>> a crisis at the border and in washington. i'm robertos. we discuss president trump's zero tolerance immigtion policy and its cost both political and human. tonight on "washington week." president trump: we're going to keep families together but the border is going to be just as tough as it's been.e] [app >> president trump insists the administration's hard line immigration stance remains but does an about face on his policy of separating children from parents who enter the country illegally. amid the firestorm, the president blames democrats. president trump: democrats don't care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your counities, your schools, your hospitals, your jobs, or your safety. >> and mexico. prident trump: mexico doing nothing for us except

taking our money and sending us drugs. >> on capitol hill house republicans postpone a vote on a long-term legislative fix. >> we've all been in negotiatio for the last several weeks. we'll spend the weekend, delay a vote tillk. next w >> but the president tells them to stop wasting their time trying to pass legislation tefore the mid-term elections. what's n for the more than 2,000 children waiting to be reunited with their parents and at's next in congress? we examine the challenges ahead with nancy cordes of cbs news, michael shear of the "new york times,"f yeganeh torbati reuters, and dan balz of "the washington post." >> this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> their leadership is

instctive. theynderstand the challenges of today and research the technologies of tomorrow. some call them veterans. we call them part of our team. >> on a cruise with american cruise lines journey along the colombia and snake rivers travelers reforge the route forged by lewis and clark more than 200 yrs ago. american cruise lines' fleet of paddle wheelers travel through american landscapes to historic land marks where you can experience local customs and culture. american cruise lines, proud sponsor of "washington week." >> additional funding is prided by newman's own foundation, donating all

profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. koo and patricia yuen throughun the yuen tion, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from vu.wers like thank you. once again, from washington,r, moderaobert costa. robert: good evening. dramatic and stark images of thousands of children at the border separated from their families transfixed americans and people abroad and stoked international outrage. more than 2300 children have been taken from their parentssi e early may, since they crossed the u.s.-mexico border without documentation. inside the converted warehouses and tts children alone without parents, confined in

chain link spaces and sleeping on floor mats.po s that the government was holding infants and toddlers in so-called tender age shelters proved to be a tipping point. vi lawmakerted the border and there was global outrage. british prime minister theresa may delivered sharp rebuke. >> the pictures of children being held in what appear to be ca are deeply disturbing. thiss wrong. >> pope francis called the policy immoral. for days the president and his administration blamed others. president trump: i hate the children being taken away. thechemocrats have tge their law. that's their law. >> congress and the courts created this problem and crose cess alone c fix it -- congress alone can fix it. robert: on wednesday the president did what h said he couldn't do and signed an texecutive order stoppinhe government from separating families. the action allows families to be detained togher but not for more than 20 days. nancy, we saw the president signing his name on that

executive order and it could be challenged in the court. we also saw the image of stone-faced congressional republicans. what's next for them on capitol hill? nancy: it is very unclear, you know, on one hand they've got this legislation, this compromiill, a compromise between moderate and conservative republicans. they were hoping to hold a vote on thursday that got sfted to friday. now, perhaps next week. as the president tweets that us they should give it all up, that's leading some republicans to say, why should i stick my neck out there and vote for legislation when i the even know that president is going to back it? and then you've got moderates who say but if you don't hthd vote we want to try and push our own legislation. and so republican leaders are really caught in a catch 22 here, holding a vote next week on a piece of legislation that could fail, looks even worse for the gop, and then what does robert: could there be something narrow that maybe

increases the amount of judges dealing withashese? nancy: that is plan b. you have a lot of senate republicans pushing for something that looks like that. thens,he question can they get any democratic support? they'll need it. it's not at d all clearocrats are going to back even a narrow piece of legislation that says, ok. you can hold the children witht r parents, no longer separated, but hold themly indefini for a year or two until their parents finally get an asylum hearing. a lot of democrats say that is inhumanels >> it is not entirely clear that congress even has the leg authority to do that, to say the children could be held indefinitely, because the basis of the restrictions on the current restricons on children being held is a court decision based on constitutional premises of due process. not o legal authority created by a congressional piece of legislation. and so it's unclear the leg experts i talked to whether or not congress could even pass a

legislation that says, sure. go ahead and keep families and children together for months or years. robert: when you think of the families as they watch all this with t administration and congress, you've been reporting this week for reuters about how the department of hhulth and n services is looking at perhaps fingerprinting adults coming in to try to make it sier to connect the children with their parents. is that possible? what is being done to reconnect these families? yoip yeganeh: that is a little separate. what we've been told a fews weeks ago they are now going to expand the category of people they're fingerprinting coming to claim children. this was sort of before the migrant crisis exploded on to the news. experts and advocates are really fearful and worried a lot about that decision, because they fear with greater cooperation between h.h.s. and i.c.e. which isesponsible for deporting peam here illegally, you -- people here, illegally, potential sponsors, parents, family members of the kids who could come and claim them ar going to be afraid to do so

because they may find deported. may find that information given to i.c.e. so it's just like sort of one example of the ways in which we don't really quite know what is going to happen to these children. the children who were separated from their parents are just a subset ofr lar portion of children that, you know, crossed here without their parents and are also in the custody of the department health and human services. it's just very unclear what the path is for reuniting them. robert: what is also unclear, yeganeh, is what is being done from the federal perspective. you wrote this week for reuters about how one child stopped eatingl and fto depression at one of these centers. another who could previously walk on n his o asks his mother to carry him everywhere. a third child started biting other children. there is a federal response to the medical, psychological issues these children are facing? yeganeh: those stories from all from children kept at family detention centers. there are only three in the united states able to house families together.

experts have found that any sort of detention for a childr whetn one of these centers or at a harsher facility isma ng to the child. they really urge the government l beited in their use of family detention. you know, even putting aside those issues, the government only has like 3200n beds i these family detention centers and so, you know, in one month alone they detained like 9400 families crossingde the b illegally. so it is very unclear where if th zero tolerance policy continues even if they're able to kind of get the permission to hold families longer than 20 days where those famoies wuld go, would they start building sort of tent cities on military bases? what kind of standards are those going to have? whatngffect is that g to have? orbert: mike, real quick. you've been rng on could the pentagon be providing se 000 new beds for t children, these families? michael: so the department of h.h.s. which is the agency that

really takes custody of children in this system has asked the pentagon to assess where it might have facilities thatouldrovide up to 20,000 beds over the course of thel next sevenths. it is indicative of the onfusion that we feigned ourselves in and more to the point the government finds itself in after this very sort ast-minute executive order that the story from the pentagon about who would be in those beds has changed back and forth literally almost by the hour. last night when i was doing reporting, initially it was these are 20,000 beds for what they call unaccompanied ldchildren which w mean the parents aren't there. then the pentagon said, well, m actualbe the parents would be there, the families, then they went back to, no. it's just for the today when we talked to them they said, it's not determined yet. itight well be facilities that would be used for families but it's up to h.h.s. i think, you know, they're scrambling to find space because they understand that if this goes on for weeks or

months they need ls more space. if they don't have the space to hold the families then the only option,bly, would be either to release them, which president trump doesn't want to do, or to separate them again, which obviously led to the crisis that we're in. that's the dilemma. g robert: bringt back to president trump, dan, i thought of you this week when i saw the presidn minnesota for a rally and you've studied and done a lot of reporting thisn year midwestern voters who support president trump. they were right there with him. amid all of this that was going on, on immigration. the president, whether on twitter or on stage, remains defiant. what do you make of it all? dan: immigration was one of the central messages of his campaign and one of the issues that struck hardest and with most intensity among the core supporters of the president. it is an issue that he is unwilling to back off on or unwilling to give up. i think it's one of the reasons there is still so much difficulty trying to gete

anything dn congress. there is a question of is he prepared to actually make deal to take this issue off the table or does he prefer to have the issue? fhat rally was another example of the power o that issue. you know, a bad politically as all of the images were this week, of the childn and the chaos on the border, there's another reality, which is the issue of open borders is still an issue that plays well wh a lot of the country and a lot of those trump supporters. he's not going to give that up. i think the's understanding that as long as we have these kinds of situations, he's going tonue to push hard on that. >> and, yet, with voters in the middle, it's hard to think of two more sim pathetic aspects of the immigration debate thanc d. recipients, these dreamers who were brought here thraw no fault of tir own, and young children -- toddlers, little girls, little boys, separated from their parents at the border.

ase president now managed to put those two populations front and center in the immigrion debate which republicans think is a nightmare in november. that's why this week you saw n republicans congress who even just a week ago were rationalizing rae zero toe policy, saying, well, it is very important and needs to serve as a deterrent turning around this week and saying, it's inhumane. it needs to stop. person who t is the can stop it. dan: i think the president and his party obviously have m differentivations here. they are thinking of november and a democrat i contacted today and said how do you think this affects november? he said it will affect the suburban districts but we have to see whether it fades. but for the president, a republican i talked to last week said onethe things to think about the president is that he has traded aprfl which is to say less worried his approval rating, he has traded it for intensity.la

his parti style of politics is to generate intensity among the people tt ar with him. robert: that phrase particular of politics. it matters, mike. you've done a story this week about how attorney general jeff sessions and white houad ser steven miller have been cultivating many of these ideas and policies. for yea this isn't something that just came out of the blue. >> no. exactly. fact, a lot of people date the sort of first utterance that president trump or then candidate trump made about srat of immon and sort of antiimmigrant sentiment from the tim that the announcement of his campaign, when he came down and talked about rapists and murderers comingver from mexico. in fact, it goes back much further. there were -- there a speech that he gave before he announced for tresidency in texas in which he called people coming across the borderme from co vomit. said they're coming over like vomit. if you go back further in his sort of personal history, you

know, obviously there was the anti --. >> but they've talked about the separation of the families fory s. michael: right. part of that was what drew sessions andiller to him was that they saw in him a kinited spnd had been talking, miller has been talking about the issue of deterrence and how you deter people from coming into this courn and one of those things is bicep rating the families.i interviewed miller in his office in the west wing a huple weeks ago ande made it clear amid all of the confusing rhetoric that the other administration officials, whether it is a deterrent or not, miller was absolutely clear. he said of course it's a deterrent and there is no stepping back from it because we need to send a message. robert: is it a deterrent? you've been studying and reporting on immigration and you know president obama dealt with this, a surge of migrants in 2014. we saw border crossings drop in

earl 2017. at is the actual reality the border with these crossings? who is coming over and what does theata tell us? >> a lot of these are childirn and t parents, usually their mothers. i spent some time in guatemala this year. there is an epidemic of domestic violence, gang, violenal threats to people's safety that they're fleeing and, also, obviously an economic element as well. when people feel they don't have an option they' going to leave. you know, they may hear news stories. first of all it takes time for this to trickle down. we'll wait and see when we have new border crossing numbers at the beginning of july and see if there has been aig drop off. for the last three months even as the administration's rhetoric has sort of heated up the numbers have not ceased. they've continued to increase especially over last when

there was as you mentioned a pretty significant drop in the n first fewys of the trump administration. i just -- there was a significant dron the first few months of the trump administration. the rhetoric that president trump used during the campaign has continuedp until this very moment. he's talking about comparing immigrants essentially to lik an infestation. that affects his ability to get democrats onboard with any sort compromise because democrats have their own base to worry about and even if the republicans were to offer a bill that would have some things they would like,fo instance, path to citizenship for dreamers, democrats can't sign on to something when they're dealing with someone who is referring to immrants in terms like that. it just doesn't work. robe: that is such good point. why won't the democrats give president trump the $25he billi ants for a border wall? nancy: they might be willing to give him the 2e million wants for a border wall.

chuck schumer tried to give him eat 25 billion and says the president wouldn't take yes for an answer. they're willing to do that as part of a larger negotiation but there are some aspects of the republican plan that are just a no go for them. to yeganeh's point they're not going to accept, for example, something that deals with the a.c.a. population b doesn't give them legal certainty that they can stay this country immigration legal in half, doesn't allow people to bring family members.t michael:oes back to miller and sessions. there are changes to the immigration system both legal ha and illegal sessions and miller have been wanting to put in place for many years. the so-called moderate bill that the house was i guess is going to vote on next week is filled with changes that miller and sessions hen trying to do for a long time that are viewed by the democrats and

viewed by the advocacy mmunity on behalf of immigrants as really awful. and so, you know, could there k be ad of wall for d.a.c.a.? absolutely. re ean, i think the votes probably there for that but not with all the other stuff. da some of the democrats came away from that episode, as you know,in convinced that h offered that money and trump not willing to make the deal, that he prefers the politic issue to a deal. robert: is this a turning point, dan? i think back to the ban on cslim countries, people coming from muslimntries, it is barely talked about in washington some days. you think about the north korea summit. it seems to fade from the headlines. this is the issue this week. does this become a real pivot for the whole mid-term scene as both parties barrel towarer nove or not? dan: bob, i think it's premature to make that assessment just for the reasons say. things move past us and we forget what happened three days ago, five ds ago, let alone two months ago or anything.

i think one element of this -- two pointe, his is the biggest reversal that the president has had to make in hisresidency. it's the biggest climb down, even though he's conrynuing ough rhetoric toward the democrats. it's the biggest reversal he's had to do. that's an important thi. the second is everything that we've been talking about so far tonight are questions that are unresolved and problems that are not yet fixed. and that don't seem likely to be fixed t in next 20 days or 30 days. so the degree to which those o kind issues are continuing to fester into the fall couldue conto make this issue a really problematic one for the republicans. yeganeh: i aso think chapter one of the story still isn't over. until you're able to find the children who belong to the parents and reunite them, we are still sort of squarely in the first chapter of this story. then there is a whole second chapter that has to do with

competence. there's the morality story and also the competence story, which is that if thisti administ was not even able to impose its own policy, which as you point out they've been thinking about for in a competent manner, keeping track of children so lose them, being able to tell people where those children are, how much credibility is the administration going to have the nexime it tries to argue not just to democrats but to republicans that it's for a new policy? michael: keep in mind to dan's point there are different interests for president aaw for thekers who are facing the voters this year. e president doesn't face the voters for another two and a half years. you know, for all of the stuff that's been happening here, his base isn't going to believe he backed down. his base isn't really going to think, oh, well, kouw, now he's not one of us anymore. because he's got them locke in. and i do wonder whether the closer we get to the ele tions

mid terms that the gulf between president trump's interests and a given member of congress who is running for re-election, that widens. dan: nancy's point about the policy is important. this is policyar chaos w seeing. it's a textbook example of a policy put in place wchhout hinking and then a policy suddenly reversed aagain without much thinking. they are trying to square all that. there is a quote we had in one of our stories today from a person from the texas civil rights project who said, either the government wasn't thinking at all about how they were going to put these families r back together they decided they just didn't care. i mean, the administration ices anernal problem. if you're one of the people that, you know, at h.h.s. who is having to deal with this, how do you try to fix it? robert: is it h.h.s.? is it the border patrol? is it the department of homeland security? niwas in the newsroom this week and just lis to all the different agencies it wasn't clear who is actually taking the lead.

erm wondering when we talk to advocates and e do they expect migrants to continue to come perhaps with their i childr the coming months so it is not just about those already here but those who may still come? yeganeh: absolutely. i haven't talked to anyone who thinks this is going to t effectively s off. people may think twice but they are still going to take their chances. let' remember, they called this aed zero tolerance, hun percent prosecution policy. even at its hite they were rely only prosecuting 60%. they just don't have the capacity to prosecute every single person they catch crossing the border illegally. people are still going to take their chances and hope they'll be able to cross and claim asylum and eveually be released. on the question of the competence and thinking through their policies, this week reminded me so much of the week that the first travel ban -- i was at the airport at dulles interviewing people who were waiting for their family members to get out. there were lots ofrs there. throughout the weeks just reporting we didn't even know

who exactly the ban appli to in the beginning. did it apply to green card holders? at fhest it didit didn't. it was just -- it is frustrating trying to answer editors' questions when you have no idea what the policy is and i felt that way this week, it was so difficult trying to figure it out. even our sources in the government i think didn't know. robert: and the republican party that stood by thist presidor over a year now finally seemed to gently say, stop. nancy: right. in some cases not so gently. h yod republican senators and members of congress who have been so reluctant to cross this president, really saving that up. suddenly saying, this is not humane. you haveo change it. and a growing frustration that just in the past four days, first the president said i'm a thousand percent behind your legislation, then he said, well, i'm goingo change after you pass it, which by the way is not how government workor it doesn't that way.

then he said i need you to pass it. then he said just rip it all up and we'll do it after the mid terms. if you're a member of congress and getting these messages, you know, it leaves you extremely confused. robert: we have to keep an eye c gress. the stories can come and go. we'll keep an eye on congress, re mblicans, democrats,t importantly the people affected by policy. thanks everybody. our conversation will continue online on the washington week extra. find that later tonight at pbs.org/washington week. i'm robert costa. thanks for joining us. >> funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> their leadership is e stinctive. they understand thchallenges of today and research the technologies of tomorrow.

some call them veterans. we call them part of our team. >> additional funding is provided by american cruise lines, proud sponsor of washington week. newman's own foundation, donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the commogood. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. koo and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation, committedin to bricultural differences in our communities.rp the ation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from vu.wers like thank you. >> you're watching pbs. >> you're watching pbs. national captioning in

of "america reframed" with truly california. id major funding was prov by the corporation for public broadcasting and the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. additional funding was provided by the wyncote foundation