were forced to do it by these regulators. >> i have no problem. i think government is there to keep us safe and this is an instance where this is important. by the way, watch this. what if a robot car google driverless car gets hacked? that's the wave of the future, too. >> that's the fear, john. john, would you just get rid of all these consumer safety bodies, bureaucracies? >> of course i would. how do they keep us safe? >> hold on, let me just -- you asked a question. would we have had seat belts and airbags without them? >> oh, yeah. the carmakers would have never come up with that because consumers want them. >> but they weren't until the agency forced them to do it. >> the idea that we wouldn't do things without the government, but the leap that generates crucial economy boosting information. you have to have mistakes to get to these innovations. >> rich, last word, quick. >> in the old days steve hacked.

>> eric, what have you got? >> hey, david. president obama getting serious with funnyman jon stewart saying opposing the iran nuke deal. a 21-year-old rips the white house for not getting tougher on islamic terrorists and it goes viral. why this could be a good sign for our future. see you soon. up here, first, no controversy here. what donald trump just said that should have all of his gop rivals saying he's right. and all college students saying, and all college students saying, righ

♪ ♪ ♪ get excited for the 1989 world tour with exclusive behind the scenes footage, all of taylor swift's music videos, interviews, and more. xfinity is the destination for all things taylor swift.

donald trump known for speaking his mind and there's one thing he's sounding an alarm on, most gop candidates agree on. take a listen. >> one of the biggest questions i get is from people even a little bit younger than you. they're in college, they're doing well, they have student loans up to the neck. they're swimming in these loans and one of the only things the government makes money on. that is one thing the government shouldn't make money on. >> sabrina, you say trump is right and the government shouldn't profit from student loans. >> absolutely not. the government has gotten into the business of student loans and driven up costs for consumers. in the past two years alone, direct government loans for students have increased by 44%.

colleges and universities have absolutely no reason to control or reduce costs. this is a real problem for students. >> and, john, look at the numbers. i mean from 2010 to 2014, they've been making tens of billions of dollars on students loans. >> well, you know, trump is wrong, though. but so is the federal government. it should just not be in the government in order to give out cheap loans. sabrina is right, the feds should be out of this altogether. >> but, bruce, the hypocrisy. you always hear president obama talking about students drowning in education debt and they're making money off these students. that's kind of hypocritical. >> that's not his idea. this is the idea from senator elizabeth warren who has been talking about the government putti putting student loans and if you give the federal government all this money they should have skin in the game and they should be

paying back part of the loan. >> to john's point, why is the government in this business? if it's a profitmaking enterprise? >> they saw the private market in this industry, david, that was making money. they wanted to gouge it and sell it cheaply as a free subsidy, if you will, to people who want to go to college. the question for the president is really about his own hypocrisy. over the years as the government role in college loans has increased, so has the amount of debt that the college students graduate with. by his own remarks, it's really the government's fault. >> so, rich, the government being in the student loan business is one reason why we pay so much for college education. >> yeah. among many reasons. way too many administrators per actual teachers is probably the major reason. but, look, i think donald trump stumbled on to something here and as an employer he sees people paying this enormous amount of money and coming out without any practical education that applies to the business market. >> well, sometimes, everybody

stumbles on the truth. thank you very much, gang. well, if your boss told you to take all of the vacation you want, would you take him or her up on that? we live in a world of mobile technology, but it is not the device that is mobile, it is you.

i think i meaded a hair cut there. most hard-working americans say they would not take time off even if they were offered. a group of big companies. >> a blue chip large cap company and called a sequoia fund and good positions in companies like precision cast parts. its cheapest fund. i'm kind of liking it. >> be careful, david, a big chunk of their money is invested in one cumadie canadian drugma. >> you like nu gold. >> the company is going to move from a loss to a profit next.

>> i don't like gold. gold is going down and so are the minors. >> it has already gone down a lot. gang, thank you very much. have a wonderful weekend. that's it for "forbes on fox." thanks for watching. keep it right here, continues with eric bolling and "cashin' in." president obama trashing the gop on jon stewart's show for not supporting his iran nuke deal. >> when you hear the critics talk about, well, it's a bad deal. could have got a better deal. you then asked them, what represents a better deal? what is it that you think could happen? typically, they're vague and they fall back on, well, if you beat your chest a little bit more and -- >> 2011. if you've just done it in 2011, they'd give you the country. >> or brought dick cheney to the negotiations. everything would be fine. >> well, everyone's not