Does the left have an anti-Semitism problem?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 12, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” live tonight from Dallas. The Democratic Party isn't just the party of open borders. It's now the party of anti-Semitism. Yes. And the President is weighing in. We'll get to that ahead.

Plus, it isn't just a Republican saying they found no evidence of Russian collusion. Wait until we reveal why the resistance might be feeling a little burned tonight. And Beto O'Rourke spoke at an anti-wall protest last night. He ignored our request for an interview (inaudible). But we crashed his party. Raymond Arroyo was there, and he brings us his report later.

But first, the border wall becomes a border stall. That's the focus of tonight's “Angle.”

I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so. When the White House and the GOP failed to act on the Trump immigration agenda in the first 100 days of his Presidency, his pledge to build a wall would be jeopardized. Trump's initial instinct, which is usually spot on, was to veto that omnibus bill last year. I'm telling you, he was right then. But Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell promised him that they would get this wall funded in full in the lame duck session, if that was necessary. Well, big shocker. That never happened.

So after Speaker Paul "I need to spend weekends at home" Ryan handed the majority to the Democrats, well, the President faced an even higher wall of resistance. A lame old border deal was announced right before the President took to the stage in El Paso last night, and by the morning, the details started trickling in.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I have to study it. I'm not happy about it. It's not doing the trick, but I'm adding things to it. And when you add whatever I have to add, it's all - it's all going to happen but building a wall. And now I'm saying we're finishing a wall--


INGRAHAM: Well, that won't happen though, not unless the President finds the money elsewhere or declares a national emergency, which will immediately be challenged of course by the left in court.

And tonight, after speaking with one of the Republican architects, Richard Shelby, Senator from Alabama with the latest deal, the President tweeted, "Was just presented the concept and parameters of the border security deal by hard working Senator Richard Shelby. Looking over all aspects knowing that this will be hooked up with lots of money from other sources. Will be getting almost $23 billion for border security. Regardless of wall money, it is being built as we speak." We'll get into that in a little bit.

But - so what's in this deal? What's really in it? The official language hasn't fully been released. And I love this. We're doing at the last minute, trying to rush it through. But here are some of the basics of the deal, as reported. $1.375 billion for barriers that are not called but look a heck of a lot like the steel slanted structure, the barrier that Trump had already approved.

Second, an average daily cap of 40,520 beds for detaining illegals. Now, that's almost 9,000 fewer than we're detaining now. But Trump would have the authority to boost that number, pulling the money from other sources.

Now, there's more to it, too. But it's simple to see what's going on here. The Democrats' ultimate goal is to codify catch and release, where if an illegal makes it into the country, he or she will be welcome to stay along with any child he or she brings with them across the border.

Now what does this do? I mean, this is not a difficult concept, right? It only encourages more illegal immigration. Now, remember, the President asks for $25 billion last year for the wall and a bunch of other reforms as well that made a lot of sense. But the Dems wouldn't budge on issues like chain migration or those diversity visas. They wouldn't go near it.

Then in December - now, moving into lame duck session, he asked for one- fifth of that. I'm still pretty good at math sort of. It's $5 billion of the $25 billion. Now, he perhaps thought that this would become some type of annual wall expenditure. Well, fat chance. They don't want a call. They never wanted a wall. But on the bright side - and I have to look at the glass half-full here. The current deal does expose just how far left the Democrat Party has gone on the issue of illegal immigration. They've gone from this--


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: You simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An illegal alien should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We must control our borders, must protect our borders- -


INGRAHAM: --to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that walls do not save lives. Walls end lives. There is no bargain in which we can sacrifice some of our humanity to gain a little more security.


INGRAHAM: Oh, really? So walls kill people. Well, last year, there were 1,247 people slaughtered in a vicious fashion, many of them, by the cartels and other criminals across the border in the Juarez. That was a 62 percent jump from the year prior to killing field there.

So Beto can't possibly mean we should tear down the current wall in El Paso. Can he? Well, think again. Remember this gem that when Congressman O'Rourke sent out in 2015. It read, "Tear down this wall." Oh, boy! That's a keeper.

Well, I can tell you that the people we met in El Paso last night, they disagreed vehemently. And an under-reported fact is that about half of the audience at the Trump rally were themselves Hispanic. And they most certainly do not want the wall between the cartel-run Juarez and El Paso torn down. No way. They love their peaceful community. It was a really fun place to be. We loved meeting the folks we met there last night. They don't want any part of Juarez's way of life with beheadings and bodies that have been dumped in the street.


TRUMP: Last year, Juarez had 1,200 murders. El Paso, right next door, a few feet away, had 23 murders. Walls work. Actually, there's nothing like them for what we're talking about. We want to stop drugs, we want to stop traffickers, we want to stop criminals from coming in. Walls save lives.


INGRAHAM: Now, of course, as much as we wish things were different, the fact of the matter is, Trump is vowing to continue this fight, right through the 2020 election about the wall and keeping our country safe.

And another shutdown would have probably ended up hurting the President, distracting from this booming economy. We're here in Texas. It is off the charts. And there's a lot of other great news as well that would be distracted from if this thing continued in a shutdown form, including the China negotiations going on right now in Beijing.

And also let's not forget, while Trump isn't getting everything he wants and definitely not what most of us want, Democrats are also breaking Pelosi's pledge.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any situation where you would accept even a dollar of wall funding for this President in order to reopen the government?



PELOSI: $1 - yes, $1.


INGRAHAM: Well, try $1.375 billion. She might not want to call it a wall, but that's what it is. And that's not all bad. And that's “The Angle.”

Hearing live from Capitol Hill, Republican Congressman Chip Roy of Texas and Tom McClintock of California. Congressman Roy, you have, to say the least, reservations about this framework. What do you say to those who think, well, that's the best offer out there, and it's better than another shutdown where the President just could get beaten up every day?

REP. CHIP ROY, R-TX: Well, good evening, Laura. Thanks for having us on. I wish I was in Texas instead of being here in the swamp where I'm forced to try to prevent Republicans from making yet another "boneheaded deal," quote-unquote, where right now we should be focusing on the fact that the American people are with us, that they are with us because they know that they want their border secured.

I was just down in the Rio Grande Valley last week and visiting with Border Patrol, where we see 400,000 people that are going to be streaming across the Rio Grande Valley this year. Of them, 200,000 will not even be apprehended. And of the 200,000 who are, 90 percent will be caught and released like you know because we allow judicially created catch-and- release to govern our border security.

The cartels have operational control of our border. It's time for us to do our job. And this deal isn't doing our job. $1.375 billion is the baseline. We need to get the money that is necessary so the border patrol aren't down on the border, without the radio signals they need, without the ability to have the fencing to stop the flow. And where fences are in place, they work. We've seen a 90 percent reduction where fence has been put in place. And it's time that we do our job instead of cutting--


INGRAHAM: All right. Yes. Congressman, we've got to move the - we've got limited time. Let's move the conversation forward. That has already been established. And you're right about that 100 percent.

Congressman McClintock, first of all, your Governor has pulled back his National Guard troops from the border. He made a big stink about that. And we're not talking about the bullet train fiasco that blew up today. That fiasco. But this broke from The Washington Post just moments ago. And I want to quote it for you, Congressman.

"The bill was still being written tonight, Tuesday night, and lawmakers from both parties were pushing to include a number of favored provisions." Those are called pork provisions. Well, "Some Democrats wanted to add language that would provide back-pay to federal contractors who were caught in the middle of the recent shutdown, but it's unclear if lawmakers would be successful in getting the provision included."

Now, I'm hearing tonight that that could destroy any possibility of this thing even going forward, but people have to understand, we don't even have the language yet and we know stuff gets slipped in, Congressman McClintock, at the last minute. It happens every single time to the American taxpayer. Your thoughts?

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK, R-CALIF.: Well, Laura, as long as the Democrats control the House, nothing good is going to come out of the House of Representatives. And as long as the Republicans have given Chuck Schumer and the Democrats a filibuster veto over any appropriations bills, we are not going to get a good bill through the Senate either.

The good news is the President has statutory authority to move ahead with building the wall. He can actually draw about $13 billion to do so, far more than he's asking from Congress. He has the legal authority to do so, he has the responsibility to do so, and ultimately that's the only way the wall is going to be built.

INGRAHAM: Well, I understand the White House Counsel's Office is looking at a provision of the U.S. code, I think it's 287, that would allow the President to move money into wall building that has a relation to stopping the flow of drugs across the border. Is that what you're hearing as well, Congressman?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, no - not only that - no, no. Not only that, but he can reprogram unobligated military construction funds for that purpose. That law dates back to 1976. It's been invoked 58 times, including for the civil war and Sierra Leone. This is clearly a priority national defense issue, and the President has a legal authority to declare that and to pull those funds from other military construction projects and put it into the most important project we have, the defense of our Southern border.


MCCLINTOCK: And to those who say, well, that's going to come out of military construction funds, my question very simply is, what's more important, securing the border of Iraq or securing the border of the United States? Again, 60,000 people a month--

INGRAHAM: Yes. That's beyond - it's so frustrating now.

MCCLINTOCK: --that are now illegally crossing.

INGRAHAM: And now, what everyone has to understand, who's watching the show tonight, everyone has to get. And Congressman Roy, I want you to chime in on this. That nothing in this proposal would deal with the family units crossing the border. The Democrats are so dishonest on this.

And the Republicans frankly dropped the ball in the first 100 days. Republicans should have handled the President's agenda and he should have insisted on it in the first 100 days. That was his instinct, and he listened to Paul Ryan and the crew. And that was a huge mistake in the end.

MCCLINTOCK: Well, it's worse than that. It's worse than that.

INGRAHAM: But these family units can still cross the border, Congressman. Right? And they're going to be released. Because the court makes them be released, they're going to be released. And that's going to continue huge influx into this country. Today The Washington Post wrote another piece about it.

ROY: That's absolutely correct. I mean, look, the asylum issue that we're dealing with as well as the floor's (ph) decision, the point where I said the judicially-created mandatory catch-and-release, that's the core problem. And we've got to address that issue and not allow the judges to decide how we're going to secure our border.

And I think the President is right to be focused on emergency declarations. And the things we're not talking about are the extent to which the cartels have literal operational control of our border. Tamaulipas, the state just across the Rio Grande Valley, is a level-four state. It's a danger zone. We're not allowed to travel. We're not supposed to travel. That's an emergency level kind of operation that we're dealing with at our border. And the President is right to be focused on that. And Congress ought to do its job and step up in having the obligation to secure our border.

INGRAHAM: All right, gentlemen. Thanks so much. And - well, we have to go, but thank you so much. We'll have you back as this continues to develop.

And after some early morning criticism, some GOP offices are pushing against - back against me, specifically as it relates to ICE and the detention beds. They say, despite the claims from the Democrats and the media, that this package will end up providing more beds than were requested in the President's budget since DHS and ICE can use all of the transfer reprogramming authority they're given.

But does that sound a lot of gobbledygook to you? It's like promises of things to come? What does that really mean? With answers, we're joined by Tom Homan, Fox News contributor and former Acting Director of ICE.

Tom, who is more accurate here--


INGRAHAM: --the people who are all upset or yours truly?

HOMAN: You. I mean, I watched Republicans say what a great deal this is. Look, even you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. This is a terrible deal. And they - and for them to stand there and say, hey, look what we've done, it's a shame. They got played, and they lost. And like you said earlier, they're funding ICE for 7,000 less beds than they have filled right now and they ought to release some people. This is going to cause ICE to release criminals. But that's just the truth. They're going to release criminals because they're not funded properly.

INGRAHAM: Right. So they have no place to put them. And that's what Democrats want. You expect that from the Democrats, Tom, but you don't expect the Republican to try to make nice with this. And I get it, they're going to try to move money around. I understand that. But when push comes to shove, when you have an influx of people crossing the border, 200 here or 300 here in Arizona, New Mexico last week, you had all these big pockets of people crossing at one time. What do you do with them, Tom?

HOMAN: Well, here is the problem, right? The Republicans don't really understand it because the Republicans aren't in a negotiating committee. They didn't talk to an ICE agent. An ICE agent - or an ICE officer or a budget person, no one from ICE was brief - or allowed to brief this committee as they don't understand.

When they talk about moving money around, we do that every year. The last three years I've been in D.C., (inaudible) pulled their money every year but one. And they never funded ICE at an appropriate level. And they say you move money wrong. What does that mean? It means taking money from the Coast Guard, taking money from FEMA, taking money from the Secret Service.

It's ridiculous because they have missions too that are very important. Fund is at the level it's supposed to be funded. ICE asked for 52,000 beds and justified it on paper because right now they're holding 49 and they're releasing people as it is because they don't have enough beds. You said it yourself. Family units, they're being released right now in California, New Mexico and Arizona because there's not enough beds.


HOMAN: So the message that Democrats are sending is, if you are in this country illegally, as long as you don't commit another crime, in the words of the Chairman--

INGRAHAM: You're in.

HOMAN: --of the House Appropriations Committee, you're a law-abiding immigrant, I shouldn't be touching you.

INGRAHAM: No. You're in and no one will ever deport you. I mean, basically, you will not be deported. But they're saying they're going to - they're saying - the Republicans are saying because they're hearing from people like me, they're saying, oh, no, we're going to get up to 58,000 beds. And you're saying that's just bull.

HOMAN: Yes. Where is the money coming from? Explain. You know what? Show me on paper where that money is coming from because--


HOMAN: --you have to take it from someplace. I mean, you're going to take it from the Coast Guard, you're going to take it from TSA or FEMA?

INGRAHAM: Yes. All right.

HOMAN: It's ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: All right. Tom, I want to play for you something that - I want to play Shelby - not Shelby. We're going to play McConnell first because, again, if McConnell green light something, President gets to - agrees, it's going to go through. Let's listen.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY., SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: First of all, I hope he signs the bill. And second, I think he ought to feel free to use whatever tools he can legally use to enhance his effort to secure the border. So, no, I would not be troubled by that.


HOMAN: Well, one, I hope the--

INGRAHAM: You know--

HOMAN: I hope the President doesn't sign the bill, and second of all, it's his job to fund the government and to pass the legislation. The President shouldn't have to find a workaround because they failed at their job.

INGRAHAM: Thank you. Well, when I heard that, Tom, I said, wait a second, that's a cute little trick. Like, why hope the President does what we couldn't do when we have the majority in the House and the Senate?

And the President was told, Tom, repeatedly told that he was going to get the money in a lame duck. And they - they frankly lied to him. They did not tell him the truth. He should have never signed that omnibus spending bill. That omnibus was a scandal last year. His instincts on this, he reads (ph) these situations well. His instinct was right.

And I got to get quick reaction. Menendez wants everybody to back off on the DUI issues. We won't play the sound bite. But he wants everyone to back off on DUI convictions for the illegal immigrants as grounds for deportation. And you say?

HOMAN: I mean, are you kidding me? 10,000 people a year die from DUIs. It's like 28 people a day die from DUIs. I would rather put an immigrant in jail for DUI than white color bank fraud. It isn't about if it's a felony or misdemeanor (ph), it's a public safety threat, it is threatening the American citizens. DUI, are you kidding me? Over 10,000 deaths a year from DUI. That's a public safety issue.

INGRAHAM: Tom, as always, clarity, we really appreciate it, and candor.

Up next, will freshman Democrats be held responsible for blatant anti- Semitism? President Trump called out Congressman Ilhan Omar to resign. And one of our supporters is here next to tell us why the President is wrong, a can't-miss debate, next.



TRUMP: What she said is so deep-seated in her heart, that her lame apology - that's what it was, it was lame. And she didn't mean a word of it. It was just not appropriate. I think she should resign from Congress.


INGRAHAM: President Trump sending a message to newly elected Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar after her rash of anti-semitic comments, including the suggestion that members of Congress who support Israel only do so because of cash from money Jewish groups. Now, she isn't the only freshman Democrat under fire. Today it was revealed that in 2006, Rashida Tlaib wrote for the official publication of the nation of Islam led by well-known anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.

Joining me now, Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Katie Halper, host of The Katie Halper podcast.

Matt, let's start with you. Now, Omar has offered something of an apology--


INGRAHAM: --and Tlaib said she does not endorse Farrakhan's more controversial views. So, is it safe to say the Democrats officially really have a problem or are they just bad at apologizing?

SCHLAPP: First of all, yes, bad at apologizing. But I think there's something more deep-seated here, which is a real shift in the Democratic coalition. You would have always thought that Jewish support, and they do get a big majority of Jewish votes in America. But Jewish support was always so central to the Democratic Party. And Democratic consultants I've talked to have talked about shifting. They're shifting away from solid support for Israel.

You saw what happened with the Iran deal, and it was so surprising to see so few Democratic voices stand up against that deal. They really pretty much folded. And now there's just embrace of more this kind of Arab coalition, and we're seeing a big shift in politics. And I think this is the moment when there's kind of a crack-up in the Democratic coalition on issues around questions of race and anti-Semitism.

INGRAHAM: Katie, you say that Omar's comments are both not anti-semitic. And you didn't have a problem, I imagine, with the first comments--



HALPER: I mean, I have a problem with hearing her--

INGRAHAM: --the apology was fun.

HALPER: --as an anti-Semite. She said something - this is how anti-semitic it was, apparently. She said something that Thomas Friedman, major supporter of Israel, has said. Thomas Friedman said at The New York Times that an applause that Bibi Netanyahu received was paid for by the Israel lobby. And Israel lobby - any lobby is a lobby. A lobby lobbies - uses money to influence politics and politicians. That's what AIPAC does. AIPAC wants you to know that, AIPAC knows that, everyone who donates to AIPAC knows that. This is literally stating a fact. There is nothing anti-semitic in there.

What is anti-semitic, though, if you want to talk about anti-semitic tropes and playing into those is what Kevin McCarthy, who along with Donald Trump, is going after Ilhan Omar. And what he said in a tweet that he deleted was that Styer and Bloomberg and Soros were buying the election. Now, that is an anti-semitic trope that he definitely played into.


HALPER: He deleted the tweet that was--

INGRAHAM: OK. I apologize. So billionaires--

HALPER: Why did Trump--

INGRAHAM: Billionaires can't buy an election then.

HALPER: You're naming three--

INGRAHAM: I got billionaires who are liberal--

HALPER: --three Jews.

INGRAHAM: That's cool.

HALPER: You're naming three Jews--


INGRAHAM: But if you are a conservative--

HALPER: --entire population.

INGRAHAM: --you're spending too much money.



HALPER: Also, Trump--

INGRAHAM: But Katie - no, no, Katie--

HALPER: I just want to say really quickly. Trump--


INGRAHAM: --take a breath. Take a breath. Let it out.

HALPER: --people--

INGRAHAM: It's OK. Take a breath, Katie. No one can understand if you talk over me--


HALPER: I get annoyed by hypocrisy. Call me crazy. I get annoyed by--

INGRAHAM: All right.

HALPER: --hypocrisy and Islamophobia--


INGRAHAM: Well, I get annoyed when people talk over because our viewers can't actually hear what we're saying. So I want them to hear you--


INGRAHAM: --and then I want them to hear everybody. OK? Matt didn't interrupt you. So try to - try to just take a breath.

All right. This is The Washington Jerusalem Post today. Don't roll your eyes.

HALPER: I'm not.

INGRAHAM: My daughter does that, and it gets--

HALPER: Who does?

INGRAHAM: --really annoying.

"Ilhan Omar to keynote event alongside anti-Semite days after AIPAC rant. Omar will be speaking alongside a well-known Islamic Relief USA official, Yousef Abdallah, who has openly advocated for violence against Jews and has shared anti-semitic sentiments on social media."

Are you also a defender of his, Katie?

HALPER: I don't know about his bio. I do know that--

INGRAHAM: Read up (ph) on it.

HALPER: --Chuck Schumer has said things that are very Islamophobic, friends, and no one asked him to apologize. That's the problem is that there is this double standard.

INGRAHAM: But no pattern. You see no pattern--

HALPER: Oh, no, there is - there is a pattern that if you speak out--

INGRAHAM: --among some of these newer congresswomen--

HALPER: --if you speak out against Israel--

INGRAHAM: --who seem to equate money with Jews.

HALPER: You equated with anti-Semitism. Chuck Schumer--


HALPER: --for instance, said that there is no peace in the Middle East because Palestinians don't call--


INGRAHAM: OK. So, Katie--

HALPER: --which is bureaucracy (ph).

INGRAHAM: Katie, her tweet in 2012 - I'm just trying to understand that.


INGRAHAM: I want to get to Matt. But I'm trying to understand your level of support for her views. OK? Because when I hear Jews control the money or anything hinting at that, then that's - that's a trigger. Left - the left loves to hear about triggers.

HALPER: Right - no--

INGRAHAM: Well, that triggers a lot of people who remember the holocaust. It triggers them.

SCHLAPP: That's right.

INGRAHAM: And I think justifiably so.

HALPER: Right. But I have a question though--

INGRAHAM: Here's what she said in 2012. "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

Now, Matt, I would think most people would say, that was anti-semitic. If we can't agree as Americans that that's an anti-semitic comment, then I don't know what the heck we're doing on cable news anymore. Because to me, that's kind of obvious.

SCHLAPP: That's right. This is what people have done. The reason why there is a Zionist movement and the reason why there is a State of Israel is because the Jewish people were almost exterminated from the face of the globe. And they did not have a sanctuary place they could go to have their own state. There are plenty of Muslim states, there are plenty of Arab states. There wasn't a state for Jews to be able to call their own. By the way, it's their --

HALPER: I know. I lost --


SCHLAPP: -- it's their --

HALPER: -- in the holocaust. You guys --


SCHLAPP: And by the way, it's their - and it's their land. So I think it's awfully important. And people shade this into this question about the only reason why people are standing up for the State of Israel is because of, quote, "the Benjamins." And I'm Christian, but I'm offended but not because their democracy an important part of the world, they are a strategic ally to the United States. We don't have to agree with absolutely every decision their government makes --


SCHLAPP: -- but it is wrong to attack them as a people.

HALPER: No one attacked me.

SCHLAPP: I just saw that tweet.

HALPER: I'm a Jew. I'm a person. No one attacked me because I don't support AIPAC. Millions of Jews don't support AIPAC, and that's why there are all these alternatives, because Jews like me are really tired of having AIPAC, which is a very small but very powerful elite minority representation of Jews. It's very tiresome to have them claim to speak for all Jews and conflate Jewish identity with unquestioning support of Israel, which is an anti-Semitic trope in itself.

SCHLAPP: This is the problem. Let me just say this -- this is the big dynamic.

HALPER: And it would be nice if Donald Trump would actually condemn the people in Charlottesville.

SCHLAPP: This is the dynamic --

HALPER: And Matt, you worked in his communications, right? Why didn't he condemn the people at Charlottesville?

SCHLAPP: If I could please just answer. This is the dynamic -- let's stay --

INGRAHAM: Guys, I have got to tell you, guys, guys, guys, stop, stop.


HALPER: That's anti-Semitism.

INGRAHAM: Guys, guys, I love having a spirited debate. And Katie, I actually love that you came on the show, I like hearing your point of view, I really do. It's really hard for the viewers to get what either of you are saying when we are talking over one another. Other than interrupting you, I don't know how to get -- but I think I got the point from both of you and I really appreciate the fac that you both came on. We'll be covering this. We want to try to be fair about it.

The left, by the way, has told us that we aren't allowed to talk about the need for immigrants to assimilate into the American culture. That, too, is racist. That is especially as it relates to the public school system. The question is, why is assimilation even in the school system now controversial? The reason is simple, but grossly punitive. They wish to inoculate the entire public school system in the United States and thus the powerful teachers unions from criticism, even if it means a diminished product for the kids.

The Center for Immigration Studies recently found 700 immigrant saturated school districts where half of the new students are from immigrant households. Quote "The number of children from immigrant households and schools is now so high in some areas that it raises profound questions about assimilation. Immigration has added enormously to the number of public school students who are in poverty and the number who speak a foreign language. This cannot help but to create significant challenges for schools often in areas already struggling to educate students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds."

Joining us now is the man behind this study, Steve Camerota from the Center for Immigration Studies. Steve, now, people are going to say the fact that we are even talking about this is meanspirited and it's anti-Hispanic, and I will say, we are calling you on your you know what if you say that, because this is about kids and learning and the wonders of America. So what do the public education folks, they don't seem to care about this, they don't seem to understand the enormity of the problem? What going on?

STEVEN CAMEROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Everybody agrees the people we let into the country, we have to educate them or their children, right? That's an important part of the American public. But it doesn't answer the fundamental question of how many people should we let in the country? How do we enforce our immigration laws against illegal immigration?

There are about one out of every four kids in public school today is from an immigrant family. About one-third of all the kids in poverty in public school today are from an immigrant family. Even in a state like Minnesota, you are looking at about 49 percent of all the kids in public school in poverty, I should say 40 percent, of all the kids in public school in poverty in the state of Minnesota come from an immigrant family.

So these are important questions. A more moderate pace of immigration, enforcing our laws, a more moderate pace of legal immigration, these things would tend to take a lot of pressure off of public schools, making it easier to educate the kids already here, which I think most people agree is important.

INGRAHAM: Steve, I think in St. Paul there is obviously a very large Somali population, the largest outside of Somalia in the whole world is in St. Paul, Minnesota. About 80,000 people. We are talking about Ilhan Omar, she represents that community. But the question is when you have both the welfare state and you have public schools that have pulled back somewhat for a variety of reasons for inculcating traditional American historical values, the great books, all the things that kind of bring us all together in this common community of understand, that is a tricky mix, is it not? Open borders, welfare state, public schools that teach kids in some cases to really hate the American founding. That's a night nightmare for assimilation.

CAMEROTA: Right. During the last great wave, for example, of immigration around 1900, there was much great consensus among our elites, including our public schools, including the people who ran the public schools in the big cities where the immigrants settled, that there was an idea that we should Americanize immigrants. And that doesn't just mean that they learn English, though incredibly important, it also means that they come to identify with their country, come to see America's founding as the founding of their country as well and not see that is something that dead white men did.

The other thing is the numbers are so big. One of the ways immigration assimilation works is that immigrants and their kids interact with so many kids from native backgrounds so that assimilation becomes kind of a foregone conclusion. But in many places, most of the kids are from immigrant backgrounds.

INGRAHAM: And also, it's made it easier to be in your enclave when there is Univision and Telemundo and all the well-produced networks. And technology, and it's well-produced, and I get things change. But, Ronald Reagan in his final address to the American people as president talked about the need to teach history, the important moments in American history so we can all understand. Thanks so much, Steve.

And it isn't just Republicans knocking down the Russian collusion narratives. Wait until you're here with the Democrats have now revealed. Charade, up next.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Richard Burr the other day came out, after almost two years of investigation they found absolutely no collusion between Trump and the Russia, which I could have told a lot of people and which I have been saying to a lot of people. This has never happened to -- the Democrats know it's a hoax. This is a political game. So now the Russia thing is dead.


INGRAHAM: President Trump noting in my exclusive interview last night that Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee have found zero Russian collusion. But what about the Democrats? NBC News revealing -- they didn't want to do it today -- that after two years and 200 interviews and your tax dollars wasted, even they had to admit, quote, let's read it, "uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia."

Here now to discuss, Sol Wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, Byron York, chief political correspondent for the "Washington Examiner," and FOX News contributor. Sol, how different might Mueller's conclusions be, however, from the Senate Intel Committee's report?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: I don't think that will be any different at all. You have to remember he has far more power, far more investigative power, subpoena power, power to compel witnesses than the Senate does, and he has got a very highly-trained, professional staff with him. And it has been very clear to knowledgeable observers for quite some time that he did not have that case. And the reason you can tell is by looking at the various plea agreements that have been signed by people who have pled guilty. They are all crimes either that have nothing to do with Trump and the collusion conspiracy, or they have to do with lying to Mueller. So I think that there's nothing surprising whatsoever about this, just surprising the way Congressman Schiff tried to spin it.

INGRAHAM: I have to bring this up to you, Byron, because when I think of the individuals, and Sol, you and I over the months have been talking about all these individuals, as has Byron been writing about them, from the vaunted intel community like John Brennan who have gone on television night after night after night trashing this president and giving legitimacy to the initial start of this investigation. I want to play something for you. This is from John Brennan, and we'll talk about it on the other side. Let's watch.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: There's collusion in plain sight. Donald Trump at the end of July openly called on Russian intelligence to find Hillary Clinton's emails. There were engagements at the Trump Tower. There were the back and forth between the various individuals who were affiliated campaign and Russian individuals. That collusion I think it's quite obvious and apparent.


INGRAHAM: Now by the way, that is Brennan from today. The man is unhinged and has lied multiple times before Congress. Byron, I've heard a lot, but that pretty much took the cake.

BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "WASHINGTON EXAMINER": Brennan's comments have always been really irresponsible because any reasonable listener might conclude that he was using secret information that he had as head of the CIA that other people didn't have and that was somehow informing his comments and made them more reliable.

But this new Richard Burr thing, the new report about Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee I think has really rattling a lot of members of the resistance because it came on the heels of reports we've been hearing about Mueller, his investigation not finding any sort of collusion. And I think together, that has been the spur for all this talk that we are hearing in the House about doing their own investigation, because you have to remember, most House Democrats were depending on Mueller to give them the roadmap and the cover they needed for impeachment. And now they are thinking, well, what if he doesn't. We've got to do it ourselves. So you're hearing more about more and and more House investigations.

INGRAHAM: OK, Sol, John Dowd, we don't have to play the bite, but John Dowd, former lawyer for the president, said that he doesn't expect Mueller to write a report at all. Now, who knows, Byron, you've noted this, who knows if that's the case or not. But I want to get back to how this -- and he calls it a witch hunt and everyone gets all upset. This thing was started on a fraud. There was no crime. It was an investigation in search of a crime. I know Bob Mueller, everyone says he's the best guy ever, give him the Nobel prize for being the best guy ever, fine. But this investigation started on a total fraud. And the fact that this president has had to deal with this for the last two years, imagine what he had accomplished had he not had this. Sol, maybe you disagree.

WISENBERG: Well, I don't know what he would have accomplished or not, but I think any prosecutor looking at the evidence that's in the public record about the president would have been warranted in beginning an investigation. So I don't --

INGRAHAM: On what basis? On what basis?

WISENBERG: On the basis of the Trump Tower meeting. On the basis of all the unusual contacts --

INGRAHAM: How is that illegal?

WISENBERG: I didn't say it was illegal. I said --

INGRAHAM: Right, but what was the basis of starting the investigation. The Trump Tower meeting and the fact that you had a business dealing in Russia doesn't mean you start an independent counsel, a special counsel investigation.

WISENBERG: Now you're like you're last guest. You're talking over me. You don't have too have -- I didn't say. I didn't say --

INGRAHAM: I'm shocked you said that.

WISENBERG: I like to shock people. I don't know that it should have been the special counsel beginning it. The question is, are there things in the public records, are their facts in the public record that would warrant any prosecutor in saying, we're going to open an investigation? That's very different.

INGRAHAM: Sol, hold it, hold it. We'll continue on this, but we have got to take a break. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Beto O'Rourke, the man who Democrats see as their party's rock star, held an anti-wall protest last night less than a mile from where we were at President Trump's rally. Despite the fact that he was so close to us, Beto ignored our request for an interview. We would have played nice. Come on, it would have been fun. So instead we sent our own Raymond Arroyo to see what the fuss was about. And what did the Beto-ites tell you?

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, it was quite a group, OK, at this mini-march and protest rally. Near the start time of the rally we found a few hundred people were gathered. It wasn't thousands. Most from California, Colorado, Canada, even Mexico along with some Texans. The Women's March helped organize both this protest march and rally. So it was a mixed bag, kind of an anti-Trump crowded with the hardcore remnants of O'Rourke's failed senatorial run. We talked to some of those assembled about Beto's primary critique of the wall. Listen to what we found.


ARROYO: Do you consider the wall racist as Beto O'Rourke has suggested?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I see it as a symbol of hate, the way he communicates it.

ARROYO: It's not the wall. It's the language that your offended by?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's the language, and, again, as I said, it is all or nothing, a wall or nothing.

ARROYO: in what way is the wall racist?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The wall is a creation of Donald Trump's ever increasing senility and debilitation of his frontal lobes. I believe he has frontal lobe deterioration.

ARROYO: Are you opposed to the wall? You have a 188-mile wall here now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it is, as you can see, tell me, is that a wall?

ARROYO: So 188 mile wall here you consider racist?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what, to be honest with you, we've kind of almost forgotten that there was this wall.

ARROYO: Really it's Donald Trump's advocacy for the wall that offends?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a third, what are we third, fourth generation Mexican. I was born here, my parents were born here, my grandparents were born here, and half of my great-great --

ARROYO: You're a fourth generation American.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: American, there you go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you believe the wall is racist?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, yes, very much.

ARROYO: The 188-mile wall that's here today is racist?


ARROYO: The drugs that they intercepted at the border dropped by half when this wall went up. Is that a good thing for the community?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe yes. We don't need to have illegal drugs coming through the system. The Border Patrol, they have the ability to do their job.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They say they want more fencing, they want to increase this, they want a physical barrier. They believe that will and have helped their efforts. Would you support that if that is what they think they need.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Laura, this was really quite a crew. And in my research, no matter how you feel about this wall in El Paso, the crime rose five percent in the two years after the wall was built. Following construction, the number of deportable aliens has followed by 89 percent five years after that wall was erected. And from 2010 to 2018, the amount of drugs seized in El Paso was halved, cut in half. So you have to have an honest debate here. And you see the conflict. Some of these people support the wall, but they hate the idea that Donald Trump is supporting it. So it's amazing.

INGRAHAM: No, no, no, let's talk turkey. Let's talk turkey here. When you really dug into it, and they seem like very nice people, but when you really dug into it with them, it was Trump's connection to the idea wall. Are they chaining themselves to the wall on a daily basis when the cameras aren't there? No, because it actually works for the community. And as you and I found up until this morning when we left El Paso, the law enforcement, Border Patrol, ICE, all these people that we talked about --

ARROYO: A hundred percent support it.

INGRAHAM: -- they were adamant, adamant that this wall had to stay on. And a point that was made, I think, Raymond, you made it, this is because we have a large federal presence, and a large law enforcement presence in El Paso, and that obviously makes it less hospitable for crime and criminals in addition to the wall itself.

ARROYO: That's part of the reason that crime has fallen off.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. And as far as the crowd sizes, it did get bigger for Beto later on in the night. He had some thousands, I don't know how many thousands, but he had some thousands, he had a decent sized crowd. Didn't approach, didn't approach Trump, no way.

ARROYO: Laura, no, the organizers are saying 7,000. I was there. I think it was probably between 4,000 and 5,000. But Trump had 8,000 people inside, and I would say conservatively 10,000 or 15,000 in the parking lot. Look at the pictures. It was amazing.

INGRAHAM: The main thing is he doesn't have the right ideas. I don't care how many people he had, 10 or 10,000, the ideas don't work. A great, great series of interviews, Raymond. Thank you so much.

We will be right back with the Last Bite.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Some people really go above and beyond at their jobs, and this nurse technician in Nashville did exactly that for a sick grandmother. Watch.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amazing grace, how sweet the sound --


INGRAHAM: I want to play the whole thing. The problem it's the end of the show. It's the most beautiful thing. We'll make sure it's on my Twitter feed, so check it out.

Podcast new one drop tonight. Make sure to check it out. Shannon Bream and the "FOX NEWS @ NIGHT" team take it from here.


Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.