page, president obama announced he will speak tomorrow night at 8 p.m. from the oval office and unveil his executive order on immigration. take a listen. >> everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken. unfortunately, washington has allowed the problem to fester for too long. and so what i'm going to be laying out is the stuff that i can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better, even as i continue to work with congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem. >> nbc senior white house correspondent chris jansing is live at the white house. there's been a lot of speculation from republicans about what might be in this executive order. do we have any sense of specifically what the white house will announce, what the president will announce? >> reporter: we know the white house is going to brief key democrats tonight. they've been invited to dinner here at the white house. harry reid, dick schumer, dick

durban. i have been talking to some immigration officials and people who have some knowledge of the plan. and it seems to fall into line with what the president said he was going to do and what white house officials have been telling me he wants to be aggressive, but as aggressive as he can be, given the legal parameters that he's been given by his justice department as they've been looking into just how far he can go. so, we want it ko tovr as many as 5 million people. and we should keep an eye on expanding the doca program, the deferred program and not necessarily parents of dreamers, which is something a lot of democrats had been pushing for. also look for some changes in the work permits. folks who work in silicon valley, other high-tech areas. so, those are some of the areas that it will cover. but we don't expect to get the final details until tomorrow. although, as i say, democrats are waiting to be briefed tonight at the white house over dinner. >> nbc's chris jansing at the

white house. know you have to get back into that briefing. we'll look for more from you later on. thanks. the president's planned announcement is already drawing reactions on capitol hill. here's what senator john mccain told "hardball's" chris matthews earlier today. >> my question to the president s why couldn't he wait and see what this new congress does? give them some time. not a deadline but some time. you'll know whether they'll be able to move forward or not. you don't have to set a timetable and see then. but, obviously, that's not going to be the case. >> and you can watch more of chris matthews' interview on "hardball" at 7 p.m. msnbc. we're joined live from capitol hill by amanda. what are you hearing on the hill about buzz about this potential executive order that we will be hearing from the president? >> reporter: hi, joy. thanks for having me. now, as we know, the democrats are meeting with president obama in the white house today. this past week we've seen congressional democrats coalesce

behind the president. they've been pushing his message that he is far beyond the first president to take executive action even on immigration. conservative stalwarts like ronald reagan and george h.w. bush have done similar measures in the past. so, they're arguing that this is not only legal, it's within his powers and they're getting ready for an upcoming battle. >> we just were looking at nbc/wall street journal poll, showing 48% of americans disapprove of the idea of the president taking executive action, 38% approving of it. when you're talking with people who might actually be affected by this, break down just a little of the reactions, because one of the key things chris jansing mentioned was not including the parents of dreamers in any executive action reform. what's the response to that? >> reporter: you know, the breakdown of that pool -- that poll there was very much along party lines. it was mainly republicans who responded, saying they were against these measures. but this is a major concern for many of the supporters who have been pressing for a very broad

and very large actions from the president. many dreamers who were given these benefits under daca aren't able to see their parents get the same type of benefits, which has been a sticking point for many of these groups. they're here on capitol hill today passing the issue with lawmakers who could put this executive action in jeopardy. >> we have a statement from john boehner, future speaker of the house. i'll read it. if emperor obama ignores the american people and announces an amnesty plan he himself has said over and over again exceeds his constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for congressional action on this issue and many others. that's what the spokesman for speaker john boehner. what is the -- i mean, that sounds like a reaction that could have come from the tea party caucus that boehner has been wrestling with. that tone suggests republicans are going to react badly to

this. is that the sense you're getting? >> reporter: he says all options are on the table and they haven't come to a clear decision yet. but white house's argument is they would far prefer to have any type of legislative answer and they haven't been able to so far because congressional republicans, mainly in the house, have stalled on this measure that was passed through the senate more than a year ago. >> and speaking of the senate, senator john cornyn of texas, clearly an affected state, had some thoughts on the senate floor about this executive order. let's take a listen. >> it will be deeply harmful to our nation's tradition of the rule of law and deeply harmful to the further of our democracy. many democrats believe, as i do, that this is a mistake. the president should heed their advice, stop making threats and respect the constitution. >> amanda, the senate, as you mentioned, did already pass an immigration reform measure along

bipartisan lines. something like 67 votes. is your sense from talking to people on the hill, that there was any chance anyway of the house taking up the senate's bill or one of its own? >> reporter: there's no chance in this legislative session for any type of comprehensive immigration reform to go through. but there are many establishment republicans pressing for obama to wait on his executive action, to not do any type of initiatives yet and give the chance for the next congress to take something up. now, remember that senate -- or the republicans will be taking over control of the senate next session. so, they're wanting to address the issue when they have full control of congress. but as far as we've seen so far, there aren't any real measures for them to move forward with immigration reform. >> all right. msnbc amanda sukuma, thanks. could the house sue president obama for using his executive authority on immigration reform? a group of house republicans has already introduced a bill to make that possible. nbc's pete williams joins me now

live. what are the parameters of this potential lawsuit? >> the first question is, will the courts entertain it? of course the house can sue. anybody can sue anybody. but will they get past this national question of do they have the legal standing, do they have the right to sue under the increasingly narrow rules in the federal courts that congress show some particular injury. we talked about that before. let's assume they get past the threshold. then the question on the merits itself will be did the president violate the separation of powers here? what this will undoubtedly come down to is a test of whether the president went too far in how the law is enforced. police do this all the time. prosecutors do this all the time. police say, we're not going to write -- we're not going to arrest people for small amounts of marijuana, that kind of thing. the way the law's enforced. over the years, immigration laws have been particularly susceptible to varying degrees of which they're enforced,

government turns a blind eye. it happens all the time. the question is, did the president go too far this time? the courts are, generally speaking, reek luck tant to get into thes disputes because they consider them political questions and not legal ones. there are two problems for the house suing the president. jonathan turley, this lawyer they brought on board, believe the courts have been ducking their responsibility and should, in essence, toughen up and get more into these fights. >> wow. we'll keep an eye on that. nbc's pete williams, thank you much. let's go to florida where republican governor's association is kicking off their annual meeting in boca raton. new jersey governor and rnc chairman chris christie is set to speak. has the buzz spread to boca about this immigration executive order we're going to see tomorrow? if so, what are you hearing? >> reporter: the news, in fact, have reached the halls of this boca resort and club. it's very nice, waldorf astoria

where they're hosting republican governors here. i spoke to governor walker today about his reaction to the president's plan, if you want to take a listen. >> this is a president who talked years about the audacity of hope. it's the audacity of a power grab. and i think congress should take him to court over it because it's a clear separation of powers issue. >> reporter: republicans across the board -- i spoke to louisiana's bobby jindal and mike pence, they say the president is overstepping his authority. that said, how republicans should respond is something of -- it's a point of contention, if you will. scott walker said that the best way to resolve this would be through the courts, so obviously house speaker john boehner is leading a lawsuit against the president. but there are some questions about whether or not a government shutdown is anything that makes sense. i think for a lot of governors, they make this argument that if the republicans are going to look to leaders going forward, it's going to be someone who's run a state, not someone based in washington. the government shutdown last time around didn't play well in the states. so, while there's universal

agreement opposing the president on this is the right move, actually how they go about it is in some dispute. >> msnbc's kasey hunt in boca raton, thank you very much. let's get reaction from washington, d.c. where the center for american progress, a progressive think tank s holding a day-long conference today. nbc senior political correspondent perry bacon joins us live from washington, d.c. same question to you, has the buzz reached the hall, and if so, what is it, on immigration? >> reporter: the buzz on immigration has definitely reached the hall here. the center for progress has been calling for president obama to use executive action on a host of issues since 2010. they said for a long time, they've been pushing him on this. john poe ddesta, who now runs t think tank, are very happy. they're satisfied he's opposed keystone, climate change and immigration. they're very happy about this.

they think this is a sign obama learned the lesson from the midterms and he's going to really push forward on his agenda. they're happy to see he's not sort of waiting back and really going to use these next -- their view is he's going to use the next two years to be very aer is stif. that's what they want to see from him. so very happy. >> interesting you said learned the lesson from midterms because republicans have been saying the lesson of the midterm is the country wants the president to stand down but what you're reporting is democrat says say the lesson is the opposite, maybe the coalition that didn't show up is who the president should be listening to? >> reporter: exactly. the democrats had issues like minimum wage and pay equity, but they didn't have a message and a theme. and the president wasn't really leading it and there was no leadership from washington on those issues. so, their view is the base was depressed. and these kind of moves like pushing climate change, like pushing immigration reform, will help fire up the party and make his next two -- last two years better because democrats will

rally around him, even if republicans keep opposing him. >> and probably even more so if they keep opposing him. nbc's perry bacon, thank you very much. we'll have live coverage of the president's unveiling of his immigration plan tomorrow night at 8 p.m. right here on msnbc. we will monitor the white house briefing room, which is about to start any minute. we will bring you any updates from that. we'll be right back. this is the first power plant in the country to combine solar and natural gas at the same location. during the day, we generate as much electricity as we can using solar. at night and when it's cloudy, we use more natural gas. this ensures we can produce clean electricity whenever our customers need it. ♪ and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night,nd. and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24,

a circadian rhythm disorder that affects up to 70 percent of people who are totally blind. talk to your doctor about your symptoms and learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. don't let non-24 get in the way of your pursuit of happiness. ♪ (holiday mhey! is playing) i guess we're going to need a new santa ♪(the music builds to a climax.) more people are coming to audi than ever before. see why now is the best time. audi will cover your first month's payment on select models at the season of audi sales event. visit audioffers.com today.

welcome back. the white house briefing has begun. let's go to josh earnest. >> the president announced he is going to deliver an address to the nation tomorrow night where he'll be laying out the details of his executive action to repair our broken immigration system. [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry? i'm sorry? >> reporter: was that a thank you to zuckerberg? >> no, this was an opportunity for us to reach, you know, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. under an hour the video reached more than 1.2 million users on facebook. this is a pretty effective way of the president communicating with the american public about his intention to try to take the steps that he believes are necessary to fix as much of the broken immigration system as possible. the president also mentioned in that video he plans to travel to las vegas, nevada, on friday. he'll be speaking at del sol high school in las vegas. many of you have been there because you covered a speech the president gave there in 2013 where he laid out the principles

he believes should be incorporated into any sort of bipartisan compromise, common sense immigration proposal. you recall the united states senate passed such proposal in the summer of 2013. and we've been waiting ever since for house republicans to block their opposition and allow that piece of legislation to come up for a vote in the house. one last thing i'll mention before i get to your questions is prior to delivering this speech tomorrow night, the president will be hosting a dinner tonight at the white house for some democrats from the house and senate. to talk through this immigration executive action that he's preparing to take as well as a couple of other priorities that he sees on the horizon. so, with all that, we have a lot to talk about. darlene, i'll let you begin the conversation. >> reporter: thank you. i think wendell might have stolen a little bit of my thunder here. >> oh, good. wendell has a tendency to do that. >> reporter: can you just explain a little bit about why

the president is going the route of a prime time address to announce what he's going to do on immigration? >> the president is interested in including as many people across the country in this broader debate about fixing our broken immigration system. as i mentioned before, there is a bipartisan proposal that has already passed the senate, that we've been waiting for more than a year for house republicans to allow to come up for a vote. we're confident that if that legislation were voted on in the house of representatives, it would pass with bipartisan support. so, now that republicans in the house have indicated an unwillingness to drop their opposition, and they've also indicated a -- or refused to indicate any sort of willingness to bring up immigration reform legislation in the next congress, the president's decided it's time to move forward. and the president wants to talk to as many americans as possible about how he intends to move forward. and, you know, 8 p.m. on a thursday evening is an opportunity for people who are either sitting in front of their

televisions or tablets or smartphones, to hear directly from the president about what he's decided and how and why he wants to move forward. so, that's -- that explains the reasoning for tomorrow's time frame. >> reporter: do you have any names of the lawmakers who were invited to dinner? >> it's about 18 members of the house and senate. we'll get you that full list at the break. it's just democrats, that's what i said at the beginning of the briefing. >> reporter: yesterday you said that legal opinions for justifying what the president's going to do, that that would be released. will that be released tomorrow? >> there will be some material related to the legal justification for the president's executive action that will be released tomorrow. and we'll have an ample opportunity to discuss that. what i will point out, and maybe we'll have the opportunity to talk about this a little more in the briefing, is i think that you will find that it's consistent with actions taken by presidents of both parties, to deal with the -- with the immigration system that

presidents from eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, reagan, both bushs, took executive action to deal with the -- with some -- what they characterized problems with the broken immigration system. and they took some steps unilaterally using their -- the authority that's vested in the executive branch to try to solve some of those problems. and what you'll see in terms of the president's announcement will be generally consistent with that exercise of executive authority. >> and so there's a speech tomorrow night. he goes to the high school on friday. will there be more stops by the president to sort of sell this, if you will, i mean, next week? is thursday and friday the extent of it or will there be more stops with the president talking about this? >> well, i do anticipate we'll be having a number of -- a rather lengthy discussion about this decision. and the president, i say, in all sincerity s looking forward to this debate. the president feels very

confident both in the steps he's taken. he also feels very confident in -- in knowing that these steps are going to be good for the country. that despite some of the concerns that have been raised by republicans, we know that these steps are going to strengthen national security. they're going to strengthen security at the border. they are going to strengthen our economy. and they will do something to address a lingering problem, which is the millions of people who currently live in this country, who can come out of the shadows, can get right with the law, they can pay their taxes, they can go back to the line, go to the back of the line. but also sort of become full contributing members of communities large and small all across the country. and this is -- this is an important step that will have a pretty profound impact on the lives of millions of people who live here. and, you know, we'll have an opportunity over the course of the next couple days, obviously, to talk about this in more deta detail.

but i would certainly not rule out that in the coming weeks that the president would take additional trips or host other events to continue talking about these very important issues. >> thank you. >> roberta. >> reporter: if what the president wants is comprehensive reform, which requires bipartisan action on the hill, why wouldn't he invite republicans or some republicans for dinner and talk to them about it, too? >> well, roberta, sadly, if it were only dinner that was required to get republicans to act in bipartisan fashion, we would have passed bipartisan compromise immigration reform legislation quite some time ago. you recall the president convened a lunch just two weeks ago where he invited democratic and republican leaders of the house and senate to come and talk to him about a range of priorities, including immigration reform. so, tonight's dinner will be another opportunity to talk about immigration reform. certainly not the first opportunity and it won't be the last. >> is he worried about some democrats being nervous about this move and siding with republicans on whatever

republicans decide to do to stop it? >> the short answer to your question is, no. the longer answer to your question is, i do think there is -- again, once we have an opportunity to talk to about the details about the executive action the president has chose ton take, it will be clear there is a solid legal foundation for the president taking those actions. again, we do anticipate that there will be republican opposition to what the president announces. the president, it was pretty clear when he talked about this, as he mentioned at the news conference he hosted in ber ee he noted we shouldn't allow this agreement over a single issue to become a deal-breaker over every issue. we shouldn't allow disagreements over immigration to prevent us from finding common ground on where it may exist with other issues. the fact the president signed a bipartisan child care bill in the oval office, a ceremony

attended by democratic and republican legislators is an indication, where there's common ground, we should act on it. >> reporter: is he worried about this sparking a shutdown or defunding by republicans? >> we've seen definitive statements from republican leaders in the house and senate indicating they would not shut down the government. and i take them at their word. >> reporter: yesterday we heard cecilia munoz say the president will go as far as the president can under the law. would you stand by that and has the president decided to go as far as he can? >> well, we will have an opportunity to talk about that a little more. i think it is fair to say what the president asks the secretary-general and homeland security to do is what was in the law and compile -- or at least formulate a strategy for ma'am mizing the authority vested in the executive branch to try to address as many problems as possible. there may be some people who,

based on their own reading of the law, believe the president could have done more. that's why i hesitate to use the formulation you repeated there. but i do think that by any measure, upon reviewing the actions that the president has chosen to take, an impartial observer would conclude that the president has sought to maximize the use of his authority to try to solve these problems. frankly, i think that's what the american people expect the president of the united states to do. to use every authority that's available to solve problems. >> reporter: you mentioned sort of the way i originally -- something more specific, if the president had wanted or does want to expand this to the parents of dreamers, from the review that was done, and you know the results of that large-scale review, does that fit under the law? so, we're not talking about what the president is going to do, but does that one element fit within his bounds of the law? >> well, i do want to reserve

comment on any of these sort of -- any of these proposals that have been floated so far until the president's had an opportunity to make his announcement. we can spend more time delving into what the president chose to do and what was the legal justification for doing so and whether or not legal justification may have existed for him to take other steps. but we can talk about that a little more easily once the full complement of the president's proposals has been laid out. >> reporter: got it. what the president will announce tomorrow night, will that be able to survive attempts of members of congress to defund certain elements? i mean, do you think it's defund-proof, in any way, or still susceptible to those kind of actions of congress? >> i think we'll have to see what republicans choose to do. i do, however, feel confident there is strong support on capitol hill for addressing many of the problems that the president hopes to solve by using executive authority. but, you know, we certainly anticipate that we'll have a robust debate about these

issues. and i don't anticipate, again, based on the public comments of senator mcconnell and others, that there's going to be a government shutdown that results from this. >> reporter: lastly, already, you know -- again, we know it hasn't been announced and you can't get into details, but already some groups are coming out and saying, it doesn't go far enough. how do you respond to that, ahead of it even being announced? >> i'm sure you can come to your inbox and find who say the president's gone too far. there are both commenting on a proposal they haven't seen. we'll have plenty of an opportunity to debate these issues once the president's made an announcement. alexis? >> reporter: josh, can you tell us what will be the implementation date stashed to -- attached to president's executive action? >> we'll have more details once it's rolled out tomorrow. >> reporter: can you talk about

implementing it through dhs and how long it will take or -- daca took about two months, i think, roughly, to implement. how long is the implementation phase needed? >> once we can look at the proposals the president has laid out, question look at the timetable. >> reporter: business community would be very interested in their ability to hire or to employ? >> well, as many of you know, who have been covering this closely, the white house has been engaged in a wide range of conversations. as the president's been considering what steps to take. those conversations have been rooted in, primarily, helping to understand -- or helping the white house to have a clear understanding of how specific decisions might have an impact on specific communities or, in some cases, even specific businesses. so, there is a desire to have that kind of understanding. as a result, there have been a number of conversations that have been convened by members of the president's staff to discuss some of these issues. there are a number of conversations that are ongoing

today and will continue tomorrow related to communicating to lawmakers and other interested parties in washington, d.c. about what the president's decided. but the one place where people can expect to get a detailed rundown on the president's proposal will be in the context of the speech the president will deliver tomorrow. >> reporter: lastly, when we get briefed or we get information, will there be budgetary numbers attached to it? will we be able to understand tomorrow what the projected costs or budgetary effect will be? >> i don't know if those numbers will be produced, but you certainly are welcome to ask about them. we'll see if we can get you some answers. jon? >> josh, would the president veto a government funding bill that included provisions to prevent him from taking this action? >> well, certainly would not be a proposal that the president would support, obviously. but i think we would evaluate, you know, these individual proposals on the merits before we made a final decision.

so, we'll see. i think we'll also will depend a little on what republicans choose -- would choose to do in that situation as well. >> reporter: bares been a lot of talk from republicans saying they would fund the government, but not allow this to go forward. they use that as leverage. so, you don't rule out the president signing into law something that would undo the very thing he's going to announce tomorrow night? >> i think that seems -- i think we'll have to sort of evaluate for ourselves what sort of proposals republicans put forward. i wouldn't want to hazard a guess as this point. but, you know, it won't surprise to you hear that proposals that are floated like that certainly would not be among the kinds of proposals we'd support. >> reporter: senator cruz has already reacted to this. >> let me guess. >> reporter: he says that the republican senate that will be sworn in in january, the president goes forward with this action, should not confirm a single nominee executive or judicial outside of vital

national security positions as long as the illegal amnesty persists. what would be a reaction to senator cruz? >> well, i think what i would merely say is that the -- you know, the president talked a lot over the last couple of weeks about the lesson he drew from the last midterm elections. it was the president's view that the american people were interested in their representatives in washington, d.c., making progress on behalf of the american people. and that doesn't mean folding on principle. but it does mean trying to find common ground and putting the interests of the nation ahead of partisan political ambition or political interests. and that certainly is a -- is a message that the president has taken to heart. we hope that democrats and republicans will do the same. >> reporter: so, again, and i know that this has been addressed here, but just, given exactly what you said there about the message voters were

sending in the election, doesn't it send the wrong msage to have the president bring only democrats here tonight to talk about what he's going to do? i mean, you said you hoped this does not -- that this action would not foreclose the possibility of congress acting to do something more broadly in a bipartisan action, so why not start here? bring republicans in and say, this is what i'm doing, here are the details and i know you don't approve of how i'm doing it, but, you know, let's start to work together on something else? >> i wouldn't rule out that those -- those kind of conversations are occurring. but we've had any number of countless conversations with republicans, both in the -- mostly in the house, but also in the senate prior to the passage of the senate bill, trying to find areas where democrats and republicans could find common ground to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform. the senate succeeded in that effort. there were 14 senate republicans who joined just about every, if not every democratic senator to support a common sense proposal. we would like to see the house

operate in similar fashion. they've had almost a year and a half now to do exactly that. and they would if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote. but the house republican leadership has concluded that they don't want that bill to come up for a vote, probably because they oppose it and fear it would pass if the house did vote on it. so, you can describe the people who are having dinner with the president as democrats. that would be true. can you also describe them as people as genuine supporters of common sense immigration reform. that would also be true and that will be the principle topic of discussion at dinner. we should not, however, allow disagreement over this issue to be a deal-breaker over all the others, including the appointment of highly qualified professionals to serve in important roles in government. >> reporter: john boehner has said publicly that the president taking this action would poison the well, not only in terms of immigration reform in this next congress, but on a whole range of other issues.

in other words, it will make cooperation with the white house very difficult on issues far beyond immigration. i'm told he also said that message directly to the president when they had lunch here. does the president take john boehner at his word when he says that the president taking this action will, you know, poison the well on a whole range of issues? >> well, i think you highlight what i think is a pretty stark difference in approach between the house republican leadership at least and those of us who work here for the democratic president. you know, we've seen house republicans pass, what, 40, 50, 60 different measures to defund or repeal obamacare, as they call it. and the fact is, it would be sis for the president after maybe even the fourth or fifth time to say, well, look, if you guys are going to be so focused on defunding obamacare, then there's no reason we can cooperate or compromise or get anything done for the american people. there is no suggestion by me or anybody else who works at the white house that repeated efforts by republicans to repeal

the president's signature initiative was somehow poisoning the well. we chalked it up to a mere difference of opinion. now, that difference of opinion happens to rest on a piece of legislation that is ensured millions of people got health care, slowed the growth in health care costs and bunch of patient protection which is are popular with the american public. we can have legitimate difference of opinion. i'm not disagreeing those differences of opinion exist. they obviously do. the question is, what are you going to do in reaction to them? the reaction here is, we're not going to allow those difference of opinion to interfere with our efforts to try to find common ground. >> what i'm asking you, does the president believe john boehner when he says that if you go forward and take this executive action, we will not be able to work with you, not just on immigration, but on a whole range of other issues, that it will poison the well. does he believe the speaker when he says that? >> i think the president always takes the speaker at his word. but i think the president also is willing to allow the speaker to change his mind.

>> reporter: following up on that, if the president -- let's say speaker boehner doesn't change his mind and says this is a deal-breaker for a whole host of issues. but if that is the case, this immigration reform the president is so intent on doing tomorrow, is it worth it? is it a big enough issue as far as legacy, as far as, you know, all of the goals of this administration, is it worth that gamble? is it worth that risk? >> this is something i've said before. let me sort of pose it to you again. this is the way that the president sees it. that sitting before him right now is a pretty fundamental question. right now we've got, you know, bipartisan legislation that passed through the senate. we have house republicans who have blocked it for more than a year and a half, who have indicated they're going to block it through the rest of the year. and have also indicated in answering a question from one of your colleagues that they're not really willing to commit to bringing it up next year. so, the president sits at his

desk wondering, should i await intermably for republicans to take an action they say they oppose, or should i use all of the authority that the american people have elected me to exercise, to make progress for the american people? in a way that would be good for our national security, in a way that would be good for strengthening security at the border, in a way that would be good for job creation, economic growth, middle class families, good for our nation of values of immigrant citizens. when you stack up the pros and cons there, this is one of the decisions -- the president often says that as president of the united states, only the tough decisions actually reach his desk. this might be the one exception. >> reporter: isn't one of the cons, at least the threat of, you know, serious inaction when it comes to nominations, when it comes to a budget, when it comes to a host of other issues that certainly are important to both republicans and the president? >> well, i guess the -- that is predicated at least on a premise

that republicans have been exceedingly cooperative with the president when it comes to the budget, nominations and other things, too. it may be a difference in degree, not in substance. mara? >> reporter: when you formulated these actions, did you do some kind of analysis on how many illegal immigrants you thought would come out of the shadows to take advantage of this temporary relief? >> well, what i anticipate we will be able to do once you see the proposals tomorrow, the numbers that would be affected by this. >> reporter: i'm asking a slightly different question. not how many could be, but those who are willing to do something, identifying themselves as illegal, coming out of the shadows, knowing the next president could take this temporary deportation relief away from them and deport them. i'm just saying it's a risk. i'm wondering -- >> that's true. >> reporter: -- if you considered that? >> it was certainly considered when the president announced daca, deferred action for

childhood arrivals. this was the analysis done by the population of people affected by this -- by that decision. there was a discussion about the number of people who were likely -- i think they call it a take-up rate, the number of people who would make themselves available to benefit from this decision. and i would expect a similar analysis would be conducted in this instance as well. but we'll have more to say about this tomorrow. >> reporter: can i ask a question on a completely unrelated topic? >> of course. >> reporter: a real segue. what is the administration's position on lifting the 40-year-old ban on expoergt u.s. crude oil? i mean, there is a ban on it since the '70s. >> a little like a pop quiz. >> reporter: i mean, i curiously don't know. i honestly don't know. >> to make sure i get it right, i can get back for you. i can do that for you later today. mike? >> reporter: i was really struck by your first answer to jonathan's first question. >> is that a compliment? >> reporter: it sounded like

when you were saying, you know, jonathan asking you, hey, if there's legislation defunding this, would you veto it? you were kind of saying, well, we'll see exactly how it's written. it sounds to me like what you're saying is, this is the order, but we'd be willing to negotiate with republicans over the scale and scope of this order short of them passing new immigration legislation. am i fairly interpreting your response? because otherwise would you say we'll wait and see? >> mostly because i didn't want to comment on a hypothetical. i didn't want to rule anything out. obviously, we would take a dim view of any efforts by republicans to try to curtail the president's executive authority, you know, using a rider on a budget proposal. >> reporter: let me then just -- >> that said -- >> reporter: i'll give you the question straightforward. is there room here after the republicans scream and cry about this, for them to come back a and -- with you and say, well, we're not going to pass legislation, but we might do

this for you if you would scale back the order a little bit in this way or that way or add this or add that? >> well, i think the president is always -- is not just open but interested in conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in trying to make progress on the kinds of priorities the president has identified and that the american people support. >> so, it is open for negotiations? >> we'll certainly open to conversations. does that mean we'd be -- like i said, i can't imagine a scenario where the president would be interested in curtailing his own authority in a way that didn't have the kinds of positive -- >> reporter: it would be curtailing your use of your authority. you always have discretionary -- >> that's true. this is a difficult one principally because it's a hypothetical situation. let me just say, i think the one thing that i can say that's rooted in fact and will continue to be true is that we're always going to be open to conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in

trying to strengthen or improve on policy priorities that the president has identified and the american people support. major? >> reporter: josh, following up on that line of questioning, just so i understand what the priorities are, because it's, yes, a hypothetical in a general sense, but it may actually not be a hypothetical. if republicans put a rider on a continuing resolution, in which a lot of other very important funding mechanisms of the government, ebola, isis, everything else, are there, and this action is the one item that jeopardizes all the rest, which is the president's more preferred priority? >> well, if an eventuality like that occurs, we'll have ample opportunity to discuss it and debate it. if that happens, i'm sure it will. i'm not going to weigh in on it from here, though. >> reporter: by the president's own timing, he intended to do this, made a public promise to

do this in december and then delayed it, signaling to everyone that the timing of this is completely fluid. it is discretionary. it is at the president's discretion. >> that's right. >> reporter: so, in that sense, putting it up against a continuing resolution and government shutdown scenario, is also a discretionary decision of the president's. it seems like he is intentionally putting it right next to these other things. so, i'm just wondering if that's a signal he's trying to send this is more important than anything else that has to get done before the president and congress wrap up this legislation. >> that's not the intent. the fact of the matter is, major, we would have been happy if congress had actually passed a budget last year when they were supposed to as opposed to just moving forward with this continuing resolution that kicked the can to the middle of december. this is not an effort to provoke a standoff here. in fact, the fact that republicans have refused to act on immigration reform is why we are where we are anyway. so -- >> reporter: all i'm saying is if he had done it in september,

then you would have a cr in late september. i mean, it is by your choosing they are closely aligned with one another, these two things now. by the president's own choice. >> well, again, it was congress's choice to pass the cr that only extended the budget through december 11th. our -- i guess, are both parties responsible for the fact that both of these things are happening in relative close proximity? probably. but again, even if -- regardless of when the president had decided to move forward with this action, i'm confident that -- that there are plenty of senators who would have found a way to raise a ruckus about this using legislative process. i'm sure that will occur this time, too. i think that would have happened regardless of which season of the year that this decision had been announced. >> reporter: in that context, this authority is negotiable within a conversation about keeping the government open. is that fair? >> i don't want to leave you with that impression. that was sort of a hypothetical

scenario, would the president negotiate. that's assuming the republicans would negotiate, after we just talked about how they aren't willing to negotiate. i don't want to go too far down this hypothetical road. as a practical matter, one, the president is always open to conversations with republicans. and, two he is always open to those conversations when they are in pursuit of strengthening policies he thinks are good for the country and that the american people support. >> reporter: very simple, perhaps, blockhead question, which i sometimes come up with. is there something the president signs, is this a new order? does is it have a number attached to it? or is it something in which he merely communicates to his bureaucracy a set of guidelines that implement authorities in a different way? >> right. we'll have more to explain about this tomorrow. >> reporter: but can you even -- >> it's a legitimate question to ask, but once the president has made these decisions, we can talk a little bit more -- once the president has anounsd -- >> reporter: the mechanics --

>> let me clarify. once the president has announced these positions, we can talk about how they're effectively implemented. >> reporter: you kahne can't even explain the mechanics of it? >> i can, once the proposal is laid out. i don't want people to read into the description of the mechanics and assume that they know something about what the president's decided. . >> reporter: i believe you suggested one of the goals of the president is for people to come out of the shadows with this executive order. it was my understanding that the way to do that was the path to citizenship that republicans call amnesty and object to. so, given that, i think the president's made clear that he cannot offer people that. do you really expect this order to encourage people to come out of the shadows? and if so -- >> again, once the president has rolled out exactly what he proposes to do, then we can have

a discussion about what that intended effect would be. >> reporter: well, then let me ask you this, is it possible that the executive -- the path to citizenship mr. obama insisted be part of a comprehensive immigration reform is not necessary to lure people out of the shadows? >> again, we'll have are an opportunity to discuss this once the president has made clear what exactly he intends to do. chris? >> reporter: if he's meeting tonight with these democrats, are we to assume this is a done deal, the decisions have been made and it's not likely to change between now and when he speaks to the american people tomorrow night? >> it's my understanding there continue to be a couple of lingering policy decisions that have to get locked down, but for all intents and purposes, the president will be ready to move forward when he gives his address tomorrow evening. >> reporter: are those related to legal questions or is he in some way waiting to hear what

the democrats' reaction is tonight? >> well, i see what you're asking now. i think i may have misunderstood your first question. i do -- would anticipate over the course, the president will have a robust opportunity to speak to them about the decisions he's made and to communicate to them what impact he hopes that those decisions will have. i would not anticipate that there's going to be a lot of hoer horse trading or negotiating back in forth during the context of the dinner. the vast majority have been locked down. this is more an opportunity for the president to share his thinking with those who share his values on these issues. not really a negotiating session. >> reporter: can you give us a sense of his -- our new nbc/wall street journal poll show 48% people approve on immigration action, 38% approve.

now, there is a pretty wood disparity in terms of republicans versus democrats, but clearly almost half the people don't think he ought to do this. so, can you tell us a little bit about the formulation of the case he's going to make and how high the hill is that he has to climb? >> well, i'll say a couple things about that, chris. i think the first is that -- i didn't see the exact wording included in the poll, but if the wording was something along the lines of, do you believe this is a policy problem that should be fixed with legislation rather than executive action, then it sounds like you may have called the presidential cell phone because he would probably answer the poll the same way plurality of americans did. >> reporter: do you approve or disapprove of the president taking executive actions or do you not have an opinion at this time? >> the president clearly has an

opinion. >> what was it -- >> 48%. >> what's the president's cell? >> i'll get that to you later. so, i think the point is, the case the president will make is we've seen congress has not acted and so the question is, should the president use the authority that's vested within the constitution, invested with the presidency, to try to address some of these problems? and the president, i think, pretty unequivocally believes the answer to that question is he should take the steps necessary to try to solve some of these problems. >> reporter: obviously, he also thinks he needs to make his case to the americans? >> no question he needs to explain that to the american public. some of that is what are the consequences of the action he's announcing. the president will, and all of us, will be spending quite a bit of time talking about that, not just tomorrow night but for the days and weeks ahead. >> reporter: because he knows that he has -- he has a tough job to make this case?

>> i think because he feels like he has an obligation as president of the united states to explain to the people who elected him precisely why he's taking the actions he is taking. >> reporter: is there some political miss chichief, is tha republican party will become so incensed that in your big victory they'll drive the wagingen off the cliff, impeachment and shutting down the government? is that part of the calculation in timing? >> are you suggesting that would be the first time they would do that? well, i think what the intended audience for this message is the american people. and the president is hopeful that the american people will carefully consider exactly the steps that he has announced that he's going to take. he's hopeful the american people will carefully evaluate the consequences for the steps that he's planning to take. and i think if people do that, i think the vast majority of

americans will share his views that these are steps that he should take, that these are steps that on par are good for the country. and that these are steps that if congress were to take them, essentially make them permanent, that they should supercede any sort of executive action the president has taken. we look forward to having this conversation. it's an important one. >> reporter: i realize -- this ground's been -- >> go ahead. >> reporter: individual americans -- >> i would like to come back to it once we have a concrete schedule here. on a number of occasions the president said he could not legally without congress notably last year in the san francisco speech where he was heckled, said he couldn't violate the law, he had to work with congress. how do you square that? >> well, i think as it related to the hecklers, they were suggesting the president should stop all deportations. that was sort of the thrust the president suggested he needs to follow the law. that's true. that's why the white house feels an obligation to fulfill your

desire to understand the legal foundation that the white house will be using as the president moves forward with these executive actions. >> in the context of daca, why couldn't he dot same thing he did for daca for others, to correct or to somehow lessen deportation at the outset of this administration? >> the steps the president will take, we'll have an opportunity to evaluate those tomorrow. >> reporter: i know alexis asked this, but i'd like to press down a little bit. are you considering an implementation date some time after the republicans take control of congress in order to give them a chance to, perhaps, move legislation? >> well, let me just say as a general matter to you and alexis that the kinds of proposals the president is talking about are not the kinds of things you flip a switch and start the next day. but we'll have an opportunity to discuss -- >> reporter: so, there could be a lag time?

>> -- discuss the implementation after tomorrow. >> reporter: is there a date certain? >> we'll have more on this tomorrow. lori? >> reporter: a question for you in the address, it's clear he's not going to be able to cover, protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, but in his address tomorrow to the nation, will he have a message for those who will be left out? what is the next step for them? >> well, i think there are a couple of things. i don't want to prejudge what the president may have -- may have decided here. but i think the president does want to send a pretty forceful case that's rooted in our nation's values. that we -- this -- that the strength of this country comes from our diversity, and that diversity largely comes from the decision that people made generations ago to come to this country and to bring their talents and skills to building this country and creating a place where their family and their community could not just survive, but actually thrive. and talking about those values will be an important part of the

speech. and i think that is -- that hearing the american president talk about those values in such personal terms, i think, will be part of the message that the president hopes everyone will receive. and that will be -- that will certainly be part of it. again, after you've seen the speech or at least the text of the speech, you'll be able to evaluate for yourself which part you believe would resonate with people who may not be directly affected by these actions. >> reporter: also, speaker boehner just put out a statement saying if he goes ahead with executive action, he will have cemented his governing with lawlessness. however, others have said it isn't necessary for the president to take this action, maybe to push congress to go ahead and prove some type of immigration reform. is that the purpose of him -- part of it, of taking this step and taking executive action in trying to protect -- or fix what he says is wrong with the immigration system? >> well, i'll say a couple

things about the quote. i happened to see that, too. the thing that -- a couple things that stuck out to me. the first is, again, we'll have ample opportunity to discuss the legal bases for the president's executive action once he's announced them. you know, we've heard this kind of rhetoric about lawlessness from house republicans for quite some time. their latest statement referred to emperor obama. the matter of the fact, the president is somebody willing to examine the law, use the law and use every element of that law to make progress for the american people. that is -- and if that is something republicans are critical of, that's maybe a criticism the president wears with a badge of honor, i think. as it relates to, you know, the other part of the quote i noticed is that the president taking this action would ruin the chances for congressional action on this issue. i think what's ruining the chances for congressional action is the speaker of the house who is unwilling to bring up bipartisan proposal for a vote. that doesn't have to do with the

president. that lies squarely on the desk of the speaker of the house. steve? >> reporter: a couple days ago jonath jonathan vesta had a conference call on regs and he said there was no way house republicans could stop them. can you make a podesta-esque statement about the immigration actions you don't see the white house is confident, the president is confidence, republicans in congress are not going to be able to stop him? >> well, i -- not many of -- not many people are able to exude the confidence of the senior administration official to which you referred. but let me say that i do retain plenty of confidence that the executive actions that the president will announce tomorrow will have the positive intended effect that we intend. which is to say that we're confident that there is a strong

legal foundation for the president taking these actions and we're confident that even though republicans object to it, that these are steps that will be fully implemented and will strengthen the economy, create jobs, strengthen our border security, strengthen our national security and do the other kinds of things that the president believes are in the best interest of the country. >> reporter: they won't be able to stop them? >> well, you know, we'll see what republicans try. but, there's a lot of confidence that's retained in these proposals by this work here at the white house. justin? >> reporter: i want to ask two questions. first, you talked about why the president is going to las vegas, but i know also that that's obviously senator reid's home state. there are reports he'll be attending alongside the president. i'm wondering this is a public burying of the hatchet after the midterm elections? >> well, i think that, you know, you asked me a couple times about this. i guess you work at the hill. you're contractually obligated

to care about these kinds of issues. let me just -- let me just say that the president continues to value the strong working relationship he has with senator reid. and previous questions about this, i sort of recited the litany of successful -- the litany of legislation that was passed successfully through the united states senate through the leadership and stewardship of senator reid. that's been the view of everybody here at the white house up to and including the president. and that continues to be the view here. so, the president's looking forward to going to -- to leader reid's home state. i haven't actually heard whether or not leader reid will be able to attend. i haven't gotten the update on his schedule. if he does, we would certainly be pleased to have him there. >> reporter: i want to ask about this in terms of a lot of actions -- or announcements from the white house in the last week or so. there has been the climate deal,

this, the -- excuse me, the -- all of which seem to have really wrapped up the president's sort of democratic base, liberal base. i know that the president spoke after the elections about how he was going to try to change things, work out compromise more. i wonder how you kind of square a lot of announcements that have upset republicans and wrapped up democrats with that kind of new approach that you guys kind of said you were going to undertake but haven't yet. >> well, i think this goes back to a question i -- i don't know if it was roberta or someone else. i think this goes back to the president's philosophy here. we can't allow a disagreement over a single issue to become a deal-breaker for every other one. you're right, the president has talked about net neutrality and making progress to cut carbon

pollution and even an announcement to reform our broken immigration system. at the same time, justin, you know, the president was in the oval office just a couple of hours ago, signing a piece of legislation that had strong support of republicans. the president was pleased to do that. in the context of signing that bill, the president also threw in the waste basket, proverbi proverbial proverbially, executive order that would have taken steps. that's pret good evidence of the president's. that was true of this child care bill. it would also be true of any immigration reform legislation that were able to make its way through the congress. the other point i want to make, justice, the president also did a couple of things that presumably republicans would support in addition to signing that bill, the president also spent a lot of time in his trip in asia focused on trying to open up overseas markets for american goods and services. that's something the president believes is good for the country, it's good for american businesses, it's good for american workers. he convened a meeting at the

u.s. embassy in beijing with the leaders of countries that presumably would sign on to a transpacific partnership trade agreement. this is something that -- that some democrats support, certainly not all of them. but we have seen pretty enthusiastic reception for republicans from this proposal. that would be an example of common ground that could be found in a way that sort of highlights how the president's policy priorities do at least in some areas overlap with the policy priorities that republicans themselves have identified as well. >> reporter: any of those policy priorities that the president has communicated to republicans that hadn't existed before the election. the things you mentioned are things that even though harry reid, for instance, doesn't support, the president has for a long time now. i'm wondering if after the election there's been any change of policies or areas of compromise that the president's offered to republicans that we haven't heard before