>> He's a Conservative senator from Texas, known for his sharp rhetoric and past run-ins with Donald Trump.

This week on "Firing Line."

The son of a Cuban immigrant, Senator Ted Cruz burst onto the national stage after his long-shot, grassroots campaign led him to the Senate in 2012.

>> We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America.

>> A Tea Party darling staunchly opposed to federal spending and not afraid to pull off a stunt like this.

>> "Do you like green eggs and ham?

I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.

I do not like green eggs and ham."

>> Cruz's 2016 presidential bid faltered when another candidate running as a Washington outsider got the better of him.

>> Lyin' Ted.

Lyin'.

He's an anchor baby.

Ted Cruz is an anchor baby.

It sure sounds like Shakespeare, right?

This is like -- Everything's always Shakespeare, even if he's making a simple statement.

"I am the only one..." >> Cruz and President Trump have made their peace... >> Beautiful Ted.

>> Beautiful.

>> He's Texas -- I call him Texas Ted.

>> ...and are now closely aligned on the President's agenda.

>> The President is fighting to do what the American people want, which is secure the border, build the wall, and keep our country safe.

>> In a week marked by President Trump's racially charged language... >> I look at Omar.

I hear the way she talks about Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda has killed many Americans.

She said you can hold your chest out.

>> Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

>> What does Senator Ted Cruz say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Senator Ted Cruz, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Margaret, great to be with you.

>> You are now in your second term as a senator from the great state of Texas, and you're a former presidential candidate.

You also were a former solicitor general from the state of Texas.

And you rose to prominence initially amidst the Tea Party Conservative uprising during the presidency of Barack Obama.

You are a descendant of a Cuban.

You write very proudly and justifiably, I think, of the journey he took from Cuba to Canada and the great pains he took to become an American citizen.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> If someone told you to go back to where you came from, what would you say?

>> To be honest, it happens every day on Twitter.

>> People tell you to go back to where you come from?

So, how about if that person was the President of the United States?

>> Listen.

We live in sadly too coarse a world where everyone's rhetoric is overheated.

And everyone needs to ratchet it down.

But at the same time, that's probably not gonna happen.

>> So it feels like you're smoothing it over, like you don't believe the President of the United States has a special responsibility to set a tone of civility, a standard of civility for the country and for our rhetoric.

>> There are many things that President Trump says and tweets that I wish he didn't say and I wish he didn't tweet.

I don't have any control over that.

By the way, there are a lot of things the Democrats say and tweet that I wish they didn't say and I wish they didn't tweet.

I think we all should get back to a time when we treated each other with civility and some degree of respect.

And that doesn't mean you don't disagree.

I think we can have vigorous disagreements.

>> And that's what we try to do here at "Firing Line."

And it is relevant because it does pertain to policy, 'cause what the President says has a ripple effect.

President Trump tweeted on Sunday that progressive Congresswomen should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came."

Do you understand why people think that was racist?

>> Listen.

I have had a long-standing policy that I don't comment on tweets.

I don't engage in them.

I'll engage in substance.

I'll engage in policy.

>> I want to ask you about the substance of it.

>> Let's talk about the substance.

>> Do you understand why people think that was racist?

>> I understand why people's rhetoric is overheated.

I don't think it should be.

>> That's not the question.

Do you understand why people think that was racist?

I'm not asking you to say the President's racist.

>> I'm not gonna engage in the back-and-forth on that.

What I'm happy to engage in... >> Why not?

>> ...is the substantive record -- If you look at this freshman trio and their substantive record, it is extreme, it is radical.

It is, I think, quite harmful to the American people.

>> But on the substance of whether it's racist or not... >> Yeah, I'm just not gonna get into the food fight.

>> So you're not going -- 'Cause, look.

Even the National Review -- There are Conservatives who are now starting to say, "Look.

Democrats often play the race card, and they play it incorrectly and erroneously.

But when real racism does show up, especially on our side, it takes people on the Conservative side to police their own."

When you see real racism emerge, why not call it what it is?

>> Look, I think the media loves to scream "racism" on a daily basis.

>> That's what I just said, and Democrats do it, too.

>> And that happens all the time.

>> But when it really happens, why not call it out?

>> Look, when one of these freshman members of Congress, Congresswoman Tlaib, was videoed saying that she had come to Washington to impeach the MF'er, as she screaming, and she's explaining that she was saying this to her young son.

That rhetoric is not beneficial.

It's not good.

>> But she's not the president.

She's not the president of the United States.

She doesn't have the bully pulpit of the president of the United States.

>> On both sides, the rhetoric is overheated.

And, by the way, I've had rhetoric directed at me from all sorts of players here.

When someone comes after me and insults me and impugns my character personally, I try very hard not to respond in kind.

I think we need to focus on substance, and that's what I'm doing.

You can turn on cable news... >> So your position is that you will never call out the president of the United States if he's in your party, if you believe that it has anything to do with racism.

You don't believe he has a special responsibility and you don't believe Conservatives have a special responsibility to help call out racism when it appears on our side?

>> Actually, a good point.

Just this week, I spoke out very loudly because the state of Tennessee declared an official day, this last Saturday, to be Nathan Bedford Forrest Day.

>> I saw that, and I thought it was so interesting, because you're exactly right.

The first grand wizard of the KKK should not be celebrated every year in Tennessee.

That's a very easy and safe position to take, though.

Don't you think?

>> Well, look, not necessarily.

It's a Republican governor in Tennessee.

I got a lot of grief from a lot of folks.

>> Tennesseans don't elect you, fortunately, so you don't have to worry about it, too.

>> But you know what?

There weren't a whole lot of other people standing out and leading on that.

That I saw, and it was offensive.

>> I want to go back to your unwillingness to call out the tweets that are clearly racist from the President, who, by the way, he calls his tweets official government policy.

>> You know, I'll tell you, part of the reason a lot of the American people have tuned out what goes on in the media is because people are obsessed about a bloody tweet.

I'm telling you, when you get -- >> It's not the media; it's the President, Senator Cruz.

>> It really is the media because when I go home to Texas, nobody asks about this stuff.

I'm telling you, it is all -- >> But it's what the President says.

It's not the media.

>> It's the only thing the media talks about all day long.

They obsess.

And you know what?

Tomorrow, the media will be obsessing over some other tweet the President says tomorrow.

And I'm not gonna engage in that one, either.

I'm not gonna engage in the back-and-forth.

You know what I'm much more interested in?

That we've got the lowest unemployment in 50 years.

You know what I'm interested in?

You want to talk about a racial issue?

We have the lowest African-American unemployment ever recorded right now, today.

We have the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever recorded.

You want to talk about making a difference in the lives of African-Americans and Hispanics?

Young people getting jobs, building skills, moving towards a career.

That's what I'm elected to focus on.

That's what I'm elected to fight for.

>> And that is fundamentally important, and I think the question is, at what point does one outweigh the other?

At what point does rhetoric from the Oval Office that is pointed and heated and racist abrogate the advances you make in economics?

But hold on.

Let's just, really quick.

I want to put it back on this, because I do want to move on to immigration and these other issues.

But the President said from the South Lawn this the other day.

>> I mean, I look at the one -- I look at Omar.

I don't know.

I never met her.

I hear the way she talks about Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda has killed many Americans.

She said, "You can hold your chest out, you can -- When I think of America, huh.

When I think of Al-Qaeda, I can hold my chest out."

When I hear the anti-Semitic language they use, when I hear the hatred they have for Israel and the love they have for enemies like Al-Qaeda, then you know what?

I will tell you that I do not believe this is good for the Democrat Party.

>> So, do you want to respond to that?

I mean, here's my view.

Um, he's exactly right about, and you have been right about, pointing out, on the Progressive left, the emerging anti-Semitism.

And I think you're doing it very well.

You had a resolution in the Senate that got all 100 votes.

They weren't so successful in the House of Representatives.

But then to say that a sitting member of Congress loves Al-Qaeda with no evidence and to say it from the South Lawn has a ripple effect because three days later at a rally in North Carolina, which I know you're familiar with, we heard these chants.

Let's take a look.

>> Omar has a history of launching vicious, anti-Semitic screeds.

>> Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

The President later said he didn't agree with that, but he did let them chant for 13 seconds before saying anything.

Seeing that, he said something from the White House lawn, and then it became a chant in a rally, you can see the effect and the power that the bully pulpit of the presidency has -- when the president tweets, when the president speaks -- and that people listen.

And then it becomes embedded in our discourse, and it challenges the character of our country.

>> Look, I'll tell you what challenges the character of our country.

The President, in the news conference you just showed me at the White House, was talking about a substantive record.

If you look at these freshman House members, their record is radical and extreme.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, they keep putting out statements that are nakedly anti-Semitic.

One of the freshman tweeted out that Israel and supporting Israel is all about the Benjamins.

That was nakedly anti-Semitic.

I think the video that he's referencing there is a video that I've seen, talking about Al-Qaeda, where to see a U.S. member of Congress -- >> But she does not say that she loves Al-Qaeda.

Do you agree with the President that she loves Al-Qaeda?

>> Um, I think the comments she has made about Al-Qaeda and about September 11th are deeply disturbing for a member of Congress to make.

>> If you can denounce anti-Semitism so clearly, why can't you denounce the racism when it comes from the President?

>> I don't like the overheated rhetoric on either side, and I wish it'd stop.

I don't engage in it.

>> But you're not answering the question, Senator.

>> I am answering the question as I'm gonna answer it.

>> Which is -- Just to confirm, you refuse to denounce the racism when it comes from the President even though you can denounce anti-Semitism, justifiably.

>> Look, I understand that the media is obsessed with calling the President a racist, and it happens every day on every station and, frankly, gets tiresome.

It gets tiresome.

>> No.

What -- >> It really does, that that's the central focus.

People get very tired of that.

>> Let's move on to immigration and talk about the crisis at the border.

You were recently at the border.

And you were somewhat of an early critic of the family separation policy.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You described the images as horrific in some of the detention centers there.

I want to show you some of the new images from families taken just last month, actually, at Border Patrol stations.

This is in McAllen, Texas.

You see families packed together, sleeping on the floor, some wrapped in Mylar blankets.

The government watchdog report said that there were dangerous overcrowding, children had no access to showers and hot meals.

>> Well, look, what we're seeing right now is a humanitarian crisis.

So, those pictures you put up, that's the McAllen Processing Center.

I was there two weeks ago.

At the time I was there, it had over 1,100 people in it.

The problem is Democrats in Congress have capped the number of beds that ICE has.

So, normally you would move people out of that temporary holding cell into a longer-term detention facility with beds, for example.

Those places don't have beds.

Which means that people are just getting stuck where they're not meant to get stuck.

>> A $5-billion appropriation was just passed.

That will increase the number of beds.

>> But the Democrats insisted on a cap on the number of beds.

They limited how it could be spent, so they literally made it so you can't spend to put beds for those people you saw.

And more broadly -- >> But you said the crisis is because of Democrats.

Truly, the crisis is because there are increased flows of immigrants coming illegally across the border, which isn't because of the Democrats.

>> Yes, it most directly is.

And let me tell you why.

>> Tell me why.

>> So, in the month of May, we had 144,000 people apprehended coming here illegally.

144,000.

It is an absolute crisis.

>> Then there was a drop-off in June.

>> There has been some drop-off in June.

I'm encouraged by the drop-off in June.

But the reason people are coming is because of the loopholes that Congress has put into the law.

>> Which loopholes specifically?

>> So, in particular, the loophole is if you bring a child, that child has to be released.

And there's a court decision called the Flores Case that mandates that, that that child has to be released within 21 days.

So here's what's been happening.

We're suddenly seeing adults, more and more adults, bringing kids because kids are effectively a "get out of jail free" card.

Let me give you a stat that I learned in McAllen two weeks ago.

In 2014, single adult males coming into this country illegally, roughly 2% of them had kids.

Today 50% of them, single adult males, are coming with children.

And I'll give you a really chilling statistic.

In the Rio Grand Valley sector, they did a pilot test of rapid DNAs, of folks presenting as a family unit.

Nearly 30% of those tested were found to be fraudulent family units, which means the adults were with kids they weren't related to.

And we're seeing, I mean, little girls, little boys being subject to abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse.

Children being rented out by the cartels.

This is horrific.

And the critical point, Margaret, is it is Congress' fault.

We could fix this tomorrow.

But the Democrats in Congress won't close the loopholes and fix it.

>> So, if you could draft a fix to the Flores agreement, what would it be?

>> So, I have drafted that, and, in fact, the legislation -- I filed legislation.

>> Which is a bill that would keep families together.

>> Yes.

>> But do you still believe families should be prosecuted?

All individuals who cross the border illegally should be prosecuted?

>> Absolutely, we should enforce the law.

So, the legislation I filed -- Let me explain.

So, family separation -- we ought to be able to come together.

Everyone ought to agree, Republicans and Democrats, that families shouldn't be separated.

Instead, we're gonna keep the family together in a secure, safe detention facility, and we're going to accelerate the processing.

So, my legislation doubled the number of immigration judges, put more resources so if you have a claim for asylum, it gets adjudicated rapidly.

And either if you meet the legal test first, asylum, it gets granted.

And if you don't, it gets rejected, you get put on a plane and sent home.

But either way, you do it quickly.

>> This would be certainly the most merciful and humanitarian approach to the border, I believe.

The question about loopholes, though, somehow doesn't pass muster because -- Or maybe it does.

It's not the question about loopholes, but it's this notion that it's the Democrats' fault in Congress.

Republicans had the Congress and the White House for two years and did nothing.

So how is it only the Democrats' fault?

Those loopholes could've been closed when you all had control.

>> No, not with the filibuster, they can't.

Today's politics on immigration are so polarized, they're so extreme.

And part of that is driven by the Democratic Party is just consumed right now with hatred for Donald Trump.

And on immigration, that is driving them so wildly to the left.

We had a whole back-and-forth in the Democratic debate about making crossing into this country illegally no longer a crime.

That is the very definition of open borders, and that's a reckless policy, but it's where the Democratic presidential candidates are.

>> I'd like to move on to another part of your biography that I think really helped you stand out when you first arrived at the Senate, and that was your strong advocacy for fiscal discipline as one of the pillars of conservatism.

And you had no problem standing up to Mitch McConnell and bucking the party over the debt ceiling.

We have added $2 trillion to the national debt since President Trump has been the president.

Our debt is now 104% of GDP.

And OMB has projected that we'll have a trillion-dollar deficit just this year.

I don't think you'd defend that record.

>> No.

>> Is there a piece of the old Ted Cruz that might really stake a claim to helping push the party back to a position of fighting for fiscal discipline?

>> Listen.

I am fighting for that every day.

What we are doing with debt and deficits and spending is wrong and it's immoral.

We're selling our kids and our grandkids down the river.

Now, how do you address the debt and deficit?

The most powerful tool to do it... >> Entitlements.

>> Well, no, even more powerful than entitlements is economic growth.

>> The economy is booming right now, but we haven't done anything to pay for the Trump tax cuts, for example.

>> So that's not actually accurate.

The most powerful tool to pay down the debt and deficit is for the economy to be booming.

If you look at -- >> But we have to control spending.

>> I agree with that, but between the two, economic growth is more important than controlling spending.

I want to do both.

Now, the problem is Congress is spending even more, that we're not restraining on the spending.

>> You have just been re-elected as a U.S. senator.

You have a new lease on life.

You have six years before -- Donald Trump is gonna be out of office.

You could frankly run for president again.

This could just be a way to re-establish yourself and re-establish the party around a principle that it has always stood for.

And to that end, I want to show you a clip from William F. Buckley on this program in 1989 with none other than the original Conservative, Barry Goldwater.

Let's take a look.

>> ...about the future of my country continuing to run in deficit.

>> Have Conservatives stopped caring about debts and deficits?

>> No, not remotely.

But I will say the way I'm fighting is different today, and there's a reason it's different.

Because it's different circumstances.

So, the first four years I was in the Senate, Barack Obama was president.

And he was pushing really bad policies that were hurting this country.

My entire job changed January of 2017 because we had a Republican president, we had Republican majorities in both houses.

I pulled my whole team together, and I said, "Our job is totally different.

Now our job is to deliver on our promises."

And I think I'm in an unusual, if not a unique position, of being able to speak with real credibility to Conservatives but also being able to speak to Moderates, to leadership, to the president, to the administration, and get everyone to "yes," corral folks.

You take something like the tax cut.

I spent thousands of hours trying to get 50 Republicans in the Senate to "yes."

And that tax cut has produced incredible results in the economy.

Millions of people have jobs today because we cut taxes on working families, on small businesses.

That's benefiting the state of Texas.

Incomes are going up all over the country, but the number-one state... >> Texas has better tax policy than California.

>> That's why a thousand people a day move to Texas.

>> There's a new book called "American Carnage" that's out, and it has described the attitude of Fox News towards you as pugnacious.

It quotes you saying that Roger Ailes, who was the founder of Fox News -- that you believed his dying wish was to help elect Donald Trump as president.

Is that true?

>> I think Fox News went all-in for Trump.

That was the decision they made.

>> Do you believe it was Roger's dying wish, to help elect Donald Trump as president?

>> I didn't know Roger well, but I think it clearly is what he wanted to do.

>> Why did they prefer Trump?

>> No idea.

I can't tell you that, but I can tell you, starting in about March of 2016, they went all-in for Trump, and they made a decision.

That was a decision made at the network level, reflected on every show.

>> I wonder if you could handicap the Democratic presidential race, having been through a race yourself.

How do you see the candidates?

And who would you think is going to emerge?

>> I don't think Joe Biden's gonna be the nominee.

I think the nominee is going to come from the far left.

The three who I would say are most likely are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

>> What happened to Beto O'Rourke?

>> He -- [ Sighs ] He has crashed and burned.

I, uh -- You know, part of it is his base was the media.

>> But he did get 48% of the vote.

>> When he was running against me, the media were enamored with him.

They were like groupies at a Beatles concert.

There was, every week, a different fluffy profile.

The obligatory adjective... >> So has the media fallen out of love with him?

>> Yes, that's exactly what's happened.

The obligatory adjective they used for him was "Kennedy-esque."

I think where the Democratic primary is, their energy, their passion, their anger is on the extreme left.

That's why I don't think Biden will be the nominee, 'cause he's not where the party is.

And it's interesting.

When I say the nominee is likely to be a Harris or Warren or Sanders, some Republicans go, "Yay!

Okay, that's great.

They're so extreme, we'll win."

Not necessarily.

>> So you believe that Donald Trump could be defeated.

>> Absolutely.

I personally handicap the 2020 election as a coin flip.

I think it's about 50/50.

I want to see the President re-elected.

I'm working hard to help the President get re-elected.

And I think he certainly can get re-elected.

But I think we are gonna see staggering Democratic turnout in 2020.

And the reason is, look.

Anger is a powerful motivator.

And the far left is pissed.

They are enraged by Donald Trump, and it means they're gonna show up, and the big, open question is, does everybody else show up?

>> Senator, you know from your race, Beto O'Rourke won 48%, and it wasn't just the far left and it wasn't just the Progressives.

He won Moderates, and he won suburban women, and all these people are people who really are on the fence.

Do they vote for Donald Trump again or do they vote for the Democrats?

Do you think -- I'm gonna give you one more chance.

Do you think that the rhetoric from the President is one of the things that is energizing the Democratic Party?

>> Of course.

>> And do you think it hurts his chances to be re-elected?

>> Look.

The President regularly says and tweets things I wish he wouldn't say.

>> Is that what is going to do what you just said, that he will have a hard time getting re-elected?

>> He is not going to change.

He is who he is.

>> I agree with that, but is it gonna make it harder for him to get re-elected?

>> Look.

I wish he would say things differently.

I don't have the power to change that.

I can't change that.

What I can do is what I'm doing right now, which is fight for good policies, which includes the biggest tax cut of a generation, the lowest unemployment -- >> I'm gonna take that as a yes.

>> Let's take foreign policy, for a second.

>> I'm gonna take it as a yes.

>> I engage very closely with this president on foreign policy.

For example, urging him to move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

He did that.

Republicans and Democrats had both broken their promises to do that.

Urging him to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

He did that.

>> All these things, he's going to run on.

But the question was, does the rhetoric hurt him in his re-election bid?

And because you didn't answer, I'm gonna take it as a yes.

Thank you for being here, Ted Cruz.

I appreciate it.

>> Thank you.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.