tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN September 5, 2017 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
r.a.i.s.e. act, funding the border wall. >> the president wants to see responsible immigration reform and he wants that to be part of it. but again, we can't take just a one-piece fix. we've got to do an overall immigration reform that's responsible and frankly that's lawful and that's what the president wants to see congress do. >> what would be the priorities for him in a comprehensive reform package? daca and what else. >> and certainly to control the border, to improve vetting and immigration security, engoforce our laws and do things that protect our american workers. >> let me ask you a question on north korea. in the president's mind, is it an option to simply contain a north korea that possesses nuclear weapons? >> certainly the priority of the administration is to have denuclearization of the korean peninsula, and it's also to protect american citizens. but certainly the priority would
be that. phil. >> sarah, you're talking about a comprehensive immigration fix from congress in a span of six months. i'm not sure the president's frustration, congress hansn't been able to do much at all this year. what gives him confidence they're going to be able to act on immigration? has he spoken to any congressional members. >> he's spoken to a number of leaders. they just came back from a three-week vacation. i think they should be rested and ready to take on some big challenges that america faces. >> why would the -- >> it's congress's job to legislate. it's not the president's job to create law. it's not -- it's congress's job to create legislation. i think that's something we all learned in 8th grade civics. i know i certainly did and i think that every member of congress should know that is their duty and we're asking them to fulfill it. it's pretty simple. i think that the american people elected them to do it and if they can't, they should get out
of the way and let somebody else take their job that can actually get something done. >> what consideration are you giving to negotiations with north korea over the nuclear program? >> look, i think in terms of negotiations, we're looking at putting aggressive measures, both dihel both diplomatically, economically, and as we've said, all options are on the table and we're going continue to push for a safer and denuclearized korean peninsula and that's the priority here. >> it sounds like the president is saying, and you're saying, that if we're going allow the d.r.e.a.m.ers to stay in this country, we want a wall. is that accurate? >> i don't think that the president's been shy about the fact that he wants a wall and certainly something that he feels is an important part of a responsible immigration reform package. >> can i ask you one follow-up question. why did the president not come out and make this announcement himself today? why did he leave it to his
attorney general? it's his decision. these kids, their lives are on the line because of what he's doing. >> it's in large part a big part of the legal process. this was deemed illegal by, i think, just about every legal expert that you can find in the country, including many of obama's own attorneys said that this was not lawful program. and therefore, it would be the department of justice to make a legal recommendation and that's what they did. >> but the attorney general -- >> thank you, sarah. quick question, yes or no, and then a follow-up. would the president sign a stand-alone daca extension? >> again, i've addressed this. the president is hoping to work with congress on responsible immigration reform and i laid out the priorities that the administration has on that front. >> so the president's voiced and you voiced some objections to the constitutionality of daca. where does the president stand on the program itself? >> i think that in the answers
that i've given is that the president has been -- and i think part of the reason that this is complicated and one of the reasons he's wrestled with this back and forth in large part is because this is not an easy one, and certainly something where he wants to be able to make a decision with compassion but at the same time you can't allow emotion to govern and this has to be something where the law is put in place and it's something that he would support if congress puts it before him. >> so he would support it if it came with -- >> again, responsible immigration reform. we can't just have one tweak to the immigration system. we need really big fixes and big reform in this process and we laid out the principles that we feel are important in that. >> thanks, sarah. the president has recently as february had expressed sympathy for the daca recipients. today, we heard in a statement from house speaker paul ryan,
who said that these so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers have done nothing wrong. was this a difficult decision for the president to take this drastic action, given what he said as recently as february, and does he agree with house speaker paul ryan that these individuals, 800,000 individuals, have done nothing wrong. >> i think largely, yes, and that's why i said it was one of the things that the president wrestled with this decision all throughout the weekend. i kind of addressed that. i think that's pretty clear. >> it was just that weekend that he wrestled with it? it wasn't leading up to it. >> i think we've been clear about the process, there wasn't a final decision made until the weekend because of the back and forth and the complexity of the issue and the ability to make the right decision and allow congress to actually do their job and provide a fix instead of just stopping the program, and
that was a big point for the president. >> i want to drill down a little more on what you mean when you said the president wants to act with heart and compassion with regard to these daca recipients. does that mean offering them a pathway to citizenship? >> i think it means providing a more permanent solution that's done through the legislative process. done legally and responsibly, unlike the previous administration. >> permanent solution, does that mean you're, like, giving them legal status, legislatively? like what is the permanent solution? >> i think that's something we want to work with congress to determine exactly what that looks like, but there has to be -- something needs to be done. it's congress's job to do that, and we want to be part of that process and make sure that there is a fix put in place, and that this isn't ignored like it has been for the last five years. >> if congress doesn't get it done by the march 5th deadline, considering his feelings about these daca recipients, would the
president consider giving them additional time. >> we're going to z congress do their job and allow us to work with them and be part of that process, but again, if congress doesn't want to do the job that they were elected to do, then maybe they should get out of the way and let someone else do it. >> we heard from the attorney general this morning, he repeatedly referred to daca recipients as illegal aliens and intimated that hundreds of thousands of americans did not get jobs that were taken by daca recipients. does the president share that view? >> i think that it's a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed americans in the same age group as those that are daca recipients, that over 950,000 of those are african-americans in the same age group, over 870,000 unemployed hispanics in the same age group. those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs, but again, we're looking for fixes. we're not looking for complaints. but we're looking for solutions and that's our focus moving
forward. >> how do you reconcile those statistics with the idea that hundreds of those of people if the president gets what he wants would achieve legal status? how do you reconcile those two competing interests. >> i think one of the first things is the president is looking to create a whole lot more jobs in america so that it addresses both problems. there's a reason he's focused largely since day one of taking office in creating a better market for businesses to create jobs, to hire more people, higher wages, he's gotten rid of over 800 regulations that have helped do just that. 1.2 million jobs have been created since he came into office and every single day, we're looking for more ways to grow that number so we're doing our part to address and create an environment that allows people to have more jobs and we're going to continue doing that. >> the president vowed to treat d.r.e.a.m.ers with, quote, great heart. how is this move treating them with great heart? >> i think by allowing an orderly process to take place. you know, there's a lot of people that i've seen attacking
the president for not showing the level of compassion that they feel like he should. to me, the most heartless thing that i've seen all day today is that democrats like nancy pelosi are using this decision today for fund-raising while the president's trying to fix the situation. they are politicizing an issue. if they would spend less time fund-raising and more time focusing on solutions, we wouldn't even be in this problem in the first place. >> the president's decision where all of this stems from, d.r.e.a.m.ers, supporters of d.r.e.a.m.ers say this is cold-hearted. you're leaving the future of 800,000 people uncertain, up in the air. what's your message to them? >> it's not cold-hearted for the president to uphold the law. we are a nation of law and order and the day that we start to ignore the fact that we are that, then we throw away everything that gives these people a reason to want to come to our country. if we stop becoming the country that we were envisioned to be, then we throw away what makes us special, which makes america unique. this president's not willing to
do that. the previous administration was, this one isn't. but we want to have real solutions. we want to have laws that address these problems, but it's congress's job to legislate, not the president's. and we actually want to uphold the constitution, and i think people across this country should be slacelebrating the fa that they have a president that is standing up and upholding the constitution as he was elected to do. margaret. >> i'd like to ask you about north korea but quickly on daca, is the president committed to honoring the will of congress, essentially, whatever congress passes on daca, or does he reserve the right to veto a daca fix if he feels that it doesn't kind of wholistically do what you're talking about, a bigger picture thing. >> as i've said, we want responsible immigration reform and that would be part of that package and part of that process. >> something on north korea, if i could just ask. vladimir putin has said that he
doesn't believe that sanctions are going to work at all against north korea and i'm wondering whether the president himself is coming around to that perspective or whether he still believes sanctions can be effective and if he has any plans that he can share with us to talk with the chinese president or the russian president himself. >> look, we've been clear about what our priorities are, that now is not the time for us to spend a lot of time focused on talking with north korea, but putting all measures of pressure that we can and we're going to continue through that process. we've also said that everybody, including russia, including china, need to do more to address the threat. this is a global threat, and everybody needs to take part in putting pressure on north korea, and as we've said many times before, both secretary mattis and the president, that all options are on the table and we're going to continue to keep them on the table until we get the results that we're looking for. >> sarah, the president has said that the daca recipients should rest easy. he's also said on several
occasions that he loves them. is he giving them his personal assurance that at the end off sx months they will not be deported. >> i think he is giving congress the ability to do their job. i've said that earlier. >> he said they should rest easy. >> look, the president gave the ability for us to have a six-month process for congress to actually step up and fix this problem, and they certainly have the ability to and certainly should take that opportunity. >> one other question about, during the other immigration moves that the administration has made, you've made the argument that the president's powers over immigration are very, very broad and unquestioned. why, in this case, does he feel he can't do anything by himself and he has to turn it over to congress? >> that was a specific statute within the constitution that allows the president to take action to protect americans. these are two very different things, and certainly not apples to apples. >> thank you, sarah.
two questions. on daca, >> two-question tuesday. >> kansas secretary of state chr chris coback denounced the decision because of the six-month delay and said there should be no phase-out. it should have been implemented immediately. what's your response to that criticism from a strong supporter and ally of the president. >> i think our response is pretty clear. the president made a decision and we feel very much that it was the right one. >> the other thing is that you talk about forming in jobs that could go to other people. has the president ever discussed this part of daca with some of the leaders of organized labor to try to involve them in the process? president trump, the afl, the cio, the steteamsteres and othe
they work with. >> i'm not sure about exact specifics on that. i know he's had conversations with individuals and relevant stakeholders in this process on both sides that know that is an issue. whether daca existed or not, the fact that there are 4 million people in this age group that are unemployed and certainly why creating a better job market is a priority for the administration. >> i wanted to follow up on what jim asked. i don't know that we heard back here the rest of your answer. you said that the reason that attorney general jeff sessions put out the earlier statement on camera was because it was a legal argument. but a lot of what we've been talking about in here is a legislative argument. why have we not heard from the president directly on this day, and can we expect to hear from him later today on this. >> you have heard directly from the president. he issued a pretty lengthy statement directly from the president. >> why was it attorney general jeff sessions that went on the camera when the president hasn't
went on camera to make this case today about what a big heart he has and how compassionate he is and how he wants congress to take legislative action on this to essentially save daca. >> the president's spoken about this numerous times in the past, but at the same time, this was a legal issue because there was a court decision that had to be made with a time line not placed that the administration created, but a time line that was created by the attorney generals in those states that were forcing this issue and this decision to take place by today. it was a legal decision, and that would fall to the attorney general, and that's why he would be the one making the announcement. >> has the president met any enrollees in the daca program. >> i believe he has had several conversations with enrollees and those that have been part of the program. >> can you tell us anything about that, in what context and what he got out of those conversation. >> look, again, i think that the president's goal was to talk to a lot of people on both sides of the issue, and one, do what it
takes to uphold the law, uphold the constitution, but also allow congress to create a permanent solution and fix the problem, which he's done by allowing for that six-month period. >> has he had those conversations recently as part of this recent deliberation? >> i'm not sure on the exact time line but i know he has had many conversations with people on both sides of this issue, certainly people that support keeping it as is and those that support getting rid of it. >> people that would be affected by it, though, right. >> i know he's had conversations with people that have been part of the program. >> you said the president wrestled with the decision all weekend. can you walk us through any of the process he went throw get to this, when did he make the decision, how this came about. >> he made the final decision over the weekend and as i said, he spoke to many relevant stakeholders and individuals that support a variety of positions on this program. >> can you tell us anything about the meeting today of the
big six, what are you expecting out of that, anything you're hoping to get out of that. >> we'll continue to keep you guys posted. i think the ultimate goal is as congress is coming back into session to talk about some of the big priorities, certainly tax reform, immigration reform, among many other things that are going to be on the agenda for the fall. >> the president -- >> i'll go here and come back to you. >> the president's basically told congress to do this, but he hasn't written any legislation similar to how he approached -- >> i didn't know it was the president's job to write out specific details of legislation. i think that's -- >> other presidents with their major initiatives have taken a greater role in helping to craft that legislation. they found friendly allies in congress to propose it but this president has not. why has he made that shift and is he reconsidering it in light of the fact that some of the other major pushes he's tried to make have not been successful legislatively. >> we've laid out detailed principles and worked with congress on specific pieces of legislation and will continue to
do that. >> quick international question. the situation in myanmar is quickly escalating into a major humanitarian vic humanitarian crisis. is the president planning to speak to any of the leaders about this situation. >> i know this is something that we're monitoring closely, but i'm not aware of any specific conversations that are planned at this time. but as always, in calls like that, we will keep you guys posted and put a readout after. >> the president says that d.r.e.a.m.ers won't be a priority for enforcement but that's not a guarantee of protection. is this white house willing to offer one? >> those are certainly, again, they're not a targeted priority, but the goal here is that congress actually fixes the problem and then that isn't an issue. and so that's the focus over the next six months is making sure that something takes place that congress does their job and a real solution implement. >> but is there a way to put this in writing so that these
800,000 people who are very fearful of ending up in a country that they don't know have some guarantee that, in fact, they won't be deported in six months. >> i think that the statement that the president put out earlier today is -- lays out what the priorities are and lays out what the focus of the administration is, and that if they are not targeted, they are not certainly not priority targets of this administration. they weren't before and they won't be now. and again, congress has six months, which is a pretty long time to get something done, and we hope they do and there's a solution in that so that this isn't a problem moving forward. >> i was wondering, you mentioned that the president had spoken over the weekend or in increasing days to various stakeholders. we talked to the attorney general's office in texas and they said they did not get a heads up or any -- nobody conferring with them about this. did you all talk to the ten states and are you positive that they are not suing. >> i know that various members
of the administration have been in contact with individuals in those states. i'm going to wrap here but i have one note. i have one thing. >> can you answer the second part. >> i have one thing i'd like to add. the president will be announcing the donations that he will be personally making to the various charities, and thank you to those of you that have submitted. we had several people put in submissions and he'll be doing that tomorrow. i know there were a lot of questions over the weekend. that will be a personal donation of $1 million from the president to various organizations and charities, many of which came from this room, so thank you again for that. hope you have a good day. >> was the daca decision a christian decision? >> that's a wrap. sarah huckabee sanders, you've been watching the white house briefing. i'm brooke baldwin. thanks for being with me. happening of course just on the heels of the administration striking a devastating blow to some 800,000 young people in this country known as d.r.e.a.m.ers. they now know that daca is coming to an end. that's the obama-era program that allowed legal working status for undocumented
immigrants who came into this country, parents who brought their children into this country illegally. it was the face of the announcement wasn't the president, as was asked of sarah huckabee sanders why, it was the attorney general, jeff sessions, who announced the move late this morning. i've got a whole panel standing by. david chalian, let me begin with you and i jotted down this line. i kept hearing sarah come back to this. she's saying the president took the responsible step. this could have ended suddenly and now we're going to phase it out over two years f. you can't get it done, meaning members of congress, get out of the way so that someone can get it done. you say she's right, it is congress's job. >> it is congress's job to write the laws that deal with immigration in the country. there's no doubt about that. this was one of the big critiques from president obama's opponents and critics at the time that he announced this is forget where you are on the policy and there are, you know, reasonable people can disagree
on where they are on the policy, but there was a lot of criticism of obama at the time from conservatives that said he's just going outside the bounds of the law here. and using his own words when he said he couldn't solve immigration on his own with his pen. and now what you have here is you have president trump, who is clearly the white house is portraying this as a decision he wrestled with, he clearly wants his cake and eat it too here in terms of being seen as understanding that there's sort of a compassionate component to this and that he's concerned about that, while there's also the rule of law here and he wants to make sure that it's all within the bounds of law, so here, take that hot potato, congress, it's over to you, i'd like this on your plate, not mine. that's basically what president trump is doing here, and they added another big priority now for congress among a slew of priorities, raising the debt ceiling, getting aid to harvey victims, and the like. now immigration reform and pay
attention, brooke, what was said there. she doesn't want -- the white house clearly doesn't want just a daca fix on the president's desk to sign. what sarah sanders made clear there is that they want in the next six months, something that is going to deal with the immigration conundrum overall, comprehensively. well, adding a kind of comprehensive immigration reform to the mix of things that this white house would like to see done after eight months of not really being able to get any major legislative accomplishment done seems like a tall order to me. >> okay. let me come back to that because i think a lot of people would agree with you but i want to walk back a couple steps. julie, you and glen and maggie wrote this huge piece in "the new york times" talking about this decision that had president had to wrestle with. the line was, plump, exasperated, asked his aides for a, quote, way out of the dilemma that he created. he promised to roll back daca as candidate trump. so, you know, you heard sarah say he made this decision, ultimately, over the weekend.
>> right. i mean, he's been wrestling with this approximate ffor months. when he first came into office, we talked about, would he issue an executive order to rescind daca immediately which is what a lot of supporters wanted to see done, they took his campaign rhetoric about wanting to terminate what he called an illegal program immediately. he spent months going back and forth about this. the attorneys general who you heard sarah huckabee sanders refer to repeatedly did create this deadline but it was up to the president how he wanted to act on this. he knew that this was his decision alone and it was his decision to go forward and actually rescind the program and to do what david just described, which is essentially to kick it over to congress but it was very telling when he put out his statement today and we heard from jeff sessions, some very tough talk on immigration and calling this an illegal amnesty program and talking about how it had victimized native-born americans but the president did not actually call on his statement for congress to pass the d.r.e.a.m. act or any legislation at all that would normalize the status of these
800,000 young undocumented people. so he's saying fix this, but what we didn't even hear from sarah sanders in that briefing was any sort of pathway to how congress would fix this in a way that would be acceptable to the president. he essentially said, we're going to end this now and it's up to congress to figure out how to clean up the mess. >> but you said that this was ultimately the president's decision, although we saw the face of this on tv today was the attorney general, jeff sessions, and so ken cuccinelli, my thought to you. why was it the a.g. instead of the president and this was the question from jim acosta and she wrote, a large part of this was a legal process, that this had been deemed illegal so it's up to doj to make this legal recommendation, so it was jeff sessions on the face. do you care either way? how are you feeling about this? >> ultimately, it's the substance that counts, but it makes sense that you'd be hearing from the attorney general. it was nine, not ten, tennessee's a.g. backed out.
but nine attorneys general made it clear they were ready to proceed legally in what is a slam dunk case. no one seriously debates that daca's unconstitutional. the president -- the former president, president obama, made statement after statement making it clear that it wasn't within the law, he just did it. >> a stopgap measure. >> yes. so what we're hearing from a hostile press corps is this is so mean and heartless. who's on the side of the constitution? and on this occasion, despite the objections of people like chris kobach and many trump-based supporters who wanted to see it end on day one is this phaseout. >> hang on a second. ken, if i may just interject, speaking on behalf of my journalist friends who are sitting in that room, i don't think it was a hostile press corp., i think they were just turning the president's words around. it was the president himself on friday who said i love the d.r.e.a.m.ers and it was the president who said months ago,
i'm going to approach this d.r.e.a.m.er issue by heart so it's a bit of a conundrum, if you think about how empathetic, sympathetic the president had been and now we see the result. >> so yeah, let's talk about that. under the constitution, what should have happened in acknowledgment that this is illegal and unconstitutional is it should have just been ended immediately, period. that's the strict rule of law position. so accommodating the kind of feelings that the president has expressed results in this sort of two-year phaseout. it's actually almost, i guess, a two-and-a-half year phaseout because in the next six months, some of these folks can reapply to extend two more years under the white house's proposed phaseout. and that does put this squarely in the hands of congress and as was noted, i think, by david, that this white house has made it clear that a daca-only
solution isn't going to cut it. you need to go beyond just this one problem, and let's be really clear about this problem. president trump didn't create a problem today. barack obama, when he was president, created a problem when he violated -- knowingly violated the constitution with this program, but because it's young people, it tugs at our heart strings and i understand that. it certainly does. maybe that will get congress to act. but it's going to be an interesting six months, and i, by the way, have no sympathy for the additional work for congress. maybe the senate should work more than two days a week for the rest of 2017. >> so, you can take that up with members of congress and i don't know if they'd agree with you or not but i think they only have so many more legislative days to go. so ken, i wanted to hear from you. and then andre, to you, with a much different perspective to this whole thing. how do you feel? >> so, i want to be very clear about what you just heard.
everything you heard about daca being illegal is wrong. >> no, it's blatantly illegal. >> this decision by president trump was a political decision and it's a morally bankrupt one. president after president for over four decades have used what's called prosecutorial discretion to determine who is a priority for removal and who is not. and that is exactly what the daca program is. so you hear a lot of words from this other commentator about rule of law, the constitution, this is exactly what presidents have done under their authority to enforce immigration law, under their authority to take care of the laws, under the constitution. so, your other commentator is flatout wrong. i want to be very clear that this is a political decision. daca has never been declared illegal. yes, texas, the attorney general here in texas, where i am, has led the charge against daca, but no court has ever said that daca is unconstitutional. in fact, this is exactly what
presidents do. this is what george bush has done, one and two. reagan, all the way back almost 50 years, so just to say words like, this is unconstitutional are meaningless. >> ken, you want to respond. >> quickly. look, i appreciate how you feel like you'd like the law to be. >> no, i'm not talking about how i feel, sir. i'm talking about the law. >> i sat quietly while you spoke. >> well, you are mixing my words. i'm not talking about how i feel. >> guys, please. >> this president has not taken up the legal fight because he might win is just wrong. i mean, this is legally in parallel to the dapa program, which was found unconstitutional in the same court, and if you just take constitutional as what will the court with jurisdiction say, this court has spoken to a virtually identical program. we all know the outcome.
and what the president did today gives this a two-and-a-half year life. if he said no, we're going to fight it, guess what? it would be over in two months with a preliminary injunction like that. that would apply across the country. i have one more point. and so you said just this is an execution of prosecutorial discretion. that is not true. this is the affirmative issuing of work permits. that is not the exercise of withholding prosecution. that is going out and legalizing the illegal. >> sir, i think you might -- >> laura, i sea ye you. >> i think you might not understand the process, sir. when people are given prosecutorial discretion in this country, they are given work authorization and the court that you're referring to is just the fifth circuit court of appeals. >> that is just wrong. >> the court of appeals of the fifth circuit was wrong. the issue has not been decided by the supreme court, and there are, although dapa is legal and
the supreme court has not decided that it's not, there are significant differences between these two programs. the dapa program would be much bigger. the dapa program was termed in terms of lawful status, which daca does not. but the fifth circuit was wrong on the dapa decision. the supreme court has not spoken on this. so you need to be clear about when you say a court has ruled this unconstitutional. it is not the ultimate court and president after president, for decades, have used this prosecutal discretion. >> okay, laura coates. >> whatever. >> that's a good response. >> well, andre actually is absolutely correct in that the unconstitutional definition that's being used by ken is actually inaccurate with respect to this case. and remember, it's all about the process here. we keep referring to dapa case and what's happening in texas. remember, at the time the supreme court weighed in as to whether or not there should have been notice and comment proceedings, you had justice scalia who had just passed away
and you had a 4-4 split which meant that there is no precedent on this issue. it has not been declared unconstitutional. the issue they're having with jeff sessions and justice department at the moment is they do not want to be in a position to defend what is otherwise a lawful exercise of executive authority under the prosecutorial discretion standard but they don't want to agree with the policy that they have set on the campaign trails and before at the senate confirmation hearing they don't agree with. that was the policy behind it. but either way, it is not only premature, it is inaccurate to say that the daca program is unconstitutional. having said that, it is the prerogative of the president of the united states and the justice department to try to do away with the policy. that's the risk of having done an executive order for the past president obama. not declaring it something more forceful. either way, however, it is a prerogative that most presidents at least since the '80s, even back to the '50s have exercised in terms of setting immigration policy and how do you know? because you have the
constitution under article 2 that says they can do so. you've got the code of federal regulation that you can do so. you've got a whole host of laws so i'm not clear why you would use the argument that it's unconstitutional when that has no bearing on a case that has not been decided by the tuultime arbiter of the constitution, the supreme court. >> i've got all these lawyers and i appreciate that you are back and forth on constitutional and not constitutional. ultimately, it was up to the president. we can't change the past, the man has ruled vis-a-vis his a.g. so this program is getting rescinded. you mentioned, you know, campaign trails, which got me thinking about the politics of this, julie. you know, when you add six months to this, that puts us roughly at march which is, you know, right smack -- >> primary season. >> in the lead up to midterms. >> what you were asking before, the push/pull did have to do with this question of unconstitutionality because
president trump did have jeff sessions telling him privately, i'm not going to defend this in court. i can't defend this in court as constitutional but there is the bigger question now of what happens now. >> yes. >> and whether or not, you know, you want to call this a six-month grace period or mr. cuccinelli pointed out that it's actually more of a two-year period because if you renew by next month, then your permit could potentially last until october of 2019. but the fact is, this issue is going to be hitting members of congress right as they're in primary season, right as they're all anticipating reelection races, and the focus is going to be on them, the spotlight is going to be on them in terms of what are they going to do. we're already seeing the immigration advocates very strongly calling out senators and members of congress who haven't come out strongly in defense of daca. we're going to be seeing them pushing very hard for approval of the d.r.e.a.m. act. we'll see what republicans and the white house want to try to insist go along with that. but this is going to be a very
hot political debate, and while congressional leaders had said they were inviting, i think when the early spring rolls around, they're going to be find this to be not the most convenient debate to be having, but it's a debate that congress should be having. >> yeah. no, i see ken nodding and -- listen, i a hundred percent agree. we're going leave it. i really appreciate all of you. thank you. we're going to come back to daca in just a little bit and also talk to a couple d.r.e.a.m.ers. let's also talk about irma. new update on hurricane irma. this monster category 5 hurricane packing winds of 185 miles per hour. the latest on irma's possible track and what the mayor of miami-dade just said about possible evacuations out of florida. and we are keeping our eye on the markets on this tuesday afternoon. the dow down more than 200 points, partly due to these escalating tensions with north korea. we're also learning about new activity on the ground there, involving the movement of
another icbm, intercontinental ballistic missile, a live report straight ahead. you're watching cnn. grid every day. at this and we came up with a plan to help reduce my risk of progression, including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.
parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time
to learn more. go long. breaking news on this massive hurricane now on a collision course with florida. irma, strengthening in the atlantic, becoming the strongest storm to hit the atlantic in a decade, it is knnow a category hurricane with winds at 185 miles per hour. the florida governor has already declared a state of emergency for all 67 counties and you see those store shelves. people are already swiping food in the case of an emergency. a lot of parts of florida are already seeing long lines for gas. let's get more on irma's path,
meteorologist in the weather center with the latest. >> take a good look at this because you don't see this very often. it continues to stagger the imagination with this rapid development and its growth. it just got stronger by another 5 miles per hour. this now ties the second strongest hurricane we've ever had in recorded history for the atlantic basin. it ties hurricane wilma from 2005. just behind now, hurricane allen in 1980. we've got winds up to 185 miles per hour. this is going to devastate the lesser islands of the northern antilles and again it's not going to discriminate between million dollar homes and nice accommodations and hotels and of course everyone else who lives around the islands. after it moves through there, we've got warnings now, british and u.s. virgin islands, puerto rico, they're under a state of emergency. we could see nine, ten, 11-foot
storm surges with this and even though the center may stay over water for the most part, those hurricane winds are going to knock out power and communications. as we watch it progress forward, we're going to need every single day this week because there will be fluctuations in its strength interacting with land, not just the eye but most likely the outer bands will cause it to drop to a category 3. if it drops to cuba and the northern coast, could drop to a 2 but i think we're going to find the waters, much warmer closer to florida than where it is now, that's going to be like jet fuel. the computer models, in excellent agreement. some time on saturday, we thought yesterday it would be friday, but now saturday, it will get picked northward. until that turn happens, we cannot let anybody know for sure where landfall will be. the models are really interesting because some of them are on the east coast of florida, some to the carolinas and a little maybe on the west
coast, into the gulf of mexico. but again, if you look at some of the models now, this is a european model in blue. the u.s. model, which handled these storms really nicely. in fact, the european has been spot on, even with harvey last week. but watch what happens when it gets to cuba and then moves to the north. as we get into monday, overnight, this is september 11th, we've got the u.s. model scraping the coast, much like last year, when matthew moved up in this area and we had historic flooding in the carolinas. but the european, even since last thursday, brooke, has placed it in this area, again, on monday. that will make possible landfall in southwest coastline of florida. but anything still goes and as we watch this move northward, we're looking at a major category 3, 4, or 5 and when these models continue to show our zone right now, we know we're looking at a significant impact by the end of the week. but every day is going to be important, brooke, as you know. >> i can't believe how intense she is already.
florida taking this super seriously. tom, thank you. in fact, monroe county, florida, will be issuing a mandatory evacuation starting tomorrow. all tourists, all homeowners until the florida keys being urged to get out of town, get out of those low-lying islands as the storm is moving closer and while a lot of people in the path of irma will be evacuating, some so-called extreme meteorologists will be heading directly into the storm's eye. my next guest is one of those who's making plans now to head toward hurricane irma's landfall. his an accuweather storm chaser. so you do this professionally. you just heard tom talk about how the potential for how powerful she is. why do you do this and where are you going? >> well, i've been storm chasing for about 20 years and our goals are twofold. the first is to measure wind speed inside the eye wall. we had this instrument deployed in hurricane harvey on top of a bridge and were able to measure
some of those that were rotating around the inner eye wall so our goal is to deploy this again, possibly measure some of those winds, hopefully not even close to 180 miles per hour sustained but it does look like a powerful hurricane that's going to be threatening south florida. i have enough food and water to survive for a week out there and one of our main goals is also to update on the conditions as they're evolving with this storm as it approaches south florida. >> you're the one who helps update so everyone else can figure out how bad it is. how do you ride this out? what are you -- what kind of vehicle are you in? >> well, we'll have an armored vehicle down there. it's covered with a protective coating, a poly ethylene kevlar. it's very important that you get out of the path of this thing, basically, because if you don't have a concrete structure, my goal is to find a parking garage and then get in those higher
elevations because i'm going up to stay out of the storm surge as well because if you're exposed in these types of winds in any conditions or if you're glow that storm surge level, this is a very deadly storm. it's a very deadly storm anyway. you have to take it very seriously. if it does go anywhere near the keys, you don't want to be on those at all because they could be under water and you could be trapped for a long time. it's very important people until the -- in the path of these storms heed the warnings. we said that about harvey and this one has winds that are even stronger. >> reed, good luck. be safe, please. thank you. ahead here, as washington is grappling over who's responsible for setting immigration policy, it is important not to forget those directly affected by today's big announcement, the d.r.e.a.m.ers themselves. many now facing the possibility that they may be deported from really the only country they've known, america. we'll talk to one of them live next.
booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go. and while i'm gone i can even check on my baby with this doggie cam. oh jack, you're such a good boy. no, jack, what are you doing? bad dog! and if you need to get back home, like right now, priceline has you covered.
you myour joints...thing for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪
getting back to the breaking news here today from washington, president trump announcing the phaseout of daca, a federal program that allowed young, undocumented immigrants into the country as children get work permits and social security cards and driver's licenses. he is, however, giving congress six months to save it. with me now, lucas, a d.r.e.a.m.er who came to the u.s. when he was 9 from brazil. he's now the executive director for connecticut students for a d.r.e.a.m. lucas, nice to meet you. >> thank you for having me, brooke. >> there were on your bus driving, you know, heading down to washington, watched, you
know, the a.g. news conference today. >> yes. >> how do you feel, finally hearing the words coming out of jeff sessions' mouth. >> you know, i'm not going to lie, i feel really outraged. i feel really mad. i feel really anxious. i think that this announcement is a continuation of an agenda that is based on racism, xenophobia and hate and for an undocumented person like myself or a daca person like myself, i feel really outrangged in the moment. >> we heard from the spokesperson, sarah huckabee sanders, and over and over, she was saying, you know, listen, the president could have said, done, and, you know, cut you all off pretty brutally, or the other option is say to congress, kicking it to you all, you got some time to figure this out, and it's up to congress to do their jobs. do you give the president any credit for doing that? >> i don't. to be honest, delaying the announcement of daca by six
months, for someone like me, it sets in motion a clock, like for me not to feel safe in this country. and so i know that he extended for six months and he's pushing legislators to come up with a solution in six months, but within these six months, i'm going to be counting down for the moment that i'm not going to feel safe in this country. >> so, you made the, you know, this deal with the government, and the government now has, lucas, all your information. they know your information, they know where you live, presumably where your family is. when daca became an option for people in your position and he came out and you said, yes, and applied for it, did you ever think that this was something where the u.s. government might rescind it in the future? >> you know, i mean, daca was a victory of the undocumented youth movement here in the country. we really fought hard to get the protection for d.r.e.a.m.ers to live without fear of deportation and to be able to work.
and so with this announcement, it really makes me angry that, you know, this countdown is now on for when i'm going to lose my permission to work in the united states and i'm going to have to go back into the shadows, and that's something that i'm not going to do, and i don't think we're going to do, brooke. >> what does that mean? what does that mean? because the question is, for people like you, what do you do? i hear you saying the clock is ticking and you say go back into the shadows. what does that mean for you? >> the reality is that -- and as you heard today, the reality is that daca is not a guarantee of relief of deportation. and so for me, i know i'm going to be here to stay, and there's 800,000 others like myself that are here to stay, and so for us, we are going to continue fighting, and i think this announcement is just going to let our movement become bigger so that we keep -- so we are pushing for a permanent solution for us and for our families as well. >> so you will push to stay.
i mean, we have to wait and see if congress gets their act together and is able to help you out. in the meantime, then-president obama said he would feel compelled to speak if this obama-era, you know, executive action went away. you know, do you hope to hear from president obama? does it really matter if he speaks up at this point? >> i think what is said and done, it's done by the trump administration today. he's killed daca, and it's going to impact the people like myself, and so when you're talking about daca recipients, the 800,000 daca recipients that are working, that are contributing to the economy, that are contributing to their communities, you're talking about people like me. and so we do need to come out in support of daca because we know that daca works as a policy and as a program, and so you know that there is bipartisan support for a program like daca. there's support from multiple sectors also. and so this is a program that
works and we're going to be fighting until we win permanent solutions for our families. >> how -- do you have siblings? how is your family reacting? did you have any siblings born here after you came over from brazil? >> i'm actually considered part of a mixed status family. in my family, there are permanent residents and there are u.s. citizens. my two younger siblings are -- were born here and they've called and they called to check in on me. and i am undocumented. and so we're a mixed status family, and because of this immigration system, it impacts families like ours where i'm not able to legalize my status, but you know, i have u.s. citizens that are part of my family as well. >> lucas codognolla, i appreciate you. as i've been talking to you, i was just handed three pages worth of a statement from former president barack obama. so i'm just going to sit here and read every single word of this to all of you.
this is what we just got from president obama. he writes, "immigration can be a controversial topic. we all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules. but that's not what the action that the white house took today is about. this is about young people who grew up in america, kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. these d.r.e.a.m.ers are americans in their hearts, in their minds, and every single way but one, on paper. they were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. they may not know a country besides ours. they may not even know a language besides english. they often have no idea they are undocumented until they apply for a job or college or driver's license. over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young
people, our young people, he writes, that if your parents bright you he brought you here as a child and if you're willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you'll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. and for years, while i was president, i asked congress to send me such a bill. that bill never came. and because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people in the only country they know, solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and to our country. we did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by democratic and republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. deportation of criminals went
up. some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements and went through background checks and america grew stronger as a result. but today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. to target these people is wrong, because they have done nothing wrong. it is self-defeating, because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to a country we love. and it is cruel. what if our kids' science teacher or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a d.r.e.a.m.er. where are we supposed to send her, to a country she doesn't know or remember with a language she may not even speak? let's be clear. the action taken today isn't legally required. it's a political decision and a moral question. whatever concerns or complaints americans may have about our immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this