tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC May 16, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
still about 800 points lower than it was on may first. that's still about 3% lower. we made up for some of last week's losses. >> and, remember, it was yesterday the president said, listen, we have a few alleaks. and we'll be trying to give the market some level of confidence that negotiations are still happening. i spoke to ian bremer. china sells us a lot of stuff. they don't want to lose that. the former ceo of goldman sachs said i don't necessarily like tariffs, but maybe this tactic could have an impact. the market has gone a little less panicked about it. >> i think it's an apologist for a bad way of negotiating with china. we did not need to be in this -- >> neither of them are supporting the way he's negotiating. they're saying, maybe there's a chance.
>> leds go over to kasie hunt. >> i'm casey hurt in for katy tur. it's 2:00 p.m. here in washington. president trump is set to reveal his administration's new immigration plan this hour. the plan is expected to match the president's hard-line stance on immigration, so i wouldn't expect much compromise if any with congressional democrats. we're going to bring you all of that as it unfolds. but first, we want to get to today's other big story it's unfolding on capitol hill this morning. a group of key members known as the gang of eight are set to be briefed on the situation in iran and it's important to take a step back. the "new york times" is reporting that the escalating tensions with iran are a result of photographs of missiles on boats in the persian gulf. it's believed they were put there by the iranian military. but it's important to note that
as of now, we don't have any context. with the "new york times" reporting, quote, other officials including europeans, iraqis, members of both parties in congress and some senior officials within the trump administration said iran's moves might mostly be defensive against what tehran believes are provocative acts by washington. the secretary of state, mike pompeo, and national security advisor john bolton both have reputations for being hawkish on iran in general with bolton going so far as to advocate bombing the thee i don't care si back in 2015. when asked about the prospects of war with iran, the president was brief and less than reassuring. >> are we going to war with iran? >> i hope not. >> yikes. a bipartisan group of senators including lindsey graham are asking the intelligence community to provide them with more information. it's unclear when or if that is
going to happen. our big question today, what will the gang of eight learn in today's briefing on iran. joining me now nbc news corporate kel kelly o'donnell, phillip ruker, ash carter, and kevin barren. it's great to have you all on board today. kelly, i want to start with you. given what we have heard so far from members of congress on this issue, what do you think we can expect out of this meeting, there really is so much that neither we nor members of congress are aware of. >> reporter: that is one of the big issues and there's the echo of the leadup to the iraq war in 2003 and for many of the members who were around there and learned lessons about when to go to war, that is all feeling very relevant right now. we are coming to you from a
place a couple of floors above the skiff here on capitol hill where the gang of eight will be getting their briefing. that includes the leaders of both chambers, you'll have nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell. you'll have the heads of the intelligence committees. and they are always read into the most sensitive things in isi
think we need a little bit. the comparison to the iraq buildup and we were talking earlier, mark, the gulf of tonkin seemed far-fetched. when the military is going to war, you know they are going to war. it's a lot bigger than one aircraft carrier and a bomber. the president said going back to the campaign, they didn't like the iran nuke deal, wanted more focus that the nuke deal didn't include and that's missiles and counterterrorism and that's what this is. a lot of folks agree that this is more of an increase of what was already happening going back to obama. striking iran as the proxies,
cyber war and confronting them in yemen which is the whole missile on a ship is with. it's about the proliferation of missiles that can strike our allies or our troops in the region, and so i think it's still unclear if this is an actual drive to war or is exactly what the administration says it is which is a defensive buildup to go do strikes if needed, if iran continues this behavior, which is short of warfare, but it's exactly the kind of counterterrorism operations that this administration under trump has gone, you know, without any hesitation at all. i know everyone believes and trump says he wants to pull out of entanglements but he has increased operations across northeast and africa and that's the thing you would be likely to see if strikes start to happen. >> mark, what's your view inform? our allies, we saw the brits take some steps here that seemed to underscore or agree with kind of the increasing defensive posture that we have here in the united states, but is this something where broadly our
allies feel that this threat has increased? >> no, and i -- i agree with what kevin are saying here that. there are people really blowing this out of proportion. we have a rhetorical struggle here. it is in line with what the administration likes to do and here's the danger. it can lead to a miscalculation either by the u.s. navy or by the iranians where something small can end up being much large their we don't want. if i were up on the hill right now getting ready to ask the intelligence community about what's going on, i would have two questions to help answer what you've asked me. the first is we know the iranians constantly put missiles on small boats. i mean this, goes all the way back to 1987 and the tanker wars. this has happened recently. can you go get unclassified assessments from the department of defense on this, but what i would ask is there something different this time? what is it that may have spooked central command or the pentagon in this instance and the brits as they have spoken about in the last day? the second piece is there something to the belief that the iranians may simply be reacting to what we've done, in
particular the fumbling -- >> the chicken and the egg problem. >> right. it was the full blifnmbling of aircraft carrier and we wanted ma make it seem like the iranians were aggressive. >> and what would help with this is a pentagon briefing. >> or maybe a permanent defense secretary. >> a defense secretary, joint chiefs, any of those will do. >> phil rucker, quickly. what's with the reluctance of the administration to brief congress about this? i mean, the frustration is evident, even among republicans. i've talked to some people who said, you know, when jim mattis was running the department -- >> a couple of things, and this is what kelly alluded to, that these can be difficult to schedule so they are setting aside the scheduling snafus and challenges. it speaks to the broader essential contempt that this administration has had towards congress. they are not responsive to the oversight inquiries. they are not responsive to other
requests from the leaders in congress, and when you talk to lawmakers on capitol hill, they will say there's very little trust that they have in this administration and the national security team in the administration because they don't feel like they are being brought in as part of this process, and they don't feel like their own questions and points of views are being respected and heard. >> absolutely. kelly o'donnell, mark rucker and phil jacobson. thank you very much. we're keeping an eye on the white house where the president is set to announce his immigration plan, a plan that does not reach across the aisle. but first i'll speak live to new york congressman jerry nad learning the chairman of the house judiciary committee. his committee is in a power struggle with the trump administration. what's next, including his new comments about impeachment when chairman nadler joins me after a quick break. chment when chairman nadler joins me after a quick break. you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no.
how do you want your story to play out? our own experiences make the best stories, and your words carry a lot of weight. think about what you want to say before you say it. or send it. at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.
the president's posture now is making it impossible to rule out impeachment or anything else. the letter we got from the white house yesterday is beyond outrageous. it said that we could not investigate, we could not speak to mueller. we could not speak to mcgahn and we could not in fact speak to anybody about this, and they said we should shut the investigation. >> that was house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler responding to a letter sent to his committee yesterday written by white house counsel pat
cipollone and flatly rejects the demand for documents and demands that congress puts an end to the investigations into president trump and his administration. quote, congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to the harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized do-over of exhausted investigations already completed by the department of justice. earlier i asked speaker nancy pelosi if she agreed with chairman nadler. >> madam speaker, jerry nadler says the conduct of the administration is such that he cannot rule out imimpeachment or anything else. do you agree with that assessment? >> the letter that came from the white house yesterday is completely outrageous, says that the president is above the law and congress has no right to investigate any of the actions of the president, hold him accountable in any way. one of the purposes that the constitution spells out for investigation is impeachment.
it isn't about impeachment. it's about impeachment as a purpose, a constitutional purpose. >> joining me now, new york congressman jerry nad lersch the chairman of the house judiciary committee. sir, thank you so much for being on the program. it's great to have you. >> thank you. >> let's start with your comments earlier this morning as well as what the house speaker said later on as the day progressed. are you moving closer to undertaking impeachment proceedings because it would give you more tools, more leverage to get documents and information out of the trump administration? >> i don't know. that may happen. everything the president does now is making it more and more impossible to rule out impeachment? the fact that the president now takes the official position that congress cannot investigate a fraud, abuse, waste, abuse of
power, obstruction of justice, corruption in the administration is outrageous. that's one of the central purposes of congress is to hold the administration accountable. they are now taking the position that the justice department can't hold the president accountable since they say no president can be indicted no matter what the evidence as a matter of law and now they are saying congress can't hold the president accountable. that means the support above the law, and that's intolerable in a democratic society. we cannot permit that kind of anrygation of power. >> what would push you over the edge? what would make you decide to launch these proceedings? >> we're going to continue our hearings. we're going to continue to try to enforce our subpoenas, and we'll have further contempt citations because the administration is denying us all the witnesses. we intend to -- to have mueller
come before the committeep and mr. mcgahn and many other witnesses, and if it becomes necessary in order to enforce our and the to do that, to consider further steps, we will. >> and that -- one of those steps includes launching impeachment proceed. >> it could, because of would give us in a court proceeding to enforce the subpoena a higher -- the highest possible claim. >> you mentioned robert mueller. where do your negotiations stand with him? do you feel as though you're going to be forced to subpoena robert mueller to appear? >> well, we may. i hope we won't be forced to do that. they -- the attorney general barr says he has no objection to mueller appearing. the department -- we've been negotiating with the department of justice, and they simply are dragging their feet at fixing a date so we'll continue to try to fix a date. if it goes too long then we'll have to consider a subpoena.
right now they are saying find us a date. >> so right now you don't see any roadblocks. they are not telling you, no, we're not going to let him come. the issue is simply timing? >> the issue has been timing for a while, but whether they are being honest that it's only timing, i don't know. perhaps the white house is telling them don't let him appear and use any excuse. >> what about don mcgahn? he's been subpoenaed to testify on may 21st. that's coming up pretty fast. do you know whether or not he's going to appear? >> we don't know. we expect to hold a hearing. if he doesn't appear, he will be held in contempt. >> fanned he is held in contempt, and i suppose this question goes as well for the attorney general bill barr, has nancy pelosi committed to putting those contempt votes to the broader house? >> oh, yes. the question is simply one of timing. probably the intelligence committee is going to have some contempt citations also, and we'll probably put them all together, you know, rather than
waste the time of the house, probably will put them all together for one day. >> and what is the time line that you expect for the contempt citations? is this something we're looking at, for example, before the memorial day recess? >> maybe before, maybe shortly after. i don't know. >> all right. i want to show you what eric holder, the former attorney general had to say to our alley vitaly earlier today about whether or not there's grounds to impeach the president. take a look. >> based on the mueller report, is there grounds for impeachment? >> yeah. there are grounds for impeachment. as i said, look at the second part of the mueller report. there's no question that obstruction of justice does exist in the findings that bob mueller report, and in painstaking detail, and this in and of itself would be the basis for impeachment. but i think the house needs to gather evidence. they need to hear from bob mueller. they need to get the entirety of the report and then make a reasoned decision about whether or not they are going to go forward with impeachment.
>> eric hold they are, again -- >> i was not able to hear what he said. >> i'll just summarize. he said that obstruction was grounds -- would be grounds for impeachment, but he points to the process that you all are carefully undertaking in the house, arguing that you do need to go through that process. my question for you at what point does this process become ineffective? there are so many subpoenas that you have laid out. there have been so many witnesses called, and the trump administration has given you guys a blanket no. i mean, at what point do you have to sharpen this going forward? >> the trump administration has given us a blanket no. they have denied congress right -- to say they are going to oppose all house subpoenas which the president said is itself an on trucks of congress and i with a soy is itself an impeachable offense, but the fact of the matter is they are oppose everything. we are taking legal action to
get those subpoenas enforced, and we'll pursue that for a while and see where it takes us. >> can you elaborate on what that legal action actually is? i mean, we know that criminal contempt would go right back up to the attorney general. >> there's no criminal contempt. the main one would be a civil contempt procedure. in other words, you vote contempt on the floor of the house. you give that contempt citation to the house counsel. the house counsel goes into federal court and asks for civil enforcement. >> are you shaping legal arguments right now with the house counsel? >> house counsel, yes. >> on the presumption that that will go forward? >> oh, yes, yes, yes. >> and does that include arguing -- >> that is definitely going to go forward. >> and does that include arguing that you may use these impeachment proceedings, that that's part of your prerogative? we're going to see the word impeachment come up in your court case in a hearing about these consent citations? >> well, if you read the -- if you read the contempt citation
against mr. barr, against attorney general barr that the committee voted, it's -- it says at one point specifically we need this information for this purpose, for that purpose, for determining on a possible impeachment. it already mentions it. >> okay. do you believe that there's any did i light between you and the house speaker on how best to proceed on this? >> no, no. right now we're all agreed on the way to proceed. >> all right. judiciary committee jerry nadler, thank you very much, sir. appreciate your time. i'm sure we'll be coming back to you for much news in the -- in the coming weeks. >> well, i'm sure that's true. >> all right. thank you very much, sir. coming up in minutes, the president will unveil his plan to overhaul america's legal immigration system. can it get through congress? and if it does works will be impacted? that's next. d if it does works e impacted that's next. unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you?
for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.
son-in-law jared kushner along with senior adviser and immigration hardliner stephen miller, a plan designed to appeal strictly to the president's own party and focuses on border security and on legal immigration. it establish eds a merit-based system, one that includes a civics taste and focuses on age, education and language proficiency. very noticeably absent from this plan, there is no help for dreamers and no path to citizenship for people who are already here. so little, if nothing, in this this plan reaches across the aisle. joining me now is chief white house correspondent hallie jackson and julia ainsley, former spokesman john boehner and astrid silva sfwls what is the point of this exercise? >> to get a starting point out there. listen the point of this is to
put something out that shows what we're for. we've heard a lot of conversation, at least we have from the white house and you're hearing the same thing from people on the white house perspective, listen, we wanted to get a document to show what we're for, not just what we're against. we believe this is a set of principles that republicans can unify around and at least act as a starting point for the conversation on changing the legal immigration system. of course, the other side will say, listen, that is non-starter. this is a starting point for nothing. this is a political document essentially. you're already hearing documents say that. why? because this does not address the issue oost 11 million people roughly living in this country illegally, nor does it touch on daca, dreamers, any of that which will be problematic, and let me say >> problematic, sure, but it's going nowhere in congress, right? >> the right. not even republicans, i mean, lindsey graham, senator graham has said there's nokes pectation that this that this is going to become law, this is a political stance
and political move. my point is it's not just about the issue of daca and dreamers. there's also fundamental opposition when you talk, for example, with speaker pelosi to this idea that it is a shift to a merit-based immigration system, right, and the question of what is merit-based? does that mean only immigrants with an engineering degree should be welcome in america? the argument being that's not what this country is founded on. those are not the ideals of the united states so you're seeing deep-seeded opposition to this sort of political movement here that the support about to give the speech on than just some of the nuts and bolts in it. >> hallie, to fill you in, we're watching the gathering in the rose garden, among them steve mnuchin. >> this is not a pill that's going to become a law, let's put it that way. this -- this also include fundamental changes. when we see -- when we say merit-based system, we're kind
of skipping over the fact that this would dramatically curtail family-based immigration which is a huge problem for many people. >> yeah. so let's talk about this. our immigration system and how we bring people in here legally who are applying from their home countries has been based around families for a long time because it's believed that people who come into this country have a better chance of success if they have a family structure already built in, and we're rewarding people who have come here, built a life for themselves to bring over family members. what the trump administration and what some hardliners on immigration would say is that is chain migration and for every one person we bring in, we're bringing in more, and it's increasing the numbers. what's interesting is thaesteph miller want to bring down the numbers, all the numbers of newkoerms comine newcomers coming to the united states is to go down and what jared kushner has done is rearrange the number. take numbers away from the family visas and put it in the
merit-based system. one thing i heard he wasn't as successful in getting the business buy-in as he thought he would. he thought a lot of ceos and tech companies would want this merit-based system but what it actually does is takes the visas out of their hands in a lot of cases. >> great point. >> because people can come in without having a job, they can just have the promise of the job and all these skills, but it isn't tied to your employment at one particular organization. >> so right now those companies actually would have the option to apply for a visa for an employee that they want to bring to the united states. >> and it's a huge magnet for them to bring in people they want to hire. >> michael steele, do you think this president in any way could push a serious immigration proposal through congress? >> absolutely. i mean, we always say only nixon could go to china because of his anti-china days. trump has cast iron credibility with the base of the republican issue on border security so, yes, he has the opportunity if he chooses to seize, it to get a big, good deal on immigration. this is a -- this is dead on
arrival obviously, but it is a sign of progress that the president is willing to take cidcism from the right of the right and do something that's a little more center right. >> hand here is the president of the united states. so we are going to listen to his speech on immigration here in the rose garden. >> thank you very much, everybody. please, thank you. thank you very much. we're here on this very beautiful spring day in the rose garden to unveil our plan to create a fair, modern and lawful system of immigration for the united states, and it's about
time. [ applause ] >> if adopted, our plan will transform america's immigration system into the pride of our nation and the envy of the modern world. our proposal builds upon our nation's rich history of immigration while strengthening the bonds of citizenship that bind us together as a national family. throughout our history, we have proudly welcomed newcomers to our shores. out of many people, from many places, we have forged one people and one nation under god, and we're very proud of it. [ applause ] >> we share the same home. we share the same defendant anything, and we pledge allegiance to the same great american flag.
[ applause ] our policies have turbochannelled our economy. now we must implement an immigration sis them a will allow our citizens to prosper for generations to come. today we are presenting a clear contrast. democrats are proposing open borders, lower wages, and frankly lawless chaos. we are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of american workers first. [ applause ] our proposal is pro-american, pro-immigrant and pro-worker. it's just common sense. it will help all of our people, including millions of devoted immigrants to achieve the
american dream. we are grateful to be joined this afternoon by a tremendous number of people from the house, the senate and my cabinet, and i love you all, but i won't introduce you all because i'll be here all day long, but you're all here. our plan achieves two critical goals. first, it stops illegal immigration and fully secures the border, and second it establishes a new legal immigration system that protects american wages, promotes american values and attracts the best and brightest from all around the world. the proposal begins with the most complete and effective border security package ever assembled by our country or any other country for that matter. it's so important.
>> this plan was not developed, i'm sorry, to say by police. we have a lot of politicians, but you respect the people, and you know the people that have developed this plan. it was designed with significant input from our great law enforcement professionals to detail what they need to make our border which is 100% operationally secure, 100%. everyone agrees that the physical infrastructure on the border and the ports of entry is gravely underfunded and woefully inadequate. we scan only a small fraction of the vehicles, goods and all of the other things coming across, including people, and sadly the drugs pour across our border. we're going to stop it. investment in technology will ensure we scan 100% of everything coming through.
curbing the flow of drugs and contraband while speeding up legal trade and commerce, it's the most heavily traded monetary border in the world and it's not even close. to make certain that we're constantly making the upgrades we need, our proposal creates a permanent and self-sustaining border security trust fund. this will be financed by the fees and ref knevenues generate the border cross itself. importantly, we're already building the wall, and we should have close to 400 miles built by the end of next year and probably even more than that. it's going up very rapidly. [ applause ] and i want to thank the army corps of engineers. they are doing a fantastic job
on the wall. that's a wall that is desperately needed. as we close the gaps in our physical framework, we must also close the gaps in our legal framework. critical to ending the bothered crisis is removing all incentives for smuggling women and children. current law -- [ applause ] that's right. that's right. women and children. people have no idea how bad it is unless you're there and unless you are a member of law enforcement. they see it every day, and they can't believe what they see. current law and federal court rules encourage criminal organizations to smuggle children across the border. the tragic result is that 65% of all border crossers this year were either minors or adults traveling with minors.
our plan will change the law to stop the flood of child smuggling and to humanely reunite unaccompanied children with their families back home and rapidly, as soon as possible. we must also restore the integrity of our broken asylum system. our nation is a proud history of affording protection to those fleeing government persecutions. unfortunately, legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by those lodging frivolous claims. these are frivolous claim to gain admission into our country. asylum abuse also strains our public school systems, our hospitals and local shelters, using funds that we should and
that have to go to elderly veterans, at-risk xwrut, americans and poverty and those in genuine need of protection. we're using the funds that should be going to them, and that shouldn't happen, and it's not going to happen in a very short period of time. have to get this approved. my plan expedites relief for legitimate asylum seekers by screening out the meritless claims. if you have a proper claim, you will quickly be admitted. if you don't, you will promptly be returned home. crucially -- [ applause ] our plan closes loopholes in federal law to make clear that gang members and criminals are inadmissible. these are some of the worst people anywhere in the world,
ms-13 and others, inadmissible, not coming in. we're taking them out all the time by the thousands a year, but they come in. they are no longer admissible, and for criminals already here, we will ensure their swift deportation. [ applause ] >> we will keep our communities safe. americans can have are complete and total confidence that under this plan the borders will finally be fully and totally secured. [ applause ] >> and i know a number of our republican friends and others, lindsey, i see you sitting right there and steve, you're working on a plan, an immediate plan, a
smaller plan but a very immediate plan to stop it as of this afternoon, so as fast as you can get something done, this is the big, beautiful, bold plan, but we need something very quickly, and if you can get it done, that would be fantastic. okay? thank you. [ applause ] appreciate you working on it. a topic of less discussion in the national media and of vital importance to our country is our legal immigration system itself. our plan includes a sweeping modernization of our dysfunctional legal immigration promisees. it is totally dysfunctional. the system will finally be fair, transparent and promote equality and opportunity for all. every year we admit 1.1 million immigrants as permanent legal
residents. these green cardholders get lifetime authorization to live and work here and a five-year path to american citizenship. this is the most prized citizenship anywhere in the world by far. currently 66% of legal immigrants come here on the basis of random chance. they are admitted solely because they have a relative in the united states, and it doesn't really matter who that relative is. another 21% of immigrants are issued either by random lottery or because they are fortunate enough to be selected for humanitarian relief. random selection is contrary to american values and blocks out many qualified potential immigrants from around the world
to have much to contribute. while countless and you wouldn't believe how many countries like canada create a clear path for top talent, america does not. under the senseless rules of the current system, we're not able to give preference to a doctor, a researcher, a student who graduated number one in his class from the finest colleges in the world. anybody, we're not able to take care of it. we're not able to make those incredible breakthroughs. if somebody graduates top of their class from the best college, sorry. go back to your country. we want to keep them here. companies are moving offices to other countries because our immigration rules prevent them from retaining highly skilled
and even, if i might, totally brilliant people. we discriminate against genius. we discriminate against brilliance. we won't anymore once we get this passed, and we hope to get it passed as soon as possible. some of the most skilled students at our world class universities are going back home because they have no relatives to sponsor them here in the united states, and that's the only way. we want these exceptional students and workers to stay and flourish and thrive in america. as a result of our broken rules, the annual green card flow is mostly low-wage and low-skilled.
newcomers compete for jobs against the most vulnerable americans and put pressure on our social safety net and generous welfare programs. only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit. in countries like canada, australia and new zealand and others, that number is closer to 60% and even 70% and 75%-i in se cases. the biggest change we make is to increase the proportion of highly skilled immigration from 12% to 57%, and we would like to even see if we can go higher.
[ applause ] this will bring us in line with other countries and make us globally competitive. at the same time we prioritize the immediate family of new americans, spouses and children, the loved ones you choose to build a life with, we prioritize and we have to do that. they go right to the front of the line. right to the front of the line where they should be. america's last major overhaul of our legal admissions policy was 54 years ago. think of that. so a major update, and that's what this is, merit system and a heart system, is long overdue. the millions of legal immigrants who have come to america over the past half century are now cherished members of our
national family. going forward -- [ applause ] -- it is their interest and in their interest and their children's interest to adopt a green card system that promotes a rising standard of living for all of our citizens. three and four new jobs at the end of last year went to americans previously out of the workforce. our economy is better, probably, than it ever has been in the history of our country. and because of that great economy, we're able to do things that nobody ever thought possible before. and that's what we're going to do for immigration, finally. the way our current immigration system works places downward
pressure on wages for the working class, which is what we don't want to do. last year, we also passed historic criminal justice reform. [ applause ] and we had tremendous backing, bipartisan, from democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals. guess we could also use the word "progressi "progressives." a new word that's come about. americans with criminal records are getting a second chance at life in higher numbers than ever before. unfortunately, the current immigration rules allow foreign workers to substitute for americans seeking entry-level jobs. so foreign workers are coming in and they're taking the jobs that would normally go to american workers. america's immigration system should bring in people who will
expand opportunity for striving low-income americans, not to compete with those low-income americans. [ applause ] our proposal fulfills our sacred duty to those living here today, while ensuring america remains a welcoming country to immigrans s joining us tomorrow. and we want immigrants coming in. we cherish the open door we want to create for our country, but a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill. the white house plan makes no change to the number of green cards allocated each year of
admitting people through random chance, we will establish simple universal criteria for admission to the united states. no matter where in the world you're born, no matter who your relatives are, if you want to become an american citizen, it will be clear exactly what standard we ask you to achieve. it will be made crystal clear. this will increase the diversity of immigration flows into our country. we will replace the existing green card categories with a new visa, the build america visa, which is what we all want to hear. like canada and so many other
modern countries, we create an easy-to-navigate points-based selection system. you will get more points for being a younger worker, meaning you will contribute more to our social safety net. you will get more points for having a valuable skill, an offer of employment, an advanced education or a plan to create jobs. we lose people that want to start companies and in many cases, they're forced to leave our country, go back usually to the country where they came from, and they'll start up companies and some of those companies are among the biggest and most successful companies today in the world. they could have started them right here in the united states,
where they wanted to do it in the first place. now, they'll have a chance. priority will also be given to higher wage workers, ensuring we never undercut american labor. to protect benefits for american experiences, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient. finally, to promote integration, assimilation, and national unity, future immigrants will be required to learn english and to pass a civics exam priority to admission. through these steps, we will deliver an immigration system that respects and even strengthens our culture, our traditions, and our values. four months ago, i had the honor
of participating in a swearing in ceremony for new americans right here in the oval office. it was a beautiful reminder that american citizenship is the most precious gift our nation has to offer. when we swear in new citizens, we do more than give them a permit. we give them a history, a heritage, a home, and a future of limitless possibilities and potential. our nation you'd to pride ourselves on this capacity on our unique ability to instill the spirit of america into any human heart, into any human being. many of the democrats have claimed to be for these concepts at different times in their
careers. and in many cases, in very recent history. and i hope that they will end up joining me and all of the people gathered together today in putting politics aside, putting security and wages first, in securing these historic reforms. it's time. we can't get the democrats to aperu this merit-based high-security plan, then we will get it approved immediately after the election, when we take back the house, keep the senate, and of course, hold the presidency.
[ applause ] thank you very much. but wouldn't it be nice to do it sooner than that? but it's not a very long time, is it? 16 months. one of the reasons we will win is because of our strong, fair, and pro-america immigration policy. it's time to restore our national unity and reaffirm our national purpose. it is time to rebuild our country for all americans. together, we will create an immigration system to make america safer and stronger and greater than ever before. thank you, god bless you all. thank you very much.
[ applause ] >> strengthening the bonds of citizenship as a national family. that's it. moments ago in the rose garden, president trump unveiled his newest immigration proposal, it's a two-pronged proposal crafted in part by trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, jared kushner, his top adviser on immigration, stephen miller, and the chair of the white house economic counsel -- the council of economic advisers, kevin hassett, who were on capitol hill this week reportedly trying to corral support from gop lawmakers and map out the messaging. but the proposal is probably dead on arrival, because it once again calls for more money for border wall construction and fails to address a number of seri