world. ♪ >> tucker: we have a fox news alert, donald trump's muslim travel ban is blocked so-called for now. a judge has placed a temporary restraining order against the executive order blocking arrivals from seven countries. the ruling means that for now, the order can't be enforced. fox news correspondent dan springer is more with live on the judge's decision. the end, what you know? >> tucker, this is important because it's a nationwide enforcement. an effort to block this enforcement of this trump executive order, we have seen other challenges but they are more narrowly tailored. this is across the country. judge james robart, given the attorney general here in washington state a full victory by offering this temporary

restraining order. arguing and citing that the state does have standings, it's being harmed by this executive order on immigration and it is likely the state, they would win on the merits of the case. here is the attorney general from washington, bob ferguson, reacting after the decision today. >> judge robart's decision, effective immediately, effective now, puts a halt to president trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. the law is a powerful thing. it holds everybody accountable to it. that includes the president of the united states. >> that stops the ban on the refugee program, the 90 day ban on people coming in from iran, iraq. from libya. we do not know what the trump

administration is going to do. donald trump did tweet today earlier that we must keep evil out of our country. but that was in response to a victory he had in a court in massachusetts. the department of homeland security issued a no comment today, but certainly it is likely the trump administration will file an appeal to block this temporary restraining order. tucker? >> tucker: despite today's ruling, against the immigration orders, the aclu filed a class action lawsuit in the state of california, they claim it is of religious discrimination and does not have due process to foreign arrivals. we are joined with a member from the international assistance party. michael, thank you for joining us. reading from the script, basically the aclu is saying that it's unconstitutional because it doesn't provide due process to foreigners coming into this country. i don't know if you are a lawyer or not.

>> i am. >> tucker: you are? so, okay. are foreign nationals -- do they have due process under our constitution? >> under the constitution, when they are on our soil they do have rights. more importantly, let's talk about how this case started. two iraqis who risked their lives working for the united states, they were special immigrant visa holders. that is the program for iraqis who are targeted by terrorist organizations because they work for the united states. the u.s. government made a determination that, one, their lives were at risk from terrace because they stood with us. guys like me, i fought in iraq. they work with people like me. and they had a two year vetting process. they got on airplanes to come to the u.s. with a valid travel documents, they landed, and were detained. one guy was put in handcuffs when he came in the country. we found out about this and we contacted a large number of lawyers, started to find out these were happening. they started going to help airports. i went out to do was international, these guys went to jfk. with some simple questions like can we see our clients, what is the law here, i got to tell you, my heart goes out to the patrol

guys that are trying to implement this order because the way the white house did this, they didn't know. we couldn't find out what happened to these people. so we filed a writ of habeas corpus, which is a fun mineral rights if the government attains you -- >> tucker: i've been detained by foreign governments twice. bureaucracy is not something you want to be involved with in any country. i feel bad for the people you just described. we can carve out exemptions for them. but the larger question in the basis of your lawsuit is a meaningful one. foreign nationals, who are not on u.s. soil, this lawsuit seeks to overturn a band of people who are not good here. your lawsuit suggest that people in other countries have a right to our constitutional protections. does that north korea can sue us for inter-korean discrimination which may >> [laughs] >> tucker: i'm serious! what is the difference? why would a foreigner from a foreign country have a right to due process? >> it's a legal process the united states government is interacting with.

once they start to interact with the u.s. government, definitely when they get here, you are talking about -- again, this is a difficult question to answer in part because we are talking about a broad category of people. it may or may not depending on who you listen to, what you web site you read from the government, visa holders, green card holders. >> tucker: they are saying it doesn't apply to green card holders. if you are right, that was not clear at first. i'm aware. there is no defending the chaos around it, but the basic principles are we are sorting out because this is not going to end now. we need to figure out how we view this. >> that's right. >> tucker: you are making the case that we need to let in these refugees not just to repeat them for helping us -- which i think is a valid argument -- but for national security reasons. why would it help us from a national security perspective to let in refugees from these seven countries? >> we are in a fight. >> tucker: we are not just talk about refugees. >> the executive order wants to ban everybody from seven different countries.

15,000 iraqi soldiers and patch margo -- i agree with that. the people who are right now, doing the house to house, nose to nose killer dive fight against the islamic state on the ground, if you have ever been in -- if you've ever been in an urban gunfight, that is no joke. these are the ones who are taking the fight to isil. we just told them and their families they are not welcome in the united states. >> tucker: for a short period of time. >> not a short period of time. he's got the executive power to do whatever he wants about this. let's talk about the immediate consequences. >> tucker: 1 of 7 countries. i understand your point. we are also talking about yemen, and somalia and i in iran. countries we are not directly involved in. >> that's a random list of countries.

>> tucker: is not random. it's a list of seven countries that the obama administration d. >> 2011... that's a total -- >> tucker: anybody that helps the u.s. military abroad gets special consideration. >> this is what i'm talking about. what about the families of all the iraqi military people who fought for us by! >> tucker: it depends. >> let's carve out an exception for them. what about the kurdish patch fighters? >> tucker: you are trying to stop the whole thing. >> the way this thing is written, when you go and send a couple political guys to a telephone booth, he did not talk to your director. your secretary of homeland security, retired marine general, he found out about this on television. what you get is an order that is so poorly written, so overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time that we can talk about amending it but you are trying to -- >> tucker: you are being a little disingenuous. i don't think you are making an unreasonable case, but that's

not the entirety of the case that you have been making. last year, you wrote this interesting piece saying that we have a moral obligation to bring in syrian refugees -- >> i believe we do. i know that you don't. >> tucker: is that no one has adequately explained to me why that would help america. >> sure. it helps america. one, we are in the fight and we are being asked to lead globally against isis. by the way, celebrating the span openly, isis and the taliban are thrilled about this. i would encourage you to have more security guys -- >> tucker: i've talked to many security guys. your opinion is one among many. the idea that isis is going to act against us now that trump is issued an order. >> they already hate us. that's not it. they already hate us. this is an aid to recruiting. >> tucker: they don't seem to have a problem with that already. >> if you have 15,000 iraqis to fight these guys, yeah, they have a recruiting problem. >> tucker: you think they're going to dislike us more because of this.

what about our moral obligation -- >> we will get weaker if they get stronger. we just told the commander -- no, it isn't that we just told the commander, his kids are living in the united states right now because they are under terrorist threats. he's in iraq fighting. under the -- according to general petraeus, he's not allowed to see his kids. you are going to ask this guy to carry the fight and tell him for 90 days, don't come see your kid? i'm a dad, you're a dad. you would not stand for that. that's not hurt feelings. >> tucker: governments do things like that all the time. >> no, they don't. >> tucker: again, i'm asking why you are being disingenuous? why does the united states have a moral obligation to let people from somalia come here. you have not made an affirmative case for why that is good for our country. you're talking about iraq and the people who are fighting on our behalf. i do not know if i agree but it is not stupid. but somalia, yemen. >> thank you so much. >> tucker: no, i'm serious!

what about the others? >> let's do this. we are facing the largest refugee crisis in the world since world war ii. our allies are under strain in europe. our allies are under strain a no in nato. it's very hard to lead in the crisis when you say, you know what? we want everyone else to do the work. we are not going to pitch in here. you are undermining american moralization here. >> tucker: that's not true. >> of course it's true. >> tucker: you can pitching in a number of ways to without inviting the people to come live in the country at your expense. >> we are talking about a tiny percentage of people. >> tucker: how many refugees? >> 10,000... >> tucker: at what point will we have done our duty? >> duty is a very loaded word here. >> tucker: how many should we let in? >> i would argue for a pretty large number of people. you would argue for fuel. >> tucker: you do it for a living. >> given the current vetting process, you could do 200,000 people. >> tucker: per year? >> yet, i think it's reasonable. >> tucker: would you do that to help our countries?

we could get anyone in the world to come here if we wanted to come. why would you not say, let's figure out the people who will help america -- >> i'm not so sure about that anymore. we can get the top talent in the world except for someone from the seven countries? >> tucker: are you arguing that 100,000 refugees would be to the economic benefit of the united states? what's the point? that's all i'm asking. >> what's the point? >> tucker: so you can feel good about yourself? >> of course not. in the face of the largest refugee crisis since the second world war, we have a leadership role to play. by the way, don't talk about these people like they are total social burdens. henry kissinger came here. as a refugee. >> tucker: i'm just wanting to know what you're saying. are you saying it will assuage our guilt or help the u.s. economy? what is it about? >> it will ultimately, i think, help the economy. it's cost neutral. i do in the long run think it is. >> tucker: how long will it

take? >> i have no idea. >> tucker: so it is a guess? >> do you know? >> tucker: i think the costs are high. you have to give a countervailing explanation for why we want to do this and no one ever does. >> you are building up a strawman and burning it down. >> tucker: i really am asking a sincere question. i've asked that night after night, why do we ask this with our obligation -- >> i'm not sitting here moralizing about -- this is strategic. everyone in the middle east, isis has a simple message. you have two choices? the average muslim person, you can live under our rule and fight with us against america or we will kill you. and what i'm saying is the united states can offer a third point. >> tucker: which is come here? >> stand with the united states. it sounds -- if you can come in here and say, we aren't talking about

refugees. you are making a narrow argument. >> tucker: i'm talking about immigration. >> we just banned immigration, two of them the front lines in this fight. you just told everyone you are standing with us, "we'll let you go kill and die in mosil, thereh conversations happening that are embedded in the iraqi forces. >> tucker: their expectation was to move here? >> come on. >> tucker: don't say, come on! >> of course not. it's, why don't you trust us enough to say -- why don't you believe that any of us could potentially come here or visit your country on student visa or anything else and, by the way, why are you helping isis? general hurtling, my old division commander in iraq made a phone call, getting phone calls in iraq, they are on the phone saying why are you helping the enemy we are fighting together? have my --

>> tucker: if this order, though, if you are successful in your lawsuit, isis recruiting will slow. >> i think some damage has been done, but we can patch it up. i'm serious. >> tucker: thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> tucker: appreciate it. we'll be following tonight's breaking news throughout the eyewear, the future of the travel ban and more. the administration placed new sanctions on iran today. they said more would be coming. one congressman is here tonight to explain why it's in our national interest exactly. stay tuned. arteit takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart.

with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. ...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems.

breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. learn more about better breathing at mybreo.com.

>> tucker: the trump administration says today's new sanctions are just the first

wave of penalties, if iran does not improve its behavior. this is a bad sign for the nuclear deal, the obama administration concluded with two years of course. is the u.s. putting a path for a showdown and in that region? congressman, thank you for coming on. i'm just trying to understand what that means. you have michael flynn and the president both saying essentially the same thing. this officially puts iran on notice. that sounds like to me a big step toward conflict. a red line over which, ifst crossed, we will fight. is that what it is? >> what i think it is is for the united states and our relationship toward iran is a response string from a position of weakness to a position of strength. what we've seen from the past demonstration is we started to treat iran like israel and israel likeo a iran.

america's foreign policy should be that we are treating our friends as our friends and our adversaries as our adversaries. they do not respect weakness, only strength. we cannot be silent not because we want war but because we want, to prevent it. the kind of sum it all up, for iranian leadership, the party is over. >> tucker: what does that mean exactly? we are putting them on notice? how will we know when they have ignored the notice and what does that mean? what is our next step? >> we've seen a couple things over the course of the last few days.? the statement that you referenced today, 25 individuals and entities having sanctions placed on them. additional options are available for us to get leverage, what with the sanctions for today, that was directed towards trying to slow down iran's ballistic missile program, as well as resources that are going to the

irgc. support from north korea, china, lebanon, there are a lot of entities connected to other countries. the sanctions are making a stepe let it be known to those individuals and entities, we are going to take those actions. s big picture, the sanctions relief that we provided, the $150 billion as part of the j opla, we a lot of leverage. iran is not at the table to negotiate with all of iran's other bad activities. this is one step of what needs to be a multistep process to get that leverage back on the table so we can start talking about all of the other efforts to overthrow foreign governments, finance assad in syria, their

balistic missileth progra. >> tucker: i don't think anyone would support iran's behavior. it seems like a line in the sand and for those of us falling at following at home and up with military children, when will we know if iran has crossed in? if they conduct another missile test? will that be the spurred action whatever the action is? >> it gives iran a lot to think about. there are consequences for their bad activities and that we will approach these conflicts from that position of strength. the military option should be on the table. that does not mean that we want to use it. that we have to use it. but there is no reason to just unilaterally take that off the table. quite frankly, we are the greatest nation in the world. we have the strongest military in the world. we have a much stronger economy here in the united states than

iran has over here. understand that there are other countries that follow our lead and the way we handle iran. i think it's important to have all actions on theha table. i think it's a smart move on the impact of the trump administration to address re-posture where we are from a position of weakness togt strength. and over the course of the coming weeks, they were just worn in the last couple of weeks. >> tucker: sure. that's why this was confusing. two questions, really. do you think the iran missile program threatens the mainland in the united states at what kind of support do you think the public would have for a war with iran right now? >> there are some people who believe that the united states, its position as it relates to iran's development of intercontinental ballistic missiles is because the united states is sticking up for israel. these are intercontinental ballistic missiles. these are not meant for israel. it's meant for places like the

united states. every time there is a ballistic missile attack -- >> tucker: so you think they are a physical threat to the united states. >> on their holidays, they chant death to america in their streets. >> tucker: but the missiles are a threat? >> absolutely. they pledged to wipe israel from the map. calling them little satan and america the great satan. it's an opportunity for them to make technical corrections and to improve their hardware. these are just -- it's not just a sign of aggression, it's much beyond that. this is them fine-tuning their weapon systems to be able to develop warheads. >> tucker: congressman, thanks a lot. lee zeldin. we continued to continue tonight's breaking news. a federal judge halting the administration's travel ban.. that applies nationwide. weid have details on it next.

but i'm safe. i took my prevacid®24hr today. i didn't. one pill prevents the acid that causes heartburn, all day, all night. prevacid®24hr. a girl with golden locks broke into a house owned by three bears. she ate some porridge, broke the baby bear's chair, and stole some jewelry, a flat-screen tv, and a laptop. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped the bears with homeowners insurance. they were able to replace all their items... ...including a new chair from crate and barrel. call geico and see how easy it is to switch and save on homeowners insurance.

tax refund, you can get an advance on that refund? [zombie] an advance on my tax refund. [john] doesn't take brains to see the value in that. [zombie] ha! [john] arghh. [vo] you can get a refund advance of up to $1250 no interest at block. [john] get your taxes won. hey julie, i know today's critic...need a sick day. dads don't take sick days. dads take dayquil severe: the... ...non-drowsy, coughing, aching, fever, sore throat, stuffy... ...head, no sick days medicine. >> tucker: fox news alert, president trump's executive order blocking arrivals from seven muslim nations has been halted across the country by a federal judge in the state of washington, trace gallagherhe joins us now with the latest on that. what is this?tr >> tucker, the reason that kate was in the court of federal judge james role -- they fileda lawsuit against the executive order. when judge robart put a nationwide halt, he said it was because he believes thewh

washington state ag provided evidence that his order would do immediate harm, target muslims and violate the constitutional rights of immigrants and their families. washington governor tweeted... "no person, not even the president, is above the law. we should feel heartened by today's victory and more resolute than ever that we are fighting on the right side of history." in a response, attorneys for the trump administration said washington state lacked standing to bring the challenge and the president has properly exercised his authority saying every president over the last 30 years has invoked this authority to suspend or impose restrictions on the entries of certain aliens or certain classes of aliens. in some instances, including classifications based on nationality. we've not yet heard from the white house but they expect the trump administration to abide by the judges ruling and seek an emergency repeal of the ruling.

the administration also, by the way, scored a victory today when a boston judge refused to extend a restraining order that block the president's temporary travel ban. that judge was skeptical of claims that the president's orders represented religious discrimination. tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher, thanks for that. at least for now, the president's executive order on immigration will not be enforced. is that a threat to americans? tammy bruce says it was a boost to the country's long-term safety and she joins us now from new york city. good to see you. why do you think the president's executive orders kept us safer? >> look. obviously, there is a reason for the order in those nations. it were failed in nationstates and then two nationstates that are spayed sponsors of terror, sudan and iran. these are nations as a result that all seven of them where there is no real infrastructural way to tell who it is that we are allowing in the country, all, and then you've

got those in the nation that are consumed with civil war, terrorism, where terrorism groups have a majority of the landmass in addition that isis through the three cities that it's taken at mosul and raqqa have a fake passport industry. tens of thousands of black passports in addition to state-based machinery to make identification papers. you have potentially thousands of individuals with fake materials, fake i.d. remember also, i ran like north korea has a state sanction counterfeit in operation. not with just american cash, which is why we keep changing the design of our money, but for identity papers. we are looking at a dynamic where until we can be absolutely sure about who is coming into this country, we have to presume that there is a problem. this is limited. this is about making sure that we have some mechanism. so obviously this is the hot spot of where there is

effectively a regional war leading to a world war and weor have got to have some parameters at this point. >> tucker: how confident are you that the federal government under this president knows who't coming in?ed there was a weird moment where dhs said this affects 100,000 visa holders, followed pretty swiftly by the state department moving the number down to 60,000. what you make of that? >> look, whether it's 60 or 100,000, i thought that news was great news in that, my goodness, we have potentially 100,000 people from a region that we don't even know who is there that we've given visas to? i mean, that was a sign that this order was working. because it had been almost like we had been handing them out like candy. there is no way you can have 60-100,000 visas. this is just for those seven countries. it's not worldwide.r this means those visas are technically canceled. but if people still have the piece of paper, and now with the

order being temporarily stopped, people can still come in. we had a number of the radians flew into boston for a period of time that were allowed into the country with the visas that effectively had been canceled. >> tucker: interesting. whatd. about the argument being made by a lot of people that this is in fact a religious tes test! a muslim band, and therefore is unconstitutional. >> here's what the left is doing. they are determined to make sure that the barack obama theory, that the liberal theory of open borders that everyone can come in here, because that's what they need to boost their power is the only answer. it they've got to make sure that trump fails and as a result, this nation fails, because otherwise they will be proven to be frauds. this obviously is not a religious test. it's seven nations. 85% of the muslims on the planet are not affected. so on its face, that specious. i believe all of these litigations, all the lawsuits will ultimately fail.

this is a test for the trump administration because this is about keeping our nation safe. we sent the uss cole over to yemen. we are in a world where we arepa preparing for war here. keeping the parameters around this country is key. these arguments from the left are frauds and of course theyy are meant to have trump fail, which means they want the nation to fail.l. >> tucker: tammy bruce. thanks for that. we have the governor of washington, jay inslee, from the state that just brought down the president's order. governor, are you there? >> i am. >> tucker: thank you for joining us. what was the basis for the lawsuit? >> well, tonight, a federal judge appointed by resident george w. bush found in the fact that there was a higher probability of ultimate success that this is an illegal and unconstitutional executive orde order.

the claims are essentially that the judge found would have electric -- likelihood of success, number one, this is a clearly religiously intolerant decision, and contrary to your last speaker who apparently has not read the order, it very specifically sayss that one particularne religion, which is muslim, are supposed to go back to the bus and the end of the line, on a line that is formed and nationwide to use the limited number of refugee spots that are allowed into this country. and this is absolutely forbidden by any fundamental notions of who we are as american, or the u.s. constitution. because we have never, ever, under any president, republican or democrat, proposed some test of religion to enter this country. it's simply verboten. it's wrong. it will not stand. and i'm proud we had a federal judge who stood up to this chaotic order that president trump made. second --

>> tucker: let me stop you there -- >> it was not reasonable. it was not reasonable under the two due process clause because look what happened. one of the things they just asked, he had to ask the federal government today, how many muslim refugees from the seven countries have cause a fatal terrorist attack since septembe? out of the 700,000 that had been admitted? well, he knew the answer. it was zero! this was a violation in my view. i have not seen the order of the court yet. of some fundamental notions of common sense, which means due process, in a sense. >> tucker: due process and common sense or not the same thing, of course. >> that's correct. >> tucker: i have read the orders. i don't remember the part where it says muslims have to go to the back of thee bus. >> here's how it works. >> tucker: how was it a muscle man, exactly? >> it's a disguised effect, but

what it says is that religiouss minorities, religious minorities will have priority in acceptance of the refugees. under this -- in these seven countries, we know who the religious majority is and we know who the religious minority is. majority is muslim, they were given a subordinate position in the priority for these highly sought after refugee status. now we understand -- >> tucker: wait a minute... >> we have very limited numbers ofhe refugee spots of non-muslis ahead of muslims. and by the way, there are a bunch of whiny liberals -- this is a federal judge tonight appointed by president george w. bush. >> tucker: come on, governor. you did not hear me say that for one thing. this judge is liberal and if you know it. let's not pretend otherwise. >> apparently george bush thought he was okay when he appointed him. >> tucker: he appointed many of liberals by the way, for what

it's worth. there is actually a lot of precedent for moving religious minorities and persecuted people to the front of the line in our admittance process. that goes back hundreds of years and you know that. i'm not saying that there aren't problems. there may beg philosophical problems with that in the first place, but is it demagogic of you to pretend that something is not true, which is that this band of muslims to put them in the back line? that's not t true. we have plenty that say it's a persecuted group, let's bring them here first. you've seen it before. >> what is unique in this situation, we've never had a president of the united states who entered into this exalted office and said it was as clear intent to ban allen muslims, mae it very profound that from henceforth, "i donald trump will make sure that muslims do not comeot into this country," then goes to rudy giuliani and says, "is there a way i can do this? to keep muslims out"? by the way, one thing you and i

can agree on that, this is the worst plan, was executed thing, a two car funeral, the people that ran this thing. we deserve better on this. >> tucker: you are arguing a bunch of different things. simply because the obamacare rollout was chaotic -- i would never claim it was chaotic. it was chaotic and embarrassing. >> we have an agreement. >> tucker: you were claiming something different. you are saying that this is a ban on muslims and you know it isn't. when you say that, you increase the level of fear and misinformation. you? >> what i'm saying is this executive order contains an unconstitutional test of what religion is affected and how they are affected and differentiate in a clear intent by this president to i not treat this part of the world with respect. >> tucker: really? >> it damages our national security. tucker, i aml really sorry. i've got about 200 people waiting for me here.ap

>> tucker: we are happy you came. >> i appreciate you having me on. thank you a lot. >> tucker: thanks a lot. breaking tonight, a federal judge in seattle has blocked tha travel ban, joining us now is michael wilde. he's an immigration attorney who as it has happened last work with melania trump. he's also a critic of the order. >> just to clarify, i clarified her immigration status. i represented the trump organization over a decade. miss universe, mr. trump owned it as well. but i'm here to talk about the order that happened less than an hour ago. >> tucker: there are many ways to criticize and support this. i get the one that annoys me the most, the least true, the claim that this is specifically -- legally excluding muslims. the order as you know, since you read it, says we give priority to the people of religious persecution, minorities. we did that for decades during the cold war with jewish people

in the soviet union. we are going to put you to the front of the line in coming to the united states. we've done this a lot of different times read why is this different? christians are really being singled out for persecution. >> a few statutory reasons, the 1952 immigration act allowed the president suspend immigration in case of an emergency. but in 1965, they clarified that a president and and congress cannot discriminateth based on national origin. the constitutional argument, we believe historically equal protection does not allow it to our shores until it hits our shores. there is no entitlement to a visa. no entitlement to constitutional discretion. i disagree with it but that is the state of the law. truth be told, there is a state's right which was supportedn just now in the temporary restraining order by a

federal judge in the jurisdiction that recognizes local schools have foreign students. there are a lot of people impacted and there is a fundamental right for individuals to travel and that was impeded. the trump lawyers just relied on i think the most egregious of our national history. the chinese exclusion act and j the internment of the japanese. we have to get past this chapter. i believe in my heart, tucker, thatnt this president -- >> tucker: a lot of things here! >> i believe in my heart that the president is a patriot and he is trying to makeyi a but if you're going to -- jose. selectively choose seven countries. titans of industry stuck in third country nations because they can't get back and they are american permanent residence. >> tucker: i have no doubt that is true and it must be deeply frustrating, and green card holders are exempted -- >> it wasn't a week ago. >> tucker: you are right. i would never defend that. that was silly. but it was fixed.

let's get back to something a second ago. you don't think that due process as guaranteed by the constitution should be just restricted to american citizens? you think that citizens of foreign country should be able to sue theta united states becae they are barred entry? what is that? >> this is your show, i am honored to come back another time in debate that. i'm here to opine on the decision, let me answer your concern. lawyers -- if you have no right to cancel at the airport. even though you made it through to the united states, with your feet on the ground, there's no right to a lawyer at the bordere you did not have constitutional protection. but there is any right, and the state has asserted and the federal judge believes, in this instance they are going to sustain an argument in the long term and, by the way, tucker, and everybody watching this. this injunction is going to stay well it goes to the supreme court and it's going to take months to work this out. i hope the president and

congress come up with another alternative. we see how impactful immigration is on our commerce and the fact that states are sitting up -- marbury versus madison, save and receive calls, all the wonderful things we teach in law school that this is a federal matter you know what? immigration has a great impact. this is an engine for our economy people care about it now. from our first lady -- >> tucker: you've said so many things. i just want to get back to the core question which is due residents of foreign countries, non-u.s. citizens,nt have a legl or moral claim on coming here or is noter entirely up to the discretion of the u.s. government and its citizens? i think most people would imagine the second is true. you are arguing the former is true. i think it's not a mainstream position..i >> there is no entitlement to come to america. the statute itself has a presumption that everybody wants to live here and it is your burden when you come to our shores that you are actually going to leave. however, once a person is given

a visa, once they have ties that are very strong in the united states, and once they have been accorded a visa and they have other equities that have developed here, it's a different game. you want to know something like make it's 2017, tucker. >> tucker: i know the year. doesn't that cast us as passive participants in this process? shouldn't we be able to say -- and why don't we assert the right to say that we want these people in our country, we think they will helptr our country, we don't want these people, we don't think they will. why is that an immoral desire? >> there is no morality here. the power of making laws is vested with congress, not our president, who was going to experiment a way to keep us safe. vetting of just seven countries when indonesia and saudi arabia, 16 of the 19 hijackers are held in saudi arabia, we are going to beat upe on seven people with a prayer that the rest of the military world will not come in? >> tucker: should be added saudi arabia to the list? what is your point? >> i don't think it was a t comprehensively thought or executed plan.

>> tucker: that may be true, but you when i get to comment on that after the fact. do you think we should add saudi arabia saudi arabia? indonesia on the list quite smack what are you saying? or should we assume all countries of their citizens pose an equal threat to us. doss you think that's true? finland as much a threat of us that has the citizens of saudi arabia? and we draw those decisions? >> we shouldn't draw those decisions. lady liberty with a beacon for those tired and huddled masses. we should not be stopping -- let me say, we fought pirates and we took in refugees in the 1700s. isis can be put down without losing our national character. >> tucker: that's not a serious point. i love immigrants. i mean it. it's up to us, right? >> it's up to was to get this right, be safe, go forward, and nott discriminate. >> tucker: all right. thank you for joining us.

>> pleasure. >> tucker: the story is continuing to break and ofhe course we will continue to cover it as it does. the famed writer stuart taylor will join us to talk about sexual assault on campuses and is due process afforded on campus? justice in academia, ahead. oh, hey, rob. what's with the minivan? it's not mine. i don't -- dale, honey, is your tummy still hurting, or are you feeling better to ride in the front seat? oh! is this one of your motorcycling friends? hey, chin up there, dale. lots of bikers also drive cars. in fact, you can save big if you bundle them both with progressive. i'd like that. great. whoo. you've got soft hands. he uses my moisturizer. see you, dale. bye, rob.

>> tucker: the obama administration said that a typical american college is like war-torn syria but with a library. sexual assault, we were told, affects one in five or maybe one in four women in a typical campus. a wave of the executive orders were meant to fix it. but was their hype involved in those estimates and where the people accused given due proces process? stuart taylor is a writer, he wrote "the campus rape frenzy: the attack on due process in american universities." and he join us now.

stuart, thank you for joining us. i have no doubt that sexual assault occurs on campus and it's horrifying. but at what rate is the question and at what rate our people are falsely accused? >> sure, rape is terrible. that happens on campus. the idea that one in five college women -- absolute nonsense. it comes from surveys with private organizations that have agendas, misleading questions. they don't ask the women if you were raped or sexually assaulted because they won't get the numbers they want. there are good federal surveys on this. they would suggest that one in 100 women are raped in their four years in college. if you add lesser sexual assaults, you are up in the two about one in 40, one in 50. it's not the escalating national crisis of the obama administration pretended it was.

>> tucker: in tandem of those claims, that the idea that everybody accused of sexual misconduct was guilty. my question from the beginning is what happens to those people? are they able to prove that they were not guilty? is the justice system on campus anything you might expect? >> no, it is not at all. it's a kafkaesque kangaroo court. is my word for them. lots of people accused of rape or sexual assault on and off campus are not guilty. there are squadrons of sex bureaucrats who are encouraging women to say that they were raped when what they really were were regretful afterwards. it's not one in five thell kangaroo courts, the guys are almost presumed guilty, they are not allowed to prosecute their accusers, not allowed to see the evidence against them. they are put before impartial --

partial panels of feminist ideologues all the time. it is outrageously unfair a number of people -- there about 100 plus that have sued. there are a lot of cases that we have seen and a lot of young men who are almost certainly innocent or probably innocent, you never know for sure are being orderedei out of college because of these charges. >> tucker: it is one of the most serious of any possible crimes, rape. why would a campus be adjudicating that? why would not the police, who have a lot of experience with this, be in charge? >> it should be left to the police. the history is decades ago, the police were not very nice to real victims of rape. they cannot take it seriously, i want to police districts and heard them laughing about it. police got a bad rap. over time, they've gotten a whole lot better and more professional in handling these cases. but the feminist ideologues, the extreme ideologues -- man hating

ideologues, a lot of them, don't get that. they develop this movement, "well, m the police want to presume the guilt of the guys and the campuses will so let's have the campus do it," and the obamand administration ratcheted that up on april 4th, 2011, by essentially ordering all of the 7,000 plus campuses in the country to receive federal money to institute five specified new procedures, all of them designed to increase the probability of guilt with an overhang of threatening of bringing bad publicity and maybe take the money away, federal money, from any college that didn't do exactly what the obama administration did it to do. even the ones who might like to be fair or not fair. >> tucker: it does not make sense though. if someone thought somebody committed sexual assault, i want that person in jail. >> exactly. and it's so twisted that the obama administration and theni colleges really discourage young women who say they were raped from going to the police.

colleges tend to save do nothe trust the police, they will not be nice to you. come to us. one thing that is blindingly clear about that is is not making the campuses any safer. if you really believe there isis an epidemic of rape on campus, you want to put those guys in prison. >> tucker: yes. >> the college process can put them in prison. unless you take them to the cops, which usually the colleges discourage, they will go on to t the next place and keep raping. >> tucker: it's bill watering. i want people who commit sexual assault in jail. >> i do too. >> tucker: interesting book. thank you very much. >> pleasure being with you. >> tucker: we will be back. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon. my swthis scarf all thatsara. left to remem...

what! she washed this like a month ago the long lasting scent of gain flings

>> tucker: that is it for us on this busy night of breaking news. every night is, this week. customs and border protection has instructed u.s. airlines they can now board travelers have been affected by that travel ban, how would the president respond? he will, we will have coverage when we know.

in the meantime, good night. have a great weekend. be sure to tune in the sean hannity, which follows thi this. >> sean: tonight... >> today, sanctions really represent a very, very strong stand against the actions inay iran. >> sean: cracking down on iran over a ballistic missiles test. plus... terrorists strike paris again. dr. sebastian gorka is here with reaction. then... 11 are arrested after another liberal anti-free-speech freak out on the campus of new york university. we are in houston, texas, ahead of super bowl li, former nfl stars cris carter, tiki barber, tim tebow, joe namath and bob