>> from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. john: issue one, immigration in the dock. mr. sanders: and what i believe right now is not only that we need comprehensive immigration reform, if the congress does not do its job, as president of the united states i will use the executive powers of that office to do what has to be done. john: this summer, the u.s. supreme court is considering the legality of president obamas november 2014 executive action on immigration.

leaders and some politicians submitted an amicus brief supporting mr. obamas action to allow five million illegal immigrants to remain in the u.s. they argued, quote, today, the undocumented workforce alone contributes $130 billion to californias gross domestic product -- an amount larger than the entire g.d.p.'s of 19 others, end quote. 26 states disagree and have sued president obama. and the president took new action this friday, announcing that international graduate students in areas much as mathematics, science, and technology will be able to remain in the united states for three years after graduating a seven-month extension. will the court be swayed by the california brief's arguments? about the economic benefits of

pat buchanan. pat: i don't believe it will, john. this is an issue that has boiled completely, the campaign, the conservatives are all for border security, they're for repatriating illegal immigrants in the country. but the economic argument being made by the businessmen in california, i don't really understand its relevance. because this argument is based on whether the president of the united states had the authority, the legal and judicial authority, to do what he did in november of 2014. whether or not -- that doesn't depend on whether immigration is good or you don't think it's good. i don't think that brief is going to amount to a hoot and i think a much larger question is, what is the effect of the loss of justice scalia to this ultimate decision? john: what do you think of the volume, if that's the right word, the intensity of politics?

the argument the businessmen made is over economics. but to the folks who are supporting trump and a great many of those supporting cruz and others, it's the country, it's over what happens to america, it's over the idea of what's happening in europe. isn't our country being altered forever? is barack obama being a transformative president at the up in. it goes to the heart of patriotism and the arguments for economics of tens of millions of americans don't trump the arguments of the heart. eleanor: i don't believe the court will weigh whether we're changing america or losing america, i think they'll look at whether the president acted within his powers as an executive and i think they are going to look at the amicus brief from california and other places. the work force in kale, many of them are ill -- in californiamark of them are illegal, many of them are parents of legal american

and that's what's at heart here, the court is looking at the president's authority, allowing the parents of american citizens to get work permits to stay in this country. and bringing, i think immigrants are 40% of california's population, bringing them out of the shadows is the right thing to do. we should point out that the 26 states who are opposed to this, 24 of them, republican governors, the other two have republican attorneys general that have brought the suits and the governors have stayed out of it. and they're claiming that immigration hurts the american economy. so it's an argument that's directly at odds with what the states with the largest numbers of immigrant populations are arguing. so it's very much the line between the republicans and the democrats. the democratic debate, hillary clinton and bernie sanders are arguing over how many more people you can allow to stay in this country legally, whereas the republicans are trying to figure every which way to deport 11 million people.

voter could not be clearer. tom: i think that's true on the sense of contrast. one of the strange things here, the president, jeffrey goldberg who writes for "the atlantic" had a great piece out this week, discussing the president's foreign policy and why the president didn't take action against assad with chemical -- chemical weapons and one of the big premises is that president obama believes the legislative branch, congress, must have more pow for the these decisions, the executive power has limits. yet here in this case we see clearly the president refusing to enforce federal law at a very, very, very significant important concern for the country. i think it is illegal, i think that will be decided by the court. i think it's interesting that the two decisions that are in doubt are justice kennedy and chief jus withties roberts.

it's important that we have this big, important debate going forward. the democrats are say, as many more people rsas we can. the republicans are say, we need to secure the border, redeuce immigration in terms of people illegal immigrating. trump is right on that it's forced people like me to say let's have a prosofse reform and a process of dealing with this issue. clarence: we had a process of reform moving toward comprehensive immigration reform and what happened? it fell apart due to republican opposition. now they want to close the borders off and kick out the undocumented. what about the economies in places like california which are tied very closely with, as we say, undocumented workers out there. new york's economy and other places. this tends to be a regional issue. what's being argued is not really the culture, pat. it's economics. who is going to pick the fruit, pick the vegetables? pat: what eleanor said, did the president of the united states

mine, have the authority and right to do what he did? we didn't -- the court decides that, did he? but i'll tell you this your argument, or my argument and what i'm saying that is going to be the number one argument in the election of 2016 and donald trump and, i think in places like michigan and in places like ohio, these -- pennsylvania, these are the -- this is the issue that can tip those states into the red column, eleanor. eleanor: we'll see. there are a lot of -- clarence: campaign got launched on these issues but hasn't finished yet. eleanor: there are a lot of people here legally who are going to vote and a republican who can't get -- pat: and illegal people who also vote. eleanor: i don't believe that's the case. a republican who can't get 40% of this hispanic vote is not going to do well in a general election. john: will the court be swayed by the mexican national who

times yet killed five people this week? i ask you, you want to try that? eleanor: no. there's still a round robin on that, i want to register my no. tom: no, i don't think they'll take that into consideration. you need to secure the border which i don't think lib rahles are serious about. -- liberals are serious about. and congress has a role. founders intended congress to do this. it's not the role of the exec i have to decide -- eleanor: you're talking about citizens. the republican party is so big on family values. what about family values here? you going to rip the parents out and deport them? together. eleanor: american citizens don't get deported. pat: your point, john that atrocity, that's not going to influence the court.

couple more of those in the fall of this year, that will influence who is the next president of the united states, and if they have those atrocities, i'll tell you, it will underscore donald trump's campaign, he's the nominee. eleanor: that's a weak read to run on, to be expecting atrossities, counting on them. clarence: it has been documented they have lower crime rates -- pat: you going to tell that to the families of the victims. clarence: i don't have to speak to the families of the victims but i do have to speak to the public about how do we proceed from here on out and we can't be governed by feelings from here on out. electorate. john: is that difficult for you? clarence: it's easy for me. john: whatever it takes. does it surprise you that there immigrants and their families in the united states? legals in every year. be tabled as well.

on immigration, that's not only not surprising, it's a positive development. pat: we've had periods of low immigration, periods of high immigration, periods of no immigration. we need a time out. john: have we had higher immigration rate than we have now? eleanor: probably when my parents came over? pat: in the 1920's to 1940's, -- from 1890 to 1920, you had a similar percentage but based on a population of 110 million not 320 million. cloich when bush was president and mccain was running, we talked about immigration reform but then mccain ran into a brick wall and we haven't had a serious debate since then. that's why we're living in this situation since then. pat: the public made their views known to the congress. clarence: but why don't we have a serious debate? pat: we did and you lost. you lost that one.

a minority voice -- john: you're all talking at once, it has to stop. exit question, this is the way to stop. how will the court rule on president obama's executive action on immigration? one word, is it constitutional or unconstitutional? pat: unconstitutional but i don't know how it's going to rule. eleanor: i believe it's constitutional based on what former presidents going back to president eisenhower and probably before that have done in terms of this issue. so i would guess constitutional. but, you know, it's always risky to predict what the court will do, especially when it's an eight-member court. tom: i think it's obviously it's unconstitutional, it'll be a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the court of appeals and it will be ruled unconstitutional. clarence: i think it's constitutional around the president's emergency powers and other executive powers, it's the kind of regulatory enforcement

the past and especially now when you've got fruit on the vines out there waiting for people to pick it, the president can make the argument very easily that we need to take some action right now. john: so that amounts to the court ruling against obama's jew surpation of powers that belong to the legislative branch. eleanor: the court turned back that arizona law which was very anti-immigration and they said very plainly that immigration is a federal issue, not a state by state issue. i expect they're going to continue in that vein. pat: if the court calls it constitutional, the next president of the united states can abuse his executive authority to repeal it. john: when we come back -- hold on now. we have a lot of show left.

prices. john: issue two. picking a running mate. >> have you been asked or is there any likelihood or any truth to the rumors that she would approach you, on a scale of one to

n-be-mentioned-but-i-have-to-con centrate-on-the-job-i'm doing. >> stephen that's flattering to etch be mentioned but i have to concentrate on the job i'm doing right now. >> so she has asked. john: julian castro on whether he would would accept an invitation to be hillary clinton's rounding mate. mr. castro, age 41, is widely regarded in democratic circles for his chris ma as a potential vote winner with hispanic voters, yet with the campaign fully under way, republican presidential hopefuls such as donald trump are also considering who they might pick as their running mate. who will trump pick? eleanor. eleanor: i think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here but i must say, judging by the,

to endorse trump, i think trump's not going to have any difficulty recruiting somebody to run with him. i think the republican party is going to begin to coalesce around him. for trump, if he could get kasich as ohio governor, i imagine he'd look at marco rubio, little marco, if they could set aside the personal insults. but my favorite is former senator scott brown, he was elected from massachusetts, then ran in new hampshire, didn't come through he evidently endorsed trump in february. he looks really good. he kind of would give trump some establishment patina. i think that's who i'll say today. today, anyway. pat: i think that's an interesting selection. you know, the -- whether he picks kasich depends of course on whether kasich beats him in trump beats kasich, you don't need him. but would kasich help somewhat in michigan and illinois? if we can get into those blue states, and pennsylvania, he's

that corner of pennsylvania, but rubio had a great, i think an excellent final debate this week, and -- but he hasn't won anything, he hasn't -- eleanor: and he doesn't seem, he a potential candidate. pat: let me tell you, ted cruz, however, i think would bring energy from the conservatives, but after you've said the guy raised his hand, or brought the bible in and holds it up and starts lying, an this is what trump has said about him, it's hard to get together. clarence: i think kasich looks good here because a republican has not gotten to the white house without winning ohio. if kasich happens to beat trump in ohio which makes sense since he's governor, it makes him all that much more valuable as a running mate. i think my personal choice though for trump to pick would be michael bloomberg except they both come from new york. you've got to balance that ticket out. broaden his base one way or the other.

he needs the more establishment conservatives to sign up to him he needs to consolidate his conservatives. and i think he needs a candidate who has something different to him in the sense of seem manager -- seeming more reserved, elder statesman, someone who has the ability to represent but show deference, be the second face on the ticket. i thought pat would make a good pat: i'm too young for the ticket. tom: i think scott brown is interesting. i think -- with trump, of course, the chris christie thing, what is being offered to stand there with that face. eleanor: attorney general would be better. pat: i'll go with eleanor on that, attorney general. ben carson would be secretary of education in a second. he'd do an outstanding job. eleanor: but you don't see him as vice president? pat: no, i don't. eleanor: i don't either. clarence: they wouldn't jell, would they? pat: i don't think he'd bring

from hilly. -- away from hillary. who i think is going to be the nominee. clarence: i think education is good, that's a department trump doesn't care about. pat: some of those guys are going to extinguish it, right? always promised but never happens. tom: it is fascinating to see it, this is -- 2012 i was in loon. to be in washington and see how quickly the political relationships and alliances incentive changes, the degree to clarence: it's not permanent. tom: exactly. eleanor: winning has its own dynamic, there's a bandwagon john: what about california congressman duncan hunter? pat: he's a good man. his father was, i think a great congressman. but no way we're going to carry california, john.

nixon might have carried it six or seven times, reagan carried it all four time he is ran, gone. tom: you need that midwest purple state. john: who was one of the first to endorse trump? pat: jeff sessions was one of the strong ones, chris christie was one of them. john: duncan was one of the first. eleanor: loyalty might get him a spot on a committee. tom: on the democratic side as well, julian castro is being talked about. pat: elizabeth warren with hillary. going with a populist add-on to hillary's centrist appeal. two women, i don't know.

warren has a brighter future in the senate. i think she's a power house senator and she will have veto power over, if it's a president clinton, over those economic appointments and the treasury. no more goldman sachs. pat: hillary going to have to give back a lot of money. clarence: i find it hard to believe she'd sit still. if hillary did cut a deal with goldman sachs that elizabeth warren didn't approve of. pat: i don't see hillary breaking up the banks. john: question if sanders whens the democratic nomination, will he pick hillary as his running mate? pat: she wouldn't take it. eleanor: not going to happen. either the number one spot or the number two spot that you just speculated. tom: it wouldn't, maybe he'd go with biden or something. clarence: he would need somebody like hillary, an establishment.

would be good. eleanor: at the gridiron where clarence performed, vice president biden said if all else fails, i'm available. clarence: and knowing joe, he was serious. pat: they need a younger person. hillary is up there. donald trump is almost 70. you need a younger person. john: the answer is he'll pick either hillary or elizabeth warren.

predictions. john: who will win florida and who will win ohio in next weeg's voting? pat: trump wins florida, ohio is too close to call. eleanor: split decision, trump wins florida, loses ohio to kasich. tom: i think trump wins florida, rubio will do much better than expect bud kasich will win ohio. clarence: i think the same. i think he may have the kind of surprise that bernie sanders gave us in michigan where kasich takes ohio. john: the answer is trump will win both but florida will be

this weekend, we paid our respects to former first lady nancy reagan who passed away last sunday. in his book, "reign of first ladies," my good friend and senior producer john robinson described mrs. reagan as, quote, a model of a modern first lady. he didn't hesitate to involve herself in decisions affecting the presidency, whether they were over people, policy, or politics. that is as fitting a tribute as any. say hi to the gipper for us,

bye-bye. closed captioning provided by cbs sports division we can do anything we can be heroes we could be heroes we could be -- tournament. >> one more chance.