clearly, keep rocking it, you are our midnight hero on multiple fronts. stay tuned as we get more details on what's in that bill, the agreement that they worked on the border and whether the president will sign it. most-watched, most trusted, most grateful you've spent the evening with us, good night from washington, i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." no matter what you may have heard or no matter what you might be hoping, alexandria ocasio-cortez's green new deal is not a fringe proposal anymore. if more than 70 democrats in the house have come out in support of it, 12 members of the u.s. senate, four democrats currently running for president, they all support the plants are depending upon what happens in this coming election parts of this proposal could easily become law. the question is, what's in it? on friday we interviewed one of her advisors, he was corn a professor robert hawkins, we asked him about a fact sheet we have led from her office and it

called for sending tax dollars to people who are "unwilling to work" so we asked him about it. if he said that one never appeared, it wasn't real, it was a right wing hoax. watch. >> the unwilling to work thing was in her backgrounder, that has been absolutely confirmed. >> no, definitely not. >> tucker: the clip you just saw went viral over the weekend, so my covington post for the piece about how this show had been duped and then by someone delivering the facts. alexandria ocasio-cortez herself agreed on twitter. turns out they were all lying. especially. she knew, andnd we can prove it. more on that in just a minute but first, president trump will make a case for a border wall at a rally in el paso, texas, time. washington, talks to avert a second government shutdown have fallen apart over immigration.re they want to increase ice's capacity to hold illegal

immigrants. democratsgr want to place a capn how many ice can dictate so that more illegal immigrants without criminal records records c can e released into the united states. he ran customs and border patrol under the previous president, president obama, and he joins us tonight. thank thank you very much for ancoming on. so democrats are demanding that ice cap dead space in the interior of the country, not the borders and some of the country to 16,500 year, if that were to happen, what would that mean? >> that's a significant step towards really abolishing ice via the checkbook. there's actually two elements to the plan. they want to reduce overall bed for ice and cap interior enforcement. so basically we arty know that if you are a child or family unit you are going to be allowed in this country. that's catch and release 1.0. this will virtually mean catch and release 2.0. as bed space goes down, illegal immigration goes up, ice, border control turns everybody we apprehend over to ice.

that means they're going to have to release more individuals into the interior of the united states. that is catch and release 2.0. the other thing quickly, from a common sense standpoint that means that people here, that are here illegally have committed an additional crime and or charged with an additional crime, ice will be forced to release them. >> tucker: so the argument you hear from democrats is these people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, the overwhelming majority of people arrested by ice have done nothing wrong other than adding to our economy and it's bigoted to arrest them, what do the numbers tell us? >> completely false. i saw a molester arrested i think the number is well in excess of 120,000 individuals that are here illegally for an additional crime. right now the 45,000 that ice has detained right now, 70 to 80% of them, almost 85% of them have been convicted and/or charged with another crime

besides entering illegally, so that's a complete false narrative. >> tucker: i think the numbers are 88%. so that would mean, just to be completely clear, as a math question, if you cap bed space at the threshold they are calling for, by definition you would be releasing criminals into the population. >> that's correct. if you do the mathly immediatel, they would have to probably release about 8,000 individuals, criminal aliens, and if not the crime of illegally entering. this is crimes in addition to that. >> tucker: so what percentage of those show back up for their hearings would you say? >> minuscule. >> tucker: nine. the number is 3%, we checked and i think of people wandered in bs accident. basically you are suspending the rule of law for a large group of people who have been charged with or convicted of crimes. >> that's right, you're reducing the bed space, illegal immigration has increased, and the numbers will show that so more people are going to be released into the interior of theea united states and they are telling ice they can't go

enforce that. what we created here is a sanctuary country, that's where we're headed. >> tucker: so is there any sheriffs organization, border patrol organization, law enforcement organization that supports this idea? >> i don't know of one. >> tucker: so where did this come from and what's the point of it? what would be the goal of o thi? >> the goal, and this has been tough for me to get to, this is pure identity politics. i can draw no other conclusion from this last-minute stunt. it's's insane. it's got to be driven by identity politics and i really think the ultimate goal of his open borders. >> tucker: it seems that way. thank you very much for that. so here's a question, if it's wise to cap the number of illegal immigrants our government can detain, why not cap the number of american citizens we can detain as well? over 2 million of them now in prison. univision anchor supports this plan. he joins us to explain. thanks very much for coming on.

the major start with a question, which seems like the obvious one. if we are saying that it somehow immoral to hold within a certain number of illegal aliens, why is it not immoral to hold more than a certain number of american citizens? >> everyone's entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. i just heard her last guest say that illegal immigration is on the rise in the u.s. which is completely wrong. not according to my opinion. up to own administration's numbers. you look at what it has reported since 2000 we have a dramatic decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants. >> tucker: how many illegal aliens are in the country now, do you know? >> there are different estimates. you say 20 million. >> tucker:r: anywhere between 12 and 22 million. >> the number with been working with for the last 50 years. >> tucker: before we even progressed into thels details,t' why, if it's a good idea to cap the number of illegals we can hold, at 80% as of just heard, dhs number, have been charged with a different crime.

why shouldn't we do the same for the american citizens? are we letting illegals live by more lenient standards? >> those who are proposing this idea. i think it's important to realize what ice does and what doesn't. it's not border patrol. it's not in charge of border enforcement. ice's mission is to fight dangerous criminals in the u.s. like gangs, ms-13 and many other gangs. their job is not to go to court houses for example like they've been going to new york, a 1700% increase since 2016 to prosecute and basically go after families that are trying to -- >> tucker: i'm sorry, he started by saying -- and nobody is to his own facts. i asked her to questions, you didn't answer either one but i want to press you on this fact, which is that 88% of the illegal aliens that ice is currently holding have been charged with or convicted of a separate

criminal act. if not the countryt illegally. >> the vast majority of them -- >> tucker: i don't know if that's true is thatt okay? >> licenses to undocumented immigrants. >> tucker: so we are not going to punish people for dui now because it's racist? what are you saying? hold on. i think all of us would agree -- are you arguing that dui is not at serious offense? people die all the time. not driving without a license. you just said it was overwhelming -- that's not true. it's not true. address the fact that the overwhelming majority of people held by ice right now have been convicted of or charged with an actual crime, as you would say. >> would you characterize those as violent crimes? >> tucker: i would characterize dui -- i would characterize dui is a very serious crime. it's very common as you know for people here illegally to be alert arrested for it but you are saying we should hold them. while the americans but we shouldn't hold illegals because

why, it's a simple question met >> i'm not saying we should hold illegals, licorice anger and what i'm saying is ice should go back and focus on its original mission, go after dangerous criminals. families after immigrants like i said thato are going to a court -- >> tucker: you are not addressing the facts. >> the do it the right way. they show up at court, you have i.c.e. agents stress civilians going after them. >> tucker: i'm sure there's things you don't like but you're ignoring that if they report to become a law, if the bed space for it to interior ice detainees were capped at 60,500 that we would over time released thousands of people convicted of or charged with real crimes. why would we want that? >> your guest also set that the vast majority of them never shipped to our court dates. do you have the actual numbers? >> tucker: actually i'm glad you asked, 97 percent do not show for the court date. >> that's not true. just last week in san francisco

there were lines outside court houses of people who had a court date and they came in and he said i'm going for my court date and there was no appointment. >> tucker: i'm giving you the freshest number we have, 97%. according to the department of the interior and because they are illegals it's because it's immoral to be upset about if i am an american and i am upset about it and i think that's fair. thank you. the democrats who are writing the green new deal don't seem to know what's in it. we pointed out what they had said is in them and they called us lying. we will have the tape after the break. ♪

♪ >> tucker: a couple of days ago alexandria ocasio-cortez made the most basic mistake you can make in washington, she said what she really thinks. in a fact sheet describing her proposed green new deal her office wrote that her plan would send federal money to people who are "unwilling to work. that line drew some notice and some criticism, though in fact it's not entirely shocking sending tax dollars to people who don't feel like working has been a central tenant for the democratic program for a long time but there's a difference between supporting something and stating it clearly out loud that was her sin. she set it out loud. democrats immediately began pretending that it neverte happened. fast-forward to last friday. we interviewed a man called robert hocker, he's been advising her on the green new deal. he's a professor who occupies an

endowed chair at cornell law school. even if you're not overly impressed by credentials, and we are definitely not, that seems like a reasonable job description, like he would be a legitimate person. he's an ivy league law professor. he must be sort of serious. i think i would tell obvious lies on live television. that was our thinking anyway. so we asked him why is the u.s. government thinking about for one of the members of congress pushing taxpayers to send money to people who don't want to work in here was his response. >> whenever what she has never said anything like that. i think you're referring to some sort of document thatum i think some doctorst document that somebody other than us has been circulating. >> that was in thehe document. >> it's not embarrassing. we are not embarrassed by what's not ours. >> tucker: we are going to get to the bottom of that. >> tucker: and we did get to the bottom of it. in case that exchange confused you, the professor's position

was simple. she never suggested the government ought to pay people who won't work. that's just absurd. another right-wing life. various progressive news organizations with air quotes around them picked up that, fox news got fact-checked! even ocasio-cortez herself suggested that on twitter. they were in line. she has indeed called for subsidies for those "unwilling to work." we did not make that up. we didn't make any of it up, including the part about banning fossil fuels in 12 years. ocasio-cortez said that too. back to another exchange that we had with the professor, here it is. it's about expanding many options. many things we want to do in addition to what we already do. where is the airplane coming from? >> so what you are saying is we are not getting rid of fossil fuels actually even though you just said that we were.

because we are rendering them obsolete for most purposes they are used for now. >> tucker: but air travel is a huge source. >> hence the word most. >> tucker: ocasio-cortez's staff has since removed the fact sheet entirely from her office website and they are telling the rest of us to read the actual resolution, like a scavenger hunt, so we did that. we read the actual resolution and it turns out there's no substantive difference between the two. her resolution, the official one, which is right here, guaranty's economic security to "all the people of the united states," whether they want to work or not. it also calls for free education and rebuilding "all existing buildings in the country and a lot of other things. under normal circumstances sober people would laugh at a proposal like this. it doesn't even make sense. they would also, by the way question or fitness for moral judgment of any kind. keep in mind that she won micro primary in new york with an openly p racist campaign, openly

racist. she attacked her opponent for the color of his skin. that's the definition of a whatever.paign, but ocasio-cortez has 3 million twitter followers now. democrats have to take her seriously. watch for chris murphy, the senator from connecticut over the we can pretend these ideas make any sense. >> i think it's absolutely realistic and i frankly think we need to set our sights high. i think there are a lot of people who said it wasn't realistic for the united states to get a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s when president nekennedy initially outlined that goal. but we did it. >> tucker: realistic. if that really the word? former political director for the democratic party and the stated joint, georgia joins us tonight. thanks very much for coming on. so it's pretty clear -- it's not pretty clear, it's absolutely clear that her office said this, that the green new deal ought to provide for people whether or not they are willing too work.

why did they lie about it, why not just say this is what we believe? >> i think a mistake happened here and you are not telling the full story. the full story according to reports from her office and others is that this was a published document, the professor was wrong, it was not a fraudulent document but it was a published document that should have never been out there and they were tracked at the document immediately. also, major presidential candidates, they have not endorsed that provision in the document. if they said basically hey we didn't know about that, we are not endorsingg the part and this is the green new deal. green new bill, this is not a policy. this iss m more so of a conversation starter. not a bill or a law proposal. >> tucker: part of what you said i think is absolutely right,t, it's a conversation starter, which i appreciate. i like conversations, even if they are fary' out. i don't know why they're trying to run from a conversation, which is what they were doing. here's what the new version, her office has referred us to, pay attention to this, that it will provide all the people of the

united states with high quality care, adequate, economic security, clean water -- there is no caveat in there that you would have to work for what you get, people who are unwilling to work would get the same. so they are endorsing the same idea. so i'm missing it here. >> first of all, i would tell them or challenge them to define economic security. i don't take the terminology "economic security to me that if you don't work you still get paid the same salary for someone who does work. i would say first off let's define what economic security actually means because you may have a different standard definition i would have. >> tucker: that's fair. but it's money from the government. after getting money from the government even if you don't feel like working. and i think even for example under the original new deal, fd fdr. no one thought was a right winger, you didn't get anything for nothing. the conservation corps people worked for the money they got. wpa, same thing. fdr believed there ought to be a

direct relationship between work and reward and that it was decadent and destructive to give people stuff for nothing but ocasio-cortez does not thinknk that. >> this is a small provision or a small part of this proposal. i personally believe that if you don't work, you don't eat. if talking about folks that are able, folks that have the ability, folks that have the means to do so. i agree with you on that point, i can see to that but at the same time the terminology "economic security" must be defined before we can properly debateed it. >> tucker: okay. they are touching on the question of eliminating fossil fuels because that is radical and are basically the energy sector is the strongest part of economy, 10 million jobs at least and if you got rid of that overnight it would be really disruptive. it would make the country poor. "there's no debate as to whether we should continue producing fossil fuels. there's no debate, we should not. that's pretty clear, she said that in october, why are they running for my?

>> they shouldn't run from it, i think it's a good conversation to have. here's the bottom line, fossil fuels burned creates carbon, carbon is bad. carbon is back for the atmosphere, it's bad for the water and it's bad for our breathing. every single scientist on this planet would agree so any conversation that suggests an implementation to lower actual carbon emissions is a good conversation to have. theree was no mistaking that sh, congresswoman ocasio-cortez represents a more aggressive wing of the democratic movement but it is a legitimate conversation. >> tucker: i'm sorry to get the last word. but i don't think it's progressive to tell me i can't have cars and airplanes. that sounds like medieval. >> that's not what being said here. i understand it is a conversation starter. >> tucker: all right, thank you. i appreciate it. i >> thank you. >> tucker: so what exactly is in the green new deal, or do we have to pass it to find out? mark steyn has been paying close

attention to this and he joins us. what do you make of the green new deal? >> well, actually, just to pick up on his point, if you accept that carbon is bad, and i don't, particularly, there's a contradiction between the green new deal and open borders, which the democrats also committed to because theit average person in the western world has a carbon footprint 30 times the size of everyone of somebody in, say, somalia. instead of moving everybody from somalia to minnesota we would be better off actually moving everyone in minnesota to somalia and i certainly hope that is an alexander cascio cortez's next draft of her green new deal. >> tucker: i just want o to point out to our viewers what you are watching onwh the scree, what you see is the president arriving in el paso, texas, for an event scheduled i think at the bottom of the hour. but you just point out, mark steyn, a really i think importantio contradiction in ths

whole worldview, which is not going to have a cleaner country with open borders. not because immigrants are inherently dirty, i'm not saying that, but because overcrowded countries are dirty countries. mack, always. >> and i don't think about the way these things pieced together. the disappointment for me and what happened with your guest on friday night for example is that i disagree with alexandria ocasio-cortez, but she is 29 years old and i thought she was sincere and idealistic and earnest. she's been in washington two weeks. i think she took her seat just a couple of weeks ago and she's already become one of these sleazy operators whose mind is fanning out and denying reality. and saying that she didn't misspoke, she deplores this campaign spreading false stories, she's become in effect the governor of virginia

withdrawing things is actually set undone. >> tucker: is totally - true! >> the fact is this draft sat on her website for two days i believe until i think it was npr. obviously if the first draft. when she says she's in favor of remaking every building in america, that's the first draft. the second draft says that while every building in america is being remodeled, were all going to be moved into ten cities and californian towns to live in while she's remodeling all our homes. i'm disappointed that she's not sufficiently idealistic to standby the plain utopian nonsense of her original proposal. >> tucker: i think that's a really fair point and i would respect that. she should be more direct, that's right. that's totally fair. mark steyn, thank you very much. >> thanks a lot. >> tucker: journalists are lining up to protect jeff bezos.

bezos fair as some have called them, founder of amazon.com, owner of "the washington post" " he's being defended by the fourth estate, why? we will tell you after the break. plus, the president speaks in all el paso, texas, any moment. ♪ my experience with usaa has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

>> tucker: the governor of virginia, ralph northam is fighting to save his political career after that famous photo and blackface photo were discovered on his yearbook page. the governor is p saying he will atone for what he has done by reading a ton of nancy coates essays and doing network television interviews. fox news' trace gallagher has been following the story since the beginning. >> because governor northam has refused to resign he is now trying to save his political career by embarking on an apology to her but now the tour itself is generating controversy

because on cbs this morning witn gayle king said this. watch. >> it has been a difficult week and if you look at virginia's history, we are h now at the 400 year anniversary, which is 90 miles from here in 1619 the first indentured servants from africa landed on our shores what we call mel fort monroe. >> also known as slavery. >> yes. >> the virginia republican party quickly criticized the governor's comments. "is the governor so tone-deaf on racism that he can even use the word? he has no moral authority to lead any healing process." social media was also quick to pause. "words like indentured servant are how people try to erase the pain and horror of slavery. it is how they think it is heartless oror blackface. ralph northam is done." but the others defended the quote.am "learn your history, north them

is correct. first black africans broughtug o virginia in 1619 were indentured servants. gayle king is wrong." and while historians debate the degree of accuracy, most agree that northam's statement wasn't totally wrong or offensive. governor northam has also acknowledged on cbs that he thought about resigning but now believes he can take estate to the next level, watch. >> right now virginia need someone that can heal. there's no better person to do that than a doctor. virginia also needs someone who is strong, who has empathy, who has courage and who has a a morl compass. that's why i'm not going anywhere. >> but northam said if the allegations against his lieutenant governor justin fairfax are true, fairfax would have no option but to resign. >> tucker: trace gallagher, appreciate it, thank you. so imagine if you are a successful public figure at the age of 55 had a severe midlife

crisis, so severe that you suddenly decide toe, leave your wife and four kids for another woman. and you get so carried away with your new mistress that you text her pictures of her genitals and in those pictures lined up in the hands of a tablet. nightmare. what happensta next? to the media attack you as a pathetic old crate, maybe even a harasser? today #metoo you? or do journalists instead rally to your defense? that all depends on how rich you are. luckily for him, jeff bezos is veryso rich, the richest man in the world in fact. when you're as rich as jeff bezos is, there's no such thing as bad press coverage, there is only slobbering. bob woodward sucked up first. the most famous journalist in america. he once took on the president with the unsparing toughness of his reporting. according to axios, here's what bob woodward wrote to jeff bezos after bezos' shop became public. "jeff, proud of you for stepping forward in such a difficult situation. very gutsy and definitely right.

this period reminds me of 1972- 1972-1974, perhaps watergate redux. so many assaults on constitutional government, common sense and privacy. hope we all get it right. aggressive but carefully fair. cheers and best, bob woodward." that's the new woodward standard. if you criticize jeff bezos humor like richard nixon during watergate, and assaulter of constitutional government, your un-american, inrn fact. max boot agrees with that. another of bezos employees at "the washington post" and of course florid toady. wrote a column defending bezos' new itself is, the headline was "jeff bezos stands his ground." " stands his ground! like joshua chamberlain at the battle for the round top. may our grandchildren revere his memory and speak his name. but for pure anxiousness, no one went further than "new york times" technology columnist karen swisher. swisher has been sucking up to billionaires since before the

guys who run over were even bor born. if flattering the powerful was an olympic event, karen swisher would be mark spitz. according to swisher, bezos' behavior since he left his wife and kids for his mattress has been "admirable," a "heroic moment," from "the most important tech missionaries in steve jobs." it goes on like this. for an entire column. at one point, this is the best, swisher frets that jeff bezos' privacy has been violated by the "national enquirer," which by eethe way his troop, but telliny she didn't spend a lot of time warning about whether america's privacy has been violated by jeff bezos, and that seemed like a worthwhile question to ask. : greenwald has been thinking about it a lot recently and he joins usus today. that was the first think -- let me just say clearly, i totally disapprove of what "national enquirer" did to jeff bezos, i do. but it does raise the question what is amazon doing to the rest of us?

>> yeah, i wish we were a society that left consensual adult sex to the people engaged in them and had no interest in them and let them between them and their spouses or whoever it is in their personal lives but that's of the reason why we should value privacy. i spent a lot of years as a journalist defending that value and one of the companies that poses the greatest threat to it is amazon. it's a major source of jeff bezos' wealth and power and we think of amazon through their branding, it's the place we buy our books from, in fact their main business is working with the security state agencies to build huge apparatuses of the surveillance state that invade our privacy in ways far more severe than what the "national enquirer" adjusted to jeff bezos and that's the part of the story that so ironic beyond the fact that amazon is notorious for abusing its workers, something that all the people that you just named would

ordinarily find quite upsetting. >> tucker: it that so i don't know enough about -- will you quicklyck summarize, a big partf their business is not selling toothpaste, which is what i use it for, but helping the national security state gather information on citizens? >> right. before he bought "the washington post," amazon had a $500 million contract with the cia to provide cloud services. if they are using artificial intelligence to build a product called recognition that's designed to use facial recognition software to identify by the thousands,o so wherever you go you can be identified by software that the government is using, that amazon is building. they are using security systems around people's parameters of their houses and then making it available to huge numbers of people so they can see who's coming and leaving her house, who was inside of her house. the list goes on and on of the products that amazon is building and profiting from way more than books that are direct threats to our privacy, that are critical components of the surveillanceti

state. >> tucker: really quick, why do i never read that story? >> because silicon valley is more powerful in washington and wall street is. it's because silicon valley now controls huge parts of the media and the last thing people in the media want to do is cover silicon valley critically so the power of google and facebook and amazon is probably one of the most important stories in the world and also one of the most under covered because of how powerful they are in the media world. >> tucker: remote, thank you for that. appreciate it. democratic presidential candidate accused of abusing her staff, a hollywood actor caught on camera berating his personal driver. all those praised for compassion barking at those underneath the them.

♪ >> tucker: minnesota senator amy klobuchar announced her candidacy for presidency at a rally over the weekend, the media gushed over the prospect of that of course. one group who seemed seemed less excited is a former staff, they describe amy klobuchar as a cruel and terrible boss. former staffers told reporters that she public liberates employees in group emails and uses epithets to describe them. some former staffers say she forcedsc them to perform bizarre personal duties like washing the dishes are picking apart dry-cleaning, that's not an java scripting.or her reputation for mistreating staff is so widespread that at least three prospective campaign managers refuse to work for her. when abc news confronted her with these allegations she sensibly admitted it. she said "i am tough, i push people, that's true.

so let's see, hear you have a person who routinely claims to care for more than you do about other people and get the people she's actually in charge of she mistreats. sound like anyone you know? it does. just about every progressive activist you've ever met. they are all that way. they love humanity but they despise human beings. robert de niro is like that. just last week he was caught parading his driver outside the courthouse in manhattan. watch. >> where are you, where the police are you? what's the matter with you? where are you? you're not in front, you're not where you dropped us off. >> tucker: everybody has a bad day. let's be honest, that's pretty strange behavior for someone whose entire political philosophy is built on the d

that he's a decent person and you are not. but also as we noted, it's very common, if not universal in the activist left. progressive's volunteer left, they give less money to charity, then leave smaller tips and as we've seen they tend to yell at the people who work for them. why there's constantly lecturing you about your moral deficiencies. it's projection. got a news alert for you. of l tonight, the shutdown negotiators say they have an agreement on capitol hill that will avoid shutting down the federal government onceer more. and hopefully -- senator shelby, i'm just getting this right, mayor as i'm speaking, senator shelby of alabama has said have an agreement he believes the president will sign. that's all we know at this hour, 8:46:00 p.m.t but of course we will report the news the second it reaches us. president delivering a speech tonight at the border in

el paso. that's the backdrop in front of which these negotiations are unfolding. we will bring you the latest when we come back. ♪ chicken?! chicken.

chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

>> tucker: this is a fox news alert. you are looking at live pictures from el paso, texas, on the border. the president will take the stage there any moment. immigration will be a major focus of the speech. in the state of the union last week, the president suggested there ought to be more legal immigration to this country, a shift from the campaign speeches. he said afterwards we need more workers and immigration is a way to get this. orin cass studies this ande as a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. author of "the once and the future worker" and a smart man and he joins us tonight. does the united states need more guest workers? >> no, i don't think we do. >> tucker: everyone in washington thinks we do. >> chamber of commerce and the lobbyists for the corporations think we do because it benefits them if they don't have to make due with the workers we already have here. >> tucker: we hear about the

positive effect of guest workers. what are the negative effects? >> it relieves the pressure on the labor market.re and on the employers to figure out how to build businesses that make due with the workers we have here. it says, if you have an idea h r a business and it's one you'd rather bring someone else in for, it doesn't have to be a citizen. we'll bring someone in. use them and send them away. we won't worry about the workers who live here. >> tucker: companies used to care about the quality of american schools because that is where the labor force was educated. people care less about public schools. is that one of the reasons? c >> it could be. there is a famous saying from max frisch in germany that studied this and said we wanted workers but we got people. that we don't think of the economy as the people who live here and support themselves here. we just think of it as a way to make more stuff cheaper.

it could work out well in the short-term but it can be a problem in the long term. a. th>> tucker: has it ever worked well for the country long-term? >> we had a big program in the ' 50 is an '60s when we try to bring in the mexican farmworkers, and a lot of people point to it as the beginning of the illegal immigration problem because we brought folks here and we assumed they would all leave. guess what? somewhat rather stay. here. >> tucker: yeah. the work they did has since been automated. >> some of it has. there is an idea that it's work that americans won't do. almost every category of work, farm workers included, most ofnc the people doing the work are americans. so i think we need to put more pressure on employers to say, you know what? why don't you find a way to make it work with the people we have here, and invest in making americans more productive so it's good for business and good for workers. >> tucker: what you saids. qualifies as radical in washington but it seems so non-radical and so obvious to me.

oren cass, one of the few people saying that. >> thank you. >> tucker: the president will take the stage in el paso, texas. the rally is a few blocks from the u.s. mexico border. michael anton served in the white house and author of "after the flight 93 elections." and he is joining us on the set. thank you for joining us. i have to ask about the book that i have here. you wrote the famous essay framing the last election of 2016 election in the kind of broad and powerful terms. changed people's minds. what is your conclusion in this book? >> my conclusion in this book is people criticize me and said, okay, maybe you made a good case for why doom was coming but you never gave us the positive case for the future. what is america supposed to look like?n' what do you actually want to see? i said i have that. in a short essay in the middle of a campaign, i didn't put everything i know in it. i was asked to republish the flight 93 election and i said i would be happy to do that but i want to add material to

say, this is what we should be fighting for and the america we are at risk of losing that we need to fight for. why it's good, why the older american, principles are sound, and we need to return to them as part of going forward toward a better future for our people. some of that also means we need to go back to a better way of understanding politics, commonut citizenship, an elite that cares about the people that you have criticized. i completely agree with your criticism, that they are mercenaries, they don't really care about what is happening to the people in the country as much as they should, if at all. we need to go back to that. in some ways, the way forward is a way back. i tried to sketch that in the new material. >> tucker: in 2019, anything back is immoral. right? so why do the people in charge tell us constantly that anything that happenedan before is wrong and we shouldn't learn from it or know about it, all we should do is be ashamed of it? why do they say that? >> they don't want to change course at all. they benefit from the current system. they like it.it they know people are unhappy

with it, that was the 2016 election. they want to tamp down the justified -- some of it is anger, some of it is uneasiness. whatever you call it, there is justified discontent. they want to tamp that down and say illegitimate, if you disagree or you don't like any aspect of the current system it means you are bad, racist, and evil and you want to go back to segregation and so on. the only way to do it is keep doing what we are doing now. if you disagree, you are bad. >> tucker: how long do you think they think you can -- you can yell at your kids and boss them around but then they turn 18 and they do whatever they want and they hate you. do the leaders understand that or do they think it can go on forever? >> they believe it will go on forever. i don't believe it will go on forever. one of the brain to make in the book, i believe there is nature. nature poses limits to human beings and what we can accomplish. whatat we see now is this projet is bumping up against the natural limits and they are starting to find they can't do everything they want to do. a great example which you talked about a lot in the last couple of days is the green new deal program. leave aside everything else youu want to say about the

green new deal program, i don't think it's within the realm of possibility and the laws of can find somethey all fossilrid of fuels and not make the country -- >> tucker: you know how you bigot in 2019? appeal to the physics. i don't believe in that spooky stuff. it's great to see you and congrats on the book. >> thank you. >> tucker: thank you. so the congress, democrats in the congress, would like to cap the number of illegal immigrants the government can detain. is thatn. a good idea? we'll ask richard goodstein. he served as an advisor to both clinton's and he joins us tonight. i tried to get the answer of this from enrique acevedos. he wasn't honest enough to hacknowledge it. if we say that the government can only hold so many illegal aliens, why not make the same liberal allowance for american citizens? >> i really can't address that. the news is there is an agreement in the principle andnd

somehow the democrats and republicans had a meeting of the minds on this issue, even sincee you were on the air. the news, the sign behind donald trump is "finish the wall." he is a fabulist. there is no wall to finish. thereth are barriers and we should reinforce them. democrats are for beds to house people who are true enational security threats. okay? but not moms and dads who have been in the community for 30 years go to church, pay taxes, have kids who are americans and those people shouldn't be in the beds -- >> tucker: it depends if they commit crimes or not, right?he 88% -- mom and dads commit crimes. lots of american mom and dad are languishing in jail and separated from the kids but nobody cares. they are just americans so they can shut up and die. but why shouldn't we arrest or detain anyone who commits a crime? >> yeah -- >> tucker: we do it with americans. >> as to the percentage of thehe people that isis detained to

commit crimes, i look at the "reason," the libertarian magazine. october of 2018 says 58% have not been convicted of -- not basically been convicted of a crime at all. >> tucker: no, no. 88%. according to the d.h.s. numbers that are out today, 88% have been either convicted of or charged with. you typically detain, especially a noncitizen, who's a flight risk, you detain people until you convict or acquit them. 88% of crimes not related to immigration status is a lot. >> what the democrats are trying to do, and we'll see what comes from the negotiation, is say, let's go after the national security threats. okay? the mom who basically engaged in some speeding violation is not that and shouldn't be taking up a bed. if we have another shutdown, the border agents are not paid, the d.e.a., those prosecutors of ms-13. >> tucker: i'm not arguing for a shutdown. i just want the country to be safe. we're out of time and we will go to the rally. richard, you are pre-empted by the president. >> gosh! >> tucker: that is it. for us. we'll be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m.

the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness andnd groupthink. d.v.r. it if you can figure that out. good night from washington. sean is in new york. as we await the rally on the border. >> sean: i can hear you tonight which is an improvement. >> tucker: yes, technology! >> sean: i didn't hear you the other night. great show, tucker. thank you. welcome to "hannity." ♪ ♪ we start and end a fox news alert. a conference committee has apparently reached an agreement in principle on a budget bill to fund the border wall. it would still need the president's approval. i'm very dubious of those based on some details i'll bring you in just a moment. we'll also have more details as they become available. as you can see in el paso, texas, president trump only moments away from taking the stage. as this live-death fight over border security appears to be making some progress. we'll take you live to thehe president's speech as soon as that happens. but first, let's set the stage with our "hannity" watch on the very wall negotiations that