november of anti-muslim videos. but the department of justice, the government lawyers here, they all along will say that this is well within the president s right to restrict travel, to make sure that this country is safe. in fact, just a few minutes ago, the attorney general jeff sessions issued a statement on this and he said, president trump has been steadfast in his commitment to the safety and security of all americans. the constitution and acts of congress confirm the president s broad discretion and authority to protect the united states from all foreign and domestic threats. so of course that will be the government s main argument here. in just under an hour, those attorneys will get up, the challengers will get up before the supreme court on what will be a monumental argument determining whether or not this travel ban is legal. john? jessica, another major legal decision overnight. this had to do with the issue of daca, another federal judge ruling against the administration
thanks for having me. i think you guys are getting pumped by the attorney general. here is why. i looked at the suit that was filed against california. it says in part this. the federalke government is thee preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. this authority arrives then i went back eight years and from numerous acts of congress. took a look at this with the obama administration filed on immigration against the state of arizona and it begins this way.o the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. this authority derives from the u.s. constitution and numerous acts of congress. they are making the same case in the same words. you didn t object when obama did it now its racist? how does that work? i don t think california is saying anything different. it s not california s job to enforce federal immigration law and that s with the sanctuary cities laws pertain to. it s exactly that. tucker: it s a little different than that. you r
harmeet dhillon, a civil rights attorney who regularly argues before the ninth circuit, and nevada republican attorney general adam laxalt who has been challenging california sanctuary city policy from across the state line. welcome to you both. good to be here, shannon. thank you. sue and i want to start by reading a little from the lawsuit. i know you ve had time to read from it. the united states has undoubted preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. this authority derives from the united states constitution and numerous acts of congress. california has no authority to enforce laws that help make obstruct or otherwise conflict with or discriminate against federal efforts. essentially this goes after three straight laws, . as you mentioned, shannon, it points out that there are laws in the united states constitution requiring that the government has the exclusive authority over immigration laws. california has three laws passed
part of anything that s done on immigration. although he talked to the press several times throughout the day, which made yesterday kind of confusing, he made it really clear that the wall has to be a part of it. i think for most conservatives, it all starts with getting a guaranteed commitment in congress that they will pass something for the wall. shannon: juan, a number of these moderate house republicans that went to the white house and met with him this week that there was no quid pro quo, no discussion of liking the wall to daca in any way. that s what they say, shannon. you got it right. it seems like the president has been very clear in saying there will be a wall, it just won t happen right now and saying in fact he tried to pressure the democrats as part of the deal to promise that they will not obstruct his efforts and a budget deal or later to get the wall. in terms of this deal which means it s part of the wall. shannon: to the point that we had this breitbart ha
nobody s going to trust the government that doesn t secure its borders. once that s done, i think we should do daca. we should do something that you don t punish kids for what their parents are dead. i am a conservative, but i totally embrace that. here s what i embrace, i embrace doing it in a constitutional way. with the president it was incredibly generous to say congress, you have six months. you ve had years but you ve got six months because we got to get this solved. he can t do it by himself. the people that suggested he could or should apparently haven t read the constitution. at the same time, he can t abandon the idea, which i believe won him the election, the notion that we will secure our borders, going to take control of who we are as a nation, and if he abandons that, then the president bill: do you think that he would negotiate the way the wall to get a deal? i don t think he would. i don t think he could. i don t think he would understand the backlash toward him w