doesn't he essentially have that final card to create what would be a de facto amnesty if you don't come up with a solution? >> to the first question, we in the house and people around the country know where the president stands on immigration reform. we found it very disturbing as the negotiations were going on in private behind closed doors in the senate he had his staff people in the room as part of the negotiations. but we also recognize that the executive branch can play a useful role in providing technical advice. and we have met with the president's lead advisors on this issue from time to time during the last six months to let them know what we are doing to hear from them concerns they have. we have welcomed them to offer their input in the process. but we think that if the president tries to drive this issue either by threatening to do what you just described or by trying to jam something down the throats of the american people and their representatives in the house that they do not want, that will have a negative impact on the process and will not allow us to get to where we ne

>> i do agree what we now is de facto amnesty but i also agree with this.did i minimum use of trust diminished but trust us on e-verify that is not going to fly in south carolina. i doubted it will fly in arizona or new york's. there is lack of trust in institutions of government. i think it's important to tell our fellow citizens we got the lesson from 1986. we learned our lesson. we're going to have security mechanisms in place to respect for the rule of law then we're show humanity that defines us as republic. i'm fine with showing the high the man but the order that it is done is important. 11 million is not a homogeneous group. all of the 11 million desire citizenship. so to force citizenship on someone that does not want it, all the 11 million can't pass a background check. all the 11 million are not similarly situated. you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child that was brought here as opposed to a 30-year-old for three weeks. you would want not want the same level of analysis for the same groups. it's tempting to say one group with th

a failure to act is de facto amnesty for 11 million people living in the shadows. i think wherever you are on that issue's agreement on that. so shouldn't we sit down together and solve this issue? not only for the good of if republican party, but for the good of the nation. >> garrett: do you think the republican party can compete nationally in its senatorial issues if it drops the ball this year? >> i do not think that that's the case. but more importantly, to live with a situation such as we have is not something that -- what america should be all about and it's a tough road to a legal citizen status. it's a very tough road to green card and then citizenship. it's not easy and it shouldn't be easy. but we have shown them a path forward and we hope and pray that our republican colleagues will take up the issue and we can join together, republicans and democrats. >> garrett: i know you're averse-- as most politicians are-- to placing percentages on outcomes. is this a 50-50 outcome? better or worse as you look at the republican majority dealing with this issue in

don't agree with his bill and there are things he would like to change we haveree when he says de facto amnesty and we have a ack of enforcement of our laws today and we are missing a great opportunity to grow our economy immigration al programs that work to help create economic growth. president's to the actions for the children who illegally by ere their parents that he is doing prosecution, that kind of discretion was clearly written into the law to handle basis.-by-case when he starts using it for hundreds of thousands of people building doing is tremendous mistrust. a saw that in a bill passed few weeks ago in the house all but six republicans voted to cut to the funding to allow that be done. why? because that is the prerogative f the congress, not the president. while we can find and look for common ground about what to do people, those children who are brought here, the he tries to say that executive has the authority to do things that are khaerl set set forth aslearly the prerogative of the congress he is inviting both problems for his administration and he's inviting disaster for the

but what we have today is a de facto amnesty in this country. we've had it far long time.rly broken, completely uncompetitive immigration system , and the senate bill does a lot to move this country towards a sane immigration policy. what the house should do is pass a version of this legislation that could be conferenced together and the country can take a step forward in fixing this problem, which is an enormous one. we have a permanent underclass that lives in the shadows in this country, and we ought to fix it. and what this has always been premised on is the notion that there is a path to legalization and then there is a final at the end of the day solution for the border security issue, that we are able to secure the border. and this bill does, in fact, make great progress in the securing of the border. >> reverend al, your comments. >> i think that we can have different opinions. we can't have different facts. i think clearly it reduces the deficit, this bill. i think that clearly it creates jobs. and i think that it is very conservative for many of us that have been

i'm counting on the house, realizing we can't just continue on with this de facto amnesty, which is whatco rubio calls it. and i think that's an accurate description. >> counting on the house. but he raised a couple of big sticking points. number one, there's not a lot of appetite in your conference to deal with the legalization of the undocumented immigrants in the country right now. also this whole idea of going to conference with the senate bill, a big comprehensive bill rather than piecemeal. could you do that? can you go to conference with the senate bill and will it include a path to legalization? >> i think you can. i'm not surprise the that the senate bill can't make it in the house. two out of three voted no. the republican house was unlikely to see that as a main vehicle. but i do think the eight senators produced a decent product and it got better. that's why it picked up support. on our side, we have the individual approach, but there's also negotiations going on between our gang of seven for a larger, more comprehensive bill. we'll see that. >> are you open to a path to lega

mind, we to keep in have de facto amnesty in this country, people living in the shadows. think everyone, including republicans, agree something needs to be done about it. guest: i don't know the answer to the question. i appreciate the caller. she is right. i don't know the answer to the question about the role of the a portion of undocumented's. corollary -- she may be interested in this as well -- as the enormous contribution that undocumented workers, which there are many, are making because so many are working with false identification and false social security numbers, frequently complicit in which the employer is complicit, their contracting payroll, sosa security, medicare taxes for which they have no possibility of ever recouping because they are not working with the social security number to which they are actually entitled. host: let me turn to politics -- this past week liz cheney formally announcing her candidacy to the wyoming senate seat. >> i'm running for the united states senate because i believe deeply in the values that made our state and our nation gre

there are things he would like to change grade i agree with him when he says that we have de facto amnestywe have a lack of enforcement of our laws today. we are missing a great opportunity to grow our economy by having legal immigration programs that work to help create economic growth. with regard to the president's children whohe were brought here illegally by their parents, that he is doing this deferred prosecution, that kind of discretion was nearly -- clearly written into the law on a case-by-case basis. when you do it for hundreds of thousands of people, he's building tremendous mistrust. you saw that in a bill passed a few weeks ago here in the house, all but six republicans voted to cut off the funding to allow that to be done. why? that is the prerogative of the congress, not the president. while we can find and look for common ground about what to do with those people, those children that were brought here, when he tries to say that the executive has the authority to do things that are clearly set forth in the constitution as the prerogative of the congress, he is inviting both

what we have now is de facto amnesty. there is a better way.der security funding, it toughest enforcement measures in history. no food stamps, no welfare, no obama care. >> lindsey graham and immigration, what's he fighting for? 20,000 new border patrol agents, double the size of the security fence, electronic verification so employers can't hire illegal workers. that's what lindsey graham is doing. >> gene, you have a piece in the post about immigration, saying in part, we're quoting the senate did the sensible thing last week and passed a bill allowing law abiding immigrants here without papers to stay, and eventually become citizens. whether the house follows suit may depend on whether speaker john boehner has finally had his fill of washington's most thankless job. seems to me it should be an easy call. leading the house republican majority is like trying to get a bunch of cats to do synchronized swimming. surely boehner's gluttony for punishments has limits. if the past is any guide boehner's wish to follow the majority of house republican

those who complaint that this is amnesty, this bill we're trying to get done, there's already de facto amnesty because they're not leaving. and when people live in the united states of america without the protections of citizenship, some of them, and maybe many of them are exploited and mistreating in a broad variety to have ways. that's not what america is supposed to be all about. >> the senate -- the bill the senate passed a few weeks back were to be place thond efloor for a vote, it would pass, bipartisanly, today. e may end up working on a bill that's a house-derived version of immigration reform but i do believe it will include the path to citizenship for the reason that senator mccain just said. my sense is that in the house, what we have to do is figure out a way to navigate from today until the day of that vote so that ke we can bring together he bipartisan majority that we need. i think right now the republicans necessary in the house to give us that bipartisan majority and as many people, senator mccain and i, others, are working with our colleagues on the republican side in the hou