Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Immigration Reform Takes Center Stage In Congress As Border Crossings Reach Record Numbers; Texas Governor Signs Controversial SB4 Into Law, Sparking Legal Showdown; Lawmakers Express Concerns Over Israel's Military Strategy And Humanitarian Crisis. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 21, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Beyond the border, as the nation grapples with a surge of migrants, the battle over immigration reform is playing out in Congress and across the country. How this all factors into the 2020 presidential election and battle on the Red Sea. The U.S. is creating a new coalition to fight off Iranian-backed Houthi rebel attacks on commercial ships, attacks that are already threatening the global supply chain. We'll have more on the economic fallout ahead.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: And we have liftoff. More than a year after a fiery failure, Blue Origin launches its new rocket. What's its mission? We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We're only 11 months out from the 2024 presidential election, and a key issue for both parties is a divisive one, immigration. To put it in perspective, some recent CNN polling, economic concerns far and away are the most prevailing issue for voters. But immigration is second. And when it comes to which party voters most closely align with, opinions vary greatly. 43 percent of people say that they side with Republicans' views on the issue, 29 percent with Democrats, 27 percent say, No, thanks, neither.

Meantime, the situation on the ground is dire. Crossings at the southern border are higher than ever. We're talking record-setting numbers. Congressman Henry Cuellar says that in the Del Rio border sector alone, more than 8,000 migrants are either in CBP custody or waiting to be transported for processing. More broadly, though, across the southern border, over 23,000 migrants were in custody overnight. And the issue is not just at the border. Remember the strain put on cities targeted by Republican governors who sent scores of migrants to Democrat-led cities like Chicago, D.C., New York. In New York, Mayor Eric Adams says that more than 154,000 migrants arrived there in the last 20 months alone.

Those busing programs are only one step taken by governors like Greg Abbott of Texas. He's now locked into a slew of legal battles with the federal government over what he can control at the state level. Like the installation of those floating border barriers in the Rio Grande. Last night, he took an even bigger step by signing SB4 into law. We want to dig into the details of what that entails. SB4 adds more than a billion dollars for funding for a new border wall construction. It increases the penalty as well for human smuggling.

But the most controversial aspects, it makes it a state crime for someone to illegally cross the border into Texas, meaning that local law enforcement would be granted the power to arrest migrants, or at least people who they suspect of being migrants. This sets up yet another legal showdown between Texas and the federal government. Brianna.

KEILAR: Yeah, the law is sparking fear in Texas's Latino community, which accounts for 40% of the state's population, amid concerns that this measure will open them up to racial profiling by law enforcement. Legal opponents of the bill allege that Texas is overstepping the powers of the federal government, which is what 21 democratic house members are also saying here that it's, quote, unconstitutional and dangerous, even as proponents of the bill insist that it is lawful.

Bill opponents compare SB4 in Texas to Arizona's infamous 2010 immigration measure, SB1070, which critics dubbed the show-me-your- papers law. They called it that because the Arizona law has a key provision that tasks police with checking a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the states illegally. Now the Supreme Court rejected multiple parts of the law in 2012, but the court let that controversial provision stand. Still, and this is key, the court upheld that the federal government sets immigration policy and laws. And this does not bode well for the new law in Texas, according to CNN's senior legal analyst, Elie Honig. Here's how he explains it.

[14:05:09]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: No, this is not constitutional. Easy answer there. This is day one of constitutional law. Issues like immigration, foreign policy, foreign affairs are specifically and only reserved to the federal government. Makes sense. Imagine if every state could have a different immigration policy, enforce it differently, it would be wild. We've seen very similar laws in other border states, including Arizona, struck down within the last decade and change by the Supreme Court. We saw a case involving Arizona in 2012, went all the way to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court struck it down. And I think we'll see the same result here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Of course, the court is significantly more conservative now than it was then. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent in the Arizona case. But two justices who are still on the court, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, backed his dissent, which said this quote, Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty, not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state. I dissent.

So, you see some similarities there. And there are some law enforcement voices in Texas who are expressing support for the law. Kevin Lawrence, who is the head of the largest Texas police association, told CNN, quote, SB4, at least to some measure, would give local law enforcement better tools to work with. All of this only heightening the importance, of course, of these border talks on Capitol Hill that we are following. And that is where we start this hour with our Manu Raju. Manu, how are negotiations going?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they are moving along, but they're moving slowly. In fact, the bipartisan group of senators just finished a morning meeting with the administration, including the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And they made very clear that there is still far more work to be done. That's what Kyrsten Sinema, who is one of those members who was part of those talks, said this is an incredibly complex area of law, and that she could not overstate how long, how hard this is. And there's real questions about when this deal can be reached. But there is a growing expectation and belief that this is will certainly be punted until the new year.

And, at that point, we will see about whether they can actually get an agreement, get it through both chambers, and if presidential politics won't interfere with this. That's because the party's leading presidential contender, Donald Trump, has taken an increasingly hard line on the issue of immigration, something that some Republicans and Democrats fear could actually impair their efforts to get a deal, if he comes out against a compromise between the two sides. In the aftermath of his comments about illegal immigrants, quote, poisoning the blood of people in the United States, a number of Republicans are pushing back, including the number two Senate Republican, John Thune.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE, SOUTH DAKOTA (R): My grandfather is an immigrant, so that's not a view I share. We're a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of laws, and we have got to enforce the law.

RAJU: Do you worry, though, just more broadly, that he may come out against any deals that's reached, rail on it, and make it harder to pass?

THUNE: Well, I mean, that could happen. But I think, in the end, as long as we get what we believe are the right policies in place that will address right now what is a runaway train at the southern border, and change the signals we're sending. So, if that happens, hopefully, we can get the necessary votes in the Senate and in the House to move something, irrespective of what others may say about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: But that is going to be easier said than done, because this bipartisan group of senators are simply looking for a deal to give the president more authority to expel migrants to the southern border and increase the detention programs, as well as essentially putting more restrictive laws, including over how migrants can apply for asylum.

All those measures, in fact, have generated significant pushback from the left. So, you're seeing some pushback from the left. Some folks on the right who say this needs to go much further, and a lot of questions about whether a deal that is reached, that is drafted, can actually get the votes in the Senate, eventually get approved by the Republican-led House.

And all the while, aid to Ukraine, aid to Israel, hanging in the balance here, because Republicans say the border must be dealt with first before they deal with these other pressing issues. So just a lot of questions here, as this is going to get punted into the new year. Can they get a deal? Can they get it through both chambers of Congress? Or will this stall amid all these crises, both domestically and internationally? Guys.

SANCHEZ: The consideration of presidential politics cuts both ways, right, Manu Raju. Thank you so much. Let's get the White House perspective on this now with CNN's M.J. Lee. M.J., the Biden administration navigating these border discussions carefully, trying to get something done, while also trying not to alienate a key part of their base.

[14:10:09]

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I mean, there's no question that this border issue has been incredibly complicated and very delicate for this White House, particularly as we have seen polls showing that there is wide dissatisfaction among voters about President Biden's handling of the immigration issue. So far, what the White House has said is that they have been willing to make major concessions and they are still willing to make additional major concessions when it comes to some of these tighter immigration policies that some Republicans have been pushing for.

But these are concessions that definitely could cut both ways, as Manu was alluding to. Of course, you can imagine that there are some independent voters, some moderates who would welcome the idea of stricter immigration policies that basically are seen as taking action to address the record number of migrants that we have seen coming to the U.S. southern border. But it also has the effect of potentially alienating and angering and frustrating progressives who say that they are not okay with some of these policies that are seen as being more conservative and some of them are seen as being inhumane and not compassionate.

And in fact, there are some Democratic allies of the White House telling my colleagues, Priscilla Alvarez and Camila DeChalus, that if some of these policies that are on the table do end up being a part of this package, that they can't even imagine campaigning for the president because they see these policies as being bad policies. Now, I think it's also just worth reminding everyone that even though the major hang-up is over the issue of the border, we are talking about a supplemental package that includes some $60 billion in aid for Ukraine. And when it comes to that, the White House has basically said, look, time is up. We could get one more package through before the end of the month. But after that, there is no more money.

KEILAR: All right, MJ Lee, thank you so much for that report.

SANCHEZ: Let's expand the conversation now with John Sandweg, he's the former acting director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Obama administration. He also served as the former acting general counsel for Homeland Security. John, thank you so much for being with us. I just want to note for our viewers, moments ago, we got into our inbox confirmation from Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas that migrant apprehensions on the U.S. southern border topped 12,600 in the last 24 hours alone.

John, when you hear those numbers and you hear that the White House is weighing whether to expedite pathways to deportation, to limit asylum seekers, how effective do you think those policies would be in slowing down the number of illegal crossings?

JOHN SANDWEG, FMR. ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPT. HOMELAND SECURITY: I mean, look, the devil's in the details. We haven't seen any details come out of these Senate negotiations. I've said this a million times. The fundamental problem is we're just not enforcing the laws that are on the books because the system is overwhelmed. Now, as I understand it, some of the things the Senate is talking about would be streamlining the process, which ostensibly could kind of provide that deterrent effect.

I mean, look, unless and until we start sending people back to their home country, this flow is going to continue. Ostensibly, the Senate could, depending on what exactly they agree on, could streamline that process, allowing the department to effectuate the deportation of individuals, which could stop the flow. But again, you know, all we've heard is kind of what's coming out of rumors. We haven't seen any details yet.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. How do you think this might potentially cost President Biden politically? It's obviously right before an election year. He's trying to cut down Republican claims that he's not doing enough on the border. But you hear from left-leaning groups on the issue of immigration that this could potentially harm him with the base in key swing states.

SANDWEG: Yeah, Boris, I mean, look, inside, we're focused on a sheer number of claims, right? But there are a lot of legitimate claims in there. People who are legitimate, extremely fleeing persecution. And this country does have this great tradition, you know, of honoring people and, you know, pledging to give safe haven to people fleeing persecution. So, look, having met with these groups a lot during my time at the department, I will tell you there will be extreme frustration.

I think what's probably frustrating the most is there are probably alternative ways we could do this. If we had surged resources into the system so that we can make the existing laws work, we probably could have slowed down the crisis, limited the flows of the border without compromising our values. And so, you know, I think we're going to have to think about how we're going to be able to do this. And I think that's going to be a big challenge for us to be able to do this in any way. It's unclear. Maybe we're a little bit past that now, right? The numbers are shocking. These are massive numbers.

These are numbers that are unprecedented, certainly far, far bigger than we ever dealt with during my time in the department when that was viewed as a crisis. So, something is going to have to give. But I think what we're seeing here with the Senate bill, with this Texas law, all of this is a byproduct of the federal government, not just the Biden administration, but the Congress and the Trump administration's failure to adequately resource the system, despite the fact that this has been going on now for seven years.

[14:15:09]

SANCHEZ: To the question of that Texas law, SB4, the Supreme Court historically has sided with the federal government's right to patrol immigration and its authority over the border. But this is a Supreme Court, as we've noted, that is openly undoing precedent. If this winds up getting there, do you think SB4 survives?

SANDWEG: I think it probably doesn't. The Arizona precedent is pretty pretty comprehensive in this regard. Arizona tried a very similar tactic to what Texas is doing now. It is a different court, however, and it's a different climate. And so we'll see. But I think all in all, it probably fails. Look, at the end of the day, I think the bigger issue with SB4 is it's just not going to be effective from a border security perspective. It does nothing to address the core problems that we're facing at the border. It's not going to deter or help fix the crisis in any way.

It creates a lot of other problems. I mean, you could argue that this is a boom for drug cartels who now, because basically what Texas is saying, let's shift the tension from complex investigations focusing on the cartels and shift it over to the low-hanging fruit, you know, the economic migrants and divert prosecutorial resources there. So I think there are a lot of problems. It's going to be incredibly difficult to enforce this law without stepping on civil rights and engaging in racial profiling. But look, at the end of the day, this is very similar to what Arizona tried. The court shut it down. We'll see. But I would have to think the precedent will prevail and the court will shift this down as well.

SANCHEZ: John Sandweg, thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us. We appreciate the time.

SANDWEG: Yeah, my pleasure.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still ahead, under pressure from his own party, a group of key Democrats urging President Biden to use, quote, all our leverage to get Israel to change its military tactics in Gaza. We're going to speak to one of the lawmakers pressing the White House and the largest credit union in the country now facing a lawsuit alleging it discriminated against black and Latino applicants. The details. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:09]

KEILAR: Right now, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is in Bahrain. He is there after spending the day in Qatar meeting with government officials there where they discussed Qatar's pivotal role in hostage release negotiations between Hamas and Israel.

SANCHEZ: Let's go now live to Tel Aviv with CNN's Will Ripley. Will, Secretary Austin's visit to the region comes as Israel's president, Isaac Herzog, is saying that the country is ready for another humanitarian pause. That's a significant development, no?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's significant, but it's unlikely to happen unless Hamas dramatically changes its position. Because what Hamas has been saying is that the remaining, 129 or so hostages, will not be released until, in their words, the war is over. And Israel is using the term humanitarian pause. Let me read you that full quote, if I can, from President Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president. He said, quote, I can reiterate the fact that Israel is ready for another humanitarian pause and additional humanitarian aid in order to enable the release of hostages. And the responsibility lies fully with Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar and the leadership of Hamas.

So, in other words, the two sides which already don't trust each other and are engaged in very fierce combat. Are basically wanting two different things out of this. The hostages are the leverage, the remaining leverage for Hamas. And so, the concern is that they're really going to be unwilling to give up that leverage. Even in exchange for a humanitarian pause, which is so desperately needed in Gaza. Where over the weekend we saw those horrible images of people who are literally fighting over the few scraps of aid that are left.

Climbing onto the aid trucks themselves. Just trying to get whatever they can to survive. And it's a very, very difficult situation. The Hamas-controlled health ministry reporting that the death toll is now surpassed 19,600. Getting closer to 20,000 reported deaths in Gaza. A large number of them civilians including the potential of people who are sheltering at a church. Two women killed, allegedly, by Israeli snipers over the weekend. That, of course, is creating a huge uproar in Gaza where they say they're being targeted. Civilians are being targeted and supplies are desperately running low.

KEILAR: Yeah, it's horrific what we hear coming out of there, Will. I want to talk a little bit about these attacks that we're seeing on shipping vessels in the Red Sea. By Iranian-backed Houthi rebels out of Yemen. The U.S. is now saying, you know, as part of how they're trying to combat this, that they're going to lead a coalition to secure safe passage. What does that look like?

RIPLEY: Well, it's, they're going to have to actually try to patrol the waters. And, and to make sure that they're safe. basically try to prevent fire from coming from Yemen, essentially, to protect the supply chain, which has already been really seriously disrupted. When you have to reroute cargo ships, instead of going through the Suez Canal, basically able to take a more direct route to vital supply lines across the Indo-Pacific region, they're going to have to add days up to their trip, not to mention all of the extra fuel to travel around the entire southern tip of Africa to avoid these assaults on cargo ships that the Houthi rebels backed by Iran.

Iran, by the way, also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. They're saying that these assaults are revenge, essentially, for what's happening in Gaza. So, this regional conflict, which is such a sensitive flashpoint, already spreading much further and faster than the United States would want. And that's why you have the defense secretary across the region trying to find solutions and put out these fires before it really starts to spread out of control.

KEILAR: Yeah. Will, thank you for that report. Live for us from Tel Aviv.

SANCHEZ: We want to dig in now on the economic impacts of these major shipping companies halting operations in the Red Sea. With us, CNN Business Editor-at-Large Richard Quest. Richard, great to see you. How much global trade passes through that region? How much of a disruption are we anticipating for global supply chains?

[14:24:59]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Well, let's go back to that map you've just been showing, if we can. And it'll give you an idea that the main route between Europe at the top, and Asia, Southern Africa, large parts of Southeast Asia, goes through the Suez Canal down through the Red Sea. And you can see there 8,440 nautical miles. Anywhere between 15 to 30 percent of global trade goes that way. Sometimes more of its fuel, sometimes less of its cargo, often its bulk grain. You've got the number of their 10 to 15 percent. It can go as high as 30 in some cases.

Now, you heard Will say what the navies were going to try and do. You've got fleets of drones coming from Yemen on the eastern side across Cannes, the US, the UK, France, all those other navies. Can they shoot those drones down before they hit the ships? The answer is probably no. And that's why you have Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, BP, just about every major shipping is now saying, sorry, we're going to go the long way. And as you saw on that map, that's 11,000 miles in distance.

KEILAR: Yeah, huge. Richard, thank you for taking us through that. We do appreciate it. Despite a growing push from the US and the international community for Israel to do more to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. Several key lawmakers in Washington are saying that they've seen no significant change. Six House Democrats who sit on national security committees and who have served in either the military or the CIA just sent President Biden a letter expressing deep concern about Israel's military strategy. They write in this, quote, the mounting civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis are unacceptable and not in line with American interests nor do they advance the cause of security for our ally Isreal. We also believe it jeopardizes efforts to destroy the terrorist organization Hamas and secure the release of all hostages. One of those lawmakers on the letter with us now, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, who is on the Intel and Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, you say in this letter that we, meaning the US, has consistently pushed for Israel to shift its military strategy. There's been no significant change. What do you make of US officials like the defense secretary highlighting this lower intensity approach, but then you don't actually see it and the US still sends unconditional aid.

REP. JASON CROW, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, hi, Brianna. This letter that we penned, it comes out of our personal experience spending years serving our country, fighting our global war on terror and our experiences doing so. And what those experiences taught us is that there are limitations to military power that you when you are fighting terrorism, it is fundamentally different from when you're fighting a government or a nation state. Terrorism is an ideology and you can't bomb away an ideology.

These terrorist organizations, they feed off of despair, anguish, hopelessness. And if you don't make every effort possible and center and really focus your operations on protecting civilians and preventing civilian casualties, you will actually feed that ideology and make it worse. So we are committed to Israel's security and Israel's future. And we're concerned that the current operations are undermining that security over the long term. So, I am encouraged to see Defense Secretary Austin delivering that message to Israel. President Biden has expressed concern recently, as have other administration officials in the last few weeks.

KEILAR: You know, it was pretty stunning to hear Secretary Austin in Israel talking about what he would like to see happen. And then you hear. You hear the Israeli defense minister saying something very different and making it clear that Israel is not going to take that advice. What does the U.S. then need to do? Does there need to be condition on the aid?

CROW: Well, what you just described, this dynamic between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu administration is exactly why we pinned this letter. We have been expressing these concerns over the last couple of months in private, you know, as allies and partners do. We have a partner and strong ally of Israel and they are of us. So making sure that we expressed our concerns in private. But those concerns have not been adequately heard. So that's why we made this letter public. So, continuing to push and, as we said, use our leverage as an essential partner to Israel to impact that change and put in appropriate guardrails, because we have to make sure that American interests are being served, American security is being served.

There have been over 100 attacks on U.S. bases, installations and ships in the region in the last two months. So, attacks. Attacks continue to increase. So, we have to make sure that American interests are being served as well as Israeli interests and that's why we sent that message through this letter.

KEILAR: You call out Netanyahu specifically in your letter for his approach.