the eastern europe without a permanent u.s. presence? secondly i want to ask you about the possibility of court battle over your actions in immigration could extend late in your term. do you think there is anything more you can do for the people who would have benefited from that program and who are now in limbo, and how do you view the possibility of your term ending without accomplishing your goals on immigration? >> on ukraine russia and minsk there is strong consensus that we need to keep pushing russia to abide by the terms the minsk agreement. need to encourage ukraine to keep its agreements under minsk. until that is completed sanctions remain in place. there was discussion about additional steps that we might
need to take if russia working through separatists doubled down on aggression inside of ukraine. those discussions are taking place at a technical level not yet at a political level because i think the first goal going into an european council meeting coming up is just rolling over the existing sanctions. but i think at a technical level we want to be prepared. our hope is that we don't have to take additional steps because the minsk agreement is--is met. and i want to give enormous credit to chancellor merkel who has shown stick-to-itiveness and patience in order to get that
done. ultimately this is going to be an issue for mr. putin. hehe has got to make a decision, does he continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrong-headed desire to recreate the glories of the soviet empire, or does he recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of others. the cost that the russian people are bearing are severe. that's being felt, it may not always be understood why they're suffering because of state media inside russia and propaganda
coming out of state media in russia and to russian speakers. but the truth of the matter is that the russian people would greatly benefit and ironically one of the rationals mr. putin provided for his incursions into ukraine was to protect the russian speakers there. well the russian speakers are the once bearing the brunt of the fighting. their economy has collapsed. their lives disrupted some have been displaced. they're suffering. the best way to stop suffer something if the minsk agreement is fully implemented. oh immigration. with respect to immigration obviously i'm frustrateed by a
district court ruling that is winding its way through the appeals process. we're being as aggressive as we can legally to first and foremost appeal that ruling, and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court. but obviously the centerpiece one of the key provisions for me was being able to get folks who are undocumented to go through a background check criminal background check, pay back taxes, and then have a legal status. that requires an entire administrative apparatus and us getting them to apply and come clean. i made a decision, which i think is the right one that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is
clarified. i am absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority, department of homeland security's legal authority. if you look at precedent if you look at traditional discretion that the executive branch possesses when it comes to applying immigration laws, i'm convinced what we're doing is lawful and our lawyers are convinced what we're doing is lawful. but the united states is a government of laws, and separations of powers, and even if it's an individual district court judge who is making this determination, we've going to through the process to challenge it. and until we get clarity there i don't want to bring people in, have them apply and then jump through a lot of hoops only to have it deferred and delayed further. there is one great way to solve
this problem and that would be congress going ahead and acting, which would oviate the need for executive actions. the majority of the american people still want to see that happen. i suspect it will be a major topic of the next presidential campaign. and so we will continue to push as hard as we can on all fronts to fix a broken immigration system administratively. we'll be prepared if and when we get the kind of ruling that i think we should have gotten in the first place by our authorities to go ahead and implement, but ultimately this was never fully replaced the need for congress to act. and my hope is that after a number of other issues that we're working on currently get cleared, that some quiet
conversations start back up again, particularly in the republican party about the short-sided approach that they're taking when it comes to immigration. okay. >> thank you mr. president. more than 6 million americans may soon lose health insurance if the supreme court does not back the latest challenge to the affordable care act. a growing number of states are looking for assistance as they face the prospect that their residents may lose federal insurance subsidies and the insurance market could collapse. yet, the administration has given little to no guidance of how to prepare. what do you tell state leaders that half the country may be thrown into chaos? >> what i can tell state leaders is that under well-established precedent there is no reason why
the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case. it has been well documented in a those who passed this legislation never intended for folks who were going through the federal exchange not to have their citizens get subsidyies. that's not just the opinion of me. that's not just the opinion of democrats. that's the opinion of republicans who worked on the legislation. the record makes it clear. and under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed not just by liberal democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some
on the current supreme court you establish the statute on the intent and meaning and over all structure of the statute provides for. so this should be an easy case. frankly, it probably shouldn't have even been taken up. since we're going to get a ruling pretty quick i think its important for us to go ahead and assume that the supreme court will do what most legal scholars who have looked at this would expect them to do. but, look, i've said before and i will repeat again. if in fact, you have a contorted reading of the statute that says federal run exchanges don't provide subsidies for folks who
participating in those exchanges, then that throws off how that exchange operates. it means that millions of people who are obtaining insurance currently with subsidies suddenly aren't getting those subsidies. many can't afford it. they pull out. the subsidiesthe assumptions that the insurance companies made are now thrown out of the window. it will not only hurt those in the exchanges but those insurance markets in those states generally. it's a bad idea. it's not something that should be done based on a twisted twisted interpretation of four words, as we were reminded repeatedly a couple thousand page legislation.
what's more, the thing is working. what is bizarre about this whole thing we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obamacare because none of them came to pass. yet 16 million people have got gotten health insurance. and the overwhelming majority are satisfied with health insurance. it has not had an as an adverse effect on those who had insurance. now they won't be prevented to get insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, and they have more protections two the insurance they do have. the costs have come in substantially lower than even our estimates about how much it would cost. healthcare inflation over all has continued to be at some of the lowest levels in 50 years. none of the predictions about how this wouldn't work have come to pass. and so i'm a optimistic that
the supreme court will play it straight when it comes to an interpretation. b, i should mention that if it didn't congress could fix this whole thing with an one sentence provision. but i'm not going to go into a long speculation anticipating disaster. >> you're a plan ahead kind of guy. why not have a plan b. >> i just want to make sure that everybody understands that you have a model where all the pieces connect and there are whole bunch of scenarios not just in relation to healthcare,
but all kinds of stuff that i do if somebody does something that doesn't make any sense then it's hard to fix. and this would be hard to fix. fortunately, there is no reason to have to do it. it doesn't need fixing. all right. thank you very much. thank you people of germany and bavaria. you were wonderful hosts. >> president obama saying that the g-7 summit that the allies are united when it comes to continuing sanctions down on russia for its involvement in ukraine and they stand to implement additional sanctions. that's one of the headlines out of this press conference. also at the agenda at the meeting the world's most postal democracies the president met with iraqi prime minister hyder hyder al abadi on the
sidelines. let's meet with mike viqueira, our senior correspondent. mike good morning to you. not a lot of concrete details. but let's start with isil and what the president had to say about u.s. cooperation with the iraqis when it comes to combating this group? >> you know, i thought it was remarkable nonetheless notwithstanding the fact that there were not any concrete details about plans going forward. there was a review under way with the pentagon to step up the training of iraqi forces. this is something that the president identified as a short coming with the iraqi forces. he said in his paradigm that those who were trained by the united states do well on the battlefield. those who are not trained by the united states suffer from low morale and we have seen the consequences in ramadi where the president's own secretary of defense said that they did not show the will to fight the iraqi forces as they evacuated that city after a long siege against isil forces.
the president left it open, there are 3,000 troops largely termed advisers at this point. that's controversial in its own right. now the president leaving the door open to more american advisers but noting there is a problem, there aren't enough recruits into the iraqi army even if they send more trainers there. the president raising the specter of another sunni awakening. he cited the success in 2006 and 2007 in anbar province and bringing the sunnies in. but it's well documented there is significant mistrust between the sunni and the central government in iraq. the president raising a number of possibilities whether any of this can become a reality training more iraqi forces to take up the fight against isil, stop be the flow of foreign fighters. the president citing many forces taken off the battlefield, in other words killed, in the ongoing coalition airstrikes, but says that they're being
replenished at a tremendous rate. the president is not pointing a rosy pick in iraq at this point. clearly there is a lot of work to be done. >> i have been told that this is actually the quote that the president said. we do not yet have a complete strategy when it comes to isil. i believe he said that during the question and answer session. do you my think he meant to say that? >> well, yes. >> coming under attack by hawks in congress that the u.s. is not taking a strong enough position no supporting iraq. >> you know, i think you're absolutely right from a rhetorical or political perspective that is going to be seized upon. the president made a similar statement last year in a similar situation in iraq and same thing happened in terms of political dynamics here. whatever the president said, it's not enough for his critics in congress, john mccain and presidential hopeful lindsey graham his wing man in
congress, 10,000 is a number specifically mentioned by graham. but what the president was referring to was the pentagon review in process about this training program and exactly how many more american advisers and trainers are going to be needed in iraq in order to get the iraqi army to a place where it can effectively play back against isil. again, i thought it was remarkable that the president cited a gap in recruiting into the iraqi army by the iraqi government. so a number of very big obstacles in the way here. incidentally we've received reports that the oil refinery town of beiji has been taken back. those are unconfirmed reports according to the white house but some glimmer of good news by the president. >> i want to talk about ukraine because there were some lines that came out of the discussions on ukraine where merkel. it sounds like what the president was in essence saying was that the u.s. is on the same page with europe when it comes to continuing sanctions.
but to be clear we did not hear an announcement of new sanctions at this point. >> no, but they're rattling that saber nonetheless, that there could be more sanctions if vladimir putin does not reverse course. the president came to this resort outside of the bavarian city of munich for the g-7 but he had a very big mission. that was to keep the european allies on the same page with the united states, four square and united against what they believe to be vladimir putin's aggression in annexing crimea, and we've seen a flare-up in fighting after a lull in eastern ukraine and the western leaders lay the responsibility of that fighting at the feet of vladimir putin. vladimir putin is trying to wait out europeans. he thinks that the sanctions imposed last year against individuals and entities is going to crumble that unity on
the part of the west is going to crumble, so the president trying to keep the western nations involved, they came out with an unified statement coming out of the g 7 and he mentioned the sorry state of the russian economy, the low value of the ruble on down the line to the sanctions imposed saying that vladimir putin will have to make a choice between joining the community of nations and the president's dream of some how recreating past glories of the soviet empire. >> speaking of the ruble, we should state that the president clarified a comment reported in the french press saying something that the dollar was too strong, saying he does not comment on the value of the dollar. i want to bring in michael shure, the president was asked several questions about key parts of his legacy including on immigration and the affordable care act.
before we get to those domestic issues he was also asked about fast-track authority that is the authority that congress has to give to the president or decide building to give the president so that he can approve these major trade deals which include the ttp we've been talking about. how much has the president staked on this piece of legislation when it comes to his legacy? >> well, you know, stephanie he staked a lot both on the legislation and on his political standing. because in order to get this done it's going to require a lot of democrats to side with the republicans, the president himself, the white house siding with the republicans. in essence you're staking a lot whenever you have to do that. the two leaders of this party in congress nancy pelosi have not said which way they're going to vote on this fast-track legislation. it is risky. he sounded confident this morning in germany that that was going to pass, and once it passes he'll be able to bring that to the table when he does
these international negotiations but also in terms of talking--this is an economic summit at it's very core, in terms of talking economics with leaders of other nations he would like to have that in his back pocket. >> it's not really especially since this is an issue certainly among core democrats that support generally jobs and the afl/cio, and they have come out strongly against this. is that grounded in reality that confidence that he expressed today? >> when you look at the numbers and listen to the people who are whipping these votes in congress yes it is grounded in reality. they have 217 votes and they would like more votes they don't want one democrat having cast these methodical deciding votes on something like this. it is real. it is very close. the labor unions are in there now saying listen, and the way that the nra often does, if you're not with us on this, we're going to campaign against you. we're not going to support you.
so the labor unions are coming very hard. omnibarra, a congressman in california has seen as against him, so it's really coming to his backyard. >> as if the international challenges were not great enough how normal is it for a lame duck president to be facing the kind of legal challenges to key parts of his term, including on the aca the affordable care act and the immigration where his executive action is not working because the district court has said you cannot do this. you cannot allow 5 million immigrants to have deferred action and not be deported. how normal is that for for a president to be facing this degree of legal challenges late in his term. >> whether it's normal or not you have a very passionate opposition to the president, who are saying, listen, in order to get this done you have to pass through these hoops that we've set up.
one of those hoops is the supreme court. they're going there. the president did sound very confident today stephanie that the court a, shouldn't have taken the case on the affordable care act. but he also said that because legal precedence that it's going to pass. whether it's normal is not important. if it's happening when you take these actions as a president this is what you risk. >> michael shure from los angeles, and our other michael, mike viqueira our white house correspondent, thank you, gentlemen. while the president was speaking, the supreme court handed down a ruling. we'll be right back to give you the latest details on that. >> we were drugged water boarded, dogs they throw at you the whole book. >> one of the youngest ever held at guantanamo bay >> a guy would go for a few days you'd hear screaming
decision and who it affects. >> stephanie basically for a little boy and other people coming after him who have dual assists their passport will say jerusalem and not israel. that's been a long-standing policy of the u.s. state department. when israel was founded in 1948 the u.s. policy was to not recognize jerusalem as being part of any sovereign country unless a middle east peace resolution has come about. that has been longstanding way of doing business. although, congress tried to push back on that. in 2002 congress and a pro-israel bloc passed a law saying that passports could list israel. that goes against the long-standing policy of the obama administration, the administration of george w.
bush. they said that would not fly. they said that this would not an problem. there would be foreign policy and difference in passports for those who are jewish said that that did not make sense and you have to look at the history and context. this is about international boundaries and about presidential power and the justices today decided with presidential power and against congressional power. >> libby could this affect the potential for any peace talks in the region? >> well, i'll tell how it effects. it effects one family who has been fighting this all the way and a 12-year-old who was born in 2002 just as this law came down from congress. so the family, of course, will be upset by this ruling. but it may be would have been more surprising if the court had gone with the congressional way of seeing things that would have put jerusalem into the hands of israel. >> that probably would have affected any potential peace
talks, which are not happening. libby casey for us in washington. thank you. thanks for watching al jazeera america. i'm stephanie sy. more news coming up in just a moment. >> al jazeera's investigative unit has tonight's exclusive report. >> stories that have impact. that make a difference. that open your world. >> this... is what we do. >> america tonight. tuesday through friday 10:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america.
>> we've been driving for miles into what should be pristine rain forrest. >> devastated by gold mining... >> gold that may have come at the price of human rights, pristine forests and clean water. >> indigenous communities under threat. >> this not a peruvian problem this is a world problem. >> and the world wide campaign to clean up dirty gold. >> i really didn't want a symbol of love between me and my husband to be associated with such atrocities only on al jazeera america >> challenge the way you look at the world. >> talking about big subjects. >> telling human stories. >> fraud, waste and abuse. >> we've spent 110
billion dollars. >> this is their dirty little secret. >> from al jazeera's headquarters in doha this is the news hour. coming up in the next 60 minutes. turkey's ruling party suffers a stunning setback at the ballot box and now faces the grueling task of building a coalition. president barack obama said that they need to speed up its training of forces battling isil. italy has refused to take in any more migrants but