border. it would make a difference with those undocumented criminals who kill and rape. that would still be in place. there would be no dealing with the reality in the immediate terms. that s right. that s why i think we have seen consistently that people across the political spectrum want to see realistic solutions. they want to be pragmatic and they understand in order to address the situation that we have now, steps need to be taken where all of these interlocking parts of our immigration system need to be addressed in a way that gets to the solutions that americans support, which are a path to citizenship for people who have been in the country a long time. it s not something that would happen overnight. it s something people would have to meet a lot of requirements to meet, and then that all of these other parts like interior and border security and the future of our immigration system, how
said yes. well, that s correct. we all know that any movement, any movement for social justice, has many, many interlocking parts. the very first marriage case was in 1971, baker versus nelson in minnesota. so that s 45 years ago. we ve got 45 years of heroes and people that have stood up and said that couples under the constitution must be treated fairly and it is one of the key avenues for taking care of one s family, because benefits are based on marriage at the state level. i salute the prop 8 case because they did stand up and they did correct the law in california alone. edie windsor changed the covers history for everybody. but these are all important
was something of a shock for british society. here we have institutions, the police, politicians, the press, all corralled and controlled by this gargantuan media mogul, so it was disturbing and dramatic even without the humble pie that you described just now. despite his testimony of hearing no evil and seeing no evil, creating that web of control would require an overview of all of the interlocking parts of it, and that overview was impossible to have sitting at any one individual murdoch property. you d have to have a view of all of the murdoch properties that were interacting this way. you would, and one of the interesting things, lawrence, and i think you of all people astute as ever have picked this up, murdoch s power and control was particular and specific.
here we had institutions, the policing, politicians, the press. all corral and controlled by this media mogul. it was disturbing and dramatic even without the humble pie that you saw and described so expertly now. martin, despite his testimony about hearing no evil and seeing no evil, creating that kind of web of control would require an overview of all of the interlocking parts and that overview was impossible to have sitting at any one individual murdoch property. you have to have a view of all of the properties that were interacting this way. you would. one of the interesting things and i think you of all people have picked this up. murdoch s power and control was particular and specific. he talked, for example, about the fact that last year when
it was disturbing and dramatic even without the humble pie that you described just now. despite his testimony of hearing no evil and seeing no evil, creating that web of control would require an overview of all of the interlocking parts of it, and that overview was impossible to have sitting at any one individual murdoch property. you d have to have a view of all of the murdoch properties that were interacting this way. you would, and one of the interesting things, lawrence, and i think you of all people astute as ever have picked this up, murdoch s power and control was particular and specific. he talks, for example, about the fact that last year when david cameron built a coalition government in may of 2010, he was one of the first visitors to number 10 downing street, and guess what, he entered through the back door, now i remember