This is a rush transcript from “Your World,” November 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: You’re looking live at the White House.
Moments from now, the president is expected to address the issue of illegal immigration and border security, just as we’re hearing now of a fourth — that’s right — a fourth caravan of migrants making its way to the southern border.
All this as the president is pushing to end birthright citizenship. Now, critics say he cannot do that under the 14th Amendment. But a constitutional law professor is here to say, not so fast.
Welcome, everybody. Glad to have you. I’m Neil Cavuto.
I would like to thank my buddy Charles Payne for filling in so ably — in fact, too ably — when I was out.
Meanwhile, now to this immigration fight.
We have got John Roberts at the White House on what we can expect to hear from the president of the United States — John.
JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil you back so soon? I thought you would have taken the rest of the week off.
CAVUTO: Apparently, there was something going on with the market. I was – – but anyway, go ahead.
ROBERTS: So, the president will be giving us an update on where we stand on the border with immigration at 4:15, as he’s on his way out to Columbia, Missouri, for a big rally tonight
The president will be talking about the deployment of troops on the border. And then he will talk in broad brushstrokes about something that we have been talking about here on FOX News for the last few days. And that is some changes to the process of claiming asylum in the United States.
At present, if you go to a port of entry, you can claim asylum. If you cross the border illegally, and you’re apprehended by the Border Patrol, you can claim asylum, but the White House wants to change that, so that asylum claims could only be made at a port of entry.
So if you’re coming across the border between the United States and Mexico, you would have to claim asylum at a port of entry. People who entered illegally across the Rio Grande or across the desert in Arizona or New Mexico wouldn’t be able to claim asylum. They would remain in custody while their cases were adjudicated, and then they would be sent back to either their country of origin or, through a deal that is under negotiation with Mexico, maybe be able to be removed directly to Mexico.
So the president will only talk again in generalities about this, because the White House still has not worked out the legal framework for how to do this. But I’m told, Neil, it would be a combination of authorities by the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and the presidential powers to protect the country under Article 2 of the Constitution.
And it’s likely we won’t hear about the exact plans for a number of days. But the president really trying to keep immigration high up on the radar screen in terms of election issues. In many states across the country, health care is the number one issue, immigration further down the list, though still important, but the president putting that front and center.
He did it last night at a rally outside Fort Myers, and he’s going to do it again tonight in Missouri, and then in Indiana and West Virginia and every other battleground state between now and Tuesday — Neil.
CAVUTO: All right John, thank you very much.
ROBERTS: You bet.
CAVUTO: Now to the border, where U.S. troops are starting to arrive already, the president saying up to 15,000 of them could be deployed.
Rick Leventhal in El Paso, Texas, with the latest.
RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil, we’re outside the gates of Fort Bliss, one of several military installations in Texas, Arizona and California, serving as logistic and support hubs for those thousands of troops being deployed, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, to support the bureau — the — excuse me — Customs and Border Protection agents who will be deployed along the southern border, in some cases in very remote locations.
And some of those thousands have already arrived. Many more of those military troops are on the way now. And they include aviation brigades, combat support battalions, medical companies, military police, logistics teams, and lots of engineering assets to set up lights and build fencing and barriers and temporary housing, not for the migrants, but for the troops and the agents tasked with keeping the caravans out.
And it sounds like the soldiers who are headed this way are pretty pumped about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SGT. THOMAS OLESON, U.S. ARMY: I would just like to say that it’s actually a really big honor that the Army has chosen us to come here and spearhead this whole operation.
PVT. 2ND CLASS ROBERT MARSCHEWSKI, U.S. ARMY: Very excited. This is just another way to support my country and do what needs — and do what needs to be done.
As a combat engineer, we are very highly trained in obstacles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEVENTHAL: There are a total of four caravans now, some with hundreds of migrants, others with thousands. And authorities have suggested that some of the migrants have already been involved in violent confrontations with Mexican police and could be more violent than others in years past.
At their current pace, though, Neil, it will still be weeks before they reach the southern border with the U.S., if they do at all.
CAVUTO: All right, Rick, thank you very much, Rick Leventhal.
Now, what appears to be getting lost in this entire debate is, well, who’s here legally and who is here illegally? So we tend to focus on illegal immigrants and not the legal ones who are already here. Is this an issue that could be a big one five days out?
Vince Coglianese is with The Daily Caller.
Vince, what is interesting about this is that better than 1.3 million of people are processed with green cards and ultimate citizenship in this country year in and year out, through this president, through a Democratic president, Republican presidents.
And you would think right now in this environment, it just stopped, we shut down our borders, we shut down taking people in from all over the world, when, in fact, we have been — we have been actually building up the number of immigrants we’re getting, just, again, the legal immigrants we have been getting. Lost in the sauce.
VINCE COGLIANESE, THE DAILY CALLER: Right.
Well, there’s a reason it’s lost in the sauce, is because you have a lot of people for political reasons who are trying to conflate the two.
Illegal immigration and legal immigration are, of course, completely distinct categories. But you often hear liberal opponents of the president conflating the two things.
For instance, you commonly hear, well, immigrants commit fewer crimes the native-born Americans. And that number is constantly a conflation of both illegal and legal immigrants. It’s a sleight of hand. It’s dishonest, and it’s meant to protect the status quo. And it shouldn’t be done.
Ask any lawyer legal immigrant about the status of illegal immigration in the country, it’s hard to find more fervent opponents to the state of our immigration system right now and how illegal immigrants get across the border. It’s an interesting dynamic that very few in the press are even willing to talk about. I’m glad you are.
CAVUTO: You know, what’s interesting about it is that, whatever you think of what the president’s trying to do by sending troops to the border, and whether that could agitate things or not, we are still taking in record numbers of people from all over the world, either through green card processing, eventual citizenship.
So you get the impression that whatever is happening with caravans, which is a recent phenomena, by the way, no one is coming into this country, and that gets little press attention, to your point.
But I’m wondering, the danger with that, then, is we blur legal with illegal immigration. That’s a big no-no.
COGLIANESE: It’s a tremendous danger and it shouldn’t be done. And the president of the United States has shown no appetite to changing legal immigration, in the sense that he wants to get rid of it.
Now, does he want to change it? Yes, he does. I mean, he’s talked about how he wants it to be a merit-based system coming into the United States. He thinks the idea that we have a diversity visa lottery and chain migration, basically forms of migration where we don’t actually vet people based on what they contribute to the country, that needs to be changed.
But is he saying we need to get rid of immigration? No. But that’s not what you’re going to hear from his opponents, who are constantly saying that he’s anti-immigrant. They couldn’t be farther from the truth, because the facts are really obvious here. Millions come in legally every year.
COGLIANESE: And the president obviously is OK with that.
CAVUTO: And what worries me the most about that is we got a false narrative set up here that — then there’s the racist charge and all of that — again, when so many from so many parts of the world are coming in, and it loses sight of that and makes it appear that the United States…
CAVUTO: … has shut down to accept immigrants, when, in fact, that has never been the case, not only through this president, but his predecessor, through his predecessor, and on and on back we go.
We are still netting gains of excess of a million foreigners coming into this country…
CAVUTO: … from all over the Earth.
COGLIANESE: And Americans deserve a chance to have an opportunity to assess that system and say, OK, is it good for us and how many should actually come into the country?
Very few people want to even have that conversation. Instead, we get mud slung at everybody about how somebody is anti-immigrant or somebody is not pro-immigrant enough. And that, of course, isn’t the stakes of the debate. That’s emotional. That doesn’t have anything to do with reason. It doesn’t have anything to do with facts.
And let me say one thing on these illegal immigrants. The idea that a caravan is moving towards the United States, how many people actually make it to the border, who knows? But know this. That is a symbol of the illegal immigration problem.
The fact that troops are going to the border, it’s not for one caravan. Last — in September, 17,000 people were captured by the Border Patrol trying to get into the United States. There are thousands of people every month trying to get into the United States. And something needs to be done in order to fix that problem. It’s not good for the immigrants and it’s not good for America.
CAVUTO: And on the legal immigration side, it makes a mockery of their process to go through…
COGLIANESE: Yes, it does.
CAVUTO: … the process, and to go through the process of getting a green card, getting your family on board as well, something the president will no doubt address.
This other issue is going to be coming up with the 14th Amendment and whether he has the right to go about doing what he wants to do, and just go back to this notion that just because you’re born here doesn’t automatically mean you’re a citizen here.
That’s a tough uphill fight. We’re going to be raising that with a professor, but he runs into a buzz saw of criticism on both sides from that.
COGLIANESE: A little bit, yes, he does.
But I think if you just look at it from the perspective of, is this fair, I think there’s a huge open debate within the United States of America among its citizens about the idea that illegal immigrant arrives in the country, has a child, and that kid instantly becomes a U.S. citizen, maybe even leaves the country and never wants steps foot on American soil, until they return when they’re 18 years old.
That’s not a system that makes sense. And that’s a system that probably needs to get a fix. And if it just means making sure illegal immigration is not happening, then that will be a fix I think that, ultimately, the president satisfied by.
CAVUTO: Well put. Vince, thank you very, very much.
We do have a constitutional expert, a professor on this, Hillsdale College constitutional studies professor Matthews Spalding. He wrote a very fascinating piece here exploring what the president wants to do here, essentially arguing that the 14th Amendment isn’t as black and white as it would appear, noting that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — crucial words, according to the pressure — to the professor — “are citizens of the United States, wherein they reside.”
Professor, good to have you.
You argue that that leaves some room for interpretation, at a minimum, right?
MATTHEW SPALDING, PROFESSOR, HILLSDALE COLLEGE: It leaves a lot of room.
And, as matter of fact, that clause, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was added precisely to clarify. We don’t put words in the Constitution, they’re not there with no meaning.
So the words “subject to their jurisdiction,” where there is a debate, does that mean ordinary laws, you abide by traffic rules when you’re here, or does it mean, which is what they said and what the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate said, it means political allegiance, you’re not subject to anybody else in terms of your allegiance?
It implies something more. The idea that being born here leads to citizenship, the place, is not consistent with the ideas of consent and the rule law in the context of the United States.
The idea of inheriting one’s citizenship from one’s parents stemming from their political allegiance is what is more important. Indeed, that’s the dominant view of most countries in the developed world, all the countries in Europe, which we oftentimes like to emulate.
CAVUTO: Yes, explore that, all the countries in Europe, because what they have is, they don’t look at as a right of soil, in other words, where you were born…
CAVUTO: … but the bloodline, the right of blood, that that is the distinction. Could you explain that distinction?
SPALDING: What they mean by right of blood is not that you’re dramatic or Italian.
What they mean is, it’s from parent to child. That is, before the child is capable of making the decision of whom they want to be allegiance to, they’re not yet able to do so, they make it based on their parents. So if their parents are Italian, the child’s Italian. If the parent is American, the children are Italian.
So when John McCain is born in the Panama Canal zone to American parents…
SPALDING: … he’s still an American because of his parents. That’s what’s consistent with the principles of the American founding.
And I think that’s pretty clearly what was intended by the writers of the 14th Amendment. Even the courts, the Supreme Court, who upheld this understanding several occasions, when they ruled in 1898, they were only dealing with the question of permanent residents.
They were not dealing with people that are here on a weekend as a temporary visitor, and not at all dealing with people that were here not legally in the United States. This idea is something that just kind of came about and was assumed as we went forward. But there’s no clear Supreme Court decision this, and the law doesn’t say this, the laws of Congress, which is precisely why the president, for perfectly reasonable reasons, should issue executive order to clarify, so that those that are under him, his agents, the agencies, actors, do not do something that is inconsistent with clear — clear — clear Supreme Court mandate or the letter of the law passed by Congress.
Without that, he should make sure they’re not doing something wrong.
CAVUTO: Just to help me here — and we’re waiting for the president to clarify this at the White House right now.
But when President Obama took executive action to shield hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants from deportation, this president is using the same argument to do what he’s doing.
Are they — are they related?
SPALDING: Good point, but very different things.
What’s the job of the executive, according to the Constitution? It’s to faithfully execute the laws under which they are operating. In the case of President Obama, he wanted to do something that Congress specifically didn’t do, indeed, they chose not to do it, and he wanted to do it anyway. He was going contrary to law.
In this case, there isn’t law. The Congress has laws on who becomes a citizen. But in the particular here, all they do is say subject to the jurisdiction of. It leaves the 14th Amendment question open.
The court has not clearly said what to do with someone who’s here illegally or temporarily. This is exactly the case in which the executive, who’s responsible for executing the law, should issue a executive order clarifying how to execute the law, consistent with the law.
So he’s not doing something that’s — that’s against something that is there. The problem is, it’s not clear. There’s no clarity in the law, which I think is probably the better way to solve this problem.
And, in the meantime, he should make sure that his own administration is not doing something, perhaps giving away citizenship, when they ought not to, according to the rules that Congress has established.
CAVUTO: So, Professor, help me with this.
I mean, I have talked to a number of legal scholars who say, I mean, no one has challenged the veracity of the 14th Amendment to accept those born in this country to eventually be citizens of this country, that you could come back and counter, well, our founders never would have envisioned the type of situation we have today, where many illegals come in, have a child, that child instantly becomes a citizen. They themselves, by extension, ultimately get to stay here, that that would have never been envisioned by our forefathers.
Be that as it may, the Constitution stands, and they say, it has never, ever been picked apart to be denied. And you say?
SPALDING: Well, I see your point, but we have to understand that the Constitution is actually written for future circumstances as well.
It is very clear that, although the immigration laws we have today are much more complicated, the challenges that we ever much more complicated, the 14th Amendment comes along after the Civil War, mainly to do with freed slaves.
Nevertheless, they wanted a citizenship clause, and they wanted to make sure that it included the right parameters. And they added this phrase, “subject to this jurisdiction of,” and told us what it meant, precisely because we do know they didn’t want to give away citizenship.
CAVUTO: All right, just to be clear — I’m sorry — you are a genius, and I am not.
I just want to be clear.
CAVUTO: This came around 1866, so right at the Civil War.
SPALDING: That’s right.
CAVUTO: It was geared to help those former slaves.
SPALDING: Who were here, who were here, and had no jurisdiction.
CAVUTO: Who were here already. And that’s a very big distinction, right?
SPALDING: That’s an extremely large distinction.
But, in doing so, they also knew that whatever definition they put out there would apply to everyone else. That’s precisely why saying that you’re born and naturalized isn’t sufficient. They came back and added this other clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” precisely to get out of that loophole, which is now playing out, I think, unfortunately, with people who come here sometimes on a weekend to have a have a child to give them citizenship that they might not even take advantage of until years later, when they want to get the benefits.
That makes a mockery of this whole notion that citizenship means something in this country, and that naturalization means something, which as someone who actually supports the idea of immigration and immigrants becoming Americans — it’s what’s beautiful about this country — that belittles it by making it something small over which we are, the American people, have no consent, which is to say no ability to control.
It takes it out of our hands. That makes immigration something less than it ought to be and historically what it has been. And it’s no longer under our control. That’s why he’s hit on precisely the right issue. And I think, under the circumstances, he — he’s pointed out a loophole, if you will, where the courts have not clearly said something, and the Congress has not further clarified.
He’s driving this wedge in there and driving both his friends and his critics back to the Constitution, which is a great thing, for which I’m thankful. But that means there will be litigation and there will probably be congressional legislation. Lindsey Graham has already introduced legislation.
And that’s precisely the kind of constitutional debate we should be having, because behind here has nothing to do with disliking these immigrants or that immigrants. It’s — behind it is this question, what does it mean to be a citizen of the United States? How should we approach that question, or what are the rules by which you do that, how we’re fair to people that want to go through this naturalization process?
And I think this question over time has become something it was never intended to become by both sides, by the courts or Congress.
CAVUTO: And we should point out, in the example of your — that you mention your column and discuss, that this was based on those in Europe in a situation, let’s say, like this. At least one of the parents came from that designated country.
SPALDING: That’s right.
Or, in the case of myself, we have two beautiful adopted children. And the law was changed in the 1990s such that, when you adopted children in a foreign country and brought them back into the United States, they automatically became U.S. citizens.
Congress in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is given the power to carry out, to enforce the 14th Amendment, which means that it’s Congress’ responsibility to determine who becomes a citizen here.
CAVUTO: Very good point.
SPALDING: And what the — what President Trump, I think, wants to do is kind of fill that gap, because Congress has not said, in this case, people who are here illegally or temporarily can be citizens.
That’s not what the court said. He’s just pointing out, I think, what is an obvious thing when you study it, and wanting to issue an executive order to clarify, what do we do in those circumstances?
CAVUTO: All right, Professor, thank you very, very much.
The president of the United States will be addressing this entire issue here again. What are the bounds and the limitations here when you go ahead and say that you want to reconsider this?
CAVUTO: All right, the president making it very clear in a sweeping series of remarks here that these caravans, up to four right now, that are coming to our border, he says they’re not welcome here, they’re not legitimate asylum seekers, these caravans are illegal, they are illegal.
He says this catch-and-release program ends. He’s saying that the typical behavior we have had in the past to take those in and then make a court date for them, they never return for the court date, that will end. It will just be catch right now. There will be no release.
Now, analysis continues now on Fox News Channel, on cable and satellite, more later on your local Fox News station.
I’m Neil Cavuto, Fox News in New York.
All right, to the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, Lee Miringoff, on this.
What is the impact going to be, Lee, a few days out of the midterms? The president is standing his ground here, says that there is no reason to entertain allowing these caravans into this country. They will have the asylum process and will go through that, but they will not be allowed to be released into this country. What do you think?
LEE MIRINGOFF, DIRECTOR, MARIST INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC OPINION: No, I think look, it is very clearly, to me — anyway — not to sound too cynical about this — but this was an attempt to reset the agenda.
The last week was not a good one for the White House. And there were a lot of — you don’t like to talk about the shooting in Pittsburgh or the bombs that were sent in political partisan terms, but, right now, he’s trying to get it back on his message.
And this is the same president who comes down the escalator when he announced a candidacy and talks about Mexico. Now we have him as president, and he’s come up with the policy which is going to be very controversial, certainly.
It belies the fact that there were no comprehensive laws passed in the last two years.
CAVUTO: But, Lee, you can think about it, that whatever — both parties that are blamed for getting us to this stage.
CAVUTO: But the president seems to be betting that Americans are, by and large, sick of this. He pointed out that legal immigration has continued, over a million who got their green cards and/or final American citizenship, that he’s addressing illegal here and these caravan.
There’s a right way to go about it and a wrong way to go about it.
Do you think, whatever your personal views on this stuff, that that will resonate at the polls, or will it just be noise?
MIRINGOFF: I think it’s all — no, no, I don’t think it’s noise.
I think he’s talking to his base again. I think he’s getting a revved-up based. We’re looking at a — voters right now in America who are — first of all, are already voting in record-breaking numbers for the early vote.
CAVUTO: All right.
MIRINGOFF: And then what we’re talking about is the both Democratic base being mobilized, the Republican base being mobilized…
MIRINGOFF: … and then watching the independents and seeing which way they ultimately go.
But the language in this, I mean, it — if — I would be more comfortable if he separated out the policy he’s advocating from the elections.
And yet I was counting. The word Democrat was five times. He ends up talking about the governor’s race in Georgia and all the places he’s going around the country.
CAVUTO: Well, he was asked about that, about Oprah campaigning on her behalf.
CAVUTO: But you’re right, Lee. There’s a lot at stake here.
I apologize for the truncated time, with the president.
MIRINGOFF: No, that’s fine.
CAVUTO: Lee, it’s always a pleasure having you take the time with us.
CAVUTO: Do want to alert you to what’s happened at the corner of Wall and Broad today, the first day of November, after a rocky October, stocks up, the Dow up about 265 points. A lot of technology stocks were up.
Having said that, though, Apple after the bell out with earnings that handily beat the Street. The fact of the matter — and this is a conundrum with Apple — it sold only 46.8 million iPhones. Never mind it made oodles of profit on them, $793 a pop, vs. the expected 750 bucks a pop.
That’s weighing on Apple stock after the bell, so maybe some tough times for technology stocks going forward tomorrow.
Let’s get a read on what individual investors are thinking right now as we head into a month that maybe, they hope, will be friendlier than October.
TD Ameritrade CEO Tim Hockey here on that.
Tim, thank you. Good — good to see you.
TIM HOCKEY, CEO, TD AMERITRADE: Good to see you too, Neil.
CAVUTO: Well, we started out better than we had in October. Is October behind us? Have we settled all this out, or what?
HOCKEY: Well, who knows.
CAVUTO: Yes, really.
HOCKEY: I — all I do know is that clearly there’s a lot of retail engagement.
The October ups and downs were what I would have thought would have occurred this late in the cycle, certainly a lot more volatility than we have seen in, arguably, years, certainly for a protracted period.
But November certainly seems to be starting out strong.
CAVUTO: What drove it?
I know the concern about interest rates getting a little higher, where you can compete for a return on that — on your investment with the full safety of Uncle Sam in that case. But is there something bigger at play we’re missing? What do you think?
HOCKEY: I don’t think so.
I think it’s probably the maturity of where we are in the cycle. It’s a series of what we just talked about, along with global trade issues, some of these same issues that have been percolating along.
As you know, there’s a very fine line between the tipping point between fear and greed. And markets do succumb to that.
CAVUTO: Right. Right.
Well, you are big in the retail community. Average folks relate to you. They relate to TD Ameritrade. They’re America, really.
And I’m wondering, given the fact that we were going up, up, up almost uninterrupted, without so much as a pause, that now they’re thinking, wow, I can lose my shirt here, or are they feeling that cooler heads have prevailed?
HOCKEY: Well, what we’re seeing is actually interesting.
And we have two pieces to our business. We have our retail business, which is the average, as you say, American investor. But we also have a custodial business or institutional business for our RIA clients.
What’s interesting is, we’re finding our retail clients are actually buying into these dips. They’re seeing this as an opportunity to be a net buy position.
CAVUTO: Is that right?
HOCKEY: Whereas the institutional clients are actually selling. They’re taking a little bit of money off the table.
CAVUTO: Usually, the rule of thumb is, the institutional guys are the ones who have the smart strategy, the retail guys not so much. Usually, that’s not proven out historically, but your thoughts?
HOCKEY: Right, but the difference here is that the — the RIAs are taking care of clients that themselves might not feel too confident in the market…
HOCKEY: … whereas our average retail investor, the self-directed investor, they are actually quite confident in their own ability to read the market. And they actually tend to be savvy investors.
CAVUTO: You know, Tim, what I noticed, that things were going hunky-dory today, we were up a little bit, but then we got news via presidential tweet that he and the Chinese leader talked very favorably on trade, maybe setting up high expectations that maybe this could be resolved.
Stocks shot up over 200 points, ended up over 200 points. Trade does seem to dictate this market. The better it looks for a deal, the better it looks for stocks, the worse, the worse.
What do you think?
HOCKEY: Absolutely true.
I think it’s one of those things that you can’t — probably can’t find any topic that economists generally agree on as strongly as, trade is good for the world. And so, therefore, markets react to that.
So, if it looks like trade is going — global trade is going to be better, as opposed to be disrupted, then, generally, I think markets reflect that sentiment.
CAVUTO: You know, markets are preparing for the House switching party control. That seems to be a consensus. Others will argue that.
The president is saying that’s why the markets have been so volatile, fearing a Democratic House.
I think that’s been baked into the cake for a while, but what do you think?
HOCKEY: I have no idea on the political swings of things.
I tend to think it’s much more fundamental to that. We are in — long in tooth in a bull market. We do have some very large macro issues.
CAVUTO: But there is no bear market to worry about here, in your eyes?
HOCKEY: Who knows. I’m not a market prognosticator.
But I do know that, if you just look back, instead of looking forward, this is a very, very mature cycle. And what you do see at the end of some cycles are this type of higher volatility.
One of the interesting things for us as a firm…
CAVUTO: By that, you mean we have had a record long nine-plus-year bull market. We’re due.
HOCKEY: Who knows if we’re due. This is one of the longest in history, as you know.
And so the question is, if history repeats itself, it’s likely to turn the cycle at some point, which is why we spend a lot of time trying to educate our clients, because many of our clients have not actually invested in a bear market cycle.
CAVUTO: But they have not cashed out? They are not all of a sudden cashing out?
HOCKEY: They certainly have not cashed out. They certainly have not.
CAVUTO: All right, Tim Hockey, the Ameritrade president and CEO.
Again, just to review, virtually all sectors within the S&P 500 were moving up today, interest rates relatively stable today. So, the same thing that was sort of gnawing at markets last week eased a little on this first trading day of November.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that will always be the case. We got a big jobs report out tomorrow that could have a lot to say about the direction of the economy and still more earnings, seven out of 10 of which have handily beaten estimates.
That is the wind at this market’s back, and, the bulls hope, will continue to be.
That will do it here.
“The Five” is now.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.