it starts in four or three. have a great saturday. ♪ >> mike: welcome to huckabee. tonight our special presidential fom live from fox news headquarters here in new york city. featuring the republican candidates for president who will face questions from three prominent attorneys general. good evening, i am mike huckabee. since fox held the first presidential debate in may, the candidates have debated the issues 14 times . everyone of the candidates that you will hear from tonight could become president. you as the voters will weigh them based on fair and balanced treatment. having been a candidate and
experienced the frustration of an event that left some frustrated on the edges. we'll do everything that you need. each candidates that accepted our invitation will appear individually and answer questions from the panel and each panelle get len minutes and able to answer those questions in the time frame. candidates will be required to focus on the questions and they are asked not to mention or attack other candidates and the order in which you will see them tonight, determined by a drawing held prior to the event. there is no audience to influence your perception and then at the close each candidate will be given oneminute for sumation. we have attorney generals dully elected by the people. first in oklahoma, attorney general scott pruitt. in the center florida attorney
general pam bondi and rounding out our panel from virginia ken cuccinelli. my role as moderate will keep things move let each candidate to know when their time it is up. jon hunts man declined and herman cain declined before announcing earlier today he is suspending his campaign. we would love to hear your thoughts. you can post on facebook.com/huckabeeshow. and tweet using tag muck forum. before you get to the candidates. talk about what we hope will happen as a result of this forum tonight. scott, we'll begin wu. >> governor, what a great opportunity to talk about important constitutional principle. the role of state and government. and the state authority and the affect from health care
and immigration and education and environment. and as attorney generals each day, we deal with issues because we have a president who doesn't respect those principles and believe that is washington is always the answer . so tonight, to have the opportunity to discuss with the candidates their commit test their knowledge and see if they will be different is important to the americans. at the end of the day, it is not an abstract legal concept about constitutional or federalism. those issues are real and it is real because we want to protect rour freedom and liberty. >> mike: pam bondi. as attorney it is my role to protect our citizens of my state and defend our laws. now as scott said we have a president who is trying to undermine our constitution and i alongg with 25 other states, we have sued the federal government regarding the
unconstitutional health care man date. we will continue to sue all three of us all day long, but ultimately that is not what is going to fix america. what is going to fix america is electing a conservative republican president who shares our values and knows the true meaning of the constitution . >> mike: ken cuccinelli? >> governor i am a constitutional conservative and i am compeeled like my colleagues here to sue the federal government to product the constitution from the federal government and keep it from vialating its own federal laws whether it is it health care or epa. national relations board and fccc and the list goes on on. as pam said it is unprecedented how long that list is. it would be far better if i didn't have to play that role. when constitutional conservative don't have sway to reign in government state
attorney generals are the last line of defense against an overreaching federal government led as a president like president obama. in 2012, america needs to elect a president who will govern as a limited conservative president. the goal is to see how the candidates measure up we can find ourselves a candidate who reveres and respects the constitution and has a plan in limiting the government and returningitous the first principles on which the government would be built. >> house speaker newt gingrich is our first candidate. >> good to be with you, mike as always. >> i will turn you over to the attorney generals and let them have at you. pam bondi will start. >> speaker gingrich thank you for being here. your plan for empowering local neighborhood bord -s to decide if certain illegal immigrants
will stay in our country is criticized on the ground that it could undermine the rule of law and encourage more illegal immigrants to come to our country. how do you respond to those claims. >> the model that it was based on did not mine the rule of law and implimited the draft in world war ii and allowed local people much like a jury trial to render judgment about local people in what was seen as an effective model. second, i am suggesting that this only apply to people who are here a long time and have a real tie to the local community and exploring the idea that they have to have a family sponsoring them to be eligible for review. to suggest that a model that only works after 20 or 25 years, is going to be a mag net is nonsense in addition to
patrolling the border which is part of my plane we have a provision for a guest worker program that is legal and implimited by american express or visa or master card and you would have fraud f. you are a brand new person coming to the u.s., you would have a legal point of entry and no reason to believe that anyone would get across the border to stay here illegally 20 or 25 years to some day 2000 be for review. >> of course, the border is important and you spoke as jury trials. as a former prosecutor, my point of concern is putting friend and neighbors in the point of judging determine. >> that's the point of a jury trial and that's why founding father who is distrusted judges insists on juries. ultimately the citizens have to bear the responsibility for
their own culture and society. ultimately, i believe they are more are trustworthy. if you me, would i trust a jury or a washington burrcrat. i would rather have a jury decide my fate. >> mr. speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and smaller government and yet you supported individual mandidates for health insurance and joined pelosi with report to climate change and advocated with a specific role and had close tice to fannie mae and freddie mac. why should limited government conservatives trust that president gingy gingwill not advance big government approaches when you are president? >> first of all individual man date was developed by heritage foundation as a method to block hillary care and all of the conservatives came to the
conclusion that it was dangerous and more difficult to implement and guaranteed that politicians and politics would define health care and why the conservatives have left that kind of a model. i said publicly sitting on the couch with pelosi is the dumbest thing i have done. but i never favored cap and trade and actively testified against it. i was in the u.s. house and energy committee the same day al gore was there to testify for it and i testified against it . throughh american solutionns we fought it in the senate and we playedd a major role in defeating it. if you look at my record. the only speaker to get four balanced budgets and development of welfare reform. somebody who has advocated a balanced budget amendment and somebody at newt.org, has a 21st century contract with america and called for a vigorous enforcement.
>> mr. speaker you rattled conservative part of your record. but you have a nonconservative part of your record. what will you do to structure your administration to filter out what i consider to be nongovernment ideas that you produce and stick to a government that focuses on limiting the federal government and shrinking the power and spend how will you do that within your administration? >> first of all in my active role in the congress i helped ronald reagan in the '80s speaker of the house to shrink the federal government. >> i am asking as president. >> i start with the notion and i have done this before. you have some reason to believe that i can get to a balanced budget because i have gotten there and you should some reason to know i will controll spending because i have controlled spending before. we have part of our contract
with america a presidential appointee, you cannot get the scale of change we want and the teparity want by appointing good people who have no understanding of the fight they are about to be in and difficult and hard washington is. i think we have to have a clearly philosophically drin program that said this is where the administration is going. and by the way not just the administration, but you have to apply pressure to the house and senate. under our constitution. unless you have them moving with you. >> we are going to have to take a break. we'll continue with speaker gingrich after the break and give him all of his time. we'll be right back. stay with us.
former house speaker newt gingrich. the question comes from scott pruitt. >> mr. speaker, goodening. president obama seemed to think that washington has all of the answer to the national problem. as you know they don't require national solutions can you name problems that congress and president should not solve? >> absolutely. education should be trurned to the state and states should be encouraged to adopt themselves. medicaid back to the state. it is clear that the federal government has fail to manage that. i want develop an environmental solution to replace the epa. it has to look for entrepreneurism and collaborate to state to local government. >> with regard to education largely returned to the states what does that. >> it will be returned to the
citizens. the 10th amendment talks about the states and the citizens and it is not just moving power for example for washington d.c. to richmond or tallahassee or washington d.c. to oklahoma. it is moving power and i tell every group of citizens, if we shrinkk the washington burrcrats we grow lets citizenship. i would advocate that states consider a pel grant for k-12 so that you, every parent decides where there grant goes and you return power to the parents than the government. >> mr. speaker you propose impeaching judges that rules unconstitutional, but advocating abolishing appellate courts. if president obama were to eliminate a judgeship where the judge ruled against the man date in the signature health care law, would that be an appropriate application of the plan. >> first of all the president
couldn't do it he would have to have the support of the house and senate to do it. i mentioned judge barry who issued a rulog june 1st that said students couldn't pray or use benediction or invocation or god or ask people to stand or have a moment of silence and hehe said if these are broken, i will put the superintendent in jail. as far as i am concerned he is anti-american >> you want to eliminate the court. that is the jeffersonian solution from 1802, but you can only do it if you have the house, senate and president. >> understood. >> speaker, you supported the obama administration use race to the top to promote charter schools and calls for states to adopt rigorous education standard. we agree that race to the top is a good thing and charter
schools. but is it wrong yes or no, is it wrong for the federal government to intrude over the state's authority? >> it is wrong. that's why i recommend we return the power to the state. on the other hand presidents can go to a state and say, i urge you to adopt the pel grant and charter schools. nothing wrong with the president being a of the country. but that is different of saying the federal government sets the rules. >> you can't have it both ways. >> the government is not going to dictate but the president can advocte change. >> mr. speaker, i want to follow up on the appearance of nancy pelosi and climmate change. >> yes. >> you said that was the dumbest thing you have ever done. >> in recent years.
was it dumb because of bad politics or policy. >> i think it innovation and look at positive ways of solving things. i was trying to make a case about a conservative environmentalism and that's why i am for environmental solution agency to replace the epa. frankly she was radioactive that it was impossible for a conservative to be in the same set and not have everybody go that is crazy. they never heard your message. i wrote a book called contract with europe. in an effort to argue there are sound promarket science and inivation that would lead to a improved environment than you get out of lawyers and regulators and oh, pa. >> mike: we have final 30 seconds. >> who is your favorite founding father and why? >> joc washington we all stand
on his shoulders and this is his command flag from valley forge. without george washington we would not have america and he was in the field eight years and from your state, he returned to mount vernon for one week in eight years. that's what he thought freedom was worth and that's the standard from us. >> mike: mr. speaker thank you for your time away from the campaign trail to answer the questions from the attorneys general and we'll see you in the end of the forum. you can post thoughts on our wall. facebook passport com/huckabee show. and tweet using the hash tag. the next candidate will join us after the breakk. stay with us. we'll be right back.
cwelcome back to huckabee. joining us now is former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. first question from pam bondi. >> senator you said in the heritage foundation foreign policy debate tha in the civil war abraham lincoln ran over our civil rights. are there parts of the patriot act that run over rights of season. >> no. >> why. >> they are consistent with what we are doing with drug king pins and gangsters and were not applied because we had a different model. we were not dealing with terrorism prior to the events of 9-9-9. our law didn't anticipate having to broaden what were criminal opportunity to find out and intervene and wire tap
and use the tools of the recent tools for finding out information and apply those to a terrorist setting . now we have the opportunity to do so. >> >> how did abraham linn conrun over civil rights. >> suspending habuous corpus. but the president was dealing with an inis surrection. approximate he did what he did to hold the union together. we are not in a situation like that where we have that problem. but we have problems on our home soil and we have to make sure our laws can find the terrorist and that are hoim grown. >> strength in the family is important to you and us, is that a proper function with respect to the federal government and if so how? >> it is. as you know karen and i are father and mother of seven children and family is important to me and important to america. we have seen a federal
government that has undermined the family in a lot of ways and look at what we have done in our welfare prospects. a lot of folks listening here tonight know people whose father and mother are living together and they are not married and they can receive welfare benefit to support the children. we do things to break families apart with government aid. we do things to not encourage marriage. those are thing law that we with for the marriage tax penalty that penalized them in the tax code. there is things that presidents can do to make sure the laws support the famils there. is discussions we can have. it takes a family is a book i wrote. i talk about a program in chattanooga, tennessee called first things first. they found out that the divorce rate, the out of wet
lockk birth rate and number of single mothers was one of the highest in the state of tennessee. they were appalled by that that it was going on in the community. they came together and the nonprofit businesss and the education community and government and formed a group to actually go out and promote marriage and promote policies to reduce divorce and it was a bipartisan and led by leader in the community. like a president can lead a revitalization of marriage. and focus on the issue of divorce without passing laws. the president can convene and start a national discussion and that is rarely used. >> where do the states fit in that with respect to welfare reform. where do the states fit in the model with the federal government? >> i was the author of the of federal reform bill when i was in the house and carried the
bill on the senate. it is the only time we have taken a federal program and eliminated and sent back to the states. we need to do the same for food stamps and medicaid and housing programs and job training programs. all of these programs are administered by the states but have a heavy federal component that doesn't belong had there. the role for the states is to get back to taking care of the health and welfare of the citizens. we should cut the program and cap it and freeze it and give that money back to the states with the flexibility to manage the program. >> you describe yourself pro life want a limited role for the federal government. since the constitution doesn't speak to the authority to regulate abortion, how would you weigh protecting the rights of unborn suddenchildren through a federal law and limited
partnering constitutionalism by allowing the states. >> i support a amendment to stand up for the right to life . that intimately involves the states. the process requires the ratification of that amendment by the states. i have been always a supporter that we need a uniformed law on values -- excuse me that undergird our country. that's why i feel strongly and promoted the federal marriage amendment and. we can't have 50 definitions of marriage in this country. family is too important. just like the sanctity of human life is a value and in our founding document. declaration independence and whole heart of american exceptional is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and if we can't institutionalize
that. i don't think our founders could have envisioned that we would have a country that allowed >> i think you made it clear. we'll get to other questions. >> senator, in florida, it is frustrating. as you heard. i had to sue the epa to stop from imposing unsusable water standards on my state and devastating to the businesses in the florida. the obama administration pursued numerous, numerous environmental policy thalce affect all of us in different ways that impose staggering costs on the american people. what principles would you follow in deciding whether to approve any environmental regulation? >> i would say this, what we have seen is a radical environmental policy put forth in this administration and based on poorly crafted legislation that is in place
rightt now. you have endangered species act that is a heart of the problems that we dealt with in pennsylvania. central valley in california and seen these policies because you have poorly drafted. deliberately drafted pieces of legislation that are overly broad. it is national labor reulation and boeing situation in charleston. but you have a broadly worded statute. look at obama care. 700 places where the secretary can rewrite the bill. >> but what would you do, senator? >> i am getting there. >> what i believe we ought to do. we have authorization of the acts and you i they don't want to refight the war. as president, i will not enforce and sign a straight reauthorization and continue
to enforce an act that is not reauthorize. we'll force congress to take the statutes and fix them and have congress make the decision of what the laws are. >> senator having served in the senate you observed the separation of powers between the powers of government. why did thers create separation between the powers. >> they did it to protect the rights of the states and citizens. they went farther than that. the way we establish the congress was that they had the united states senate be selected by the state legislatures instead of the people. there was a intent that the federal government would be limited and the states would have a belt and suspenders ability to keep the power at the state level and it means it would be closer to the people and they would control
that power. we changed that with the 17th amendment and one of the reasons i am a supporter of balanced budget with a gap, because it guarantees limited government and guarantee states and people being more free. >> mike: we are down to final two minutes. i will turn to -- >> senator president obama's refusal of defining the marriage act. constitutionally why is the president wrong? >> first of all the president has the obligation to defend the laws of our country. this bill was passed and stands up for an institution that has been in place for a longg time. the president's autobiographyligation to enforce the laww and when it is challenged, his obligation to step forward and argue that case. i am happy he isn't. because he was still on the case. he was giving up on it.
>> they were rolling over. >> they were rolling over and i am sort of glad eric holder is not defending the defense of marriage act which he doesn't support. >> if a court found it unconstitutional and you were the president would you stand by that ruling? >> i would do whatever i could in passing a new law and i did this in the partial birth abortion case. the supreme court struck down the nebraska statute on partial births. we passed a new law . laid out the reasoning and why the court was wrongg and repassed the bill and president bush signed it and the court five years after they found it unconstitutional. i think it is important when the presidentings we are a equal and co-equal branch of government. we have a right to say what is constitutional as the supreme court. if they got it wrong, i would fight to have another case
brought before them. >> 20 seconds. that's all. >> are the courts the ultimate and only arbtraittor of the constitution. >> not -- absolutely not. and i am the only one in the field who did something about it and i called for the abolishment of the ninth circuit. i am out of time. >> mike: thank you very much for coming off of the campaign trail and being with the attorneys. >> great to be with you. >> mike: we'll see senator santorum at the end of the forum. coming up rick perry and michele bachmann and texas cram cramm ron paul and mitt romney. stay with us.
♪ >> mike: welcome back to huckabee and our special republican presidential forum. joining us is texas governor rick perry and the first question from ken cuccinelli. >> good to see you. >> yes, sir. >> you said if elected you would issue a executive order to bloke the health care law. >> absolutely executive order and in those agencies there i a substantial amount of that bill that allowed for the agencies to put the rules in
place. i am going to put people in as head of health and human services that share my philosophy that medicare, for instance needs to go back to the states and lord willing we'll get rid of that with a supreme court rulog the - ruling on the constitutionality. and thank you for being great attorney generals from that standard. >> it sounds like you are ready to use an executive order to void the law. >> absolutely. i think. >> what is your authority for that? >> suit executive order gives you that authority and also as i said earlier, having men and women in those agencies that are going to share your philosophy and that is an important message. not just health and human service. in my plan to get america back
to work. i talked about the energy industry and department of interior open up the federal land and waters and so we can get into and explore and get america more independent. millions of jobs can be created and have the security of domestic energy. >> we are getting away from the question. i want to be clear to make sure i understand it. >> you are taking the position that you can stop the implementation of the law with an executive order. >> i am saying we can start parts of it. other parts would be done in the rules stand point and they would be implemented by health and human services. >> governor perry, the right to work states, workers are not forced to join the union to be employed. all three of us here represent right to work states and we
admentally impose the national labor board attempt to stop boeing from adding a plant in south carolina because they are a right to work state. do you favor passing a national right to work law? >> actually, i believe that the states the responsibility of doing that. big 10th amendment supporter that i am, states compete against each other and i used to go over and try to get jobs out of arkansas and mike would be over to get them out of texas other than. >> mike: don't tell us how it turned out. >> that's how we get stronger as a country. states say we don't want to be a right to work state. places like texas or florida or virginia or oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive and with the tax policy and regulatory policy and legal policiless that's how you make america
competitive. get the federal government out of the one size fits all. even for things we think we would like. some states out there say we don't want that and people can vote with their feet and that's why poom move to texas now. we made it a very, very good place for business men and women put their capitol and know they will have a return on their investment. >> governor, as the governor of texas and expenses for health care and medicaid as relate to illegal immigration costs our state billions of dollars. should the federal government be required to reipburse. >> we send a bill every year and i am sure the governor did the same in arkansas. but yet to be paid. the real issue is border security. we have to deal with the issues is because of the abject failure of the federal
government to defend and schecure the border. i have dealt with it 10 years now. a sheriff arpayo he endorsed me in the campaign. you know what, this is the one guy who understands how to secure that border and that's what we have to do as a country. a president that is committed to securing that border. we know how to do it, but don't have the resources for a 1200 mile bord tore secure it the way it needs to be done. fencing and boots on the ground and aviation assets in the air. i made a commitment that 12 months after being inaugurated as president that would be shut down and secure. >> it is clear that you you are passionate and clear that the federal government has refused to do the job. >> absolutely. >> would you allow the state to sue the federal government for the reimbursement of
costs. in the end of the day that is it a nonissue because we will secure the border and all of the issue that is we are facing as governors will be eliminated. >> we'll have to take a break. we'll come back with more with governor rick perry. stay with us. we'll be right back. we know a place where tossing and turning have given way to sleeping. where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep. and lunesta can help you get there, like it has for so many people before. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving, or engaging in other activities while asleep, without remembering it the next day, have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur.
alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions, such as tongue or throat swelling, occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then get lunesta for $0 at lunesta.com. there's a land of restful sleep. we can help you go there on the wings of lunesta.
>> mike: we are back. let's continue with texas governor rick perry. the first segment from pam bondi. >> thank you, governor, is the state continuually fails parents and children through inadequate education, does the federal government have the obligation to intervene on the education of the children? >> no, and here's the reason
why. if you believe in the 10th amendment and if you believe that those people in the state are going to impact the legislators, they will do that. and i think that is a situation that we would not find ourselves in because by the time a school failed, the children or the parents would have intervened and the legislators would have intervened. our problem is a federal government who is intervening too much with programs. i truly believe that the education of the children is a state and local issue and the federal government needs to stay out. >> talking about all of these programs, governor. would you get rid of federal assistance for school lunch and pel grants. gi bill? >> absolutely. there is a better way to those dollars. there may be some of the programs.
gi bill that we leave in place. but the idea that the federal government needs to take as many billions as it takes from the state up to washington d.c. and running it through the department of education and picking winners or loserings, i don't agree with that at all. look at every program. i do away with the department of education. i would do away with it. it is a waste of time and money. the state is aly - a better place to educate children. >> what does a strict constructionist mean to you. >> alito and roberts are the type of jurist. a strict constructionist and not a legislator in a robe. we have about four of each of those right now on our supreme court. and that's the reason that i have called for in my overhalling washington a term
for supreme court justices. instead of the lifetime appointments. there is no accountability there and no check and balance. if you put a term, and now obviously that would take a constitutional amendment. i believe in it so much that that is what we need to do from the standpoint of making sure we don't have legislators in robes on the court today. the idea they are telling us how we can pray, the idea of how they are telling us our kids can pray in school and tell us in texas we can't have 10 commandments on the capitol grounds that is offensive to me. and a lifetime appointment for folks who think that way is not too good. >> have the judges in texas matched that model. >> absolutely. i have put great justices and six of the nine i believe on the texas supreme court. they have to run for office and we have had openings.
but those justices have been strict constructionist when it comes to making decision yimpt am proud of those men and women. >> governor what is preferable to you. overturns roe versus wade and returning the to the state. >> until you get the constitutional amendment passed. states we have parental consent and passed a son gram bill in the state of the texas this last time. we have protections for our individuals and until we pass that life amendment to the united states constitution. i want to protect life in the states. i am for both until we get the constitutional amendment in our u.s. constitution passed. >> other than overseeing questionable union elections, is there any reason that labor
law has to be dominated by the federal government or can it be left to the states? >> it can be left to the states as well that is the same as right to work laws. if people in states want to put their businesses in a competitive disadvantage and make people join unions that ought to be their call. >> would you except for overseeing union elections. would you be raid to get the federal government out of it and leave it to the states? >> absolutely. in >> mike: we are in the final minute. >> who is your favorite founding father and why? >> madison. because he was those federalist papers and the things that he put together, i mean, just an incredibly brilliant visionary individual. >> thank you. >> one final thing. we have all talked about
strict constructionist. for the lay men. out there help them understand what that means. >> lit is right there. i took it out of my paper. that is the constitution. read exactly what it said. don't read anything to it and don't add to it and don't add different clauses whether it is the commence clause and any other clause trying to change what the founding fathers were telling us. >> mike: thank you, governor. thank you, governor rick perry . we'll see governor perry in the end of the forum. you can post it at facebook.com/huckabee show . tweet. coming up minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann and texas congressman ron paul and minnesota governor mitt romney. romney. we'll be right back . ( phone ringing )
okay... uhh. the bad news, it's probably totaled. the good news is, you don't have to pay your deducble. with vanishing deductible from nationwide insurance, you got $100 off for every year of safe driving, so now your deductible is zero. the other good news ? i held on to your coffee. wow. ♪ nationwide is on your side ( laughing ) it's actually a pretty good day whenou consider. that's great.
you are a strong opponent of the health care because of the individual man date and went so far to say that the state cannot pass the individual man date. what is the constitutional basiss for that. >> it goes back to the liberty interest. there is reasonable disagreement on that issue. the overriding issue that i want the american people to realize if we do absolutely nothing obama care will be implement it will change the face of the country forever. it will cost trillions over the year and take away our
liberty and have potential collapse in medicare. and it is also for the first time in the history of the country it has taxpayer subsidized abortion . it is the social engineering playground to the left and has to be stopped. one theng i would like to mention in august of this year. president obama in a stunning lilf of power demonstrated how far a president can go with obama care. he ordered every private insurance company in the united states to now offer free of charge the morning after abortion pill . contraceptives and on and on. and this is it. what i want people to know. we have one chance to get rid of the bill in this election cycle. >> congresswoman virginia passed a statute that no could be force to buy health insurance and came thing? oklahoma, are you saying that is unnecessary and the states
didn't have the authority to do that anyway? >> no, you have the authority to pass the statute, but the federal government and obama care bill will trump the states statutes. you demonstrated that this is the opinion of the people in oklahoma and people of virginia. you don't want to come under that federal government restriction. but the problem is, it is the law of the land right now . if we do nothing, it will continue to steam roll every state that there is. i don't want to see socialized medicine the law of the land and fundmentally foundation of socialized medicine. >> congresswoman, thank you for being here. you pledged to deport all eight illegal aliens. that will cost 135 billion. how do you plan to pay for that and execute that plan? >> first of the all, i want
people to know that there is a cost already to having illegal aliens in the united states. it costs taxpayers 113 billion every year and 32 billion of that costs is absorbed by the states and that works out to a thousand dollars per american household. i agree, this is the thorniest and most difficult issue in dealing with imlegal immigration and what about deportation? i believe we should uphold the laws of the land. how do we pay for it? the american taxpayer. >> what is your plan for executing that? >> for executing. >> carrying out the plan. >> good question. enforcement in the border and also by the ice agents. right now the ice agents in the interior the country are tasked with enforcing the law, they are not enforcing them and we have sanctuary cities now where