on the one hand, there s a large core of democrats that want nos wall money that wants no wall money, but there s also 31 house democrats who represent districts that president trump carried in 2016. and that s the concern. they re not many of them are not quite as resolute as the others. so this is going to be tough. the other thing worth noting is that we talk about this temporary funding bill, well, the white house said last week it would like that bill to include something that allows them to build the wall, not just in the rio grande valley but elsewhere. rob: you are talking about the red state democrats, those districts that are a bit trickery, but are there enough of them to get an immigration deal together, do you think? it hasn t happened yet. possibly, yeah, possibly. there s a lot of sentiment among democrats and republicans, including most important senate republicans, and there s a lot talking going on, so i wouldn t rule it out. rob: okay. let s talk about the usmc
regarding white house threat, if this bill does wind pup going through the houses and you know, there s some question whether or not that s going to happen. actually it could happen today white house is threatening to vee e toe with no money in it for add ad bet capacity for i.c.e. to detain anybody. zero wall money, and very little board of security measures instead, for the most part they re pushing protections for migrant children, and that seems to be the democrats, response, of course, president made is clear over the weekend that he will go ahead and start those i.c.e. raids again this two weeks unless they come up with a bill that includes get rid of the loophole and asylum neither will be in the bill. i wases skeptical to get something done and happy to e see the president put that two week deadline because he s placed immigration as a iter proo and he s saying look i want to come to the table i want to negotiate a deal. i don t want to go the rout of
threatening this morning that they qowld go ahead and veto it. because there s no money added for beds for i.c.e. to detain people, zero wall money, nor anymore money for additional border security measures instead, they re pushing more protections for children. you would think if they come up with something somebody would both sides would get something out of the bill. but in this one, it sounds like it is all lob side where had it is what democrats want, and nothing that the president wants. so steve this is what is is is so frustrating no one now didn t deny that this was a crisis both the humanitarian and nasa security crisis. so you re absolutely right. we need funding to cover both sides of the crisis we absolutely need it for the children, for the dead space but i.c.e. needs it, cvp needs it to handle humanitarian crisis and nasa security crisis. they can t be lob sided or this
and democrats made very clear this is not border wall money. this is not about the now out w outlawed family separation policy. this is about there are issues related to the humanitarian conditions and the simple day-to-day organization for those immigrants who are being held in u.s. custody at the department of homeland security and then when they go to the department of health and human services. that s something that republicans have been pressing for as well. on a lot of days recently, hallie, when we have been talking about other issues, we have talked to law makers and they have been telling us about the work that s been going on to find a funding package to address this. it is about immigration but not the wall. to deal with families but not to separate them. it is sort of a way to wind through this complicated and very difficult problem and to try to put resources behind it to alleviate some of the overcrowding and some of the harsh conditions. and this might be an area where t
well, the bush administration and the obama administration were both able to work with congress and spend literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on technology, on infrastructure improvements, et cetera. and that s the right way to go about it. i mean, they ar there are cleary places along the border that one don t need a wall and clearly places along the border where i m not sure that this administration is willing to take with imminent domain a lot of personal property of texas land owners in order to try to build a wall in a rio grand valley which is where, of course a lot of people cross. so, infrastructure, technology is something that i think now into three administrations have all looked at as a way of helping to improve border security. brian: bill clinton was the first one to say we need that wall. he started building it. continued on every administration. george bush didn t spend all the wall money he got afforded to him. now this president it s hard for him