access.wgbh.org announcer: from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original, for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. john: issue one. trump vs. immigration. >> they're illegal. we have a country. we have to have a border. we have to have a wall. mexico will pay for the wall. 300,000 births this year illegals in our country. that means we've picked up 300,000 people that are going to get social security. you have people on the border and in one day they walk over, have a baby, and now all of a sudden we're supposed to pay the baby. john: donald trump has announced his plan to reduce illegal immigration. here's what it entails.

first, a nationwide e-verify system that would be introduced to ensure that all workers are legal u.s. residents or citizens. second, mr. trump would triple the number of immigration and customs enforcement agents, responsible for deporting illegal immigrants. and would force mexico to build a physical wall along its u.s. border. the mexican government calls it, quote, prejudiced and absurd. third, illegal immigrants with criminal convictions will be immediately deported on release from custody and visitors who overstay on u.s. visas will face criminal sanctions. fourth, federal funds will be cut to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration. fifth, an end to automatic u.s. citizenship for the children of

both illegal immigrants and legal visitors that are born on u.s. soil. sixth, new restrictions on foreign worker visa and green card programs and access by illegal immigrants to federal welfare programs. seventh, over time, the deportation of approximately 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the united states, a proposal experts say that would cost at least $166 billion. the question, is donald trump's immigration plan sensible policy? pat: senator jeff sessions, who is very much anti-immigration or illegal immigration hawk, is one of the folks behind this. i think it is the most comprehensive program any republican has put out yet. secondarily, many of the republicans are agreeing with what mr. trump said, including on the issue of anchor

babies. people are saying trump's going to change the 14th amendment. you don't have. -- you don't have to. all you have to do is, i mean, the congress of the united states is the one empowered in the constitution to deal with naturalization and all the rest. sitting bull and crazy horse were not citizens of the united states. three laws were passed to make indian americans or native americans citizens. congress can deal with this. i think trump has really got the bit in his teeth and it's helping his campaign and people are emulating him. john: what's the size of america's immigrant population? pat: 41.5 million. this is what people want, is the same kind of moratorium on immigration we had from 1925 to about 1965, when we assimilated and americanized and everybody in this country by 1960's, we all spoke the english language. 41.5 legal and illegal.

john: 41.3 million according to the census bureau. that amounts to 13% of the u.s. population. more than one in 10 people. is this a record high or a normal level of immigration for america? pat: it's the highest number we've ever had in the united states. since probably 1920 or 1925. we had 15 million there but it was a larger share of the population from 1890 to 1920. john: i show in 93 years this is the highest level. double the immigration of 1990. triple the immigration of 1980. eleanor: are we done with the anti-immigration nativist sentiment here? john: he's just warming up. eleanor: the question was, is the trump immigration policy sensible public policy. the fact that republicans agree with it doesn't make it sensible. it is wildly expensive.

i cannot picture an america where we're going to deport 11 million people. and if you want to start the machinery to reject citizenship for people born in this country, i think that's going to be a pretty steep climb. a country built on immigrants. if we didn't have the immigrants coming into this country, we wouldn't have an agriculture sector, for one part. and when you talk about most people want, most people -- most people want, i mean, i can cite surveys that show most people want the 11 million people in this country to be allowed to stay and to earn a path to citizenship. john: let me ask you a question. donald trump also advocates a time-out of legal immigration, is that sound policy? tom: i don't think so. we need legal immigrants. look, i would say that quite a

lot of what trump mentioned is actually relatively moderate. republicans should have jumped ahead of that and it is ludicrous to me that republicans haven't actually presented their own proposals until now. john: they have. tom: but they haven't really pushed it in specific terms. you need that bullet point. here's the thing. with immigration reform in the country, the problem with what trump is presenting is 11 million deportations. we're not going to have people going door to door doing that. that in the end is the crux of the problem. articulating the debate, we need legal immigration, we need to secure the border. those things are go together. the debate. mortimer: the thing about trump's proposals are most of them are on the republican platform already. the really problematic parts are the idea of mass expulsions like you mentioned, mass deportations. estimates are 20 years and god knows how much money. and then the idea of the so-called anchor babies or the

birth right citizenship. that is just -- it's not going to happen essentially. for one thing, you're right, legally, the constitution, and the interpretation, this takes us back to the obamacare people will be looking for fine print so it can be re-interpreted. i doubt that the supreme court would go along with suddenly saying birth by pat: restrict the supreme court's jurisdiction under article three, section two. congress passes it and tells the supreme court to stay out. mortimer: you think congress would realistically do that? eleanor: it also takes you back to the origins of donald trump as a political figure in the current debate. when he was challenging president obama's birth. he's a birther. this is more of this right wing birther citizenship nonsense. nativism. [laughter] you know the words. john: excuse me.

i hate to interrupt you. in the past, america has had time to assimilate new immigrants into the melting pot. the common social experiment and unprecedented high immigration rates may overwhelm the ability to assimilate new immigrants. and we could end up like europe, with pockets of immigrant communities hostile to core american values. pat: that's exactly right. mortimer: it is not unprecedented. we've had a higher rate in the past. people have been saying for 200 years we have too many immigrants. pat: we've also had time to assimilate. mortimer: we are not like europe. go over to paris and visit around the suburbs. they are complete -- i'm talking about rome. you can go all over europe. john: facts here.

from 1925 to 1965 we basically had zero immigration, legal or illegal. everybody went to public schools. we went through the depression together, the war together. pat: we went through the war together, radio, tv. by 1960's we were one nation and one people. mortimer: oh, yeah right. pat: now we're speaking hundreds of languages. 200 languages in chicago schools. mortimer: pat, we were not one nation. you know it. pat: with 97% of us spoke english, the fastest growing language -- mortimer: and immigrants are learning english. eleanor: 200 languages in a public school is not a bad thing. if it weren't for politicians who tried to exploit all these grievances, and probably it was ted kennedy who pioneered the legislation on the hill that equalized immigration to this country, so that it wasn't just specifically from european countries, the world is a bigger

place than the folks you and i grew up with in the 1950's. pat: the american people have never voted for mass immigration and they have voted repeatedly to stop illegal immigration. it still goes on. eleanor: they vote for mass immigration every day. when they hire people. mortimer: it's the american way. marco rubio is an anchor baby by your definition. his parents weren't citizens when he was born here. if you do away with that, he would not be a citizen. pat: you cannot retroactively take away citizenship. john: ok. this sounds like a rebellion more than it does a talk show. when we come back, schumer's

rebellion.

john: issue two. schumer's rebellion. >> i found the inspections regime not anywhere any time. but with lots of holes in it. particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you can inspect. that will allow some of the radioactivity to be seen, but not nonradioactivity that goes into building a bomb. all the kinds of other things you need. john: chuck schumer, democratic senator from new york, opposes president obama's nuclear deal with iran.

the senator says the deal's inspections framework designed to verify iran's compliance is too weak. and senator schumer's opposition is a problem for the white house. senator schumer is a key voice in the democratic party. and is very influential with members of the democratic senate caucus. he's also likely to be the next democratic senate minority or majority leader when senator harry reid retires at the end of next year. president obama worries that senator schumer's opposition to the iran nuclear deal might lead other democrats to do the same. and on tuesday senator menendez, democrat from new jersey, did just that. >> if iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it. it is for these reasons that i will vote to disapprove the agreement. john: with every republican senator already opposed to his

deal and many democrats staying quiet, president obama needs at least 34 senators to vote in his favor. but in a further complication, on wednesday the associated press reported that a side deal between iran and the iaea, international atomic energy agency's, nuclear inspections will allow iran to self-inspect its suspected weaponization research site at iran's military complex. critics of the deal say that this arrangement will allow iran to cheat. is the iran deal doomed? eleanor: absolutely not. first of all, there's some reporting that the a.p. story about that side deal doesn't exactly hold up. and i don't think there's anything out of the ordinary in the arrangements between the iaea and iran. secondly, i think the

administration has made a convincing case that it's a very strong verification regime. and i think senator schumer and senator menendez waited to come out with their opposition until -- i think they're pretty confident or the white house is pretty confident they've got a firewall in the house and the senate with enough democrats to sustain the veto. so i think this is wired, if you want to say, and i think senator schumer is very careful, he's maintaining his, you know, relationship with the jewish community, as well he should. but he's also not torpedoing the president when he's likely to be the senate leader in the next congress. pat: schumer's deliberately not leading. gillibrand has come out with the deal. i think what schumer's done, he's taken his position, he's not acting, he's not whipping the democrats at all. i think they realize what's going to happen is both houses are going to reject the deal and

then the president of the united states has got 34 votes or more than that. the deal's going to go through. mitch mcconnell i believe this week conceded as much. that the president eventually is going to win this deal. that's going to be it. it's going to be the law, i mean, or it's going to be the international law. john: how serious is the revelation that iran's military is in charge of the assessment of whether it tried to develop nuclear weapons? triggers at the base. tom: yes. it's very serious. i think i'm the only one on the panel who is skeptical of this deal. people who were saying no enrichment should be part of the deal, i don't think that should have happened. how many would have agreed to that? the pot holes in the deal are now becoming apparent. the problem with here, with the iranian military controlling access, is that they will before. i suspect what is ultimately going to happen now is that as will get through. the president will have 34 votes. but i think you will see iran two to three years from now beginning to cheat.

they will cheat on ballistic missile technology first and then they will break out and then we will have a nuclear arms race in the middle east. mortimer: wait a minute. what about the side agreement between the iaea, is about? and iran was kept secret from the congress, the revelation has undermined confidence. you're talking about top secret negotiations and the parties are denying the accuracy of that report. so i'd give it time. if iran cheats -- eleanor: president trump will honor the agreement once he's in office, so it will be the best agreement we've ever seen once he cares for it. it will be fabulous. pat: it's a military base. not a nuclear weapons site. they were apparently testing allegedly nuclear triggers or detonators. this was in 2003, before the program. according to the american intelligence agencies, all 16,

shut down. john: how about this? how important is it to know whether or not the iranian tested nuclear triggers there? mortimer: our intelligence knows what they did. john kerry said before the thing was signed, we know what they were up to. john: it is crucial to understanding how quickly iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon and the extent of iran's previous efforts to evade detection and mislead inspections? mortimer: no. i'll tell you why. because plutonium can't be produced under this agreement and uranium, high grade uranium can't be produced under this agreement. that's locked in and without that, you ain't got no bomb. eleanor: and the energy secretary is an expert on all this stuff. they've done extensive briefings with reporters, with lawmakers. and if you listen to all the safeguards along the way, you come away as a believer. they will burp over there at 2:00 in the morning and we don't

know about it. john: tell that to obama. this summer's town hall meetings undermine obama's ability to maintain support. a new poll shows 56% of the public oppose the agreement, only 41% support it. eleanor: there's been millions of dollars spent on negative advertising. but the deal's going to go through. get used to it. tom: they will weapon size first, though. that's the problem. they will build the ballistics and then they build will break up very quickly. when israel has about 100 atom bombs and we have 5,000? tom: it ensures the revolution. blackmail. i don't think they'll use it but pros peck. look at what they're doing in everyone else is seemingly ball. eleanor: you're putting in place a deal the best that's available out there and you check along

the way. you don't assume it's going fall apart automatically. john: ok, youthful iran. iran's elderly leader often makes western headlines. but he's only one side of iran. after all, today about 70% of iranians are 37 years old or younger. and today about 25% of iranians are 14 years old or younger. they were born after september 11, 2001. question, are iran's youth jingoistic about the country's nuclear ambitions? mortimer: every indication i've heard and everyone i've talked to certainly indicates that they are not militantly anti-american. quite the opposite. they want to be part of the same world culture that america is a part of. you've got people in iran,

though, who are hawks, naturally. you've got some dubs in the system. what we have to do is deal with the folks who are really interested in some progress and not those who -- john: millennials have behaviors. millennials. you know who they are? values and attitudes from previous generations as a response to the technological and economic implications of iran. pat: this is one of the advantages of the deal. 10 more years, those folks are going to grow older and are they all going to say, what's the ayatollah say about how we should live our live? the prospects are if we keep them away from a bomb for 10 years, the odds are that it's going to get better rather than worse. it might get worse but 10 years or 15 years, no bomb, is fine. eleanor: president rouhani who is really the push behind this, he was elected on a commitment that he would improve the quality of life of the iranian people, and young people are really looking to him to deliver on that promise.

i do think that -- people talk about an iranian spring and we may well see that. doomed? yes or no? pat: it's locked. eleanor: i agree. it's locked. tom: i think you have of dealing with the younger people. charge. you have to deal with the person now you're going to have a nuclear arms race in the region. but again, you have to deal with the people who are in charge. eleanor: is that a yes or no? tom: i think it's doomed. mortimer: not doomed. john: it's a moral lock. we'll be right back with

predictions. 130 yards now... bill's got a very tough lie here... looks like we have some sort of sea monster in the water hazard here. i believe that's a "kraken", bruce. it looks like he's going to go with a nine iron. that may not be enough club... well he's definitely going to lose a stroke on this hole. if you're a golf commentator, you whisper. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. this golf course is electric...

john: predictions. pat: the odds have moved to 50-50 that hillary clinton will not be the democratic nominee. i want to salute the two women school. big moment for women. big social change. tom: that's right. ranger school, i know from friends, that is tough as hell. a credit to them. in the coming weeks, you've seen it a bit this week, with north korea, that's going to heat

up. kim jong un wants attention. and he's going to push the ball. mortimer: joe biden will not run for president this time around even though he's think being it very strongly. you heard it here first. john: inside information? mortimer: no. just my wonderful john: while he sees slippage with hillary, will that induce him to run? mortimer: hillary's numbers are slipping. that's why he's thinking about it. she hasn't changed her strategy. john: i believe the man who resigned as greece's prime minister will triumph in next month's voting, persuading voters that he's the best one to