Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
New Plan to Slash Legal Immigration Sparks Fierce Debate. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired August 02, 2017 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN: -- pending an investigation. That's it for THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper turning it over to Wolf Blitzer in THE SIT ROOM.
[17:00:09] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news. Immigration debate. President Trump backs a dramatic overhaul of immigration law, supporting legislation that would cut legal immigration to the United States in half within a decade. And claims by one of the president's top advisors spark an intense debate in the White House briefing room.
Record low. The president's job approval rating falls in a new poll to its lowest level yet, losing even among Republicans, with a growing number of Americans dissatisfied with the president's performance. Will he stay the course?
"Seriously flawed." President Trump signs the Russia sanctions bill into law after waiting six days but issues a stunning statement calling it "seriously flawed and unconstitutional." Will he ignore Congress's determination to push back at Putin?
And Kim's money man. A North Korean defector tells CNN how he was able to move tens of billions of dollars into the pockets of Kim Jong- un despite U.S. sanctions. He has chilling descriptions of mass executions and warns there is only one way to stop a nuclear conflict.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
BLITZER: We're following breaking news. An intense debate in the White House briefing room as one of the president's top advisers defends a plan to dramatically cut legal immigration. The proposed law would remake the current immigration system by weighing the skills of would-be immigrants and limiting the family members they could bring with them.
We're also following new polls on President Trump, including one that shows his approval rating falling to only 33 percent. That's the lowest number recorded in the ongoing Quinnipiac surveys about the president's performance.
The poll also shows more of the approval decline was among Republicans than Democrats or independents. And after waiting six days, the president has signed the Russia
sanctions bill, punishing Moscow for its interference in the U.S. presidential election. But Mr. Trump made his displeasure with the bill clear with a signing statement, calling it "seriously flawed" and encroaching on his authority with, quote, "unconstitutional provisions."
Russia's prime minister says the sanctions amount to a trade war.
We're covering all of that and much more this hour with our guests, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat of the Judiciary Committee. And our correspondents and specialists are also standing by.
Let's begin with a truly remarkable exchange in the White House briefing room over a plan to slash legal immigration. Our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, was there for us.
Jim, tell our viewers about your exchange with the president's senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf, Stephen Miller, senior policy advisor to the president, came into the briefing room today to sell the president's new immigration plan, and as you said, it hopes to revamp the nation's legal immigration system, but it would do so in a pretty striking way. It would prioritize English-speaking people coming into the U.S., highly-skilled people coming into the U.S., which obviously is not in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigrants coming to the United States.
And so during a -- what became a testy exchange with Stephen Miller, I reminded him of what it says on the Statue of Liberty. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." The Statue of Liberty, it says nothing about speaking English or being highly-skilled coming into the United States. Here's how the exchange played out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: What you are proposing or what the president is proposing here does not sound like it's in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration. The Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It doesn't say anything about speaking English or being able to be a computer programmer.
Aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you're telling them, "You have to speak English"? Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?
STEPHEN MILLER, TRUMP POLICY ADVISOR: Well, first of all, right now it's a requirement that to be nationalized, you have to speak English. So the notion that speaking English wouldn't be a part of immigration systems would be actually very ahistorical.
Secondly, I don't want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty enlightening the world. It's a symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that you're referring to was added later. It's not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty, but more fundamentally, the history -- but more fundamentally...
ACOSTA: You're saying that does not represent what the country has always thought of as immigration coming into this country?
MILLER: I'm seeing the notion that -- I'm saying the notion...
ACOSTA: Stephen, I'm sorry.
MILLER: Let me ask you a question.
ACOSTA: That sounds like some national park revisionism.
[17:05:03] MILLER: No. What I'm asking you is...
ACOSTA: The Statue of Liberty...
MILLER: Jim -- Jim, let me ask you a question.
ACOSTA: ... has always been a beacon of hope to the world for people to send people to this country.
MILLER: Jim -- Jim, do you believe...
ACOSTA: And they're not always going to speak English, Stephen.
MILLER: Jim, do you believe...
ACOSTA: They're not always going to be highly-skilled.
MILLER: I mean, you really don't know that.
ACOSTA: My father was a Cuban immigrant. He came to this country in 1962 right before the Cuban missile crisis and obtained a green card.
MILLER: So Jim...
ACOSTA: Yes, people who emigrate to this country through...
MILLER: Jim, as a factual question...
ACOSTA: ... in other ways do obtain a green card at some point. They do it through a lot of hard work, and yes, they may learn English as a second language later on in life.
MILLER: So, but Jim...
ACOSTA: This whole notion of, well, they could learn -- they have to learn English before they get to the United States, are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?
MILLER: Jim, it's actually -- I have to honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It's actually -- it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that, in your mind -- no, this is an amazing -- this is an amazing moment. This is an amazing moment.
That you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak English is so insulting to millions of hard-working immigrants who do speak English from all over the world...
ACOSTA: ... came to this country in 1962...
MILLER: Jim, have you honestly never met an immigrant from another country who speaks English outside of Great Britain and Australia? Is that your personal experience?
ACOSTA: Of course there are people who come to our country who know English.
MILLER: But that's not what you said. And it shows -- it shows your cosmopolitan bias. And I just want to say...
ACOSTA: It sounds like you're trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country.
MILLER: Jim, that is one of the most...
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: And after that exchange, Wolf, he referred to me as being ignorant and made some other comments there.
We should point out, Wolf, as you know, generations of Americans have come into this country for decades not being able to speak English. They take classes such as English -- English as a second language.
Stephen Miller is right that, when you're naturalized, they do want you to have some English-speaking skills. But that, of course, is at the end of the process of becoming a citizen of this country.
The other thing we should point out is, even though they touted this plan up here at the White House and had two American senators along with the president earlier today, there is Republican opposition to this up on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina speaking, really, on behalf of a lot of Republicans, I would suspect, as his plan is going to be looked at.
He said earlier today that he's concerned that this immigration plan would damage his agricultural and hotel business that are big industries in South Carolina, and obviously, that's going to be a concern in places like the southwest and other parts of the country, where they rely on agricultural workers to do the kinds of jobs that many Americans don't want to do. And of course, many of those immigrants don't speak English, Wolf.
BLITZER: I should mention to our viewers we're going to play later this hour the full exchange that you had with Stephen Miller. That's coming up later this hour. We just played just the beginning. Much more coming up.
In the meantime, as you know, Jim, the president today signed the Russia sanctions bill, but he called at least several provisions of it unconstitutional and suggested, perhaps, at least he implied he wouldn't necessarily fully implement it the way Congress is seeking. What's the reaction over there?
ACOSTA: That's right, Wolf. The president released a signing statement as he signed that legislation. He referred to the bill as significantly flawed with clearly unconstitutional provisions. He was objecting to the bill and how it limits his power to lift sanctions on Russia.
But Wolf, a couple of things. One is, that is reflective of the fact that not only on Capitol Hill, not only Democrats but Republicans just don't trust this president when it comes to dealing with Russia because of what occurred during the campaign, during the election; and the president's hesitancy to solely blame Russia for being behind the meddling in last year's election.
The other thing that's important in all of this to remember, Wolf, is that the Congress had veto-proof majorities with this legislation anyway, so the president had to really swallow his pride and sign this legislation, because had it not been signed, I'm told by congressional sources that they would have overridden that veto, Wolf.
BLITZER: Jim Acosta at the White House, we'll get back to you. Stand by.
But in the meantime, I want to bring in Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, also a key member of the Intelligence Committee. Senator, thanks for joining us.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: You're welcome. That was quite something I just heard.
BLITZER: It was only the beginning.
FEINSTEIN: Wow.
BLITZER: Later this hour, you're going to hear from, Senator.
You represent California. Wouldn't it help your constituents -- would it help your constituents, I should say, to cut legal immigration, prioritize highly-skilled, English-speaking people as potential immigrants to the United States?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I'll tell you this. We're the largest agricultural producer in America. It's a $50 billion industry. We employ tens of thousands of agricultural workers. They are among the class that this would be prohibited. It would cripple agriculture if they didn't have the people coming in to do this work.
[17:10:19] And what we have found is Americans will not do this kind of stoop labor in 100-degrees temperature. So you would have a severe crippling of the largest ag industry in America.
Also in other areas. In the service industries, increasingly running hotels, restaurants all throughout our state, you will find people in this category.
It doesn't make sense to me what he's doing. And he's cutting refugees with all the millions of people without homes, with all the terrible things that are happening. We only took 110,000 refugees a year. He's cut them by 60 percent to 50.
And to add insult to injury, he takes the scandal-risen -- ridden EB-5 program, which I gather the Trump family uses, and with both the chairman of my committee and myself believe should be abolished. And he continues it. So it's -- it's a program that I hope, candidly, won't see the light of day. I don't know whether it will or not, but I think in the Judiciary Committee, it's not going to be very welcomed.
BLITZER: Senator, does it make sense to you to require people who want to live in this country, want to emigrate to this country, to have to learn English before they come to the United States?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I'll tell you: my mother was an immigrant to this country from Russia. She came as a child. She spoke in English. She had no education. I used to help her fill out her papers. She happened to be very beautiful and a model. But she was an immigrant who had no education. And here I am, a United States senator and a college graduate. So I think I'm sort of a case in point.
BLITZER: Does this -- the White House and Stephen Miller and the president, they kept referring to what they called a fact that this new policy, this new immigration policy would help African-Americans and Hispanic workers who are here in the United States. Do you accept that?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I can't -- I don't see how, candidly. I don't see how, when you cut back on all of these categories, which make America, help America to be what the Statue of Liberty says -- and we do it within reason. And there have been cutbacks, and there are long lines, and it is difficult to come into this country as it is.
I don't think our problem is an excess of new Americans. I don't think that's our problem at all.
BLITZER: What are the chances you think this immigration legislation that the president would like to see passed by the House and the Senate actually gets passed?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I don't think it will pass the Senate. And I will do everything I can to prevent it from passing the Senate.
BLITZER: Let me shift to the Russian sanctions bill that the president signed into law today. He may have signed it, but he described it as "significantly flawed." He says it contains a number of -- in his words, clearly unconstitutional provisions. And he goes one step further and says he will implement it but only in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.
In other words, he'll implement it the way he wants to do it, not necessarily the way Congress wants. What's your reaction to that?
FEINSTEIN: Well, my reaction is he should talk to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker. This bill was very carefully written, as I understand it. A lot of time, energy and effort was put into it. And as you know, it passed the Senate overwhelmingly.
So I think the president doesn't like it, and I think Russia doesn't like it. And I would say to President Putin, you have to understand what you did to America's election system, what you did by your people going into the election systems of 21 states. What you did by violating the sanctity of this system for us.
A Democratic society lives or dies based on its free and fair elections. And what Russia tried to do was skew free and fair to a more controlled election system. Now, that's a grievous injury to our country. You've got to expect that we're going to say something about it.
[17:15:14] And candidly, I think it's still going on to this day. Russia is still, to this day, hacking into various systems in our country, relating to even more serious things. It's got to stop.
So I think that a much better response is to sit down at a table and say, "We want to tell you what's going on, Mr. President. And we would like you to do something about it."
BLITZER: Why do you think the president seems to be more outraged by this new legislation, the sanctions bill that he signed into law today? Obviously he doesn't like it. He seems to be more outraged over that than the fact that Vladimir Putin is now expelling hundreds of American diplomats from Russia. He's silent on that.
FEINSTEIN: Well, I don't understand that, because the Russian response is disproportionate. If it's to the old sanctions and to this, the Russians -- the Russian response is disproportionate. But, you know, it is what it is.
The important thing is that these kind of sanctions are a registration of the depth of harm that is done to a country. Now, this may affect Russian business, but what he did to affect the very root of our democratic system, which is to interfere in elections in the way in which he did -- and I've had all of the classified reports, and there is no doubt that his intelligence systems, which are very good, very tough, did manipulate wherever they could. Did hack, did go into state systems, did take data, did release data. And we just can't -- we can't countenance this.
So I would hope that cooler minds would prevail, and there would be some sit-down, and this could be worked out. And I believe it can be. And I think Russia can understand if they sort of get off their high horse and understand that you cannot pierce this country's election system and not think that we're going to do something about it.
BLITZER: I want to be just precise. Did I hear you say the Russians actually took data from various states?
FEINSTEIN: No, I can't say they took data. What I can say is they went into the systems of 21 states.
BLITZER: And what did they do when they got into those systems?
FEINSTEIN: I don't know. I do know that they pierced their systems.
BLITZER: All right. Senator Dianne Feinstein, I know you've got to go vote.
FEINSTEIN: Yes.
BLITZER: Otherwise we would continue this conversation. Thanks so much for joining us.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Up next, more of that fierce debate over a plan to slash legal immigration. We're going to hear the entire striking exchange in the White House briefing room.
Plus, a North Korean defector reveals how he got around U.S. sanctions to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Kim Jong-un.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:22:51] BLITZER: The breaking news this hour: a fierce debate in the White House briefing room over a plan by the president to slash legal immigration. Listen to this remarkable exchange between our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, and the president's senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: What you're proposing or what the president is proposing here does not sound like it's in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration. The Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It doesn't say anything about speaking English or being able to be a computer programmer.
Aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you're telling them, "You have to speak English"? Can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?
MILLER: Well, first of all, right now it's a requirement that to be nationalized, you have to speak English. So the notion that speaking English wouldn't be a part of immigration systems would be actually very ahistorical.
Secondly, I don't want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty enlightening the world. It's a symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that you're referring to was added later. It's not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty, but more fundamentally, the history -- but more fundamentally...
ACOSTA: You're saying that that does not represent what the country has always thought of as immigration coming into this country?
MILLER: I'm seeing the notion that -- I'm saying the notion...
ACOSTA: Stephen, I'm sorry.
MILLER: Let me ask you a question.
ACOSTA: That sounds like some national park revisionism.
MILLER: No. What I'm asking you is...
ACOSTA: The Statue of Liberty...
MILLER: Jim -- Jim, let me ask you a question.
ACOSTA: ... has always been a beacon of hope to the world for people to send their people to this country.
MILLER: Jim -- Jim, do you believe...
ACOSTA: And they're not always going to speak English, Stephen.
MILLER: Jim, do you believe...
ACOSTA: They're not always going to be highly-skilled. They're not always going to be...
MILLER: I appreciate your speech. I appreciate your speech, so let's talk about this. In 1970, when we let in 300,000 people a year, is that violating or violating the Statue of Liberty, law of the land?
In 19 -- in the 1990s, when it was half a million a year, was it violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty, law of the land?
ACOSTA: Was it violating...
MILLER: When it was 700,000 a year...
ACOSTA: Was it violating the Statue of Liberty...
MILLER: Tell me what year -- tell me what years -- tell me what years -- tell me what years meet Jim Acosta's definition of the Statue of Liberty home, law of the land.
So you're saying a million a year is the Statue of Liberty number. Nine hundred thousand violates it; 800,000 violates it.
[17:25:07] ACOSTA: You're sort of bringing a "press one for English" philosophy here to immigration...
MILLER: Jim -- Jim...
ACOSTA: ... and that's never what the United States has been about. MILLER: But you're also -- your statements also talking ahistorical in another respect, too. Which is if you look at the history of immigration, it's actually ebbed and flowed. You've had periods of very large waves, followed by periods of less immigration and more immigration. And during the...
ACOSTA: We're in a period of immigration right now. He wants to build a wall and...
MILLER: It's actually...
ACOSTA: ... want to bring about a sweeping change to the number of...
MILLER: Jim, you don't actually think that the wall affects green card policy. You couldn't possibly believe that, do you? Actually, the notion that you actually think immigration is an historic law, if foreign-born population in the United States today -- Jim -- Jim...
ACOSTA: You used an example on Monday, talking about how border crossings...
MILLER: Do you really -- I want to be serious, Jim. Do you really, at CNN, not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration?
I mean, you really don't know that.
ACOSTA: Sir, my father was a Cuban immigrant. He came to this country in 1962 right before the Cuban missile crisis and obtained a green card.
MILLER: So Jim...
ACOSTA: Yes, people who emigrate to this country do eventually...
MILLER: Jim, as a factual question, Jim -- Jim, as a factual question...
ACOSTA: People who immigrate to this country through -- not through Ellis Island but in other ways do obtain a green card at some point. They do it through a lot of hard work, and yes, they may learn English as a second language later on in life.
MILLER: So, but Jim...
ACOSTA: This whole notion of, well, they could learn -- you know, they have to learn English before they get to the United States, are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?
MILLER: Jim, it's actually -- I have to honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It's actually -- it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that, in your mind -- no, this is an amazing -- this is an amazing moment. This is an amazing moment. That you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak
English is so insulting to millions of hard-working immigrants who do speak English from all over the world...
ACOSTA: ... my father came to this country in 1962...
MILLER: Jim, have you honestly never met an immigrant from another country who speaks English outside of Great Britain and Australia? Is that your personal experience?
ACOSTA: Of course there are people who come to our country who know English.
MILLER: But that's not what you said. And it shows -- it shows your cosmopolitan bias. And I just want to say...
ACOSTA: It sounds like you're trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country.
MILLER: Jim, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you've ever said, and for you that's still a really -- the notion that you think this is a racist bill is so wrong and so insulting.
Jim, the reality is, is that the foreign-born population into our country has quadrupled since 1970. That's a fact. It's been mostly driven by green card policy. Now, this bill allows for immediate nuclear family members to come into this country, much as they would today as an additional point-based system. The people who have been hurt the most...
ACOSTA: You're saying that people have to be naturalized...
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: The people who have been -- the people who have been hurt the most by the policy you're advocating...
ACOSTA: What policy am I advocating?
MILLER: Apparently just unfettered, uncontrolled migration.
ACOSTA: You believe that what you're doing is...
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: The people who have been hurt the most with the policy you're advocating are immigrant workers and minority workers and African- American workers and Hispanic workers.
APRIL RYAN, CORRESPONDENT, AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS: Are you targeting the African-American community? And you brought it up again. You said you wanted to have a conversation and not target. Is it going to be a target now?
MILLER: What we want to do... RYAN: ... using the African-American community are you going to target? I'm not trying to be funny...
MILLER: I know. What you're saying is 100 percent correct.
RYAN: Thank you.
MILLER: We want to help unemployed African-Americans in this country and unemployed workers of all backgrounds get jobs. Insinuations like Jim made, trying to ascribe nefarious motives to a compassioned immigration measure, designed to help newcomers and current arrivals alike, is wrong. And this is a positive, optimist proposal that says 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now...
ACOSTA: ... ignorant. You called me ignorant, and I'm on national television.
MILLER: Ten years, 20 years, 30 from now, we want to have an immigration system that takes care of the people who are coming here and the people who are already living here by having standards, by having a real clear requirement that you be able to support yourself financially, by making sure employers can pay the living wage. That's the right policy for our country, and it's the president's commitment to taking care of American workers.
I apologize, Jim, if things got heated but you did make some pretty rough insinuations. So thank you. Thank you.
ACOSTA: I don't know what you mean by rough insinuations.
MILLER: Thank you, and I'll hand it over to Sarah. I think that went exactly as planned. I think that was what Sarah was hoping would happen. I think that's exactly what we were hoping to have happen. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Pretty remarkable exchange. Let's dig deeper into all of this. Jim Acosta is still with us. We're going to get to you in a moment along with our CNN contributor Cornell Brooks, the former head of the NAACP; and CNN political analyst April Ryan, correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks. You just saw her in that clip. She was in the briefing, as well.
Cornell, what do you think? He repeatedly made the point this new policy that he and the president would like to unveil would benefit African-Americans, Hispanics, other low-income folks here in the United States.
CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO, NAACP: Couple of points. With respect to the president's adviser, with apologies to Shakespeare and sophisticates everywhere, the presidential advisor doth protest too much. His point about this hurting African-Americans makes the assumption that all African-Americans are low-skilled, unskilled workers, point one. Point two, to his -- to his assertion that this immigration policy is
race neutral, it does not demonstrate any kind of bias, the fact of the matter is immigration policy and civil rights policy have gone hand in hand in America's history. And there have been times in which immigration policy has been used to keep people out based on ethnicity and race.
And where you have a policy that uses race-neutral terms like merit and skills, but nevertheless disfavors people who don't speak English, nevertheless favors people who have connections here, who connect to industries here, it has a racially and ethnically disparate impact. That can't be denied.
And it cannot be ignored that this comes from the lips, comes from the White House of a president who referred to Mexicans as rapists, who referred to a Mexican-American judge as being disqualified as a consequence of his ethnicity, and a White House where Steve Bannon, the architect of the alt-right, has an office of white -- white supremacy, or alt-right, in the White House.
This is a serious moment. It cannot be ignored, and what the president's advisors is saying in the most benign and smooth terms is, in fact, dangerous.
BLITZER: You were there, April. You were there. What was your reaction when you saw that remarkable exchange?
RYAN: No. 1, it went too long. I was surprised that the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, did not pull the plug. It went too long. It was very ugly in that room.
And two, when he -- at least twice he brought up the issue of African- Americans. And I was really shocked, because they had not really asked for buy-in from the African-American community on this issue over the last couple of months. You know, there was a chance they could have talked about this when they did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus a couple of months ago. And they were supposed to have the CBC members meet with other department heads or cabinet officials. They could have talked about buy-in then, but they never did that. And that's one of the reasons why the CBC never met.
This president did not show up at the NAACP convention recently, nor did he show up, or he wasn't asked, but no one asked to come to the Urban League convention. They happened at the same time. The National Urban League who deals with the economics of it all. And we don't hear about the back and forth with them.
So this, it's coming out of nowhere. And it -- I've talked to people from the prior administration, from the Obama administration. They're saying call it like it is. It sounds like they're trying to put the African-American community against the immigrant community. And right now, the black unemployment rate stands at 7.1 percent. The black male unemployment rate, which Steve Miller kept talking about, is 6.3 percent. The African-American unemployment rate has been historically high. During the Obama years, it reached as high as 16 percent and was cut in half. But it's still too high. It's normally two or three times that of white Americans, historically. So for them to start talking, it just comes out of nowhere.
BLITZER: You know, Jim Acosta, as I said, you were part of that remarkable exchange. But the whole notion that people want to come to the United States, emigrate to the United States should know English before they arrive. Why is that so central to this new strategy that the president is putting forward?
ACOSTA: Well, Wolf, I think at times this White House has an unhealthy fixation on what I call the three "M's": the Mexicans, the Muslims, and the media. Their policies tend to be crafted around bashing one of those three groups, and we just see it time and again.
And today on immigration, what the White House is essentially saying, in a wink and a dog whistle to some of these battleground states that they won, is that immigrants coming in from Latin America are taking your jobs.
Wolf, immigration is not the reason why the factory closed in Pittsburgh or the coal mine that shut down in West Virginia. The people who are struggling in those states, they need policies that will help get them out of this mess that they've been for a generation, where a lot of communities have been left behind. I saw first-hand out on the campaign trail, following Donald Trump around, trying to appeal to these workers. And he did wisely target those workers, but he's targeted them with, I think, a message that just runs counter to what we see as American tradition in this country.
[17:35:12] That's why I quoted the Statue of Liberty to Steven Miller. It was odd to see the White House, Wolf, in the form of Steve Miller, one of the top policy advisors, sort of sound like a Statue of Liberty originalist, as if there's some difference between what the Statue of Liberty looked like when it was first brought here to the United States, and what -- and what it looks like now with a poem attached to it. I just thought that was an odd moment. It was just a poor argument.
And whenever they're bashing the media, Wolf, my sense always is, is that they're just losing the argument, and I think you saw that today.
BLITZER: You know, Cornell, you said before, and I just want you to clarify. You said there was an office of white supremacy under Steve Bannon in the White House. There's no office of white supremacy.
BROOKS: Just to be clear about this, when you have Steve Bannon in the White House, it represents an office of alt-right legitimacy in the sense that he was the architect of Breitbart; represents a platform for the alt-right, or white supremacy in this country. And being in the White House, it lends legitimacy to that whole wing of the president's supporters.
BLITZER: But alt-right is not white supremacy, necessarily.
BROOKS: Be clear about this. Let's be clear about this. Alt-right is a synonym for white supremacy and those who -- white nationalists. You can homogenize it; you can dress it up; you can make it as nice a noun as you want it to be, but this is a dangerous strain of thought in American public life, and we can't mask that.
The fact of the matter is, when the NAACP has been on the receiving end of threats, it's been from folks who march under that banner. And I don't make any apologize -- apologies for calling it for what it is.
BLITZER: Guys, stand by. We're going to continue to assess all these dramatic developments, including President Trump's approval rating, now hitting a low point, at least so far. But are his core supporters starting to abandon him, as well?
Also ahead, chilling stories about the precarious existence inside Kim Jong-un's inner circle. One day can bring praise and rewards. The next day, brutal death.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:41:48] BLITZER: Even as the stock market is hitting a new high, President Trump's approval rating is hitting a new low. The latest Quinnipiac survey puts the president's approval rating at just 33 percent -- that's an all-time low -- with 61 percent disapproving. Let's dig deeper with our specialist, Ron Brownstein.
What do these numbers mean for the president?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, well, the Quinnipiac is a little lower than some of the others, but the general trend is that he is at a low ebb, and in particular in the Quinnipiac poll, what really jumped out to a lot of people was that he was now negative among his core group, which are whites without a college education. In 2016, he won a higher share of non-college whites than any candidate in any party since Ronald Reagan in 1984. They had him net negative.
Wolf, that's probably not a coincidence after a health care debate that revealed how many of those voters would have been hurt by the Republican health care bills. And it's probably also not a coincidence that, in the aftermath of that health care debate, you see the administration turn sharply right on a whole series of cultural issues that are meant to appeal to those voters, whether it was barring transgender soldiers, his seeming welcoming of police brutality on Friday, or today's double feature of the affirmative action document that came out about -- from the Justice Department and the proposal to cut legal immigration in half.
So in many ways, they are trying to use, I think, cultural grievance to offset economic unease, but the net effect has been to erode him in the group of voters that have been most important to his success.
BLITZER: You know, Rebecca, the president signed the Russia sanctions bill into law today, but he said it's a seriously flawed and contains unconstitutional provisions. I'm surprised he signed it if he believes it was, at least in part, unconstitutional. How unusual is it, though, to have a signing statement like that?
REBECCA BERG, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he signed it grudgingly, to say the least, Wolf. It's not unusual to see sort of this fundamental conflict between the
legislative branch and the executive branch. They're co-equal branches of government. They're each, obviously, equally powerful, and so sometimes that creates conflict when the legislature disagrees with the executive.
But this is one of those scenarios that's a little more complicated, because you have a Republican Congress butting heads with the Republican president over something as serious as Russia and these sanctions against Russia, which the president has obviously said he does not want to do.
One analog to this that's worth mentioning is President Obama and the Republican Congress in 2016. President Obama decided not to sign but to let go into effect a congressional bill for Iran sanctions. So that's something somewhat similar to this situation. But again, very unusual to see a Republican Congress butting heads with a Republican president in this way over an issue this large.
BLITZER: Yes, but he also signaled he might not implement it the way the overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate wanted, 98-2 in the Senate, 419-3 in the House. He says he'll implement it in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority. He believes a lot of the restrictions on him are unconstitutional.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He does believe that, and it's one of the reasons it took him so long to sign it. The lawyers in the White House counsel's office were reviewing this.
But the reality here is, Wolf, this president still had a difficult time standing up with a strong voice, speaking to Vladimir Putin, as most every other Republican and certainly Democrats have.
But I thought it was interesting, as well, he said that he represents the will of the American people. He didn't say necessarily that he still believes in this. It's something we heard him speak in the G20 Summit in Germany as well, that he is not troubled necessarily by this.
But no question about it, the signing statement or not, the White House is still significantly handcuffed by this. If he does anything to move in the other direction from Congress, I think they'll pass something else. It's the widest majority we've seen on anything in a very long time.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: In a statement he said that he really took a swipe in Congress. Congress couldn't even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking. He said, I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. This is a big part of the reason I was elected as president. I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress. He swiped them, Mark.
Stand by. There is more coming up. The United States flexes its military muscle, firing a long-range missile across the Pacific. But will it make any impression on North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Tonight, we have chilling details of what it's like inside the North Korean leader's inner circle.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:50:57]
BLITZER: Breaking news, the State Department just published a notice that will restrict U.S. tourists from traveling to North Korea due to the increasing risk of arrest and long-term detention. The new policy takes effect September 1st.
Also, tonight, we have some chilling close-up details of life and death inside Kim Jong-un's inner circle. CNN's Brian Todd had spoken with a one-time insider who managed to defect. Brian, what did he tell you?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, he told us what it was like to live through a series of high-level executions ordered by Kim Jong-un. It was the execution of Kim's uncle which drove this man to defect and with that Kim lost one of his top money makers.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice-over): It was during a bloody and brutal period when Kim Jong-un was on a purging and execution binge that one of Kim's top money makers, Ri Jong-Ho final had enough. Kim executed his own uncle an act which led Ri to defect.
RI JONG-HO, NORTH KOREAN DEFECTOR (through translator): It was a cruel and crude method of execution. After all these years living in the socialist system, I had never witnessed anything like that, executing high-level officers with antiaircraft guns. It was not just high-level officers, but their families, their children, their followers.
TODD: Ri escaped in 2014 eventually settling in Northern Virginia last year. For decades Ri says he worked in a unit called Office 39, which raises and manages money for Kim.
Then Ri says he was responsible for operations which exported North Korean oil, minerals, agricultural products. He says he brought in between $50 million and $100 million a year for the regime, bypassing U.S. sanctions.
JONG-HO (through translator): A slush fund for the leader and the leadership through trading and other activities.
TODD: It won Ri some perks that most North Koreans wouldn't dream of.
JONG-HO (through translator): I was given a car, a color tv, some things like that. But there is there was also extra side income because I was working at Office 39.
TODD: Ri said he doesn't believe the Korean Peninsula is close to war, but seconds later, he warned of what Kim would do if pressured.
JONG-HO (through translator): They got militarily prepared in terms of their nuclear and also chemical weapons and they had a scenario that if they go to war, they would not hesitate to use these weapons against South Korea.
TODD (on camera): Is there a diplomatic solution to get us out of this crisis?
JONG-HO (through translator): Having a meeting between the top leaders, face-to-face meeting. Then we can find out what the leader believes and what he thinks and what he wants.
TODD (voice-over): What's never worked, Ri says, are sanctions against North Korea.
JONG-HO (through translator): The vehicles used for missiles, those are vehicles that cannot be produced in North Korea. The border between North Korea and China is just a river. They are smuggled into North Korea from China.
TODD: Although Ri says he never met Kim Jong-un face to face, we asked him his impressions of the young dictator.
(on camera): Is he cruel, is he crazy?
JONG-HO (through translator): It's hard for me to say. Once he makes a decision, there is no one that can impose his decision or even advise him to a different decision.
TODD (voice-over): Ri says he expects Kim to remain in power for several decades unless, he says, there is a, quote, "outside shock."
(on camera): What kind of outside shock are you talking about?
JONG-HO (through translator): North Koreans are deprived of freedom. Their mind-set is almost backward. Unless there is, for example, outside information then they can realize how isolated they are, how limited they are in terms of freedom, they are deprived. When they realize that it could cause an internal movement.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: We reached out to North Korea's mission at the U.N. to get their response to our interview with Ri Jong-Ho. An official there said Ri is telling lies to make money and to save his own life. Ri told us he is not concerned for his own safety.
When I asked the North Korean official at the U.N. if any North Korean agents in the U.S. might be coming after Ri, the official laughed and said, no, he's garbage -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Brian, this defector also gave you a disturbing account of how prolific and unstoppable North Korean smuggling operations really are.
TODD: That's right, Wolf. Ri Jong-Ho said the smuggling of larger items into North Korea is done on ships which on their cargo manifests they list different items from what they're really carrying. [17:55:09] And he said a lot of the smuggling is done on small fishing boats, hundreds of them which are difficult even for the Chinese to stop.
BLITZER: Brian Todd reporting. Good report, Brian, thank you.
Coming up, a plan to dramatically slash legal immigration into the United States sparking a fierce debate in the White House briefing room. Can the bill pass? What impact will it have on the U.S. economy?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Happening now, breaking news, legal limits, the president throws his support behind legislation to slash the level of legal immigration into the United States by keeping many low-skilled workers out. Tonight, the administration's policy, its pitch, and the heated push back to tough questions.
