Stay updated with breaking news from Isnt support. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
This is something they try to push through in february. they talked to the president about it. the president didn t like that it included work-related green cards. so now they have the president s full support. a lot of controversy and it. some people think it s infair to families because as stephen miller said, it ends chain migration where one family can bring in another and another and so on. not only that, they re facing a jam packed legislation calendar. the president trying to do healthcare reform, tax reform, they have the debt ceiling debate and then they have the debate over the budget, which comes in on october 1. so i asked steve miller, where in all this is there any time for immigration reform? listen here. how do you wedge this in to an already-jam-packed calendar? ultimately we have to have conversations about steps forward with the leadership. this is an immigration that we campaigned on and the american people voted for by electing ....
Since january much earlier in the administration when he was out talking quite frequently about the so-called travel ban that the president had been proposing. he has been behind closed doors for a while after that. now coming back out to talk about this policy. and i would say that the bottom line is this, the president might support this policy, and he might be having a couple of senators here to talk about it. there is very little appetite, ali, in congress to actually have this become the law of the land. and there is not a clear response from the white house as to how they plab to get some political support behind this other than saying the american people eventually will like it and that will put some pressure on lawmakers to do something about it. didn t shut the had door to compromise, but it s unlikely that the white house will make the kinds of changes that lawmakers would need to see in order to back something like this. and i asked steven miller about that, ali. you talk ....
And policies, that s the way it s going to go. shepard: thanks, jonathan. white house reporter for the associated press. is this just a play or what is it, the immigration bill? i m sorry to have missed out the fun of the briefing room today. shepard: wow. this seems more of a political move than something that could be policy. there s not much support for this or appetite for this on the hill. this is a play to the base. this is a symbol look, the president cares about immigration even though there s not much in the actual legislation yet on that topic. also, the briefing turned into, you know a free for all with two of his favorite media targets. the new york times shepard: that was glen thrush going after him. some of the details over the immigration policy. at the end with cnn over many things about the bill, including statue of liberty and the inscription in there, which ....
Rejeems in iran and north korea. and he also sent a clear signal that we won t tolerate interference in our democratic process by russia. i also said that he signed it in the interest of national unity. and again in support of there s no question that there isn t support for the principles of the bill. it s just the process. does he also send a signal in signing this particular legislation that if another bill comes before his desk that he also finds significantly flawed and clearly unconstitutional that he d sign that legislation as well? i m not going to speak about a hypothetical bill that we don t know and p doesn t exist and whether or not the president is going to sign it. steve. clear up some confusion. there were almost simultaneously two signing sthamts that went out. they had slightly different language. did you intend to send both out it was actually one signing statement and one press statement. so that s the difference. one is more of a legal document that goes ....
Bad behavior of the rogue regimes in iran and north korea, and he also sent a clear signal that we won t tolerate interference in our democratic process by russia. i also said that he signed it in the interest of national unity, and again, in support of there s no question that there isn t support for the principles of the bill. it s maybe just some of the process piece. does he also send a signal in signing this particular legislation that if another bill comes before his desk, that he also finds significantly flawed, and clearly unconstitutional, that he d sign that legislation as well? i m not going to speak about a hypothetical bill that we don t know and doesn t exist and whether or not the president s going to sign it. clear up some confusion. there were almost simultaneously two signing statements that went out. they had slightly different language. did you intend to send both out? it was actually one signing statement and one press statement so that s the difference. ....