This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” The government shutdown continues at this hour as the debate over a Border wall enters its fourth contentious week.

Neither side in this has shown any sign of willingness to compromise. This remains a stalemate as of now, the very definition of it, or at least that's what it seems like from the outside.

In fact, this debate is over. We're not getting a barrier along our Southern border. We can't, not now, not ever. That possibility was permanently destroyed today by a fact-seeking missile of truth launched by one of our country's premier cable news outlets.

In a single devastating act of journalism, CNN killed the wall, took their biggest guns to do it. The network dispatched its Chief White House Correspondent/Moral Philosopher/Renaissance Poet, Jim Acosta, to the U.S.- Mexico border, specifically to the town of McAllen, Texas.

Once on the ground in McAllen, Acosta wasted no time in proving once and for all that walls don't work. Watch the stand-up that changed history.


JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Here are some of the steel slats that the President's been talking about.

But as we're walking along here, we're not seeing any kind of imminent danger. There are no migrants trying to rush toward this fence here in the McAllen, Texas area.

No sign of the national emergency that the President has been talking about. As a matter of fact, it's pretty tranquil down here.


CARLSON: You see that? Take that you nativist bigot freaks, you creepy wall obsessives. Jim Acosta just spanked you.

He was there, not in some cushy air-conditioned studio in Washington with the rest of the Talking Heads, but in the field, on the scene, doing the kind of hard-boiled shoe-leather reporting that has made Jim Acosta a household name.

Acosta went right to the wall itself, the very wall he finds immoral, and has often argued against at press conferences. And what Jim Acosta found there will shock you.

Not a single illegal alien was anywhere near that wall. There was no tent city. There were no predatory gang members or coyotes, MS-13, not there, there was no sad, suffering Caravan. Everything was just fine, or as Jim Acosta, so memorably, put it, the area around that steel barrier was pretty tranquil.

See? That's what you get when you build walls, America, tranquility. And that's the last thing we need more of in this country, more peaceful bucolic scenes like that.

Wait. That can't really have been CNN's point, could it? Now, it's getting confusing. We'll have to call Jim Acosta once he gets back from his latest mission and clear this up.

In the meantime, though, we just wanted to give you some idea of how stupid and buffoonish the wall coverage has been recently, in case you missed it. By contrast though, there was one fascinating and highly relevant story about immigration this week, and it didn't even mention borders or walls.

It's from an upcoming edition of 60 Minutes on CBS. In the piece, a researcher called Kai-Fu Lee describes what's about to happen to this country's labor market, thanks to the growth of artificial intelligence. Watch this.


KAI-FU LEE, VENTURE CAPITALIST: AI will increasingly replace repetitive jobs, not just for blue-collar work but a lot of the white-collar work.

A lot of things will become automated. We'll have automated stores, automated restaurants and, altogether, in 15 years, that's going to displace about 40 percent of jobs in the world.


CARLSON: 40 percent of the world's jobs, approaching half. As Lee warns in this segment, all jobs are at risk, high-end, attorneys, for example. But it's the remaining low-skilled jobs that are most likely to disappear, professional driving, for example, taxis, trucks, delivery vehicles.

5 million Americans now do that for a living, and support their families on those wages. Self-driving cars could put them all out of work very soon. And not just them, store clerks, waiters, cooks, they're in imminent danger too. Just about any repetitive job is at risk of going away.

Automation is accelerating. This is real. It's going to have a nearly unimaginable effect on what Americans do for a living, and on American society itself.

Our country's low-skilled workers already live in a pretty precarious spot. Their wages and their benefits have stagnated for decades. In fact, millions of them aren't really workers at all but, instead, get by on disability payments or other government programs.

Some don't even survive. They're overdosing and committing suicide at steadily higher rates, as you know. But in the next few years, if anything, things will get even worse. Some of the last remaining options for these workers are going to vanish, and there's nothing obviously waiting to replace those jobs. This is happening.

So, what is Washington doing about it? Well, nothing, but not just nothing, worse than that. Our policymakers are exacerbating the problem, making it far more painful and harder to solve.

At the very moment that millions of American jobs are about to vanish, their top priority, literally, the top priority here, is importing millions of new low-skilled workers. Both parties want that. It's insanity.

Now, to be clear, as we've been before, we are not attacking illegal immigrants. They're doing exactly what we would do if we lived in Honduras. We'd try to come here. That's understandable. What is baffling, what is impossible to understand, is that our policymakers haven't thought any of this through, and they don't care to.

Questions like what are all these people going to do for a living 10 years from now, when the jobs they expect to fill are gone. And, most pressingly, what about our own people? How does this help them, as they stare down the barrel of economic irrelevance in the digital age?

Thanks to technology, their labor, middle-class labor is worse -- worth less than it ever has been. And as a result of that, our middle class has less power and less economic security. Mass immigration makes them even weaker. It's simple economics, supply and demand.

The one thing they do have, and here's what Washington should pay close attention, is the vote. This is still a democracy.

And if our policymakers keep pushing Americans with lunatic economic policies like this, you're going to start to see voters vote for some very radical candidates, very radical, and that's guaranteed. This is exactly how revolutions start. Wise leaders would already know that.

Political Commentator David Paul Kuhn has thought deeply about this subject for many years, and he joins us tonight. David, thanks very much--


CARLSON: --for coming on. So, the equation seems really simple. The less economic power voters have, the more likely they are to express their frustration politically, and the more volatile your system and your society becomes. Am I missing something?

KUHN: You nailed the point. I mean to think of it this way. A decade ago, we experienced the Great Recession. We experienced 10 percent unemployment. Look at the societal upheaval that caused, the political upheaval.


KUHN: It gave Barack Obama, most immediately, a majority of the vote. Then it led to the Tea Party because of getting unaddressed. The -- you could argue, in fact, I would, that our inattention to the blue-collar crisis that came with the Great Recession directly led to Donald Trump, and that was 10 percent unemployment.

If you double that, that is the low end of what experts estimate will be the upheaval caused by artificial intelligence, AI. So, the political consequences are manifest.

And it's not just this expert on 60 Minutes. It's -- it's really a norm now to expect that it could go as high as 47, 50 percent especially in a developed country like the United States or nor -- or in Northern Europe.

CARLSON: So, there are lots of arguments for mass low-wage immigration, and some of them, you know, are perfectly reasonable. There's a moral argument. We can help people we should. I mean I don't think that's crazy, OK? But I don't see the economic argument for it under the circumstances that you just described.

KUHN: Well the -- I mean it is supply and demand, right? If you increase the supply of low-skilled labor and you -- you have -- you increase the demand for -- for good blue-collar jobs, the problem is there's a -- is a fewer blue -- good blue-collar jobs already for the American working class.

Another way to think about this, we've -- we've paid more attention, with the advent of Donald Trump, we've paid more attention to the White working class in America belatedly. A way to think about this, even if you're not particularly sympathetic to their plight they're -- they're like the canary in the coal mine.

In other words, as you just alluded, it's going to start -- what's happened -- what's happened to them and Black blue-collar workers as well, is going to hit the educated workforce, the white-collar employment that CNN say, big law, right?

So, in big law, huge portion of big law, especially, at the -- or in the early years, is doc review, document review. That's -- that's already been hit by AI, and that's only begun. Physicians may be more threatened than nurses, because a lot of physicians simply read symptoms and offer a diagnosis. That's certainly going to be automated.


KUHN: In other words, it's only begun in the white-collar world. And -- and I think we can look at what's happened to our blue-collar economy, as sort of a warning for all of us.

CARLSON: So, why -- I mean everything that you have said is well known, and there have been a number of pieces written about it, and I don't really think anyone denies the inevitability of a lot of the changes you described.

So, why does our policymakers' position continue to be, "Everything will be fine just because?"

KUHN: Well there's obviously a tech utopia, you know, variable here.


KUHN: And also, there's, of course, other factors, right?

The Democratic Party is dependent on the Hispanic vote. And the -- and I would say Hispanic leaders, not necessarily the average Hispanic voter, obviously, are highly concerned about the, you know, the crisis in Central America, and support the -- sort of the -- at least not curtailing the -- the current levels of -- of immigration.

But the -- and, of course, the corporate part of the Republican Party has always supported low-skilled labor. And really what you're talking about really is an issue that transcends both parties in a sense that because it transcends the sort of both parties' elites are inattentive to the crisis.

CARLSON: Well that's--

KUHN: We know the problem.

CARLSON: --that's for sure.

KUHN: But the incentives, I -- I think, to put it simply, we know the problem. Problem is agreed upon by experts. But the -- our political incentives are -- are not to address the problem because where -- where's the money? It's with--


KUHN: --it's with Google. It's with, you know, the Koch. It's with -- it's with the two ends of both parties that have -- that wants to increase immigration, increase the supply of low-skilled labor and, obviously--

CARLSON: It's sick.

KUHN: --this issue transcends -- it can -- it can -- you can increase the supply of high-skilled labor, right? You can give an increasing emphasis to -- to -- to immigrants who bring a college education and--

CARLSON: Right. But that's not what we're doing.

KUHN: --grant for (ph) degrees.

CARLSON: 50 percent--

KUHN: Yes.

CARLSON: --of the people we're admitting don't have more than a high school degree, and many have less. Nothing against them but that's not the point. David, thank you very much. Great to see you.

KUHN: Thank -- thank you.

CARLSON: Austan Goolsbee is an Economics Professor at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and he joins us tonight. Professor, great to see you. So--


CARLSON: --so the position of both parties, really, and it is -- it is both parties, it's not just the Democrats, is that yes, we've seen automation before, and everything -- and these people will -- somehow new jobs will appear and these people will take it, and everything will be fine.

Given that almost no economics professors predicted the crash of 2008, I, for one, am for replacing all economics professors with computers with AI. And if my dream came true, you and all of your colleagues would be immediately out of a job.

Would you have the same posture toward automation that you do now, if that happened?

GOOLSBEE: Well, as you know, probably, Tucker, I teach at a business school, and business schools and--


GOOLSBEE: --and a lot of professional schools demand has been down. And there is pressure.

My -- my view of automation is if you look at the jobs numbers, technology destroys jobs, and technology creates jobs. So, we lost 5.5 million jobs last month, but we added 5.8 million jobs last month.

So, I -- I don't think the fact that some technologies are going to come in and replace specific jobs by any means suggests that the unemployment rate is just going to go up to 50 percent, there's going to be nothing for people to do. Certainly, the history has not shown that.

CARLSON: Well, actually, the -- the history kind of has shown massive disruptions. So, I actually pulled the numbers. So, in 1984--


CARLSON: --the Head of the UAW representing, obviously, Auto Workers in Lansing, Michigan said, quote, we don't look at automation at as job elimination, basically what you just said, we look at it as a way of making cars much higher quality.

When he said that, the UAW in Lansing represented 14,500 workers. There are now a little over 5,000 in Lansing. The other factors intervene, trade was one of them. But automation was the main one.

So, actually, a lot of those workers didn't get better jobs, as you well know. So, why should we be as hopeful as you are?

GOOLSBEE: No. You -- you just changed what I said with it -- that is a demonstration that technology can eliminate jobs--


GOOLSBEE: --and technology can create other jobs. And the unemployment rate is less than 4 percent, despite having a 100 years of technological change.

So, the argument that there's a fixed number of jobs, and that every machine that replaces one, falls prey to the fallacy that people who answer the phone are no longer operators pulling out cords and plug them in--

CARLSON: But -- but the -- but the unemployment rate--

GOOLSBEE: --to other cords, that doesn't make the unemployment rate--

CARLSON: --no, no, no, but I -- I -- I--

GOOLSBEE: --a 100 percent.

CARLSON: --I understand. But the unemployment rate is -- is one of many measures, and it's a pretty imprecise measure, as you know.

GOOLSBEE: OK. There's a 150 million people with jobs in this country, which means despite losing millions of jobs due to technology, we've added tens of millions of jobs--

CARLSON: But wages, but -- but hold on--

GOOLSBEE: --as the economy is expanding.

CARLSON: --no but -- but -- but you -- what you're not taking account of, of course, are the people who are out of the labor market for good who really should be in the labor market. There are many millions of them. But also, you're not taking into account what they make.

So, wages at the lower end haven't really moved for decades. Here I am making the -- the old-fashioned Democratic argument, but it's true. And my question is how does adding--

GOOLSBEE: Yes. Look, I'm -- I'm not--

CARLSON: --more people to the labor market--

GOOLSBEE: --I agreed with your disruption point. But--

CARLSON: --help. No, but I--

GOOLSBEE: --I think you make a fallacy -- yes?

CARLSON: OK. Look, I'm not saying there are not going to be jobs.

GOOLSBEE: Look, I think you're making an economic fallacy when you -- when you say that we're going to lose all the jobs, and then, here are going to be these immigrants to take what few jobs are left.

CARLSON: But I'm not--

GOOLSBEE: The fallacy there is--

CARLSON: --no, no, no, wait what--

GOOLSBEE: --when the number of jobs goes down, the immigrants leave. That's what happened in the Great Recession.

CARLSON: But why does -- no but--

GOOLSBEE: The number of illegal immigrants--

CARLSON: --really--

GOOLSBEE: --went down by 2 million (ph).

CARLSON: --OK. So -- so, when you offer someone citizenship, free healthcare, free education, housing vouchers, and free food, all things they don't have in their own countries--

GOOLSBEE: OK. The -- the no -- no one--

CARLSON: --you sort of eliminate--

GOOLSBEE: --offered them that. Yes.

CARLSON: I don't know. I guess you haven't been reading the news. The Mayor of New York City just offered free healthcare to--

GOOLSBEE: I -- I have been reading the news. That's not what they offered.

CARLSON: --every illegal in the city. OK. So, we are offering that. The state--

GOOLSBEE: When the employment rate goes up--

CARLSON: --our biggest state just -- what do you mean we didn't offer that? We just--

GOOLSBEE: --the immigrants leave.

CARLSON: --the biggest state -- that's not true--

GOOLSBEE: Immigrants leave when there are not--

CARLSON: --actually.

GOOLSBEE: --economic opportunities.

CARLSON: But hold on just -- we're almost out of time. I just want you to answer straightforwardly a very simple question.


CARLSON: We're staring down the barrel of this great disruption. We both agree it's coming. It's not great news for millions of Americans. Why would you add to that, more new low-skilled workers? How does that help Americans, honestly?

GOOLSBEE: The reason that you would add extra workers in the United States is because you probably saw the National Center for Health Statistics came out this week, saying that the fertility rate of the native-born population is not enough to sustain the population size of the United States.

Since our retirement depends on workers--

CARLSON: Then why not encourage them? Why not make it easier for them to (ph) have more -- wait, hold on.

GOOLSBEE: --you want to bring in some working population--

CARLSON: Wait a sec.

GOOLSBEE: --to pay our Social Security and Medicare.

CARLSON: How grotesque is that? Why wouldn't you create economic--

GOOLSBEE: It's not grotesque. What are you talking about?

CARLSON: --it is grotesque. It's actually disgusting that you just said that. Why wouldn't you help your own people--


CARLSON: --afford to have more children? Why is the obvious answer, import more--

GOOLSBEE: What are you say -- have them afford to have--

CARLSON: --other people to have children.

GOOLSBEE: --more children?

CARLSON: No, I'm serious. People don't have kids--

GOOLSBEE: As our incomes have gone up--

CARLSON: --because they can't afford it.

GOOLSBEE: --our birthrate has gone down, Tucker.

CARLSON: No, that, no, no, you're--

GOOLSBEE: When you say we can't--

CARLSON: --totally--

GOOLSBEE: --afford to have children.

CARLSON: Then why wouldn't you make it as easy as you possibly could for American citizens to have kids? Why wouldn't you pause and ask--

GOOLSBEE: You should. I--

CARLSON: --maybe people want to--

GOOLSBEE: --you and I can agree on that.

CARLSON: --well that -- that wasn't on your list. That wasn't on your--

GOOLSBEE: We should. We should.

CARLSON: --list of solutions. No, it's just--

GOOLSBEE: That is on my list.

CARLSON: --import more people with higher fertility rates.

GOOLSBEE: Only it's not working in 50 -- out of--

CARLSON: When has it been tried?

GOOLSBEE: --50 states, that rate is not high enough.

CARLSON: Name -- name a place that's been tried? Oh, it's never been tried because we don't care.

GOOLSBEE: It has been tried.


GOOLSBEE: We expanded the Child Tax Credit. We've expanded a--

CARLSON: That -- yes.

GOOLSBEE: --series of things to try to encourage people to--

CARLSON: A series of things?

GOOLSBEE: --have kids.

CARLSON: OK. Yes. No, actually we--


CARLSON: --we -- we really haven't. But professor--

GOOLSBEE: Look at the--

CARLSON: --thank you.

GOOLSBEE: --Child Tax credit.

CARLSON: That -- that's maybe the lamest possible answer. Thank you very much.

Democrats are very worried about the security risk that a few Russians with Facebook access pose to our country. They hacked our democracy. Yet, they're not concerned about millions of people we know nothing about streaming into our countries and stealing over a million Social Security numbers. Why is that? After the break, we'll tell you.


CARLSON: Maria Hinojosa is an anchor over at NPR state radio, publicly funded radio. But she's also, apparently, a credentialed expert on immigration. She must be because she recently lectured the rest of the country they're not allowed to use the term, "Illegal immigrant."

For that, she said it was immoral to detain the migrant children crossing the border because pedophiles would get jobs taking care of those children. We're not kidding. Actually, you can look that up.

Now, Maria Hinojosa has a new nugget of wisdom. Border security is entirely irrelevant. How does she know? 9/11 proves it.


ALI VELSHI, CO-ANCHOR OF VELSHI & RUHLE ON MSNBC: You sound like you don't think the Democratic response was as robust as it could have been?

MARIA HINOJOSA, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF LATINO USA ON NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Because the problem with the Democratic response is they are continuing to play into this narrative of "Oh my God, border security, border security!"

Guys, I've been talking about this story for 30 years. For 30 years, there's been the neurosis about border security.

The greatest terrorist attack in our country did not happen because someone crossed that border. It happened in our city because they got off of planes. So there it begins to feel like the wheels are just spinning, spinning, spinning, talking about border security.


CARLSON: OK. She's been talking for 30 years. It may be the first time you've heard her but there we go.

Back in reality, meanwhile, there are some lessons we learned from 9/11, in case you don't recall. And the main one was we ought to know who's actually in our country, and what they're doing here, particularly, if they're from somewhere else.

The 9/11 hijackers boarded their planes using their real names, but they routinely used fraudulent identities and fake documents in the lead-up to the attack. And that's why, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed something called the Real ID Act.

That was a decade ago, and it was still possible then to say that dangerous people ought to be kept out of America, and those with no legal right to be here ought to be made to leave.

Now, that former consensus is hate speech and, instead, it's our country's obligation, they're telling us, to let tens of millions of people we know nothing about settle here. And if they use fake documents to get here or work here, that's not a big deal. And if it bothers you, it's your problem, shut up.

Meanwhile, in 2016, an IRS report found that more than a million Americans had their Social Security's numbers stolen by illegal aliens, and were never even informed of that fact by their government.

But that's not a threat, keep in mind. We've only been hearing for two years about the real threat. The real threat is Russians with laptops and internet access. That's the threat.


CHRISTOPHER CHARLES CUOMO, NEWS ANCHOR, CNN: The Russians exploited a massive backdoor into the foundation of our democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moscow's attack on American democracy.

TONY ROMM, TECHNOLOGY POLICY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: The work by Russian agents to try to destabilize American democracy.

DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT HOST, CNN: It's everything you need to know about the threat to our democracy.

ELISE JORDAN, POLITICAL ANALYST FOR NBC NEWS AND MSNBC: You have Republicans who are silent and seemingly OK with this kind of attack on our democracy.

SEN. BENJAMIN CARDIN, D-MD.: There is no question that Russia attacked us.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, D-MD.: We're attacked, ladies and gentlemen, on our Constitution.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Attack on the integrity of our elections.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An attack on our democracy.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The first time we've had an adversary attack us that we have not responded.


CARLSON: God, all -- all reading from the same script. Let's be -- I mean, our leadership class in this country is really sick, and that's obvious now. The crisis is not only at our border. It's here in Washington where the people in charge decided that the very question of border security is not worthy of conversation.

And if you push it, you're immoral. And it's just the whole thing's irrelevant, so irrelevant, they're not even paying attention, including one of the commentators over on CNN yesterday who found her nails more interesting than anything having to do with criminals crossing the border.

Watch this.



STEVE CORTES, FORMER HEAD, TRUMP HISPANIC ADVISORY COUNCIL: John Law did an extensive study of Arizona. There are -- there are conflicting studies.

CUOMO: Please.

CORTES: But listen--

CUOMO: No conflicting studies.

CORTES: --even if I were to grant you that point -- yes, there are.

CUOMO: No conflicting studies. Not real studies.

CORTES: But even if I -- that's fake news to say there are not. It's fake news.

CUOMO: No, it's fake news for you to inject BS--

CORTES: But -- but I would if -- OK.

CUOMO: --and say that it's equal to the real data.

CORTES: Look--

CUOMO: It's in there (ph).

CORTES: --it's not BS. But even if I were to -- even I were to grant you that, OK, the point is the illegal alien--

CUOMO: She's doing her nails again.

CORTES: --crime rate should be--

CUOMO: --right (ph).

CORTES: --zero. It should be -- you can do your nails.

You know who can't do their nails are people who have been killed, Ana, by dangerous known illegal aliens who have been allowed to stay in this country because of the Leftist policies that people like you promote.


CARLSON: Wow! That's as much CNN as I've had this year, and it's enough.

Mollie Hemingway is the Senior Editor at The Federalist, and she joins us tonight. So Mollie, in a functional city, functional capital city, the debate would not be about whether or not there was a problem, or whether or not borders were appropriate. It would be about the details of how to fix what is manifestly and, obviously, a problem.

But is it -- is it your conclusion like at least half the city doesn't believe there is a problem?

MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST SENIOR EDITOR: It is very bizarre to watch people talk about this. I mean, obviously, we have hit a government shutdown. We have -- we have had story after story of problems at our Southern border, and we do have other border problems. We have -- we have other issues that are in play.

The -- the -- the -- the leaders here should be sitting down and working out a solution, and they're not taking it seriously, and also, the media don't seem to be taking it very seriously.

They hit this issue about an inch deep, and I think the average American might have a better understanding of the complexity of the -- of the situation than the average reporter at times.

CARLSON: So, if you're a Republican Senator and your solution, and I think this is actually what's happening, your solution to this problem is to give citizenship, reward people who came here illegally, not just people taken here by their parents, as small children, but people who came here volitionally knowing it was illegal, giving them citizenship, are you kind of missing the point maybe of this--


CARLSON: --of this conversation?

HEMINGWAY: --and it's a threat to the rule of law. I mean the first -- the first thing you have is an agreement as a people to abide by certain laws. When people do come here illegally, that undermines that rule of law. That undermines the fabric of the country.

It is important that people have a shared agreement to hand out citizenship to people without thinking about that and thinking about what harm is done when people break -- break laws, including our border laws, is really to not understand--

CARLSON: I guess so -- so why am I following that (ph)?

HEMINGWAY: --what a country is or a border is (ph).

CARLSON: Why am I living in fear that I'll some -- accidentally violate a law and be humiliated and punished, when our leaders are telling us it's totally cool when people break the law?

HEMINGWAY: Right. If we don't use a not -- if we use a fake ID, we are punished for it.


HEMINGWAY: And we should be. And if other people do it, sometimes there's just either a slap on the hand or nothing, nothing major done about that, and that does -- that does create, it loosens the -- the binds--

CARLSON: Are you going to keep--

HEMINGWAY: --that keeps us (ph).

CARLSON: --following the law?


CARLSON: I am but (ph) kind of an idiot. I mean everyone else -- you know what I mean? Everyone's getting rewarded for ignoring it. So like why am I the last dumb person in America who's like worried about paying all my taxes?

HEMINGWAY: But it really does have an effect on a larger--

CARLSON: Yes, it does.

HEMINGWAY: --on a larger people. And when you see people getting away with things, you wonder why -- if you're just the dummy who's -- who's following the law, while nobody else does.

CARLSON: So, that is corrosive. I agree a 100 percent, Mollie Hemingway, with everything you say, by the way, thank you.


CARLSON: The President today argued that Democrats are ignoring the border because they don't care about borders or the dangers that might come across it.


PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP: The Democrats, which I've been saying all along, they don't give a damn about crime. They don't care about crime. They don't care about gang members coming in and stabbing people and cutting people up.

We're spending a fortune on trying to stop drugs. And they pour in through the border. But I see it more now than ever before, the Democrats don't care about the border, and they don't care about crime.


CARLSON: Well Democrats do care about borders, if you're going to be pedantic about it. They care about preventing them from existing.



PELOSI: A wall is an immorality. It's not who we are as a nation.

STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, ANCHOR, MSNBC LIVE: All of this for a group of people, a lot of whom are mothers and children, who pose no imminent threat to the United States.

MARIA CARDONA, LATINOVATIONS FOUNDER: It's in our laws that people are allowed to come to our borders and ask for asylum.

APRIL DANIELLE RYAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: This Border wall thing is about controlling the Browning of America.

ANGELA RYE, LIBERAL POLITICAL COMMENTATOR ON CNN: It is not about securing the borders. It is about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: They're telling you, the -- the existential threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees a 1,000 miles away.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: He manufactures crises like immigrants seeking legal refuge.


CARLSON: Well this is not the only country where these debates or the reality of people moving across borders without permission is unfolding. In Italy, something very similar is happening.

Italian investigators recently stopped a human smuggling operation, one that brought Islamic extremists into Europe. They were posing as asylum seekers. So far, nobody seems to have accused the Italian police of racism. Why is that?

Nigel Farage is a former leader of the UK Independence Party, UKIP, and he joins us tonight. Nigel, great to see you.


CARLSON: So, when you watch the debate over what's happening at our Southern border here in the United States, does it remind you of things you've seen in Europe?

FARAGE: Oh, you know (ph), four years ago, when the Mediterranean crisis broke, I said in the European Parliament, we must not let our compassion imperil our civilization because ISIS will use the Mediterranean route to get their operatives into Europe.

Sure enough last year, we were warned by Interpol that up to 50 Jihadists had come from Tunisia into Italy already. And today, this gang, as you've announced, has been found. It's been busted. And they've been bringing jihads in.

I mean what clearer lesson can there be of the great self-harm you can do to your nation, to your civilization, to the safety of your citizens, if you don't send out a message that people cannot just illegally come into your country?

And I -- I see what's going on today, down in Texas, and I would say to Americans, just look at this news story. Look at Isis, you know, preying on the weakness of governments over borders, and that tells me that Trump is absolutely right with everything he's saying.

CARLSON: So, what's so interesting is you all have been having these debates for a lot longer than we've had them in the United States. It was really only Trump--


CARLSON: --that got this debate out in the open to the extent it has been. It does seem like the consensus in Europe is -- is changing. I read a story today about how even the Left in Europe is starting to think maybe borders are important.

FARAGE: Yes. I mean we've reached a point where, you know, amongst the general population, over 70 percent, in most countries of people are saying, "Whoa, hang on. This is crazy."

And, you know, Tucker, it's not just terrorism. If you look at what's happened in places like Sweden, what's happened in places like Germany, where huge numbers of people, from a completely different culture have settled in those cities, there's all sorts of other sexual crime and problems that have come too.

So, overwhelmingly, European citizens are saying this madness has to stop, and we are seeing political change. Now, we're not seeing it from Mrs. Merkel. We're not seeing it--


FARAGE: --from President Macron of France. But I think what you're going to see in May this year, in elections to the European Parliament, is a massive shift in terms of political direction. Controlling borders is becoming fashionable again in European politics, and can I say, not before time.

CARLSON: Yes. That's for sure. But we, you know, we can learn that lesson. I hope we will. Nigel Farage, thank you. As always, good to see you.

FARAGE: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, Cher, the actress and singer and general purpose famous person is not a fan of Donald Trump. But suddenly, she's angry and demanding a Border wall. What is that?

Mark Steyn knows the answer. He joins us after the break.


CARLSON: Well, so far, Democratic lawmakers here in Washington, the leaders of the Democratic Party, are refusing to budge at all on the question of a Border wall. But not everyone on the Left thinks that building a wall is completely insane. Some seem almost open to it.

Over in The Daily Show, one host recently suggested there are worse things than giving the President $5 billion for his signature policy.


TREVOR NOAH, THE DAILY SHOW HOST, COMEDY CENTRAL: Thanks to Trump, we've learned that during an actual emergency, a President can do way more than just build a wall, right? Shut down your internet, send the troops in. He can just control the country. So if I'm the Democrats, I would give Trump the wall before he finds out what he can really do.


CARLSON: Meanwhile, Cher, Cher, the famous person out in L.A. is very upset. Today, she tweeted at Nancy Pelosi in all caps, naturally.

"For Trump, this is political. But real people are really suffering. Nancy, you are a hero. Let his -- him have his effing money. People will starve, lose their homes, be unable to call doctors. Emoji. Emoji"

Author and Columnist Mark Steyn spent his formative years studying the Rosetta Stone, so he is joining us tonight to translate that tweet. What is that?

MARK STEYN, STEYNONLINE.COM: Before anything else, I want to say that Trevor Noah comedy routine was hilarious. That's why they need--

CARLSON: It's a--

STEYN: --that's why they need 57 writers for Comedy Gold like that. It's--

CARLSON: Really?

STEYN: --it's harder to do. Don't try this at home, boys and girls. It's harder to do than you think. Cher, you know--

CARLSON: Wait. Can I -- can you just stop right there and let me just say, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean I'm not even attacking the guy for his politics. But I mean that--


CARLSON: --talent levels along with, you know, lots of other markers of society -- societal health have declined, I think, which is--

STEYN: No. No, they have--

CARLSON: --not impressive.

STEYN: --I'm not attacking. Trevor Noah--


STEYN: --is my fellow Commonwealth citizen from South Africa. And I don't want to attack him. But I -- I don't know what those 57 comedy writers are doing all day.

CARLSON: Yes. Roger that (ph).

STEYN: Cher -- Cher seems to be the one person in the country who actually believes in government shutdown dinner theater. She looks out of her window. She can -- she can't see over the Border wall around her own estate.

And she thinks the streets are full of people who are dying of disease. Their corpses are going unburied. There's flies all around the mound of corpses outside. Tens of millions of Americans have died. For God's sake, give Trump his wall.

And you can say a lot of things about celebrities. But they have extremely refined loser detectors.

The greatest moment on Election Night 2016 was when Cher went to the Hillary victory party at the Javits Center in New York, walked into an empty ballroom, and realized that Hillary, the loser was stinking up the joint, and all the celebs had fled, and she got out of there.

And, basically, she just what -- looked at Chuck and Nancy the other night, and made the same conclusion that this is a loser for Democrats, and they should just get over it, give him what he wants, and move on.

CARLSON: A human carbon monoxide detector.


CARLSON: She knows when you're dying before you do. Yes, it's interesting.

STEYN: That's right. That's right.

CARLSON: So -- so, I want to ask you about this. Beto O'Rourke, so lots of Democratic presidential candidates are revealing more than you'd ever want to know on social media. But Beto O'Rourke is going further.

On Thursday, he used Instagram to broadcast his trip to the dentist. Is this A, megalomania, B, just a profound lack of self-awareness, or C, the result of too much nitrous oxide? What is it?

STEYN: Well, unfortunately, he was just seeing the dental hygienist. I was hoping it was a full-blown root canal. But we were -- we didn't get that -- that lucky. There's something slightly wrong when Cher is talking about border policy, and the next President of the United States is saying, "Here I am, having my teeth cleaned."

All I'd -- all I'd actually say about that is when I -- I got this huge JPEG in my inbox, and I saw these gleaming white tablets staring at me, I thought at first, so that was the best design for the Border wall that Trump had come up with, just a sort of a -- a long line of Beto O'Rourke choppers along the Rio Grande.

CARLSON: It's like a Christo installation.

STEYN: Yes. And I would -- I would mean -- but I -- I didn't think -- I regret the politicization of pop music, of sports, and now we've got the politicization of dental hygienists.

And, you know, and soon, no Right-wing people will be able to get into see a dental hygienist. And the last thing we need is more Republican candidates with bad teeth. This -- this is not as innocent a move as it looks, Tucker.

CARLSON: I'm going to the dentist soon for my annual checkup, and I'm going to ask for--

STEYN: You'll never get in. You'll never -- they won't take you.

CARLSON: --no, I will -- I'm going to ask for the Bobby Kennedy implants that he got somehow.

STEYN: You know what (ph)? OK, stand well back. I don't want to see that in High Definition.

CARLSON: That's so good. Mark Steyn, you're the best. Thank you.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Because this show covers news that's important, regardless of where it's from, we're going to bring you details of this story. A mysterious signal from another galaxy picked up at a Canadian Observatory. What could it be? We're not going to speculate, merely -- merely report what happened.

Plus, it's time for Final Exam. You'll find out if the experts have good short-term memories, and you can test your own. That's after the break.






CARLSON: Well, on this show, over the years, we've kept you pretty consistently informed of any weird activity in the skies above us. Most shows don't do that. They're too embarrassed. But we're not. Why would we be?

If alien life exists, it's far more likely we'll hear from it before we see it. Now, a telescope in Canada reports picking up a strange powerful signal from far far away. What is it exactly?

Brett Larson has been looking into it for us. He's Morning Anchor for Fox News Headlines 24/7 on SiriusXM, and he joins us tonight with more. Hey, Brett.

BRETT LARSON, FOX NEWS HEADLINES 24/7: Hey Tucker, yes, this is definitely one of those "What!" kind of stories. This is something called a fast radio burst. It was detected multiple times. And it has many scientists saying, "We need more data."

So, a couple things can be a fast radio burst. It could be a neutron star with a strong magnetic field, two neutron stars colliding, a Black Hole, perhaps, and yes, could actually be an alien.

The latest discovery comes almost by chance from something called CHIME. It's the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment. And get this, the system wasn't even completely set up when they discovered the bursts.

Now, the fast radio bursts found are from a galaxy very, very far away, 1.5 billion light-years, to be exact. And it is just the second time that a repeat of a fast radio burst has been detected. And the object, CHIME found, produced actually six different bursts.

Ars Technica reports that of the dozens of fast radio bursts identified, only one other has produced multiple bursts, and this is actually kind of significant.

More and more scientists are looking into the skies with more precise instruments to find these signals, and they don't last for very long. This isn't something you're going to hear. This is like a fraction of a second. And it shows up on a graph.

Now, some astronomers have considered the idea that these bursts could be from intelligent life elsewhere. And with more scientists searching for them, we will likely find out more about them and find more of them.

I -- I think it's alien. I'm going to -- I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I think -- I think it's alien, and I think it's fascinating that we -- you point a radio receiver to the sky, and we pick up radio signals, now, granted there are scientific explanations for it, but--

CARLSON: So -- so -- so to flip it around (ph)--

LARSON: --alien seems about it (ph).

CARLSON: --I just want to be sure I--


CARLSON: --understand this. I mean there's nothing about it that I really understand. But there's no hard consensus that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. So, there are serious scientists who believe this could be an intentional act--

LARSON: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: --the sending of these radio signals.

LARSON: So, there's -- it could be. It could be from the collapse of a planet. It could be signals that come out of a Black Hole. And if -- if it is signals that come out of a Black Hole, that's awesome too because we can then learn more about them.

It could be a neutron star. It could be two of them colliding. And again, that's also a very cool thing that we -- we caught it. We can now hear the -- the signature that it makes when it -- when these things happen in the skies above us, in the galaxies literally beyond the Milky Way.

If it's alien and it's -- it's, you know, get Jodie Foster. We got to build the spaceship and send her.

CARLSON: Yes. I don't know. I--

LARSON: Because she's (ph) interesting.

CARLSON: --I don't know if I'd include Jodie Foster in that but--

LARSON: What? She's in Contact (ph).

CARLSON: Try to keep an open mind, Brett.

LARSON: No, I know. I know. I know.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

LARSON: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you for that.

LARSON: Thanks for having me.





CARLSON: Time now for Final Exam where you pit two well-known smart people against each other to see who's been paying the closest attention to the news over the week.

Our defending champion, once again, Fox National Correspondent, Lauren Blanchard, whose niceness belies a fierce streak of competitiveness. Our challenger tonight, Sean Spicer. He is, of course, former White House Press Secretary, now, a Senior Adviser and Spokesman for America First Action.

Great to see you both. You're a brave man, Sean.



CARLSON: You're like the fifth in a row to coming in here like (ph) I can take--

SPICER: No, no, no--

CARLSON: --I can take her.

SPICER: Look, I--

CARLSON: You've watched game tapes (ph).

SPICER: --I've been watching -- I've been watching tapes.


SPICER: I've got my -- I've been studying Us Weekly. You name it. I got it -- I've been reading it all this week.

CARLSON: We'll see. Now, so you know the rules.


CARLSON: But for our viewers, I'm going to repeat them. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first one to buzz in gets to answer the question.

You must wait until I finish asking it in order to answer it. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer is worth a single point. Each incorrect answer detracts a point from your total. Best of five wins.

Are you ready?

SPICER: All in (ph).

BLANCHARD: Let's do it.

CARLSON: All right, question one. Starting with a multiple choice tonight, in the name of gender equality, the new California Governor, Gavin Newsom, says we should not call his wife the First Lady. Which name will she go by?

Is it A, First Partner, B, First Spouse, C, First Mate, or--


CARLSON: Sean Spicer.


CARLSON: A, First Partner, says Sean Spicer. Is that correct?


GAVIN CHRISTOPHER NEWSOM, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: I thought I married well 10-plus years ago. But I didn't know how well until today. My wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom--


NEWSOM: --our First Partner. Thank you, Jen.


CARLSON: That was -- that was impressive. That was far more impressive than Gavin Newsom.


CARLSON: You know, if the wind blows, he actually just picks up and floats away. Let me get (ph) the tape of--

SPICER: Don't distract me, Tucker.

CARLSON: --that later in this show.

OK. Question two. In a tense back-and-forth at the White House this week, Kellyanne Conway called a cable news reporter a smartass. Who was that reporter?


CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: Jim Acosta.

CARLSON: Jim Acosta?


CARLSON: That's how you pronounce it? Acosta? Jim -- was it Jim Acosta?


LAURA INGRAHAM- HOST: Almost fell off my chair, OK? Kellyanne Conway, owning Jim Acosta.

ACOSTA: Will the President tell the truth?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Jim, I know that's a cheap -- make sure that goes viral. This is why--



BLANCHARD: It's viral.


CONWAY: --by the way, this is why I'm one of the only people around here who even--

ACOSTA: Can you guarantee that the President's speech will pass a fact check?

CONWAY: --gives you the time of day.

ACOSTA: Can you -- can you guarantee that the President's speech will pass a fact check?

CONWAY: And let me -- let me just -- let me get back in your face because you're such a smartass most of the time, and I know you want this to go viral. A lot of these people don't like you.


CARLSON: Amazing. How much of that whole thing is real? You got to kind of wonder. I wonder.

Question three, you may remember this moment from November 2017 when the President awkwardly drank Fiji Water during his speech. That same brand of water is back in the news after the company pulled a publicity stunt on the Red Carpet at the Golden Globes. What was that stunt?


CARLSON: Lauren.

BLANCHARD: There was a Model carrying it. She was behind everybody in all the photos.

CARLSON: Really?

BLANCHARD: The Fiji Water girl.

CARLSON: Photobombed?

BLANCHARD: Photobombed.

CARLSON: Wow! All right, is that true?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the Fiji Water girl in the background. Social media users were very quick to notice--




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --the same girl, holding a tray of Fiji Water in the background, expertly photobombing celebs on the Red Carpet. You can see her here--


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --behind Tony Shalhoub.


BLANCHARD: She's right there (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here she is in perfect position again behind Judy Greer and now catching Jamie Lee Curtis' cam kind of no matter what angle, she was always in that background.


CARLSON: Guerilla marketing.

BLANCHARD: Oh, I know man (ph).

CARLSON: Photobomb, all right, by Fiji Water.

Question, four. How you're feeling Sean?

SPICER: Scared. It's really scary (ph).

CARLSON: You've been in this position before.


CARLSON: You were on the Wrestling Team in high school. I remember very well. And you know the feeling of being on your back, but getting that reserve strength, that surge of strength and winning. We'll see if you still have it.

Question four, a big electronics conference in Las Vegas has unveiled a lot of interesting new gadgets. One of them is a rolling suitcase, also known as rolling luggage. What is so special about this rolling suitcase?


BLANCHARD: Ah, it will follow--

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.


CARLSON: It will follow you?

BLANCHARD: I think so.

CARLSON: Really? Like it--

BLANCHARD: I think so. It just--

CARLSON: --on its own?

BLANCHARD: --kind of follows you behind. Yes, you don't have to -- you know, hands-free.

CARLSON: Huh? OK. Is that true? Is Lauren right about the suitcase?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Include carry-on luggage that you do not have to pull through the airport.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bag will follow you.


BLANCHARD: Yes, I want that. I want that very much.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, it will also alert you if someone tries to steal it. It's not fool-proof as that lady just found out.

And suitcase will be -- be available on Amazon in the next couple of months for about--


BLANCHARD: This it's long too travel lot (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --$800. That's $800 worth of lazy.


CARLSON: You spend a lot of time reading the news.

BLANCHARD: I read (ph) lot of time. I take it very serious.

CARLSON: You take this job in the news business seriously. I'm--

BLANCHARD: This, especially. Yes.

CARLSON: --I'm impressed by that.

OK, so we're to the final question. This, according to our judges, is a two-point question.


CARLSON: And the question is this. An iconic New York City skyscraper, which used to be the tallest building in the world, is being sold off by an investment firm in Abu Dhabi for about a billion dollars. Which building is it?


CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It's the Chrysler Building.

CARLSON: The Chrysler Building?

BLANCHARD: It's the Chrysler Building.

CARLSON: Not The Empire State--


CARLSON: --the Chrysler?

BLANCHARD: Chrysler Building.

SPICER: You know, The Empire State building was already sold off.

CARLSON: Was it the Chrysler Building?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The iconic Chrysler Building in New York City, truly iconic--


BLANCHARD: Going to sell (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --it's up for sale.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: $800 million is what it went for in 2008. That was the purchase price.


CARLSON: Gosh (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now the talk is it could stick around that number, possibly lower. We don't know.


CARLSON: You are -- you are just a savage. I mean I don't feel -- I don't feel bad for you--


CARLSON: --because I would have lost too.

SPICER: No. And she--

CARLSON: And I mean (ph)--

SPICER: --she owned it. She owned it.

CARLSON: --and we never -- and -- and we've upped -- and it's your--

SPICER: I'd like to say it was the buzzer.


SPICER: But she did a great job.

CARLSON: We've upped our prize. We're now going to pay off your mortgage.

BLANCHARD: Oh, great. I--

CARLSON: No, actually, just kidding. We're giving you the Erik Wemple mug again.

BLANCHARD: You know it's (ph).

SPICER: Right.

CARLSON: You have about eight of them. That's what you want. Erik Wemple--

BLANCHARD: Thank you.

CARLSON: --on your breakfast table. Lauren -- or Wemple or whatever, we're not even sure.

BLANCHARD: Thank you (ph). Yes.

CARLSON: Thank you, Lauren.

SPICER: Congratulations. Well done.

BLANCHARD: Thank you.

CARLSON: Sean Spicer is a brave man--

SPICER: Well-heard (ph).

CARLSON: --and a fierce competitor yourself. See you in 2020.

SPICER: That's right. No one wins (ph).

CARLSON: See you in 2020.

That's it for this week's Final Exam. Pay attention, close attention, Lauren Blanchard-level attention to the news each week. Tune in every Thursday to see if you can beat the professionals. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: The investigation continues tonight into the progressive activist and big-time Democratic donor, Ed Buck, of California, who recently had a second dead body found in his West Hollywood home.

Trace Gallagher has more first us tonight from Los Angeles. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And Tucker, the man who was found dead Monday morning inside the home of Ed Buck is now identified as Timothy Michael Dean, a 55-year old Black male. The cause of death is unknown. But a drug overdose appears likely.

Timothy Dean worked at Saks Fifth Avenue and once worked in the adult film industry. He is the second man in 18 months to die inside Buck's West Hollywood home.

In July 2017, 26-year old Gemmel Moore, a Black male escort overdosed on methamphetamine. There wasn't enough evidence to charge Ed Buck.

But in a journal entry, Moore wrote, "I've become addicted to drugs and the worst one at that. Ed Buck is the one to thank. He gave me my first injection of crystal meth. It was very painful. But after all the troubles, I became addicted."

Gemmel Moore's family has released a statement saying, "If a young White man was found dead in a wealthy Black man's apartment with syringes and drugs all around, that Black man would have been handcuffed and taken directly to jail."

And now, a 28-year old Black male claims he barely escaped death inside Buck's apartment. Jermaine Gagnon tells the DailyMail that Buck flew him from Minnesota to L.A., and injected him with methamphetamine, "I was so scared. I felt death walked into my soul. I called my mother. I said I feel like he's going to kill me."

Police are investigating the death of Timothy Dean, now re-investigating the death of Gemmel Moore. Democratic politicians are starting to give back his donations, Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, great to see you.

We wanted to talk to Hillary Clinton tonight about our friend, Ed Buck, but she was not available, sadly. Tune in tomorrow to see if she's here, the show that's a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

Good night from Washington.

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.