Well. Im Natalie Allen in atlanta and this is cnn newsroom. President trump is coming under fire for his extreme immigration policies. On friday mr. Trump said he is seriously considering sending crowds of detained migrants to u. S. Sanctuary cities as a way to spite his political rivals for not supporting his border wall. Sanctuary cities have policies or are laws limiting the kind of assistance local Law Enforcement will give the u. S. Federal government on immigration. Usually that means that they will protect undoumcumented immigrants. Critics accuse him of using human beings as political pawns. We get more from Kaitlan Collins at the white house. We can give them an up limit supplied. Reporter president is touting a proposal to place undocumented migrants in sanctuary cities to retaliate against democrats. Shattering his own administrations dems of the policy. So well give them to the sanctuary cities maybe to take care of if thats the way they want it. Trump making the threat in person after tweeting earlier that because democrats are unwilling to change our dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in sanctuary cities only. Those remarks coming just hours after the white house official said it was briefly raised and quickly rejected. No one at i. C. E. Was pressured by anyone at any time. But sources tell cnn the president pushed former Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to carry out the proposal. She resisted and the plan was scrapped for legal reasons. This is an yut rage yan outr of power. Rur reporter cnn learned that during his trip to the border last week, trump told Kevin Mcaleenan that if he were jailed or faced legal issues because he blocked migrants from entering the u. S. , he would pardon him. Tt it is unclear if trump meant it as a joke. But it reveals the boundaries that the president is willing to push making his frustration clear today. If they dont agree, we might as well do what they always say they want. Reporter news of the attempted sanctuary city proposal infuriated democrats in that. It is just another notion that is unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful the challenges that we face as a country, as a people to address who we are a nation of immigrants. Reporter a spokesman for nancy pelosi who is from one of the highest profile sanctuary cities in california saying that the extent of this administrations cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated, using human beings including little children as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear is despicable and in some cases criminal. But trump seemed to relish the outrage from democrats. Lets see if they are so happy. They always say they have open arms. Lets see if they have open arms. Reporter the drama while dhs is being run by an acting secretary and secretarying i ac director. A border official saying starting today they will release immigrants to local organizations because i. C. E. Is at capacity. And six of the major border checkpoints are currently understaffed because agents are being sent to parts of the border that are facing a surge in migrants. The president made clear that he believes this sanctuary city proposal would be a punishment for democrats, but jim kinney the mayor of philadelphia which is considered a sanctuary city said that they would welcome all immigrants with open arms. He believes the latest proposal just shows, quote, the utter contempt for basic Human Dignity and he added that it is just trumps desire to throughofloute of law. Kaitlan collins, cnn, the white house. And more reaction is coming from from some of those city pss. The mayor of berkeley, california says im shocked but not surprised that once again the president is playing a cynical game with peoples lives in order to score political point. To use immigrants as pawns on a political chess board is outrageous and unevident cunhun evident cal. And this from the District Attorney of san francisco. The fact that such a proposal is being pedaled oig by the ladier of t leader of the free world is an all time low. A sample of the reaction from those areas. The Trump Administration announced earlier this month plans to cut aid to several Central American countries which the white house says arent doing enough to mitigate the humanitarian crisis at the u. S. Southern border. U. S. Secretary of state mike pompeo is defending that move by the Trump Administration. Even though state Department Statistics show that homicide rates went town and tdown and t of migrants fleeing dropped after a u. S. Aid program was implemented there. But mr. Trump decided to remove american dollars from these countries and mr. Pompeo explains why. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent and you see the results. You see the results yesterday, you saw them last week, you see people fleeing those nations. Throwing more money at this problem which is what i think your yquestion is suggesting, there is no reason to believe that wed get any outcome that is different from the one were suffering from today. So what the Trump Administration is trying to do is saying were prepared to help, were prepared to engage, were prepared to saupt, but you have to take serious efforts whether it is in guatemala, el salvador, nicaragua, mexico, we need their nations to ensure that these people arent making this dangerous trek across mexico and coming to our country illegally. When they begin to do that, we will begin return. Lets talk more about the immigration issue with thyou wi professor in london. Huh are you doing . Thanks for having me on. We have much to talk about. Lets begin with the u. S. Cutting off aid to the countries. Mike pompeo echoing the administrations rationale that cutting aid will help keep people from leaving these countries. Does that make sense . No, it doesnt make sense at all and really any study would disagree with that because the aid is actually really critical to providing support services, Securities Services to these countries that are deeply impoverished. Duras was almost ad state at one point and required a xwlgrowing amount of aid. They have high homicide rates. It is through these programs that we can assist with that, it is not through cutting off aid to them. That will only exacerbate the Immigration Crisis and that is why there has been such a spike in immigration is because these zones have become unlivable for these people, they are incredibly violent and his strategy of cutting off aid doesnt make any sense. And President Trump certainly is determined to stand the tide of migrants where they are coming from, these countries we just mentioned anyway he can even if it is against the law, the sanctuary cities idea is against the law or shutting down the border which everyone says will really hurt the economy. But he is not backing done. Down. It shows the boundaries he is willing to push. It shows that he is willing to test the boundaries of both Public Opinion and law in order to annimate his base. If you look at Public Opinion on the family separation policy from ale poll of 2018, twothirds of the country is against the family separation policy, but he doesnt really care about that. He focuses on trying to energize his base with more hard line policies because he thinks that this will win votes in 2020, it will distracts from other issues that are going on. If you were to look at the same 2018 poll, it revealed that noncollege educated white republicans, 60 approved of his family separation policy and about 50 of white educated republicans. So he thinks that there is the strategy that will work by applying the law consistently and creating more hard line policies, more obstacles for immigration, more opening of deportation cases trying to turn away asylum seekers, creating a denaturalization force which is something that i hadnt heard of, going afternatural ized citizens. And this whole idea of using human beings as a weapon and putting them on sanctuary cities against his enemies, his enemies, he is talking about the american public. It is really astounding. Yes. And all the while blamed democrats, he tweeted that they are unwilling to change immigration laws. And he even seems to kind of enjoy making they will mangry. And that is all about getting his base riled up and he knows one of the things that works well with them is to get the democrats up in arms and because when they respond he can respond back and this little playing back and forth and describes going back and forth actually really endears himself to his base. They love it when he fights hard for them. And he has no attempt ever to think about unifying the public, coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan that everybody can get on board with him. We understand that immigration has been an issue, but that doesnt necessitate trying to create winners and losers and to vilify the democrats in this process. Right. I wanted to ask you about that. Should democrats hold firm . Every time he does Something Like this, nancy pelosi comes on ultimate and says her piece about it. We just heard mayors from the sanctuary cities giving their opinion on this. Is there any reason for compromise among both parties on immigration . I mean clearly the system is broken and all were seeing is tit for tat and tit for tat, just keeps going on and on. There is actually a lot more room for compromise in the past, that they understood that this was something that could have been dealt with in a bipartisan way. Slowly over the last 20 years the Republican Party has grown increasingly more antiimmigration. If you lack at a fairly recent poll, it revealed that 83 of democrats think immigration is a good thing and 38 of republicans think immigration is a good thing. So it is just become so incredibly polarized where it used to be something that was just a huge part of u. S. Identity that both republicans and democrats could kind of get on board with a comprehensive plan and Work Together on this. This has become a hill to die on for trump and Republican Congress people have become increasingly willing to support him and there doesnt seem to be that much room for compromise at the moment. Or room for sanity when discussing this issue and not having it be so inflamed all the time. All right. Well leave it there for now. But i have a feeling that you and i will be talking again. Always appreciate you coming on. Thanks. Nice to see you again. All right. Another topic were following here, six weeks after the second summit between the u. S. And north korea ended an bankruptly in failure, kim jungun has something new to say. He says that he is open to a third summit but with a catch. He says the u. S. Must change its attitude and he will give the United States until the end of the year to decide if it wants another summit, speaking before the Supreme Peoples Assembly kim said what is obvious is that if the United States sticks to the current political way of calculation, the prospects for problem solving will be dark and very dangerous. Lets go to seoul, Paula Hancocks always our correspondent on this beat. Hello to you, paula. So how do you decipher what north korea means by that language and how should it be interpreted . Reporter well, natalie, it was an interesting speech and really the first time that weve heard the north Korean Leader directly talking about what happened in hanoi and directly laying out what he wants to see going forward. So the United States can take some heart from this, the fact that he is not shutting the door on these talks as was suggesting a few weeks ago saying that kim jungun would decide if he even wanted to bother with these talks. So he is saying that he will be willing to meet with President Trump again, but there are conditions. He said that the United States has to change its way of calculation. He said that he is not willing and not happy to have another summit similar to hanoi where they walked away without any agreement. And he has given a time line now. He has said that he will give the United States until the end of the year to decide if that is something that they want to do. It is something that he is now trying to hurry this along because north korea has always been playing the long game when it comes to denuclearization talks or any kind of talks with the United States and it is actually the u. S. President is saying that he has all the time in the world saying there is no need to rush this and if they do rush it, then it wont be a proper deal. So it is also interesting to see that once again kim is praising mr. Trump or at least saying that the relationship he has with mr. Trump is far less hostile than that between the two countries. So once again even though he is criticizing the United States, he is very careful not to criticize the u. S. Leader himself. Right, weve seen that oddity between these two for months now. So lets talk about a gobetween. The south korea president was just with President Trump. Can south korea be somewhat of a mediator hear as here as we gete new language from north korea. Reporter whether he can is another matter. We heard after that meeting between President Trump and president moon that as soon as president moon got back to seoul, he was going to try to set up another summit or another set of talks between kim jungun and moon jaein. And President Trump said report back to him once he knew how that was going to go. So he is appearing to be some kind of mediator, the gobetween, but weve heard a very different opinion as to how they want to go forward with north korea. South korea is happy to have a step by step process. They are happy just for the momentum to keep going. President trump says he wants the big deal. All right. Appreciate it, Paula Hancocks. Another leader out in sudan as the head of the military council steps down in that country just one day after taking over. Well have a report on the latest development in this volatile situation. Plus two high profile politicians at the intersection of religion and lifestyle in a feud over faith. The Vice President and a candidate for president , both from the same state. That story when we can back. A story now at the intersection of three highly person aal and volatile topics. Religion, lifestyle and politics. It involves two men from indiana. Jessica dean has the story. Reporter two hoosiers, one the Vice President , the other a president ial hopeful. Both in a feud over faith. The truth of the matter is that all of us have our own religious convictions. Pete has his. I have mine. Reporter Vice President mike pence, former indiana governor, reacting to criticism from south bend mayor and 2020 democratic hopeful pete buttigieg. Im not critical of his faith. Im critical of bad policies. I dont have a problem with religion. Im religious too. I have a problem with religion being used as a justification to harm people. And especially in the lgbtq community. Reporter pence telling dana bash he doesnt have a problem with boot young. I considered him a friend. Reporter but then taking a swipe at the raising democratic start. I hope he offers more than attacking my Christian Faith as he saeks teeks the highest offi the land. Reporter and the Vice President repeated will i would not answer if he thought being xwha w gay was a sin. My wife and i are bible believing christians. We. And the idea of it being a sin to be gay . Im a bible believing christian. Reporter buttigieg married his husband in an Indiana Church last year. He talks openly about his faith on the campaign trail. When i talk about my faith, it is not because i believe that it should be imposed on others, but it does guide me. Reporter buttigieg lobbed the first volley. How could he become the cheerleader of the porn star presidency. Reporter and he again went after him last week. I wish the mchs of the world would understand if you have a problem with who i am, your problem is not with me, your quarrel, sir, is with my creator. Reporter this all goes back to 2015 when pence was governor and buttigieg mayor of south bend. Then governor pence backed the religious freedom restoration act which allowed businesses to cite religious freedom as a legal defense. The backlash was intense as critics argued it could be used to discriminate against the lgbt community. In his book buttigieg called it prejudice in the name of christianity. And now hes making the same argument. Im not interested in feuding with the Vice President , but he could come out today and say hes changed his mind that it shant be legal shouldnt be leg discriminate against anybody. Reporter buttigieg will be back in south bend on sunday for an event that his campaign is building as a special announcement. Jessica dean, cnn, washington. Speaking of discrimination, Transgender Americans hoping to join the u. S. Military will now face a major road block because of a controversial new policy now in effect. Under the new rule, most openly transgender people will be barred from enlisting unless they serve under their birth sex. Critics call the policy bigoted, but the Defense Department say