WEBVTT - Birthright Citizenship at SCOTUS Explained 0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:06.360 My name is Charlie kirk I run the largest pro 0:00:06.400 --> 0:00:09.960 American student organization in the country, fighting for the future 0:00:10.080 --> 0:00:13.360 of our republic. My call is to fight evil and 0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:16.520 to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you 0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:19.919 is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But 0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:23.200 if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end 0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:26.400 up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to 0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:28.600 stop sending your kids to college. You should get married 0:00:28.640 --> 0:00:31.160 as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. 0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:33.280 Go start at turning point you would say college chapter. 0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:35.599 Go start atturning point youould say high school chapter. Go 0:00:35.640 --> 0:00:37.280 find out how your church can get involved. 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:38.880 Sign up and become an activist. 0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:40.880 I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:43.879 most important decision I ever made in my life, and 0:00:43.920 --> 0:00:45.080 I encourage you to do the same. 0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:46.000 Here I am. 0:00:46.200 --> 0:00:47.080 Lord, Use me. 0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:57.800 Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is 0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:01.120 the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company 0:01:01.120 --> 0:01:05.160 that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of 0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:09.040 precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with 0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:13.319 Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is 0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:17.400 Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:20.440 All right, welcome to The Charlie Kirk Show, April first, 0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:25.360 April fools Day, April fools Day. Welcome Blake here. We're here. 0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:27.360 You know it's a fitting day because we have we 0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:28.960 have to find out how many fools are on the 0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:30.200 United States Supreme Court. 0:01:30.240 --> 0:01:34.119 We're about to find out they Obviously, the Supreme Court 0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:38.640 is hearing arguments over birthright citizenship, something we think is 0:01:38.840 --> 0:01:43.200 stupid and not at all what the Fourteenth Amendment prescribes, 0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:45.720 especially children for illegals. 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:49.000 It was written children's like Chinese oligarchs. 0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:54.040 Yep, CCP infiltrators. The fact that we even have to 0:01:54.080 --> 0:01:56.920 have this argument, and it seems like the Supreme Court 0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:02.560 justices are skeptical of the government's case is amazing to me. 0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:04.160 But we're going to break it all down with Will 0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:08.000 Chamberlain from the Article three Project. You can follow him 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:10.480 on x A great follow Will. Welcome back to the show. 0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:11.600 Good to be with you. 0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:15.440 You've been paying close attention this morning, and I think 0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:17.919 it's safe to say Blake is already dooming over here. 0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:20.880 What do you make of it? I'm hearing mixed results, 0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:22.800 so I want to hear your take because you've been 0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:24.000 playing paying close attention. 0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:27.399 So yeah, I think it may have been made sense 0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:30.079 to Doom if you were just listening to the justices 0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:32.119 questions of John Souer. But I think I think there's 0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:34.960 a reason for optimism. Having listened to the justices questions 0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.520 of Cecilia Wang, who's the ACLU Legal director and the 0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:41.800 person arguing for the respondents in this case, she's getting 0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:44.400 a series of very tough questions and not handling them 0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:48.639 particularly well in my view. And I think the basic 0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:52.800 problem that the respondents have to deal with is that 0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:57.720 this important clause not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has 0:02:57.919 --> 0:03:00.680 a kind of natural meaning that's pretty well understood at 0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:03.400 the time, that it doesn't include people with allegiance to 0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:06.960 a foreign power, or rather primary allegiance to the foreign power, 0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:09.240 and that it only includes people who are domiciled in 0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:13.440 the United States, and her basically the respondent's way of 0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:16.640 dealing with this because they can see there are these exceptions, obviously, 0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:21.560 the exception for American Indians, the exception for foreign diplomats, 0:03:21.600 --> 0:03:26.239 the exception for children of invaders, But she basically says 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:28.360 that's just a closed set of exceptions. There's no further 0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:31.920 exceptions that could possibly be acceptable, you know, one hundred 0:03:31.919 --> 0:03:35.640 and fifty years later, and the justices are pointing out 0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.520 it's like, well, but they didn't create a list of 0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:41.760 exceptions when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. As written, they 0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:45.280 included this phrase as a general rule, meaning that if 0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.760 you know you're born here and not subject to the 0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:52.200 jurisdiction thereof of another country, then you're a citizen, then 0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:56.520 you're entitled the birthright citizenship. And she's struggling, honestly, she 0:03:56.560 --> 0:04:00.680 doesn't have a good explanation for why that general rule 0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:04.640 is just only applies to these three closed exceptions and 0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:07.440 then doesn't have any analogies that can be drawn from it. 0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:11.320 Yeah, so blake your reaction to that, because I guess it's. 0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:15.560 Just though I'm glad that there's more reasons for hope 0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:20.320 with these unfolding arguments with the opposition case. But I guess, 0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:22.640 you know, I have some friends who have actually who've 0:04:22.640 --> 0:04:26.000 been Supreme Court clerks in the past, and they're watching 0:04:26.040 --> 0:04:29.160 this and they're they're being among the most pessimistic, and 0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:31.560 I trust them a lot because they're no ones actually 0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:35.239 know the justices and they say what they're very worried about, 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:37.960 for example, is that I say that Amy Cony Barrett 0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:41.840 and Justice Gorsiic are asking questions that specifically point towards 0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:44.680 having constitutional problems with this. 0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:46.880 And they were saying from the start that they thought 0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:47.440 our best. 0:04:47.279 --> 0:04:50.240 Hope was that they might take a narrower approach where 0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:53.760 they would rule this is just statutory. Our laws actually 0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:56.560 require birthright citizenship because Congress has assumed this, and our 0:04:56.800 --> 0:05:01.000 immigration laws and so on, and they just seem they 0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:05.119 just feel like the way those swing justices are taking 0:05:05.120 --> 0:05:06.960 their questions is not good for us. 0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:10.480 Well, so I actually don't think I think that your 0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:13.000 friends just have it wrong. Here is on that particular 0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:16.760 way of viewing things. And here's the reason. So there's 0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:19.760 there's the constitutional provision of the fourteenth Amendment that says 0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:21.560 not subject to the jurisdiction of it. And then there's 0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:23.040 a statute I don't remember it when it was pasted 0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:26.279 nineteen fifties or something that uses the exact same language 0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:30.080 to set immigration the immigration rule. And the idea here 0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:33.520 is that there's a theoretical world where the Supreme Court 0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:37.120 could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order 0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:41.320 violates the statute, but then not the constitution itself. But 0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:43.720 that is it's a kind of bizarre way of approaching 0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:47.200 things because they use literally identical words. And so you 0:05:47.320 --> 0:05:51.920 generally when a congressional statute mimics the exact language of 0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:55.480 a constitutional provision, you don't, you know, especially if you're 0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:58.200 trying to get you know, get a new understanding of 0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:00.760 what that means. You're going to be effectively interpreting both. 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:03.279 And the new statute isn't going to be interpreted in 0:06:03.360 --> 0:06:05.359 light of what people thought when they passed it, but 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:07.520 rather it's going to be interpreted a light of just 0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:11.240 extending the original language and the meaning when the original 0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:13.120 constitutional provision was enacted. 0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:17.680 Yeah, so we have this Indian clause, right, or this 0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:23.960 argument around Indian citizenship, right, they Indians. For those in 0:06:24.000 --> 0:06:25.960 the audience who may not be aware, we're not granted 0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:28.760 citizenship until the nineteen twenties, there was actually an Act 0:06:28.800 --> 0:06:34.800 of Congress that bestowed upon Indian's citizenship. Explain for the 0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:38.560 audience why that is so critical in this argument, why 0:06:38.600 --> 0:06:41.200 it's become such a central focus of both sides of it. 0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:46.039 So a big part of Democrats or essentially the respondence. 0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.840 Idea here, the people who are saying birthright citizenship should 0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:52.640 apply to anybody born here is a very broad view 0:06:52.680 --> 0:06:55.640 of what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Basically, 0:06:55.680 --> 0:06:58.080 they're saying, well, you know, everybody is subject to the 0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:00.400 jurisdiction of the United States if you're born here, because 0:07:00.440 --> 0:07:04.080 you are required to a bay American law. And when 0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:06.840 we think about jurisdiction in terms of modern legal conceptions, 0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:09.600 like that's what jurisdiction means, like the court courts have 0:07:09.640 --> 0:07:11.680 the right to bring you into court and you know, 0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:14.720 hold you accountable if you commit crimes. Therefore, in some 0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.720 sense you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the idea is, 0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:20.320 if that's the way to understand the language of the 0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:23.160 fourteenth Amendment, that would mean that American Indians should have 0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:26.520 been granted citizenship by the fourteenth Amendment. And that wasn't 0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.760 the case, right there was you know, everybody understood when 0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:31.720 they were enacting the fourteenth Amendment that it didn't cover 0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:34.640 the children of American Indians, even if those children were 0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:38.680 born outside of Indian reservations. It just it didn't cover them. 0:07:38.840 --> 0:07:41.520 So that means that parent it's not just about where 0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:43.920 you're physically born, it's about your parentage too, And if 0:07:43.920 --> 0:07:47.679 that's true, then that obviously means that illegal the children 0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:50.760 of illegal aliens could theoretically be denied citizenship. 0:07:50.880 --> 0:07:52.840 Yeah, so it was a question of allegiance who do 0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.960 you owe your allegiance to, which is a huge, huge 0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:01.200 part of this entire debate, and some of it tends 0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:04.960 it sounds like it's hinging on breaking with the common 0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:09.119 law interpretation or the respondents are arguing that it's actually 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:12.200 a continuation of common law. Can you explain that? Will 0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:14.840 that what's hinging on this interpretation? 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.160 Right? So, basically respondents are trying to say that the 0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:22.040 American version word being not subject to the jurisdiction tracks 0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:25.600 the sort of English law because obviously America imported a 0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:27.600 law of the law from England, given that we were 0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:30.600 a richly in English colony. And so they're trying to say, well, 0:08:30.880 --> 0:08:33.400 you know, we're we imported our understanding of immigration law 0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:36.040 from England, and under English law, if you were born 0:08:37.040 --> 0:08:39.240 in the you know, in the territory, you were ultimately 0:08:39.280 --> 0:08:42.959 a citizen. And there's a real question about how if 0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:45.800 that actually makes sense, because you know, we actually created 0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:48.520 our own novel rule. Like under under that rule, American 0:08:48.559 --> 0:08:51.400 Indians would have been citizens, right, And so I think 0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.680 the basic way to understand the problem with that approach 0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:58.880 is that the framers of the fourteen Amendment intentionally departed 0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:01.360 from English common law in order to frame a different 0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:05.680 rule for American circumstances. And so you know, they're they're 0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:08.839 relying very heavily on a later Supreme Court case Wan 0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:11.440 kim Ark that talked a lot about importing the English 0:09:11.440 --> 0:09:14.280 common law in that the context of that decision, but 0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:18.160 that that doesn't that case only applies and only binds 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:22.079 the court as to the children of permanent legal residents. 0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:25.840 So you are you hearing anything from your sources at 0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:29.280 the Supreme Court the clerks? Are you hearing you know 0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:32.760 anything at this point? Because Blake's you know, he's hearing negative. 0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:34.640 It's I'm not mad at you. I really want the truth. 0:09:35.040 --> 0:09:37.959 I don't have sources of the Submarine Court telling me anything. Unfortunately, 0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:39.960 I love that Araft, but I don't have them telling 0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:40.720 me anything. 0:09:40.600 --> 0:09:46.200 All right, So Wan Kim RK, I actually disagree with 0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:48.679 Wan Kim RK, but I think this is one of 0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:54.839 those vestiges of having a racially bifurcated system of laws. Right, 0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.240 So they were trying to carve out, in my opinion, 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:02.520 with Wan Kim RK citizenship for children of legal permanent residents. Okay, 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:05.640 they were Chinese, the parents were Chinese. They were not 0:10:05.679 --> 0:10:09.120 allowed to be naturalized at the time, so obviously that 0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:12.920 later changed. I don't think that children of lawful permanent 0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:16.640 residents should be citizens. I'm that hardcore on this. But listen, 0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:20.400 we're not arguing that right now before the Supreme Court. 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:23.880 We're saying children of illegals birthright citizenship for illegals. Okay, 0:10:23.880 --> 0:10:25.480 go ahead, I can see you have thoughts. 0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:29.280 Yeah, well, so I mean wank kim mark is and 0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:32.120 neither is John Souer, Right, That's an important thing to understand, 0:10:32.280 --> 0:10:36.240 Like there was a whole interesting discussion of what was 0:10:36.240 --> 0:10:39.280 happening here because John Souer in the United States's position 0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:41.080 is that won Kim mark is a good law and 0:10:41.080 --> 0:10:45.240 that it just doesn't control the question of the children 0:10:45.240 --> 0:10:47.959 of illegal aliens or temporary residence. Because throughout Wan Kim 0:10:47.960 --> 0:10:51.360 mark is a discussion that it's legal residents, it's people 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:54.600 who are domiciled in the United States, and lawfully present. 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:59.400 So that's the idea there. And you know, interestingly, like 0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:03.360 the way that Cecilia Wong opened her presentation was to 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:06.559 say wan Kmart controls the result of this case. There's 0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:09.960 wankmark requires that you give citizenship to basically anybody born 0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:13.720 here outside of the closed exceptions, and that's the end 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:16.600 of it. And Justice Cabana actually oponent out in his questioning. 0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:18.720 It's like, so you're, ok, you're basically saying we really 0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:22.800 don't need to even do much here because under your theory, 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.600 you know, the administration is wrong about what Wankamart means 0:11:25.640 --> 0:11:27.520 and they're not calling it for it to be overturned. 0:11:27.520 --> 0:11:29.719 So the end, that's your that's the decision you'd have 0:11:29.840 --> 0:11:31.800 us give. We could give a two page decision, and 0:11:31.840 --> 0:11:33.720 she said yes. And the reason that's always a bad 0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:37.240 sign for the person making that argument. Justice Thomas has 0:11:37.280 --> 0:11:40.280 pointed this out. Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. That's 0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:41.880 not that. And if they do, they take them through 0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:45.120 what's called they just like will do a grant, vacate 0:11:45.160 --> 0:11:48.640 and remand, or they'll they'll just issue a suspond not suisponte, sorry, 0:11:48.679 --> 0:11:51.960 but like a procureum opinion without hearing argument. When they 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:53.480 hear argument in a case, when they go through all 0:11:53.480 --> 0:11:55.640 this effort, it's usually because they think the question is 0:11:55.679 --> 0:12:00.000 a little bit more challenging than the people suggest it's 0:11:59.840 --> 0:12:03.120 it requires some real difficulties. So I don't think the 0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:06.439 court agrees with the respond it's interpretation of Wuan kim 0:12:06.559 --> 0:12:09.360 ark And I think that's a big problem for them 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:11.760 because if the court doesn't agree, then all of a 0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:16.040 sudden that the question of what does the fourteenth Amendment mean? 0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:18.800 What is its original meaning? Is really quite central, Like 0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:21.640 does it is it? Does it allow for either the 0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:24.960 executive or Congress to create new rules about the children 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:25.800 of illegal aliens? 0:12:25.840 --> 0:12:26.559 And I mean it. 0:12:26.480 --> 0:12:28.679 Should as a policy matter, it should obviously, Like it 0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:31.480 is straight up insane to if you were crafting an 0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:33.560 immigration law from first principles, it would be straight up 0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:35.959 insane to do so and include a rule that said, 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:38.520 the people who break your immigration law, their children get 0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:39.120 to be citizens. 0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:44.160 So let's assume they at least get away from total 0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:48.640 birthright citizenship. What do you think are obviously we would 0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:51.680 hope for a total victory, but are there maybe medium 0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:56.000 level decisions that would be an improvement over the status quo, 0:12:56.120 --> 0:12:57.920 but not what we're hoping for that the Supreme Court 0:12:58.000 --> 0:12:59.240 might try to cut the baby on. 0:13:00.200 --> 0:13:03.320 I think that the best the best case for like 0:13:03.320 --> 0:13:06.320 a split the baby type decision would be something where 0:13:06.360 --> 0:13:10.640 they say that there is an exception for temporary sojourners 0:13:10.640 --> 0:13:12.920 that was recognized at the time of the fourteenth Amendment, 0:13:12.920 --> 0:13:15.760 but that that exception doesn't cover illegal aliens. So the 0:13:15.800 --> 0:13:18.920 idea would be that they could make a ruling that says, Congress, 0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:20.960 you know, you're allowed to make a rule banning Chinese 0:13:21.000 --> 0:13:24.840 birth tourism or not recognizing the children of people, you 0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:27.720 know of people who were born here on tourist visas 0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:30.400 and then who immediately left. Right, they might say that 0:13:30.400 --> 0:13:32.559 those those people are temporary sojourners, their children are in 0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:34.960 American citizens, even if they were born in like an 0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:35.680 American hostel. 0:13:35.720 --> 0:13:39.439 But what about like the Guatemalan that is, you know, 0:13:39.520 --> 0:13:42.600 hiding in the suburbs of Chicago and doesn't tend to 0:13:42.640 --> 0:13:45.120 go back to Guatemala but is not here legally. 0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:46.760 Right, And I think that, I mean, that's the right. 0:13:47.200 --> 0:13:48.480 The thing is that I don't think that would be 0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:50.600 the most principal way to resolve this at all, because 0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:52.800 I think the principal way to resolve this, especially given 0:13:52.840 --> 0:13:57.000 the way that immigration law treats illegal entrants who never 0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:58.880 present themselves as a port at a board of at 0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:02.080 a port of entry as temporary visitors, like they don't 0:14:02.080 --> 0:14:04.680 have a legal right to stay. They're treated in the 0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:07.079 same way that applicants for admission are. This is actually 0:14:07.160 --> 0:14:10.200 sort of an interesting, you know, cross application to the 0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.600 recent Fiths Circuit decision which allowed for ICE to detain 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:16.120 legal aliens without bond if they never presented themselves at 0:14:16.120 --> 0:14:18.800 a port of entry. The idea is that because you 0:14:18.880 --> 0:14:21.560 never presented it yourself at a port of entry, you're 0:14:21.560 --> 0:14:24.280 in the exact same position as somebody who just showed 0:14:24.320 --> 0:14:26.600 up at the border and should be treated the exact 0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:28.960 same way. And so the logic I think goes kind 0:14:28.960 --> 0:14:31.400 of applies here as well. Like we you know, even 0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:32.880 if you've been living here for twenty years as an 0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:34.920 the legal alien, the law will treat you as though 0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:35.800 you just showed. 0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:39.120 Up, right, They don't, well, a lot doesn't recognize. General 0:14:39.160 --> 0:14:41.520 Sauer actually touches on this point here. We have a 0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:42.520 clip sought. 0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:45.240 For page twenty eight ninety the Congressional Record from eighteen 0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.720 sixty six, Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where 0:14:48.720 --> 0:14:50.360 he says that and what does he say right at 0:14:50.360 --> 0:14:52.200 the beginning of that that sort of offensive speech. 0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:53.640 He says, he says, we can't have. 0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:56.200 Children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants, we can't have 0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:59.120 them become citizens. And he says, quote, have they any 0:14:59.160 --> 0:15:01.760 more rights than this sojournery in the United States? So 0:15:01.800 --> 0:15:04.800 he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by 0:15:04.960 --> 0:15:09.080 appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have 0:15:09.160 --> 0:15:12.880 children who become citizens. How powerful evidence there that everybody 0:15:12.960 --> 0:15:17.200 understood this to you know, not sweep in the temporary 0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:18.480 sojournery just. 0:15:18.520 --> 0:15:22.120 Like a quick aside, Like General Sower's voice is not 0:15:22.200 --> 0:15:25.920 helping him here. It's it's hard to listen to. But 0:15:26.000 --> 0:15:27.520 I mean his point is well made. 0:15:28.040 --> 0:15:30.760 It was one of his best points of the day. Yeah, 0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:33.080 And because I think that was I forget who asked 0:15:33.080 --> 0:15:34.840 the question. He was either said to my or Jackson, 0:15:34.880 --> 0:15:38.280 but she brought up this, you know, terrible like statement 0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:40.960 made by one of these people. And the point sour 0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:44.320 made was like if you actually read the statement clearly, 0:15:44.880 --> 0:15:48.800 it just is incredible evidence for the idea that how 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:52.160 the Senate and how Congress understood the Fourteenth Amendment and 0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:55.040 understood this phrase subject of the jurisdiction thereof was that 0:15:55.080 --> 0:16:00.040 it didn't come cover temporary visitors, which, if true, that 0:16:00.200 --> 0:16:05.280 blows up the entire theory of the case of the ACLU, 0:16:05.560 --> 0:16:09.120 who says that there are only these narrow, closed exceptions 0:16:09.320 --> 0:16:13.120 Indian tribes, children of ambassadors, children of foreign invaders, and 0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:16.600 there's no other possible exception. That that's all the subjects 0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:19.680 of the jurisdiction thereof means is that this small universe 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:24.600 of closed and already specified exceptions. And clearly that's not 0:16:24.640 --> 0:16:26.320 what the framers of the fourteenth Amendment thought at all 0:16:27.200 --> 0:16:29.560 an object you know, they thought there was a general 0:16:29.680 --> 0:16:32.760 rule being promulgated, meaning that you had to have allegiance 0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:35.400 that it wasn't just people who were just randomly showing up. 0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.960 Yeah, absolutely, I mean Senator Howard, during the debates over 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:42.720 the drafting of the fourteenth Amendment, said this will not, 0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:46.160 of course include persons born in the United States who 0:16:46.200 --> 0:16:50.000 are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors 0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:51.920 or foreign ministers, or credited to the government of the 0:16:52.000 --> 0:16:54.920 United States, but will include every other class of citizen. 0:16:55.400 --> 0:17:01.720 It's so, I mean, lawyers will lawyers. Yeah, I just 0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:02.600 feel like, I mean. 0:17:03.160 --> 0:17:04.679 I kick it over the feeling we might just be 0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:07.160 stuck with. They'll make like a soft hearted decision because 0:17:07.160 --> 0:17:08.000 it's mean to. 0:17:08.400 --> 0:17:10.560 Yeah, they're gonna try and split the baby. I actually 0:17:10.640 --> 0:17:12.840 I actually agree. I think that's what Robert's going to 0:17:12.920 --> 0:17:16.360 try and do well. Chamberlain Article three project. Thank you, sir, 0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:20.240 keep on this. We might have you back soon just 0:17:20.240 --> 0:17:22.200 to kind of break it all down again for us. Well, 0:17:22.320 --> 0:17:27.280 God bless me. Man. All right, we'll t When you 0:17:27.320 --> 0:17:31.400 read food labels today, it's obvious we've over complicated nutrition, 0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.920 chemical names. You can't pronounce ingredients that sound like they 0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:37.720 belong in a lab instead of a kitchen. Here's the 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:42.440 simple truth. Plants have their own nutrition. They're called phyto nutrients, 0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:44.880 and your body knows exactly what to do with them. 0:17:44.920 --> 0:17:47.880 That's what drew me to bounds of nature. They take 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:51.000 fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum 0:17:51.080 --> 0:17:56.160 cold process to stabilize that phyto nutrition. Nothing weird, nothing artificial. 0:17:56.240 --> 0:17:58.920 Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies plus 0:17:59.000 --> 0:18:02.800 fiber and spice forty seven whole food ingredients. I take 0:18:02.840 --> 0:18:06.040 it every day because it's simple and it works with 0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:08.960 my routine. If you want to make nutrition simple again 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:12.119 and fight the good fight, go to Balance of nature 0:18:12.320 --> 0:18:15.439 dot com to subscribe and save today. Join hundreds of 0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:19.600 thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their 0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:24.680 lives for the better. Very excited about our next guest. 0:18:24.680 --> 0:18:28.879 That's doctor Matt Spalding. He is the professors have long titles, 0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:33.119 so bear with me. Is the Kirby Professor in Constitutional 0:18:33.160 --> 0:18:36.080 Government at Hillsdale College and the Dean of the Van 0:18:36.240 --> 0:18:41.560 Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College's Washington, d C. Campus. 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:44.560 Welcome to the show, doctor Matt Spalden. 0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:47.040 He great, Great to be with you guys. Again, Sorry 0:18:47.040 --> 0:18:48.560 about the long titles, but that's the way I. 0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:53.280 Can get life is you gotta have like the name 0:18:53.320 --> 0:18:56.439 of the school and then what the school actually is 0:18:56.480 --> 0:18:58.439 and where it's local, you know. And you guys have 0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:03.360 multiple titles talking about birthright citizenship though, so I don't 0:19:03.359 --> 0:19:05.119 know if you listened the oral arguments. We kind of 0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:07.920 got granular in the first couple segments going through these, 0:19:09.080 --> 0:19:11.520 but Let's go ahead and play a clip from the 0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:15.280 oral arguments, because I think there are deeper historical truths 0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:19.439 that you could help unpack here. And so let's just 0:19:19.480 --> 0:19:22.439 go with sought one. And this is going back to 0:19:22.520 --> 0:19:25.600 Civil Rights Act, which was passed right after the Civil War. 0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:30.600 Sought one, Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. 0:19:30.680 --> 0:19:33.960 Most of your brief is about people who are just 0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:38.400 temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an 0:19:38.440 --> 0:19:41.439 experience of an understanding of that there were going to 0:19:41.480 --> 0:19:46.040 be temporary inhabitants, and your whole theory of the case 0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:49.360 is built on that group. You must be saying that 0:19:49.400 --> 0:19:52.120 there is a principle that was there at the time 0:19:52.160 --> 0:19:53.320 of the fourteenth Amendment. 0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:55.640 We agree there's a principle there at the fourteenth Amendment. 0:19:55.680 --> 0:19:59.280 It is the jurisdiction means allegiance, the allegiance of a 0:20:00.359 --> 0:20:01.480 very strongly reflected in. 0:20:01.440 --> 0:20:02.640 The nineteenth century sources. 0:20:02.880 --> 0:20:06.199 The allegiance of an alien president in another country is 0:20:06.240 --> 0:20:08.879 determined by domicile and that goes back to the VS 0:20:08.920 --> 0:20:11.159 and the Pizarro, It goes through the Katsa Fair in. 0:20:11.160 --> 0:20:11.880 Eighteen fifty three. 0:20:11.920 --> 0:20:16.240 It comes right up to Fong Yui Ting and Ao 0:20:16.640 --> 0:20:19.600 Bo that are decided shortly before Wong Kim mark. 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:22.000 So that's the principle. That principle clearly applies. 0:20:22.320 --> 0:20:26.040 So we're talking about Yeah, so you're laughing. What's the 0:20:26.160 --> 0:20:28.200 laugh there? Yeah? What does happen there? 0:20:28.800 --> 0:20:30.480 So a couple of key things. 0:20:30.600 --> 0:20:33.359 First of all, just by way of context, right, this 0:20:33.480 --> 0:20:36.800 is the sentences clause of the fourteenth Amendment, which has 0:20:36.840 --> 0:20:40.760 passed after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves, 0:20:41.040 --> 0:20:42.480 the freedmen, and their children. 0:20:44.320 --> 0:20:46.760