Speaker 1: Native lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Nobody knows.
Speaker 1: Let's turn our attention to the Supreme Court case Claire Thomas.
Speaker 3: Let's start with.
Speaker 1: Him, you know, every now and then, not every now
Speaker 1: and then Anyway, today Claire Thomas asked this question about
Speaker 1: dres Scott, and that's not the question we have. But
Speaker 1: I do want to roll the first Claire's Thomas question
Speaker 1: we have. I just want to acknowledge Donald Trump, who
Speaker 1: has been in the room for our arguments we're saying today.
Speaker 1: But it's going to end tomorrow, obviously, but this is
Speaker 1: still fresh, so we don't have it all together. I
Speaker 1: do want to roll this claireence Thomas question.
Speaker 4: Generally, you're getting a lot of questions about immigration, and
Speaker 4: they harke it back, of course, to the citizenship, which
Speaker 4: is defined in or set out in the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4: How much of the debates around the fourteenth Amendment had
Speaker 4: anything to do with immigration.
Speaker 5: I think that the principal focus of those debates has
Speaker 5: to do really not with immigrants, but with the Indian tribes.
Speaker 5: I mean, obviously the main goal that one pervading purpose
Speaker 5: of this Court said in the Slaughterhouse cases was to
Speaker 5: establish the citizenship of the freed slaves and their children.
Speaker 5: But they were very concerned about the problem of something
Speaker 5: that they all accepted as a given, which is that
Speaker 5: the children of tribal Indians are not within the rule
Speaker 5: of birthright citizenship. So I think that's what they focus
Speaker 5: and we draw an analogy to that to the issue
Speaker 5: of temporary sojourners. But there are mentions of temporary sojourneying
Speaker 5: multiple places in the congressional debates, and all of those
Speaker 5: quotes go in our direction.
Speaker 1: So that's the first one. I don't know if y'all
Speaker 1: want to get into another part of the orals here,
Speaker 1: but what is I think really fascinating. The lead attorney
Speaker 1: on our side of the issue is a child of
Speaker 1: immigrants arguing birthright citizenship. And you see the blatant hypocrisy
Speaker 1: not only of the Republican Party, the Trump administration, and
Speaker 1: probably some of these justices when this ruling will eventually
Speaker 1: come out, are on this particular issue, some of them
Speaker 1: being children of immigrants themselves.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, I wanted to if.
Speaker 6: I could just back up a second to mention because
Speaker 6: I know we've all been wiscons in this case, as
Speaker 6: we've heard or arguments today before the you know, the
Speaker 6: High Court. But what's that question here is that the
Speaker 6: President has signed an executive order several months back that
Speaker 6: basically says that redefines the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
Speaker 6: which established, just for all of our knowledge, that an
Speaker 6: individual born here in the United States is considered a
Speaker 6: citizen of the United States of America, regardless of where
Speaker 6: their parents originated. And there are a few exceptions to
Speaker 6: that rule, usually having to deal with diplomats, foreign diplomats
Speaker 6: and high ministers to respective country, and in the case
Speaker 6: of foreign occupation that the law doesn't apply to those
Speaker 6: individuals those individuals, but they're basically four exceptions to the law.
Speaker 6: And it really even though you heard the mention of
Speaker 6: dred Scott the Fourteenth Amendments, how it came into formation
Speaker 6: in the first place in eighteen sixty eight, it was
Speaker 6: part of what we now know as the sort of
Speaker 6: reconstruction clauses of the Constitution, and those were the thirteenth, fourteenth,
Speaker 6: and fifteenth Amendment, giving black folks in this country access
Speaker 6: to the constitutional guarantees that we were denied at the
Speaker 6: forming of this country, but it dates back to you know,
Speaker 6: the early sixteen hundreds as part of Calvin's case in
Speaker 6: Great Britain that established that anyone born under the jurisdiction
Speaker 6: of the king had to be basically obedient and is
Speaker 6: a subject of the king, regardless again of what their
Speaker 6: parents did or where they came from. So, although it's
Speaker 6: been the law of the land for one hundred and
Speaker 6: fifty years coming into formation since the fourteenth Amendment, it
Speaker 6: has been the practice of the United States, mostly for
Speaker 6: white men, but the practice of the United States since
Speaker 6: before the founding of the United States of America. So
Speaker 6: this man has the audacity to challenge this constitutional amendment
Speaker 6: that basically black people are responsible for it having come
Speaker 6: into formation in the first place. And I just think
Speaker 6: we are to as a community, really understand the import
Speaker 6: of this debate today, this week, and in the weeks
Speaker 6: ahead as the Supreme Court sort of deals with this.
Speaker 6: I think a lot of people are assuming that it's
Speaker 6: going to go one way. But I thought the same
Speaker 6: thing about others settled pieces of law, that the court,
Speaker 6: this court, this conservative court, would go one way, and
Speaker 6: it ended up going a different one. So let's just
Speaker 6: pay attention to what's happening here. The fourteenth Miendment exists
Speaker 6: because of us, but as affirmed for in future cases,
Speaker 6: it applies to everybody and anybody born here in the
Speaker 6: United States on our soil.
Speaker 3: And that's just the party.
Speaker 1: I do think I appreciate you backing into context here,
Speaker 1: Andrew's important. Donald Trump, moments after leaving the oral arguments,
Speaker 1: went to truth Social number. By the way, this is
Speaker 1: the only time in history documented that sitting president attended
Speaker 1: oral arguments, so that's also a major We can argue
Speaker 1: that he was there to try to intimidate the justices
Speaker 1: in some way, but he posted on true Social shortly
Speaker 1: after leaving, we are the only country in the world
Speaker 1: stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship. He's wrong. Thirty other
Speaker 1: countries at least also have birthright citizenship. The other piece
Speaker 1: that I think is really important here, and I actually
Speaker 1: want to at least commend John Roberts for this one
Speaker 1: statement he made the Solicitor General General arguing that even
Speaker 1: though the Framers didn't have in mind, which was John
Speaker 1: Roberts question, that this is the type of situation that
Speaker 1: would come up people coming here, you know, falling in
Speaker 1: love with someone who was already a citizen here and
Speaker 1: having a child, how do you determine whose parent is
Speaker 1: that you know is responsible for the baby and where
Speaker 1: their citizenship lay. And the Solicitor General Sours says, we're
Speaker 1: in a new world now, and John Roberts, Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts says, back, it's a new world, but it's
Speaker 1: the same constitution. And so I think there are these
Speaker 1: interesting pockets where you see their humanity. But to Andrew's point,
Speaker 1: we are literally one Supreme Court decision away from the
Speaker 1: dismantling and the gutting and the wrongful interpretation of the
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment, of any amendment in any single case, in
Speaker 1: any single case, they could decide not to rely on President.
Speaker 3: They could they could decide to rely on.
Speaker 1: Court president case President that is not in our favor,
Speaker 1: right like it ain't always been.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court decision they're talking about dread Scott.
Speaker 1: Dread Scott is not what established birthright citizenship. It was
Speaker 1: the case that broke dread Scott's hard enough to cause
Speaker 1: his death because they did not see him as a citizen,
Speaker 1: as a human, because.
Speaker 3: He was an en slave person right property, that's right. Chatto,
Speaker 3: I can ask one question though.
Speaker 7: One of the things, because I think both of you
Speaker 7: and Andrew, you highlighted the importance Angela and Andrew gave
Speaker 7: us the history. But one of the questions we haven't
Speaker 7: answered for listeners, and I want to see what you
Speaker 7: three think and and kind of just trim it down
Speaker 7: is why, you know, what, why are they going through this?
Speaker 7: Why are they going through this exercise? Practically like why?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't want to I want bread to be
Speaker 3: able to wait.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm a lawyer, but I have been black
Speaker 2: my whole life, a Negro.
Speaker 3: As those.
Speaker 2: I'm from Saint Louis, which means every MLK day the
Speaker 2: show me state period, y'all know, I put on for
Speaker 2: Saint Louis, And every mlkday we marched from Pala Symphony
Speaker 2: Hall to the old Courthouse in downtown Saint Louis where
Speaker 2: Dread and Harriet Scott stood before the Missouri State Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: They were also members of the church that my father
Speaker 2: later passored, the second oldest church founded by freeing enslaved
Speaker 2: black people in the state of Missouri. And thinking about
Speaker 2: that history, what is clear to me is that what
Speaker 2: they told Dread and Harriet about what they thought about
Speaker 2: their dignity and humanity remains true. So they didn't recognize
Speaker 2: their humanity and their dignity, then they don't. These folks
Speaker 2: don't have any intent on recognizing our humanity or dignity now.
Speaker 2: And just because they're using us as the cudgel to
Speaker 2: try to make their argument doesn't mean that we're safe.
Speaker 2: And I think it's really really important that those of
Speaker 2: us who can trace our families back four and five
Speaker 2: generations on this land, don't get comfortable and think that
Speaker 2: this thing can apply to us, because it absolutely can.
Speaker 2: I just think that they want the whole thing to themselves.
Speaker 2: That's just what I think it comes down to.
Speaker 1: I think brit is right. I do want to just
Speaker 1: if I can drop in another clip. We have a
Speaker 1: dissenter in chief in the Supreme Court. Her name is
Speaker 1: Katanji Brown Jackson, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, and today she
Speaker 1: demonstrates I think a great in her questioning Bikari an
Speaker 1: answer suggested answer to your why, let's roll that.
Speaker 8: Did I understand you to say that domicile is going
Speaker 8: to be eventually or is controlled by Congress? Who is domiciled?
Speaker 8: I'm struggling to figure out who is domiciled.
Speaker 5: In your argument, the domiciliaries are people who are lawfully
Speaker 5: present and have an intent to remain permanently. So that's
Speaker 5: the kind of black letter understanding of domicile. Now, Congress
Speaker 5: can't dictate the certain classes of people legal entrance and
Speaker 5: so forth, cannot awfully lack of legal capacity to form
Speaker 5: a legally binding Docit is that.
Speaker 8: So then doesn't it make the domicile for the purpose
Speaker 8: of the Fourteenth Amendment turned then ultimately on Congress's will
Speaker 8: in a way that the framers did not intend. I mean,
Speaker 8: my understanding was the Framers put this citizenship clause into
Speaker 8: the Constitution to prevent future Congresses from being able to
Speaker 8: affect citizenship in this way.
Speaker 5: For sure, Very briefly, No, I don't think so, because
Speaker 5: it is up to the alien whether or not they
Speaker 5: want to be domiciled here. Now, there may be.
Speaker 8: Said Congress can make determinations as to who counts as
Speaker 8: being domiciled here. So that's true, Then it ultimately would
Speaker 8: impact in your theory whether or not this person can
Speaker 8: claim that they have citizenship for Fourteenth Amendment purposes based
Speaker 8: on Congress's determination. I just thought that's what the Fourteenth
Speaker 8: Amendment was trying to get away from.
Speaker 5: Yes, very briefly, I just point you to the discussion
Speaker 5: in Professor Worman's im GUS brief where he talks about
Speaker 5: this is not a new problem, going back even to
Speaker 5: the British common law. There's a situation of people who
Speaker 5: lack a safe conduct and are passing through the King's
Speaker 5: domains without permission. And he says, the best reading of
Speaker 5: the common laws, they are not in the protection of
Speaker 5: the King, and they're not covered by their royal birthright.
Speaker 6: Citizenship passing through. He's been real colorful with the language there.
Speaker 6: But I will tell you, first of all, I'll say
Speaker 6: Justice Jackson and I would add to that Justice Soto
Speaker 6: Mayor both have a way of making the High Court
Speaker 6: accessible in their questions and the way in which they
Speaker 6: summarize their questions. As a non lawyer, I feel like
Speaker 6: I can access what it is that they're trying to
Speaker 6: say and what the crux of the argument is about.
Speaker 6: To Bakari's question, because I think it really it's a
Speaker 6: great one and it's one that we all ought to consider,
Speaker 6: Like why now, why after terms before the founding of
Speaker 6: this nation, does it decide under Trump and his stooges
Speaker 6: to redefine who a US citizen is. And although a
Speaker 6: lot of us may think that this thing is powered
Speaker 6: by the immigration of Latin Americans, I think into the US,
Speaker 6: that's who they like to use as today's sort of boogeyman.
Speaker 6: I think it has everything to do with what surfaces
Speaker 6: in Donald Trump's voice. Every time he has the opportunity
Speaker 6: to talk about the kinds of people he believes ought
Speaker 6: to be in the United States, he talks about people
Speaker 6: from shithole countries, places that we don't want.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 6: He talks about South America at the whole continent of
Speaker 6: Africa to forgive him. He doesn't know the demographic diversity
Speaker 6: that exists on the continent, but whatever be that as
Speaker 6: it may. And then when he talks about Europe, he
Speaker 6: talks about Europe losing its authenticity, its identity because of
Speaker 6: the immigration of brown peace. So lets none of us
Speaker 6: get it confused that what this theme is about isn't
Speaker 6: just about Latin American immigration in this country. They wish
Speaker 6: to reverse the wheels of immigrant of the census of
Speaker 6: this country going forward. They know that white folks have
Speaker 6: a lower birth rate than any other group. They know
Speaker 6: that the browning of America is real, that is here,
Speaker 6: and that it will increase, and so to preserve their power,
Speaker 6: they believe they need a more Eurocentric United States of America.
Speaker 6: This is this is based in racism, as was of
Speaker 6: the origination here, as was the Fourteenth Amendment which saved
Speaker 6: us from it, as was the Southern States then implementing
Speaker 6: their own discriminatory laws after the Fourteenth Amendment to keep
Speaker 6: us from accessing power. So they're not talking about black people,
Speaker 6: they're not name checking us right now as the problem.
Speaker 6: They're using us and escapegoading us as part of the
Speaker 6: solution through the fourteenth minis and on this argument. But
Speaker 6: don't get it twisted. They see us as big a
Speaker 6: threat as they see Latin American immigration. They don't want
Speaker 6: us counted in the census, and they don't want us
Speaker 6: being the majority. Ultimately, I think this is about what
Speaker 6: you hear Donald Trump say, which is he wants a
Speaker 6: whiter America and he wants an America that brings people
Speaker 6: in from European countries who are also just European and
Speaker 6: Dutch people from South Africa. Don't forget.
Speaker 7: They going back. They don't even like it here. They
Speaker 7: all go back.
Speaker 2: They say this is a way, They say, we ain't
Speaker 2: want to be in the ghetto.
Speaker 7: I think that, you know, just summarily, it's two things,
Speaker 7: and I think Andrew hit the nail on the head.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's it's about power, and it's about fear.
Speaker 7: It's the fear of losing what they believe to be theirs,
Speaker 7: the browning of America, this inability to understand Angela rise
Speaker 7: phrase that this joint for free right, and not acknowledging
Speaker 7: that the equity of of of what diversity has put
Speaker 7: into this country, not recognizing those contributions. And I think lastly,
Speaker 7: it's about just not valuing diversity. You know, that power,
Speaker 7: that that power talking point is so real because it
Speaker 7: comes down to elections. They see themselves having a better
Speaker 7: opportunity winning an election, maintaining power with the fewer black
Speaker 7: and brown folk in this country, period, point blank, fullstop.
Speaker 7: And I honestly don't think that that Donald Trump. I
Speaker 7: find him to be a useful idiot for those of it,
Speaker 7: those individuals who are around him, because I think that
Speaker 7: we don't we talk about it a lot, but the
Speaker 7: Stephen Millers and the Bannons of the world are the
Speaker 7: ones who are orchestrating this. And then the sad part
Speaker 7: is the the Cassidys and the Cottons of the world,
Speaker 7: the Hallies of the world, the Vanceas of the world
Speaker 7: don't have the testicular fortitude to be able to rise
Speaker 7: up to this case, this occasion and actually recognize what
Speaker 7: America is and or her value. So I think power
Speaker 7: and I think fear are whatsdrivingness.
Speaker 2: Power, though right, fear is how you maintain power. I
Speaker 2: say this all the time, and I teach on this
Speaker 2: every single conflict in the West, in America, in particular,
Speaker 2: in white dominant culture, comes down to the desire to
Speaker 2: hoard power. White dominant culture teaches us that power is
Speaker 2: a pie and there are only so many slices to
Speaker 2: go around. The idea that we are all born with
Speaker 2: innate power and it is therefore abundant, and we can
Speaker 2: share it and all be better when we share it
Speaker 2: is foreign to a white the ideology of whiteness, right,
Speaker 2: it is it is natural to our communities, It is
Speaker 2: foreign to them. So they're going to maintain power by
Speaker 2: any means necessary and at all costs, which means stoking fear,
Speaker 2: which means stoking violence very intentionally, right, because that's always
Speaker 2: a tool of power. Because they mean to, they intend
Speaker 2: to ensure that they don't share power with anybody but themselves.
Speaker 2: And if there are wealthy people of color who think
Speaker 2: they're gonna get in on no pie, they are sadly mistaken.
Speaker 1: Native Lampid is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership
Speaker 1: with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.