report how many of them came from countries subject to the travel ban? and how long each of them had been in this country? >> i don't have that information in hand, sir. as you say you're right it's over a 15-year period. >> will you get to me how many of them by the numbers, how many of them were foreign born and in a country subject to the travel ban? and what was the amount of time they've been here? >> yes, to the extent that information is available, yes. >> it's all available. the number, the convictions you should certainly have the number of where they were from and how long they've been here. >> yes, sir, what we might be is where they came from because that would be what their visa would indicate. we don't know -- yes, within the data that we have, absolutely. >> getting the convictions as a prosecutor they would have in the reports how long they've

been here and what they were doing. now, last week in the oval office president trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist thing i've ever heard a president utter. not any president republican or democrat utter anything even similar. now he denies using the specific word and there has been some maybe used a different word, maybe he didn't. madam secretary, you were in the room. you are under oath. did president trump use this word or a substantially similar word to describe certain countries? >> i did not hear that word used. >> that's not the question. did he use anything similar to that describing certain countries? >> the conversation was very impassioned. i don't dispute that the president was using tough language. others in the room were also

using tough language. if i could, the concept and the context, i believe, in which this came up was the concept that the president would like to move to a merit-based system. he would like to not -- no longer look at quotas. >> did he use what would be considered vulgar language. >> the president used tough language in general as did other congressmen in the room. yes, sir. >> the others aren't president. you imply the president was in support of merit-based immigration system like those in australia or canada. but when he denigrated haiti, el salvador, africa, a country where we are trying to have some ability to match china and others in influence, he didn't say it's because we needed more

ph.d. students or skilled workers, he said he wanted more people from norway. being from norway is not a skill. and with the standard of living in norway you won't have many people from there. what does he mean he wants more immigrants from norway? >> i don't believe he said that specifically. what he was saying was he was using norway as an example of a country that is what he specifically referring to is the prime minister telling him that the people of norway work very hard and so what he was referencing is from a merit-based perspective we would like to have those with skills who can assimilate and contribute to the united states moving away from country quotas and to an individual merit-based system. >> norway is a predominantly white country, isn't it? >> i actually do not know that,

sir. i imagine that's the case. >> okay. now, the obama administration focus limited enforcement resources and everybody have to admit the ability for enforcement is limited. you can't hit every single thing. >> that's correct. >> the obama administration focuses on those who pose public safety threats. president trump has expanded those. now he has those who could be charged with a crime or priority. that means millions of undocumented immigrants are subject to removal. they are a priority for removal. one of the things i learned as a prosecutor if everyone is a priority, nobody is a priority because you can't do them all. in texas border patrol agents

detained a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy on her way to a hospital for surgery. one hell of a threat she was. in ohio the father and sole caregiver of a 6-year-old paraplegic boy is facing deportation. yesterday a man in michigan a man brought to this country in the age of 10 was deported for living here for over 30 years. torn away from his wife and children who are u.s. citizens. he never committed a crime and pays his taxes every year. now, that's how we are using our limited enforcement resources to strike fear in the hearts of everybody whether they've done something wrong or not? or tell them they can be targeted at any time? i'm sure that 10-year-old girl with a cerebral palsy is scared. >> sir, first of all, i am not sure where we would agree on

the facts of that texas case but we're happy to -- >> submit the facts. >> she was not detained. we actually helped her and escorted her to the hospital and turned her over to hhs. to your larger question, what we focus on in terms of enforcement priorities are those who have committed crimes and those with final orders of removal. our statistics show that is in fact what we're doing. last year 92% of those that were arrested and taken into cuss to tee by ice were criminals. there will always be exceptions and a lot of misunderstandings in the press. i would be happy to work with you at any time if there is -- >> we ask questions of your department and on occasion -- on occasion we have gotten answers. let's try to get answers to all of them. you know the president says he wants to build a big, beautiful wall and have mexico pay for it.

the president has promised mexico would pay for it and we open an account that mexico can put a money in to pay for it. what -- i'm sure the president wouldn't make that promise if he -- and not tell the truth. what arrangements we have with mexico to pay for it. >> sir, as the secretary of homeland security what i am concerned about is getting the front line operators. >> do you know whether we have arrangements with mexico to pay for it. >> i know we have arrangements with mexico to secure our border. >> do we have arrangements for them to pay for the wall as president trump promised the american people they would do. that's an easy answer, yes or no. >> i don't know what you mean by arrangement. >> we have -- >> are any of them to pay for a wall? >> do you mean through fees or a variety of ways? >> well, usually when something is paid for you pay for it with

money. >> i understand that. but i'm saying there are many ways to do that. >> are they paying for a wall? >> my priority is to increase border security and to build that wall that will work. that's my priority, sir and what i'm focused on. >> let's talk about that. cbp estimates that building a wall will result in taking land from 900 ranchers, other landowners in two texas counties. that's just two counties. i'll insert that letter in the record. >> so ordered. >> what is your estimate of the eminent domain against landowners required in order to build a wall? >> sir, the initial wall that we're building now for this year is replacement wall. >> i'm talking about the wall. >> i couldn't possibly give you how many people will decide in the future to have an issue with eminent domain. >> if you build a wall on the

u.s. side of the border you have to create a no man's land between the wall and the rio grande river. how many acres of land of american land do we have to crede to mexico to do that? >> we have to look at the terrain, accessibility and tailor the solution for each part of the border to make sure we don't have to do anything that's unnecessary whether it's additional land acquisition. >> if we don't have an agreement with mexico to pay for it and if as many say a wall is last century's technology, with that $18 billion, how many more cbp agents could you hire or tsa screeners to shorten lines at our airports which have become ridiculous in some places. or how many coast guard cutters could you build in order to rescue those at sea and

interdict drugs and protect our ports? >> sir, all i can tell you is walls work. we have examples of that. we have documented data and i don't know about anyone saying it's last generation technology. 2006 we had a bipartisan agreement in the secure fence act where senators obama, clinton and schumer all voted for. i disagree it is last generation, last century technology. >> parts of that wall was built and part of that -- we're talking about a wall the length of our country >> we're not. the president has made that clear. >> i'm not going to play back a lot of his campaign speeches to you about a wall. a great big beautiful wall the length of our southern border paid for by mexico. i have heard a lot of promises in my decades here. i'm waiting to see this one fulfilled. thank you, mr. chairman, for the extra time. >> i think since you were at

the same meeting i was at tuesday, the president said 700 miles additional wall. >> 722, yes, sir. initial down payment. >> senator. >> thank you for your willingness to take on what is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the united states government and that is the leadership of the department of homeland security but it is also one of the most important jobs in the u.s. government. i want to continue the line of questioning from my friend from vermont about the border security. it is no surprise to you i come from a state that has 1200 miles of common border with mexico and what we're talking about is what measures are going to be put into place to provide that border security which my constituents all want. they want security. and so i have been struck by your use of the phrase wall

system and just want to explore with you a little bit what you mean by that. one of the people that i have taken advice from is rio grande valley border sector chief who i believe you were with recently who has told me that in his vast experience in the border patrol that border security is composed of three elements. he said infrastructure is important. a secure fence as we did in 2006, a wall as the president does from time to time but it includes not only that infrastructure but also technology and, of course, the border patrol agents to be able to respond to sensors when they go off or radar and the like. is that what you mean when you talk about a wall system. some configuration of those three components, infrastructure, technology and personnel? >> yes, sir. the president has asked us as you know to look at operational control of the border.

the wall system therefore is infrastructure, technology, personnel and add it is closing the loopholes that we can promptly remove those with interdict. we look at four main mission sets. impedance and denial granted through the infrastructure. demain awareness and the cameras. access and mobility so border patrol agents can respond to threats and then we look at mission readiness. having the personnel we need to do the job. >> because of the impact to local communities and in texas and elsewhere along the border, do you have any objection to consulting with local stakeholders as they try to come up with perhaps innovative solutions to deal with the border security challenge? >> it's an open invitation. the only way that we'll be able to protect the border is by working with both state and

local officials as well as the landowners in private sector. absolutely. >> i was at the rio grande valley on friday and saturday and sunday hunting the ever elusive wild texas quail and i did happen to go over to the -- to a wildlife sanctuary on friday, which is a unique tourist attraction and one that is located within several hundred yards of the texas border. what i'm told there is that the smugglers, the trans national criminal organizations you alluded to before, do see that as a vulnerability and so obviously we need to meet that challenge and i know that the chief and others are working hard to do that. we also need to be sensitive to the concerns i think of the local community about a huge economic element there and something that we entertain a lot of folks from up north.

they call aaffectionately snow birds down there when it's cold up north they come down south and they are great -- it's great for them and great for the economy and jobs. that would be one example of a need to work collaboratively with the local community and local stakeholders as well as state and local officials to come up with the right solution. i remember a few years back in texas using that same local stakeholder input approach. we were able to come up with a win/win proposition. you are familiar with the levy wall. >> yes, sir. >> there was a need to improve the levy system down there and protect property values and to make flood insurance affordable. but in consultation i remember the county judge there they put a bond election on the ballot and came up with a dual-use

system which actually provided that levy improvement but also provide a wall in critical areas that the border patrol said they needed in order to slow down the flow of illegal immigration and drug trafficking and the like. so that's just one example of what i consider a win/win proposition and where one size does not fit all. so i appreciate your willingness to work with all of us to come up with those kind of win/win situations where possible. the chief told me that the majority of people who are coming across the border and who are detained in the rio grande valley sector are from central america. i can't remember the exact percentage but a high percentage, as you know. and what these traffickers are doing is exploiting, as you point out, a vulnerability in our system. we pass the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act years ago in order to protect children from human trafficking.

it's a highly worthy cause. >> agree. >> but the traffickers have now figured out that since children who come from central america are treated differently than other people who enter the country illegally they have found a way to exploit it and i believe you mentioned 90% of them notified of a future court hearing on their claim for asylum never show up. and that's a real glitch. but i know there has been some attention paid, not enough attention paid in my view, to the threat of criminal gangs that exploit this vulnerability as well. i was told by the chief again that they have ms-13 gang members as young as 12 years old and of course from 12 to 17 you would still qualify as a minor, and let me ask if border patrol identifies by the

tattoos or other signs on somebody under 18 that they are likely a member of a criminal gang, are they permitted to detain them or are they required to treat them the same way they would every other minor child and place them with a sponsor ultimately and only to have them never show back up for their court hearing in the future? are criminal gang members who happen to be minors treated any differently? >> unfortunately no. we have to treat them the same. we do provide the information to hhs when we have it and once we turn them over to hhs. no, sir, it is a problem. we need to look at removeability in general to make sure we can address the gang problems. we see gangs all the way up to new york recruiting illegal immigrants and children to come across the border for the purposes of joining ms-13. >> i know when we talk about unaccompanied children people think about very young children, children of tender age, they don't think about a

17-year-old member of a criminal gang like ms-13, which is exploiting this very same vulnerability. i have every confidence that you and the trump administration is going to do what you say you are going to do when it comes to border security and i believe it's our responsibility as members of congress to provide you the resources and tools and make the appropriate changes in the law so that you can do what needs to be done. i know there have been requirements for border assessments in the past but do you have any objection to congress perhaps as part of this negotiated border security part of the daca fix so-called mandating that the department come up with a plan that would provide for 100% situational awareness and operational control of the border? >> no, sir, i don't. i would encourage if you haven't had the opportunity to look at the border security

investment plan that we recently provided, there is some detail in there but yes one of the four missions my entioned absolutely. >> bill: i think it would be important to p put that in the law. different administrations have different priorities in terms of border security and the like. i would like to make sure the focus of this administration remains part of the congressional mandate in the law. and so would look forward to working with you on that. i know there has been some discussion of the daca population and certainly i together with my colleagues want to find a solution for these young adults who came here as minor children and through no fault of their own find themselves in a dead end. i do know there was a court decision which created some confusion the other day and it strikes me as wildly wrong to

say that president obama can create a program and that president trump cannot end it because it is the executive authority would seem to be the same. can you tell us about the plans of the administration to appeal that or otherwise how you plan to address it? >> yes, sir. of course as the department of homeland security we defer to the department of justice who are looking at a variety of ways in which to respond to that. dhs is complying with the court order. we have begun to accept renewals for daca. we are treating the program as pre- september of last year. if you're a current daca recipient you can reapply while pending the court action. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i ask questions of the secretary i would like to ask the indulgence of the committee to introduce two guests that i've brought here today.

a second year student at loyola university school of medicine in chicago. would you please stand? she grew up in savannah, georgia. in addition to medical school she volunteers at a clinic educating uninsured patients about disease prevention. her dream is become an ob/gyn working in under serve community and protected by daca. her future is in doubt. without the protection of daca, she does not have a legal permission to work in america. you cannot become a doctor without a residency. a residency is a job. if daca is eliminated and her protection is eliminated and right 20 work to work is eliminated her future as a doctor is in doubt. john came at the age of 9. he graduated from georgia tech,

one of the best engineering schools in america with a degree in chemical and biomolecular engineering with highest honors and works as a chemical engineer. his dream is to serve in the united states military. john, thanks for being here. that's what this debate is all about. that's what daca is all about. there has been a lot of talk about terrorists and threats to america. we stand as one not as democrats or republicans but as one in saying let's keep america safe, forgoodness sake not at the expense of the young people who i introduced. that's what this conversation and debate is all about. madam secretary, i hope you remember me. we were together at two meetings last week. i would like to ask you about one of those meetings. it occurred about noon on january 11th. you were a few minutes late. and asked forgiveness but were called at the last minute to come and attend. some things were said at that

meeting which i believe we have to address today. people across the united states and around the world want to know what this president believes should be our priorities when it comes to immigration. i'll ask you as best you can to recall what you heard the president say when it came to those priorities. what do you remember the president saying about immigration from african countries to the united states? >> what i heard him saying was that he would like to move away from a country-based quota system to a merit-based system. not where you're from but what you can contribute to the united states. >> how did he characterize those countries in africa? >> i don't remember a categorization of countries in africa. i think what he was saying as far as best i could tell ands you know there are a dozen people in the room and a lot of cross conversations and a lot of rough talk by a lot of people in the room.

but what i understood him to be saying is let's move away from the countries and let's look at the individual and make sure that those we bring here can contribute to our society. >> do you remember the president saying expressly i want more europeans. why can't we have more immigrants from norway? >> i do remember him asking about the concept of underrepresented countries as a fix. this is in the conversation about removing the diversity lottery and how we could reallocate that. i do remember him asking if we do that and we then assign those to countries that are unrepresented, aren't we just continuing non-merit-based immigration? so from that perspective i think he did ask would that cover european countries or would that mean that we're further establishing immigration to purposefully exclude europeans.

i heard him repeating what he had learned in a meeting before. they're industrious and a hard working country and don't have much crime there, they don't have much debt. i think in general i heard him giving compliments to norway. >> you said on fox news the president used strong language. what was that strong language? >> let's see, strong language there was -- apologies. i don't remember specific word. what i was struck with frankly as i'm sure you were as well was the general profanity that was used in the room but almost everyone. >> did you hear me use profanity. >> no, sir, neither did i. >> did you hear senator graham? >> i heard tough language from senator graham, yes, sir. >> what did he say? >> he used tough language and he was impassioned. i think he was using some strong language. >> do you recall it repeated exactly what the president had said prior to that?

>> i remember specific cuss words being used by a variety of members. >> i won't ask you to say those words here but i will say for the record senator graham spoke up in a way that i respect very much countering what the president had said about countries in africa reminding the president his family did not come to america with great skills or wealth but they came here as most families do. looking for a chance to prove themselves and make it a better nation. his strong words repeated exactly the words used by the president which you cannot remember. let me ask you another question. >> if i could, sir, i want to say that i greatly appreciate not only senator graham's leadership but yours as well. you're very passionate about this. i said i'm happy to come talk to you any time to try to work on this deal. i think senator graham described what he believe america is about 57bd what we should move toward.

i agree with that. >> do you support a path for citizenship on those with daca. >> we need to find a permanent solution, yes, sir. >> i hate that phrase permanent solution. do you support a path to citizenship. >> as part of the discussion and to make sure we don't continue temporary populations that continue to exist we should talk about that. i'm not here to get in front of the president or any final decisions on that particular issue but yes, i'm happy to discuss it. >> do you recall the president saying he wanted $20 billion now and he would build this wall within one year? >> i do remember him saying that he was concerned that given the appropriations cycle that any deal that we made now would be limited to this year's appropriation. i remember him asking is there a way to authorize the full down payment of the wall such that we could have assurances that we could, in fact, build it >> let's look at what your department has done building walls.

december 26, 2017, less than 1% of the 341 million appropriated for 40 miles of replacement funding have been expended. actual construction has yet to begin on money appropriated in the last fiscal year. so is the president realistic when he says he wants $20 billion so he can build the wall in one year? >> i think the president is encouraging us to go as quickly as we can. as you know it's a very complicated issue building the wall for a variety of reasons. what we're doing right now is we are testing and evaluating this prototype and continue to determine not only the design of thbe different. any we need a full toolkit. >> madam secretary the president made it clear in that meeting that one of the conditions for his assent or agreement to protect daca was $20 billion so he could build this wall in one year.

the fate of john and this balan. the president is asking for something that is impossible for them to be here in the united states legally. you've seen because you commented on it in fox news. the proposal that senator graham and i and four other senators have made you have rejected it. you said at one point, i believe, that let me see if i quote here. there is nothing that would prevent us from getting here again. are you aware of the fact that included in this proposal is the entire request of the administration for border security in this fiscal year, 1.6 billion for walls and barriers and fences, and another billion dollars for technology exactly what you asked for? if you don't believe this is going to solve the problem, which is what you said on fox news, why did the administration request it in the first place? >> that's not all we requested as you know. we requested to close the

loopholes that serve as the pull factors that exacter bait the problem. i cannot apprehend if i cannot remove. >> the first meeting we had last week we and the president agreed there would be two deal s to the conversation. with the daca challenge and the three other elements. >> including border security. >> every penny that you asked for and then the president said phase two goes into comprehensive immigration reform. many of the issues that you described as must haves. we understand that. to put the entire burden of immigration reform on the shoulders of these daca recipients is unfair, not practical and jeopardizes their future and their lives. what we're trying to do is an honest bipartisan approach to deal with the first phase of this and you have rejected it. >> i thank you for your passion. i hope you understand mine. i cannot agree to a deal that does not give the tools and resources to the men and women

of department of homeland security to do the job you have asked them to do. >> we gave you every penny you asked for. >> it is not the pennies. it is closing the loopholes. >> can we cut back on some of the money? we can sure use it. >> we need the wall, too. it works. it's part of border security. >> thank you. >> senator. >> thank you for being here. i'm glad i missed that meeting, the latter part of the week. i enjoyed the meeting we had with a couple dozen of us and i'm deeply disappointed we can't get people to think reasonably about this and bridge the gap. i don't necessarily think it's that wide if we just sit down and lower the temperatures. what's the distance between the pacific ocean and the gulf coast, the total miles of border? >> over 2,000 miles for purposes of assessing where we need a wall. >> geographically it's more than that, around 2300?

>> yes. >> when your full plan for the border security is implemented how much of that will be in a wall versus fences or other structures? >> there are three insfra structures. a primary wall and secondary wall or access roads or the mobility piece of the mission. the current down payment request is 722 miles replacement and secondary and new wall. >> when this is fully built out would you ever envision -- i think the president said in the meeting twice in front of the press and once or twice after the press left the room he is dispensed with the notion of this large one size fits all wall, right? >> yes, sir. >> i don't know why people would go back to campaign discussions. both parties tend to have a little bit of flourish on the stump. it seems to me the president has listened to the people who are at the border and has

determined that the department has a good idea that involves people, technology and infrastructure. fair to say in the comments and date why from the department it would just be disingenuous to say anybody is proposing a large wall? >> yes. >> bill: let's talk about the pool factor. if you learn nothing else from the amnesty of 1986 you learn if you don't address the pull factor all you've done with amnesty is invite a lot more people in waiting for the next amnesty. what has been your experience since we started talking about daca in terms of border crossings in the past few months? >> in general we have to reduce the pull factors. some of those are of the loopholes. again i just cannot stress it enough. even those that we apprehend takes over two years to get them through the system when they have a removable offense

to begin with. >> what's our batting average on actually removing once somebody gets into the system? >> it's fairly low. i can get you an exact figure. >> in border security, this may be over in justice, take a look how dangerous the communities are as a result of it? senator cornyn mentioned gang members. is it true or is there data to suggest that many of the dangerous people who cross the border, the majority aren't but the dangerous ones find themselves in the very hispanic communities after they cross the border making them less safe than, say, my community? >> yes, sir. and in fact i think when i went to the rio grande valley, the area that senator cornyn was reviewing, we were talking about the rip crew, if you will. those that are part of the tco raiding a house where they believe weapons or drugs are stashed where they might have pre-positioned them on both sides of the border.

so without that wall, the rip crews go back and forth, back and forth. it is danger to the mexican side and our side as well. >> we were in laredo, senator cornyn led a us down to the border in various places. laredo stuck in my mind because a couple weeks earlier border patrol agents in a helicopter were shot at. they had the door with the hole in it in the briefing room. would you characterize -- a lot of people think the rio grande is wide and deep. it is actually relatively narrow and shallow. so much so they have low draft or no draft boats to get to many places because you can walk across it. so you're 40 or 50 yards away. how would you characterize laredo in terms of safety and security? >> i wouldn't be able to tell you specifically laredo compare to others but i can tell you that very unfortunately the occurrences of attacks and violence against my agents has

increased 63%. i'm working closely with the department of justice and attorney general. we will prosecute. this has to stop. i will not continue to put my folks in danger. >> it is very dangerous and porous and crossings happen frequently and you see the spotters out there. they retreat and come back into it. it is very dangerous. it seems odd to me that someone would not support providing you all the tools you need to keep our border patrols safe and keep communities safe. bad people are crossing the border daily. until we get serious about border security we'll continue to make this country less safe and the hispanic communities less safe. >> the department of homeland security kirsten knell sao*en talking about the wall that candidate trump promised and trying to get senators to get her to characterize the rough

language the president is alleged to have used in a meeting on this topic earlier in the week. we'll continue to keep our eye on these hearings as they progress and be back with more on "happening now" in just a moment.

>> jon: fox news alert now on the countdown to stop a government shutdown and how a deal to protect the dreamers is also involved. >> melissa: that's right. president trump back in washington days before a key deadline on capitol hill where lawmakers need to hammer out a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. democrats want a deal on daca as part of it. but the president says one democrat is undermining the trust on immigration tweeting senator dickey durbin totally misrepresented what was said at the daca meeting. deals can't get made when there is no trust. durbin blew daca and hurting our military. john roberts is live with the very latest. hi, john. >> julie, good morning to you.

the white house is trying to cut two deals this week, one on daca protections and trying to get border security provisions and end chain migration and end to the visa lottery program at the same time they're trying to cut a deal with the democrats to keep the government open as well. the white house confident it can get both. it says it doesn't believe it will get a daca deal this week. the president certainly is standing firm on his demands for a daca deal tweeting this morning we must have security at our very dangerous southern border and we must have a great wall to help protect us and help stop the massive inflow of of drugs pouring into our country and the democrats want to shut down the government over amnesty for all and border security. the biggest loser will be our rapidly rebuilding military at the time we need it more than ever. we need a merit-based system of immigration and we need it now. no more dangerous lottery. democrats are accusing the president of not negotiating in

good faith saying they have gone somewhat in his direction and trying to use the president's alleged s-hole remarks characterized by many of his opponents as racist as leverage into negotiations. listen to what senator chuck schumer said last night on the colbert show. >> you want to just begin that long road back to proving you aren't a racist, you aren't bigoted, support the bipartisan compromise that three republicans and three democrats have put on the floor, everyone gave and get the dreamers' safety here in america. >> after an appearance on "fox & friends" this morning, we put the question of what senator schumer said to sarah huckabee sanders. listen to her response. >> that is an outrageous claim and frankly i think if the critics of the president were who he said he was, why did nbc give him a show for a decade on

tv. why did chuck schumer beg donald trump for money? if they are who they want to try to portray him as, why did they want to be with him for years and years in various activities whether it was events and fundraisers? >> where do we really stand on all this? again the white house believe it will get a deal on daca. they are saying it likely won't happen this week. there is too much ground to cover in light of the negotiations over the spending bill as well. and on that spending bill, julie, they think they will get a continuing resolution in time to hit the deadline on the 19th to keep the government running. they don't think the democrats will hold together to shut down the government over an issue like daca. they think that the democrats particularly ones who are in red states where president trump won by a handy margin, will rethink the idea of throwing in with the government shutdown particularly one that the president keeps reminding

people will have a detrimental effect on the military. julie. >> john, thank you. >> jon: the controversy over the president's reported comments about haiti and other nations, why some lawmakers are calling on their colleagues not to be distracted by that and to stay focused. they also have a message for the president when it comes to any deal on daca. >> it is going to take you, mr. president, working with republicans and democrats, to get this done. it's not going to be done on twitter by tweeting. it is going to be done by talking.

>> it is on. that war of words between tt trump and senator dick durbin who not only stands by his claim of what mr. trump said about africa and haiti, he is calling on the white house to release any recordings it might have. do voters care anymore about this? osh should lawmakers focus on other things. >> things like the government shutdown as this friday's funding deadline approaches. who takes the political fall if there is no deal? >> it's already tuesday and our "outnumbered" guest top of the hour will be sitting right here. see you then. >> jon: just in on the

immigration reform battle with some republicans now urging lawmakers to stay focused on what is really important protecting the so-called dreamers and not allow themselves to be distracted by the president's reported disparaging comments. >> what i heard i didn't like. i want to focus on what comes next. what comes next is a bipartisan proposal that will pass on a daca solution and hopefully -- [inaudible] >> i think this is a president who would like to solve the daca issue. this is a president who i believe wants to secure the borders of the united states. this is a president who has said things differently than clearly i would say them publicly. >> jon: joining us now dan palmer republican financier and contributing to the hill and former advisor to ted cruz. jim kessler is with us, former

legislative and policy director to senator chuck schumer and senior vice president tore policy and co-founder of third way. are democrats willing to shut the government down if they don't get a daca deal? >> i think it's possible. this is a promise that the president made. he made it months ago when he made deferred action on daca and said he was going to end that program. this is a problem of his making. democrats said they want to get it solved. we'll see if the president will tell the truth or not. so far he hasn't been very good at telling the truth. >> jon: how is it a problem of his making? >> it was his choice to say we're going to end the daca program and set up a deadline. this is the deadline he set up. if you look at his tweets daca recipients have nothing to worry about we'll solve it by this date. the things that the president says you can't really believe. >> jon: dan, your thoughts on that. there are a lot of people who say previous presidents and

congresss had a huge role in where we are today. >> there is no question unless you light a fire under congress nothing gets done. the president calling for the end of daca by a certain deadline brought the democrats to the table. let's not forget daca is a symptom, not the problem. the problem is the immigration policy of the united states is not serving its citizens and the future of the country very well at all. we have basically unlawful unrestricted mass migration flooding the unskilled job market and wreaking havoc on our society. that's an ill-advised path. democrats who want to spend their time talking about identity politics and accusing the president of this and that and language in a meeting are ducking the issue. we need to have a serious debate about immigration policy in this country. >> jon: jim, the democrats have indicated they are willing to shut down the government. that hurts the military, does it not? >> the democrats are willing to

solve the immigration problem. they passed a bill in 2013 with bipartisan support that should have been signed into law and whacko tea party in the house killed that bill. look, we have had government shutdowns before. they usually last a couple of days. it might happen this time. it is up to the president to serve some leadership to show he is not a [bleep]-hole president and solve the problem. it is on him, not democrats. >> jon: i don't know. it's up to congress to write law. we need an immigration law the president said months ago he wanted congress to solve the problem. why hasn't congress picked up the ball? >> i think you have to look at democratic leadership and frankly, the most moderate members of the republican caucus like flake and graham who are acting in bad faith. the president had a very public televised meeting with the leadership of the congress a week ago. he came out and said look, i understand you are concerned

about daca and i'll help you on that issue but i need the three pillars. i need border security, an end to chain migration, an end to lottery migration. we'll replace it with a merit-based system. the democrats have run back to their corner since that time and talked about race and identity politics and everything except the issues. that's bad faith. if they are serious you have to solve the other person's problems not just your own. the democrats are saying if you give us everything we want -- >> the president certainly made that easy to do. the president -- the first thing he did is supported and invited the leaders to come to do it. two hours he changed his mind. we need a little backbone here from the president and look, you can't blame democrats because the president uses off color remarks about people of a different race. that's the cross that we have to bear with this president right now. that's not democrats' fault. >> jon: with all due respect jim a lot of presidents have

used off color language, lbj among them. generally didn't leave the oval office. >> well, i think we have a president this time where things are going to leave the oval office and who is breaking all sorts of rules and conventions and, you know, frankly he had a deal with these bipartisan senators and then he broke it. and then made a fool of himself because he thought it would appeal to his base and he reached out to his base after those comments and thought it was good for him. i saw eric eric son's tweet saying the president's people reached out to him to talk about the comments he made. they thought it was good for them. president trump should stop playing race politics and start solving this daca problem. >> jon: dan, some people would say this is an example of the swamp that the president went to washington to try to drain. >> there is no question. this man was elected to be a disruptor. his whole campaign, the catalyst for it was border security and our change to the

immigration laws in this country. overwhelming majority of the republican primary people supported it. he won the presidency. completely inappropriate at this stage to be a president of the status quo rubbing along with dick durbin and lindsey graham and jeff flake perpetuating the problem. here is the first opportunity to really be serious about resolving what is a failed immigration system. >> jon: we'll see what happens friday at midnight. gentlemen, thank you. thanks for your thoughts. >> a war of words continues as president trump slams senator dick durbin over immigration and the dreamers. what senator durbin is actually calling on the white house to do. straight ahead. started searching for her words.

and my brother ray and i started searching for answers. (vo) when it's time to navigate in-home care, follow that bright star. because brightstar care earns the same accreditation as the best hospitals. and brightstar care means an rn will customize a plan that evolves with mom's changing needs. (woman) because dad made us promise we'd keep mom at home. (vo) call 844-4-brightstar for your free home care planning guide.

>> thanks for joining us today. >> be 22 starts right now. we'll see you back here tomorrow, maybe for a full hour. >> harris: fox news alert, we are awaiting the arrival of the president of connex on at the white house now. president trump expected to welcome him shortly. this is the point where we normally see that moment, that photo op. they will make joint remarks before they head to a working lunch. we are watching and bring you the latest developments as they happen. and this, lawmakers and the white house say they will continue to try to hammer out a deal to protect dreamers from deportation after a very contentious past week as you know. fox news alert on this, a lot of work to do on capitol hill, but time is running short as you know to reach a deal on immigration and to avoid a government shutdown. democrats are threatening to withhold support for a