Liberal advocacy group suing Trump admin for 'metering' asylum seekers

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington tonight. I had the reporter who broke the news on that infamous Steele dossier used to surveil an ex-Trump aide. Carter Page calls its claims largely false. So, why the media is still hyping it. Plus, by spending their political capital, targeting the President, Could the incoming Democratic House leadership be helping a dangerous foreign power. Wow.

Details in tonight's Angle, plus a special Christmas edition of seen and unseen later in the show. Raymond Arroyo is here to expose a city with no room for baby Jesus, as well as some of the most shocking toys flying off the shelves this season.

But we begin tonight with liberal activists, politicians and the media attacking American sovereignty. Now, it's important to know that the forces that oppose open debate on immigration. So, you've got to stay with me. Here first though, there are liberal advocacy groups siding with illegal immigrants over our own border agents. Overwhelmed by the crush of thousands of asylum seekers at the border, the Trump Administration has instituted a practice known as metering.

The procedure is meant to help alleviate the pressure on the border by limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the country each day, once they present themselves at a port of entry, seems kind of reasonable given the limited resources we have.

Well, not according to the advocacy group. Al Otro Lado, the activists legal aid group is slapping the Trump administration with a class action lawsuit over the practice. Melissa Crowe, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigration Justice Project says, the goal is to get CBP to comply with a law, which requires them to process the asylum seekers at ports of entry. The law requires them to admit legitimate asylum seekers enter the country.

Last fiscal year, immigration judges found that only about 9 percent of all those immigrants qualified as asylees. Despite that, the lies from the talking heads continue to pile up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People coming to our country asking for asylum which also is their right to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These individuals are in America. By law, they should be able to apply for asylum.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Most of the people we've talked to really are just exerting their legal right to asylum.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The second group attacking your sovereignty are politicians partnering with these advocacy organizations to create these well- choreographed, fairly theatrical stunts. Just yesterday, Democratic reps, Annette Berrigan and Jimmy Gomez, both of the Los Angeles area accompanied 15 asylum seekers from the Central American caravan to the Otay Mesa port of entry. Their goal to push for a greater number of asylum claims.

Well, imagine our surprise when we discovered that the group they partnered with is the same group suing the Trump Administration, Al Otro Lado. The third group guilty of manipulation though over the issue, the American media, using emotion over facts and honesty. Well, they purposely muddy all conversations related to immigration.

Take this little exchange on Morning Joe today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In a nondescript building in downtown El Paso, Ruben Garcia is welcoming yet another busload of migrants, just processed and released from ICE custody.

He's the Director of Annunciation House, a group of volunteers providing shelter and food for thousands of migrants a week. The desire to breathe free in America is real, but parents' sacrifices come at a price.

After months on the road with the American dream in sight, these migrants who know the uncertainty ahead are allowing hope to prevail over fear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are folks who have hope. These are folks who have dreams. And that's why they're here, because they think that they have a better shot at, they have a shot at a better life. And they're not going to give up on their hopes and dreams and we're not either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The hopes and dreams are a lot of people who have them. I think the last surveys, 160 million people around the world had the hope or the dream to come to the country and most of those overwhelmingly want to follow the rule of law and they want to be part of the American experiment that includes law and order.

More on this, no wonder that in a new Gallup poll by the way, actual Americans point to immigration as the issue most important to them right behind our government. So, why are the activists, the politicians, the majority of the media listening to you. Here to debate Tom Homan, former Acting Director of ICE and a Fox News contributor and Lisa Johnson-Firth is a Principal of Immigration First and a professor of law at Georgetown University. It's good to have you both. Let's start with you, Professor.

I understand that there is a great humanitarian story to be told here. There are thousands and thousands of people and indeed millions probably in Central America. I spent a lot of time in both Salvador and Guatemala and I know the people well. I know the place well. Beautiful countries, very corrupt.

But most of these aren't asylees. Most of these are economic migrants. And by - our own border patrol even during Obama, most of them are overwhelmingly rejected. So, why isn't the metering slowing this down, so we can process people in an orderly way. Why isn't that the right way to go?

LISA JOHNSON-FIRTH, PRINCIPAL, IMMIGRATION FIRST AND PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, first I would take issue that they are economic migrants, if you read the State Department report on any of these countries, the northern triangle. There are some of the most violent countries in the world. Gangs have as you noted taken over those countries are very corrupt and very dangerous. And so, I would say, I've been practicing immigration law for about 16 years, 10 years ago. Yes, I was seeing many more economic migrants. Now, I believe that I'm seeing in my caseload, true asylum seekers fleeing horrific gang violence.

INGRAHAM: But that's not one of the - that doesn't work on the credible fear count. Does it?

JOHNSON-FIRTH: Those cases are difficult to win because of the way asylum law has been constructed.

INGRAHAM: So, you think it should be more lenient than it is now?

JOHNSON-FIRTH: I think that first of all getting to the metering, I'm going to address your issue. But getting to the metering issue, when we are having people reports ports of entry rather than being able to cross the border wherever, which is obviously being challenged. Trump's decision to have that.

We're basically foreseeing a huge population to go through very small, entry points. And then the process of waiting, those people are subject to violence while they're waiting. I just interviewed a woman last week, who was raped while waiting at the border. She'd actually been gang-raped 60 times in her process of coming to the United States.

And so, I think we're increasing the danger. Obviously, some people will turn back. I think it is a way that the government is discouraging people from legitimately presenting asylum claims at the border that they're entitled to under U.S. law and under International law.

INGRAHAM: Tom, I think the politicians have really blown this. I mean I have no doubt that horrific things, we already know horrific things have happened to children, to women and to others and there are criminal elements within the migrant caravan. We know that that's already been proven. But politicians refuse to do what they need to do to make the system work. They refuse and then right now on capital, the light still on over there. They're not going to do anything.

THOMAS HOMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, ICE: Well, look the politicians as you said, it's a political point with a draw down there. They went down to get this group of 15, moving to the front line have 2500 people that were waiting in line playing by the rules. I got this revered you (ph). I've been enforced immigration law about twice as long as you've been practicing. And I'm telling you most of these people are not legitimate asylum seekers. Violence is not a claim for asylum and 90 percent lose it.

What the politicians ought to be doing rather than pulling a political ploy that they're doing. They ought to be here in Washington DC fixing the loopholes in our immigration laws that causes these caravans even exist in the first place.

I've been up on the Hill many times this past year with the secretary calls it - raise your asylum bar, address the foreign settlement agreement. Give ICE detention money, so it's not back to catch and release. If they close these loopholes, they will stop all this illegal immigration, but it isn't about protecting the border. It isn't about closing loopholes. It's about taking on the Trump Administration. It's about politics, head of public safety and national security.

INGRAHAM: I want to play some. This was Joe Scarborough this morning who was a Republican, I guess is no longer Republican. He made this comment. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, CO-HOST OF MORNING JOE ON MSNBC: I believe that when you come to the United States, you should come here legally. This is what is lost in this argument. These people coming to America now are coming here legally. They are seeking refugee status and that is legal. And as far as America being overloaded, there is a net negative flow back into Mexico.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Net negative flow back into Mexico. But it's not Mexico. That's the point, right. It's as more as the Central American as you say the triangle folks are the ones who are coming in.

HOMAN: We've got to take it back to the basics.

INGRAHAM: But they're not refugees, they're asylee. He is totally mixing up the term.

HOMAN: He starts talking. We've got to get back to the original issue. If they are really escaping fear and persecution from Honduras, during Mexico. They've already escaped that fear of persecution and they ought to be claiming asylum in the safe place to come to, a couple of thousand people already took Mexico up on that. So, it isn't about escaping fear of persecution. This is about going to United States because of maybe violence, because they're going to rejoin family members illegally already here.

INGRAHAM: And I want the professor to react this, it looks like the United States is going to give billions of dollars to Mexico and Central America in part to try to help them keep people in their homelands and also give people jobs in Mexico.

I guess what is it $4.6 billion that came out today. I guess that's - and it looks like - they're not giving that money for nothing. That money is going. I think in part say, look, you've got to stop this flow coming up to the United States. You've got to start incorporating people into Mexico. Why aren't the people staying in Mexico?

JOHNSON-FIRTH: Because Mexico is not safe either. The same gangs and cartels that are in Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala are also in Mexico.

INGRAHAM: So, do you think everybody from those countries should just be able to come because it's a bad place, because there are a lot of bad places around the world.

JOHNSON-FIRTH: Well, I would say that if you look at the American history and our history in Central America and what we've done over the past 100 years that we have created, allow the refugee crisis.

INGRAHAM: So, it's kind of a reparation's thing.

JOHNSON-FIRTH: I believe--

INGRAHAM: Kind of.

JOHNSON-FIRTH: It is. Yes, we should be sending money to those countries to help establish safer governments, more accountable governments. But it's also - that's not going to happen overnight. In the meantime, we do have thousands of particularly women and children who are fleeing for their lives. And that must be addressed, and we have an international obligation to adjust.

INGRAHAM: international obligation. Tom?

HOMAN: The fact of the matter is as I was the ICE Director, we remove thousands of people from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to their countries every day and there is no claim of fear. These planes were for several planes we could on all three of those countries. Very few Mexicans claim asylum, so I don't agree with Mexico not being a safe place. Mexicans claim asylum for reasons.

So again, we've got to get back to the basics of what's really going on here. These are people who want to come to this country for a better life. Can't blame for that now. But you can't want to be a part of the greatest country on earth and not respect this law. You can't have it both ways.

INGRAHAM: Well, you're skipping the line, but they're also using the system as it exists today the system is ridiculous and the fact that this crowd upon Capitol Hill will not address this. Tonight, they should be addressing this issue. It is a crisis, crisis on our southern border has been for a long time. Great Debate. Guys, thank you so much.

And now onto another story, you're not going to find covering on the other networks. Remember that infamous Steele dossier, that document that led to the surveillance of Trump campaign officials. Well, the reporter who actually broke the news of its existence revealed in a recent interview that it's probably all bunk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT AT YAHOO! NEWS: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them. There's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here now, Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent at The Washington Examiner and Andy McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, both Fox News contributors. Byron let's start with you. You've been covering this extensively. Michael Isikoff was the guy. I mean he kind of delivered this story to journalists and they were salivating over the Steele dossier and still are and their comments about it.

BYRON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is very important that Isikoff is saying this. Remember back, a month before the presidential election, Christopher Steele was desperate to stop Donald Trump and desperate to get the dossier into the press and he went to a bunch of reporters about a half a dozen. Michael Isikoff was one of those, but they didn't really bite on the whole thing. And it wasn't until the intelligence chiefs, remember that the Head of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA went up to Trump Tower on January 6th of 2017. Donald Trump is the President-elect. They go up there. They brief him on Russian efforts to interfere with the election and after that there is a one-on-one meeting with Comey and President-elect Trump and Comey tells him about that dossier story, about Trump being in a hotel room with prostitutes in Moscow.

The dossier has played a key role. That was a key role in getting Trump and the FBI off to a very, very bad relationship. It's been a really important part of this Trump-Russia investigation.

INGRAHAM: Andy, I want to go to you, even when we saw some of the transcript of what Comey was saying yesterday on Capitol Hill. He is blaming the Republicans. Despite the fact that we know this dossier was phony from the beginning, Steele was the guy who brought it together with the help of Fusion GPS, Democrat firm, it wasn't - but he's like - well, the Republicans initially funded a long-debunked myth that was conveniently parroted for months and months and months. He is still parroting that.

ANDY MCCARTHY, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Yes. Laura, a lot of the real anguish over this that people I think should feel is precisely that a lot of this stuff has been debunked. Byron has done reporting months ago that debunked you know this and that aspect of what we're talking about and what I would be - what I would be infuriated about if I were say, a FISA court judge or if I were the President for that matter, is that this material started to come into the FBI in July of 2016. They didn't go to the FISA court until October of 2016.

And when I read the Steele dossier when it first became publicly available, what occurred to me is somebody who used to do this for a living, is there were a lot of details that should have been easy enough for the FBI to run down and corroborate. There were sources that were identified with enough specificity that they should have been able to figure out who they were. And in short order, understanding that this is - a lot of this is in Russia. But nevertheless, using Steele, who was working with the FBI, they should have been able to identify these people and figure out, yes, this happened or no, it didn't.

And yet the incident that Byron just referred to where they go and brief Trump at Trump Towers. that's five months after this information started to come into the FBI and the thought that they hadn't corroborated it by then and yet they were using it as information that was worthy of briefing the President-elect is just astonishing to me.

YORK: Laura also--

INGRAHAM: I want to play. OK. Hold on one second, Byron. I just want to play. So, people know how fraudulent this is. I want to play a short montage of individuals who are still touting the dossier. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know it's interesting here Mimi (ph), this is another win for the so-called Steele dossier.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is the question of whether there is the tape that exists that was brought up in the Steele dossier which is by the way looking better and better as more charges are brought.

REP. JIM HIMES, D-CONN.: Nothing, nothing in that dossier, the Michael Steele -- the Christopher Steele dossier has been proven to be wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Byron, this whole thing has been a complete and utter fraud in a pretext, whatever you want to call it to set this in motion to surveil Trump, to get into his finances and try to go to town and insurance policy on down.

YORK: Can't be proven untrue is kind of turning the normal standard on its head. While it's important that Michael Isikoff is saying this now, it's kind of clear, the handwriting is on the wall because of events. For example, one of the big parts of the dossier has Michael Cohen, very close to President Trump or Donald - candidate Trump at the time going to Prague in Europe and meeting with Russians and agreeing on a payoff in which the Trump campaign would pay the Russians for all the hacking they were doing, helping the Trump campaign.

Michael Cohen said, this is patently false. Now, Michael Cohen has since been charged with all sorts of things has been investigated.

INGRAHAM: But not lying about that.

YORK: Correct. Not only about - been investigated by the special counsel's office and prosecutors in New York, been charged and pleaded guilty and sentenced and nobody said a word about Prague.

INGRAHAM: Yes, no collusion. I mean Andy I mean unless something really wild happens. No collusion.

MCCARTHY: If there had been collusion, they would have had these accomplices testify to a conspiracy to commit espionage and they would just come into court and said, yes, there was a conspiracy. Here is what I did. Here is what President Trump did. Who was in-charge of coordinating with the Kremlin and so on. That's the way you build a case. You have the accomplice plead guilty to the main scheme that you're trying to prove in the case and then you are 90 percent of the way home.

The way you don't build a case is by pleading all of your witnesses to false statements to the FBI, so that the one enduring thing--

INGRAHAM: Classic.

MCCARTHY: The jury will take away from the trial is that your witnesses can't be believed.

INGRAHAM: It's just classic, guys. Thank you so much. And ahead could the incoming Democrat House leaders actually put our future at risk by spending all their energy trying to take down Trump. Our ANGLE explores what dangerous country will benefit most of all. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Resisting globalism and winning. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

That's often lost in the Cohen, Comey, Flynn Mueller shuffle, a more important issue, far more important with a far greater impact and reach, the threat of globalism. We're not for the leadership vision and the hard work of the Trump Administration, we can be looking at a much less free and prosperous USA over the next 100 years.

The President's instincts pushing for a border wall, renegotiating NAFTA, insisting on fair trade with China are spot on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance control and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs beliefs and traditions. The United States will not tell you, how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: On most every important issue, Trump has held firm even in the face of immense resistance from those who have made billions on the failed promise of globalism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But the President has faced enormous opposition in his efforts and not just from outside his own party. This was his former Director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn this morning. Hi, there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY COHN, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I am absolutely not offended by the term globalist because I am a globalist. I believe we live in a globalized world. I think the United States is a very integral part of a globalized world and we have to figure out how to live as a good citizen of globalized earth. So, do the Chinese. So, do the Russians. So, do the Middle Eastern countries. But we are globalized. We cannot change that fact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We have to figure out how to be good global citizens. While that might sound really high minded, what's happened in the 20 years since China entered the WTO is not pretty. We ended up enriching other countries and lots of Wall Streeters like Cohn himself as our own middle class suffered. Thousands of U.S. companies moved overseas for cheaper production, all ushered in under the banner of globalization. Gone where most American made products from textiles to toys to televisions.

Sure, it wasn't what the globalist told us what happened once China was welcomed into the World Trade community.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, 42ND U.S. PRESIDENT: By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products. It is agreeing to import one of democracy's most cherished values, economic freedom. The more China liberalizes its economy the more fully it will liberate the potential of its people. Their initiative, their imagination, their remarkable spirit of enterprise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, how did that work out? The Chinese are richer, sure. But we have a $375 billion annual trade deficit with China and the only imagination they brought to the game is in their plotting to steal America's innovations. 18 years after China's entrance into the WTO, even Trump's most ardent critics are conceding that basically he's right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST OF CNN'S FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: Let's be honest on one big fundamental point, Donald Trump is right. China is a trade cheat. The U.S. Trade Representative's Report to Congress on China's compliance with global trading rules is an exception worth reading. It lays out the many ways that China has failed to enact promised economic reforms, backtracked on others and used formal and informal means to block foreign firms from competing in China's market. All of which directly contradicts Beijing's commitments when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Bingo. But even as the intelligentsia began to recognize reality, some liberal do gooders in Hollywood and Silicon Valley or MIA, they're willing to bow to the Chinese censors to maintain access to the marketplace. Desperate to capture the Chinese box office, industry execs forgo most of any project that would offend their Chinese overlords. Where is that Mao film, Mr. Spielberg?

Scripts are altered. Movie posters redesigned. Previews edited. All to please their communist business partners.

Now ironically, the Hollywood crowd claims to be vigilant guardians of artistic expression and they give tedious speeches at award shows about living your truth, all the while they avoid the inconvenient truth about how day in and day out China brutalizes dissidents both religious and political.

The AP is reporting that a million Muslims are housed in internment camps in China. At one facility, they're forced to make clothing that despite being a violation of U.S. law has made its way to an American sportswear supplier. And this Christmas season, I ask you to remember what's happening to China's estimated 100 million Christians.

House church pastors and underground bishops are arrested for being threats to the state. Churches are bulldozed, crosses ripped off steeples. Parishioners are forced to celebrate in secret. And there are reports that the regime is subjective Falun Gong members to forced organ harvesting.

The Khashoggi murder murdered by the Saudis is still making news and Trump is faulted for his response. But there is no equivalent media coverage or condemnation of China for its widespread ongoing horrific human rights violations. Access to the Chinese market has turned captains of industry into silent stooges and frankly, enablers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Qualcomm and the Chinese companies have been working together for many years to drive new technologies. A lot of growth in Qualcomm's business has come from working with Chinese companies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Chinese government and Chinese partners understand that we are a valuable partner in upgrading their industries. We see that China is becoming much more positive toward intellectual property protection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We'll see that when we believe it.

Meanwhile, the political class is afraid of Goldman Sachs, hedge funds, and any big business that stupidly stakes so much of its future on a communist country. So the globalists don't really resist China. They resist Trump and are fighting the president, urging him to back off his tough trade policies with China.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you look at the arithmetic of Chinese exports to the United States, U.S. to China, and what the impact of tariffs is, again, it drives things in the wrong direction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think in the long term, that's actually bad for American manufacturing, not a good thing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The way that it's being done right now is not having a positive impact on the businesses that could potentially impact the workers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, these are many of the same people who fought him on NAFTA and are objecting to a border wall. Isn't it funny how it works? It's like a Venn diagram. For the moment, the president is standing firm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Since they joined the WTO, we have racked up $4.5 trillion in trade deficits with China.

Year after year, politicians ran for office promising to fix our horrible trade deals. And I took it on, and that's right. When they charge us a tariff, we charge them a tariff now, OK?

I don't blame these other countries. I blame our past leadership for allowing these other countries to get away with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now they have a 90-day cooling off period. But he should not relent. Why shouldn't he relent? Because tariffs are working. This from "The Hill" today. "The tariffs have contributed to growth both directly and indirectly in the four main areas where tariffs were imposed -- steel, aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines. The U.S. has directly added more than 11,000 jobs as of August. Since then, more investments and jobs have been announced, including a massive $1.5 billion steel plant by Steel Dynamics that will employ some 600 workers. And in the solar arena, "Solar Power World" magazine lists more than a dozen U.S. companies where new facilities have been started and/or expanded." Good stuff.

Only the United States, my friends, has the economic and moral might to keep China's global ambitions in check. And as Xi continues his ruthless consolidation of power along with aggressive global expansion, both parties need to consider this question -- will you support policies that strengthen the hand of a murderous communist regime in China, or the policies that ensure a prosperous, strong, independent America? It's a time for choosing. And that's the ANGLE.

Joining me now is Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute, author of the phenomenal book "The Hundred-Year Marathon." So Mike, how big a threat are the globalist who are clearly annoyed by the president's $200 billion tariffs, only 10, 15 percentage points on that, but they want those gone and they want to go back to regular order where China was continued to grow at the pace it was growing, eight, nine percent a year.

MICHAEL PILLSBURY, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: The globalists are a major threat. It's not just Hollywood and the investment bankers. It's some of the personal relationships. Hank Paulson, for example --

INGRAHAM: He was another Goldman Sachs, another official --

PILLSBURY: Kind of like the mentor for the secretary of treasury. Some of the Democrats support the president. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have both supported the tariffs.

INGRAHAM: Rubio has been great on a lot of these issues.

PILLSBURY: So the problem is these individual globalists -- Gary Cohn's gone now, but Steven Mnuchin is still there. This is the problem for President Trump's base. They are getting angry at the globalists. As your presentation made clear, they are not really for America. They are kind of a broader sense of somehow the whole world needs to benefit, and it hurts American workers. I think that's why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have been so supportive.

INGRAHAM: Think about the 1980s. I remember I was in college and I remember all the protests about South Africa and apartheid and the divestment from South Africa. Remember that "ain't going to play sun city," none of the rockers could go down and play -- they're not going to play. But that was a really powerful movement on the left, and it was based in a protest about what they were doing to separate people in the way they treated them, horrible abuses.

Where the heck are these people now? We've got 800,000 Muslims in the internment, labor camps. We've got 100 million Christians living under basically, essentially house arrest. You don't hear anything from these people.

PILLSBURY: China got too powerful. Without people knowing very well --

INGRAHAM: Noticing.

PILLSBURY: They don't notice that it's still a communist country. It doesn't have a free market. Half the country is free-market by the other half is not. And President Xi's speech yesterday reinforced all of it.

INGRAHAM: I want to read part of it. This is what he said yesterday, his big commitment to Marxism and Leninism, reaffirming it. "The practices of reform and opening up in the past 40 years have shown us that the Chinese Communist Party leadership is the fundamental character of socialism with Chinese characteristics. East, west, south, north, and the middle, the party leads everything," reaffirming Marxism-Leninism.

PILLSBURY: That's right, but lots of globalists don't believe it. And they say oh, no, deep underneath President Xi he's really a free-market democrat.

INGRAHAM: I don't want him to go back to Mar-a-Lago. I'm not interested in Xi going back to Mar-a-Lago and having dinner. Let's see some real results first. Michael Pillsbury.

PILLSBURY: They are afraid of President Trump.

INGRAHAM: Good. They should be. They should be, and he should continue to make them afraid. It's the entire -- much more important than Cohen or Flynn or any of the rest of it. Mike Pillsbury, thanks so much.

The Arbiter is next. Two lawyers make a case on two different issues. You will not want to miss it. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for our new segment, The Arbiter, where two attorneys argue a case, and I make a final ruling. Joining me now is Jamil Jaffer.  He's the director of the National Security Law and Policy program at George Mason University, and Monique Pressley, attorney and Democratic strategist.  Both of you, thank you for being here.

All right, court is in session. I love doing that. This is actually my gavel. The first case is a South Carolina inmate serving a life sentence for a 2013 murder, suing the prison system for violating his constitutional rights. Prisoner James Rose says they unlawfully required him to shave his dreadlocks and refused to let him smoke marijuana. He claims it should all be allowed as part of a Rastafarian religious practice. Those are the facts. Jamil, you have 30, 40 or seconds to lay out your case, followed by a rebuttal. Jamil.

JAMIL JAFFER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Look, Laura, the thing that challenge is, the argument he's making has a surface appeal to it, which is that we protect religious rights very strongly in this country, right. The Constitution has protections for the free exercise of religion. We have a constitutional requirement against the establishment of religion.

At the same time, Congress has gone even further and have written specific protections for prisoners in our prisons, whether state or federal prisons.

At the same time, that doesn't give you the right to use in illegal drug and require the state to pay for it, which is what he's demanding. His dreadlocks, a debatable issue. The Supreme Court a few years back cited a case saying that a Muslim could keep his beard. That may be a protected religious right. The idea, though, the state has to pay for your marijuana and let you smoke it in prison, ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: Monique, rebuttal.

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, ATTORNEY: Well, I'll resist the urge to talk about whether marijuana should be legal or illegal. That's for another day.

INGRAHAM: That'd be out of order. Out of order.

PRESSLEY: I agree that if you can't smoke marijuana outside of the prison, then you can't smoke marijuana in the prison. But where I probably disagree is on the cutting of the dreadlocks. If it's true, as he says in his complaint, that they held him down forcibly and cut his dreadlocks, then that is cruel and unusual punishment, punishment that is unnecessarily degrading, punishment that is in violation of your religion. It's something that should not happen in the prison system. What they are not supposed to do is you make a person who's mad already, like a security guard, make them mad by asking for marijuana, and then instead of them responding no, you can't have marijuana, they tie you down and cut your hair when they know that's part of your religious practice. I think that's unacceptable.

INGRAHAM: There is the Shabazz case from '87, a Supreme Court case that said Muslim inmates weren't entitled to go to Friday services, correct?  There are reasonable restrictions on religious practices. You can't go to Catholic mass at your favorite parish. You are limited in how you can practice your faith. Jamil?

JAFFER: Right, although Congress did pass this law that gave additional rights to prisoners. And as a result the courts have now been implementing that law. And so Congress made the decision to give prisoners more rights.  Whether Congress should have made that law or should change it or not is a different question. I'd say we probably agree on the dreadlocks. The marijuana, we appear to agree, too, that which it's crazy to think that you're going to be allowed to use illegal drugs and have the state pay for it. It just makes no sense, and I think he's out.

INGRAHAM: Final, sum up.

PRESSLEY: There's no argument. If you are, unfortunately, in an incarcerated situation, you don't have the same level of constitutional rights as you would if you were outside of the prison system. However, I still feel strongly that where the dreads are concerned, it's different even than the Shabazz case you mentioned in that this is a religious observation that you don't have to accommodate by making for a special service. You don't have to give a special time. It doesn't interrupt the normal flow in the prison. So there was no reason for them to violate him in that manner.

INGRAHAM: Ruling in Monique's favor.

All right, let's move to the next case. Could New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio actually be using racial discrimination to promote diversity? A group of Asian-American education advocates are suing him for making changes to an admission policy for specialized schools that they claim discriminates against Asian-American students. The mayor's plan would phase out testing and double the offers to black and Hispanic students at these schools. Monique, you've got 60 seconds here. How is this not discrimination in a different form?

PRESSLEY: It is discrimination. What it isn't is affirmative action.  Affirmative action would be where in order for you to get into the school, you would have to be a particular race or you'd have to be a particular, like a woman, because we benefit from affirmative action too. Instead this is antiracism. This is antiracism in that they are trying to level the playing field. These are the poorest schools in New York City who were getting opportunity to go to the best schools in New York City. And all New Yorkers should want that to happen.

Now, what they don't mention, actually, in this op-ed is that Asian- Americans could also be included in the number from those particular schools who then get to attend the better schools.

INGRAHAM: The fact is a lot of these colors are doing the same thing.  They're really annoyed that these Asian kids are outperforming all these other students, and they don't know to do about it. We saw in California.  They tried to do limit in Massachusetts. They don't know what to do with it. Harvard is involved in a big lawsuit. We'll see how that turns out.  But Jamil, this is a tougher one. Rebuttal.

JAFFER: Look, Laura, it's outrageous. What you have here is essentially an effort to discriminate against one minority in favor of other minorities. It makes no sense. This just demonstrates the problem with race-based policy. When we start thinking about race as a core factor in our consideration rather than merit-based issues.

And look, the reality is we have a real problem this country. We do not give everybody an equal opportunity. It's largely an issue of economics.  Whether it's rural folks in America, white Americans in rural areas or people in the inner city, we do not give people an equal shot at education.  But the answer is not fix it in high school. The answer is go address the problem down at its root causes. Instead we try to make up for later and say we'll discriminate against the model minority, right, Asian in this case, right, in favor of other minorities. That is a crazy approach to this problem.

INGRAHAM: Jamil wins this one. Struck down, unconstitutional. Gosh, this is like split vertex. You win one. It's all fair for Christmas. You guys are good. I loved this. Thanks so much.

And the Christmas police are out in full force, and some of the most popular toys this season are unbelievably nasty. Yes, a Christmas edition of "Seen and Unseen" with Raymond Arroyo -- oh, look at that hat -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We have been waiting to use this for a long time. All right, it's time for "Seen and Unseen" segment, Christmas edition. The Christmas police are out in force, giving Santa a modern day makeover, killing a decades-old Christmas city tradition. Joining us now with all the details and a few outrageous toys, Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor, New York Times bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series. All right, Raymond, Christmas police are here.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: They are here indeed.

INGRAHAM: What's the deal with this?

(MUSIC)

INGRAHAM: Oh, again!

ARROYO: They keep coming back.

INGRAHAM: I love it. What's the deal? Shopping center is now erecting a gender-neutral Santa Claus?

ARROYO: A gender-neutral Santa Claus. You'll remember there was this poll where they asked people how would you like to rebrand Santa? Well, 27 percent said they would like a gender neutral or female Santa. Well, a New Zealand politician reacted. He said just as Mary Poppins is a woman, Santa is a man. In response to the politician, a mall in Auckland erected a statue called "Santa Poppins." It's Santa Claus as Mary Poppins, gender fluid Santa.

The problem with this is, and these silly polls -- I'm sorry. I don't believe even 27 percent people want a gender fluid Santa.

INGRAHAM: No, that's a lot.

ARROYO: This is like the "Ghostbusters" reboot. Sony lost $70 million when all the female Ghostbusters came into the room. People like tradition, particular during Christmas. And it's a little bit -- as long as were talking about Mary Poppins. Imagine if Lin-Manuel Miranda was cast as Manny Poppins. I promise you there would be a female revolt and there should be. Leave Santa alone. There's historical precedent. He was a bishop. Santa Claus is the physicalization, the embodiment of St. Nicholas. That became Santa Claus. We can't change it. It ruins the whole deal.

INGRAHAM: Tell me about -- then there is a nativity scene, I guess, in Woodland, Washington?

ARROYO: Yes. These officials have evicted Jesus from the public park.  This nativity has been a place for 40 years. But this year a handful of people complained that it violates the separation of church and state, people like Marc McVey. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wrote the mayor and the city manager and said, hey, I'm just not quite sure if this is in keeping with what the law allows.

Believe me, I'm not antireligious. I think it's great. I love this holiday season. I have a Christmas tree up myself. But it just may me a little uncomfortable to have that on public land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: How did it make you feel uncomfortable?

INGRAHAM: That liberal killjoy.

ARROYO: Here's the ridiculous thing. The mayor, Will Finn, cites a Washington constitution that reads no public money or property shall be appropriated for an applied or any religious worship exercise or instruction or the support of any religious establishment. Laura, this does not establish religion. If you are granting public accommodation to all religion on public land, as they clearly were, you don't have to remove the nativity. Yes, it's a religious symbol. Stick a menorah next to it or whatever you like and leave it in public.

INGRAHAM: That guy had some bad experience at a live manger scene, clearly. Maybe he was bitten by a sheep or something.

ARROYO: The people in Woodland should push back, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Power to the people. Just like you brought back "Baby, It's Cold Outside," bring back Baby Jesus in the manger on public land.

ARROYO: And keep pants on Santa.

INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly.

ARROYO: Finally, since we are reporting on some of the more heinous toys of the season and we've been doing it for several weeks, we've been getting suggestions from the audience. This first one, this is a new one, Laura.  This is a doozy. It's called, no kidding, Poopsie Slime Surprise Unicorn.  As the title promises, for 50 bucks the plastic unicorn takes a glittery dump for you. Surprise. This toy actually went viral. MGA toys, the maker of this wondrous device, expects to sell 650,000 units.

INGRAHAM: That's not made in China, speaking of my ANGLE. Slave labor.

ARROYO: I just hope they have a unicorn pooper-scooper. And then my daughter brought this to my attention on her Amazon page. A suggested toy for her was, again, no kidding, something called fishing for floaters where you --

INGRAHAM: What?

ARROYO: It's a bath toy. I wish I was making this up. You get a hook to try to capture the floating poop in your bathtub. I don't know about you, but this isn't a toy. This is a parent's worst nightmare. This is nothing we should be doing during the holidays. Isn't that horrible? Look at that.

INGRAHAM: My kids would love this.

ARROYO: Oh, no. I'm sorry.

INGRAHAM: OK, first of all, I have two boys. This has happened to me.

ARROYO: What do you need a toy for? You got the real thing. What you need is a Clorox wipe.

Before we go, to redeem ourselves, Laura, here are the official Trumps Christmas picture which was released today. Very pretty, look at that, in the main foyer there at the White House. We too have an official picture of our segment, Laura. This is our official picture with those much- maligned Christmas trees in the White House.

INGRAHAM: I was clashing with those trees at the White House.

ARROYO: Just a little bit. Just slightly.

INGRAHAM: Our picture looks pretty good, but the president and Melania look beautiful. Looks fantastic.

ARROYO: Fantastic. Beautiful. Beautiful host.

INGRAHAM: Can you call the president beautiful? He looks fantastic.

ARROYO: Tomorrow night, I just want to put a little plug in. Gary Sinise is going to join us for a great story we did on the Snowball Express. This is a group that brings veterans' children, slain veterans, to a little vacation. We embedded with them. You will not want to miss this story.  It is fantastic.

INGRAHAM: And it takes you to the happiest place on earth?

ARROYO: Yes. And we tell you why it's happy and what we truly have to be thankful for this time of year. It changed --

INGRAHAM: You got broken up about it. I got broken up listening to you.

ARROYO: The audience will be broken up by this, and they should be.

INGRAHAM: It's what we should think about this Christmas season, Raymond.  Thank you for going there. Thank you as always to Gary Sinise. But that's tomorrow night.

In tonight's Last Bite, coming up, we remember a Hollywood legend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've got to get out of here.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, what do you suggest I do? Flap my arms real hard and head towards the window?

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just try to get towards the door!

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Penny Marshall died at age 75. A lot of us in my vintage, we remember her from "Laverne and Shirley," but she went on to be an unbelievably successful film director. She died from complications from diabetes, and passed away today. A lot of her fans and colleagues remembering her today. Raymond, that song, that iconic song, how they move their legs, kick forward, it was on Friday nights after "Happy Days."

ARROYO: This was a must-see lineup.

INGRAHAM: Friday night was the big night for TV.

ARROYO: "Happy Days." It was "Laverne and Shirley."

INGRAHAM: "The Brady Bunch."

ARROYO: And "Three's Company" too, wasn't it?

INGRAHAM: I think it was --

ARROYO: It was all in one night. ABC, they had the corner of the market.  But then she went on to direct "Big," "Awakenings," "A League of Their Own," amazing movies, and her brother, Gary Marshall, also a renowned director.

INGRAHAM: Incredible talent. And incredible --

ARROYO: That New York east sensibility --

INGRAHAM: She had that whole -- can you sing the song?

ARROYO: What do I look like? I'm not a wedding singer. You sing it.  You're the girl!

(SINGING)

ARROYO: Nothing's going to turn us back now, straight ahead and on the track now. We're going to make out dreams come true, doing it our way.

INGRAHAM: All right. Pretty good.

ARROYO: All right. But what's the rest of it? Senior moment.

INGRAHAM: All right. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here. Shannon Bream knows the song. I know she does.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.