It s family reunification. that s basically been the guiding principle of immigration law going back to the 1965 immigration naturalization act. so a little bit of hypocrisy there. a little bit? a lot of hypocrisy. a lot of hypocrisy. that s the first family, so i feel like i wish them well, but they are perfect example. it s a perfect example of the president saying there are one set of rules for me and a different set of rules for everybody else. look what he s doing with his hotel. the type of country that you come from. look at everything he sees. it s okay for me to run a hotel and make money off of it while i m in office and the hotel has a lease with the united states government. it s okay for me to, i don t know, his son to take a meeting with the russians it s okay for him to employ undocumented workers. many things, especially around immigration. there we are. raul reyes, thank you very much. coming up, tech companies are taking major tense to police hate on
Him get elected. the issue of immigration is very complicated, multi-faceted from a number of reasons, you know, between border security, interior enforcement, ike no, ma am mick magne economic mag. which is why republicans, democrats also have not been successful in doing something comprehensive over many years. what s happening now is something that the president of the united states could fix. could fix? with the stroke of a pen or a phone call. all it is it is a policy. similar to what happens in the obama administration when they made the decision even under be the bush administration when they made the decision to do catch and release or to have prosecutorial discretion where they told basically prosecutors, you don t have to prosecute the law, because it is the law. 275, the immigration naturalization act, that section says it s a misdemeanor punishable up to six months in jail and a fine. if you choose to enforce it that way, what happens is it was like a look the ot
Mouthful. you should look at the law and be bound by the law. there s an answer for that if you don t like the policy prescriptions of the president, you vote them out of office. it s not the judiciary s role to look behind the executive order. you look at the executive order and see if it is valid and if the president has the authority. he has the authority particularly in this area where his powers are at the height under the constitution. he also has statutory under the immigration naturalization act. would you agree or disagree he has the right? i want are your predictions from both of you. we are not going to get the actual final verdict if you will until june. i m curious which of those things. the key point is that is whether the president has authority and he doesn t. as in 1965 statute so we look at the law absolutely. as in 1965 statute that says you
Country we love, and it is cruel. that s just a part of the statement. here to discuss, cnn political commentators, cnn legal commentator matthew whitaker. good evening one and all. matt, the former president says the move by president trump is wrong, self-defeating, cruel. is he right? i don t think he s right. and remember, he s the one that kind of started this whole ball rolling. the president was faced with enforcing an illegal executive order that really was leading to nowhere. and ultimately the decision has to be made by congress as to what to do. because if you look at the immigration naturalization act on what you find is that categories of folks for immigration status are very clearly handled. and the d.r.e.a.m.ers, the folks that were brought as young children by their parents through no fault of their own, are in a status that does not
commentators, cnn legal commentator matthew whitaker. good evening one and all. matt, the former president says the move by president trump is wrong, self-defeating, cruel. is he right? i don t think he s right. and remember, he s the one that kind of started this whole ball rolling. the president was faced with enforcing an illegal executive order that really was leading to nowhere. and ultimately the decision has to be made by congress as to what to do. because if you look at the immigration naturalization act on what you find is that categories of folks for immigration status are very clearly handled. and the dreamers, the folks that were here, brought as young children by their parents, through no fault of their own, are in a status that does not allow them and does not allow the president to create a status and give them sought. so congress has to address this. i m encouraged that i see members of congress and the senate saying that they re going to address this. but i think