Tijuana declares humanitarian crisis amid caravan arrival

Tijuana asks the world for help as thousands of migrants crowd the border town; panel reaction on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 23, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

RAYMOND ARROYO, GUEST HOST: I'm Raymond Arroyo sitting in for Laura Ingraham on this special edition of "The Ingraham Angle" live from New York City tonight. President Trump is doubling down on conflict and continuity in the final weeks of 2018, laying down the gauntlet over border enforcement. We'll explore his unprecedented feud with Chief Justice John Roberts and why Mr. Trump may have good reason to be upset with the politicized courts.

Plus, God is coming up short with Americans this year. We'll examine a new survey that reveals they are finding meaning in other places, some good and others, well. And I hit the streets on this Black Friday to see how confident Americans are as we enter the biggest buying season of the year.

Then, in an exclusive "Ingraham Angle" -- well, in an "Ingraham Angle" exclusive, Mike Lyndell, the "my pillow" guy is here to explain why he is not letting critics scare him from his passion projects, including a new movie which will tell us about tonight.

But first, the crisis at the border is getting worse by the day as thousands of illegals immigrants gather in Tijuana, Mexico planning their next move, which according to reports includes a possible human stampede. This as police arrest nearly three dozen migrants on drugs and drunkenness charges.

The Tijuana mayor says his town is in the throws (ph) of a humanitarian crisis. He declared, "They have categorically omitted and not complied with their legal obligations. So we're now asking international and humanitarian aid groups to bring -- come in and carry out humanitarian assistance."

At the same time, a group of 150 migrants from that massive caravan stormed the border waving a white flag and demanding better conditions claiming they don't have adequate food and housing. I think they forget they are the ones who chose to make the illegal journey, but never mind that.

Tijuana continues to struggle to accommodate the estimated 5,000 migrants spending roughly $30,000 a day to house and care for them. But President Trump is not mincing words about what will happen if that caravan comes to the U.S. threatening to close the border completely. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If we find that it's uncontrollable, Josh, if we find that it gets to a level where we are going to lose control or people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mean the entire border?

TRUMP: The whole border. I mean, the whole border.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: The strong stand comes just days after what was described as a fiery meeting in the West Wing. That meeting resulted in the White House authorizing thousands of troops at the U.S. border, giving them the ability to use force if necessary to protect border agents. That would allow Secretary of State James Mattis to order those thousands of troops to do just that, protect border agents.

The Department of Homeland Security says there are 500 known criminals in that caravan, 500, headed to the U.S. At least that's what they know of at this moment. The Mexican ambassador to the U.S., Geronimo Gutierrez is also concerned about violence telling the "Washington Examiner," "We share the opinion that there are people that have criminal backgrounds." Yet the media is still trying to down play the threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: There's no evidence, no one in these caravans that has suggested that there is some sort of attack or any of that sort of thing. This is sort of the president's continued bluster on this one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no indication that anyone is funded by terrorist group or is really coming in with some sort of plan to cause harm against the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I, as a national security official, would want to focus on the actual threats and not these invented threats of caravans over a thousand miles away.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

ARROYO: Joining me now is Brandon Judd. He is the president of the National Border Patrol Union, Mark Krikorian, executive director of The Center for Immigration Studies and Saman Nasseri, an immigration attorney and activist.

Brandon, I want to start with you. You were part of that White House meeting that ended with authorization of force along the border. Is this all an invented threat at the border in your estimation as many in the media are now saying?

BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL UNION: No, absolutely not. All you have to do is look at the number of people that are gathering in Tijuana that are waiting to come across the border. And these threats that they're going to storm the ports of entry, it's an obvious sign that they do not care about our laws, that they're going to do what they need to do for their own benefit instead of doing it in a legal manner.

Again, if you look -- when I was in that meeting, what I saw is I saw an unwavering determination to secure the border for the American public, for the safety of the American public, and we appreciate that and appreciate that determination that the president has.

ARROYO: Saman, your reaction. I mean, look, this is the head of the Border Union. He knows what's going on there given what his members are feeding back to them. Your reaction?

SAMAN NASSERI, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: And I think that the conversation shouldn't be so much about the caravan but I think the caravan sheds light more on the fact that our immigration system is truly broken. The fact that this is what's considered a real threat is 5,000 people coming to the border, seeking asylum.

Why is that -- why is they the issue? Why isn't the system the issue, because these people haven't stampeded. They haven't rushed the border. They are not carrying weapons with them. No one has seen them try to hurt anybody. So why are we making the people escaping their problems the issue? Why don't we try to criticize the actual immigration system and fix that problem?

ARROYO: Well, let's hold it there a minute, Saman. I mean, there are abuses of the asylum system going on. Asylum is when you are under persecution not just because I'd like a better job and a nicer neighborhood, right? Mark Krikorian your reaction. MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, I'd say that the broader system is the problem and the system is we have asylum rules that incentivize people to make these bogus asylum claims to essentially use asylum as a strategy for illegal immigration because none of these people has any realistic expectation of actually getting political asylum at the end of the day.

They're doing this to apply for asylum as a way of getting pass the border and then they're home free. This has been going on since the Obama administration really kind of incentivized it and, you know, we're still dealing with the fallout from it that's why we have this caravan and that's why there are other caravans behind them that are trying to do the same thing.

ARROYO: I want to roll this tape. This is Kirstjen Nielsen, the Homeland Security chief along the border. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: The reality is that there are currently over 6,200 individuals camped out south of the U.S. border in Tijuana today as I stand here. In Mexicali, there are more than 3,000 caravan members.

These two groups combined with other caravans making their way through the northern triangle in Mexico will result in approximately 8,000 to 10,000 migrants amassing along our southern border. The crisis is real and it is just on the other side of this wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Your reaction. I want to go to Brandon Judd.

JUDD: Well, again, if you look at this, this is not about legal immigration. This is about illegal immigration. If those people are not -- they're not going to wait until they go through the ports of entry. They are going to cross the border illegally. And the first act that they are going to make when they come to the United States is an illegal act. That should make everybody a little bit concerned about what the motives are.

ARROYO: What about the criminal element here that's being reported? They claim they have 500 criminals as part of these caravans. Saman, does that mean nothing to you? We should just open up. We let them come in under the asylum laws?

NASSERI: No, and I think that's the wrong characterization of the argument. And I don't think -- these people aren't coming to the point of entry or crossing illegally.

ARROYO: That's not a characterization, Saman. It's not a characterization at all.

NASSERI: It is. It is a characterization because there's no proof.

ARROYO: No, because Homeland Security is telling --

NASSERI: There's no evidence of that.

ARROYO: Right. No. This is what they're saying.

NASSERI: There is no evidence of that.

ARROYO: So Kirstjen Nielsen is lying?

NASSERI: And the Department of Homeland Security has issued a memo. Well, the Department of Homeland Security already issued a memo saying hey, we need to work with Mexico to try to vet these people in Mexico, keep them in Mexico, go through the asylum process there and then take it on a case by case basis and see who qualifies, see who doesn't pass into the port of entry.

There's absolutely no evidence or no proof that these guys are going to show up to the port of entry, bum rush the border and run through and become "illegal immigrants." They're coming to the border seeking asylum. And it is unfair to say that all of them don't have a plausible case because some of them really do probably have a very plausible case.

And unfortunately they get washed up with the ones that just come here because they want a better job. But the truth is, there are a handful of them are good few dozen. I would say even a few hundred and they have a good case that are living in bad conditions that have seen people get murdered, that have had family members gets murdered.

I see them -- I turn away a dozen people from my office who I say I can't help you, you don't have a case. But every once in a while someone with this situation comes in and has a good case.

ARROYO: There's no doubt the asylum laws need to be re-visited but perhaps we've not been looking at them in the right way and I think, you know, we can't just have -- my father waited a year in line before he even had his papers recognized. Then he came into the country with a sponsor and then he served in the military before becoming a citizen.

There has to be an orderly process. Thank you, gentlemen, all for your contributions. Here now to explore whether the president has the constitutional authority to use U.S. troops to protect the border on American soil, the border agents, we're joined by Donald Bramer. He is a former intelligence officer and Iraq veteran and Joel Rubin, former Obama deputy Secretary of State.

Joel, I want to start with you. Do you believe the president was wrong to send the troops to the border because of the unclear mission? But isn't protecting the southern border and enforcing standing immigration laws mission enough?

JOEL RUBIN, FORMER OBAMA DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, Ray, there is no mission. There's no military mission here. There is no clarity about the end point, what the objectives will be for the soldiers. And really, even if there's a technical ability of the president to send the troops there, it's a bad judgment.

This president has a habit of using our troops as political props and that was the intent for this prior to the mid-term elections to turn out the vote. And really, these troops are doing nothing there. They are sitting, they are waiting. They are doing support. We have civilian enforcement that can do the job. We don't need to have our troops at the border.

ARROYO: Donald, are you concerned about this so-called human stampede that has been threatened? Is that a reality and is that similar to what we saw in the summer when the border was under such pressure?

DONALD BRAMER, FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Well, this stampede if you will is a very real reality and a lot of these folks that are coming to our border are known criminals and we've already found cases of weapons among them. And you know, even in Tijuana, they are talking about disorderly conduct, drunkenness.

These are not the type of people that we want in the United States. You know, I applaud the president and maybe all of his tactics aren't always the best but we have a right to protect our borders.

ARROYO: Donald, I want to play something for you and Joel. This is Senator Kamala Harris. She said this the other day. I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), CALIFORNIA: These folks who are being deployed there, they're going to leave -- they have left their families. They will not be home looks like for Thanksgiving and of because they are needed to be some demonstration for the T.V. cameras based on a political agenda instead of what is a national security threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Donald, does the president have the authority to deploy troops in this way. There is that act, the Posse Comitatus Act that forbids using the military to enforce domestic law. Does that apply here?

BRAMER: Well, these soldiers and forces, they're not law enforcement officials., but he does have the right to deploy them because it is his right as commander-in-chief to support this country, whether it's in humanitarian aid or supporting our borders.

And this something that's, you know, been present before. You know, President Nixon did it. President Reagan did it. President Bush did it and President Obama did it. It's been done before. It is his right and he has to protect this country.

ARROYO: Joel, your reaction.

RUBIN: Well, I really believe that we could find the $100 million that we spend on sending the troops there. Better uses for that money. We could be sending it to the countries to help stabilize them so people don't leave --

ARROYO: You don't believe there's a national security (inaudible)?

RUBIN: I believe that our civilian agents from DHS are capable of handing this and I don't believe that we need to have troops at the border now being authorized to shoot at a caravan of individuals who there are some unruly ones where by in large the overwhelming majority of women and children waiting in camps to go through an asylum process.

ARROYO: Well, it's not all women and children or you wouldn't have the 34 arrests, (inaudible) possession --

RUBIN: The overwhelming majority are though.

ARROYO: Well, you've got people with (inaudible) possessions, they are carrying weapons. They're being arrested now by the Tijuana government.

RUBIN: And the civilian police can handle that as they should in the orderly process or the process that is in place is working and it should work. We don't need to have military troops there to enforce the process that is already being executed properly.

ARROYO: Donald, your thoughts? Do we need those troops or not or is Trump just playing fast and loose here?

BRAMER: No, I do think we need the troops. You know, right now, CBP is 80 percent undermanned right now. And if only for a short period of these troops can support them to do the logistics things so that the CBP officers can do their job, I mean that's important. If they're observing and they're providing support, then let them do their jobs so that CBP can actually perform what they're hired to do.

ARROYO: Gentlemen, I'll give each of you a shot at this. Should the president close the border down? Does he have the authority to do so? Donald you first then Joel, very quickly, 10 seconds each.

BRAMER: Whether or not he should or should not, that remains a question as we look forward to the caravan as it moves forward. Does he have the authority? Absolutely. It's his right to defend this country, to defend our borders and protect the United States citizens.

ARROYO: Joel, if he believes there's a national security threat, clearly he can close down the border.

RUBIN: National security threat should always be dealt with, but it's an American value to allow people seeking asylum to come here to this country. We need to keep that border open for those people.

ARROYO: Well, we let a million people in a year as citizens. I think that shows the welcoming spirit of American. Thank you, gentlemen. President Trump's spat with the Ninth Court of Appeals intensifies as he renews his claim of bias and he's taking some heat from within his own circle. The story, next. Stay there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Ninth Circuit -- everybody knows that it is totally out of control. What they're doing, what they're saying, the opinions are very unfair to law enforcement. They are very unfair to our military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ARROYO: Welcome back to the special edition of THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. As we look at the president's conflict and continuity in the final weeks of 2018. And he's not backing down in his war of words with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and escalating the feud with the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just ruled against his administration's asylum policy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We got a lot of bad court decisions from the Ninth Circuit, which has become a big thorn in our side. But it's a terrible thing when judges take over your protective services, when they tell you how to protect your border. It's a disgrace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Does President Trump's dispute with Roberts and the Ninth Circuit show any signs of resolution or is this just the beginning? White House correspondent Kevin Corke takes us through the last 48 hours from Palm Beach where he's covering the president's Thanksgiving vacation. Kevin?

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Raymond, good evening. This actually, this back and forth stems from the president's comments about Judge Jon Tigar's nationwide injunction to effectively stop the Trump administration's new asylum policies.

And you and I have talked about this on a number of occasions where you have this lower level judge at the federal level and an Obama-appointee making a ruling to thwart the Trump administration, forcing it to go through the course before that policy takes effect.

Now, the president called this judge and Obama judge, which is why the Chief Justice weighed in. He said, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

However, given the Ninth Circuit's well-earned reputation for being let's just say a progressive and for frequently ruling against the president and his policies, well, he said it's high time someone called them out for their judicial activism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're getting some terrible decisions from the Ninth Circuit as usual. I don't know if we ever had a victory in the Ninth Circuit. We have to appeal it, appeal it. There is a vast number of their decisions get overturned generally speaking and it's a shame. It's a shame. It's a disgrace, frankly.

Essentially they are legislating and it's not right. And it's been going on like that for a long time. We have to use some common sense. The Ninth Circuit, everybody knows that it's totally out of control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORKE: Meanwhile, online, Chuck Grassley said this. He said, "Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for a comment he made about a judge's decision on asylum. I don't recall the chief attacking Obama when that president rebuked Justice Alito during a State of the Union." Clearly a snapshot my friend of the intensity of this debate, especially as it involves both this administration and the Ninth Circuit. Raymond?

ARROYO: Thank you, Kevin. Joining me now are three legal experts, former U.S. attorney Joe diGenova, former federal prosecutor David Katz and criminal defense attorney, Jonna Spilbor. Thank you all for being here. Joe, I want to start with you. Your reaction to Chief Justice Roberts scolding the president and insisting that there are no partisan judges, Joe.

JOE DIGENIVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I think the chief justice's comments were blatantly inappropriate. He injected himself into a political discussion about the effect of the court. He never should have done that particularly after the debacle of the Kavanaugh hearing where everyone was trying to do its best after that to remove the Supreme Court from the political arena.

And the chief justice arrogantly, and I underscore arrogantly stepped into it. It is a major mistake by the chief justice and of course, you notice he has been quiet now because he realizes that he did make a terrible, terrible mistake. Whatever he may have thought of the president's remarks, it's not his responsibility to rebuke the president of the United States, which is exactly what he was doing.

And after sitting there in January of 2010 and listening to President Obama rebuke him and the rest of the Supreme Court for their decision in Citizens United when he said absolutely nothing to defend the integrity and independence of the court, for him to get involved in this was absolutely abysmal judgment.

ARROYO: Joe, I want to show people that moment. You referenced it. Senator Grassley as well. I want to take everybody back. This is 2010 when then President Obama publicly called out the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and wrongly stated a few facts. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the flood gates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Alito was sitting there going, no, no, no -- mouthing no. Why do you think he said nothing then, Joe diGenova, and he's speaking out now? Why this moment?

DIGENOVA: It's very, very simple. President Obama was a Democrat and President Trump is a Republican. John Roberts' judgment in this is so abysmal, so bad, so apparently political in its motivation, so opportunistic. It really is appalling. I'm embarrassed for the court. I feel very sorry for the other members of the court.

And I really think the chief justice has made a major, major mistake with regards to it. Talk about he himself now has undercut the independence of the court by becoming involved in a political discussion. It's a very sad day for the court.

ARROYO: Thank you, Joe. Jonna, I want your reaction. Do you agree with Joe diGenova? Do you think that this is raising the political temperature rather than lowering it?

JONNA SPILBOR, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: A hundred percent. And I want to know, first of all, the chief justice is talking out of school because yes, we do have Obama judges and Clinton judges and Trump judges. Where was the chief justice when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was calling the president a fake, a phony and openly criticizing him? Where was the rhetoric then? It did not exist.

ARROYO: David, your thoughts.

DAVID KATZ, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTRO: Well, Chief Justice Roberts is one of the most admired public servants in America and that's regardless of party. Someone had to come to the defense of the judiciary. We have an independent judiciary which is the crown jewel of our rule of law and our (inaudible) in this country.

ARROYO: This is not the first time a president has called out the Supreme Court. Jefferson, Madison were upset with their appointees. FDR was going to pack the courts. What is different this time with the president disagreeing with the justice? I guess the justice is speaking back.

KATZ: Well, I guess President Lincoln actually increased the court to 10. They don't call that court packing but President Lincoln increased the Supreme Court to 10 so its come and it's gone. But I think the important thing to remember here is that that judge in San Francisco cannot speak up for himself or his decisions.

Someone had to speak up for the third branch of government, the independent judiciary. And that's what Chief Justice Roberts did. He did it very well and he wasn't arrogant at all.

ARROYO: Jonna, I want to put something up on the screen. Chuck Schumer came out today with a tweet. He is supporting, surprise, surprise -- he is supporting John Roberts. He writes, "I don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United, Janus, and Shelby. But I am thankful today that he almost alone among Republicans stood up to President Trump for an independent judiciary." Is that what his role is, to stand up to the president?

SPILBOR: No. Absolutely not. And if we're going to have an independent judiciary, if we're going to be one big happy nonpolitical family, then the chief justice should not have said a word. He almost contradicted himself by the fact that he said what he said.

ARROYO: David, you really don't think we have activist judges anywhere?

KATZ: You know, I'm a defense attorney now. I go to court --

ARROYO: You worked for the Reagan administration.

KATZ: Right.

ARROYO: You don't think there are any activist judges? Look, just the other day, I pulled this. Judge Carlton Reeds struck down the 15-day abortion ban in Mississippi. He overruled the entire legislature there, the entire states' will and he said men were all involved in this. Well, who created Roe v. Wade? Nine guys, right?

KATZ: We have an appeals system in this country. If you don't like the district court or the trial court's decision, you go to the Court of Appeals. You know what else? This decision wasn't even from the Ninth Circuit. It was from a district court judge. It hasn't even been to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit can be a very mixed bag. Not all the decisions are the --

ARROYO: Should it be broken up? Trump wants to break it up.

KATZ: No, it should not be.

SPILBOR: I think it would be a great idea because this is travel ban deja vu all over again. Trump is going to succeed when this goes on up.

KATZ: Very good. What a --

ARROYO: Thank you both for being here. And thank you, Joe diGenova, for your insights. Up next, President Trump says he will do whatever it takes to get his border wall built, even if it means shutting down the government.

And remember when Michael Moore said people needed to literally put their bodies on the line to stop the president? I know it's hard to believe, but now he's hit a new low. We'll explain, next. Stay there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: Of course that's hard. You can't build a bridge to a racist or misogynist. You know, they have to be shunned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ARROYO: Welcome back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. I'm Raymond Arroyo sitting in for Laura.

President Trump is gearing up for a fight with Congress over funding for a new border wall. With the migrant caravan knocking on our southern border, the president believes we need the wall now, and it couldn't be more apparent or urgent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It could happen, over border security. The wall is just a part of border security, a very important part, probably the most important part. But could there be a shut down? There certainly could. And it will be about border security, of which the wall is a part.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Is a shutdown looming? Here to react is David Burstein, CEO and founder of Run for America and a progressive commentator, and Audrea Decker, she's a conservative commentator. Let me start with you, Audrea. Does the president have enough support in the GOP to get his border wall funding? He couldn't get it last time.

ANDREA DECKER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Right. Well, regardless of if he has the support or not, his job is to enforce the laws that are on the books. And the fact is, is we have borders in our nation. People can't just decide they're going to cross over without permission. And we need a system in America that is fair to the people waiting in line and to also the people that want to come over. So absolutely, he needs to do whatever he needs to, to secure the border.

ARROYO: Yes, but the Republicans haven't joined him. There's disunity in the caucus. I want to play something for you, David. This is Congressman Pete King talking about this government shutdown and who it might hurt. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETE KING, (R) NEW YORK: I strongly support funding the border wall, but I don't believe we should shut the government down. We have an obligation to keep the government going. And also, politically, this would play into the hands of the Democrats. We'll get blamed for shutting down the government. The wall won't be built, the wall won't be funded, and we'll be blamed for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Won't this hurt Republicans?

DAVID BURSTEIN, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, RUN FOR AMERICA: I think if I were the Republicans, I would be worried about that, because the reality is people just voted for change. And what they really voted for is people voted for action. Shutting down the government is not what people are looking for. And being president, there's a responsibility to get one thing done at a time. And he may not get this priority on this go round.

ARROYO: It didn't hurt when Newt Gingrich did it years go. I was covering the Capitol Hill then, and they turned out pretty well. What is Paul Ryan? Why not in his final act as speaker and with this caucus, many of these people are leaving, why not support the president in this promise he made to the American people that got many of them elected the last time?

DECKER: That's the thing is that the Republicans should be fighting for this, and they're not. And I think part of the reason why Trump has brought this up is that he's a great negotiator. And we know that sometimes has to push the Republican Party to take action on important issues. And this is an issue that President Trump ran on and got elected on. So the American people do want to see this happen.

ARROYO: It's almost Christmas time. Let me run through the GOP lame duck wish list. These are the things they hope to accomplish. They have a lot to get done.

They want to get a 10 percent tax cut. They want building the border wall, stopping birthright citizenship, cutting off U.S. and Central American nations aid, and protecting preexisting conditions. Will any of that get accomplished? David?

BURSTEIN: Well, I think maybe one or two of these things will get accomplished. It seems that people suddenly find their political energy in the last days when they suddenly -- after their constituents had told them they no longer want them there.

ARROYO: I know, but they 15 legislative days left for the Senate, 12 in the House. That's not an eternity.

BURSTEIN: I have to say it's amazing that there seemed to be three months where nobody could find anything to do except campaign, and now in the last 15 days of the year suddenly there's a list of priorities.

ARROYO: We'll get it all done.

OK, the Democrats also have a lot to get to, Audrea. Here's what they're planning. They have put forward their own little wish list. It includes looking at the President Trump's tax returns, his family business, Trump's dealing with Russia, the Stormy Daniels payment, and the James Comey firing, and there are more things coming about Ivanka's phone calls. This could go on for another 10 minutes. Your thoughts on what this will mean. Are we basically talking about gridlock?

DECKER: Yes. And I don't think this is beneficial for the Democratic Party either. Let's take about the issues that Americans care about. Let's have a real discussion about the issues and the principles and let's see where we fall on them. Let's have deals negotiated in Congress on behalf of the American people. Stop going after Trump. Put out your solutions and your policy ideas.

ARROYO: I'm going to turn to 2020. The Democratic contenders are beginning to emerge. As you know, former vice president Joe Biden is at the top of the list, 33 percent of Democrats like him according to that last CNN poll. And there you can see the huge field. It looks like the Brady Bunch on Viagra. They're just exploded. Your thoughts, who is going to take the lead here, David? Who's your man?

BURSTEIN: This is going to be a very, very tough race. If I had to look at anyone on that sheet, I saw a picture of the Rock. And so I think if the Rock runs, he's probably got the best shot. But I do think really this is a crowded field. And Democrats would actually do well to consolidate early and not let this be a repeat of 2016 where they end up in a situation with one person who is able to be the loudest like President Trump was --

ARROYO: People heard him.

BURSTEIN: -- who is able to dominate everybody else --

ARROYO: And 46 percent of voters think President Trump will win again, 47 percent don't in that last CNN poll. Those are pretty good numbers. Who would you like to see the Dems run against Trump?

DECKER: It's interesting. I think we should keep an eye on Senator Cory Booker and Senator Harris, those are two interesting people, or O'Rourke out of Texas, raised a lot of money. Interesting to keep an eye on him. But this election is going to come down to values. I think it's going to be about values. President Trump proved that. People voted for Trump, not for his personality, but for the values. And so I think both sides are pretty divided right now. I think it's going to come down to that.

ARROYO: I think it's going to become about competency and safety given what we're doing, and how this economy ends up.

Before we go, I have to get your reactions to this. Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore who just this summer called on people to put their bodies on the line to stop the president, he is now calling for the shunning of Trump supporters. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: You can't build a bridge to a racists or misogynists. They have to be shunned and treated like we treated smokers 20 years ago, 10 years ago. Racists and misogynists shunned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: So all Trump supporters are basically racist and misogynist, they should be shunned. Audrea, your reaction?

DECKER: Name calling doesn't help anything. We need to be able to have a conversation in America where both sides come together, and maybe disagree with each other, but do it respectfully and with civility. And we don't need more of that in America. That kind of rhetoric is divisive and it's dangerous.

ARROYO: David, isn't this kind of David. It reminded me of the attacks this week on "A Charlie Brown" Christmas where people are now saying, critics are saying you're racist, Charlie Brown, because there's Franklin, the black friend, who is at the other side of the Thanksgiving table. This is really -- isn't this too far? The use of race to demonize people, a whole swath of Americans?

BURSTEIN: Yes. I think we've gone too far. And at this time of year where everybody is coming together and celebrating the holidays, I hope people in Washington can find it in their hearts to say let's work together and hear everybody's voice.

ARROYO: Look at that. David, in the break, we're going to sing Kumbaya.

(LAUGHTER)

ARROYO: Thank you for being here.

Up next, a surprising new survey from Pew shows that Americans find meaning in something other than faith. And a spirited debate with Tony Perkins and atheist Hemant Mehta, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ARROYO: With the holiday season in full swing, Pew Research asked where do you find your meaning in life? According to this research study, the majority of Americans, 69 percent, say family. Surprisingly, faith comes fourth at 20 percent.

Joining me now to discuss is Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and Hemant Mehta, who is the editor of "Friendly Atheist." Thank you both for being here. Your reaction to this, I want to start with you, Tony. Does this beseech a dwindling of faith that we see, God and faith as a meaning of life, dwindling, sinking in the polls?

TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL PRESIDENT: Actually, Raymond, I'm thrilled by this, that family is so high ranked in this survey, that people say that family is where they get their sense of meaning. That's actually a positive revival of family, if you will.

I think if you look at how the economy is doing in the United States, unemployment is low, it's not surprising that religion actually drops down lower in this list. It's still fourth. That's still pretty good considering what is happening in other industrialized nations. When there's a downturn in the economy, when things start to fall apart, that's when people turn to religion. So from a sociological standpoint, I think this is accurate. From a theological standpoint, it is a bit troubling.

ARROYO: Hemant, your reaction?

HEMANT MEHTA, EDITOR, FRIENDLYATHEIST.COM: Yes, I agree, it should be troubling for religion. It doesn't surprise me one bit that people find meaning in family and experiences, and what actually surprised me the least about this is when they looked at young people specifically, I think faith became less of a meaningful experience for people who were younger than the age of 30. So it shows that faith has a lot of trouble moving ahead in the future regardless of what the economy or social situation is.

ARROYO: Tony, you react to this, but Hemant, all the studies I've seen, faith is something that usually comes to people as they age in life, as they encounter challenges and they deepen their understanding of the world and get out of themselves, right, Tony?

PERKINS: What Jesus taught in Matthew Six was seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all of these things will be added unto you. That's what I was referring to from a theological standpoint, because when you set your eyes on the things on this earth, you miss the bigger things. And as you live for those things that are transcendent, then all the other things fall into place. But it is interesting, as you look at the age, as people get older and they start dealing with the real issues of life and considering what happens after this life, there is more of a turn toward religion, because they want to make sure that they make the right decision.

ARROYO: And those people who said that faith was important to them, it was the most meaningful thing in their lives, so they feel it deeply. And that was an interesting part.

MEHTA: That was a small group of people. That was a small group of people. And again, when so many young people are finding more value in people they love and the ability to make the most of the one life that they have, they're not going to resort to religion later in life. That's a very optimistic spin that has no bearing in reality.

PERKINS: That's been a progression for decades. And it's not a small percentage. You look at black and white protestants, six out of 10 say religion is a top issue them, conservatives, same thing. The divide is really ideological. But I would say the one thing that is encouraging, again, going back to this, it's a time to be happy --

ARROYO: Very quickly, Tony, because I've got another topic.

PERKINS: Family is top priority. And that's a good thing.

MEHTA: That is a good thing.

ARROYO: I want to get your thoughts on this, gentlemen. "Nature" magazine, the prestigious science magazine, came out against President Trump's proposal to identify sex based on strictly biological criteria. "Nature" tweeted this. "Editorial, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they were born with. This proposal has no foundation in science and should be abandoned." Really? Hemant, I'll give you first crack at that. You think it should be abandoned?

MEHTA: Look, this administration has shown us since day one they don't care about what science experts have to say about anything involving science. They would rather trust people like Tony who base their entire knowledge of science based on page one of the Bible.

ARROYO: Wait a minute. But Hemant, your genitalia, the way you were born, you sex, does kind of tell you your gender. Isn't that scientific? Tony Perkins?

MEHTA: That is the least nuanced perspective you can possibly take on this issue.

PERKINS: Look, listen. This is what happens when people can't defend their position. They begin attacking the opposition.

(LAUGHTER)

PERKINS: Look, the reality is that we base law and policy on fact, on science, on biology, not subjective feeling. And what the Trump administration is doing here is reestablishing what was in place for probably 50 years through the 1964 and 72 nondiscrimination acts where sex is based on biology.

MEHTA: We learn more as time goes on. If this administration cares about science, they should talk to the people that study this for a living. They should look at organizations that gave this information.

PERKINS: If that is true, then the facts would be on the side of "Nature" magazine.

ARROYO: "Nature" magazine is a magazine. It's not the people who do this for a living.

MEHTA: I don't need an education on science from someone who is known for rejecting it all the time.

ARROYO: When you look down and see what your kid is born with, that's pretty biological and scientific to me. I think we can make a ruling. Gentlemen, thank you. I wish we had all day.

Now see them in the time breaks, the commercial breaks of this show often, but the My Pillow guy is now moving into film. Michael Lindell is here to explain his latest project, next. Plus, I hit the streets of New York to find out how the economy is impacting Black Friday shoppers. Wait until you see this. Stay here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're going to splurge a little more.

ARROYO: Really?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The economy is doing great. Everyone should be excited about the economy. Come on. It's awesome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Welcome back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. Raymond Arroyo sitting in for Laura Ingraham. Who doesn't know the My Pillow good night? But Mike Lindell is much more than that. He's a Born Again Christian conservative who is now giving Hollywood a run for its money. He's investing in a new film that attracting some controversy.

Joining me now exclusively is Mike Lindell to tell us about this new film. Mike, it's called "Unplanned." It's a prolife film. Years ago, I interviewed Abby Johnson, who is the centerpiece of this story and the film. Tell me about it, and why did you decide to bankroll it?

MIKE LINDELL, CEO AND FOUNDER, MY PILLOW: Well, they reached out to me. And they said you want to do a cameo? Would you like to get behind this film? And it was all anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood. I prayed about it. I said, you know what, I'm all in. It was interesting, the cameo that I had, I get down there to do this filming, and they said Mike, we're going to bring in a stunt double. I said I don't want any stunt double. I want to do my own thing. So that was fun.

ARROYO: What do they have you doing in this movie? Are you jumping out of cars? What are you doing, Mike?

LINDELL: I'm riding a bulldozer, and you've only got one shot at this. There was like 300 or 400 extras, and it brings down the Planned Parenthood sign. And true story, this is based on a true story. And there I am getting out of the bulldozer. But all the producers had to decide because I said, no, I want to do my own stunt. I want to do it myself because I don't want to go on FOX later on and say I had a stunt double.

(LAUGHTER)

ARROYO: Now the truth can be told, Mike. Tell me, this is not going to be your only foray into films. You just also financed another movie coming out called "From Crack Addict to CEO," and it concerns somebody's personal biography. Who might that be?

LINDELL: Yes, that would be myself. Actually my book is going to come out first. Another reason I got into films, I wanted to get involved with quality, amazing movies that have a message. And when my book comes out, it's called "What Are the Odds, From Crack Addict to CEO?" And if anyone doesn't know, I had an amazing story. I used to be a crack cocaine addict.

But this movie "Unplanned" is going to be just amazing. It's going to send a very powerful message about abortion, being prolife. Everything starts at conception. And it's going to be amazing. It's an awesome movie. It comes out March 22nd, 2019.

ARROYO: Mike, very quickly, what was the one thing -- and we only have a few seconds here. What was the one thing that turned your life around? What was it?

LINDELL: Jesus.

ARROYO: That's a pretty good answer.

LINDELL: Jesus Christ, yes.

ARROYO: My final question. Do you get a free My Pillow when you buy tickets to either of these movies? That's what I want to know.

LINDELL: No. But if you do get one, you'll be sleeping well.

ARROYO: I knew you would get a plug in. Thank you, Mike Lindell. We'll talk to you soon.

Also tonight, the biggest Black Friday in history is coming to a close. The National Retail Federation says a record 116 million shoppers were expected to hit brick and mortar stores today. That's up 63 percent from last year. So I hit the streets of New York to see how this booming economy might be helping. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am not holding back. I do feel a little better about spending this year, and I feel like the sales are about the same. There were stores that were like 50 percent off. I think that's a really good teal. So I'll go in any time they say it's 50 percent off.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do feel better about shopping. I think there are great sales out there to be had, and I think we've taken advantage of them while we're here.

ARROYO: What did you get?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many clothes, things, and yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My gosh. We're having a great time. We're not holding back. We're spending the weekend in the city and having a blast. We're really celebrating this year.

ARROYO: Personally, with this economy, are you holding back?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I'm splurging.

ARROYO: Really. Why?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doing well, the economy is doing very well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was really crowded, for sure.

ARROYO: How are you feeling about the economy? Are you holding back or do you want to splurge a little more?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're going to splurge a little more.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The economy is doing great. Everyone should be excited about the economy. Come on. It's awesome.

ARROYO: Are the sales better this year than last year?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. Yes. Check out his Uggs.

ARROYO: What did you get? You got new Uggs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Check out her watch. She got a fossil watch.

ARROYO: Why do I feel like Vanna White. I'm pointing.

And what did you get?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I got some Thanksgiving Macy's mugs because she was in the Thanksgiving Day parade yesterday. And so I wanted some mugs to commemorate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never splurging.

ARROYO: Never?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I always splurge.

ARROYO: So it doesn't matter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn't matter.

ARROYO: How do you feel the economy is doing?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Awesome.

ARROYO: Really.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Awesome. And I'm a small business owner, so we know. It's doing really, really well.

ARROYO: Tell me what you got. She did you buy?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just for my mom.

ARROYO: Jackets for mom. And what is this? Some goodies. Good, good.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We bought to many.

ARROYO: More loot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we have like 20, for sure.

ARROYO: What?

Tell me, are the sales better this year than last year?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Much better.

ARROYO: Really?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and there's so many more people out today than ever.

ARROYO: Happy holidays and merry Christmas. Which do you prefer?