i don t know that anyone care what is the substantive outcome of this is going to be as much as feeling like this was an advantageous political fight. you know how certain voters just sort of are going to register that information. i do think it is really striking that we are now almost two full years into the administration of a president who came in promising sweeping changes to immigration policy. and because the house is about to turn over, he may have lost his chance. exactly. it is a great point. the fact that, you know, we have the president pitted against the courts on travel ban 3.0, very watered down, was upheld by the supreme court, but you have this attempt to end daca, still attempt to punish sanctuary cities. do you think now with the divided congress, we will see
what they forget to say is it is all pursuant to statute which means it is power that congress gave them, not power use usurping. this was the basis of the travel ban 3.0 but they withheld his ability to make these moves with regard to immigration. it says in part when the president finds the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the us would be detrimental to the interests of the united states he may buy proclamation for such a period as necessary to suspend entry of all aliens of any class of aliens of immigrants were not immigrants or oppose entry of aliens or any restriction he deems appropriate. there has been a lot of talk if you re going to apply for asylum you have to go through port of entry and if you come over the border illegally you are going to be denied the chance to take the asylum route and workers including the aclu say that is not legal, to say you have to go to port of entry. preposterous to say it is not
say is that it s all pursuant to statute which means it s power that congress gave him, not power he is usurping. shannon: we have a little bit of that, this is the basis of the travel ban 3.0 by the time they got to the supreme court but they have held his ability to make these moves in regard to immigration. whenever the president finds the entry of any aliens would be detrimental to the interest of the united states, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens or impose on the entry of aliens restrictions he deems appropriate. if there s been a lot of talk about if you apply for asylum you have to go through port of entry, if you don t and come over to the border illegally, you re going to automatically be denied the chance to take the asylum route. the aclu is a saying that s not legal to put that bar on asylum. it s preposterous to say it s
about the history of rhetoric by other presidents who talk about how there s no place for bigotry in america. and he said, we need to look past the words of this president and look to the power of the presidency. and said that because it was religious neutral on its face, the travel ban, you know, should be upheld under the presidential power. but i think one thing that is really noteworthy is even what president trump calls that this was a watered down version of theravel ban. this was not the travel ban that sally yates refused to defend, which was travel ban 1.0. this was, as he said, watered down. and i think if there s a silver lining here, it s that the protests and the litigation around the country did have an impact in pushing the administration towards a more neutral travel ban than was initially put out, which included things like denial of entry for people with green cards, which was on its face indefensible. joe? yeah, you know, walter isaacson, it is this is travel b
during and after the travel ban was put in place, they don t matter. do you think the president s words don t matter? i think his actions is exactly what the court focused on and rightfully so. and the actions of the order were exactly clear. keep american citizens safe. we need a system in place that s going to vet people coming to america that want to do us harm and keep us on a path of security. do you think the travel ban 3.0, which is what the court considered, do you think it s a watered-down version of the initial ban? well, you know, obvious there is multiple versions of the ban, but the ban that was reviewed by the court did exactly what i think it needed to do, is implement extreme vetting to make sure the threats of terrorism, folks that want to do us harm here on american soil, are recognized and that we have a system that protects americans on this first mission one type of priority. congressman keith ellison, i spoke with him a while ago, and he said this travel b