This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," October 31, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST, TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." If you've been watching the other channels lately, there is at least one thing you've learned about the caravan of Central American migrants currently marching toward our southern border. 

The whole thing is no big deal. These are nice people. Every single one of them much better people than you are. They have the deep moral authority that comes from living in a third world country, unlike you mister pampered suburbanite. They're not invaders they are future model Americans. There is nothing at all to worry about we're told. 

Well, that's been the chorus from politicians and news anchors who think they're politicians for weeks and weeks now. If you have any concern at all about this caravan you are a bad person. In fact, you sir, are a racist. 


STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC: 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. 

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: --call this an invasion, it might be the most pathetic invasion of our country in world history, if this were actually an invasion, but of course it's not. 

KATY TUR, MSNBC: President sending troops to the border to deal with a caravan that hasn't proven to be violent. 

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: Stop saying them monsters. They're more mothers than monsters, don't say it. Why don't any of you say that? 


CARLSON: There's the line of the day, more mothers than monsters. Turns out that's not quite right, more brothers than mothers, actually. According to the border patrol, the caravan is in fact about 70 percent single men, not families women and children, but overwhelmingly single men. 

According to Mexico's own ambassador, many in the group are "very violent", that's what he recently told NPR. So to restate the caravan is in fact heavily male and highly dangerous. When the Mexican ambassador says that to public radio, which you're looking at obviously is racism, more right- wingery, just kidding. 

What we're actually seeing is relentless dishonesty from the very people who are paid to inform us. There's nothing to worry about they tell us, like we're children, but they don't really know that, they don't really know anything. They are wholly ignorant and yet utterly self-confident. They're good at moralizing and light on facts. 

So who exactly is in the caravan? A lot of them probably are what they appear to be poor people from disorganized countries looking for a better life. It's understandable. But are some of them gang members too, how about drug dealers or human traffickers? Shut up, say the news anchors, don't ask those questions. 

But if you really cared about America, you'd want answers to those questions. You would insist on knowing. Would you let your kids sleep at a stranger's house? Probably not. You love your kids. Our leaders ought to feel the same way about us. They don't. Instead, they say their own countrymen as the real threat. 

In the minds of the people making our country's rules foreigners are always superior to Americans, watch Don Lemon explain. 


DON LEMON, HOST, CNN TONIGHT: So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized right up to the right. And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There's no ban on - you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So what do we do about that? 


CARLSON: We have to start doing something about them, Don Lemon says. Keep in mind that he's talking about an entire racial group currently living in this country. What exactly does Don Lemon have in mind for "them"? Deportation, internment camps, more affirmative action? It would be good to know. Some of us would like to tell our sons what's coming. 

We contacted CNN today to ask them what they plan to "start doing" to this dangerous group of racially defective Americans? They never replied. Maybe Lemon will be more specific about his plans on tonight's show. 

But without even hearing the details, it's pretty clear where the people on TV stand. They instinctively side with foreign nationals over American citizens every time. If you're wondering why they're far more upset about migrant camps in Mexico than homeless encampments in Orange County, that's why. 

Just yesterday, the New York Times a columnist called Michelle Goldberg noted approvingly, the Democrats can win elections in Georgia if the bad old people who don't agree with her agenda are displaced by a large group of new people who do. 

Her piece was entitled "We Can Replace Them". Imagine writing something like that about your fellow Americans. Imagine running it in your newspaper. They didn't think twice, because that's how they really feel. 

Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Civil Rights Commission, he joins us tonight. Peter, thank you very much for coming. 


CARLSON: Have you noticed the disparity in outrage between the way our television moralizers feel about the migrants camp by the side of the road in Mexico and their fellow Americans camped permanently outside across our country, there hundreds of thousands of American homeless, never mentioned in the media, why is that? 

KIRSANOW: Well, I think, you've expressed it few times, we've talked about it. And that is that the left has an obsession with identity politics for a lot of reasons. One, because of moralizing, but more importantly, for those who have to put - where the rubber meets the road, is for votes and for political imperative. 

The themes that you just ran were, they're incoherent, they are - some of them are just frankly racist, and they completely misapprehend the concern of most normal Americans with the caravan. 

Most normal Americans are not concerned about the race, ethnicity or the gender identity of the participants in the caravan. They're concerned, because they see 7,000 mostly military-age males who are jobless, who proclaimed an intent to violate our borders, break our laws and they're not going to be moving to the neighborhoods that these journalists and these media talking heads talk about. 

They are not 7,000 unemployed journalists, for example, that are going to be going to Don Lemon's house and maybe competing with him for a job. They're coming to my neighborhood inner-city, Cleveland, and they're going to be competing against low-skilled workers. The data show predominantly black male low-skilled workers. They apparently don't have any concern for them. 

The military or the political imperative is such that they need and want to have more workers, more voters coming in from third world countries that they can indoctrinate and this obsession with identity politics make people say and do profoundly stupid things. You saw it in the clips that you just ran. 

But they are completely divorced from the concerns of normal Americans with respect to what these individuals who are going to be imminently crossing the border are going to do with respect to the rule of law or sovereignty, the public fisc, public health, crime rates and so on. 

CARLSON: So they are, as you just noted, the people you're watching on television and reading in the newspaper - anyone reads that newspaper anymore. They're arguing that this is a racial divide and that the villains are these industrial era, post-industrial area middle class white people who are all bigots. 

But the voting patterns suggest something different. That it's not a racial question, like people who make under a certain threshold, no matter what their colors, are sort of figuring out that they are, all regardless of their color, being replaced by people who work for less than them. Do you think that at some point that will be obvious. This isn't about race. It's about economics.

KIRSANOW: Yes. I think it's becoming more and more obvious. I know that - and my service on Civil Rights Commission over a number of years, I can see that there's been a shift and in the understanding. 

Low-skilled workers get it. The elites very often like to engage in this type of moralizing mix and feel good about themselves. 


KIRSANOW: But until they are threatened in terms of their job prospects or the quality of life in their neighborhoods, they can continue to engage in this political correctness. 

We see it - as a labor lawyer myself, I see the dilatory effects of this. They are significant. They are often alighted by our elites - by political elites, our social elites, our betters in the media, it's unfortunate. But I think a day of reckoning is coming. 

We're seeing it more and more that ordinary Americans are getting it. And some of it actually has to do with the Trump effect. That Trump speaks plainly about these things, sometimes he crosses or touches third rails, he doesn't get hurt. But in general as conversation, a lot of people become apoplectic because of the conversation. But certain eternal verities emerge from that conversation. 

CARLSON: I really think we should start importing millions of left-wing talk show hosts, I really do, and I am rooting for Jorge Ramos, we interview a lot, to displace one of these self-righteous CNN anchors, and see how they - and that's just a start waves of people with whom they can compete for job. Peter Kirsanow, thank you very. 

KIRSANOW: Thanks Tucker. 

CARLSON: Great to see you. Six - America votes six days from now. Florida, Georgia are two states that we're looking at carefully. Radical - radical difference between the Republican and the Democrat in both those races and they are on the knife's edge. Tonight, we've got an update in both. 

Meanwhile, the president, holding a rally in Florida right now, trying to keep that state under Republican control. We're watching it for news. If it occurs, we'll go there. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Midterm elections, just six days from tonight. Democrats across the country are scrambling to avoid squandering the Blue Wave that they have promised for months. In Florida James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has released a new video where a staffer for Andrew Gillum was running for Governor, calls white people crackers. 


OMAR SMITH, GILLUM CAMPAIGN STAFFER: So a gentleman called on the phone and he said fairy tales in the old days begin with once upon a time. Fairy tales in the modern day begin with once I am elected. Okay? So let's go back to Mr. Gillum's platform, right? Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teacher's paid $50,000. That will never happen. 


CARLSON: We can't verify the authenticity of the video we just showed you, but we have no reason to believe it's fake. In Georgia, meanwhile, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams received the support of Oprah Winfrey. She defended - continued to defend her decision to burn the state flag at a protest years ago. 


STACEY YVONNE ABRAMS, MINORITY LEADER OF THE GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 26 years ago, as a college freshman, I along with many other Georgians, including the Governor of Georgia, were deeply disturbed by the racial divisiveness that was embedded in the state flag with that Confederate symbol. 


CARLSON: Have we agreed that it's divisive, not divisive the debate continues. Meanwhile in Indiana, Democratic Senate incumbent, Joe Donnelly stumbled through a debate where he upwardly praised his staffers for doing a good job, apparently in spite of their ethnicity. Watch this. 


JOE DONNELLY, D-IND.: Our State Director is Indian American. But he does an amazing job. Our Director of all Constituent Services, she's African-American, but she does an even more incredible job than you could ever imagine. 


CARLSON: It's just horrible. Independent Women's Voice, Senior Fellow, Lisa Boothe returns once again to help us break down the racists. I mean, I almost felt sorry for Donnelly. I mean, I just - to be totally honest, I doubt he meant what he said. I mean, I hope he didn't mean - does anybody say anything about that. 



BOOTHE: He meant to use an - and look, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. But what frustrates me if is that was Mike Braun, the Republican candidate, nobody from the left and nobody in the media would be giving him the benefit the doubt. Instead, they would be charging racism and it would be a massive deal, which it of course is not going to be with Joe Donnelly. 

CARLSON: No. But I still I still want to live in a country - even if we're doing it unilaterally where we give people the benefit of doubt. 

BOOTHE: I do too, which I why I'm giving him the benefit of doubt. 

CARLSON: I really do. So I'm going to hear. But you're absolutely, right, it would now work the other way. So the end this video apparently if a Gillum staffer, the James O'Keefe just came out with, has the Gillum campaign commented on this? 

BOOTHE: I've not seen if they've commented on it. But, look, I - it wouldn't be surprising for Andrew Gillum and the people surrounding him to once again be lying to Florida voters. This is a guy who has deflected repeatedly when asked about the FBI investigation into a city. Remember undercover agents as of 2015, they got access to city officials and Andrew Gillum was one of them. 

And those undercover agents did things like purchase a Hamilton ticket, to take him to Hamilton ticket - or a Hamilton play, rather, took him on a boat tour around New York City and then we've recently come to find out that one of them also paid for a political fundraiser in connection to his upcoming gubernatorial bid, so that is new information. 

So Andrew Gillum keeps saying he's not the target, which we don't know if he is, which we don't if he isn't. But he's lied about things like the Hamilton ticket and there's also a - who paid for the Hamilton ticket. There's also this second probe into Andrew Gillum as well through the state the, Florida Commission on Ethics, looking at the trips he's taken in 2016. 

And we have new information on that, it turns out that despite one of his spokespeople telling us a year ago that that was official business, it turns out that he actually took a campaign trip to Tampa and paid for it through one of his mayoral accounts Americans. 

So I have to imagine that that is also one of the things that the Florida Commission on Ethics is going to be looking into. 

CARLSON: So, Gillum has dismissed all these questions as racist, which is not actually an answer for the record. Do we know what undercover FBI agents were doing in his presence, and what was that about, do we have any sense? 

BOOTHE: Well, and I think - well, the big thing that they were looking at is corruption in to the City of Tallahassee pertaining to developers and deals with some of these city officials. Gillum has approved one of those deals that is under fire, which was Adam Corey one of his really close - or formally close friends, a lobbyist, his former campaign treasurer. So that guy, we know is at the center, and has been named in subpoenas. 

But Andrew Gillum keeps trying to deflect. But my question to him would be, if there's nothing nefarious going on, if the FBI didn't care about you, why did they go through the trouble of using undercover agents to grant access to you. 

And if you look at some of the things that former FBI agents have said publicly and in the news, they've said, that something like that to get access to a guy like Gillum, who is the mayor, they likely had to go to the DOJ to get approval. 

CARLSON: Right. I mean, it's - at least it's a fair question and attacking other people as bigots is not a satisfactory. 

BOOTHE: Right. Maybe just answer the question to be truthful. 

CARLSON: Yes, maybe he will start there. Lisa Boothe, great to see you. 

BOOTHE: Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON: Big Tech, once again attacking free speech. This time they are labeling this very show "dangerous content". We'll tell you what happened after the break. Plus we're monitoring president's rally in Florida. Right now he's addressing a birthright citizenship. 


TRUMP: --subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 


CARLSON: Well, just about every day we get a new reminder that Big Tech, not big government is now the top threat to free expression in America and around the world, that's a big change taking a lot of people time to metabolize it, but it's absolutely real. 

Here's one example, a couple of weeks ago we appeared on Dennis Prager's YouTube channel, PragerU, to read an excerpt from her book Ship of Fools. PragerU wanted to advertise that appearance on YouTube, but they were blocked by Google ads. The reason Google said is that our video is "dangerous or derogatory". Some of it refers to poor farmers and laborers as peasants. 

That's a perfectly factual statement, common around the world, doesn't matter though. Well, the First Amendment shackles the government from suppressing views it doesn't like, at least for now. No laws currently protect the public from tech monopolies that control the flow of all human information. 

PragerU appealed the censorship, Google ads reverses decision, because they were embarrassed, as it's happened many times, and in a statement to this program said "the ad was mistakenly disapproved", but of course the damage had already been done. 

We're six days out from an election and Google interfered with letting the public hear a political message. We know about this instance, how many other don't we know about. This is election tampering and it's far more severe than anything that the Russians ever attempted. 

Speaking of which, since Google is publicly traded, it is owned in part by foreign governments, for some reason though, Democrats don't seem eager to launch an investigation into any of this. Why? Because they're in that company's pocket. The left has made it clear that if free speech is an impediment to their agenda, free speech will have to go. 

And as this show has revealed, there are plenty of people at Google who are eager to use their power to push a political agenda and to change this country non-democratically. 

Well, just after filming that suppressed PragerU video, we sat down with Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla, out in California, to talk about free speech. It was a long interview, here's Part 1 from it. 


CARLSON: So, the obvious question, Adam, is, where are we? We're surrounded by vehicles in what looks like a garage. 

ADAM CAROLLA, AMERICAN COMEDIAN: Well this is Prager's garage. I mean, look, I don't want to perpetuate the myth here. But the Jew love driving race cars. They love busting their knuckles. I mean, look at the man. This is my warehouse, these are my race cars, and Dennis can not only not fix them, he can't fit in them either, he tried. 

DENNIS PRAGER, AMERICAN RADIO HOST: Well, I'm a 6'4''. It would be very difficult. 

CARLSON: It would be difficult. 

PRAGER: Right. We support the profession. 


PRAGER: Right. 

CARLSON: I do too as a non-participant. 


CARLSON: So separate, since both of you have been speaking your opinions in public for a very long time, separate perception from reality. Do you think that we are actually less free to say what we think now than we were say 20 years ago out? 

CAROLLA: Well, you can say whatever you want, like you could say whatever you want 20 years ago, but you won't have a job on Monday, and that's a big issue. So removing someone's livelihood, because they have an opinion, it's really sort of the ultimate, like you're just not going to be able to work anymore. You'll be non-employable, especially in this town, Los Angeles. 

So, yes, people fear for their jobs. They fear for their careers. They sort of fear for their families and thus they don't say what they would say. So can they do it? Yes, they can do it. Might they lose their job? Yes, they might lose their job, thus they don't do it. 

CARLSON: So, if I say you can do whatever you want, but if you step outside the lines, I'll crush you. I mean is it a distinction without a difference, do we have freedom of speech? 

PRAGER: It's like the old dissident joke in the Soviet Union. What is the difference between the U.S. and the USSR? In the USSR, you are - you have freedom of speech. In America you have freedom after speech. That was the great Soviet. Now that's changed. 

CAROLLA: That's a Yakov Smirnoff joke, by the way. That's not-- 

PRAGER: Does he say that? 

CAROLLA: I'm sure. 

PRAGER: No, you're right. Well, he probably got it from Soviet dissidents. He was like Soviet. 

CAROLLA: Yes, Yakov would go-- 


CAROLLA: And in your country you can free to say things, evil about the Reagan. Our country, it's the same. We can say evil thing about Reagan. 

PRAGER: That's right. Exactly. No, no, that's the same idea. I will give you an example. I'm speaking in Colorado State University in 10 days or two weeks whatever it is. And there were article after article distorting what I have said to warn people about this bigot and fascist and white supremacist and everything that is coming through Colorado State. 

They prepared the students, I'll give you an example. I wrote a two-part column about 10 years ago and - because I do a lot of work on male-female issues on my radio show-- 


PRAGER: Every week for years I've talked about men and women. So I have on the basis of talking to so many couples simply offer the advice to a woman. If you love your husband and he is a good man, then don't let mood alone determine whether or not you'll have sex with him, because it's an important thing to him, so give it a try, okay. 

CAROLLA: I don't want to jump in, but is my wife still here? Lynette was here earlier. 

CARLSON: She was. 

CAROLLA: Lynette-- 

PRAGER: All right. 

CAROLLA: --there is some wisdom. She's gone. 

PRAGER: This is my man. 

CAROLLA: Oh, my god, Dennis. 

PRAGER: I know. 

CAROLLA: She is not here. 

PRAGER: Well, all right. So it is - it's truly helpful. So here is the terrible part. The - in Huffington Post, just two weeks ago, a guy cited this from 10 years ago Prager advocates marital rape, and that's what they wrote in the in the Colorado State University. The guy, beware, a guy who believes in marital rape is coming to campus. 

CARLSON: That's disgusting. 

PRAGER: Yes, it is disgusting. 

CARLSON: So you all just made a film about the state of free expression in America. Just to jump ahead, how do the rest of us respond, particularly people who don't have TV shows or a 30 year track record of expressing their opinions, just a normal guy with your own views, because you're an American. How do you live in an age when everyone's terrified to be honest? 

CAROLLA: I think there's only one way to do it. I think if you retreat, they encroach. 


CAROLLA: And I use an example, Dennis has heard it before. It's sort of the NRA versus the no-smoking lobby. And I'll quickly do the metaphor here. Which is, 40 years ago they said we don't want smoking in restaurants and they said could you guys who are smoking in the main dining area, just move to a smoking section? 

And everyone picked up their stake in their ashtrays and they moved over there. And then they came to those people again and they said, we don't want you with the diners, could you move to the bar? And they all picked up their food and their ashtrays and they move to the bar and they smoked. 

And then at a certain point they said could you stand out front and just smoke outside, and they said, well it's cold, but we'll do it. They stood out front and they went outside and smoked. And then they said, you're too close to the front door could you move it down the street? And they went to a park. And they said no smoking at the park. The point is they won't stop moving forward. There's an agenda - the agenda is not get rid of the smoke in the restaurant, it's stomp you out. 

PRAGER: At a certain point you cannot let the left intimidate you and when you don't, they go crazy, because they're so used to being able to intimidate, that's his point and I second it. 

CAROLLA: And also, once you sort of put it out there, like you're a country who doesn't negotiate with terrorists when they take hostages, they take less hostages. Once you put it out there, that I am a comedian, I have a podcast, I say whatever I want and I won't apologize. They leave you alone, because ultimately what they want is an apology and they want you backpedaling. 

And if you just sort of stand up like any bully, it's not satisfying for them. I say outrageous things all day long in my podcast. People say to me, how does that work? I say, well, I don't apologize, so I'm not on their list of people who need the apology. 

CARLSON: You're not the slowest gazelle, so it's not even worth bothering. 

CAROLLA: Right. 

PRAGER: I like that. You're not the slowest gazelle. 

CAROLLA: That's right. 

PRAGER: No, no, no. I'm going to keep that. 


CARLSON: That was Part 1 of our interview with Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager, we'll be showing the rest later this week. Six days till the midterm elections and new reports suggest that Robert Mueller maybe trying secretly to subpoena the president. He is just moving toward an indictment of the president. Is that even possible? Some say it is. Alan Dershowitz helps us make sense of all of it after the break. 


CARLSON: Just a few months ago it seems certain that Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation would dominate the midterms this year, it hasn't. But the Special Counsel has apparently been busy at work, of course. A new piece in Politico analyzed the investigations court filings and concluded that Mueller may have tried to secretly subpoena the president. 

Today, the president said he has not received a subpoena. But it raises lots of questions such as, can you subpoena a sitting president? Can you indict a sitting president? Is Mueller going to? Some of these questions don't have clear answers. 

One man with an idea though, is Alan Dershowitz who spent generations teaching at Harvard Law, and he is author, of course, The Case Against Impeaching Trump. He joins us this time. Professor, thank you very much for coming on. 


CARLSON: Can Mueller, can any independent counsel subpoena a sitting president? 

DERSHOWITZ: Yes, that's clear and the president can comply with the subpoena, if he chooses to, can challenge the entire subpoena or can challenge portions of the subpoena based on executive privilege or the unwillingness of a president to answer questions about the exercise of his constitutional authority. 

So if the president were subpoenaed, it would guarantee a legal challenge that would probably take several years. 

CARLSON: Several years. So informed people in Washington believe - and I don't know if they're right or not. But they believe that Robert Mueller has concluded that he can constitutionally indict a sitting president. Does that sound plausible or he's concluded that and is it right? Can he? 

DERSHOWITZ: I think it does not sound plausible. He's a cautious guy and there are three reasons why he should not try to indict the president for obstruction of justice, which is what they're talking about. 

CARLSON: Right. 

DERSHOWITZ: Number one the Justice Department itself has a rule that says you can't subpoena - you cannot indict a sitting president and the text of the Constitution certainly looks that way when it talks about that you can indict and prosecute a president after he leaves office, after he is impeached and removed. 

Second of all, you can't indict a president for obstruction of justice. If the president merely exercise this constitutional authorities under Article II, by firing somebody or by pardoning somebody, the George W. Bush case establishes that. George W. Bush pardoned five people on the eve of their trial, including the former Secretary of Defense, and he did it for the purpose of ending the investigation according to the special prosecutor, but the special prosecutor never considered indicting or going after him. 

Third, president Trump simply didn't have struck justice. You can't obstruct justice by doing things in public, by making statements in public, and firing people in public, that's just not obstruction of justice. Obstruction of injustice occurs in secret and behind closed doors. 

CARLSON: So for the purposes of the president exercising his authority over executive branch employees, you're saying it doesn't matter what his motive might have been. He's an absolute right to hire or fire people who work for him. 

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely, and we know what George Bush's motives were. They were not good motives, but you can't question the motives of a president. Look, presidents have mixed motives. They want to go down in history. They want to have big fees for their speeches. They want to teach at universities, they want to help their party. 

The idea that a special prosecutor can begin to psychoanalyze a president and go to the motives of why he exercised the constitutionally permissible act, would take us down a very, very dangerous path. 

CARLSON: Yes, you really are the voice of reason on this stuff. Not a Trump voter, I should - I know our viewers know that. But I just want to make totally clear. 

DERSHOWITZ: Not a Trump voter. No, we're not a Trump supporter when it comes to his idea about immigration policy-- 

CARLSON: I'm sure. 

DERSHOWITZ: And when a person is born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, he's a citizen and the president can't do anything about that. 

CARLSON: Professor, thanks for joining us today. 

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you. 

CARLSON: Appreciated. As the migrant caravan continues to approach our southern border, the press continues to tell us that it's not a threat - no threat at all. The native-born Americans are the real threat to America. We'll talk to someone who may agree with that, next. 


The migrant caravan is continuing to march north at this hour, when they arrive - if they arrive, they'll be greeted by thousands of liberal activists, puffed up with self-righteousness, whose chief goal is to help anyone who is not American. 

That impulse is so powerful that it has even made Planned Parenthood in favor of childbirth. Nation's biggest abortion provider tweeted opposition to the president's proposed Executive Order, changing birthright citizenship, they called it, "despicable and egregious" unlike anything they do 300,000 times a year. And that's just one example of what has erupted since the caravan began making its way here. 

The left has gone crazy, Enrique Acevedo who has watched all of this. He's an Anchor at Univision and he joins us saying. Enrique thanks a lot for coming on. 


CARLSON: So, I just want a reality check. I think for the last month or so, I've been hearing from all the truly good people who host cable news shows in this country that the caravan is nothing to worry about at all. These are all really decent people. They are families looking for a better life. 

Let me just say, I think, probably most of them are. But now we learn from the U.S. Border Patrol that it's 70 percent single men. Now we learned from the Mexican ambassador to the United States that this group has been "very violent" and assaulted Mexican authorities on the Guatemalan border. So shouldn't I be a little more concerned about them coming here? 

ACEVEDO: We have to realize this is a humanitarian crisis and other countries involved should act accordingly. If I say this is not a security threat, you're going to find an argument to call that a lie. So why don't we find out, why don't we - with your show and with my show on Univision, travel to Mexico, spend some time reporting, trying to figure out who's part of this caravan. 

If they are thugs and criminals and Middle Easterners, like the president says. We'll report that and we owe that to our audiences. If they're not a security threat, we should also report that. We owe our audiences a truth. 

CARLSON: Well, I mean, both of our companies are doing that. You all have reporters down there, Fox News also does. But it's not really up to the media to decide who comes to our country it's up - because this is a democracy, it's up to American voters who have elected representatives who've made a lot of laws about this, which you're now saying we need to ignore. 

So the people in charge are U.S. citizens, American voters and there being ignored. They have a system of legal immigration which this caravan is giving the finger to. So why do I have any responsibility to learn anything about the caravan. If they want to come here, they can go apply for citizenship or apply for a visa to come here a Green Card, what am I missing. 

ACEVEDO: I think, you're missing a key element of what they say, they want to do. They want to arrive at the border and claim asylum legally. They respect that legal process and they are honoring that process by stating they want to come to the border, a port of entry and then apply for asylum legally. That's what they're trying to do. 

CARLSON: But asylum for what, I'm confused-- 

ACEVEDO: Despite the fact that everyone knows that they going to come in illegally. It wouldn't make any sense to be on a caravan with thousands of people to try to sneak in any way. I think, you want to do that on your own. 

CARLSON: But they are passing U.S. consulates along. They've already been offered asylum by the country of Mexico and they've said no. 

ACEVEDO: And many of them are taking it on staying in Mexico according to that Mexican ambassador. 

CARLSON: But in some part that's true and nice of Mexico to do that. But a lot of them aren't. Thousands aren't. So - but, I guess, my question is asylum from what? I mean there's no war going on in Honduras right now that I'm aware of, it's a poor country, it's always been a poor country, that's not America's fault. It's not Donald Trump's fault. Why is it - why does that make me obligated to pay for this caravan? I'm honestly confused. 

ACEVEDO: Well we can spend a little money there and make a big difference at our border or we can keep spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money at our border to make no difference in the places where these people are coming from. 

We have been trying to seal the border for the last 40 years. Donald Trump is actually doubling down on some of the failed policies of the past, instead of looking for new-- 

CARLSON: You like the one that built-- 

ACEVEDO: --if we spend more time fighting the root causes of immigration. 

CARLSON: Well, how about this one though. How about - and this is just something that came to me. How about building a very high impenetrable wall across the border, do you think that would have - that's never been tried? I think Trump wants to try-- 

ACEVEDO: Well, we already have a 700-mile wall in a 2,000-mile border, so it's being tried and it's not helping. I don't know how building a wall will solve the issues that-- 

CARLSON: I don't know. 

ACEVEDO: -- making these people leave their country, their families. 

CARLSON: Hold on. 

ACEVEDO: I really don't know what. How that's going to make a difference. 

CARLSON: OK. Maybe you're right. 

ACEVEDO: I mean, you can do it then spend $25 billion of taxpayer money doing it. 

CARLSON: OK. What happens-- 

ACEVEDO: Well, will happen if it doesn't work. 

CARLSON: OK. Then maybe move on to something else. But American voters just voted for that in the last election and then all the moralizing chin tuckers are telling them you're a racist for wanting that. At least you've conceded American citizens have a right to determine what kind of border they have, just as every other country. 

ACEVEDO: Yes, every country has that right. 

CARLSON: --lots of wall, of course, lot of them. 

ACEVEDO: And I think we've been doing that for the past half a century, we've been trying to militarize the border. We have 21,000 what are manned drones-- 

CARLSON: Right. 

ACEVEDO: A 700-mile wall, high-tech surveillance equipment, all sorts of things at the border-- 

CARLSON: OK. You better hold on. 

ACEVEDO: And it's not working Tucker. We should be in focusing on the root causes of immigration. 

CARLSON: But you're not against-- 

ACEVEDO: -- some of those issues. 

CARLSON: You are not against still illegal immigration, let's be clear. There are 22 million illegals in our country right now. I think they should all be deported tomorrow and they can reapply if they want to come back, because it makes a mockery of our laws. You disagree with that. So, that's okay. I'm not mad at you. But don't tell me about how you support border security, because by definition you don't. You don't care at all about it, right? 

ACEVEDO: Not that I don't support border security, is that I think that's not going to solve the issue, that's not going to solve the issue in its essence. People are going to keep the coming-- 

CARLSON: 22 million people might get close to sovereignty-- 

ACEVEDO: --if these strategies used to stop people once they show up at the door, that's not going to work out. And we have the last half a century to prove it. Let's start your own approach. Why don't we solving some of the issues that are making these people leave their homes, leave their families, leaving everything behind. 

CARLSON: Fix Honduras. 

ACEVEDO: Spend a little money there, make a difference. 

CARLSON: Right, here's a little bit money to fix Honduras. OK. OK. 

ACEVEDO: Well, no, we don't want to fix Honduras. But you can make a difference.. 

CARLSON: -- you just fix Honduras. 

ACEVEDO: USAID has made a difference in many, some of the most violent communities. And there are plenty of reports that prove that. 

CARLSON: Yes, let's fix Iraq first and then Afghanistan, and bring peace the Middle East. Then we will fix Honduras. 

ACEVEDO: Let's fix the U.S. first and then we can take care of the rest of the world. 

CARLSON: OK. Perfect. Enrique, great to see you as always, thank you. 

ACEVEDO: Thank you for having. 

CARLSON: Google knows everything about you, likely know more than your spouse does. But for eight years they refused to update photographs of an isolated military base in the western U.S. why is that. We're interested in that question and we'll get a little closer to the answer after the break. 


CARLSON: Well for years now Google has been photographing and buying photographs of the Earth's surface taken from space and uploading them online as part of its Google Earth program. Images of the United States are regularly updated quite frequently with one major exception. 

For at least eight years images of the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada have gone without an update. It's almost as if Google is helping the government hide something. If they were hiding something what might it be? 

Nick Pope is a journalist, he spent many years investigating UFO sightings for the British government; he joins us tonight. Nick thanks very much for coming on. So did I state those facts correctly? There is - out of the entire continental of United States, one area that is not updated regularly on Google Earth and it's this test facility maintained by the U.S. government, is that correct? 

NICK POPE, AUTHOR, JOURNALIST AND TV PERSONALITY: That is correct. Yes, it is very close to the infamous Area 51 which is of course where UFO enthusiasts say that whatever it was that crashed at Roswell in 1947 was taken. 

The Tonopah test range is about 70 miles away from Area 51 and again it is one of the most secret places on the face of the planet. UFO enthusiasts and the conspiracy community say that's where the aliens are, that's where the UFOs that we're trying to develop are being test flown. 

Aviation enthusiasts say, no, it's simply a site where the next generation of prototype aircraft, drones and perhaps hypersonic weapons are tested. But there was a blind spot for years. 

CARLSON: Is there any evidence that the first camp is right or - is there any evidence that the U.S. government does have knowledge of UFOs that hasn't been shared with the public? 

POPE: Well this all tie us back to these recent revelations about the Pentagon's UFO program and these this whole that - the rumors about Area 51 and crashed UFOs and trying to put some of this together and fly it ourselves, those rumors had gone away. 

But then we had the story about the Pentagon program. We saw, of course, those videos of the Navy Jets chasing the UFOs and we now have some of the people involved in that program speaking out and saying, yes, there were these unknowns in our airspace, so it's not just aircraft lights and weather balloons. 

CARLSON: Interesting. Is there any in any indication of what it is then if it's not just aircraft lights and weather balloons? 

POPE: Well we don't know and the whole trouble with this - and this this really links these two stories of the Tonopah test range and the pentagon program. There has been this blurring of the lines. Even though the phraseology, the Pentagon's project was called Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. 

So as I say, you've got this this blurring of the lines between what is just our cutting-edge technology and what really might be if some of these rumors are true from somewhere else. 

CARLSON: What's so confusing - and of course, I think that DoD, the Pentagon has every right and in fact an obligation to keep projects working on secret. But it's not clear why so much material, so many documents from 50 years, ago 40 years ago, 20 years ago would remain classified to this day. What could be the explanation for that? 

POPE: Well, first of all, I absolutely agree with you on secrecy. I mean, I'm not calling for this to be opened up, even though a couple of more recent photos have now been put on Google Earth. But everything you put out there, of course, the Russians can see it, the Chinese can see it, everyone can see it. So we need to be mindful of that. 

I don't know what is out there and I think the good news is that finally we're getting some U.S. Congress interest in this. The Senate Armed Services Committee are now looking into those Navy videos that we've seen and discussed and the House Armed Services Committee, they're looking at the Pentagon's program, say, what did we get for our taxpayers dollars here. 

CARLSON: Last question do you think the president and maybe some Committee Chairmen would have knowledge of this. They have a right to know. Do you think they do know the answers? 

POPE: Well, again, the rumors are that this is what the Space Force is all about. But I'm not so sure about that. I think the president would have to know and in his capacity of course as Commander in Chief. 

So I hope that there are some interesting secrets whether or not they come out over the next few months if we get formal congressional hearings on this as opposed to just congressional interest, we'll wait and see. 

CARLSON: Yes, well they're definitely interesting secrets out there. The question is will we find out what they. Nick Pope, I know you will find out first and I hope you'll tell us on the show, thank you. 

POPE: Thanks. 

CARLSON: Truth is out there. Back tomorrow night with more truth. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Happy Halloween. Sean Hannity right now. 

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.