lottery system. remember, that clip you showed of the president where he said this group, we want something from this group and others, that was a large table of bi-camera, democrats and republicans, they walked away with those four ideas. the plan presented to them on thursday by senators durbin and graham didn t address those four issues. it only addressed daca. it was inadequate border security, not ending chain migration or the visa lottery. it was simply an inadequate bill. so if we address those four issues in a serious way and bring the president a bill he can sign, then, yeah, of course he ll be glad to sign it. but that is different. objectively it did deal with all four of the issues. not really, chris. ut not to the satisfaction of the president. understood, raj. but they were in there, and it was a function of bipartisan cooperation, which is what he had asked for, what he had prescribed. so now that takes us to a why did things change? you ve heard the speculation fro
point? it is a sticking point for the chief of staff, for the president, and for the current secretary of state of homeland security. i was in the meeting that tuesday where she was very clear with the members around the tab table. i need a southern border wall. i need that physical barrier. i also need more agents on the southern border. this bill doesn t fund that. i also need expedited removal authority so that when people jump over the border, they can be removed immediately in an expedited fashion rather than be gummed up in the court system for years and years. i m not saying they re not necessary. i ve been down there. i ve spent time with the border police. i ve been with the politicians from there. i get it. i get it. many people ,raj. to be fair, they got it during the caai. it was the president who had a hard-line position on this and said, no, no, no, a brand-new wall all the way across. now he discovered maps and some expert testimony and was admittedly uninformed accord
that s all true. but it s also one case. and what you did with this report and what you do with the rhetoric and you try to paint a picture about these people that is inaccurate. i think we re both trying to make points, chris. there are lots of jorge garcias and there might be more if you don t act. what i m saying if you were really worried about who s killing people in the name of terror in this country, you d be focused on white supremacists. that s your biggest threat. ask the intel community. they ll tell you the same thing. but they re not your enemy apparently. your enemy are these people who come in illegally, and you want to make them look as bad as possible. i don t understand how that goes hand in hand with a bit of love, raj. i strongly disagree with your premise. the president is trying to fix our whole immigration system, legal and illegal. and the first step is to get a deal on the four points we talked about, daca, ending chain migration, ending the visa lottery
conditions in some places and figuring what is actually necessary. but there s a bigger consideration. there are actually two. let s go one by one. raj, is this wall so important that it will overwhelm what the president said he really wants, which was a bill of love? because you ve got to make a choice right now. it s pretty clear. if you want to help the d.r.e.a.m.ers and help with that urgent circumstance and not keep seeing stories like we did like jorge garcia torn away from his family and sent to mexico, a place where he hasn t lived since he was 10 years old, you re going to have to act and now. is that more important to the president than the wall? well, our priorities are very clear. we cannot get into a situation where we have a temporary stopgap fix and then a few years down the road, we have hundreds of thousands of new illegal immigrants in this country. that is not a fix, and that s inhumane, and that is not a bill of love. that is not one that will provide a permanent
but you guys have a pretty intentional effort to mak them monsters. you put out this report today that fictionalizes the risk of terror that is represented by people who come into this country illegally. we understand that that s against the law. we understand that it has to stop. but why make them all into villains? why inflate statistics and cherry-pick to make americans afraid of these people? why do that? we re not trying to say that everybody should be afraid of, you know then why would you put out a report, raj, that says base tli three out of four of them may be terrorists? that was the point of that report that taxpayers paid for. chris, let s be accurate. the report said that three out of four people that have been convicted of federal terrorism charges were foreign nationals who have either come here illegally or through the legal immigration system. so, yeah, should they be afraid? where were they radicalized? where did they commit the acts?