Author Peter Schweizer Discusses 14th Amendment Case

Since some of his data was used in arguments before the SCOTUS, Preston figured why not talk to him about it. Best-selling author Peter Scheiwzer called in to chat. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Here.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
It is the second hour The Morning Show with Preston
Scott Show fifty five seventy five. He's ose, I'm Preston
and this is our good friend and he was very
kind to make just a little bit of room for
us this morning. Peter Schweitzer, best selling author and the
latest book is The Invisible Coup. Peter, good morning, Welcome

(00:25):
to the show. How are you, sir.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
It's great to be with you on good Friday. Thanks
for having me, Preston, Peter.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Were you paying attention to the arguments before the Supreme
Court on the fourteenth Amendment this week?

Speaker 1 (00:38):
I was. I actually listened to it live online and
it was you know, I think the administration made a
very compelling case on the fourteenth Amendment, and you know,
we were happy to, you know, played a small role
in that.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, I guessed as much. But to whatever extent you're
willing to share, how much of what you've written about
found its way, in one form or another into the
arguments by Solicitor General John Sowers.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
Well, there were a couple of data points that he
referenced in his exchange with Chief Justice Roberts conturning birth tourism.
That's this practice where people fly into the country for
the purposes of their child getting US citizenship, and they
fly home and they raise the child overseas, particularly a

(01:30):
problem with China. When the Chief Justice asked the Solicitor
General about that topic, he used two data points. One
the fact that some estimates are that they're between one
and one and a half million Chinese nationals that have
done this over the last fifteen years. And the second
data point is that the Chinese media says that there

(01:53):
are more than five hundred birth tourism companies operating in China,
demonstrating the scale of this problem. Those both came from
the book that I wrote, The Invisible Coup, and as
a bit of background, I'm not speaking out of turn
by saying this before the book was released. The week

(02:13):
before I had the opportunity to meet with the President,
Secretary of State Mark Arrubio and the Treasurer Secretary Scott Bessen,
along with the White House Council to share the findings
with the book. We met for about fifty five minutes,
and when we went over the material on Chinese birth tourism,

(02:34):
the President in particular made note of that us to
the White House General Council and said, let's make sure
that we have that material. So you know, we were
happy to play a small part in that. Of course,
his case, his executive order, I should say, far predates
the book, so I'm not suggesting we were at directly

(02:55):
connected with that, but we were happy to see that
some of the material in the book made its way
into not only the oral arguments, but also the legal
briefs that were filed as well.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Given that you paid attention to listen to the entire argument,
which lasted roughly two hours earlier this week, what is
your takeaway? The mainstream media and even media outlets that
many of us would consider trustworthy, walk away from that,
come away with from that thinking that it doesn't look

(03:29):
good for the executive order to stand the test.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Yeah, I think there are a couple of things here, Preston,
and I'm our prefaces is always by saying I'm not
an attorney. I'm certainly not a constitutional attorney. But there
are a couple of issues here. Number one, the executive issue,
the executive order itself. Will it stand, won't it stand?
That's the first issue. The second issue is the larger
question of birthright citizenship. The position that the ACLU attorney

(03:59):
took encountering the executive order was that birthright tourism is absolute,
that there can be no restriction on it. You can't
ban this birth tourism. So you can have these companies.
You can have people literally set their toe. A woman
can set her toe across the border, and if she
gives birth, that child gets you as citizenship. Even if

(04:21):
that child is raised in communist China, when they turn eighteen,
they're a citizen. They can vote. I think that the
Court may very well come and say that the executive
order by the President is too broad. Congress needs to
do this. It can't just be executive order. I also
think it's very possible they come back and say, look

(04:41):
that this is not absolute, that Congress can in effect
regulate and trim some of these aspects of birthright citizenship.
And the reason I say that is that a Justice
Bret Kavanaugh, who's one of those that I think is
probably kind of in the middle on this issue. He's

(05:04):
expressed concerns about the executive order, but he was asking
the ACLU attorney Miss Wang about this, saying, can you know,
do you think that there's any provisions could be at it.
She said absolutely not, and he seemed quite skeptical of that.
So I think it's very possible, as they say that
they kind of split this issue, that it's not a

(05:26):
complete win for the administration, but that the Supreme Court
sets a very very important precedent that says, no, you
can put limitations on birth right citizenship. It is not absolute.

Speaker 2 (05:42):
While there is a wealth of data available to you
and it is all sourced. One of the many beauties
of Peter Schweitzer books is that it is it is
a book that is data driven. And I want to
zero in Peter in our final segment here on chapter
five China the Manchurian Generation, and you lead that particular

(06:08):
chapter off with one particular birth, and I'd like you
to talk about that for a second.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah, So you know, every New Year's Day we celebrate
the first American that is born. In this particular case,
i'll put American in quotes, because the first American baby
born in twenty twenty five was in fact a Chinese

(06:35):
baby that was from birth tourists from China who traveled
to Saipan, which is a US territory in the Asia
Pacific region. And just like the United states. If the
child is born on a US territory like Saipan, it
is automatically granted citizenship based on the interpretations of the

(06:59):
four Chean's Amendment that have been pushed by the left.
And this is a massive problem in scale. I mean,
I think this is the thing that surprised me the most.
The Chinese government has publicly said that every year, roughly
fifty thousand Chinese babies are born in the United States.

(07:23):
These are parents of the elite. They're military officers, they're
Chinese Communist Party officials, these are bi large non dissidents.
These are supporters of the regime. They pay eighty to
one hundred thousand dollars to a berth tourism company to
arrange to fly their baby to the United States or
a US territory for the sole purpose of getting US

(07:44):
citizenship for their child. That child, when they're raised in China,
that's the entire experience they know as a child. When
they turn eighteen, they're going to be able to vote
in our elections. So the numbers are eye popping. The
Chinese government believes is fitifty thousand a year. I also
cite a professor in Australia Salvador Barbonas, who travels extensively

(08:07):
at China, who study this, he thinks it's larger. He
thinks it's as high as one hundred thousand a year.
And then there is also a Chinese research firm that
estimates in certain years it's even higher. They believe in
twenty eighteen, for example, that there were one hundred and
eighty thousand Chinese babies born in the United States. So

(08:29):
it's quite shocking. Our federal government does not track this.
When you get birth in the United States, you get
a birth certificate, it does not you know, describe, and
the federal government does not collect the nationality of the parents.
So we are completely flying blind on this and the
implications in terms of voting and you know, you know,

(08:49):
potential foreign adversaries getting government jobs. It's absolutely mind boggling.
And I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination
that this is what the authors of the fourteen Amendment
had in mind when they passed the fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
They could not have conceived of what we're facing right
now with the threats to this country through China, let
alone Mexico, our southern neighbor.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yes, that's exactly right. And you know, it's interesting when
you listen to the legal scholars on this issue. The
argument that the Trump administration made is they actually went
through and looked at the debate on the passage of
the fourteenth Amendment, what the purposes of it were, which were,

(09:34):
of course to guarantee the rights the citizenship of the
children of black slaves in the United States. But there
was also a discussion of the eighteen ninety eight case
that is really the only one that has addressed this,
And what scholars point out is that the case actually

(09:54):
supports the administration because it involved a gentleman who was
born in the United States, returned to China as a
young man, then came back to the United States, and
as the administration points out, his parents were legally in
the United States right And in the decision they use
the word domiciled, which has a very specific legal definition

(10:17):
that you are there, and you are there legally with
the approval of the sovereign or of the government. So
I think the legal arguments are are very very compelling
for the administration.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
Peters always thank you for making time for us. I
appreciate it very very much and have a blessed weekend
for my friend.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
Yes, God bless you too.