This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 8, 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.” Of course, another busy Washington night. The President making his case from the Oval Office for border security and that wall on this very historic night.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration.

My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers, cutting edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration.

Finally, as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier. At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall.

Senator Chuck Schumer, who you will be hearing from later tonight, has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected President.

The federal government remains shut down for one reason, and one reason only, because Democrats will not fund border security. This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve. When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do, so help me, God.


INGRAHAM: We're going to explore some critical questions tonight. So did the President make his case adequately to you, the American people? Did Democrats offer a rebuttal that was coherent and persuasive? Or are they more about scoring political points than keeping their constituents safe, the American people?

And what are the folks in the front lines of combating illegal immigration have to say about all of this back-and-forth going on in Washington? We're going to get to all of that. We've an unbelievable series of panels tonight, plus some important cultural and free-speech debates you are not going to want to miss. But first, who are the real shutdown opportunists? That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

All right. However you received the President's address tonight, one thing should not be missed. The President scored a major media coup. What am I talking about?

He got all the major networks to carry his address, galvanizing the attention of the entire country, and he accomplished something else. He got two of the least popular politicians in the nation to respond to him on his terms.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He wants to raise the stakes and make the Democrats the co-owners of this shut down. And I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are walking right into the trap. He brings everyone in, and this is the Trump trap. He negotiates through brinksmanship, and that's just not a way to get to a rational ending.


INGRAHAM: OK. But this is rational?


NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The President is rejecting these bipartisan bills, which would reopen government over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall.

CHUCK SCHUMER, UNITED STATES SENATE MINORITY LEADER: We don't govern by temper tantrum. President Trump has appealed to fear, not facts. Division, not unity. There is an obvious solution. Separate the shutdown from arguments over border security.

(END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: OK. Now, the contrast should be glaring for anyone who watched tonight. The President was really sober in his address. He's extremely serious. And he genuinely believes that a wall is needed as part of a larger border securities policy. That's what he campaigned on. That's what he won on.

Democrats do not give a damn about securing the border. For them, this is all about scoring political points, and of course, about 2020.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have always been willing to talk to the President about border security, and many of us have supported some pretty massive investments in border security in the past. But we can't do that while the government is shutdown.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to open up government and then negotiate, not the other way around.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe in secure borders, but we want the government open.

TOM MALINOWSKI, REPRESENTATIVE, NEW JERSEY: Once the government is open, I would support looking at a broader compromise on immigration.


INGRAHAM: All right. Don't believe anything they are telling you there, for just not even a millisecond. The Democrats are targeting the 800,000 government workers on furlough. They're targeting them. What do I mean?

They refuse to move even a millimeter, the Democrats, towards a commonsense compromise with the President. Now, remember, a year ago, they were willing to give him $25 billion for a wall. Schumer ultimately pulled that off the table. But they were willing to do that. Now, today, they can't even come up with a measly $5 billion. Think of all the waste, fraud and abuse in this town that they could trim a way to get that $5 billion. We'll talk about that in a bit.

The President has shown a willingness to compromise. You heard it tonight. In a funding request to the Senate Appropriations Committee this week, the President asked for items that are also important to Democrats. He alluded to this tonight. Of course, $800 million for humanitarian needs at the border, and that includes medical support and additional facilities to house migrants, which frankly a lot of Americans probably think would be better spent on Inner City Youth and our veterans. But nevertheless, the President is willing to go there.

The President is also requesting $675 million for new technology to detect and stop the flow of illegal drugs over the border. Democrats have long said they wanted that. But Democrats don't want to have an honest conversation about border security. They are now the party of obstruction, and everything must bend to their resist-Trump goals.

The Hill reports that their latest strategy is to jam up of the Senate by refusing to consider any legislation until the government is reopened.


SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, D-OR.: This cannot be business as usual. And we've shut down a quarter of the government and just leave it shut down. It's an incompetent strategy.


INGRAHAM: Now, just to give you a sense of how dogmatic, how rabid and how fanatical this resistance to Trump has become, look no further than the Democrats who voted against considering a bill to support Israel earlier today.

What? So we're not going to support - oppose boycotts against Israel because Trump wants to do a deal on the border wall? How is that governing in a mature way? Now, I'm sure the new anti-semitic wing of the Democratic Party was thrilled about this development in the Senate, but nevertheless most Americans aren't.

Again, don't focus on what they say. It sounds fine, kind of reasonable. Watch what they do. The Democrats want this shutdown to go on as long as possible to divide as many Republicans from the President as they can. They want to peel one off after another and then they want to ratchet up the political pressure.

Our safety and our security, forget that bill. That's damned. If they wanted the government reopened, the Democrats could negotiate with the President and reopen the government tomorrow. He's already compromised on the structure of the wall, and he's dropped his asking price, as we know, way down.

And while the Democrats feign concern over spending a few billion on the border wall, $5.7 billion, the coastal wonder twins of their party, Governor Newsom of California and Mayor De Blasio of New York have all kinds of money. They find pots of money for the health care of illegal immigrants.


GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, D-CALIF.: We will never waver in our pursuit of guaranteed health care for all Californians.

BILL DE BLASIO, MAYOR, NEW YORK CITY: Health care is a human right. In this city, we're going to make that a reality. In this city, we're taking that ideal and putting it into practice. From this moment on, in New York City, everyone is guaranteed the right to health care.


INGRAHAM: Well, they have no problem finding all that money, falling from the sky, to spend on the well-being and health of illegal aliens.

My friends, like everything else, this is all about politics for the Democrats. Pretty much every demographic group in the country right now is better off than they were just a few years ago. Think about that. But the Democrats, they don't have any answer to that. It's not like they're going to go out there and argue, OK, we're going to offer these three policies and they're going to raise your standard of living to a higher level than President Trump has been able to do. No, they've given up on that.

All they have to run on is this shutdown and their opposition to the wall. "Oh, sorry," and "Trump is a racist." That's all they have. Oh, and for an added bonus, they actually believe that this stalemate with the shutdown furnishes them with another political weapon to, guess what, further the real nirvana for Americans because this is really going to help your life get better, the impeachment agenda. Yes. Trump's threat to end this shutdown by declaring a national emergency, which never happened, in building the wall himself could hasten the Democrats' ultimate desired end.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This kind of abuse of power may also open up other measures for Congress because this in fact could hit the tripwire of abuse of power, which is also one of those things that could lead to a Presidential impeachment.


INGRAHAM: I heard that this morning. I was like, "Wow! You're really spitting it out." While the Democrats are straining to squeeze the last bit of political juice from the shutdown, the President is doing the right thing. He's focused on the security and the sovereignty of the American people and their prosperity. It's a posture - that's good policy, but in time, it's also going to prove to be good politics as well. Mark my words.

And that's the Angle.

All right. Joining us now to react, an all-star panel, Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner and Fox News contributor; and Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer; and Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute.

Matt, let's start with you. Did the President do what he had to do to convince the American people tonight?

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION CHAIR: This was a very basic, clear message. It did not need to be long. He had all the major points. He talked about the true victims of illegal immigration. And this is checkers, not chess. Everyone in the press is goading him. Put it all. He had to put it all out there tonight. He's going to take this over several steps. It's no longer just about the funding bill. It's about what the President will do with his executive power in the weeks and months to come.

INGRAHAM: Victor Davis Hanson, the Democrats tonight and all the other cables and the response by Chuck and Nancy basically, it's like - it's not a real crisis. They say this is a manufactured crisis. I hit this in the Angle last night, well ahead of the curve on that one.

But if it's a 45-year low at the border, Victor, then why is it a - why is it a crisis? That's the Democrats' point.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTE SENIOR FELLOW: Well, they don't point out that it's not year one. It's where we have anywhere from 11 million to 20 million people here illegally already, and we have - we're the most generous country in the world as far as immigration per some time. 60 million people almost. The greatest percentage we've ever had, 15 percent of the population.

So 400,000 may not seem as great as it used to be, a million, but it's still an enormous number given the poll we had. And Trump was very wise not to fall into that immigration trap that Reagan fell into a quarter - a third of a century ago when he gave up amnesty and he gave up border security on the promise that he would get a wall or some security, and he never got it, and illegal immigration skyrocketed.

The problem, Laura, is not that the Democrats are worried the wall doesn't work. Historically, we know it does. It works in Eastern Europe, Kuwait. Nancy Pelosi's Barack Obama - I have a wall I've built myself with a friend. It works. It stopped entry into my home. But the problem is it works too well. And if - believe me, if electronic surveillance and drones work better than a wall, then the Democrats would be saying that they were both technologically cruel or racist or inadequate or improper.

INGRAHAM: Oh, no, they are saying it now. Yes.

HANSON: So the problem is a wall works, and if the wall--

INGRAHAM: Right. So you agree, though, that they - that--

HANSON: But the wall works, and they know that--

INGRAHAM: Sorry. You agree that--

HANSON: Yes. They don't want a demographic--

INGRAHAM: --the Democrats want to shut down.

HANSON: They don't want an end to the changing demography.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean, I'm making a counterpoint. The Democrats--

HANSON: And they want a change in demography.

INGRAHAM: --want this shutdown to go on. The shutdown is - they have made a political calculation that the shutdown is good for them. It's good for them! They want it to continue!


INGRAHAM: If they wanted to end this shutdown, Chris Hahn, they could end this shutdown tomorrow. They could move a little bit toward President Trump. They haven't moved one millimeter in the last two weeks, not a millimeter. They couldn't even send high-level people to meet with the Vice President of the United States. He was up on Capitol Hill tonight talking to these people.


INGRAHAM: They - they disrespected him, didn't even meet with him with high-level people. That shows me they want this shutdown to go on as long as possible.

HAHN: Well, why - why bother meeting with the Vice President? The Vice President offered them a deal in December,. The House and the Senate - excuse me. The Senate voted unanimously for that deal, and then the President changed his mind. So why would anybody meet with the Vice President? It's a complete waste of time.

You've got to meet with the President, which they'll do tomorrow, and they will open the government if the President allows a continuing resolution that passed unanimously in the Senate and then they agree to talk about border security. That doesn't necessarily have to be a wall, from what I heard from the President tonight. But the President's speech tonight indicates to me that the President knows he's losing and that the Senate Republicans--

INGRAHAM: I disagree.

HAHN: --are going to get out there and try to rally the troops. And I don't think he did a good job.


INGRAHAM: Don't think so.

HAHN: --the same message he did during the campaign. He did the same message he did during the campaign.

SCHLAPP: And he won.

HAHN: It didn't work then.


HAHN: And quite frankly, if it was a crisis--

INGRAHAM: If it's such a bad message--

HAHN: --he spent $1.6 billion--


HAHN: --he already appropriated. He hasn't spent it yet because there is no crisis--


INGRAHAM: What I - what I don't understand here--

HAHN: --confident at homeland security.

INGRAHAM: --is that why do all these Democrats, including Pelosi around her beautiful Napa vineyard, why do they all have barriers? Why don't they leave their front door open every night and let in whoever wants to come and hang out for as long as they want? Live there, take the food, maybe some medicine. Why don't we all just open the doors? This is just such a canard. They know walls work.

HAHN: It's a weak talking point.

INGRAHAM: Victor Davis Hanson is exactly right.

HAHN: There is a big--

INGRAHAM: They all have walls--

HAHN: There is a big difference between--

INGRAHAM: --or fences or some barrier.

HAHN: --a 1,000-mile wall and a wall around your house.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Yes. But walls work for them.

HAHN: There is a big difference between a 1,000 miles of wall--


HAHN: --and a wall around your house.

INGRAHAM: Just not for the American people. Yes.

HAHN: You need to stay--

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean--

HAHN: Laura, please.

INGRAHAM: --but none of them--

HAHN: It is - it is--

INGRAHAM: --will leave their door open. Why?

HAHN: Look, if you could watch--

INGRAHAM: They don't want certain people coming in.

HAHN: --your wall - how many people are going to have to be stationed on that wall to make sure people aren't using ropes and ladders to get over it? That's the big question we should be asking right now, right?

INGRAHAM: Because - Matt Schlapp, he said he'll do drones and other things that Dick Durbin wants.


SCHLAPP: Yes. Yes. By the way, it's not just the wall. He actually has a comprehensive strategy, including--


SCHLAPP: --what the Democrats want--


INGRAHAM: All right. We've got to get to Byron on this. Byron has done the reporting on this.

Byron, look, it is a tricky deal.


INGRAHAM: Some of the polling we'll just put up on the screen as we talk. It's a very - plurality, believe that the - I think - put up the plurality graphic, guys, from the - I think it's the Morning Consult poll that came out late today. Can I see it? Well, I can't read it. But it's -it's a little hard to read. But--


INGRAHAM: --it's a plurality of 42 percent, I believe, believe that the wall should be built. 44 percent.

YORK: The big job tonight was to convince the American people that there really is a crisis. The President says there is a crisis. The Democrats say no-


YORK: --there is not. The reason the administration says it's a crisis is not because the number of total people coming across the border has risen, it is actually down from what it was a number of years ago. But they say the type of people coming across has changed. The flow has changed. In the past, you were talking about individual adults--

INGRAHAM: Workers.

YORK: --mostly men who could be caught and quickly returned to Mexico. Now, they say two-thirds of the flow is families and unaccompanied children. They cannot--

HAHN: Yes.

YORK: --be returned. They come into the United States--

HAHN: Real danger.

YORK: --and the law makes it impossible to--

INGRAHAM: Hey, Chris--

YORK: --return them.

INGRAHAM: --I have an idea. Sponsor a family. Everyone who wants to have open borders should literally have to personally guarantee - I mean, I believe in bringing people in--

HAHN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --and adopting children. I think we can all adopt a child.

HAHN: But-

INGRAHAM: We should open up adoption--

HAHN: But Laura--

INGRAHAM: --of children all over the world.

HAHN: And Laura--

INGRAHAM: I'm in favor of that.

HAHN: And I think that's - I think that's a--

INGRAHAM: But you all bid with other people's money.

HAHN: I think that's a good - I think that's--

INGRAHAM: It's always OPM. OPM.

HAHN: I think that's a great sentiment, but when we're talking about a crisis at the border, and we're talking about--

INGRAHAM: That's a crisis.

HAHN: --women and children, that kind of--

INGRAHAM: It's a crisis.

HAHN: --defeats what the President is saying.


HAHN: No, the President is saying drugs and crime and terrorist and all things that aren't coming.

INGRAHAM: It's a crisis.


SCHLAPP: Well, why--

INGRAHAM: I've established it's a crisis--


SCHLAPP: Can we just say--

HANSON: Laura-- SCHLAPP: How about--


INGRAHAM: Hallelujah.

SCHLAPP: How about one thing? That two--


SCHLAPP: Two children did die at the border. We've heard a lot about this from Democrats. I actually think that's a--

HAHN: Yes.

SCHLAPP: --tragedy too.

HAHN: Because of incompetence.

SCHLAPP: That's because we don't--

INGRAHAM: One at a time.

SCHLAPP: --know it's because there are people rushing the border every day. Byron is right on the reporting. And we don't have the judges, we don't have the facilities, we don't have the infrastructure to handle it.

INGRAHAM: Victor Davis Hanson--


INGRAHAM: --the situation that we have now is a dysfunctional government. We talk about a government shutdown. I've said this. I'm going to say it every night.


INGRAHAM: We have a government shutdown to the will of the people on this. Plurality believes it's a crisis, 42 percent. I think 83 percent of the Republicans supporting the President's agenda here. We have a much smaller number of Democrats. We get that. But every country has a sovereign right to determine who comes in and who doesn't come in on a permanent basis.


INGRAHAM: The Democrats want to throw that all out the window.

HANSON: Yes. And--

INGRAHAM: Why? Why do they want to do it? You're writing about this--


HANSON: They do. And what I think - what I resented most about the response was the downplaying of these tragic stories. I'm here at ground zero, bill of immigration, Laura. 15 miles away from me, three weeks ago, Gustavo Garcia, who was an illegal alien, who was in jail, was let out by the Tulare County Sheriff. He was not allowed to contact ICE. In the next 24 hours, he killed three people, two of them who were Hispanics. He had been deported two times, and then he ran people off the road and he shot and he put seven other people in the hospital.

So, to say that that's not a common occurrence is just absurd. It's not for people of a particular echelon who live in Malibu or in Napa or in Washington or a tony neighborhood of San Francisco. And they have protection and armed guards and walls.

But for people in the San Joaquin Valley who are ground zero, of all different ethnic backgrounds and nationalities, that's a real worry. And that's why people are getting so angry because it's become a class thing where the elites say you're a moral and you're immoral. And we don't - we don't truck about that. And yet, they're never responsible for the consequences of their own ideology. It always falls-

HAHN: You know--

HANSON: --on somebody else--

INGRAHAM: All right. I want to play a sound bite.

HANSON: --who's supposedly a--

INGRAHAM: --and Chris, you can react.

HANSON: --deplorable or a redeemable.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I want to play a sound bite from tonight from the President. We'll play more from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer as well. But let's listen to what the President said specifically about the morality of a wall.


TRUMP: Some have suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don't build walls because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.


INGRAHAM: Chris Hahn, what's unreasonable, dogmatic, or just imprudent about what the President just said?

HAHN: Well, what he just said is a conservative talking point that didn't work during the election--


HAHN: --and isn't working now.

INGRAHAM: That's not responding.

HAHN: And if we're worried about--


INGRAHAM: Why is that wrong or imprudent? You can call it a conservative talking point. That's fine. Good on you. But let's talk about--

HAHN: It is.

INGRAHAM: What - what about that is untrue or rabid, or out of control, or whatever it is the people on the left want to say about this President because they have no logical argument. But I'm - I really am serious about that.

HAHN: Because - Laura, he is comparing a home with a 2,000-mile border on the southern border. Now, there are parts of that border, Laura, where everybody agrees you should have some fencing or border or some barrier there, but not the entire 2,000 miles. And if the President--


INGRAHAM: Oh, he didn't - he didn't say the entire 2,000 miles.

HAHN: --(inaudible) negotiate--

INGRAHAM: He's never said the entire - Byron, you reported on his - when has he--

YORK: Well, right now--

INGRAHAM: --ever said the entire 2,000 miles?


YORK: --I remember doing an article last year saying seven times during the campaign, the campaign in which the President or candidate Trump said you do not need a wall on the entire--

INGRAHAM: Entire border.

YORK: --2,000-mile border. He said at that time--

HAHN: Right.

YORK: --about half of the border.

INGRAHAM: And a big door.

YORK: Now we're really talking about--

INGRAHAM: And a big door.

YORK: Correct.

HAHN: For a 1,000 miles.

YORK: Now we're really talking about--

HAHN: Give me a break.

YORK: --700 miles.

HAHN: A 1,000 miles through a desert.

YORK: But they--

HAHN: A 1,000 miles through a desert, which is illogical (ph). Control by a drone than a wall.

YORK: There are certainly 405 miles of pedestrian fencing, 300 miles of vehicle fencing. There already--

SCHLAPP: That's right.

YORK: --exist some fencing.

HAHN: Right.

YORK: The vehicle fencing, by the way, is something--

HAHN: Yes.

YORK: --people can walk right through.

INGRAHAM: They walk right around.



YORK: So there actually is fencing.

INGRAHAM: But look--

YORK: No word on what to reduce--



SCHLAPP: And it worked. And it works where it is. Walls work.

INGRAHAM: Let's look at the visuals. I want to look at the visuals tonight for - we're in TV. So we're - people on TV, we're all superficial. So--

SCHLAPP: This is pretty stark.


HAHN: It's hard to compete with the Oval Office.

INGRAHAM: --but just visuals. Visuals. OK? Visuals. The President, the way he looked. Do we have a - just a full screen of the President. The way he looked tonight and the Oval Office. OK. There he is. Hi, President Trump. OK. Now we had the Democrat rebuttal. Let's see what they look like.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like liberal gothic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your mother and I are very angry with you.

INGRAHAM: OK. Well - OK. They don't look happy. That's fine. But - oh, that's a horrible meme that was - no, the meme was on Twitter--

HAHN: Oh, my God!

INGRAHAM: --which we're not going to show, the Twitter meme.

HAHN: You people.

INGRAHAM: Isn't that so - they've done the same thing to Trump, by the way, in other words. OK. And then there was one other. Oh, there it is. It's awful. You people are terrible. But then--


INGRAHAM: --was it (inaudible) royal who came up with another one? When they walked - when they showed up and they kind of walked out on the long haul, oh, no, that's terrible. That's ridiculous. They don't look - Chuck Schumer doesn't look anything like that. But look, it's tough to do these rebuttals. Chris, honestly, Republicans have tried to do it. Remember when Bob McDonald tried to do the rebuttal to President?

HAHN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Was it Obama or--

HAHN: Marco Rubio, gravity of water bottle.


INGRAHAM: --with Marco Rubio. Oh, it's brutal. I saw - I'm just having fun. I'm having fun.

HAHN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: It's just not easy to do it. But I think visually, it's always--

HAHN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --a little tough. All right. Panel, thank you so much.

HAHN: It's hard. You know, it's hard.

INGRAHAM: It's not - it's not easy. But it actually would be easy to strike a compromise on the border. We could do - we could all sit around - even with Hahn, we could sit around, and a couple beers maybe, we'd figure it all out. Right, Chris? Come on.

HAHN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: You would do it. You know you would.

HAHN: Give me - give me DACA, I'll give you - I'll give you more border security. That's what I want (ph).

INGRAHAM: I think the President is willing to talk a lot of things, including DACA. But thank you so much, guys. Great, great conversation.

And for months, we've been asking Democratic representatives, whose paychecks come from your tax dollars, to come on here and explain their opposition to this increase in border security, the way the President is framing this.

Even tonight, by the way, as the President addressed the nation, I don't know how many we called. We called like three dozen, four dozen. Not one Congressional Democrat that we spoke with agreed to sit down right here in the studio and explain why they disagree with the President. That is a shame.

We welcome all points of view and Democrats on the show every night. We ask them to come on in good faith, have a good conversation, maybe even get somewhere. But for some reason, they just don't want to talk about this issue. This impacts all Americans all across the country, not just ones that live near the border.


TRUMP: America's heart broke the day after Christmas when a young police officer in California was savagely murdered in cold blood by an illegal alien who just came across the border; an Air Force veteran who was raped, murdered, and beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal history. In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder for killing, beheading and dismembering his neighbor. How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?


INGRAHAM: So we wanted to take you outside of Washington D.C., away from the partisan bickering, to the folks on the front lines of this fight. Joining me now, Brandon Judd. He is the President of the National Border Patrol Council. Every day he sees firsthand just how bad this crisis on the border is, and he even met with President Trump just last week about it.

And Irwin Carmichael is the former Sheriff of Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Now, he was defeated after he supported a program that allowed his police department to cooperate with ICE and the detainers that are placed on illegal immigrants. And Dr. Jeffrey Mazin. Last year, his son was shot dead by an illegal alien who made it back into the country despite being previously deported. Thank you all for being here.

Brandon, you would think that if Democrats felt that they - they had the - I don't know - the upper hand in this debate. They wouldn't be afraid - right - to step in and say, I don't buy it, let's sit down and have a conversation. They don't want to discuss the specifics. They don't want to discuss the case of Irwin's family and so many other families across the country that have been devastated by illegal immigration. They want to - they just hide behind the cliches of, oh, we're a country of immigrants. That's - that's about it for them.

BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: Well, again, what they are not doing is they're not proposing a plan. What President Trump has done is he has clearly laid out a plan that is going to give us border security.

If we go back and we look at what President Trump said, I believe that The New York Times was fact-checking him in real-time. The New York Times found nothing wrong with what he said. They did not say that he lied about anything. But now let's - let's compare what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi said. They said that border barriers don't work. That's false.

I can personally tell you that border barriers do, in fact, work. I've worked on the border, pre-barriers, post-barriers. And illegal immigration has dropped exponentially when we've had them. They say that the American people do not want border barriers. That's not necessarily true. It depends upon what poll you're looking at.

Then they say that they're for border security. If that was a fact, why aren't they laying out a plan and telling us exactly what they want? Instead, it's the President of the United States that is laying out the plan, and the plan is sound.

INGRAHAM: It's very specific. And I'm going to still call you sheriff. I know you were defeated, but - I'm still calling you Sheriff. What happened in your Mecklenburg County, North Carolina? People don't think of North Carolina as a place for a while there's (ph) illegal immigrant problem. But fact is, it's a problem all over the country now. Even in more rural parts of the country where we've gone beyond just a traditional labor jobs in the field, what happened there to thwart the rule of law with this 287(g) policy of cooperating with federal officials on immigration, Sheriff?

IRWIN CARMICHAEL, FORMER SHERIFF OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: Well, the 287(g) program, this program is strictly is a federal database that we use to identify exactly who we have in our jail and who is in our community. And the - the top four crimes in our county through the 287(g) program? Number one is DWI. DWI. Second one is assault on a female. Third one is trafficking heroin. Look at how many folks die a day just from the heroin. And then we have indecent liberties with a child. That's the top four in Mecklenburg County. Because we have the 287(g) program, these folks are removed from the country. They were removed from our communities. But now this program no longer exists in our county, and they are going to be released right back out into their communities to reoffend.

INGRAHAM: And 28 have already been released, correct?

CARMICHAEL: Yes, 28 have been released back out into the community.

INGRAHAM: How is Mecklenburg electing a sheriff like this? McFadden, right, is that his name?


INGRAHAM: He was going to come on last night -- or no. He said he wouldn't come on because someone dotcom, Fox, the said misquoted him about something totally different, it was a complete canard. They will not come on to answer legitimate questions that Americans want answered about why they are not protecting the American people. They won't come on. Democrats won't come on from Capitol Hill, local officials are afraid, they are all hiding from their own constituents.

Jeffrey, I had the pleasure of meeting you when we did our show from the border in June, pleasure and heartbreak sharing your story, the pain of your son losing his life to an illegal immigrant. I want to play for you - - and there's a picture of your beautiful boy. I want to play for you a soundbite of tonight. This is over at MSNBC, Chris Hayes, who was reacting to the president bringing up the issue of illegal immigrant crime. Let's watch.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: There's genuinely horrific things that have happened, but to conflate them with the 12 million people living here is a kind of incitement that is pretty ugly.


INGRAHAM: Your reaction to that? That is tantamount to incitement, he says.

CARMICHAEL: I am just wondering how many of these people have had their sons and daughters, wives, or husbands' life snuffed out by one of these illegal aliens, these monstrous people, these human beings that prey on another human being. I am just wondering if they would talk the same line if they saw their son bleeding dead in the street, or their daughter raped to death. I'm just wondering if Nancy Pelosi had one of her children or grandchildren assaulted in the same way that my son was assassinated. If she would speak the same way, I just wonder about that, Laura.

INGRAHAM: The president raised that issue of course tonight, and he personalized it. And said it is easy to kind of flick it off when it is not your family. Another, John King over at CNN, he said basically, and Brandon, I'll have you react to this, he said, look, he cited this study that you can quibble with, but immigrants on a whole commit less crime than American citizens. Again, the John Lott study on that just focusing I think on Arizona I think exploded that. But they conflate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. So, Brandon, you heard the pain from Jeffrey and his family, how do you respond to this tonight? Democrats are saying it is a 45 year low at the border, we have fewer crossings, not a crisis, big deal, not a big deal. Your reaction?

BRANDON JUDD, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL PRESIDENT: It was a 45 year low in 2017. I personally had to go to funerals of Border Patrol agents that have been killed by illegal immigrants. I have seen it, I know it.

But one thing that I wish the American public understood is that I've met with the president on multiple occasions. I've had multiple conversations with him. And what I know personally is that what he is trying to do is he is trying to protect the American people. He cares about the American people, and because he does care about them, he is trying to secure the border. Why don't the Democrats want to do the same thing? I'm baffled by that, and, frankly, it upsets me, because I am the one who is out there trying to patrol the border, trying to protect the American public, and I'm not being given the support that I needed, mainly by the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Sheriff, how does this issue -- you saw it play out tonight on national TV -- the president gives his address, very specific, very frank. Democrats respond. How does it play out in local communities like yours?

CARMICHAEL: Our program, the 287(g), all we look for is the criminal element. You had to be arrested, charged with a crime, and brought to our jail before you would ever encounter it. And these folks that are killing folks, we will pay for them for the rest of their lives. DWI being the number one crime in this county, and the gentleman, officer seen from California, two DWIs by the suspect prior to. He should have been removed from the country.

And right here in Charlotte, we have a gentleman who was arrested for marijuana, and then he was not deported. He stayed here, he killed four people, one of them being an American top model contestant. He will never leave the country, we will pay for him for the rest of our lives and his life. So there's a lot of bad folks that are here in the communities. And again, we want to make sure the community is safe. We want to make sure that they are removed when they commit crimes. I'm all for a pathway to citizenship.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Mazin, I want to get your last word really quickly. Should the president relent and compromise on this wall?

DR. JEFFREY MAZIN, SON KILLED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Absolutely 100 percent not. He should stay focused and adamant because his principles, as the gentleman said, are sound. They're just solid --

INGRAHAM: And solid, and delivered dispassionately. Gentlemen, thank you so much tonight, important conversation.

A lot more coming up -- toxic masculinity.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you trust me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do I have a choice?



INGRAHAM: James Bond's masculinity has apparently hit its expiration date. Can you believe it? Get this. The American Psychological Association is now out with new guidelines, declaring that, quote, traditional masculinity is harmful. Ryon McDermott a psychologist at the University of South Alabama who helped draft these guidelines asks unironically "What is gender in the 2010's? It's no longer just this male-female binary. If we can change men, we can change the world."

What exactly are we trying to change them to? Do modern women really dislike traditional masculinity? Here to help us answer this is Emily Jashinsky, senior culture editor at "The Federalist," and radio talk show host Jamila Bey. Emily, let's start with you. What do you think this attack on what is known as traditional masculinity is all about?

EMILY JASHINSKY, CULTURAL EDITOR, "THE FEDERALIST": Yes, so the APA specifically names in their definition of traditional masculinity competitiveness, stoicism, all qualities that I think a lot of young women like myself and women of all ages really probably find attractive, probably find compelling. And I think it is sad that the APA lent its authority as an institution, lent its credibility as an institution to these guidelines, which are steeped in language, really, of fourth wave feminism. There's lots of hints at intersectionality, there's talk of privilege, there's talk of all of these different buzzwords. And there is actually short on substance, and the substance that is there is attempting to pathologize things like competitiveness and stoicism in men.

INGRAHAM: So Jamila, just help me, I'm really trying to understand this. So traditional masculinity seems to be, in this report at least, conflated with being a pig or a creep or a Harvey Weinstein kind of person.

JAMILA BEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Let's not bring crime into it.

INGRAHAM: But that is what they have listed and what they're saying that if we encourage someone to be too competitive or too aggressive then that will kind of fall into bullying, which will fall into other pathologies, which will fall into male aggression.

BEY: Here's the thing. I have to be honest, I wasn't impressed with this at all. I feel like they committed the cardinal sin, this particular study here, of not actually defining the terms that they use. I think in these questions of what is gender, what is whatever -- look, I am a former pro women's football player. I love competition.


INGRAHAM: What position did you play?

BEY: I was a d-line tackle.

INGRAHAM: We needed those last --

BEY: Yes.

INGRAHAM: I could have had you on Alabama. Don't get me started on the game last night.

BEY: Years ago, before motherhood softened me and whatnot. But --

JASHINSKY: Traditional feminine.

BEY: Yes, what is more womanly than having a baby?

Anyway, here's the thing. Boys will be boys getting away with boorish behavior is something that has to be stopped. We certainly can all agree on that. But to come out and have -- I think this study, I hope it is a first foray into a larger conversation about what psychologically they are talking about. These terms are not defined, and nobody's going to sit up here and say, oh, yes, Harvey Weinstein, I want my guy to grow up and be just like him. On the other hand --

INGRAHAM: There are bullies who are both male and female.

BEY: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: There are people who have pathological behavior in both genders. And what I think it hurts the feminist movement is to turn everything into a political. I tend to think this kind of starts moving into politics and beyond. We should treat people with respect. Disagree, agree, I have so many friends who are liberals. We howl, laugh, sometimes we get mad at each other, but we're friends. We love each other. We have got to love each other more and stop with the, oh, my god, every time we disagree has to become a political crusade. I just think that's wrong.

JASHINSKY: I agree with that, I think that's perfectly said. And I also want to add, these attitudes are attitudes that have already had negative consequences in school systems, declining recess times in certain schools, which helps boys concentrate the more time they get outside and playing and stuff like that. So this is an attitude that has had dangerous impacts. Christina Hoff Sommers has outlined some of this, done comprehensive research on this. This is a dangerous, and I don't appreciate that the APA has lent its authority to this.

INGRAHAM: But do you think traditional masculinity, Jamila, is detrimental to society in the long run? And if you believe that, why is that? And I love James Bond, let me just say I love James Bond. I love "Braveheart," I love all those films. OK, I like when a guy opens the door for me. I don't like it when a guy is like, are we going to split the check? No, we're not. You're going to take me out. Sorry, that is old-fashioned, but I'll treat them the way I want to treat them.

BEY: Here's the thing -- again, we need to define our terms.

INGRAHAM: How about don't be a jerk?

BEY: Don't be a jerk.

INGRAHAM: That's fine. I'm fine with that.

BEY: Get consent before touching anybody, and certainly having sex with anybody.

INGRAHAM: Without touching -- so how are you doing? People are afraid to do that. How you doing? OK, don't touch me. Literally we all have to have bubble wrap around us. People are afraid to hug each other goodbye.

BEY: Well, some people aren't huggers.

INGRAHAM: But you know what I'm saying.

BEY: May I? You could do that.

INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.

BEY: I actually do, because, you know what, it is flu season.

INGRAHAM: I don't like the sign of the peace at mass. I'm not good at that.

BEY: It's just about making sure, frankly, that we hold everyone to the same standards. We don't drag out girls out of science and math --

INGRAHAM: That is just stupid. It's stupid.

BEY: It is. It is also stupid to say, oh, she is so aggressive for a girl. I got that on report cards every time.

INGRAHAM: I got that every report card.


BEY: Oh, my goodness, twinsies.

INGRAHAM: So I think we actually accomplished something. We can actually disagree on some of the political issues surrounding these things, but don't jump to conclusions because someone is athletic, or a woman, a female, or if they want to open a door for a woman they are not a terrible person. They are not looking down on you, and they are not doing that. Anyway, all right, guys.

Coming up, the Christian baker, oh, boy, who went all the way to the Supreme Court, remember that case, and won most of it. Because now he refused to make a wedding cake for another couple is back in court. He joins us exclusively to tell us why he believes he is being punished. That next.


JACK PHILLIPS, OWNER, MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP: The civil rights commission was told directly from the United States Supreme Court, you cannot be hostile to Jack's faith, and they are. And you can't treat Jack unequally, and they are doing that again.



INGRAHAM: We have an update for you tonight in our Defending the First series. You might remember last summer we covered that big religious liberty victory at the Supreme Court. It was a ruling in favor of a Colorado Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he said it violated his religious beliefs. Now that same man, Jack Phillips, is suing the state of Colorado, accusing the Colorado civil rights commission of antireligious bias.

So what is going on here? The group ruled that Phillips discriminated against Autumn Scardina, an attorney and transgender woman, for the refusal to bake her cake to celebrate her transition. Not so coincidentally, she asked for the cake the same day they Supreme Court announced that it would take up the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Joining me now for an Ingraham Angle exclusive is Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, and his attorney Kristen Waggoner, from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Jack Scardina's attorney is arguing the following, saying, "Nothing about the design of the cake -- a pink cake with blue frosting -- or the event, a birthday, violates any religious belief held by Mr. Phillips." There you have it. Your reaction?

JACK PHILLIPS, OWNER, MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP: First of all, at Masterpiece Cakeshop, we serve everybody who comes into the shop regardless of their sexual orientation or religion or marital status, anything like that. But we don't create every cake that people ask us to create because of the messages that they express. When Autumn Scardina called our shop, she requested a cake that would celebrate a gender transition. And that was more than -- that was a message we could not create.

INGRAHAM: What was on the actual cake that the would-be patron requested? Was there something beyond just color? Was it writing?

PHILLIPS: It was a custom cake, it was specified to be a custom cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate a gender transition. If it would have been another occasion, a graduation or a birthday, we would have gladly created that cake. But this was a message that this cake promoted that we could not create.

INGRAHAM: So Kristen, this is like the equivalent I've read somewhere of forum shopping, but the forum here is Jack and his cakeshop. They Jack, they love going to Jack's cakeshop because they know they are going to be able to get somewhere with the state commission on this issue, but you heard the argument, and the commission makes this point as well in a statement, and I will read it for you. They say I don't think there is any hostility in the record with respect to religion. There was a single commission member who after this decision was decided expressed his views somewhat inartfully that he doesn't like it when religious views are used as a justification to harm other people. But that's actually the law of the United States, you can't harm other people because it is in your religious belief to do so.

So what is going on here? Pink cake on the outside, blue on the inside, I have already gotten confused by that. But what is happening here?

KRISTEN WAGGONER, ATTORNEY FOR JACK PHILLIPS: I think the first thing is to look at simply what Autumn Scardina said in his declaration and that was filed with the court and with the commission. He said he wanted a cake that reflected and celebrated his gender transition. That is the message he wanted in a cake. Jack is all about serving his customers and serving people of all faiths, of all walks of life. But he can't express all messages, and no artist should have to do that.

What is even more telling about this setup by Autumn Scardina is that a few weeks later, he called back, and this time requesting a cake asking Jack to celebrate Satan's birthday and promote marijuana. What's even more astounding is that the Colorado commission saw this setup, and 24 days from when the Supreme Court ruled, it decided to get on Autumn Scardina's bus and pursue the hostility and harassment that he was attempting to invoke and put on Jack Phillips.

INGRAHAM: So Jack, you obviously -- I think it is pretty obvious, you personally are being targeted because they know you are this Christian guy, and even though you'll serve everybody, for specific life choices, you won't. And you don't want to because of religious beliefs. It really irked them that you won at the court, really irked them. But even the politicians in the state, they are on the bandwagon, as your attorney just said. Listen to Diana, who is a Democrat rep. Let's watch.


REP. DIANA DEGETTE, D-COLO.: Protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are civil rights issues, and they will be enforced.



INGRAHAM: You will be forced to make a cake with a message that violates your religious belief, period. That is what she says.

PHILLIPS: Yes, it was quite shocking to hear things like that coming from my government, that they are going to punish me for standing up for my beliefs when the Constitution clearly protects those beliefs appear

INGRAHAM: Do you believe it is basically submit or go out of business? That's what they want, you either submit or go out of business?

PHILLIPS: Yes, they took away my wedding business a few years ago, and that was 40 percent of my income, and now they are coming after us again for this new charge.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you promise that the president will tell the truth tonight? Will he tell the truth?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, Jim. And can you promise that you will? I'll hold you to nothing but the truth, so help you God? Am I allowed to mention God to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not the one who has an alternative facts problem like you do.

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.