Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Obama to Unveil Immigration Order Tonight; GOP Says Obama Will Regret Immigration Order; Police and FBI on Alert for Possible Ferguson Decision; Ferguson Decision Possible; Interview with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee; Immigration Plan; Police and FBI on Alert

Aired November 20, 2014 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, President Obama only hours away from launching executive action on immigration reform. Republicans already fighting back hard, saying it's illegal, despotic, and a move that the president, they say, will come to regret.

Ferguson, Missouri now bracing for a grand jury decision that could examine as soon as tomorrow. Police say they are ready for anything as fear and tension it continue to grow.

And nine feet or nearly three meters of snow could cover parts of Buffalo, New York by tonight. We're going to check in with the Hall of Fame quarterback and hometown hero, Jim Kelly.

Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 7:00 p.m. in Vienna, Austria, 9:00 p.m. in Moscow, 2:00 a.m. Friday in Beijing. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, countdown to a legal and political showdown. President Obama unveils his immigration plan in a prime time speech this evening but his decision to issue an executive order will result in a head-on collision with Congressional Republicans.

On the Senate floor today, the soon-to-it be majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said the president's actions are purely political.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY), REPUBLICAN LEADER: It seems to be about what a political party thinks would make for good politics. It seems to be about what a president thinks would be good for his legacy. Those are not the motivations that should be driving such sweeping action. And I think the president will come to regret the chapter history writes if he does move forward.

Either way, he needs to understand something. If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act. We're considering a variety of options. But make no mistake, make no mistake, when the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will act. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Obama administration officials say a key part of the president's plan will be to allow the parents of American citizens to remain in the United States up to 3.6 million people will be affected but it would not include parents of the so-called dreamers. Those are the children protected from being deported under a 2012 executive order rule by the president.

Other possible provisions, extend protections for immigrants brought to the United States as children. Strengthen the focus on deporting criminals who are undocumented. Expand worker visas in fields like technology and tighten border security.

For more on the president's plans, let's bring in our White House Correspondent Michelle Kosinski. She's watching all of this. What more do we expect to hear from the president later tonight 8:00 p.m. Eastern, Michelle?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Wolf. Yes, we're waiting for those details and we know that some of those will be released ahead of time and embargoed until only 6:00 p.m. so two hours ahead of the announcement. How much of that he'll present, we don't know. I mean, he could go further. We don't know what exactly will be laid out ahead of time just yet.

But we expect him to make the case in much the same way he and his administration have been for weeks now. I mean, today alone, we counted no fewer than six senior White House officials on national television ahead of the announcement and making that case, saying, basically, that it's not that president is stepping out and suddenly doing this simply because he wants to. But, in essence, that he has been pushed to do this because of Congress' inaction.

We expect him to also hit the benefits of what his action will entail, benefits to families keeping those families intact in this country without fear of deportation and also benefits to the economy. We expect him to hit some of what you mentioned that this will include a piece on enhanced border security and the fact that deportations will continue for immigrants accused or convicted of crimes. And that part is sort of doubly important here because we expect that to also figure into the legal justification of his doing this. And that's been much under debate. The reason those elements are important is because they're presenting this, at least - at least as far as we know right now, as a kind of shifting of resources, a reallocating, a re- establishment of priorities while kind of downshifting in other areas and that is constitutional.

Opponents, though, would say that the president is, in essence, not enforcing big parts of immigration law by allowing these large groups to avoid deportation, not to mention they say that he's overstepping his bounds and encroaching on what Congress is constitutionally supposed to do -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Michelle, thanks very much. Once you get more details, we'll, of course, get you back up on the air. Let's get some reaction now to this announcement that the president will make later tonight. The majority of undocumented workers settle in for -- settle in the United States in just four states. Those states, California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Joining us now, Florida Republican Congressman, Mario Diaz-Balart. He's the leading voice among Republicans pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. So, what's your reaction? You basically know the outlines of what the president is going to do. Are you with the president or against him?

REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART, R-FLORIDA: Wolf, I've always thought that we can -- we should do what we can to stop the separation of American families, to help the economy, to have a fair system to folks who are doing things legally and to deal with the folks that are here in a way that adheres to the rule of law.

Now, the one who has been saying -- and that's why a little disagreement with your White House Correspondent. The one who's actually been saying that he does not have the legal authority to do that, it's not Republicans. It's the president himself. Who, by the way, we've always heard is a constitutional scholar.

So, on the details, I may agree, I probably will agree with a lot of the issues and the details of the president moving forward. But we're a nation of laws and, you know, we're not a dictatorship. The president has said that he is not emperor and he, therefore, said that since he is not emperor, he was not legally able to do this before. So, what changed between the time when the constitutional scholar, Mr. President Obama, said that he legally couldn't do this, to now, where he says that he legally could?

And, by the way, as someone who does not want families to be divided, if the president who deported -- has deported more individuals than any president in the history of the United States, and said he didn't have the authority to stop the deportations, and now he's saying he has the authority to stop the deportations, then why the heck did he deport more people than any president of the United States? It's he himself who once again is contradicting his own words. It's he himself who has said that he is going to do something now that he said he was not legally able to do just a few months ago.

BLITZER: Here is how White House officials, Congressman, are explaining that apparent flip flop because the president, you're right, he did say repeatedly over the past several years, he didn't have the authority. He's the president of the United States. He said he's not the emperor of the United States. The way they're explaining it today and presumably what we'll hear from the president later tonight is that he didn't have the authority to go ahead and simply implement what the Senate on a bipartisan basis passed that went to the House and has been sitting for more than 500 days in the House of Representatives.

You're in the House of Representatives. He can't do what Senate passed but he can take certain action on some of the specific nuances, if you will. He does have that legal authority. He says he's asked the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, for a legal opinion, to authorize what he's about to announce tonight. And that's the nuanced difference. Do you buy that?

DIAZ-BALART: Well, Wolf, here's the problem with that. My colleague, Luis Gutierrez, one of the leaders of immigration reform and trying to stop the deportations, for five years has been asking him to take executive action. Heck, he even chained himself in front of the White House gate asking the president to take executive action. This is before this Senate bill was even around. And the president has been saying this before there was even a Senate bill.

Look, just like the president said, if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep it. Unfortunately, once again, he's outright lying.

Now, again, I will probably agree with a lot of the specifics of what the president is going to bring forward. Here's what's sad, Wolf. The new leadership of the new Congress has said to him that they want to work -- they want to tackle immigration reform. I understand there are no guarantees to do difficult issues. But the new leadership of the new Congress has said they want to do it and they want to work with him to do it. And then, all of a sudden, the president has said, no, I'm going to do it on my own, even though, as the president said, he does not believe, a few months ago, that he has the legal authority to do so.

It seems to me that - and, by the way, this is a temporary postponement. It's not going to solve the issue. We're going to have to deal with this issue legislatively. The question is is the president's action making it easier, more likely to do legislative fix which we know has to happen or is he making it more difficult? Unfortunately, I think he's making it more difficult because when the president, who is a constitutional scholar, says, he does not have the legal authority to do something as president, and then he does it, it would almost seem, Wolf, that he's purposely trying to create a constitutional crisis. That's not working together.

BLITZER: All right.

DIAZ-BALART: That's not sitting down in a bipartisan way.

BLITZER: One final question, Congressman, before I let you go back over there. If the House of Representatives, the speaker, John Boehner, allowed the Senate legislation which was passed on a bipartisan basis to come up for a yea or nay vote, a roll call vote in the House of Representatives, would you vote, personally just you, in favor of the Senates passed legislation?

DIAZ-BALART: Wolf, there are - you know, I was part of a group in the House putting our own - our own legislation together. There are parts of the legislation that I like. There are parts that I do not like. And asking the House to have to swallow whole something that the Senate did is, as I say, why doesn't the Senate pass whole what the House has done. That's why that's a little bit of a --

BLITZER: Well, you know, Congressman, -- DIAZ-BALART: It's not a realistic question. It's not a realistic

question.

BLITZER: -- you know the legislative process. You can pass a different version of comprehensive immigration reform.

DIAZ-BALART: Correct.

BLITZER: Then there would be a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. You try to work out differences. That's the normal -

DIAZ-BALART: Correct.

BLITZER: -- legislative way of doing it.

DIAZ-BALART: Correct.

BLITZER: But the speaker, your speaker, the Republican speaker, John Boehner, isn't allowing that legislative process to go forward.

DIAZ-BALART: Well, that's not actually -- it's not exactly accurate. The bill - the Senate bill, obviously, has no legs in the House. That is not getting a vote. That's absolutely the case and that the leadership has been very clear about. A lot of us have been working on a House proposal. As you know, we were very close to being able to bring one to the floor and then we had the crisis which was partially created by the president of the United States. The crisis of the unaccompanied children on the southern border. And that, frankly, changed the mood not only in the House, but changed the mood in the country. So, that made it, frankly, almost impossible or impossible to move forward.

But here's a question. We know -- we know that this requires a legislative fix. Does the president acting unilaterally make it easier or more difficult? I unfortunately think it makes it more difficult, despite the fact on the specifics, I might like some of them. But, again, we're a nation of laws. Look, I may not like certain reporters, but we cannot tolerate this administration trying to criminally go after reporters whether you or I like that reporter or not. That is unlawful. Is this lawful or unlawful? I'm not the expert. You know who is? President Obama who is a constitutional lawyer. He is the one who has said that what he is about to do is unlawful. So, I may agree, and I probably will, with a lot of the specifics, but the president is not above the law, whether it was President Nixon or whether it's President Obama.

BLITZER: All right. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, thanks very much for joining us. This debate about to escalate and we'll continue.

DIAZ-BALART: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, we're just getting this in to CNN right now. Law enforcement agencies across the country were now being told they have to be on a higher alert. This as we appear to be getting closer to a grand jury decision in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Evan Perez is getting this information for us. He's on the scene in Ferguson, Missouri. They're bracing for a grand jury decision as early as tomorrow, Friday. Then, presumably, there could be about 48 hours before that decision is made public. But, in the meantime, there is a lot of concern that protests could develop if, in fact, the police officer is not charged, is not indicted. The protests could be angry.

Let's bring in Evan Perez. He's got the news for us. Evan, be precise, tell us exactly what you're learning because it's not every day that federal law enforcement goes on a -- issues a warning to local and state authorities, go on a higher state of alert.

EVEN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, the concern is that the protests will go beyond just Ferguson and beyond the St. Louis region, but around the country. There are groups that are planning marches in New York and other parts of the country. And the concern is that they will be protests in front of federal buildings. Local authorities are concerned because of what they've seen here back in August.

Now the - obviously, a lot of the focus will be here in St. Louis. In the St. Louis region in Ferguson, in Clayton, which is the county seat which is where the grand jury is meeting, Wolf, tomorrow, and where the announcement is likely going to come on Sunday if, indeed, everything goes as planned.

But, you know, the issue, obviously, here is that some of these protests here locally could get out of control. And so, out of abundance of caution, the federal protective service has boosted the number of personnel it has here on the ground. They are increasing the security on federal buildings. And they're doing this nationally simply because they know that there's going to be protests around the country -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The federal protective service, they're in charge of security at federal buildings all over the country, right?

PEREZ: That's right. That's right, that's right. They are -

(CROSSTALK)

PEREZ: -- they're in charge of securing federal buildings around the country.

BLITZER: This is a nationwide sort of alert because the protests -- if, in fact, this police officer is not indicted, the protests might not necessarily just be in Ferguson, Missouri, or St. Louis, or in that area. These -- there could be protests all over the place, right?

PEREZ: That is right. That's right. The idea is that there's - you know, if you - if you just pay attention to the social media, there's people on Web sites talking about protests and taking -- you know, taking it to the streets around the country. And so, the concern is that the trouble could to the just be here but it also could be elsewhere, Wolf. And so, out of - basically, you know, out of an abundance of caution, you have law enforcement gearing up to take care of those protests, to make sure that people have the right to protest, but also that no trouble makers cause problems for everybody else.

BLITZER: The family of Michael Brown, they're issuing a statement. They're urging calm, right?

PEREZ: That's right. That's right. They're doing - They're doing a lot of public announcements. We expect that you're going to see, in the next day or so, perhaps a PSA, trying to urge people to remain calm. And also, for this region, Wolf, you know, as you know, Ferguson is one small part of this and, you know, you have protests in just a few blocks here, you know, the St. Louis region is going on with its life.

And so the question -- the issue is, how to make sure people can move this area ahead, you know, beyond what's gone on here with this officer and with this one shooting in August.

BLITZER: All right, the country is obviously very nervous right now. Let's hope for the best. Evan Perez with the breaking news, police being told all over the country not only in Ferguson, Missouri, to go on a higher state of alert right now fearing that some of these protests could get ugly.

Let's get some reaction. Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is joining us. She's a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, the Judiciary Committee as well.

You just heard the breaking news, congressman. What's your reaction when you hear that the federal government is telling federal authorities all over the country, local, state authorities, just take a little higher state of alert because there could be some angry and potentially, we hope not, but potentially violent demonstrations?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: Well, I agree with you, Wolf, we hope not. We really hope that the grand jury does the right thing and provides an opportunity for there to be a trial on the facts as to whether or not this officer should be convicted. But if that is not the case, I applaud Homeland Security Department and the Department of Justice to be able to come in and to provide protection for everybody involved, and that is the petitioners of government, protesters of government.

And we have seen this happen through the years. In the Civil Rights movement, as you well know, the main armor and protection for those who are marching under the leadership of Dr. King was the federal government. So I hope their heightened alert is to create that atmosphere that, yes, you can protest your government without violence. And that should mean from local law enforcement authorities, as well as the petitioners and protesters. And I would also ask that the faith community be engaged over the weekend and prayer services be held to keep people aware that everyone is concerned.

BLITZER: And you agree with me that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., if he were alive today, he would issue an appeal for non-violent protests, right? JACKSON LEE: Absolutely. And all of us are issuing the same appeal.

And I want to applaud Michael Brown's parents. I've gotten to meet them. They were at the United Nations making a plea. They have a heart of peace. They have a heart of justice. They just simply want justice for their son and I stand alongside of them.

But I also stand alongside of them and you, Wolf, who have watched these stories, that we must have peaceful protests because many of these are young people. I want them to live and I want them to have an opportunity to continue to peacefully protest and I want them to have an opportunity to see just results in the Michael Brown case.

BLITZER: Yes. All right. Well, those are powerful words that we hope that the demonstrations are peaceful, assuming we don't know what's going to happen with that grand jury, but if he's not indicted, there's plenty of opportunity in this country for peaceful demonstrations. People can get their views out there.

What worries me, I think probably worries you as well, there's a tiny handful of agitators who could get violent and that would cause a lot of disturbances. Let's hope they can be contained in a peaceful way.

JACKSON LEE: Absolutely.

BLITZER: I want to switch gears on the president's going to be making a major address to the American people tonight on immigration reform. He's going to take unilateral executive action, as it's called, to change some of the implementation, the policy rules, allowing 3 million or maybe 3.5 million of the workers here, the people here in the United States who don't have the proper documentation, to remain, get some sort of legal status, at least for an interim period. You strongly support what the president has to say, but I don't know if you heard Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart earlier. He says the president himself repeatedly said he didn't have the legal authority to take such action over the past six years, to which your reply is?

JACKSON LEE: My reply is that the president, at that time, is the same president of today. What he was saying is that he didn't have the legal authority to pass or do anything about establishing citizenship, which is what the comprehensive immigration law would do. What the president is doing now is narrowly drawn and I'm confident, having spoken to not only the administration, but the vice president, that in this instance, they have used every aspect of research to narrowly draw his authority. And his authority is no less broad than President Truman, who took it upon himself to integrate, through an executive order, the United States military.

I'm very confident in that and I would only ask my Republican friends, and I do call them friends, Wolf, read what the president will be issuing. I have read it. I have been briefed on it. They could be briefed on it. And they will see that he is doing nothing more than the confines of prosecutorial discretion and he is operating finally under the U.S. versus Arizona case that Justice Roberts said he has the ability to issue humanitarian relief.

BLITZER: I want you to listen to what your fellow Texan, Republican Senator John Cornyn, said on the Senate floor this morning. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: If the president has the authority to do this for 5 million, why not the 11 million? How's he explain that to the 6 million people who see now these 5 million getting preferential treatment? And how in the world do you explain it to the people who have waited patiently, year after year, trying to do it the right way?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, go ahead, congresswoman, respond to your fellow Texan.

JACKSON LEE: Well, first of all, that is the very reason why I'm supporting the president. It is because he has narrowed his authority to deal with individuals who are citizen children, to allow their parents to stay and not see them ripped away from their homes and leaving five-year-olds and two-year-olds. He is, in fact, increasing the salaries of I.C.E. officers and making them equal to other federal law enforcement officers. He is establishing task forces for border security. So I think if Senator Cornyn, who I know means well, will read what the president has done, he will understand why it is not 11 million.

As it relates to those who are standing in line, I am in agreement that they are important people. They have stood in line and this does not interfere with any of these individuals who are standing in line for green cards, they're standing in line for citizenship, and they will continue to be processed. What the president is trying to do is what I've said, humanitarian relief. And he made it very clear, as soon as Congress acts, he will vacate this executive order.

My plea to the speaker is not to fight the president tooth and nail, but to do what he promised to do at the beginning of the president's second term, and that is to put immigration reform on the floor of the House, in whatever manner it may be, let us vote on it, vote a conference, and pass laws that the American people can be proud of.

BLITZER: All right, we've got to go, but one quick, final question. The 600,000 dreamers, as they're called, a couple years ago the president signed an executive order allowing them to basically stay here. These are the young kids who have grown up in the United States. But this new executive order, apparently, is not going to allow their parents to come out and openly and stay in the United States. They're still going to be illegal residents of the United States. Are you OK with keeping these families separate?

JACKSON LEE: It gives dreamers three years, which is also something positive. But I am, Wolf, and the reason is because it keeps in line with the president's commitment of accountability. He wants to be held accountable. He wants to make sure the American people know that he is not extending his authority. And in this instance, these children are not citizens, as citizen children are, which he is working on those families. And we understand that there are limits that you can do through an executive order. You cannot change the law. The president is not changing the law. He is simply extending an olive branch to the Republicans and to America showing that he has a compassion and the ability to be responding to the cry of so many.

I think he is doing the right thing. I'm excited about it. And I feel confident knowing that he is operating under Article II authority in the Constitution. I'd ask my colleagues to read it. But, more importantly, I'd ask my colleagues to walk amongst the many immigrant families that I have done, touch them and understand that they're not here to be criminals, they're not here to do wrong, of which none of those will be allowed in under this process, they're simply here to be good Americans. Let's get them started in the right way.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, thanks very much for joining us.

JACKSON LEE: It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you.

BLITZER: All right, we'll take a quick break. When we come back, more on the breaking news out of Ferguson, Missouri. The federal government now issuing a recommendation to local, state authorities, including federal authorities all over the country, to go on a higher state of alert, fearful that some of the demonstrations in the aftermath of a grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri, could get violent. More on that story.

Also more on the huge immigration debate that's unfolding here in the United States, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I want to get back to the breaking news. The federal law enforcement authorities, they are telling local and state authorities, be on a higher state of alert right now in the aftermath of what could come as early as tomorrow, a grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri, on whether or not to indict the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, the teenager there. There could be very, very angry demonstrations, not only in Ferguson and St. Louis, in that area, but indeed elsewhere around the country.

And now Evan Perez, our justice reporter, telling us that the Federal Protective Service, which is in charge of protecting, for example, federal buildings here in Washington, indeed all over the country, the Federal Protective Service is preparing for possible protests at major federal facilities and the alert has gone out.

Let's bring in Tom Fuentes, our law enforcement analyst, the former FBI assistant director, joining us on the phone right now.

It's not every day you get an alert like this from Washington going out to local and state authorities, be on the lookout, be on a little bit higher state of readiness in the - in what could happen after this grand jury decision, presumably if they don't go ahead and indict this police officer.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST (via telephone): No, that's true, Wolf, and it certainly sounds like they're expecting bad news to be, you know, immediately at this time putting everybody on high alert and the decision apparently has not been made but, you know, if that's true, that they're going to decide tomorrow or the day after and then put the word out, but it certainly sounds like they're not expecting good news.

BLITZER: Because they're saying that this could happen in several major cities across the United States. Activist groups, as you know, they've been calling for demonstrations and all of us hope those demonstrations are peaceful. But what worries law enforcement is there could be some agitators out there who come with some weapons or whatever and that could spark who knows what. That's the great fear, right?

FUENTES: No, that's true, and that's happened, you know, and it doesn't matter if the protest is about a racial matter or if it's about the International Monetary Fund or World Bank or some other excuse. There are a group of hooligans that travel from one city to another, and in some cases one country to another, merely because there's going to be an emotional crowd gathered for some reason and that's a good excuse to come and try to fight with the police. And, unfortunately, you know, that does happen and that's what they're braced for.

BLITZER: I don't remember a time, maybe you do, when this kind of federal warning has gone out in the -- even before a grand jury decision, even before the demonstrations were to begin. This is pretty extraordinary, isn't it?

FUENTES: Well, I think it's definitely extraordinary circumstances. We don't have a situation where we know if the decision comes out a certain way that it will have an emotional response and then that creates the environment where violence could happen, even though the protesters in Ferguson and Michael Brown's parents and others don't want it to happen. But as I said, there are others that will certainly take advantage of a situation like this to cause violence.

BLITZER: Tom Fuentes, thanks very much. We'll stay in touch with you.