have pete hegseth who is filling in for laura ingraham next. >> pete: you should have given up the congress thing a long time ago. >> jason: they tell me, i love it. >> pete: well, good evening from new york city, welcome to "the ingraham angle," i am pete hegseth in for laura, lots of news tonight. president trump wrapped up a big rally in montana a short time ago, making waves, as you can imagine on everything from illegal immigration to maxine waters, whose favorite nickname for his favorite senator in massachusetts. we have it all covered this evening and three candidates are said to remain for a president trump's supreme court. that's what fox news is reporting. new details on the democratic onslaught against whoever the finalist is no matter who he or. she may be. and why we could be seeing the democrat party self-destruct before our eyes. news alert to you, this is not

your daddy's democratic party. more evidence tonight. the battle over ice and illegal immigration. new levels of intensity, and you could say insanity over the jule democrat protest taking place across the country on independence day parade when i think independence day, i think protesting law enforcement. and we should not be surprised after abolish i.c.e. has become the new rallying cry for not just the hard left, but the straight up left. >> i think that this disastrous immigration policy should be abolished. i happen to have voted against i.c.e., the formation of i.c.e. in 2002. >> congress needs to change the policies of i.c.e. so that they do not terrorize communities. >> pete: those on the ground are apparently, not just apparently, they have resorted to stunt tactics, one protester climbed new york statue of

liberty to waive the abolish i.c.e. banner, liberty island, of course the tea of american citizens and others did not get access to lady liberty yesterday, after hours the protester was finally pulled down and arrested, rightfully so by law enforcement, but she could barely make barely wait to speak out to the public. >> michelle obama. our beloved first lady that i care so much about. when they go low, we go high, and i went as high as i could. [cheers and applause] >> pete: yes, risking the lives of law enforcement in the process, but naturally president trump was game to take her on tonight in his montana rally. listen. >> you saw that clown yesterday on the statue of liberty, you see the guys that went up there. i would not have done it. i would have said, let's get some nets and let's wait untilhe

she comes down. just get some nets, really. you see those guys, the bravery of doing that? what a group. >> pete: clown is right, president also fired a new shot over the bow of his immigration critics. >> the new platform of the democrat party is to abolish i.c.e., they want to abolishsh immigration enforcement entirely. that's what they want toey do. they want everybody coming here. and you know the beauty with i.c.e., they are so tough, when you have these ms-13 thugs come in. i.c.e. goes in and wipes them out like nothing. because they are much tougher. we will not stand for these vial democrats against our law enforcement. >> pete: joining us now with reaction tonight, from irvine, california, former i.c.e. agent

claude, and allen orr from washington, d.c., and with us in studio, ins specialist. thank you for joining us this morning, michael, i will start with you. you were with the ins, which is the precursor to i.c.e. after 9/11, but you say even this iteration after 9/11 is not enough. >> no, it is not to. we have 6,000 i.c.e. agents, not half of them are doing law enforcement immigration. >> pete: 6,000, so 3,000 -- >> if we are lucky. >> pete: enforcing the law. >> from the interior, if you look at the 9/11 commission report. multiple failures of the immigration system, particularly a lack of meaningful interior enforcement, immigration fraud, visa fraud made it possible for the terrorists not only on 9/11, but they looked at other terrorists coming in almost all of them exploited vulnerabilities in the immigration system, so now we

have 3,000 i.c.e. agents enforcing versus 20,000 border patrol agents, tsa employees and 37,000 police officers just for the city of new york, ice is almost. nonexistent anyway. >> pete: once they get through, they are outmatched as far as size and number at that point. >> it is not just about illegal aliens, it is going after the fraud and employers who hire these folks and going after the gangs working on them. >> pete: a as a i.c.e. agent who has been on the ground, are there enough of you? i know that you are retired, but what about the folks that are still there believe and feel? >> as a point of correction, ih was with the ins before it switched out, but as a point of correction, there is the enforcement illegal operations division that has about 6,000 officers and agents itself, and all they do is civil immigration enforcement. then homeland security investigation, special agents,

half of their duties as immigration enforcement, they have 6,000 agents, so if you want to say half of their time is spent doing investigating immigration crimes, then i guess you could say 3,000 of them. >> pete: 3,000 or 6,000 is not a lot compared to other agencies, but talk to me about your work on the ground every day, you are accused of being a terrace and a thug and inhumane, talk to me about the job of a i.c.e. agent. >> that is obviously ludicrous, because it was born out of 9/11 and one of its primaries responsibilities is counterterrorism, national security. they have the second largest presence on the federal joint terrorism task force as any other federal agency. not only investigate immigration crimes related to national security threats, but they also investigate customs violations related a to the same thing. so export violation and export of technology that are going to

bad actor countries like north korea, potentially china, and then the immigration enforcement stuff. disrupting and dismantling the organization that smuggled people, goods into the u.s. and threatened the national security.s >> pete: groups like ms-13 that to the president is talk to you, al, i will go to you, you probably take a different view on this. at least what i've read you talk about structural reform as to i.c.e. as to abolish i.c.e., but the rhetoric on the left is abolish, what is the difference? >> there is a huge difference, the show guests tonight, before there was i.c.e., there was ins, and it does not exist anymore, but i.c.e. exist. if the conversation about abolish i.c.e. as a political fringe on both ends of their party. if we think about this for a minute, it is not a political conversation -- >> pete: i don't mean to interrupt you, but what is the political fringe on the right? > they are also saying what s

the purpose of i.c.e.? >> pete: they are not climbing the statue of liberty and putting their whole platform as a party on abolishing i.c.e. >> neither are we, we are putting it on humanitarian rights, what was missing was a women separated from their children and the delay of 3,000, or more that we don't know about. the conversation about i.c.e. is not about i.c.e., but the humanitarian problem at the border in the consideration of saying that i.c.e. is not doing enough, when your first guest said that cbp is at the border, we have officers in new york city, so what is the concern? >> pete: that is a fair point, but alan, you talked about securing the border, i know that i had asked, the internal enforcement, but if you had the border secured, then the need for i.c.e. -- >> the border would exist. we have 50 border states, the notion that everything happens on the mexican border is wrong. none of the hijackers were on the mexican border. go back to 9/11, 50 border

states. on the northern or southern borders or has international airports and acts as 1,095,000 miles of coastline are border states. >> pete: you agree with allen though, you are saying that you do not think that i.c.e. is structured properly, but your argument is that i.c.e. is not i.c.e. enough. >> in the former chairman of the house subcommittee would also agree. i was at a hearing with him for months after 9/11, he complained that the way the dhs was put together, deemphasize border security and immigration enforcement and it is remarkable because 44 months after 9/11, that's howt hard it took us to win the second world war at thaw hearing, they were working on a mission statement for immigration. >> i think that part of the issue that we should look at is that they have not had a clear mission, as a guest said, they are doing this and this and thi this. >> pete: but if that is the answer to abolish or is the answer to refine, or refined down to the core mission of the fact that we do not have her

arms around coming into the country. we do not have that right now, so until we n do, wouldn't we wt i.c.e. out there enforcing the laws? >> if i can jump in here -- >> we are a country of laws. >> pete: one second. >> absolutely. >> i think part of the problem is a characterization of the. issue, people applying for asylum at the southern border is not illegal immigration, they have the right to apply for asylum. >> pete: what is wrong with rescuing the folks i do not goad that rudimentary -- >> i have something to mention. >> pete: let me get to claude as a former i.c.e. agent.el please. >> that is absolutely right. a i.c.e. is essential, and they are not too used to full effectiveness. both on the left and the right, there has been an ignorance of interior enforcement, so when they pass the immigration reform and control act of 1986, the

idea was, give amnesty to people and now we will secure the borders and we are going to do interior enforcement. we will make sure that only people that are authorized to work and work. but as long as a border is not secure, the magnet for people to come here is employment. >> pete: before i get there, claude. what is the morale of an agent on the ground right now who hears the impugning of the motives that they are horrible people? does it affect the way that they do their job? >> i think that they are used to it. mr. cutler can attest to this, it is veryry political. as the political winds shift, we just adjust. we are very resilient. so those agents are very resilient. immigration enforcement is a politically charged topic, and they know depending on who is in the white house, who is in the congress, the political winds will change. >> pete: i was in the military, the last thing i wanted was politics impacting my job. >> but it does, his was left out of interior enforcement, not just making arrests, going after

immigration fraud. goodness, we have given citizenship to terrorists. not even over states, they got political asylum, claiming that they could not go home, they went home as soon as i got asylum, one of the brothers was a natural citizen, the times square times square bomber, we are processing applications to citizenship, giving the keys to the kingdom to a liam's without doing the investigations that are necessary to vet them. >> pete: allen, you talked about ports of entry, why would -- seeking asylum and you have a legitimate edge issue, you can go to the point of entry, but if you are going to sprint knowing what you are doing is illegal, why are you given and afforded all of the rights of a citizen? >> i do not think that they are sprinting across the border, the zero tolerance between the port of entry, people are coming here to file for asylum which is a natural american law. >> pete: you do that at the point of entry. >> if we revamped to the system

for people that were here to work, as we have seen an increase of the market. -- reforming the system and making it work, back logging immigration more than it already is, the 6,000 cases for asylum that are waiting in the huge backlog waiting for illegal immigration processes is not the answer, so shutting down the united states and saying that everybody needs to have the extreme vetting, what is extreme bedding, i am waiting on the memorandum to see what it is. >> it is doing investigations in the field to determine who is actually in the country, by the way, we displace american workers with foreign workers,rk drives down wages, because immigration has become a delivery system for an on limited supply of cheap labor, and they are immigration attorneys also. >> pete: want to know who is coming here and having skills pay >> and not american workers. >> and atin the lowest rate possible, that is not a real reason.

you want to know who you are leading in the country. >> do you honestly believe that we are letting in thousands of people a day without knowing who they are? >> pete: you have said, allen -- >> if you grant amnesty to a bunch of people, we absolutely are. >> pete: thank you for your service, all of you, we appreciate it. and then there were three being reported, president trump makes the short list of supreme court candidates. new details on how democrats will try to stop the final pick, no matter who it is. coming up next.

any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint. its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores.

>> pete: welcome back. the inte >> pete: welcome back, the interviews, they are over at the white house, a short-listrv of three people we are being told remain potential supreme court picks by president trump. that to announce a final decision at 9:00 p.m. eastern this upcoming monday night, democrats, of course doing everything in their power to whip up their base, no matter who the choices. the resistance and must continue, join us now with the latest, fox news correspondent kristin fisher. good evening. >> hey, pete, telling reporters on air force one tonight that the short list has shrunk to a four, he thinks he has narrowed it down to two or three finalists, our sources tell fox news that those finalists are three appellate court judges, all who are widely

regarded to be constitutional conservatives. bret kavanagh from the d.c. circuit, rimming cat ledge, and amy kony barrett of the seventh circuit. cavanaugh's kind of the steady washington insider, the 53-year-old sits on the powerful court that served as a stepping stone for three current supreme court justices as well as anthony's glia. for kennedy and he has deep ties to his former boss george w. bush. another former kennedy clerk judge raymond kutch ledge, the 51-year-old is known for being a little bit of a loner, less profile, and has less of a judicial record, but he is also a lot less controversial which could help him get confirmed and through the senate and then there is amy connie barrett, the only female finalist. she has seven children, and worked for the late justice, and she is a devout catholic, but her writings on overturning judicial precedent have raised a red flag with a critical

republican senator who fears that she might overturn roe v. wade. president trump says he hopes to make a decision by sunday, then on monday a big primetime announcement at the white house, something thaten he made officil during that rally tonight in montana, listen here. >> if you tune in monday at 9:00, i think that you will be extremely happy with this one. right? i want to thank justice kennedy for his lifetime of truly distinguished service and he had confidence in me. he left because he said you are going to pick somebody great. >> but democrats say that no one on the president's short-list is great, they are putting the pressure on two key republican senators, lisa mark asked again and susan collins, one liberal group going to spend millions, millions of dollars on activism in the home state, alaska and maine, which is the exact same strategy that they used to defeat the republican effort to appeal obamacare, but of course pete, this is going to be a much more difficult fight for

the democrats to win. >> pete: thank you very much, we appreciate it. as we mentioned, democrats throwing the kitchen sink at president trump's supreme court candidates, no more than at amy connie barrett. you cannot put it any other way, and incredibly qualified judge a devout catholic, and a mother of seven children, the hypocrisy is so thick you could choke on it. joining us now with reaction is policy director of the conservative judicial crisis network and a former clerk for justice clarence tom and's. thank you both for joining us this morning, let me start with you, so the criticism of amy barrett, knowing how accomplished she is is that she may be just too devout of a catholic coming at the left has usually seen a qualified female candidate and especially somebody whoes has already been confirmedbe with 55 votes as would be yet again breaking the glass ceiling, why

the resistance to amy? >> this is ridiculous, because under the constitution there is no test for office, that's what they are trying to do, you are seeing people like senator feinstein who are very threatened by an accomplished articulate about the conservative woman, because i really puts the lie to their identity politics. she does not toe the line, andth their feminist idea of what a woman should be, and she understands how to defend her position. i think that that is so when they feel threatened by, that's why we saw the heart attack on her during her confirmation hearing with that famous so strange line, the dog lives wildly within her. that will go down in history and it might go down in history as the beginning of a supreme court justices career. >> pete: confirmed with 55 votes, leo, we will lead to amy coney barrett speak for herself, she spoke to a group in jacksonville, florida, this is what she said about interpreting the constitution, listen. >> i want to appoint someone who

is pro-life or i want to appoint someone who is primary focus is protecting minority life, the candidates are talking to their bases and talking to the electorate and saying, signal, i'm going to put people on the courts who share your policy preferences. as i was saying before, i think that that is not the right qualification for a justice. we should not be putting people on the court that share our policy preferences, we should be putting people on the floor that want to apply the constitution. >> pete: applying the constitution, what do you take issue with there? >> we should put people on their who adopt -- believe in the same policy, let me tell you, havehe you read about this woman? i read about her, this woman does not believe in starry decisive, do you know what that means? she does not believe and establish law, she is telling people that she has no problem overturning excuse me, with all due respect, i do not think that

roe vs. wade is a bad law, on the book for 45 years, but if you want to be honest, she is talking about overturning established law, that scares me as a lawyer, and carry, you did not mention that. she said in a speech that lawyers should have a higher calling to god, god has nothing to do with the law. this woman is scary, very scary, because she is a threat to overturning established law, pete, i hope that you talk about those items. that is dangerous. >> pete: as i'm sure that you did like many americans looking at the declaration of independence yesterday, of course our founders believed in god, nature's god, and you would acknowledge, leo, there are beeo plenty of laws that should have never been on the books in the first place, take roe v. wade as an example, there are lots of folks who look at jurisprudence, on the left and the right and say that to the right in roe v. wade, they had to bend t

over backwards to find the right to privacy within the constitution, it was emanations arm roe v. wade, can you honor the constitution without being ideological? >> absolutely, that's what she was talking about. it is not about finding somebody who will give you a laundry list of preferences. every justice on the supreme court agrees that there are times when you have to overturn a law or a ruling, if we did not have that, we would have the dred scott case --e >> don't play games. i don't play games with that. that is a red herring. let me just ask you point-blank, red herring, roe v. wade, tell me right now on national television, b bad decision, tell me right now, tell all the pro-choice republicans, tell me right now on national tv, is roe v. wade a bad law? go ahead. >> president obama's legal adviser, a law professor,

constitutional law tag, he thinks that it is not a law that isit president and a good-qualiy precedent, but the question here is very different. i don't think this justice is going to beat up the vote to overturn it, because the middle justice, the swing vote is john roberts, i think that he is much harder to predict. i have no idea what he will do in this case. >> pete: leo, there are a lot of people in this question, that think that roe v. wade is a terrible thing and a sin on this country. there are a lot of people including my professor at princeton university who can point out many times that the decision of roe v. wade, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice was judicial activism at its finest. >> this debate to -- >> what carrie uses dred scott as an analogy, she insults the intelligence of every viewer. since 1973, all of these current

administrations -- >> pete: republicans?ow >> they have acknowledged roe v. wade, and this judge is hell-bent on overturning roe v. wade, she should not be nominated. >> pete: you are making it a single issue, the first amendment, the second amendment. >> it is a big issue. a woman's right to choose. >> pete: are you saying that it is not a legitimate policy decision to say that it could be decided at the state level? >> this judge, believe me, it is decisive, don't you believe that, carrie? can you say yes or no? >> none of that says that evey case once decided gets overturn, zero justices believe that, this is all a distraction, these are scare tactics used against justice o'connor, justice kennedy, justice souter, they were saying that they would need a vote to overturn, those were the three that over held in the planned parent hood case, this is a distraction from the real principles which is this someone

who is going to look at the law first and foremost and look at the constitution. amy barrett unlike other people have written clearly. she believes that it should be separate from that. >> she says i did not understand this, she told a group of lawyers that we as lawyers have a higher calling to god -- can you explain that to me? why is she using religion? i don't know what that means. as a lawyer i don't know what that means. >> our framers and the declaration of independence. >> here we go again. >> pete: back to the founding principles. >> if her moral belief conflicted with the rule as a judge, she will recuse herself, whatat else can you ask, she sas i'm not going to substitute what i believe for the law.iv >> pete: these are going to be some confirmation hearings no matter who is chosen, it will be must-see tv. carrie, leo, thank you for your time tonight. is the camp only meantc

democratic party sowing the seeds of its own destruction? we will explain right after this brief break.

>> pete: welcome back. >> pete: welcome back, we will ask a simple question, is the democratic party killing itself before our eyes and in real time? that is the argument laid out by ian henderson in a new piece on the conservative website american greatness. he writes in part "increasingly so, more whites are realizing that the economic centers left and so truly conservative part of fdr and jfk no longer exists. the old democratic party was a prolabor, prounion party, today the democratic party as a party of open borders, multiculturalism and environmentalism. reducing wages, dividing communities, and under mining economic prosperity, the traditional base cannot relate

to are opposed to these policies, and as a result have been leaving the democratic party in droves." joining us now is garland nixon, a radio talk show host and democratic strategists, along with actor and congressional candidate get it in california antonios about a junior, thank you for joining us paid i will start with you, as a member of that party, do you feel like the party of yesteryear is no longer the party of today, ae losing crucial blocks of support? >> yes, but i do feel that the party is moving in the direction, and not necessarily willingly. i do think that there are number of people who have been associated with the democratic party who have left because they were angry at thet direction. >> pete: you are agreeing with the thesis? >> furred totally different reasons, i think that the news, and the bernie sanders are moving in the right directionht which is a populist movement, based on policy and not identity

politics. and that is why they are going to get their base to the polls coming in win by getting your base to the polls, not by running to republicans. >> pete: what you are acknowledging is that identity politics is not what worked. part of what is mentioned in the piece is not mentioned is socialism, what you see candidates elected with that as well. antonio, is socialism identity politics, environmentalism a winning formula? >> no, it is a negative formula for everyone in this country, they are not the democratic party and the more, they are the socialist party. i love presidents like jfk, that was the last guy for me as far as the democratic rep party, but what we have seen in the last few years under this new administration and the attacks that we receive every day, violence, i've never seen that before, and i am fighting against it. i think it is f a sign of bullyg and people are walking away from the democratic party and they know that the republicans are there to support america, the flag, the constitution.

that's what we are here to do bring prosperity and peace. want to protect our country, what is more important than that? >> pete: garland, a perfect example of the democratic party, the union, the working man, at the same time, very much beholden to environmentalists, who have a different priority and sunk industries that president trump says he wants to bring back, i went clean water and clean air, but not environmental regulations that undercut industries, how do you square that circle?e? >> by disagreeing with you, because i do not think that they have been sunk, i think that they have been sunk by poor decisions and deregulated environments. the two things are not the same. to have a clean environment, we do not have to poison ourselves just to have a strong economy. >> pete: are we poisoning ourselves by unleashing an energy renaissance when we will be the largest producer of oil, is that poisoning ourselves or giving jobs to americans?

>> that is poisoning ourselves, we will not have to pay for any infrastructure in the long term, and it will be cleaner, why would we not want to lead the world with a clean energy industry? >> pete: so antonio, tu, part of getting the clean energy future is subsidizing certain forms of energy that are not tenable on the private market, how do you do that? that looks a lot like picking winners and losers and back to socialism? >> they run this country and a socialist way, my farmers are paying the price by being overregulated, they want to talk about the environment, why don'o we talk about the people of the united states and taking care of them? why don't we talk about the cmelessness in california? why don't we take care of them, we are talking about everybody else but the american people. i went to county to be on top again, to be number one, and that's what i am there to support. and represented november, the republican party is there for the american people, we are here to make sure that not only the country is clean, but it's going to the next level and being

great again in so many levels, so what we are seeing in the last year and a half, it is great, what we have seen in taxes, the military, the border, everything is going smooth, but they want to fight it, they want to fight everything that the president is doing everyday. >> pete: i i forgot that the resistance, the other core tenant, of the democratic party, but i was interested in one thing you said earlier, garland, identity politics is not the future, the hyphenated future as to believing that we are all americans regards to race, gender, orientation, the party, this piece argues that the democratic party is based in identity politics, and there will be the undoing, how do you undo human people as a subgroup as opposed to a set of principles? >> that is easy, because we have the formula for that, we watched bernie sanders, a 74-year-old jewish guy who had a lot of success for that. we now see a 28-year-old latina woman who is having success. >> pete: both of whom are socialist.

>> it is about policy, people right now, if you look at the polls, you do not -- i do not care what you are called, if you go with legalizing marijuana, 64% of americans are in favor. if you go with bringing our troops home from foreign wars, you are getting close to 70%. i do not care if you call yourself the whigs, the socialist, whatever, if you are running for policies that most americans agree with according to the polls, you will probably get your people to the polls and you will win. >> pete: i appreciate that you are talking about policy, but when i turn on other networks stay at the airport, i see, nothing but resistance and trump hate and talk of russia collusion and very little talk of what comes next. and when the answer is medicare for all, and to legalize marijuana which is a legitimate policy position, that is fine, and socialism, in america it does not strike me as something -- >> socialism has never worked in any country, my family escaped

it. no country under socialism has ever worked in will ever work especially in the united states of america. it is no place in this country whatsoever. it would be great if the democratic party would actually work with this president, because at the end of the day we are trying to make america great, keep a great, do what's best for the american people, not what is best for the party, the leaders of the party, but what is best for americans. they are waking up and they are saying that we do not want to go for this anymore. it is a false light, we will vote republican, because the republican party cares for the american people. that is the most important thinp for me. elect people who actually care and love this country. >> pete: garland, it feels like it is the education system or media on hollywood, but latching on to socialism,oc identity politics, open borders, environmentalism does not strike me in america, maybe europe, but not here is a long-term winning strategy. thank you both, great debate. the trump administration reverses obama era rules, pushing race in college a mission.

and the left, predictably, they are furious about it. but a primitive former professor says that this is a victory for many students of many shades. joining us and asked.

>> pete: good evening and >> pete: good evening, welcome back to the "the ingraham angle," last time i said good morning, doing too much of the morning show, president from hitting an angry nerve with the left, theti administration is withdrawing obama era rules promoting the use of race in college admissions. instead local colleges and universities will adopt race blind ed mission, since news of the decision, many of the critics have been at the mic. >> it is a serious mistake, and it is deeply a dangerous signal to all of the school community is that this administration does not believe in, is not here to support diversity and inclusion in our school community. >> this is yet just a game and an example of an effort to turn

back the hands of time. too retrogressive when it comes to civil rights. this is a repeal of seven obama era guidances. it is consistent with what the justice and education departments have done. we must resist this. because it is inconsistent with american values. > this administration has disdain for diversity. >> pete: not everybody in then world of higher education sees it that way. some say that the reversal is a win for students. s one of them is dr. carol swain, author and former professor of political science and law, she joins us now, along with democratic strategist antoine seabright, thank you for joining us this evening, carol, let me start with you, please explain what this does and why you believe this change by the trump administration is a good thing. >> firsttr of all, i will say tt i have been a professor for 28 years, and affirmative action,

race-based affirmative action has been around all of those 28 years, so it is not something that obama initiated, but obama became far more aggressive with it. and it seemed as if his administration believe that everyone belonged in college, and this has done a disservice forol many students were not prepared for the colleges that they have been able to gain admission, and so for black students, it results in situations where only about 38% graduate in six years, many students incurred debt, and today leave school, they have the debt, they do not have a college degree. they could have been successful at a lesser school, or one that was more appropriate for that qualification or maybe they were someone who could have gone into trade school. >> pete: antoine, the doctor has been on these campuses, you.

response? >> with all due respect, i think that this is par for the course with this administration. this is really not about affirmative action, this is not about anything that the professor may be referring to, this is just trump's effort to take this country full-screen backwards. the president campaigned on the fact that he wanted to undo andn redo any obama era policy, because he simply wanted to make barack obama his political boogie board. >> pete: so there could not be ale legitimate policy disagreemt that racial preferences are not totally healthy to admissions? >> pete, these policies and measures are put in place to ensure that african-americans and the minorities in this country have a seat at the table, because for far too long they have been on the menu and never had our rightful place at the table. if these policies were not in place, perhaps people like me would have never had an opportunity to get into certain colleges and universities in

this country, and so the bottom line is i think that this is needed and necessary, and ies think that this is just donald trump's way of feeding his face a red meat issue. >> pete: your response? >> i disagree, even before affirmative action was a law of the land, schools that they not discriminate had blacks on that student body, the ivy league schools, they had black students. >> it is not about them having -- >> pete: let her finish. she let you finish. >> the thing that concerns me, i've always seen this, there been many minority students that i have encountered that have been struggling, there are some that are well-qualified. they are at the top of the class. >> that is nothing to do with it. >> they are struggling and failing, would've been successful if they went to a state university or a community college or trade school, they leave school with a lot of debt, and i firmly believe that one reason we have so much unrest on college campuses today, so much

anger and bitterness and the students want to segregate its because many of them are not prepared for the institution they have been allowed to matriculate into. >> pete: you talk about racial differences, there is a case at harvard, pending in the courts, where asian american students are claiming reverse discrimination, that they are actually, their numbers are being reduced because they are. overqualified, doesn't that strike you as unfair for them? >> pete, if you do not think that my opinion is in line with reality, ask the national education association.. ask the national education council, these groups have pushed back religiously on the undoing of this policy. >> all from left-wing groups, that's good. it's fine, they are allowed to do so, but... >> this policy is not about whether kids do well on college campuses, it is making sure that we have a pool of people that are able to get into colleges

and universities around the country. look, right here in south carolina, flagship university has had issues where african-american students, same gpa, same test scores as people who do not look like them could not get end of the school. i know what that feels like and what it is like to be in those situations. for this policy to be rolled back, this is simply a political move. it is ironic i considering that trump is considering his supreme court nomination in these types of cases have made it to the high court. >> pete: last worked, briefly. >> i totally disagree, because demographically the nation -- >> of course you do. >> the nation has changed in significant ways, a lot of black students i could have been successful someplace -- or in institutions where they are going to fail, they leave with lots of debts and they are angry and bitter. >> this is the major that they get at school. >> it is unfair against asians as well as now minorities who

are better qualified. it is also, the country is not the same as it was 50 or 60 years ago. >> pete: we have to leave her right there, good debate, i appreciate you both this evening. if you thought they never term conservatives could not debase themselves any further, theo conservative solution to stop president trump. right after this.

where we're making the next generation of multiscreen welcadvertising possible.ght, we have the broad and targeted reach you need to access the customers you're looking for on tv and digital platforms. then we connect you to our team of media experts,

who are ready to help you maximize your budget while elevating your advertising effectiveness. sounds like an advertising opportunity knocking. visit comcastspotlight.com today.

♪ >> pete: welcome back to the speed 20, never term conservatives are so marginalized that they are movingse to utter desperate tac, listen to author and columnist max boot, who i have known for years, and found before to be a thoughtful guy, he claims to still be a principled conservative, but listen. >> i devoutly hope that every single republican running for electionun next november loses, because we cannot count on this republican party to hold p the donald trump of the world accountable. they have shown that they have no willingness to uphold the constitution in the office, the only way we will gete accountability in washington is to elect democrats. >> pete: wow. these never-trump or as may be more hysterical than democrats, joining us to analyzed is the

host of media buzz at 11:00 eastern on the fox news channel, what do you make of the incredible anti-trump rhetoric from never-trumpers. >> i get to the men that i've respected for years are upset because they think that president trump has ruined their vision of the g.o.p., but it is hard to grasp how they are openly rooting for democrats given that theyy have spent ther whole careers opposing them as a party of big government, big spending, and it is hard not to notice, i'm not saying that this is their motivation, but they bring them favorable publicity, msnbc, and new respect from the left. >> pete: laura has said, part of the motivation is sort of this elitist, snobbish sense that they know what the republican party ought too be, and they do not have a seat atur the table, so they are turning the table over. and i have known max, smart guy

on a lot of foreign policy stuff, but to vote for democrats, that is just, i cannot added up. >> i understand from their point of view, they are saying that they are conservative, president trump is taking the party in a different direction, that is fine, but what troubles me saying vote for democrats, what troubles me is the overheated rhetoric, just the other day, max boot wrote that the g.o.p. has become a white nationalist party with a conservative french, also compared it to postwar germany and japan needs to be destroyed so that it can be rebuilt. that betrays how much they hate the president. also the columns are not havingt impact on actual voters, because you look at the numbers and trump is enjoying 90% approval.. tween republican voters, so in an echo chamber, i would say. >> pete: your comment on a big development, scott pruitt out at the epa, he resigned. a lot of heat on him, how much do you think of his position to

resign was driven by the media hysteria, making his own mistakes, but they really went after him relentlessly, but the media playing and oversized hand here? >> there is no question that scott pruitt made a lot of bad decisions, and most people did not like his policies at the epa, changing the direction and all of that, but a lot of these stories really did reach a point where anybody else would have been gone from the cabin into months and months and months ag ago. all of that sort of thing, laura ingraham tweeting the other day that he is the swamp and needed to go. even republicans realize, some of them and put that he was a political liability for the president who accepted the resignation. >> pete: did i hear you say that the mainstream media has policy positions? >> not overtly, but let's just say that there's not a lot of tears being shed for scott pruitt's departure.

>> you are probably right, howard kurtz, thank you for your time. an iraqi hero who fought alongside american troops prepares for one of the nation's highest honors, that man and his family, an incredible story coming up next.

♪ >> pete: well, we end with a story near and dear to my heart, when i served in iraq 12 years ago, my unit partner and his family, a very brave family who fought alongside us against al qaeda terrorists, alongside u.s. troops putting their lives on the line every single day, targeted by name by al qaeda, his family, finally here, and his family is coming, legal immigrants, and soon citizens, i fought for many years to make sure that they could get here.

as we celebrate the nation's independence yesterday and freedoms this week, i got the chance to take him around new york city for the first time, he always wanted to see it and visited it with me. watch. right now we are heading to the airport to meet him. 12 years ago we were in iraq fighting al qaeda shoulder to shoulder, then i fought for years for him to come here through the immigrant visa program, he is here. he lives in houston with his family but has never been tot new york city. i'm going to get them right now. what's up, brother? what's the thing that you want to see in new york city the mos most? there we go. you are a new immigrant here, because he fought with themm troops in america and put your life on the line, thankfully, it took us a lot of time, but we got you here through the process, what does it feel like to be in america from where we were? >> my family, they are so pleased to be here. they can improve themselves, and their education, and they have

rights. >> pete: when you look at the statue of liberty that welcomes so many immigrants to this country for so long, does it feel like home? >> you feel like you are a part of the country, you are a part community. >> pete: one of the things you noticed y are all of the flags, what does that say to you? >> it says that you are proud to be in the country. you are a part of something. the people who love the country, they want to protect it. and here's where i want to be. >> pete: this is your first time in new york, and your first time to where the tower used to stand here inew manhattan, 9/11, obviously affected the lives of americans, why did you know that america was the right to partner with? >> here to defendant's people. they were fighting terrorism. and i wanted to be here. >> pete: what is it like to be

right here? you have watched new year's? >> yes, i have seen it. i see people happy and celebrating. and i think that next year i will be here. >> pete: next year you might be here? >> i think so. >> pete: while it is america, so you can do whatever you want to wherever you want to. >> a free country. >> pete: freeman in a free country, that is right. ♪ it was a great day, juxtapose our day seeing the statue of liberty with what happen the next day with those protests, just seeing someone who came here the right way, legal immigration, so grateful and has such strong allegiance to the u.s. putting his kids, all speaking english, all five in houston, welcome to america, bakr, we are so happy to have you here. that is all the time we have tonight, i am pete hegseth in for laura ingraham, be sure to follow me on twitter, i will be

back in the seat for better or for worse tomorrow evening, not morning. until them, ed henry is filling in for shannon bream, we have done a few mornings together. >> ed: i'm not used to seeing u you at ou at >> i'm not used to seeing you at night. >> time for bed. >> we missed you last week. i legitimately have a big reveal. i have a present for you. this is no joke. it has to do with your future. >> a present from ed henry. i can't wait. >> we are just learning about a tragic development in thailand, the rescue mission for those trapped boys and their soccer coach, more on that in a moment. donald trump on offense in a campaign style rally when foxnews.com don't the montana malay. the