significantly larger investment across the border lands for processing, humane processing of asylum seekers that are not punitive in nature. this deterrence policy is not going to work, it's going to result in more children crossing by themselves and more parents putting themselves in the hands of smugglers that find a way in. >> what we've seen is that there is no level of deterrence that will deter because the desperation is so enormous and the desire to come to this country so great. there has to be another solution other than deterring your way out of it, because we've even seen -- kidnapping of children didn't work. thank you for sharing your expertise with us. that is "all in" on this thursday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> yeah, chris, the deterrence isn't deterrence because the desperation is so acute it just ends up being a sort of pox on our house in terms of what we

end up winding up doing to our fellow -- >> on one side of the scale is the current situation in venezuela which is quite dire as it is in cuba, right? what would we do to even the scales to get to the point of what we were doing produced an equal amount of desperation, as would be really. >> a quarter of venezuela is gone. staggering, thank you my friend as always. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. on november 4th of 2008 america elected its first black president. senator john mccain had called senator barack obama to concede the race, and as he began to deliver his concession speech before a crowd in phoenix, arizona, this happened. >> a little while ago i had the honor of calling senator barack obama to congratulate him -- please. to congratulate him on being

elected the next president of the country we both love. >> john mccain gently but firmly admonishing the crowd of republicans for booing the election of our nation's first black president. at the time this was seen as an important moment. it wasn't as though statesmanship was exactly the norm in the republican party. it was sort of the opposite actually. remember that john mccain's running mate was sarah palin who was a proponent of birtherism, that conspiracy theory, that unfounded racist fear mongering that undermining the foundingf our nation's first black president, that turned historians against barack obama, that you can probably hear in the booing senator mccain tried to hush that night. mccain did this at a time republican presidential campaigns still actually conceded elections. alongside the nostalgia you may feel for that era, remember when

republicans could admit they lost? there's also the fact senator mccain understood on election night in 2008 that his job was not to rile up the crowd, not to feed his supporters with words of grievance even though that's probably what a lot of them felt that night. instead mccain did the opposite, he tried to be the adult in the room. ee reminded people of the thing that drew the winner and loser together, that they both loved america. mccain had already shown his willingness to do this kind of thing when he famously talked down a republican voter at a town hall who promoted the baseless conspiracy that barack obama was secretly an arab. and whatever else you think of john mccain and his legacy he understood there's a danger to playing to people's worst impulses. last night the republican front-runner for the next election held his first televised town hall with an actual journalist since the start of this election season. it took place before a crowd of

300 or so republican primary voters, and the things trump said in that town hall were shocking, and they were untrue, and they were appalling and basically everything we have come to expect from donald trump. but the thing that is worth taking a second look at is how that crowd responded to donald trump and also how he responded to them. when donald trump said he would pardon the people who stormed the capitol on january 6th, the crowd applauded. >> will you pardon the january 6th rioters who were convicted of federal offenses? >> i am inclined to pardon many of them. i would say it will be a large portion of them. you know, they did a very -- >> when trump reiterated his lack of remorse for endangering the life of his former vice president, mike pence, the crowd applauded. >> mr. president, do you feel

that you owe him an apology? >> no, because he did something wrong. he should have put the votes back to the state legislators and i think we would have had a different outcome. i really do. >> when trump mocked the woman he was found liable of sexually abusing, they laughed. >> i never met this woman. i never saw this woman. i swear, i have no idea who the hell -- she's a whack job. what kind of a woman meet somebody and brings them up and within minutes you're playing hanky-panky in a dressing room. i don't know if she was married then or not. john johnson, i feel sorry for you, john johnson. >> when trump suggested we should plunge the country into a self-inflicted financial crisis and then admitted he only wanted it to happen because he wasn't president anymore, the crowd laughed and the crowd cheered. >> you once said that using

the -- that using the debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge just could not happen. you said that when you were in the oval office. >> sure that was when i was president. >> so why is it different now you're out of office? >> because i'm not president. >> when trump called the moderator of that town hall a journalist standing right next to him, when he called her a nasty person, the crowd cheered and then they laughed. >> i would like for you to answer the question. >> okay, it's very simple to answer. >> that's why i asked it. >> it's very simple -- you are a nastily person, i'll tell you. >> donald trump fed off that crowd of republican voters and the crowd fed off of him, and there's nothing that anyone could do about it. throughout his presidency we saw it time and time again that one of the most dangerous things about donald trump is his willingness to rile up and goad his supporters into acts of hate and malice and even violence, and now he's running for

president again, and it's very clear there are no adults in the room. joining us now is jemele buoy, cohost of the unclear and present danger podcast, and tim miller, writer at large at the bulwark. thank you both for being here. tim, can you help me understand what was going on in that room last night, what almost sounded like a laugh track at points for some of the most disingenuous, hateful, malicious commentary i've heard in a while. >> well, there's two things that were happening. one is the room was stacked with republicans. it was obviously there were local new hampshire republicans, but i saw in the audience a guy i know as a professional republican fund-raiser. he doesn't live in new hampshire. woody johnson, the new york jets owner in the crowd who's there. so a lot of trump people were stacked in the audience, so that's part of it. i think that was a really poor

production choice. i think at a broader level what we've learned here and the difference in the video you showed up at the top from the trump era is not that all humans don't have darker choices and impulses but donald trump says it's okay to let those out and let that free flag fly. what they like about donald trump is he won in 2016 while allowing them to be their worst selves. they look at that john mccain video not with nostalgia but say that's a loser, that's a loser's mentality. so because trump happened to win in a very narrow election losing the popular vote, that affirms the idea they can do that. this politics is fun, it's a big game of "apprentice." they can enjoy it when he demeans women, when he says

capitol police officers -- i think that's probably one of the most disappointing things to learn in the trump era, that that's what republican voters want actually. >> to that end, you know, i'm just really struck obviously the cruelty is somehow cathartic or enjoyable for crowds like this. but they are given moments to fix themselves, to act like adults, to reenter this society. you know, those inflection points is when trump is revealed to be actually a loser and maybe a criminal and a sexual predatorch and yet none of it seems to stick. when i watched that event last -- go ahead. go ahead. >> i think none of it seems to stick, though, in part because there's this cycle happening where other republican politicians seem to have resigned themselves to the idea that nothing is going to change or nothing can be changed about

the relationship of republican voters and trump. and so that featallism and that fear as well, the fear that actually stepping up to trump might jeopardize their own prospects, means that when these opportunities arise to maybe break the spell a little bit, other republicans don't take them, other republican leaders don't take them. and the thing that makes a lot of sense to me intuitively is if in a community of people, other people you trust aren't sounding the alarms about someone else, it's not going to be the case you yourself are going to sound those alarms either. people tend to react to smoke. they tend to assume there's fire, but if no one around you in the community, the leader you trust act as if they're smoke, then why would you? and i think that's more or less the dynamic that keeps happening with trump, his voters, and other republican leaders. >> trump, do you -- tim, sorry.

do you agree with that concede this is effectively party wide failure on display? this is the fact no one is the adult in the room. no one is saying shh all of you have more importantly be quiet, mr. president? is it an indictment of the gop? >> i do most of the way. here's one piece of evidence i think jemele is arguing is if you look after the election there was a moment where maybe not a huge majority but a slight majority of the party was ready to move on from trump after the 2022 election. and the focus groups of many voters we knew that was coming out. the problem was that feeling dissipates. that feeling was there for a week. you have to keep banging it into the heads of your own supporters and over time they started to remember the things they liked

about trump and they weren't being reminded by republican leaders. and this has been a failure for not continuing to speak out. i agree with that. because of what i said earlier, trump's win in 2016 created this mind-set in these voters is that we can be cool, and we can have our cake and eat it too and win. and once they had that belief, once no one stood up to him back then, once no one stood up anyway, the water was kind of contaminated. even when people do speak out there are a lot of people are saying there's smoke, people said there's smoke in 2016 and he won anyway. i think there's a certain segment of this party contaminated to such a degree it's going to take many years, not just a small little window of leadership to push people off. >> that's a dark prognosis given the fact he did lose in 2020.

and to that point, tim, jemele, i'd ask you i think tim makes a point people need to be reminded how bad things were. and there seems to be this collective -- i'm not calling it amnesia -- but a sort of down-playing of january 6th, which we certainly saw on stage last night. but trump was asked about 2024, and let's just play the sound first. this is trump reacting to a question about the 2024 election. >> if you are the republican nominee and you were in that 2024 race, will you commit tonight to accepting the results of the 2024 election? >> yes, i think it's an honest election, absolutely i would. >> i'm old enough to remember if that's the thing trump said about 2020. if you have forgotten what he said on january 6th in 2020, here's another data point. this guy is going to try to do it again in 2024. >> i think people forget, too, he said this in 2016 as well.

this is something he bleeds, right, that he can't lose. if he does lose there must have been something illegitimate about the process that caused him to lose. this will remind a lot of normal voters who watch this, oh, that's what this guy is. but frng for republicans, i agree with tim here, i think for republicans it is a reminder this guy is never going to let himself be a loser. he's always going to be a winner. there's always going to be push back against people who say he's going to lose, and that just binds him to his voters. the thing that makes trump unique he does have this powerful like parasocial relationship with at least a small majority of the republican voter base, maybe more or less depending on circumstances, but that is like his great -- no pun intended -- trump card. it's likely what's going to help him win and what allows him, i think, to make these claims,

make these bids for i'm never going to acknowledge my defeat because i have this amen corner of people always going to stand with me in the face of anything people say is a defeat. i think in 2024 if he loses, we should expect him to hold on again. my view is that trump is going to be part of our politics basically until he is, you know, is incapable of being so, until he physically can no longer be on the scene, but i don't think he's going to leave. i think he's sort of -- he's captured too much of the republican party to be able to just leave at this point. >> tim, the only moment of hesitancy that i saw from trump last night was on the topic of abortion, and effectively the president couldn't articulate whether he would try and pass a federal ban, whether he'd support one. and i thought it ironic in the same hour he has the crowd laughing about sexual assault he

wants to be careful on the subject of reproductive freedom and women controlling their own bodies. can you explain that to me? i mean the idea that a republican party can reveal itself to be the party that laughs at women who are victims of sexual assault, that it would still care about what women think about their own bodies on a different topic seems ironic to me. i don't understand the political calculation there. >> i can't explain it, actually. i know the answer to this one, alex. trump was always pro-choice. he stumbled on this one way back in 2016 with chris matthews when he said we should criminalize the mothers and even pro-lifers are like, whoa, not even many of us are for that, and then he had to backtrack. the thing is trump's new york, he's pro-choice, and i think the people in his circles are generally pro-choice, so he worries about the political impact of this. trump actually there were reports behind the scenes in 2020 he was trying to say --

excuse me, 2022. republicans didn't lose because of the election denialism, they lost because of overturning of roe. he can be extreme on the issues of immigration, democracy, et cetera but carve a different path on the other social issues, this is kind of this reptilian strategic, you know, effort that he tries to put forth where he sees these issues as the places where he can moderate. >> i'm just going to say it again, if you're in favor of protecting bodily autonomy perhaps you should be in favor of women not getting sexually assaulted. just saying. just putting it out there for anybody who's listening. jemele bouie and tim miller, thank you both for joining me tonight. we have a lot more this

evening including what donald trump said on television last night about the classified documents he took to mar-a-lago and about that phone call to a georgia election official demanding he find trump nearly 12,000 votes. all that talk is probably adding to his legal troubles this evening. and then while right-wing politicians in the media are trying to scare americans about an anticipated surge of migrants at the u.s. border, there are real people with real needs in harms way, and we will have more on their stories just ahead. t a.

when a comes to your documents, did you ever show those classified documents to anyone in. >> not really. i would have the right to. >> what do you mean not really? >> not that i can think of. let me just tell you, i have the absolute right to do whatever i want with them. i have the right. >> not really, not that i can think of. that's how donald trump last night further complicated his already murky legal picture. it is entirely possible that special counsel jack smith has now added that clip to his evidence file because if trump did show even one of the hundreds of classified documents he apparently squirrelled away at mar-a-lago, if he even showed one of them to someone without authorization that would amount

to a violation of the espionage act and could land him up to ten years in prison. amazingly this wasn't the only self-incriminating answer the former president gave last night about that particular investigation. >> why did you take those documents with you when you left the white house? >> i had every right to under the presidential records act. you have the presidential records act, i was there and i took and it's declassified. >> okay, first the idea that a president can declassify top secret information with a glance is impossible. but the red alert there is when trump says i was there and i took what i took. that statement contradicts what trump told congress just last month. they said the mar-a-lago probe should be shutdown because it was the staff's fault that anything that was packed and shipped off to mar-a-lago, mr. trump had no clue about any of that. there is more. trump was asked about another criminal investigation, the one involving his attempts to overturn election results in

georgia, which is when we called secretary of state brad raffensperger and demanded raffensperger find 11,780 votes for trump. >> if this call was bad, i question the election. i didn't ask him to find anything. >> we heard the audio, mr. president. >> i said you owe me votes because the election was rigged. that election was rigged. this was a call that was made to question the results of election. >> i said you owe me votes because the election was rigged. joining us now is the former assistant d.a. in the manhattan d.a.'s office and a current professor of law. i think a lot of people watched that event last night and were appalled, but there were at least three or four people i can imagine i don't know if deleted was the word but watching with great interest and enthusiasm. jack smith, fani willis, alvin

bragg, and probably letitia james. first, let's just start with mar-a-lago and trump's comments. the idea that he can't say for certain whether he showed classified documents to anyone, what are your thoughts on that? >> that's pretty significant. i mean of course it's not an admission but it's also not a denial, and i think that's really important because that's a serious crime. and it is something that you would remember. i mean, people hardly ever forget that whether or not they showed, you know, a highly classified document to a bunch of other people. and so it would provide, you know, important evidence to jack smith if he were trying to bring that case. >> yeah, and we have from some reporting i believe in "the washington post," some indication that smith's office has been asking about whether or not trump showed some top secret classified maps to visitors to mar-a-lago, which, i mean, again, it sort of sounds like

he's opening the door to that possibility in that not really comment. i guess i also -- i mean up until now i guess a lot of people thought the squirrelling away of documents if that's what happened was trump's vanity, that he just wanted this stuff. but this seems to open up a whole different potentially nefarious avenue of prosecution, does it not? >> this is why defense attorneys do not want their clients to go out and talk because the thing is you don't fully know what the prosecution knows yet. you don't know what's in the government's hand? and so you're playing a game in which you don't have all the information, and so you're locking yourself in, and you don't want to do that. and this is one of those situations. obviously he's been reading the same reports you have. >> yeah. >> he's concerned they may have some information he doesn't have, so he can't directly say it didn't happen if it didn't happen, i don't know. but that is difficult, and that's bad, and that's why you

don't want your client out, you know, on this town hall giving all these statements. >> you don't want your client to be donald trump, let's face it. it sounds like the worst legal job there is, especially when he does things in another breadth say about mar-a-lago i was there and if it's classified it's declassify. he's still hanging onto this notion he's been disabused of by his legal team he can declassify things by just thinking they're declassified. >> he has to in a public setting like this embrace the defense that makes him look perfect, that makes him look not just not guilty but rather like the ideal person. and that causes problems from a legal perspective because that defense is not always the most effective legal defense, so he might want to make this look like i'm the most powerful

person in the world and i can do whatever i want, and they were my documents and i get to declassify them and i can do whatever i want. however, when it comes to his lawyers who were watching just as prosecutors were potentially watching and saying to themselves this is a problem because we were trying to at least at first have a much more cautious approach in which we don't admit that he even knew that these documents were being taken. and now they can no longer -- >> talk with that defense. >> right, so they're locked into a particular defense that may from a public relations perspective help the president, but from a legal perspective is quite a difficult one to make out. >> yeah, i mean that is the fundamental tension here as trump is always insisting it was a perfect phone call, i did everything right, i'm not at fault. he's always concerned with the spin on his own reputation, right, the pr management. and that's running straight ahead into the legal reality he's facing, and i would assume

is this something meaningful that evans -- i mean is this something jack smith can -- can he use this? how meaningful is this kind of audio? >> it's very meengingful. these are statements from a potential defendant. i mean maybe not, but if he's ever indicted these are statements from him, he can use it. >> what about georgia? this was a call that was made to question the results of the election? he says it enough with enough force, again, that he's trying to own it as if there's nothing wrong. but that in and of itself, that admission seems legally problematic. >> right, again from a public relations perspective i really don't think it's the worst thing to say, look, i thought those votes -- that there were far more votes for me. and i thought you just need to find the number that will push us over. from a public relations per spegtive i can certainly see why he thinks this is his strongest position. but from a legal perspective it's much more complicated than that because, you know, you

can't necessarily go through any means you can just because you think you're entitled to something, you can't necessarily go in there and demand you get them back. >> and pressure state level officials, right? >> at least arguably that could be part of theory of the case for fani willis. and if that's so, then she has -- you know, then he has dug himself into a hole because what he's precluded is a different kind of defense, which he almost sort of precluded before in his tweets. but even more so now in a straightforward statement he doubles down on this is the perfect call, i did everything right, i did nothing wrong. and, you know, that can cause legal -- it has the potential to expose him to some serious legal consequences. >> he might have gotten applause in the room, but he also as you point out dug himself even deeper into a legal quagmire, can we call it that? it's an ongoing story.

rebecca, thank you for being here tonight. when we come back, conservative media is counting down to doomsday but we're going to get into humanity and reality of the expiration of title 42. stay with us. expiration of tit. stay with us hields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works.

as of today covid is apparently over, done. today more than three years since the u.s. declared covid-19 a national health emergency, that declaration is ending. now, when we think of the end of covid, we may think of an end to the death by the thousands, spikes of illnesses and overrun hospitals, the end of mass panic, but what we don't think about is the toll that covid took on populations outside of this country in ways that weren't necessarily physical. as it stands countries around the world are still recovering from the pandemic's just devastating blow to the global economy especially in latin america where covid-19 killed millions and it fueled recessions, and it unleashed widespread political upheaval. in venezuela almost 80% of the population lives in extreme poverty. "the new york times" reports in columbia where worker preces are

already weak, joblessness reached its highest rate on record. and brazil recorded the second highest number of covid deaths worldwide. so today the covid health emergency has ended here in the u.s., but the toll and chaos of the pandemic for a lot of people it is not over by a long shot. and with the end of covid is the end of a trump era policy called title 42. that barred migrants from this country due to the public health emergency. so with that, with the end of title 42, many migrants from many of these countries are expected to make a very dangerous journey here to the u.s. looking for something that human beings have been looking for since the beginning of time, to escape calamity and persecution and to find a better life. this is from "the new york times" today. while migration to the u.s. southern border has always fluctuated, the pandemic and the recession that followed it, hit latin america harder than almost anywhere else in the world. it plunged millions into hunger,

destitution, and despair. many migrants are coming from places like venezuela which was suffering one of the worst economic crises in the world before the pandemic hit. the mass panic deepened that led the numbers of venezuelans that fled to a quarter oof the population. a quarter of the country prfs population has fled. and migrants from cuba, and guatemala and mexico and el salvador, they're all facing very similar realities, so they are leaving. these are images of migrants crossing a stretch, it consists of more than 60 miles of deep rain forests and steep mountains and vast swamps. the darian gap is dangerous, and it is treacherous but also connects south america to central america, which gets many migrants closer to the u.s., closer to a better life.

once they reach mexico, they encounter the rio grande, the deep very dark river that divides mexico and the u.s. people ifcluding children die trying to cross this river, but that has not deterred migrants fleeing persecution and poverty and hunger even if the only protection they can offer their children is a floaty and a prayer. yesterday during a town hall with cnn donald trump said if elected president again in 2024 he would bring back his harsh immigration policies including family separation. trump said it was the most effective way to convince migrants not to make the trip. they love their family, they don't come, which is precisely the thing people people say when their children don't need food or medicine or shelter. and other people are taking advantage of this desperation to falsely advertise on social media the end of title 42 means the u.s. border is now open. on tiktok, for example, one video that has been viewed more

than 100 million times says, quote, may 11th, you cannot be deported, title 42 has come to an end. that is not true, but many migrants believe it is. ana gabriela gmez, 28, left venezuela with her two young sons in september. after nine terrible days in the jungle she heard mr. biden was tightening border restrictions against venezuelans. she didn't quite believe the president. i'm going to go see it with my own eyes, she decided. in her view the journey was painful but it was worth it. when we come back we're going to talk with hulian castro, former an tone yo mayor and obama secretary of housing and urban development about what is going to happen at midnight tonight and what the reality is for thousands of migrant families already at the border and most urgently what should be done about it. that is next. stay with us. out it that is next stay with us

♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're

sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. wake up, achievers. you're making the most of every hour of your life. except the hours that you're sleeping. so why do we leave so much untapped potential on the table? this is a next level bed, for a next level you. my circadian rhythm is kicking your circadian rhythm's butt! it's not a competition. i know, but i'm still winning! so, it is a competition. of course. save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. only at sleep number.

want to stop lower body pain before it starts? there's a dr. scholl's for that. new dr. scholl's prevent pain insoles are the only ones clinically proven to prevent pain from muscle-induced joint stiffness and strain. so you can stay pain free. right now humanitarian aid groups are implementing plans to help the thousands of people who have arrived at our southern border some of whom are arriving after weeks long treks through miles of jungles, some who have escaped political persecution, others who have fled rape and violence and many arrived here after weeks huddled in overcrowded tent cities in mexico. as that reality is unfolding, donald trump and conservative media are actively distorting --

distorting the suffering at the root of this migration, and they are instead stoking fears about the masses of migrants down at the border. >> because if you watch fox news the rest of the day you will see chaos and catastrophic results at our border. >> are local authorities bracing for just an absolute tidal wave or an invasion essentially at midnight? >> from yemen, from china, from others, i mean why are they coming to america? >> we know statistically there will likely be hardened criminals even terrorists among them. >> the record flow of people, drugs, and gang violence and none of it's good. >> fox news has spent the last 24 hours trying to convince as much of america as it possibly can that doomsday is here. they have a count down clock in the right-hand corner of their screen all day showing the exact number of minutes until a tidal

wave of migrants will invade america at midnight, which is after trump's title 42 immigration policy expires. when you hear fox news hosts and guests calling them potential terrorists they fail to mention the actual evidence. according to crime data from the department of public safety in texas which is where most migrants cross the southern border and enter the u.s., u.s. born citizens are twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes than immigrants are, and u.s. born citizenerize 2 1/2 times more likely to be uh-uh rested for drug crimes than immigrants. context is not fox news' strong pont on this topic. instead for years now they've cherry picked examples of immigrants allegedly committing crime or referred to immigrants as terrifying faceless caravans. if we all saw these people as people who like many of our own

family members and san sesteres are fleeing oppression or just seeking better lives, than it would be hard to shut them out, to punish them for wanting the same thing that so very many of us wanted, too. so what is actually going to happen at midnight when title 42 expires? and what does it mean for all of us? joining us now is julian castro, former housing and urban development secretary under president obama, and former mayor of san antonio, texas. for people who don't understand what is going to happen at midnight, can you offer your analysis of what to expect? >> thanks, alex. yeah, so at midnight as you've said very correctly title 42 is going away, and in its place inunited states is going to go back to title 8.

that means that many folks who never had an opportunity during these last three years to make an asylum claim are going to have an opportunity to do that under title 8. with that will also come consequences, for instance if they're come and denied and try to come back, under certain circumstances they can be denied the opportunity for at least five years to make another claim. and if they cross illegally can be subject to criminal prosecution. at the same time, the biden administration has put in some new rules that is going to make it harder for people to claim asylum if they haven't done that in another country. so what does that mean for all of those people that we're wuching in these videos of folks along the border? it means for a lot of them that their misery is going to continue. they're waiting -- their aspiration of having a better life in america is going to

continue, for a lot of them it means they're going to be ultimately denied. i remember about four years ago going down to a migrant camp on the other side of the texas border, the south texas border and seeing that misery first-hand people who were fleeing hunger, fleeing persecution, fleeing destitution, who were following the path that folks have followed for generations of trying to come to the united states as a beacon of opportunity. i fear that in this moment, alex, aside from all the technical changes we're seeing, what we're really seeing is the death of a philosophy that said we will welcome you as immigrants and asilees in the united states of america. it's always been true the majority of people that seek asylum did not actually get it in our country, but we have made it so much harder especially under trump and now even under

biden to get asylum in this country. >> can you explain why that is, and also for -- let me make this a two parter. one, there is a broad expectation that there are going to be thousands of migrants, tens of thousands coming across the border and northwards, major cities are sort of bracing for impact which is to say figuring how to allocate resourcesch do you think that's accurate? and if that's the case why isn't there a better plan to help these folks and help the cities in charge of giving them shelter and yours because it does feel in this moment there's a discremancy between obviously the fear mongering at fox and obviously the reality of these people as human beings and what they're going to be dealing with when they come to these cities northwards. >> there's no question we've seen an uptick and surge along the border, and when you talk to mayors along the border they

will tell you those communities, their resources are being strained. they've asked the biden administration for more help, and to his credit the administration has done more to help these communities, so we are going to see a -- some surge of people, but it's not going to be the cataclysm that you see on fox news, the fear mongering trump and others have put out there. the thing is this was very predictable. >> yeah. >> the biden administration has had 2 1/2 years knowing that title 42 would come to an end, and it dragged its feet at the beginning of the administration in trying to end title 42, and then when it did, the ending of it got held up in the courts, which didn't help at all. because of that you have this tremendous bottleneck of people. that's what we see in these images. but, look, as said earlier in the show we're also a country

that can deal with this. we're a country that can handle tens of thousands of people making their asylum claims. we're a country that has the resources and the resolve if we want to handle this in an orderly and compassionate and humane way. the united states is big enough to do that, and we shouldn't let people that just want to fear monger and use this for political points make us think that we're not because we are. >> that is such an important note to not forget in all of this we are a big country, and this is the essence, this is the philosophy of america, to be the beacon of hope for people who are coming from the darkness. julian castro, former housing and urban development secretary under president obama, and former mayor of san antonio, texas, thank you so much for your time and wisdom tonight. we'll be right back. e and wisdot we'll be right back. (♪ ♪)

(♪ ♪) where could reinvention take your business? accenture. let there be change.

you're going to be voting on legislation, how do you justify that with the allegations against you, sir? the allegations are not true. it's been quite a week for

congressman george santos. yesterday america's serial fabulist pleaded not guilty to 13 charges in a federal court in new york including unemployment fraud. according to the justice department he unlawfully applied for unemployment benefits that vd have gone to new yorkers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic. prosecutors allege he fraudulently received more than $24,000 in benefits. after being released on a $500,000 bond congressman santos came back to capitol hill on a series of votes including a vote on a bill to fight unemployment fraud. wait -- yes, really. congressman santos was voting yes on protecting taxpayers and victims of unemployment fraud act. do we call this irony? do we call it hutspa or wild

delusion? and there's more congressman santos is a cosponsor of this bill. he's due back on june 30th to face criminal allegations for unemployment fraud. and because this is 2023 and this is how things happen santos also reportedly made a deal for prosecutors in brazil today in exchange interest confessing to stealing money when he was 19 and paying a $3,000 find and $2,000 in restitution. in exchange for all of that prosecutors will drop criminal charges that have been pending against santos for more than a decade. that is once the checks clear. that's our show for tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. this morning a surge at the u.s. southern border as immigration restrictions known as title 42 have come to an end. we'll get a live report from texas in just a few moments. plus