Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Biden Announces Executive Action On Immigration; ACLU: We Will Sue Biden Admin Over New Asylum Restrictions; Prosecutors Introduce Hunter Biden's Laptop As Evidence; Utah Sues TikTok Alleging Live Feature Puts Children At Risk. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired June 04, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: hat was that?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I asked you, is Prime Minister Netanyahu playing politics with the war?

BIDEN: I don't think so. He's trying to work out a serious problem.

(CROSSTALK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, we are listening there to President Biden making an announcement of executive action on immigration.

We will just say, he was asked, as he was leaving there, if Benjamin Netanyahu was playing politics with the war and he said he doesn't think so, he's trying to work out a serious problem that he has, which obviously would be an internal political problem.

But on this executive action, this is very big, what he is announcing, that this would be basically a daily average cap of 2,500 people. That's the average trying to get into the border illegally.

These would be illegal encounters in-between ports of entry. And that if the average goes above that, then between ports of entry essentially shut down. And this is something that you see progressives are not there in the audience with him and obviously they have some opposition to this.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Yes, they're -- they're very concerned about this.

What I thought was interesting to note there, you heard him trying to distinguish himself from former President Donald Trump, who used the same authority in some of the immigration actions he took while in office.

But Biden, there was trying to say, I'm not going to separate families. I'm not going to hold people in -- at the border in cages, things like that where he is trying to set clear boundaries around what he's doing as opposed to what Trump was doing. But, Brianna, the fact remains, we're looking at the list here of

various elected officials who were there for this announcement. A bipartisan group, but not any progressives on that list.

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: And they're already starting to put out their statements.

KEILAR: That's right. So obviously, opposition on the right as well.

DEAN: Yes.

KEILAR: We go to Priscilla Alvarez. She is there at the White House. She has been following this.

The president, Priscilla, saying he's not going to demonize immigrants. He's not going to use the American military to go into communities across the country and deport people, as former President Trump says that he will -- as he will.

He is trying to show that he is being strong, obviously, when it comes to border issues. But he's also trying to create distance between himself and Trump.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, Jessica, I have been covering this administration since the beginning in 2021. This is not a speech nor an action that we could have imagined this White House taking at that time.

And he called back to that, saying that, when he took office, he was pushing for immigration reform, for restoring the asylum system. But what is happening today is shutting off asylum access to migrants who are crossing the border illegally.

That is a departure from decades-along protocol and does take a page from Donald Trump's playbook.

Now, of course, the president addressed that criticism in his remarks saying, quote, "be patient," and that they had to do something on the border, essentially sort of acknowledging that there has been concern among American voters about what they have seen at the U.S.-Mexico border over recent years.

Which has been the record migration at the western hemisphere arriving directly on the U.S. southern border when we saw multiple border crisis, that this administration has had to grapple with.

And that is what has led to this remarkable moment by President Biden, taking one of the most restrictive actions of his administration and perhaps of a Democratic president to try to clamp down on a process that has been the process for years.

And the president, before walking into what his action would do, talked quite a bit about that failed bipartisan border bill, one that his administration had worked on, and that was worked on by Democrats and Republicans, noting that that's what he wanted. He wanted Congress to find the solution here, not to have to do it himself.

And I think it was notable just how much time he spent on that, starting his remarks that way and also revisiting it later on.

He also said, quote, that this -- "this political issue should not be weaponized."

Of course progressives and immigrant advocates are going to take issue with that because they say that is exactly what's happening here when this action is coming only weeks from the first presidential debate and only months from the November election.

Knowing very well that immigration is among one of the top issues that voters are thinking about going into November.

And he also talked about Mexico and how important the cooperation is between the two countries. A source telling me earlier that the president will be talking to the Mexican president later today.

[14:35:00]

But clearly, Brianna and Jessica, you cannot overstate how big of an announcement this is for this white it House on this very issue.

DEAN: Absolutely right.

Priscilla Alvarez for us at the White House.

And I want to go to Rosa Flores who is at the border in Hidalgo, Texas.

And, Rosa, I know you've covered immigration for years. You've been down there over the last several months as we've seen surges. This is supposed to go into action tonight at midnight.

What kind of actual changes are they anticipating seeing where you are and how is this news being received where you are?

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We'll, Jessica, I can tell you, as I was listening to the president, what was crossing my mind were these years of conversations that I have had on the border, on both sides of the border with officials, with voters on the U.S. side.

In essence, officials clamoring, asking the Biden administration to do something, to do anything to stop the flow of migration into their communities.

I can tell you that so many of these borders, so many of these officials have told me that, for example, they don't agree with everything that Texas Governor Greg Abbott is doing, for example, with Operation Lone Star and his hardline immigration.

But they would tell me, Rosa, he's doing something. The -- the officials were absent on the border or the federal officials. It's President Biden who's not on the border. It's President Biden who's not doing something. And a lot of these officials, Jessica, would tell me, we know that he's not going to fix everything, that's impossible. They know that Congress is the only one that can actually have comprehensive immigration reform and an actual fix.

But the people on the border that I've talked to for years wanted the Biden administration to do something. And I think that that was what they heard today with the words that were presented from the White House today by President Biden about this executive order.

In essence, barring asylum depending on a threshold being met at the southern border.

Now, it's notable, as you mentioned, that President Biden did not mention former President Donald Trump by name. But he took some jabs at him, saying that he's wasn't going to separate families, that he was going to be respectful to Mexicans.

And now what I can tell you, based on my conversations on the border for years with advocates and immigration attorneys, what they would point out is the net effect that is seen on the border with the Biden administration policies and with the Trump policies.

And they would tell you that the net effect is the same. It has led to migrants been stuck on the Mexican side waiting in shelters in squalor conditions and dangerous conditions.

I've interviewed women who have been raped. They have been extorted on the Mexican side, waiting to who cross either to the U.S. side or because they're waiting for their U.S. case to be handled. But they're waiting on the Mexican side.

And so the net effect, I would say, that these immigration advocates would point out, they would say that it's the same, even though President Biden is trying to distance himself from former President Donald Trump -- Jessica?

KEILAR: Rosa, Rosa, thank you so much for that report from the border. Obviously, a very sober assessment of what all this means.

Let's talk now with Lee Gelernt, who is the deputy director of the ACLU Immigrant's Rights Project.

Lee, I'm interested to know, the ACLU sued former President Trump to try to block the Trump administration from making it more difficult for migrants to make asylum claims. Will you be suing the Biden administration for the same here?

LEE GELERNT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ACLU IMMIGRANT'S RIGHTS PROJECT: We will. We successfully sued President Trump. That's the case that I argued a few years ago.

We said that that was illegal when he tried the asylum ban that we think is very similar to the one that President Biden is doing. We think it remains illegal. And so we will challenge that in court. We're going to review to

decide the timing and where. But right now, we've seen enough to know that we will sue.

What the policy does is say you could only apply for asylum if you're managed to get to a port of entry. But Congress has been very clear about this. You can apply for asylum, whether or not you went through at a port.

And what Congress has said is, if you're in danger, get to U.S. land and be screened for asylum.

And the reason is very straightforward and consistent with international law. Many times a cartel will push people across the border between ports.

Sometimes people will not know where the port is. Sometimes they may be hundreds of miles from port traveling with a little child who can't walk there. So once they get over the border, they can be screened.

And I want to be very clear about two things. We're not saying that everyone is entitled to asylum, but we made a solemn promise after World War II, we would never send people back without at least screening them.

[14:40:07]

This policy will mean not even a screen to see if people are in grave danger because of their religious views, because of their political views.

The second thing I want to make clear is we are not against or in favor of streamlining the asylum process. I think everyone agrees that, as long as we retain some measure of due process, we should streamline it.

But this is too far by actually banning asylum for people. And I think the American people want a balanced approach. They don't want to send families back who are in serious danger because of their religious views or political views.

But they want a more streamlined process. But this goes too far in the other direction.

DEAN: And we heard from Rosa Flores, our correspondent down in Texas, who's covered the border for many, many years. And she was telling us how many people there on both sides of the aisle say, please do something, the federal government is doing nothing, and we are overwhelmed down here.

Congress won't act. So what do you think is an appropriate action that can be done by the executive, in this case by President Biden, that, in your words, can help streamline this?

GELERNT: Yes. Well, let me see, initially, I think President Biden's right that ultimately there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform.

What -- what I would say are two things that need to happen. One there needs to be more legal pathways for people, including for workers. I think every economist now is in agreement that the country needs more workers. But if you don't open those legal pathways, the only route is asylum.

The second thing I would say is the executive branch has enough resources to put more asylum officers and immigration judges in play at the border. What we know is that desperate people are going to come to the border no matter what the policy is. So we need to screen them.

And the truth is that we don't need more enforcement. What experts will tell you now at the border is families are not trying to evade officers. What they do is they walk over the border and they sit down and wait for an officer to approach them to apply for asylum.

So what we don't need are more enforcement agents. What we need are more asylum officers to engage in that screening quickly. If they don't meet the standard there, unfortunately, they're sent back to their home country, no matter how economically desperate they may be.

If they meet the standard, then we let them in and give them a more full hearing.

But we can't back down from the promise we made after World War II to not at least screen people and just send people back to danger without knowing whether there were -- they was a legitimate asylum claim.

KEILAR: Did -- did you hear him on that?

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I'm trying to be clear about what we heard from the president about sending more resources to the border for screening. But it sounds, Lee, what you're saying is, yes to that, no to this shutting down between the ports of entry.

GELERNT: That's exactly right. I think the more resources we can surge to make the process move quicker, great. I think no one wants the current system where people wait years and years to be screened or having asylum hearing. But I think this goes too far by not even having screenings and to shut it down.

So I mean, he may be searching resources, but the truth is, we know the numbers are under 2,500 now. They have been under 2,500 since February of 2001. So we're not likely to ever see asylum come back under this policy.

So I'm not really sure what the surge of resources is going to do as long as the ban remains in place.

KEILAR: Yes, he said over 4,300 new asylum officers and additional U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services staff to facilitate -- to facilitate timely and fair decisions.

DEAN: All right, Lee --

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: Go ahead.

GELERNT: Right. We should try that first before we start banning asylum.

Thank you so much for having me.

DEAN: Thank you, Lee. Thanks so much for making time.

And thanks to Priscilla Alvarez and Rosa Flores.

[14:43:56]

We're going to have more on CNN NEWS CENTRAL after a quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:48:37]

DEAN: We have breaking news in the Hunter Biden federal gun trial.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, joining us now from outside court in Delaware.

And, Paula, I understand that prosecutors have now introduced Hunter Biden's laptop, the laptop that's so much has been talked about and written about, into evidence. What more do you know?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. So as part of the beginning of their case, prosecutors have put an FBI agent on the stand and she is helping them break bringing a lot of key evidence.

And they just introduced this laptop that Biden famously left at a repair shop back in 2019. Soo using this laptop to introduce some pieces of evidence that exist on it, including some text messages.

Now they're still introducing this evidence. So it's unclear what more they will bring in.

But I was in court about an hour ago and it -- it was fascinating because this FBI agent, she's not necessarily testifying about her experience in the case. She is helping to authenticate evidence to bring it into this trial.

And really, the first witness we heard from was Hunter Biden himself because, for nearly an hour, we heard from the audio version of his memoir that he actually narrates.

And they specifically played the portion where he talked about being addicted to crack, the lengths he went to, to obtain it, and what that did to his life. It was fascinating to watch him. He and his lawyers very attentive listening to him describe this.

[14:50:00]

And of course, the first lady was in the first row in the courtroom also listening to this. Dr. Jill Biden in attendance again today, showing support for her stepson.

But as of now, there's only been one witness called and she's expected to be on the stand for quite a while as she helps prosecutors kickoff their case by bringing in all the really key evidence.

DEAN: All right. And, Paula, before we let you go, I also want to ask about some of the jurors in this trial. We know that several have lost loved ones to addiction.

How have they been responding today to what they're hearing in court?

REID: It's been fascinating, because during the jury selection process, a majority of the potential jurors said that they had some experience with addiction, either themselves or watching a loved one go get through it.

So it's a reminder that we have an addiction epidemic in this country. And while they were doing the -- the defense was doing its opening statement, in part, talking about Hunter's struggle with addiction, at least one juror, she took out a tissue and she was dabbing her eyes.

I mean, this is an issue that touches most people's lives. It's very sensitive.

And the way prosecutors addressed it in their opening statement, as they said, look, addiction is not a choice. But they said it is a choice to illegally purchase a firearm.

But that issue certainly looms large here during this trial.

DEAN: It certainly does.

Paula Reid, thanks so much, live from Wilmington, Delaware, this afternoon.

Up next, Utah sues TikTok again, claiming the app puts children at risk. The feature that has state officials so concerned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The state of Utah is once again coming after TikTok. This time, claiming in a new lawsuit that the app's livestreaming feature could harm children through sexual exploitation.

This is the second time that Utah has sued the social media platform over concerns about the risks to young people who use the service.

CNN business writer, Clare Duffy, is here with us. And, Clare, the suit also claims that TikTok is fully aware of this issue but will not address it. Tell us more.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Right. So this lawsuit specifically takes aim at TikTok's livestreaming feature, TikTok Live, where users can host live videos. They can respond and interact to comments in real time.

And TikTok also allows viewers to send monetary gifts to the people hosting livestreams. Often those are represented by colorful emojis. And the lawsuit claims that those colorful emojis that represent cash payments are clearly designed to - they're clearly aimed at children. It says they look like cute, colorful emojis.

And the lawsuit also claims that this incentive structure where people are performing live for money in real time could lead to the exploitation of children. It claims that children can be encouraged by adults to perform elicit acts on camera in order to receive cash payments.

And, indeed, it does claim that TikTok has known about this issue for some time and has failed to take appropriate action.

Now, TikTok has responded, pushed back firmly against these claims.

A spokesperson told me yesterday that, "The platform has industry- leading policies and measures to help protect the safety and wellbeing of teens.

[14:55:06]

"Creators must be at least 18-years-old before they can go live. And their account must meet a follower requirement. We immediately revoked access to features if we find accounts that do not meet our age requirements."

But look, this lawsuit claims that TikTok is not doing enough to verify and enforce the ages of users to ensure that it really is only adults using this livestream feature.

And of course, this is just the latest hurdle for TikTok. The company has faced a number of claims related to youth safety, including that earlier Utah lawsuit.

KEILAR: All right. We'll keep an eye on this one, Clare. We'll see if it has legs.

And we're following some breaking news right now on the president's executive action on the border. Back to you on this camera.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: All right. We're talking about the politics of this all, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)