April 9, 2026 • 15 mins
Were the arguments good? What does the 14th Amendment actually say and what was the intent of the writers? All that and more discussed with Senior Legal Fellow with Advancing American Freedon, Hans von Spakovsky.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hi, good morning, friends, welcome to the Third Hour, Ruminators.
We appreciate you joining us Thursday here on The Morning Show,
April ninth, Show fifty five seventy nine. He is Jose.
I am Preston and joining us back on the program,
senior legal fellow with the Advancing American Freedom organization. It's
(00:23):
Advancingamericanfreedom dot com is the website. Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
how are you a friend?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I'm doing just great. I was actually down in your
neighborhood last week, like a lot of other people. I
spent the spring breakdown in Florida.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Oh my goodness, did you survive it?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I did. The weather was great, and driving back we
actually managed to catch a glimpse of Artemis going up.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Thanks great and nice, very good, very good. I'm glad
you enjoyed your stay here in the Sunshine State. Hans.
I reached out to you because I when I watched
and listened to not watch, when I listened to the
arguments in the latest Supreme Court case that really has
a lot of people's attention, and it's Trump versus Barbara
(01:14):
that I was argued last week. I was unsatisfied, but
I want to get your thoughts on whether I should
be or not. By asking you first, for the sake
of our listeners, share the backdrop to why this case
is so important. Tell us about it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
The citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendments very short. It
was one of the reconstruction amendments passed after the end
of Civil War. It was to make sure that slaves
and their children would be considered citizens. And it basically
says that you're a citizen if you're born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. Now,
(01:58):
all of those who are saying, oh, that means birthright citizenship,
they're ignoring the second half of that phrase. And that's
what all the arguments were about. What does that mean
that when you're born you're subject to the jurisdiction of
the US. Now, if you go back to what the
sponsors of the fourteenth Amendment said, it's an easy call.
(02:18):
What they said was that you owed your political allegiance
to the US government when you were born. If your
parents are American citizens, then obviously you're an American citizen
when you're born. But if you're a Mexican citizen in
the country illegally when you're born, you're a Mexican citizen
(02:42):
automatically because your parent is a Mexican citizen, so you
owe your political allegiance to the Mexican government. But that's
what they were arguing about. The ACLU, A lawyer up
there was totally disputing that, and there was a huge
discussion and questioning about dominsile and that was basically because
(03:04):
of that language, and they were asking how and when
can you establish the the US is your domicile. My
argument would be that if you're in the country illegally,
you can never do that. You can't establish that you're
domicile in the country because you're here illegally. But that's
what the fight was about.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
I am curious. Do you think that the Solicitor General,
John Sowers made a good case?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah? Actually I think he did, And I think the
media criticisms of him were unfair and wrong. I mean,
for example, everybody's citing him saying, well, we're in a
new world now, the Chief Justice saying, well, it's a
new world but it's the same constitution. Actually, the Chief
(03:55):
Justice was asking him about birth tourism, you know, did
that exists at the time, and John's hours said no,
he said, but he wasn't saying that somehow birth tourism
today should change the original understanding. When he answered that question,
(04:15):
he was saying, the arise of birth tourism shows that
the misinterpretation of the citizenship clause has had dire consequences.
So I think he was unfairly criticized about that. Similarly,
(04:36):
you know, everybody's quoting Amy Cony Barrett saying, well, you're
that's not textual, But in fact, what she was asking
him about was the fact that there's nothing in the
text to show that the purpose of the fourteenth Amendment
was to make the children of slaves citizens, And what
(04:59):
he was saying was, yeah, but if you look at
the debate and what the sponsors were saying at the
time the fourteenth Amendment was passed, that's clearly what was
going on. But that does not apply to illegal aliens
who are the US and who have kids here.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Hans von Spakowski is a national expert on a lot
of legal and constitutional issues, and we're talking about maybe
the most important case that's going to be heard. Hans.
This is a massively important case.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Isn't it. It is the consequences of this decision, if
I think, if it's wrongly decided, will affect the makeup
of the citizen population of the United States from now
into the future. Birthright citizenship, which has been wrongly applied
(05:59):
by the federal government now for about seventy years, is
a huge magnet for pulling illegal aliens into the country.
And what folks need to understand is contrary to what
the Acou lawyer was saying. She kept trying to say, Oh,
it's been understood that way ever since the fourteenth Amendment
(06:20):
was passed. That's just wrong, that's historically inaccurate. For really,
basically for the first I say seventy years, everybody understood
that that provision did not provide birthright citizenship. In fact,
there was a case just a couple of years after
(06:43):
the fourteenth Amendment was passed where an American Indian actually
sued saying, hey, you need to consider me a citizen
because I was born in the United States, and there
was US Supreme Court. Supreme Court said you are not
a citizen. Why You're not subject to the jurisdiction of
the US government. You're subject to the jurisdiction of your
(07:06):
tribal government. And Indians didn't become citizens until Congress passed
the law, the Indian Citizenship Act, in the nineteen twenties. Well,
if birthright citizenship was only criteria, the Supreme Court would
have said, Yeah, you're obviously a citizen, Hans.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Is it oversimplified? I've made this argument long before this
case even got heard by the Supreme Court? Is it
oversimplified to say, Look, when ambassadors from foreign nations are
in America and a birth happens in their family, their
child does not become a citizen of US. They become
(07:45):
a citizen of the nation that sent them to be
an ambassador here. Is that over Is that overly simplified
to this No.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
That's exactly right, And it doesn't matter whether you're an
ambassador or anybody else. Look, if if American parents, let's say,
the State Department sends you abroad, this is one not
even making the State Department. You work for in a
US corporation, and they station you in Europe, and your
(08:16):
wife has a child in Europe, that child is automatically
a US citizen because the child's parents are US citizens.
And the same is true, like I said, of Mexicans
who are in this country illegally. Their children are automatically
citizens of Mexico when they're born, so they are not
(08:38):
they don't meet the second part of that citizenship clause.
But like I said, you know, they feel you and
all the other people's wanted entirely the other way, and
they're they're just row and I hope the Supreme Court
does not give into that. They I'll tell you what
I was disappointed in. I don't think the Justices pushed
back hard enough in their question on the a CLU
(09:02):
lawyers claim that we've always had birthright citizenship in this
country because historically, like I said, that is just not accurate.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Advancing Americanfreedom dot com it's a group founded by former
Vice President Mike Pence, and like all things, I don't
agree with everything that the former vice president you know, espouses,
but I sure respect him. I know he loves Jesus
and joining us is senior legal fellow Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
(09:34):
we're talking about the case Trump versus Barbara. What do
you think the outcome is going to be?
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I have to say I think, unfortunately, I think the
Trump administration is fighting an uphill battle. I completely agree
with their view of the proper interpretation citizenship clause. I
think at best they might get a five to four
decision in their favor. On the other hand, you know,
(10:02):
there's a possibility that they might kind of split the baby.
You know, what they might say is, if you're born
to aliens who are here illegally, you're not a citizen
because an illegal alien can't establish they have any right
to domicile in the US. But if you're born to
(10:22):
an alien who's here legally, you're a citizen. That wouldn't
get everything we need, but it would be a big
help given the fact that the latest numbers, the latest
estimates are there's upwards of probably twenty five million illegal
aliens in the US, ten million of whom came in
(10:45):
during just the four years of the Biden administration, and
that that would be a big help. If they totally
rule against the president, it is going to cause enormous problems,
Like I said, from today going forward into the far future.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, our friend Peter Schwitzer based here in Tallahassee with
the Accountability Institute. Peter's book Invisible Coup. Some of the
data from his book found its way into those arguments,
and he details how the Chinese are using this process
and are going to flood this country with better than
a million a million and a half voters in the
next maybe decade or so that will upturn and overturn
(11:28):
an election.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah. Now, Peter Schweitzer is great, and nobody beats him
for the research that he and his people put together.
And I believe that. Remember, just a couple of years ago,
the Justice Department for the first time filed a massive
criminal prosecution against three different birth tourism agencies in California
(11:55):
and died it convicted about two dozen people. All of
these agencies had one purpose getting Chinese women, many of
them relatives of high up Chinese government Communist officials, into
the US just so they could have their children here
so they could then claim citizenship. And that was the
(12:17):
first time in history that they'd had those kind of indictments.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
And they're all being educated back in China by the
Communist Party and are going to be a proxy commis
in our country.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah. Yeah, they are moles. They are deep cover moles
where they're not even that deep cover. They're moles for
the Chinese Communist government.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Last question for you, if the ruling goes the other way,
which I'm leaning towards that. I think maybe deep down
you might think the same. I don't know, but I
think that it's going to come out against what remedies
exist for Congress.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Well, you know, it was very interesting at one point,
as Kavanaugh said, can't we make this decision on a
statutory basis rather than a constitutional basis? And what he
was referring to is the fact that there is a
federal statute on this, but all it does is repeat
(13:16):
the language of the fourteenth Amendment with absolutely no change.
And if they, for for example, were to issue a
decision saying, oh, well, we're not dealing with the Amendment,
We're only interpreting the applicable statute and it requires birthright citizenship,
(13:36):
then Condress potentially could change that statute to say, all
our interpretation the Fourteenth Amendment is birthright citizenship is not recognized.
You would get then another court fight, but that would
be one way of trying to fix the problem.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
I would have maybe even lower hopes there because we've
got eighty three percent approval for the Save Act and
we can't get the Senate to cross the finish line
with it.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yeah, and that really shows how adamant. The Democratic Party
is they want. Look, they completely supported bringing having an
open border, bringing in ten million illegal aliens. They want
aliens registering and voting even though it's illegal. And why
(14:26):
is that. Ultimately, it's because they believe that will allow
them to remain a political force, remain in power, and
that's what we're up against.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Hans is always I appreciate the time you offer us
and good to speak with you again, and we'll talk
again soon.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Great, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Thank you, sir, Hans von Spakowski with us from Advancing
Americanfreedom dot com. I got that right twice. Look at me.
It's The Morning Show with Preston Scott.
Hi, good morning, friends, welcome to the Third Hour, Ruminators.
We appreciate you joining us Thursday here on The Morning Show,
April ninth, Show fifty five seventy nine. He is Jose.
I am Preston and joining us back on the program,
senior legal fellow with the Advancing American Freedom organization. It's
(00:23):
Advancingamericanfreedom dot com is the website. Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
how are you a friend?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I'm doing just great. I was actually down in your
neighborhood last week, like a lot of other people. I
spent the spring breakdown in Florida.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Oh my goodness, did you survive it?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I did. The weather was great, and driving back we
actually managed to catch a glimpse of Artemis going up.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Thanks great and nice, very good, very good. I'm glad
you enjoyed your stay here in the Sunshine State. Hans.
I reached out to you because I when I watched
and listened to not watch, when I listened to the
arguments in the latest Supreme Court case that really has
a lot of people's attention, and it's Trump versus Barbara
(01:14):
that I was argued last week. I was unsatisfied, but
I want to get your thoughts on whether I should
be or not. By asking you first, for the sake
of our listeners, share the backdrop to why this case
is so important. Tell us about it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
The citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendments very short. It
was one of the reconstruction amendments passed after the end
of Civil War. It was to make sure that slaves
and their children would be considered citizens. And it basically
says that you're a citizen if you're born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. Now,
(01:58):
all of those who are saying, oh, that means birthright citizenship,
they're ignoring the second half of that phrase. And that's
what all the arguments were about. What does that mean
that when you're born you're subject to the jurisdiction of
the US. Now, if you go back to what the
sponsors of the fourteenth Amendment said, it's an easy call.
(02:18):
What they said was that you owed your political allegiance
to the US government when you were born. If your
parents are American citizens, then obviously you're an American citizen
when you're born. But if you're a Mexican citizen in
the country illegally when you're born, you're a Mexican citizen
(02:42):
automatically because your parent is a Mexican citizen, so you
owe your political allegiance to the Mexican government. But that's
what they were arguing about. The ACLU, A lawyer up
there was totally disputing that, and there was a huge
discussion and questioning about dominsile and that was basically because
(03:04):
of that language, and they were asking how and when
can you establish the the US is your domicile. My
argument would be that if you're in the country illegally,
you can never do that. You can't establish that you're
domicile in the country because you're here illegally. But that's
what the fight was about.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
I am curious. Do you think that the Solicitor General,
John Sowers made a good case?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah? Actually I think he did, And I think the
media criticisms of him were unfair and wrong. I mean,
for example, everybody's citing him saying, well, we're in a
new world now, the Chief Justice saying, well, it's a
new world but it's the same constitution. Actually, the Chief
(03:55):
Justice was asking him about birth tourism, you know, did
that exists at the time, and John's hours said no,
he said, but he wasn't saying that somehow birth tourism
today should change the original understanding. When he answered that question,
(04:15):
he was saying, the arise of birth tourism shows that
the misinterpretation of the citizenship clause has had dire consequences.
So I think he was unfairly criticized about that. Similarly,
(04:36):
you know, everybody's quoting Amy Cony Barrett saying, well, you're
that's not textual, But in fact, what she was asking
him about was the fact that there's nothing in the
text to show that the purpose of the fourteenth Amendment
was to make the children of slaves citizens, And what
(04:59):
he was saying was, yeah, but if you look at
the debate and what the sponsors were saying at the
time the fourteenth Amendment was passed, that's clearly what was
going on. But that does not apply to illegal aliens
who are the US and who have kids here.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Hans von Spakowski is a national expert on a lot
of legal and constitutional issues, and we're talking about maybe
the most important case that's going to be heard. Hans.
This is a massively important case.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Isn't it. It is the consequences of this decision, if
I think, if it's wrongly decided, will affect the makeup
of the citizen population of the United States from now
into the future. Birthright citizenship, which has been wrongly applied
(05:59):
by the federal government now for about seventy years, is
a huge magnet for pulling illegal aliens into the country.
And what folks need to understand is contrary to what
the Acou lawyer was saying. She kept trying to say, Oh,
it's been understood that way ever since the fourteenth Amendment
(06:20):
was passed. That's just wrong, that's historically inaccurate. For really,
basically for the first I say seventy years, everybody understood
that that provision did not provide birthright citizenship. In fact,
there was a case just a couple of years after
(06:43):
the fourteenth Amendment was passed where an American Indian actually
sued saying, hey, you need to consider me a citizen
because I was born in the United States, and there
was US Supreme Court. Supreme Court said you are not
a citizen. Why You're not subject to the jurisdiction of
the US government. You're subject to the jurisdiction of your
(07:06):
tribal government. And Indians didn't become citizens until Congress passed
the law, the Indian Citizenship Act, in the nineteen twenties. Well,
if birthright citizenship was only criteria, the Supreme Court would
have said, Yeah, you're obviously a citizen, Hans.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Is it oversimplified? I've made this argument long before this
case even got heard by the Supreme Court? Is it
oversimplified to say, Look, when ambassadors from foreign nations are
in America and a birth happens in their family, their
child does not become a citizen of US. They become
(07:45):
a citizen of the nation that sent them to be
an ambassador here. Is that over Is that overly simplified
to this No.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
That's exactly right, And it doesn't matter whether you're an
ambassador or anybody else. Look, if if American parents, let's say,
the State Department sends you abroad, this is one not
even making the State Department. You work for in a
US corporation, and they station you in Europe, and your
(08:16):
wife has a child in Europe, that child is automatically
a US citizen because the child's parents are US citizens.
And the same is true, like I said, of Mexicans
who are in this country illegally. Their children are automatically
citizens of Mexico when they're born, so they are not
(08:38):
they don't meet the second part of that citizenship clause.
But like I said, you know, they feel you and
all the other people's wanted entirely the other way, and
they're they're just row and I hope the Supreme Court
does not give into that. They I'll tell you what
I was disappointed in. I don't think the Justices pushed
back hard enough in their question on the a CLU
(09:02):
lawyers claim that we've always had birthright citizenship in this
country because historically, like I said, that is just not accurate.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Advancing Americanfreedom dot com it's a group founded by former
Vice President Mike Pence, and like all things, I don't
agree with everything that the former vice president you know, espouses,
but I sure respect him. I know he loves Jesus
and joining us is senior legal fellow Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
(09:34):
we're talking about the case Trump versus Barbara. What do
you think the outcome is going to be?
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I have to say I think, unfortunately, I think the
Trump administration is fighting an uphill battle. I completely agree
with their view of the proper interpretation citizenship clause. I
think at best they might get a five to four
decision in their favor. On the other hand, you know,
(10:02):
there's a possibility that they might kind of split the baby.
You know, what they might say is, if you're born
to aliens who are here illegally, you're not a citizen
because an illegal alien can't establish they have any right
to domicile in the US. But if you're born to
(10:22):
an alien who's here legally, you're a citizen. That wouldn't
get everything we need, but it would be a big
help given the fact that the latest numbers, the latest
estimates are there's upwards of probably twenty five million illegal
aliens in the US, ten million of whom came in
(10:45):
during just the four years of the Biden administration, and
that that would be a big help. If they totally
rule against the president, it is going to cause enormous problems,
Like I said, from today going forward into the far future.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, our friend Peter Schwitzer based here in Tallahassee with
the Accountability Institute. Peter's book Invisible Coup. Some of the
data from his book found its way into those arguments,
and he details how the Chinese are using this process
and are going to flood this country with better than
a million a million and a half voters in the
next maybe decade or so that will upturn and overturn
(11:28):
an election.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah. Now, Peter Schweitzer is great, and nobody beats him
for the research that he and his people put together.
And I believe that. Remember, just a couple of years ago,
the Justice Department for the first time filed a massive
criminal prosecution against three different birth tourism agencies in California
(11:55):
and died it convicted about two dozen people. All of
these agencies had one purpose getting Chinese women, many of
them relatives of high up Chinese government Communist officials, into
the US just so they could have their children here
so they could then claim citizenship. And that was the
(12:17):
first time in history that they'd had those kind of indictments.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
And they're all being educated back in China by the
Communist Party and are going to be a proxy commis
in our country.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah. Yeah, they are moles. They are deep cover moles
where they're not even that deep cover. They're moles for
the Chinese Communist government.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Last question for you, if the ruling goes the other way,
which I'm leaning towards that. I think maybe deep down
you might think the same. I don't know, but I
think that it's going to come out against what remedies
exist for Congress.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Well, you know, it was very interesting at one point,
as Kavanaugh said, can't we make this decision on a
statutory basis rather than a constitutional basis? And what he
was referring to is the fact that there is a
federal statute on this, but all it does is repeat
(13:16):
the language of the fourteenth Amendment with absolutely no change.
And if they, for for example, were to issue a
decision saying, oh, well, we're not dealing with the Amendment,
We're only interpreting the applicable statute and it requires birthright citizenship,
(13:36):
then Condress potentially could change that statute to say, all
our interpretation the Fourteenth Amendment is birthright citizenship is not recognized.
You would get then another court fight, but that would
be one way of trying to fix the problem.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
I would have maybe even lower hopes there because we've
got eighty three percent approval for the Save Act and
we can't get the Senate to cross the finish line
with it.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yeah, and that really shows how adamant. The Democratic Party
is they want. Look, they completely supported bringing having an
open border, bringing in ten million illegal aliens. They want
aliens registering and voting even though it's illegal. And why
(14:26):
is that. Ultimately, it's because they believe that will allow
them to remain a political force, remain in power, and
that's what we're up against.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Hans is always I appreciate the time you offer us
and good to speak with you again, and we'll talk
again soon.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Great, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Thank you, sir, Hans von Spakowski with us from Advancing
Americanfreedom dot com. I got that right twice. Look at me.
It's The Morning Show with Preston Scott.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com