the screen. at 877-225-8587. don't forget the new lineup. we are here to wrap things up at 10:00 eastern. thanks for being with us. we will see you here tomorrow night. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." ann coulter has canceled a planned speech at the university of california berkeley tomorrow, saying physical threats from the left made going there simply too dangerous. coulter released a statement saying this. "it's a sad day for free speech. everyone who should believe in free speech fought against it or ran away." after releasing that statement, she told sean hannity this. >> i think what is going on with berkeley, when you have -- it g shows how radical the universities are generally. what you are talking about, they want to destroy and squelch conservative speech. but there is a separate issue with the universities right now. when you have bernie sanders,it elizabeth warren, bill maher,

joy behar, when they are saying, get over yourselves, berkeley,ge we have a first amendment, people have fought and died for the right to free speech. >> tucker: you can see the rest of the interview on sean's show tonight at 10:00. despite sabotaging the coulter speech by forcibly changing the date and refusing to supply facilities, berkeley claims its: commitment to free speech remains "absolute." then, why not defend ann coulter's right to exercise it? aaron hanlon is a professor at colby college and justte wrote a piece for "the new republic," saying that colleges have a right to make what he calls a value judgment by blocking speakers they disagree with. professor hanlon joins us tonight. professor, thanks for coming on. >> thanks very much for having me, tucker.s, >> tucker: pardon my surprise that a liberal arts professor would be squelching free speech. i read your piece in "the new republic." outline your justification for not allowing people to disagree with speakers on college

campuses. >> sure. i am personally very speech permissive, i would say i am very pro-speech, almost absolutist on speech. my view is basically that universities, institutions of higher education, should be able to make value judgments abouton quality of speaker, not ideological tests. not about whether the speaker if not to mob rule or popularity contest, but judgments about the quality of the speaker's suitability for a speech at an institution of higher education. >> tucker: free speech, it has been defined pretty precisely by the supreme court, is not curtailed by other people's viewsou of it. in other words, you have an absolute right to say what you think, to deliver your political opinions in public. the truth is, you know if colleges abridge that freedom on

the basis of political views -- why would you defend that? >> i wouldn't, in fact, that is not the argument.t the argument is not that there should be a test based on the political views of the speaker. the argument is that there should be a consideration of the relative quality of the speaker and the suitability of the speaker for the educational mission of an institution of higher education. >> tucker: oh, okay, so, those are so subjective, those terms, that they allow a college to stop speech they disagree with, which is of course exactly what happens. i can't think of an occasion in the life of colby college, for example, when conservative students have stopped a liberal speaker. it is always the other way around. so, what are the criteria? why is ann coulter, for example, who is raising big public policy issues, immigration, why is she not suitable?ot >> well, a couple points on this. one, if you look at, a wonderful service by the foundation for individual rights, provides a database of disinvited speakers.

or dis- invitation attempts. if you look at that, you will see it is not always from the left that the dis-invitation or no platform happens. i want to correct that. >> tucker: can you name a single example where a speaker has been physically prevented from speaking by conservative students? >> i know basically that barack obama and alice walker have been denied or at least -- >> tucker: no, they were not stopped from speaking. nobody put their bodyguards in the hospital. nobody threw rocks against the building or pounded on the windows. conservative students have not, that i am aware of, have stopped any speakers. yet, you see it on the left. your piece doesn't say anything about that. i wonder why? >> i actually am pretty explicit about my opposition to

any kind of violent or disruptive protest of any leeaker of any ideological persuasion. i wouldn't defend any of that type of action. at berkeley, of course, the conflict is not just left-wing radicals being violent. it's also right-wing radicals putting on body armor and coming there for a fight, as well. >> tucker: okay, but the right-wingers, to the extent they exist, are not the ones who stop those series from speaking. they are 100% on the left. you don't mention that in your piece and you don't suggestt punishment for those people, if you are a mere free speech absolutist, what should happen to people who prevent people from expressing his or her v political views? >> as i have said and as i have made very clear in my public writing, i do not support anybody of any ideological persuasion forcibly shutting down speech. the issue is that conservative groups on campus have intelligently discerned a strategy whereby they invite speakers who are deliberately

provocative, often not interested in actually debating ideas, and fulfilling an educational mission in their visits to an institution. they invite those speakers and quite frankly, a lot of people on the left fall into the trap. >> tucker: [laughs]eo so, really, you are blaming the victim here? because people are "deliberately provocative." can you hear yourself? you are a college professor and you are against intellectual debate that is "deliberately provocative." shouldn't it be deliberately provocative? >> intellectually provocative -- intellectual debate is the word you used. i don't think i would characterize milo putting up pictures of students and professors at his talk and making fun of them as intellectually provocative. that is provocative.ck there are plenty of places that students, faculty, and anybody else can go to get provocation that is not particularly well thought out. that is what the internet is for. should we then turn our

institutions of higher education into a wild west-style recapitulation of the internet? >> tucker: no. we should allow some diversity of views and you don't. you are saying basically, these people's views aren't worthy of hearing, we are editing them out. why not burn their books? why is it different? what you are suggesting? >> [laughs] >> tucker: it's a serious question. >>qu you can read their books. i take the question seriously. the point is that a college has a mission that extends beyond simply provoking students with whatever material is out there.. there is no ban on studentsev reading ann coulter's books. >> tucker: but there is a ban on hearing ann coulter on campus. colleges, as you know, blame the speaker for inciting the violence of others who disagree. i guess my question, as someone who says he supports free speech, where is the punishment

for the people who are prohibiting the exercise of free speech? why aren't you mad at them? you seem to be blaming the people who dared to have ideas you don't agree with. a >> i am of course mad at people who are shutting down speech forcibly. >> tucker: what should happen to them? should they be expelled? >> i think that -- i am not really in -- it's not my interest in adjudicating punishment to these people. >> tucker: why not? >> because it's not my role. i don't do that. i'm not a disciplinarian. >> tucker: what you mean it's not your role? you just wrote a piece making apologies for people who shutdown free speech, trying to create an intellectual framework to justify fascism. now you are saying yousm can't comment on that? it's a really simple question. if a student prevents a speaker from speaking, what should happen to the student? >> it's a question besides the point of the argument, which is that colleges should be able to have standards for the speakers that they bring.th >> tucker: boy.

liberals used to defend free speech absolutely. thanks, professor.uc heather mcdonald is one of the so-called right-wing provocateurs professor hanlon says can be silenced. earlier this month, she tried to speak about how widespread antipolice rhetoric is in this country and how it is making us less safe. instead of being allowed to speak, this is what happened. >> tucker: heather mac donald joins us tonight. heather, thanks a lot for coming on. i hope you just heard what professor hanlon from colby college just said, which is that some people's views just aren'ta worth hearing and that colleges have a right to squelch those views. what do you think about that?lu >> the historical amnesia is

absolutely shocking. and to hear this from a faculty member's mouth is very scary.. we are at risk of really losing america very quickly, tucker, if this continues. this idea of we are just judging the quality of the speaker is a completely ex post facto i justification. this is pure viewpoint discrimination. what we are seeing, tucker, is the confluence of twore very dangerous trends in america today, which is the emasculation of the police in the black lives matter era, so, you cannot count on the police to keep order. then, the spread of victim-ology ideology. the reason speakers like myself and ann coulter are being turned down, and shouted down and silenced, is because of this preposterous idea that to be a minority student or a female on a college campus today is quite literally to be at risk of your existence. this is a complete delusion.te but these students that are trying to silence speakers are doing it in the name of their

own literal existence and safety. and this keeps going on and on and on and it has to be stopped. >> tucker: exactly. thank you for saying it. what you have here are people who are conflating opinions with violence. they are saying, you shouldn't be allowed to speak because youy words are the same as an act of violence.au then, they are committing violence to prevent you from expressing your views.ol does anybody acknowledge this irony? i mean, this is actually insane. >> no, the ironies are so multiple. the fact that these people havei the gall to go under the moniker of antifascist is mind-blowing! i don't know -- i don't want to engage in the same hyperbole as the left, but i don't know whatn to call this behavior if not fascist. they are not only silencing speakers, but they are exercising brute force over their fellow students to decide what they are allowed to hear. there should be an uprising of students. but more importantly, there should be an uprising of faculty. we have conferred on them the

extraordinary privilege of tenure to protect their own freedom of speech and thought. p yet, when these mobs break out, the faculty are nowhere to be found. they should be out there saying we are going to protect freedom of speech here because we are the vanguard. g >> tucker: well, this system is so corrupt that you kind of fear that it can't be fixed. i just have a really simple question for you. where is the sensible left that used to defend freedom of speech?or i never agreed with their views or who they voted for, but they used to stand up and say you have a right to say what you think. where are they now in what is clearly a moment of crisis for freedom of speech in america? where are they? >> they are cowering under the thrall of identity politics. it is impossible to overstate how much the university mission has been distorted and destroyed by this absurd idea of victimization and the elevation of identity over everything else.vi the faculty that opposes are

terrified to speak out becausele they'll be called racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, you name it. >> tucker: this is how it ends. h this is how it falls apart. when they take away your freedom ofr: speech, you have no freedo. heather, thank you for joining us tonight. it's upsetting but i'm glad you were here to explain it. coming up next, after a big setback on obamacare, the trump administration was looking for a legislative victory on capitol hill. they unveiled what it says will be the biggest tax cut ever for the american people. we will talk to the secretary of the treasury, steve mnuchin, on what is in that proposal. he joins us in just a moment. also, anti-deportation acts and other day without immigrant protests. will this one send the desired message? we'll talk to the man organizing that protest on what it's about and what he hopes to achieve. stay tuned. ♪ charmin ultra strong. it cleans better. it's four times stronger...

...and you can use less. enjoy the go with charmin. from my sweet dreams? thanks to tena, not tonight! only tena overnight underwear ...with its secure barrier system gives you.... ...triple protection from leaks, odor and moisture. tena lets you be you

bp developed new, industry-leading software to monitor drilling operations in real-time, so our engineers can solve problems with the most precise data at their fingertips. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

♪ >> tucker: the trump administration unveiled the basis of his latest legislative project today. a major overhaul of the u.s. tax code. the secretary of the treasury,ba steve mnuchin, pitched it as the biggest tax cut in u.s. history. it would drop the top bracket to 35% from 39-point something, slash the corporate tax rate to5 15, and totally eliminate the estate tax in the alternative minimum tax. this does not offset the spending cuts, which mean it would cause a rise in the federal budget deficit. does this plan to deserve to pass? is it wise? the secretary of the treasury, steve mnuchin, joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: during thee campaign, the now president says this a lot about taxes, he said, under my plan, taxes on the rich are going down. by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up. do you anticipate that's

happening? >> let me just say this is all about creating jobs and growing the economy. m on the personal side, this is about tax simplification and about limiting deductions. although the rate is coming down on the top end of 35%, there will be many, many deductions gone. as a matter of fact, we are taking all the directions out other than charitable donations and mortgage interests.ta effectively, the effective tax rate will not be a reduction for the rich. >> tucker: will it be a rise? >> we'll see.e i don't think it'll be a rise buton it won't be a reduction. this is about creating jobs. >> tucker: if you are making 500 grand a year, do you see your tax rate move it all effectively? >> we'll have to run all the numbers when we come out with the brackets and everything else. but this is really about the middle income tax cuts. this is about lowering business taxes.s. we need to make businesses competitive in the united states. we have the most uncompetitive system. we have high business rates, we tax on worldwide income.

this is all about changing that. this is about massive reductions in business rates, for corporations, and for small businesses. many studies show that 70% of the tax burden falls on american workers. so, by cutting business taxes, this will increase wages for american workers and create more jobs. >> tucker: just to take one snapshot, a family of four making 70 grand a year, not atypical, what happens to thatat family? >> they will have a middle income tax cut. the numbers, we are working with congress, working closely with the house and the senate on all the details. so, we went out with the principles i think we have broad agreement on the principles. on the personal side, cut down the number of brackets, simplify this, get rid of deductions, make middle income tax cuts, and make business competitive. >> tucker: so, the president on the campaign trail was not

classic reagan-ite on economics at all. he went after hedge funds and the private equity guys again and again, specifically mentioned the carried interest loophole, which allows them to be paid at the tax rate on investments rather than income, half the rate. do you plan to take that loophole out?en >> that is something he talkeded about on the campaign and that is something we'll follow through on. >> tucker: is anyone against it?utet >> again, not on hedge funds. this is something that the president wants to make happen. >> tucker: i think the flip side to a lot of this is the tfe country that a small number of people profited in a huge way p over the last ten years and will this tax plan at the end, can you hold it up and say these people will be paying more? as the president said they would? >> let me just say, i have the pleasure to work with the m president on his economic policies. both the detroit speech he did, the new york speech, this is a continuation. we have been working for the last several months since he has been in office and he is determined to pass massive taxal

reform and massive tax cuts that will put people back to work and will create u.s. jobs. we will bring back trillions of dollars that are sitting offshore by having a one-time tax and going to a territorial system and making u.s. businesses the most competitive in the world. >> tucker: the idea in congress for a long time has been that you would take that money offshore, when it comes back to united states and put it back in some kind of infrastructure pool. >> that is one of the things we will look at. infrastructure will be done separate than tax reform. the president is committed to a trillion dollar infrastructure program, as well. we need to rebuild america. roads, bridges, criticaleb infrastructure, and that is something he is very committed to, as well. >> tucker: you want to get democratic support for this, of course. what would be your five sentence pitch to a moderate, if they still exist, democrat in the house? >> i would hope they support this. this is all about middle income tax cuts and putting people bacn to work and making business

competitive. we hope there are democrats across the aisle who want too support it. this is good for america, good for the economy. the president determined we would get back to three percent or more sustained economicne growth. that creates enormous opportunities. for the last eight years, growth has been too low, 1.6, 1.8. he is focused on whether it is the trade policies, regulatory relief, the president's economic proposal to create growth in this country. >> tucker: finally, what is the timetable?c >> we will do this fast. we are meeting every week with a house and the senate. we are determined to pass this.i we want to get this done -- >> tucker: before summer? >> i think it might be tough to get it passed before summer. we are going to get it done asgh quickly as we can. and we want to pass it this yea year. >> tucker: mr. secretary, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: reality check comes from you from the san francisco bay area. on sunday night, riders of the local bart transit system were

terrorized by a mob of roughly 50 people who swerved onto a train car to rob the passengers on board. the fox television station reported on that crime. >> the dispatched audio came in at 9:30 saturday night. an emergency at oakland coliseum bart station. >> we had maybe 30 kids boarded the train, beat up somebody, robbed them, then, run off the train. >> the moment the doors opened, they jumped on board and committed seven robberies. >> two of the victims were punched in the face and treated by paramedics.se >> tucker: terrifying stuff. but here is something just as scary if you live in the bayg area. bart authorities did everything they could to pretend none of this ever happened. officials did not even notify the public of the attack untill the following day after local media were tipped off to it. then, authorities refused to release the video of the attack, saying they can't because manyth of the criminals appear to be minors. never mind that we have no idea how old they were.

videos like this are released all the time but the faces are blurred. you know exactly what is going on here because you have seen it before. again and again in this country and in europe. for the sake of misguided political correctness, the people in power are endangering their own constituents, the people they are supposed to protect. they would rather put your life in peril than appear insensitive. they would rather have you die than be accused of a moral crime themselves. they literally don't care about, you and yet, they are still in charge. keep that in mind. ♪ coming up next, democrats are apparently bored with calling president trump an agent of russia, so now they are suggesting their own colleagues in congress are spies for the kremlin. we'll ask a democratic member of congress about this latest chapter in their russia conspiracy novel, longer than anything tolstoy ever wrote. stay tuned. ♪

>> tucker: instead of gettingng over the 2016 election, some democratic lawmakers are getting more ambitious in claiming the republican party secretly swearo allegiance to moscow. true story. yesterday, congressman maxine waters floated this theory that congressman jason chaffetz is retiring because he is a russian agent and fears being exposed. watch this. >> there is a lot of speculation about what he is doing. there are those who were told that he is trying to position himself to run for higher office. i think it is for governor. there are those who think that he may in some ways has some connection to what is going on in the ukraine and perhaps in russia itself. and know something about all of this. >> tucker: [laughs] poor chris hayes at msnbc cut short the interview, it got that crazy. meanwhile, a new poll says that americans are divided into two camps, each with its own beliefs about how espionage may have swayed the last election. 39% believe that russia influenced the election with the knowledge and assistance of donald trump.

on the flip side, 32% believes that president obama spied on donald trump as a candidate. congressman sean patrick maloney represents new york and he joins us now to sort this all out. you serve in the same caucus with maxine waters. it doesn't mean you are responsible for everything she says. i think it is fair to ask you, what do you think of that? >> i say enough dumb stuff of mu own. can i say something nice about you? congratulations on the new time slot. and the ratings and the book and whatever else, whatever other world. >> tucker: when you have theid kremlin on your side, nothing is impossible. [laughter] >> we knew you had a secret. [laughs] up on maxine waters, but i think it is fair to ask you about her statement. do you think it is possible that

jason chaffetz is a secret agent of vladimir putin and that he is retiring to go back to russia? >> no, i don't. nor did she say that, by the way. maxine is a friend and i will let her speak for herself. i do think it is important to note that it was delightful to see two members of congress from either party agreeing about something. the chairman, the republican chairman, was agreeing with a ranking member, elijah cummings, that what michael flynn did was probably illegal and went to get to the bottom of it.t i think that's a good thing. >> tucker: i agree. i think what michael flynn did was awful. i can say that. but that's not the extent of what the democrats are saying. to make a fact-based argument about someone's behavior is totally in-bounds. but to create a theory that can be explained with obvious facts, hillary ran a bad campaign and trump have the support of the middlehe class, to attribute that to the unseen hand of the kremlin seems kind of demented. >> look, i wouldn't start characterizing someone saying something on tv on one of these shows, as you know, because you do this very well, a lot of words get said on these shows. let me tell you -- >> tucker: she is not a talk

show host, she's a senior member of congress, one of the most famous members of the body. and she says this. by the way, maxine waters is revered among democrats as an oracle, a living hero. >> she has a very distinguished record in congress and she's done a lot of good things. i think you should ask her about that. she is a friend. i do think someone who was -- look, i was with chairman jason chaffetz in south korea two weeks ago. we spent a full week traveling through the region, looking at that situation, which is very serious. i think he is a serious guy and i think that what he said should be taken seriously. i commend him for working in a bipartisan fashion. we haven't seen enough of that. i think the substance of what he said is that there are serious allegations here and we need to get to the bottom of it.an if we had some bipartisan, fair fact finding, then, nobody would have to speculate in either party. >> tucker: do you not think that the fbi was conducting an investigation into this is faira >> i am happy to trust the professionals at the fbi. we should give them the time and

space to do that. the director has said that they are investigating collusion between the trump administration and the russians. we should let them do that. i do think it is important that we get oversight from the senate intelligence committee and that we do it in a bipartisan way. by the way, mike conaway, the new chair of the house intelligence committee, is my chairman on the agriculturale, committee, i know him well and i look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion, as well. i am hopeful we'll get back on track. some of us, i think you joined the chorus, said it wouldn't be terrible to have an independent bipartisan commission, maybe we can get back to doing real work like tax reform.de >> tucker: the point if it would be to create a political circus. i've been in washington a long time, i know how this works. the fbi's conducting an investigation. if you don't think it's fair, it's a fair point to raise, but a political investigation is by its nature political. it cannot be anything other than that.nyit i think it will all go away because we are moving toward conflict with russia. >> i thought you you said you would support an independent

bipartisan -- >> tucker: i want to know more facts rather than fewer facts. but what i am very against is speculating on the basis of sprumors. do you know louise mensch? >> no. >> tucker: her views -- she thinks -- she has been acting as a researcher for the dnc. she has made a series of claims about russian collusion, for example, that russian ran a sustained campaign against african-americans in last election. does that sound plausible? >> tucker, you are asking me about a member of congress who is not me. now, you are asking me about a person i don't know about a statement i haven't ever heard before.. i don't think i will be helpful. >> tucker: here is my point. the left, as a group, has embraced the "russia explains all theory" as a kind of unified field theory of everything. >> well, i haven't. but i do think we should get the facts. i think we can do it in a way that is fair. i am okay with the facts.

i do want to know what is goingt on and why senior members of the trump administration admittedly are receiving money from the russian government. that is what michael flynn did and chairman jason chaffetz, the republican chairman -- that is not a unified field theory. >> tucker: far be it for me to defend the actions of general flynn but he was not a member of the trump administration when he received this money. here is my question. >> can i stop you right there? you are not concerned that the national security advisor received payments from foreign governments and lied about it because it was a couple weeks -- >> tucker: i already said that what i think he did was wrong. i am merely saying, let's not overstate it or bend the truth about it. he was not a member of the trump administration. i think the distinction is real. >> so, you are not concerned about it? >> tucker: i said three times i am. you are doing exactly whatot bothers me. you are taking a known fact and spinning it into something that is false. he was not a member of the trump -- look, a private citizen does many things that areth different from what a member of

the administration does. for example, he invested in all kinds of companies potentially. >> when we vet those private citizens to be the national security advisor, i went through this process at the white house, they want to know if you broke the law. he did, it seems. that should have been enough. >> tucker: what he did was wrong. i am saying, you said a member of the trump administration and he wasn't actually when he did that. >> excuse me, but when you are filling out the national l security clearance, and you lie about it, you are a member of the administration. you start work before you have your clearances.n. if you are lying as a national security advisor, you are breaking the law. >> tucker: we are out of time. congressman, thanks. >> nice to see you. is planning a day without immigrants. a protest on monday. what is that about? he joins us in a minute. then, ted cruz on the set. he says he knows how to build the wall and make el chapo pay for it. we'll talk to him about his plan.

stay tuned. ♪ after expanding our fiber network coast to coast. these are the places we call home. we are centurylink. we believe in the power of the digital world. the power to connect. and that's what drives us everyday. this is the schmidt's yard. and, oh schmidt, that's a lot of dirt. but there's plenty of time for scotts outdoor cleaner plus oxiclean to work it's magic. all while being safe to use around plants and grass. guaranteed. this is a scotts yard. anyone ever have occasional constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating? she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health.

♪ >> tucker: what's next in americans self-proclaimed sanctuary cities?? the trump administration is reacting with fury against federal judge william orrick's ruling that struck down his executive order targeting those cities. today, white house press secretary sean spicer said the ruling was not simply wrong but dangerous. he said, "san francisco and cities like it are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens and those city officials who authored thesese policies have the blood of dead americans on their hands." spicer also called the ruling a gift to drug cartels and street gangs. let's stop thinking about the ruling in a vacuum, though. think, about the precedent for judicial power that it sets. any time president trump tries to implement a policy, his

enemies are getting a lone district court judge to block it nationwide. there are more than 650 district court judges in the u.s.er finding a liberal one who is going to rule the way you want isn't hard at all. now, these rulings may be reversed by a higher court but they slow down the process toig the speed of your local dmv. the standard we are setting is that any lone federal judge can block any national policy he wants for months or years simply by dressing up ideological disagreement as judicial ruling. there are many implications to this and they are all bad. the potential for abuse is huge and it goes both ways. what if a conservative judge halted funding for, i don't know, planned parenthood? or placed an immediate injunction on every existing gun regulation? you might like that, i might, too, but you can see why it is a road you don't want to go down. the possible excesses are almost limitless and in the end, nobody wins. the least accountable branch of our government becomes the most powerful, the judicial branch,

and various cities and states can nullify virtually anywe federal law they don't like, effectively becoming their own countries. there is a word for that, it is called civil war.ir roberto hernandez is an organizer in san francisco. he is planning a day without immigrants protest for next monday when he hopes that tens of thousands of immigrants will refuse to show up to work as a kind of protest. we had another day without immigrants protest in february. donald trump is still cracking down on illegal immigration, so, it's time for another one.mp just how much work arega immigrants supposed to miss? roberto hernandez joins us tonight. mr. hernandez, thanks for coming on. >> thank you for having me on the show. >> tucker: thank you. my guess would be, i don't know what is going to happen, of course, but my guess would be that most immigrants, legal or otherwise, come into this country to work, not to become political activists, so, most of them will probably work. right? how many people would take part in this, will you say? >> here in san francisco, we are

very political. w you are from san francisco, you know how we operate here. we stand up and we rise up. we are not going to stand for having the trump administration just say that we will build a wall, deport 11 million people, just like you just said, they are hard-working people. if you look at the number of immigrants that work in the fields here in the state of california, you are talking about hundreds and thousands of them. who is going to pick their crops here in the state of california if you suddenly decide, like they want to, to deport all the immigrants that work in the fields here in california? we are going to stand up and protest.er it's not only about the deportations, but also, this wall that he wants to build between mexico and the united states.

you don't build a wall between your neighbors. all of these walls -- >> tucker: wait, hold on. there is a huge distinction, of course, between immigrants and illegal immigrants. in the case of illegal immigrants, those are the ones you say are being targeted by the trump administration, don't you think it is a little muchd o sneak d into someone else's country illegally and then protest their government? what country would put up with that? i what sane country would allow that to happen? >> let's go back to history. the native americans -- this is their land. you and i and everybody else is an immigrant. this is native american land. >> tucker: i was born about a mile from where you are standing right now. hold on. >> this government has created this control system about whoo they who let in and who they don't allow to come in. this is a free country.

>> tucker: hold on -- roberto, just give me a chance to respond. name a government on planet earth that doesn't control or attempt to control who comes into its country. has there ever been a government like that anywhere?tr >> you go to san diego and you can cross the border from the united states into mexico without no problem. you go from -- i have done it, i have gone from mexico to guatemala, wasn't even asked for a passport, just walked right in. there are many countries that do that. what are you talking about? >> tucker: [laughs] i am not trying to be mean. there are countries that allowal anybody who wants to come in and live and work there? let me clarify that. there is no such country, there has never been such a country. what you are describing is a place with no government. the purpose of a government is define and defend the borders. that never happens.

>> so, let's talk about this government that you are talking about. 11 years ago, we had the exact same protests that we are doing on may 1st in 2006. do you remember that? may 1st, 2006. >> tucker: vaguely. >> millions of people across the country protested and our government failed to do comprehensive reform. obama promised us in his first year in office, his second year in office, he got elected again, he promised it, all the finger-pointing -- >> tucker: promised who? people who are here illegally? hold on. i am sorry. they are not citizens. >> the congress and senate and the president for not doing their job. >> tucker: hold back the waters here. >> you are breaking up families. >> tucker: i got it.

speak to you are breaking up families m. hard-working people. >> tucker: let me ask you one question. that is, why would a noncitizen, who is not allowed to be here, who does not have the right to vote, have a say in how the u.s. government operates? >> very simple. if you have a farm worker who is the hardest working individual on this planet, don't yous believe he has the right to have a say? >> tucker: no! by the way, i admire how hard -- >> you and i disagree. >> tucker: i'm not against farmworkers.s. if y you are not a citizen, you don't get to vote. i think that california schools have declined in quality since i left. roberto, thanks a lot. good to see you tonight. well, mr. hernandez seems to have an unexpected ally in many congressional republicans who have avoided finding the border wall president trump proposed. one man trying to fix the impasse is senator ted cruz of texas.

he just introduced the ensuring lawful collection of hidden assets to provide order act, el chapo, for short, named in honor of the infamous mexican drug lord. the bill would use any assets seized from drug lords to finance the construction of the border wall. senator cruz drawing sets now. senator, good to see you. >> congratulations on the new show. >> tucker: thank you. the obvious question is, why are you, one of the president's bitterest political enemies during the primaries, taking the lead in helping to fulfill one of his basic campaign promises? why has it fallen to you? where is everyone else? >> that was then, this is now. we had a vigorous primary. right now, we have a historic opportunity. we have a republican president,, republican majorities in both congresses. i am spending every waking moment, night and day, working to help lead the fight a to deliver on the promises. let's what do what we said. >> tucker: why is no one else doing it? >> i hope we see more republican stepping forward to do it.

when it comes to the border wall, this is a common sense issue. i represent texas. we have 1200 miles of border with mexico and we have got tobo secure the border. we have promised the american people if you elect us we will do that. i think we need to honor that promise. a >> tucker: again, forr the third time, because i am marveling at this, you would think that more in your a position in the senate would have the same attitude. they are against the border wall. many of your colleagues are against it. why do you think they are against it?er >> the democrats are threatening to shut down the government to try to stop the border funding. i think that shows how radical they are. i hope and believe this new administration will follow the promise and build the border wall. what i have tried to do with this legislation i introducednd yesterday was provide a funding stream. el chapo, as you know, notorious drug lord, is in u.s. custody. he is being prosecuted. the federal government has

initiated civil forfeiture actions. his fortune is estimated at $14 billion. now, it so happens, coincidentally, that the estimated cost of the wall is between 14-20 billion dollars. the legislation i filed yesterday was -- said that any proceeds should be spent building a wall and securing the border. i got to say that there is a justice in that. these drug cartels are the ones crossing the border with impunity, smuggling drugs, smuggling narcotics, engaged in human trafficking. they are the ones violating our laws. it is only fitting that their ill-gotten gains fund securing the border. >> tucker: the cost of a border wall is relativelyur low compared to a lot of other government programs. so, when you hear its opponents on both sides say cost is a reason to oppose it, what is your reaction? >> that is not the reason they oppose it. the opponents of the border wall

oppose it from the democratic side because they support illegal immigration. it is very simple. back in january, i was down in the texas border, i joined the midnight muster before the midnight border patrol went out. i got to say, i visited withht about 150 border patrol agencies, the release they had g at the election results, it was5 palpable. they were so frustrated having t spent eight years with an administration or the political superiors -- imagine you are risking your life apprehending violent cartel traffickers, you bring them in, your political superiors process them through, release them, then, you are catching the same guys all over again the next day. they were frustrated. imagine how demoralizing that is. what's astonishing is in the first couple of months of this new administration, illegal immigration has already dropped more than 50%. now, tucker, if back in the fall, august, september, october, if we were to say elect a republican that will enforce

the law and illegal immigration will drop 50% before we build a wall or higher another border patrol agent, the mainstream media would have ridiculed that claim, would have said that is loony.av i asked the agent, what changed the way they said the only thing that has changed is the cartels understand, now we have an administration that will enforce the law. that matters. >> tucker: it's totally true. last question. the name is brilliant and hilarious. you actually came up with an acronym that spells el chapo? who thought of that? >> it's a fellow on my staff. sean is his name. he is smart, he is talented. i already told him, i said it was brilliant. when i saw it, i laughed out loud and said, we are going with that. >> tucker: if sean ever wants a job in tv, have him call me. thanks, senator. good to see you.ld up next, bill nye says

developed countries ought to pass laws that punish people for having children. bill nye is not nuts or anything. the question is, is that story insane enough to be the days craziest? we have a panel to evaluate it. stay tuned. ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here.

could be preventedrrent with the right steps. and take it from me, every step counts. a bayer aspirin regimen is one of those steps

in helping prevent another stroke. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. ♪ >> tucker: there are a lot of awful crazy things going on in the news. how crazy? we brought in two guests toaw evaluate the days that days i nuttiest news story. from the "washington examiner" and a fox news contributor. they join us now. kristen, to you first. >> bill nye the science guy was one of my idols. it has really broken my heart to see the way he has become very politicized.

he has a new show called "bill nye saves the world" with science. they proposed the way to combat climate change -- well, we should take a look at this. >> should we have policies that penalize people for having extre kids in the developed world? >> i do think we should consider it. >> at least consider it is like, do it.on >> we could encourage our culture and norms to change. >> look, to his credit, other panelists jumped on and said this is crazy. we have countries that tried to limit the number of kids that families can have and now they have their own demographic disaster. it is killing me that so many on the left, science is now a religion instead of something where you ask questions and have interesting debates. >> tucker: and bill nye is nowe a moral leader. should we eat dogs and cats for

dinner? well, it is a fair question. no, it is insane. can you beat that? >> oh, i can. you are kind of a downer so i thought it would bring you a feel good story. liven things up for you at the end of the show. as you know, heroes come in many shapes and sizes. they came in the form of pigs that took it upon themselves to join the fight against isis. but i think all your viewers can get behind this. what happened was that in northern iraq, a herd of wild boars completely unsolicited came out of the woods and attacked these isis fighters that were setting up an ambush against local tribes. they killed three of them, injured five and everybody lived happily ever after. it was a great story. >> tucker: do we believe this? >> it has been independently verified by people on the w grod

who have provided eyewitness accounts of this. there were many people there because it was quite a gory, horrible thing. >> tucker: if you are an isis fighter, there's no worse and to be killed by a pig. that's being killed by a victoria's secret model. like, you are not going to paradise. >> now paradise is trying to -- there is this major retribution campaign. they are going around the area and trying to rustle up all the wild boars and kill them which is terribly sad. >> tucker: they do that in texas too but for different reasons.wi your story shocked me. we are trying to get bill nye on to explain it in some great detail. but isis fighters killed by pigs is probably the greatest news story that has ever happened ever.d you get our coveted trophy.

because it is 2017, everybody gets a trophy. >> thank e you. >> tucker: that was incredible. before we go, we told you that president obama is collecting 400 grand to deliver a one-hour speech at a conference posted by the wall street firm. today his spokesman put up a post defending the speech. president obama will be true to his values, vision, and record. i pointed out in 2008, barack obama raised more money from wall street than any other candidates. true to his values, which include taking 400 grand for an hour of talking. [laughs] unbelievable.. it turns out to be true. that is our show for tonight. we are really glad you tuned in. every night at 8:00, "the five" will be on in new york.

greg gutfeld, everyone. see you tomorrow. musical >> thanks, tucker. if that's your real name. i am greg gutfeld with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, jesse watters and dana perino. you are watching "the five." ann coulter's berkeley speech has been canceled because sheke could not be protected. interesting. you have to wonder, if it were a radical liberal, would there have been an issue?ou it's only when you questionn leftist dogma that the dogs come out. call it a victory for the sharia snowflakes on campus. still blocking free speech. in fear of what, exactly? >> i am here to protest this