why exactly does america need more immigration? everybody says it does. but do we really? does more immigration help ordinary americans? does it improve the country? or does it just enrich an elite class, the policy making class at the expense of everyone else? very few people are asking that question. but one who is, is michael antone who just wrote a piece in the washington post saying why do we need more people anyway? that is a good question so we are kicking off tonight s special with him. thank you for joining us. thank you for having me. tucker: i m glad you asked this. do we need a there of a million new people in america every year? what was your conclusion? my conclusions let s look at the answers that people give for why and exam them. they don t bear examination. reason number one is we need workers. we have all the jobs and we
there would be a transcript, but there have been other summits, reagan and gorbachev in geneva when they met for an hour by themselves with translators. there have been times before when that has happened. i want to ask you about human rights and the question of the issue. here s the former ambassador bill richardson on those. the president should not leave human rights aside in this negotiation. the gulag issues in north korea, the remains of our soldiers from the korean war should be returned to their families. there s about 5,000 of those. help the japanese on the abduction issue. i think that s important. but i think if kim is going to want modernization of his economy, a good trade-off is going to be a strong commitment of his improving the human rights situation in north korea, which is pretty bad. bret: so your thoughts on that michael? first of all, the president
let s basement. and thanks to these xfi pods, the signal reaches down here, too. so sophie, i have an xfi password, and it s daditude . simple. easy. awesome. xfinity. the future of awesome. tucker: president trump announced this afternoon that he will be pulling the united states out of the iranian nuclear deal of three years after president obama negotiated it. the president s promise to kill this deal for a longgn time. he talked about it a lot on the campaign trail. he won the election, so no one should be surprised that he did it. it was negotiated by the way by two groups, iran and the obamald state department, neither of which had america s interest at heart. it s hard to feel too sad about the death of the deal. still you have to wonder what it means, will it take americaoo closer to a war with iran, and if it does are we prepared to fight that war, or does it make lasting peace more certain? michael antone was a national
lasting peace more certain? michael antone was a national security official in the trump administration. he has just ran to the private sector and he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. thinks for having me. tucker: certainly no defense of the deal, which i took as a matter of faith was negotiated in bad faith and not on behalf of american voters. you ve got to kind of wonder, ambassador bolton goes into the administration and almost immediately there s a missile strike against syria and the iran deal is scuttled. he has said repeatedly that he would like conflict with iran. the question is are we moving toward that? i think just the opposite. what the iran deal did was give them a cash windfall and the business windfall by lifting sanctions, by allowing countries that have long wanted to do business with iran back in. germany especially. the u.k., france all started enacting commercial contracts with iran. it would seem the gdp go up and iran s spending on ballistic missiles
unwillingness i think more likely, of the chinese government but the kind of pressure on kim jong un s regime. bret: i asked michael antone about that earlier and last night, general jack keane was talking about this chinese envoy in the two ways it could go. if they start testing again, it s likely the envoy from china who just visited recently and was trying to negotiate, that that s not succeeded. to the point where north koreans are willing to start standing down somewhat and maybe get into some kind of a negotiation phase as a result. if the testing resumes and the bellicose resumes, we are kind of back where we were. bret: we are back where we were. speak on the president has put so much stock in getting his friend xi to solve the problem. he has tweeted about it, boasted