1-22-25 - 6am - Birthright Citizenship

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We only have four hours left until Trump has been
in charge for two days, and shocking, he is just
not turned into a dictator yet. Weird well left told
us that's what would happen.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Well, giving time, I mean, you know, patience. Patience is
a virtue and something I have just an ordinate amount of.
So if you just learned to be patient, like I'm patient, well,
then you you wouldn't be so upset about it. Well,
some would say with all the executive orders, that is
what a dictator would do. So well, yeah, I mean
president has done that almost day one, for eons. Right,

(00:40):
So I'm trying to find I thought I saw just
a second ago. This is what happens when you decide
to do a different story because of a SoundBite that
I saw, and now I can't find that. Oh, here's
a way to do it, riveting radio this early in
the morning.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Don't you think it's great? Yeah? Oh my mic was
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Uh No, I don't want Alan DERs want Alan Dershowitz,
Alan Dershwitz. Here we go, Now, let's se we can
find it. Here we go. Let's start with this because
I want to talk about the fourteenth Amendment. Fourteenth amendment.
This has to do with birthright citizenship. Section one says,

(01:30):
and remember these are the Civil War amendments. All persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. So you have to be born here
or naturalized here, and you have to be subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States. Are citizens of the

(01:51):
United States and of the state wherein they reside. Now
what you think about that clause? So they are citizens
of the United States and of this state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

(02:14):
or property without due process of law, nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the law.
Second section Section two. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

(02:38):
But when the right to vote at any election for
the choice of electors for President and vice president of
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the members of the legislature
thereof is denied to any of the male inhabitants of
such state being twenty one years of age and citizens
of the United States, or in any way abridged, except

(02:59):
for participation in rebellion or other crime, or other crime,
the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in proportion
in which the number of such male citizens shall bear
to the whole number of male citizens twenty one years
of age in such state. Then he goes on talking
about no person shall be a senator of representating Congress,

(03:21):
blah blah blah. These are the Civil War amendments giving
full citizenship to slaves who, prior to that were if
you remember the you know, originally we counted slaves as
you know, four fifths because you know, we were trying
to get the Southern States to agree to the constitution.

(03:43):
And then there was the question of are they citizens
and entitled de votes? So the fourteenth Amendment was passed
so that they they could be or would be considered
under the constitutions citizens of the state wherein they reside. Thus,
then later on we get birthright citizenship, and there is

(04:05):
a conflict of opinion about whether or not birthright citizenship
is embodied in Section one of the fourteenth Amendment. Now,
I want to give you an argument that you can
choose to believe or not believe. But when you take

(04:29):
into for example, when we're interpreting any other provision of
the Constitution, we take into first the plain meaning of
the language, but then we also take into consideration the
context in which it was adopted, any of the historical
record we have of the debates about that amendment, including

(04:50):
such things as the Federalist Papers. So we would seem
to be required to do the same thing for birthright citizenship.
Professor Dershowitz thinks that birthright citizenship is foolish, that it's stupid,
but nonetheless he believes that it is in the Constitution.

(05:12):
So here's Professor dershowitche on newsbacks.

Speaker 4 (05:14):
When I took the oath to be your Attorney General,
I swore that I would uphold the constitution of this
state and of this nation.

Speaker 3 (05:21):
And when we say we'll defend the rule of law,
we mean it.

Speaker 4 (05:24):
That's why this morning I led a coalition of eighteen states,
the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco
ensuing President Trump and his administration for the unlawful order
he signed yesterday that rewrote the Constitution, upended century as
a president, and denied residents in our state and across
this country the right that they have in the Constitution

(05:45):
to birthright citizenship.

Speaker 5 (05:48):
Harvard Law School of Professor Meredith and author of the
book The Ten Big Anti Israel Lies and How to
Refute Them with Truth, Professor Alan Dershowitz joins me, good evening, Sir,
Tell me, is this constitutional? Does the president have the
authority to do this?

Speaker 6 (06:04):
It just seems pretty clear that it's not constitutional. I
think the idea that a person born in the United
States is automatically a citizen is foolish. I mean, somebody
who has no connection to the Country's mother was here
skiing and she had an early pregnancy.

Speaker 3 (06:21):
And the baby was born, and three days later was.

Speaker 6 (06:24):
Sent back to her country in evertanp to the United
States again. Can run for president? No, can't run for president.
You have to look at fifteen years to run for president.
But can be a full and complete citizen. That The
only exception to it is the Fourteenth Amendment says all
persons born that person was born, but and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. And that's where some people say, well,

(06:48):
if the person left the country never had any connection,
maybe that person isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.

Speaker 3 (06:56):
But I think that would require legislation.

Speaker 6 (06:59):
So I think the weakest case is the President just
announcing it, you know, maybe the right thing to say
from a policy point of view.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
The second stronger case would.

Speaker 6 (07:09):
Be a congress past legislation saying a person going to
the United States will not be deemed subject to its
jurisdiction if he is not in the country for and
then list a bunch of times. But I think the
weakest case is just to announce that we're just not
going to follow the words of the fourteenth Amendment. That

(07:29):
seems very, very difficult to justify. Obviously, the courts will
have the last word on this, and it depends on
whether you're lest reading the Constitution or more of a functionalist.
The rule itself is not a wise rule, but it's
in the Constitution all right.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
Now, Just a simple question, do you think that post
Civil War that the members of Congress, the President, and
the States agreed three fourths of the states agreed that, oh,
we should just make anybody who is born here a citizen,

(08:11):
regardless of any of the circumstances. I mean, I think
that Professor Dirship, which laid out a really good example.
Do we really think that the meaning was that you're
here on a skiing vacation, or you're just here to
visit Grandma and you're actually from Poland, just I don't know,
just to randomly pick a country and suddenly you're you know,

(08:31):
you're eight months pregnant. I don't know what you're doing traveling,
but you're eight months pregnant, and boom, your water breaks
and you got a baby. And that person is now
entitled after you know, if assuming they stay here, you know,
I think, now that I've been born here, I think
I'll just stay here. That they should be able to
grow up and become president of the United States.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
I just don't one.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
I just don't think that's a the right interpretation of
the fourteenth Amendment. But I understand if you read it,
if all you do is just look at the four
corners of it, and and it says quite plainly all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and so
you have to have there's there's there's a uh, there's

(09:19):
two requirements. You have to be born or naturalized. That's
the first one, and then two, you have to be
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now you can make an
argument that the woman who gives a baby here, that
baby is subject to the jurisdiction of thereof because if
the baby, for example, was old enough to commit a crime, uh,

(09:40):
that person would be arrested and charged. If if you
and your girlfriend or your wife or your husband, or
whatever the situation is, you you go to Paris and
you're you know, you're having a honeymoon, and you know
you did the deed before you got married, and suddenly
you have a baby while you're in Paris. Do you
think that that person, if they wanted to stay or

(10:02):
they should have dual citizenship. They're going to come back
to this country where they where the parents actually live,
that that person should be a dual citizen of both
France and the United States. I just it just doesn't
make any sense to me, but to a lot of
people it does. I just I just want to give

(10:25):
you some ideas to think about. And this all comes
about because, as Professor Dershowitz points out President Trump through
that question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics,
And the question just simply is I just want you
to think about the question, should the United States automatically

(10:45):
grant citizenship to any child who just happens to be
born on US soil? Well, let me just complicate the
question a little bit. What if that person is in
this country illegally? Is that a factor that you would
consider as opposed to the to the family that you
know comes from Paris to go to Aspen to go skiing,

(11:09):
and mom just happens to drop a baby while she's
an Aspen as opposed to you know, a mother alone
by herself, maybe just a single you know, a single
mom that is crossing the border illegally, committing a crime,
getting into the United States, dropping a baby, no intention

(11:30):
of ever assimilating or doing anything else. I'm trying to
paint an ugly picture here, and and so we're gonna
make that child because of the criminal actions of the mother,
We're gonna allow that child to have all the full rights, benefits,
and privileges of being a US citizen.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
It's just not right.

Speaker 2 (11:49):
I don't think either the Declaration of independence or the
Constitution requires doing such a thing. But the defenders of
birthright citizenship shut down to by framing opposition as being
cruel and racist, and obviously they would claim wrong is
illegal matter. But I think you can actually make a

(12:10):
fairly strong constitutional and a moral case for limiting birthright citizenship.
And that's the argument that led Trump to issue the
executive order that defines a new status quo going forward,
children of illegal aliens will not receive recognition of their
citizenship by the Department of State or any other executive agency,

(12:33):
so that you cannot issues, for example, a passport to
a child born in this country to an illegal alien,
or for that matter, to a person that whose family
just happens to be traveling here, you know, to go
skiing and Aspen. Think about the practicality of that. So

(12:53):
a family's traveling here from Paris to skiing Aspen, and
then the child's born, and once the mother and the
child are healthy enough, which in these days and age,
because of insurance, is like, you know, thirty seconds after birth,
kick him out of the hospital and then they fly
back to Paris. What would you think if that person,

(13:14):
that child, the parents on behalf of that child, while
sitting back in their apartment in France, in Paris, make
application to the United States Department of State for an
American passport for that child who happen to be born
in Asthmen. I think when you put it in that context,
you think to yourself, well, no, they're back in Paris. Well,

(13:38):
what's really the difference here, Let's just start with the Constitution. Well,
let's go back to the Constitution. It's the fourteenth Amendment,
one of three, ratified in the immediate wake of the
Civil War. And as I said, the relevant porson says,
all persons born or naturalized in the United Slime States

(14:00):
and subjects of the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States another state whereen they reside. Now, so the
phrase at issue is, I think, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof. That's the jurisdiction clause. Now, proponents of birthright
citizenship maintain that that phrase merely means subject to the

(14:21):
laws and courts of the United States. Well, I would
argue that anybody everybody that comes to this country legally
or illegally. But let's think about those that come here legally,
they are indeed subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
So as long as they.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
Are in this country, goes back to the Paris example,
the skiers, as long as they're in this country, if
they murder somebody, they're subject to the criminal statutes. If
they drive drunk, they're subject to the criminal statutes. If
they trash the hotel room. They're staying at the Little
Nail and Aspen, they're paying, you know, a couple of
grand a night for the hotel room, and they trash it,

(15:08):
they're going to be subject to charges of vandalism or
damage to public property or private property, well, you know,
whatever the appropriate criminal charge might be. So they're subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. Yet, go back to the eighteen
sixty six Civil Rights Act. That's the legislation that led
to the fourteenth Amendment. And then I want you to

(15:29):
think about just the principles of the American founding. I
think all of those offer a different interpretation of the
fourteenth Amendment. So let's think about the Civil Rights Act
of eighteen sixty six. That act was meant to secure
the full benefits of citizenship for the recently freed slaves

(15:51):
and all of their descendants and for that matter, all
black citizens. The proponents of the Civil Rights Active eighteen
sixty six were determined to convert it from legislation to
constitutional texts. Now, why do they want to do that?
So they passed a law that just said that. The

(16:12):
Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six said hey, listen,
all you former slaves, you're now citizens. You have the
right to vote, you have all these things that you
know ordinary citizens do or all other citizens do. But
much like we know with legislation, it can be changed.

(16:32):
So the proponents of the Civil Rights Active eighteen sixty
six were determined to convert it from just statutory law
to a constitutional provision. Why because they wanted to insulate
the protections in the law from a change by a
future Congress. And you have to take into consideration the
circumstances of why they wanted to do that. There was

(16:55):
still le mean, look at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
There was still a there, I use the word insurrection.
There was an insurrection movement that was still alive in
the Southern States, part of which led to the assassination
of the president. So we get the fourteenth Amendment, and
that meant that the legislative history of the Civil Rights

(17:19):
Act of eighteen sixty six should help us illuminate what
the Fourteenth Amendment was really supposed to be all about.
The statutory act, the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty
six had a citizenship clause that read this way, quote

(17:41):
all persons born in the United States and not subject
to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby
declared to be citizens of the United States. Now what
do you think that was directed at black slaves? Then

(18:01):
a few months later, when the Fourteenth Amendment was debated,
Sensor Jacob Howard, who was the floor manager of the debate,
describe it as quote simply declaratory of what I regard
as the law of the land already, and that is,
namely that quote, every person born within the United within
the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is,

(18:23):
by virtue of natural law and natural law a national law,
a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course,
include persons born in the United States.

Speaker 3 (18:35):
Who are pain type.

Speaker 7 (18:40):
The DEI layoffs that people with extra time on their
hands could swing by California and help out with the wildfires.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
I don't know most.

Speaker 7 (18:51):
People I think at this point that are involved in
the wildfires. I don't think they're going to be particularly
picky about the background of volunteers and firefighters. Well, at
least I wouldn't. Just saying.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
One of the tech on the text line Godman of
fifty five sixty six says Mike argue the difference between
an illegal alien versus someone who immigrated legally, versus a
non immigrant versus a non immigrant visa. I think I
know what you're getting at. But remember the debate here.
If you're a non citizen and you come to this country,

(19:30):
you know through you know, through a visa process, you
have you've only met one part of the two clauses
of the first section of the fourteenth Amendment. You weren't
born here, but you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But

(19:51):
think about this. That person who comes here legally simply
because they weren't born here now has to make an
application and go through the process of you know, if
you want to stay, you got to get a green card.
I mean, if you want to work and stay, you
got to get a green card. And then if you
want to become a citizen, then you have to apply

(20:11):
to become a citizen. So someone who does it legally
has to go through a process. Someone who does it
illegally just and just child happens to be born here,
then they get it without any question. And before you,
before you jump all over me, those of you lawyers

(20:33):
in the group, I'm quite aware of an eighteen ninety
eight case called the United States versus Wong Kim arc
in which, on a sixty two decision, one judge did
not one justice did not participate. I forget which one.
They interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment the way that we have

(20:54):
continued to interpret it. But if you read through the
entire case, which I did but been quite a while,
they don't really address the issue of In fact, they
totally ignore the historical aspect of how you know, what
brought about the fourteenth Amendment. They just completely ignore that altogether,

(21:18):
Which is why I want to focus That's why I
want to focus on it. So let's go back to
where we are. The eighteen sixty six legislation's citizenship clause.
The Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, or sometimes
referred to as the eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act.

(21:41):
The citizenship clause in that bill said this, all persons
born in the United States and not subject to any
foreign power, excluding Indians, non tax are hereby declared to
be citizens of.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
The United States.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
So then when they when they start the debate on
the fourteenth Amendment, the floor manager, Sensor Jacob Howard, said
that it described the amendment as simply declaratory of what
I regard as the law of the land already, namely

(22:16):
this that quote, every person born within the within the
limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is,
by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen
of the United States. This will not, of course, include
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens

(22:42):
who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
So when they were debating this, the floor manager of
the amendment, you know, assured everyone that, well, no, we're
not changing anything. If you're a foreigner, you're an alien,

(23:02):
you belong to a family of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
Just because you're born here does not mean that you're
going to naturally become citizens. We're simply saying that the
slaves have full rights of citizenship. So you know, what
did he mean by the law of the land already well.

(23:24):
He was referring to the eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that time, Lyman Trumbull,
in addressing an objection over the absence of the Civil
Rights Act phrase Indians not taxed, not being in the
Fourteenth Amendment, stated that it was obvious that Indians were

(23:49):
not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Quote
in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.
That's why you don't have that in the Amendment. Now,
in such language from some of the Fourteenth Amendments main proponents,

(24:10):
you can actually see the outlines of an argument that
the jurisdiction clause meant more than merely being subject to
the law and the courts by simply being on us soil.
If I go to France, I'm subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If I commit a murder, if I, you know, vandalize property,

(24:32):
I run a stop sign, I do anything that violates
any of their laws federal, state, municipal, then I'm subject
to the jurisdiction by simply being on their soil. If
if I if tamer and I which would be a miracle.
If Tamurai go to Paris and we have a child,

(24:55):
that child does not automatically become we're US citizens. We
don't have dual citizenship in any country. But we have
a child and we decide, you know what, Paris is
kind of not let's just stay here. Well, that child
will be subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of France.

(25:16):
But why what logic would that person who's born to
two US parents who simply choose to stay in Paris
somehow we get a green card or their equivalent and stay.
Why that child should have to do exactly the same thing, right,
I mean, when we think about it from our perspective,

(25:38):
going to a foreign country, it's only logical. So go
back to the fourteenth Amendment. We can see the outlines
of an argument that the jurisdiction clause meant more than
merely being subject to the laws and courts by being

(25:59):
on us. So it had to do with the fundamental
tenet of citizenship, loyalty, or allegiance. So how did we
end up with this idea that children of even illegal
aliens just get automatic citizenship. Well, that goes back to
that case that I just cited back in eighteen ninety eight,

(26:23):
Wong Kim arc he was a child of Chinese nationals
who were permanent US residents. The decision was sixty two,
and the Supreme Court held that the common law was
the proper interpretive guide to the US Constitution's text. Now,
since common law mandated birthright citizenship jew solely as opposed

(26:48):
to jeus sanguine right of soil instead of right of blood,
the child was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. To
this day, that single case remains the controlling precedent for
the maximalist position on birthright citizenship, and it's often cited

(27:08):
by sympathetic judges and law professors on both sides of
the isle, but nobody ever goes to the dissenting opinion
written by the Chief Justice, who offers an interpretation of
the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause that is more consonant with
American principles of just government than what Justice Gray's opinion was.

(27:30):
The Chief Justice argued that the common law could not
be the controlling authority because when we separated from the
British Crown in seventeen seventy six, the American colonists had
elevated the principles of the Declaration of Independence over the
common law. The common law of England contemplated that subjects

(27:51):
owing perpetual allegiance rather than citizens of a government based
on consent.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
It was a huge difference.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
We're citizens, We're the ultimate power, and we give our
consent to the Federal to the Constitution. Through the Constitution,
we give our consent to be governed by the fifty
states who formed.

Speaker 3 (28:16):
A national government.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
The common law of England contemplated that the subjects of
the monarchy owed a perpetual allegiance, not like us. I
think Chief Justice Fuller was correct. The common law did
not come up at all during the legislative debate over

(28:39):
the fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
Language.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
There was no references to Sir Edward Cook, no references
to Blackstone. The imminent English authorities on common law and
the Congressmen were much more comfortable speaking of the interactions
between the principles of America and her institutions than they
were citing English precedents of solely of being born on

(29:06):
the soil. They believe that the principles of the Declaration
would control, and where necessary, would actually overrule common law
of England. If human equality. Think about it like this.
If human equality is a fact of nature, then nobody
may rule another without their consent. And that was the

(29:31):
whole basis of the Declaration. Everybody ought to enjoy their
liberties and their pursuit of happiness alike. And the very
existence of slavery and the crisis brought on by the
conflicts between the principles and American practice and the Civil

(29:52):
War provide a great, I think, a great historical context
for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and the fifteenth. American citizenship, defined
constitutionally for the first time in the eighteen sixties was
never based in blood, but crucially, it was never based
on soil either. American citizenship is based on consent. We're

(30:23):
citizens of this country, and we organize our government and
give our consent to the government, to the government to
govern over us within the parameters of the Declaration, the Constitution,
and the laws that they pass. So go back to
that eighteen ninety eight Supreme Court case. It needs to

(30:46):
be overturned and we should have a robust I think,
national debate about citizenship, about immigration, about national allegiance, and
Congress is well within its enforcement powers under Section five
of the fourteen keeenth Amendment to restrict birthright citizenship more
than it currently does. We don't really need a court case.

(31:09):
We just need Congress to step up and just say no,
that's not neim We're not going to do it that way.
Section five. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. So you want
to change the definition just to eliminate any question about it,

(31:33):
Congress can do that. But let's start with two issues
on which maybe there could be some broad national consensus consensus.
Let's just think about illegal immigration and birth tourism.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
Help the left is going to have an outdown twelve
a m mean tweets, but actual are back.

Speaker 3 (31:57):
Oh, I didn't see that. I'll have to go look.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
So let's think about illegal immigration and birth tourism. Now,
children of foreign soldiers that might be here training that
are born on US soil have always been excluded from
birthright citizenship, as have the children that are born to
ambassadors or diplomats that are stationed in the United States.

(32:24):
But think about illegal aliens, and in particular, I want
you to think about criminal illegal aliens, and I don't
mean just by the fact they come across the border illegally.
But I'm talking about Trenda Ragawa gang members or any
other you know, cartel members whose families may be living here.

(32:45):
Is it good for American for our national interests, or
for the civic health to confer citizenship. If if Guzman,
if L. Chappo had his family living, you know, in
Phoenix or San Diego and they're Mexican citizens, he's the head,

(33:06):
you know, the head of a concurse. He's in prison,
but it's the head of a huge cartel. Do we
really want his children to be US citizens just by
the fact they were born here? That just does not
make any sense to me at all. Think about birth tourism.
So you're a wealthy foreigner that is in China or Russia,
and so you pay one hundred thousand dollars for a

(33:29):
final trimester hospital stay in Florida or California, and your
baby gets a fresh US passport. So now we're in
the business of exporting tens of thousands of newly minted
Americans every year with the all the privileges and benefits
to the homelands of our foreign adversaries, because they're just

(33:51):
coming here to have the baby. Paying to do so
to get that American passport for that baby, and then
they're going back to China or Russia. Now, obviously the
Fourteenth Amendments meaning is going to be contested, and I
think the prospects for overturning Wong Kim arc that MKED

(34:13):
the eighteen thirty eight case are pretty good. But let's
forget about I know it's going to be challenged legally,
but how about Congress do this? How about you extras,
you have a majority right now, how about you do this.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,

(34:35):
the provisions of this article, so you can if you
want to legislatively define birthrights citizenship. Now that's going to
be contested too, so regardless of what we do, but
at least the established Come on, Republicans, you talk to me.
I heard all this discussion last night about how Republicans.

(34:57):
I was coming back from dinner and they're all the
time about how they're unified and they're all in on
the Trump agenda and they're doing all of this. Okay, well,
here's one thing you can do. You don't have to
wait foreign interpretation by the US Supreme Court. You could,
even if we do have to wait for a decision
by the US Supreme Court on the meaning of the
first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section one, you could

(35:19):
go ahead and establish a legislative tenth by passing a
definition of birthright citizenship today. Even though I personally disagree
with the with the eighteen ninety eight case, go ahead
and do it.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
I just don't think that it was ever the intent.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Of the of the Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment to
grant anybody who's born here.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
Because there's already exception.

Speaker 2 (35:49):
Military people from foreign countries, ambassadors, diplomats, why do we
just assume that it should be also for illegal aliens.

Speaker 3 (35:58):
It's utter insentive