10-8-25 - 8am - Birthright Citizenship

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I think it's obvious that the Democrats want their areas neat.
And for you, those of you that don't drink, that
means with no eyes. Thanks for that.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
I don't drink, so that that clarifies things out appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
You're right, they wann't neat. I was I was going
to talk about birthright citizenship, but there's breaking news that
obviously will take the rest of the next two hours
for me to analyze and discuss. But former FBI director
James Tomey has pled.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
Not guilty.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
You know, I think that kind of made that that
might be a good summation, right there. Can we hear
that again just so we can Okay, I think we
can move on to the next topic then, unless you
did you want to analyze that any further.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
Yeah, I'm good.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
I'm not sure I could do it a third third time.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
The formerly fat guy can't do that said one more
time without passing out.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Is what you like cardio?

Speaker 2 (01:07):
I like lifting weights, So the cardio is for respiratory
health time, and I can't no strength muscle.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
I like that, So so when you die, you'll be
all muscular. You'll just die of respiratory disase because you
can't breathe.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
I can't go up a flight of stairs, but I
can bench you a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
I can go up.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
I can go up flights to stairs all day long.
I just can't lift much much more than the diet coke.
You know, I'm really this close. I'm this close, huh
to just going down that rabbit hole and just just
nothing but bs for the next two hours.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
I don't know why.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
I think it's because it truly was like that was
the breaking news, was that somebody pled not guilty at
their first at their arraignment. Wow, that's never happened before
in the history of criminal jurisprudence.

Speaker 2 (02:10):
I mean, you could check out some of my stories.
I think there was one. Uh oh, I think it
was yesterday, so I don't know if you would.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Still have it.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
The uh the pubic hair pieces.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
I do have that one, Okay, you did see.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
And then there was one from today, the firefighter throwing
tampons at their ex's house.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
M h yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:29):
The only problem with the one about the firefighter that's
a good friend of mine. Ah, yeah, so I thought,
you know, I don't want to embarrass him.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
In fact, I bought the tampons for him.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Because heems too embarrassed safe way to buy his own tampons.
I was just going to Minnesota's, going to the men's
restroom and just stealing some too.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
I'm just the headline guy, so I was just curious
if they were used or not.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
I mean, if it's.

Speaker 3 (02:56):
Once, you make that noise a few more times so
you will pass out. I want to talk about because
we've been doing immigration, I want to talk.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
About this, the.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
Citizenship clause, the whole birthright citizenship issue. The citizenship clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment is a mere fourteen words before
you get to a comma, and three of them do
most of the work. The Fourteenth Amendment Section one, All

(03:33):
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. Now, the lawyer's
dispute focuses on the condition. What's the condition all persons born?

(03:58):
And what I'm really doing here is my case. Leg
Many legal scholars disagree with me, but I'm going to
make my case. All persons born are naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's the
qualifying clause. That's the condition the words are spare if

(04:24):
they point to a demanding idea. Citizenship follows allegiance. What's
one of our main gripes about people in the country illegally.
They don't assimilate, they don't feel like they owe allegiance
to the country.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
What does that mean?

Speaker 3 (04:42):
Do you feel allegiance to your country? Do you feel
allegiance to this country? I feel no allegiance whatsoever to
the United Kingdom, or to Saudi Arabia, or to Australia,
or to China, or to Taiwan or Mexico. My allegiance
is to this country.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
Why do I have allegiance to this country when I
was born here? So this is this is this is
my birth soil. This is where I was born. This
is where you.

Speaker 3 (05:14):
Know, as far back as I want to go genealogically,
this is where my family's from. My allegiance is because
it's where I've been educated. It's where I was raised,
it was where I was I learned, it's where I worked,
It's where everything that this nation has to offer me.

(05:36):
To the extent that I have been willing to put out,
the effort I have taken advantage of the opportunities that
this nation offers to its citizens, and I feel an
allegiance to it. I've studied this country's history and based
on the history, which is not perfect, I mean a shocker. Right,

(05:58):
We've made some really stupid mistakes, and we've done some
really dumb things, as has every other country and every
other individual saved the time that Jesus Christ was on
this earth, so have other people done some really stupid things,
made some really stupid mistakes. But nonetheless, whatever mistakes I've made,

(06:21):
this country has allowed me to recover from those mistakes.
And here I sit right now here, I sit doing
something that many people only dream of doing. But I
was given the opportunity, and I jumped on the opportunity.
And now, almost twenty years later, I'm sitting here doing
what I absolutely enjoyed.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
Love doing.

Speaker 4 (06:44):
It.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
It drives some people, baddy, because it got some people
in my family baddy, because they're like, well, why don't
you clip? You know, you're an old fire, why don't
you clip, Why don't you go home? Why don't you
go to New Mexico?

Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right?

Speaker 3 (06:57):
No, I love what I do, and so my allegiance
is to the country that's given me these opportunities. Now,
if I decided that I wanted to retire and move to,
where would I move to. I don't want to move
to Taiwan because they're going to get invaded. I might

(07:19):
move to Japan. I was I was reading some stuff
about Japan recently, about the new Prime minister who is female,
who is a Maga like person, who is really trying
to build up their own defenses, not just for defensive purposes,
but even for offensive purposes. That it's it's it was
an amazing election. And if you've ever been to Japan,

(07:42):
it's an amazing culture. It's got its downsides, but it's
got it has an amazing culture. I'd have to learn
speak and write Japanese. I'm not sure I'm willing to
do that. But if I if I had to pick
a country, that might be one country I would go to.
I might go to Italy. I have a friend who's
a don't tell anybody this, but he's a former member

(08:05):
of the Cabal in BC News as a matter of fact,
who now has an apartment in Turino. And I get
pictures all the time of his apartment in Torino that
they bought dirt chieve when they've remodeled and they lived
there about six months out of the year. I'm kind
of envious of that. But even if I did that,
In fact, if I reached out to him and said,

(08:25):
who do you still owe your allegiance to, it would
be to this country. It wouldn't be to Italy because
that's more of just kind of a retirement spot. It's
this country. So back to the citizenship clause, all persons
born are naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. So

(08:46):
the lawyers, the dispute that we're really talking about is
the condition subject to the jurisdiction. The words, as I said,
are very spare very short, but it does point to
a really overriding factor we don't often think about it,
and that is that citizenship follows allegiance. Do you think

(09:06):
that the people that come to this country illegally without authorization,
and that, let's use the words of the left, they
take care of our yards, they bag our groceries. Does
anybody bag groceries anymore?

Speaker 1 (09:22):
In anyway?

Speaker 3 (09:22):
This allegedly the Left tells us they bag our groceries,
or they do our housekeeping, which is kind of interesting
because the people. The woman that takes care of our
house a couple of times a month for US is
an American citizen and is a retired white female. Her
allegiance is to this country. But let's take you know,

(09:45):
the person you hire that's from Peru or Columbia or
somewhere else where's their allegiance because what are they doing
with the money they make? Oh, they'll do their needs,
they'll take care of their basic needs here, but they
also send a lot of that money back in remittances
back to their family that's still in Columbia, Peru, Mexico,
or wherever. There's not really that allegiance to this country.

(10:06):
They're here first, they're here for the money. They're here
for the money. So go back to the question that
was presented when Trump signed executive Hang on.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
A second, I apologize. I hate these computers.

Speaker 3 (10:23):
Blogs me out, so I don't know where I am,
not my computer, the iHeart computers. Let's go back to
Trump's executive order one four one six zero. The question
that is presented by that executive vorter is whether a
birth that occurs while both parents lack any lawful and

(10:44):
let's say a durable, durable tie to this country satisfies
the condition of being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. When
you look at the text, when you look at the
history of the fourteenth Amendment, and you look at the
structure of the paragraph as it's written, the answer has
to be no, it's not. Let's go through the text.

(11:08):
If the Framers meant, for example, that every birth that
occurs on American soil confers citizenship, then that phrase subject
to the jurisdiction thereof would truly be unnecessary. It would

(11:30):
be superfluous.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
It would be adios. You ever heard the odios? It
is an adjutive.

Speaker 3 (11:40):
It would serve no practical purpose, It would serve no
practical result.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
Adios.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
For example, the Framers, the family fathers, didn't say that
all persons born in the United States are citizens. They
said that they're they're they're born here, and they're subject
to the jurisdiction here. When you go back and you
read the debates and you study what was behind the

(12:09):
adoption of the fourteenth Amendment, you'll find someone by the
name of Senator Lyman Trumbull. His goss at the time
was crisp being subject to the jurisdiction meant not owing
allegiance to anyone else and being under the complete jurisdiction
of the United States. Then they adopted the eighteen sixty

(12:31):
six Civil Rights Act, which used nearly the same formula.
All persons born in the United States and not subject
to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens.
So the drafters considered the phrases to be equivalent. Senator

(12:52):
Jacob Howard, who introduced the clause subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
describe its scope as excluding the children of foreigners, aliens,
and families of ambassadors or ministers.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
Senator ROVERTI.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
Johnson agreed, and he tied jurisdiction to allegiance to the
United States at birth. Congressman John Bingham had early had
earlier in the in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment,
somemarize exactly the same idea that citizenship attaches to those
born here of parents not owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.

(13:31):
If you think back through everything that I've just said,
what is the theme through all of that allegiance not
geography by itself subject to the jurisdiction thereof allegiance it's
not geography.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
I've read.

Speaker 3 (13:51):
I've heard that some people think that, oh, those statements
are stray remarks.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Well they were not. They weren't stray.

Speaker 3 (14:01):
They weren't just you know, people were writing, and you know,
you know how lawyers tend to be. I'm not saying
they were all lawyers, but as I mean, lunch with
a former and returning client yesterday, and we were making
lawyer jokes, which they tend to do when I'm around,
and I had made a comment about how I had

(14:22):
redlined a certain document that had been passed on to
me to review. And they were laughing, because well, that's
what lawyers do. They look at a document they got
to change something. And I said, well, I looked at
the document and I was putting it as if though
I had written it. So if you don't want me
to redline it, don't ask me to look at a document,

(14:43):
because I'll tell you what I think about it, and
i'll write it the way I would have written it. Well,
that's kind of what happened here, except what they did
was they matched the clauses moral purpose. After the Civil War,
Congress wanted to secure citizenship for the slaves who had
been freed. The freedmen those who were born here and

(15:05):
owed allegiance here, Yet they had been denied membership because
of the politics of the time. So the goal of
the framers of the fourteenth Amendment, the goal was to
lock in the citizenship of those who already belonged.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
It was not broader.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
It was not to invite the world to secure automatic
membership by just happening to be born here. That is
why the jurisdictional language mattered. It channeled the clauses guaranteed
to those truly under American authority at birth and early

(15:48):
judicial decisions, expositions, discussions, dicta, whatever followed suit. The Supreme
Court in the slaughter House cases read the clause as yes,
it does exclude the children of ministers. It excludes the
children of consuls or citizens or subjects of foreign states.

(16:10):
In a case Elk versus Wilkins, that case denied birth
citizenship to a Native American who was born on US
territory on the ground that at birth he owed allegiance
to his tribe, which at the time was a distinct
sovereign nation. Do you get the distinction someone that we

(16:35):
think of is as oh wait a minute, Native Americans.
Why I hate the phrase native American. A Native American
an Indian born on US territory. They said, you know,
you're not a citizen because.

Speaker 5 (16:49):
You were owed.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
You were born on US territorial soil, but you belonged
to a tribe that had its own sovereignty. Now, that
led Congress to later in act the Indian Citizenship Act
back in nineteen twenty four.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
What was the purpose of that?

Speaker 3 (17:10):
That was because Congress looked at Elk versus Wilkins and said, oh, yeah,
that's right. They were born to sovereign tribes, the Cherokee.
What do refer to the Cherokee Tribes Act? The tribe
as Have you ever thought about that? I have maps
of the Cherokee Nation, antique maps that are showing the

(17:33):
Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma.

Speaker 1 (17:37):
Because it was a sovereign tribe.

Speaker 3 (17:39):
That's what the Indian Citizenship Act in nineteen twenty four
did was to say, wait a minute, we're going to
give those Native Americans US citizenship. Hey, le just go
talk to Gary over the Retirement Planning Center of the Rockies. Gary,
how you doing.

Speaker 6 (17:55):
Hey, good morning, Michael, I'm doing well.

Speaker 1 (17:57):
How about you doing well?

Speaker 3 (17:59):
So you know, I I know that retirement planning is
a really kind of personal thing that people do because
it involves your money and what you've been able or unable,
you know, to save everything else. So I've got kind
of an odd ball question for you. What do you
hope people feel after they come and visit.

Speaker 1 (18:18):
It with you?

Speaker 6 (18:19):
Guys, you know that's really important to think about. I'll
tell you there's four or five things that I think
are crucial as we engage and work with good people.
The first thing that will always be that I hope
they feel like their time was well spent, that we

(18:40):
didn't waste their time, and that they were in a
position where we were able to listen and help them
in the ways that we possibly could. Along with that, Michael,
I hope that folks feel like we've listened to the
things that they're concerned about. You know, this isn't our
plan as we build and use our Summer Retirement Guy

(19:00):
five peak process. This is designed to help these clients
deal with the things they've had to deal with and
the things they worry about every day as they approach retirement.
Probably one of the most important things is we always
hope that people know they can trust us. I would
much rather have people trust me than love me, and

(19:24):
I really believe that's important, and we believe they'll love
us too. But at the same time, there has to
be this relationship of trust and.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
I can vouch for that because, if anything, you guys
are trustworthy because it's just the way you do business.

Speaker 6 (19:41):
Well, yeah, we're not going to horse around. I've been
doing this for over fifty years and my family name
is on this, and believe me, my sons and those
people that work with us, we're going to make sure
that we take care of people and we're't honest with them.
I'll tell them the truth even when it hurts, and
we're just going to do it that way. The other thing,
of course, is we want to make sure they understand

(20:02):
they've got a well designed, comprehensive plan that will allow
them to enjoy retirement. And the thing we how we
teach our clients Michael is listen, things will be okay,
and we want you to do what we call the
Swan approach. We want to make sure our clients can
sleep well at night, you know, because nothing else matters
if this causes you unrest and concern. And I have

(20:25):
clients that call me all the time and just say, Gary,
can I still sleep well at night? And I say, yes,
you can.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Go back to bed. You're okay, You're okay.

Speaker 6 (20:36):
It's like one client I have, I said a little
thing to stick on a wall that says it says,
Jan you'll be okay.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
Yeah, yeah, Well.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
And I think that gets back to the whole trust
thing that I think once they go through the process
with you guys, and they see exactly how you treat
them as individuals, how you tell them the truth, and
then how you I hope they walk away thinking of themselves.
Oh you know what, I heard Gary Mike talking about that,
and I can sleep well at night. Now, that doesn't

(21:08):
mean that, you know, something happens in the market or
something happens in the world and they wake up and
they're worried about it. That's going to happen to all
of us. But you can tell them, yeah, you can
still sleep.

Speaker 4 (21:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (21:19):
And the beautiful thing is something does happen in the market.
Guess what, We've built a plan that's still going to
generate and guarantee their income.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
And that's the main thing, Yeah, people worry about.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
So it's really not that Slay of a question. After all,
it really is about individual treatment and trust and all
of that.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
Yes, absolutely well.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
Listen, if you guys, if anybody out there is you know,
as I always say, you've just started your first job,
you're halfway through your career, or you're just even just
thinking about retirement or actually in retirement, whatever your circumstances are,
I want you to call Gary and his team right now.
Don't put it off, because the longer you put it off,

(21:57):
that's a mistake right there. So don't put it off
any longer. Call him today, Tell them Michael Brown sent
you nine seven zero six sixty three thirty two eleven.
Nine seven zero sixty six three thirty two eleven, or
go check out Gary the entire team on the website
rpcenter dot com. Back to birthright citizenship. This whole idea

(22:20):
that you can only read it one way, and I
get it. The lawyers are going to disagree with me. Lawyers,
you know, how do you keep a lawyer from speaking?
Tie one of his hands behind his back because he
can't say. Well, on the other hand, go back to
the history. In the Elk case, the Supreme Court denied

(22:43):
citizenship to an Indian. It was born on US soil,
on the ground that he at birth his allegiance was
to his tribe, because that tribe had distinct sovereignty. That's
what led Congress to enact the Indian Citizenship Act in
nineteen twenty four, which said, even though you may be

(23:04):
a member of the Cherokee Nation, you are now a
citizen of the United States. And then what did remember
that's Congress, that's article one. Well, what did Article two?
The presidency do? What did the executive branch do after that? Well,

(23:25):
their practices tracked that understanding. For example, Secretaries of State
Freling Heisen and Thomas Bayard, they declined to treat certain
US born children of transient foreign nationals as citizens. And
they did so and explained that births under circumstances implying

(23:47):
alien subjection doesn't create citizenship by force of the Constitution alone.
Now that's in the formative stages of the Elks Decision
and the Indian Citizenship Act. So in those formative years,
jurisdiction subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant more an accident

(24:11):
of place. It meant allegiance, and that was often indexed
by the parents standing. And what do I mean by that, well,
what was their domicile? What was their permission to remain here?
That's the historical concept context. You've heard me mention the

(24:33):
Supreme Court case of Wong kim Arc. Many think that
that's the end all and be all of Supreme Court cases.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
It is not.

Speaker 3 (24:43):
What happened in the Wong Kim Arc case, simply put,
is that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese
subjects whose parents were lawfully and permanently domicide in the
United States was a citizen. And if you read through

(25:05):
the entire of the opinion, which I would encourage you
to do, it repeatedly emphasized that the parents were resident
aliens with an established.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
And permanent domicile. That fact matters.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
Because the Court went on to very specifically note the
traditional exceptions for diplomats or hostile occupiers, and it did
not consider, let alone decide, the case of children born
to those here unlawfully or those who were here on
a transient basis, just here briefly. So to extend long

(25:44):
beyond its facts is to convert a carefully tightly held
case about children of lawful permanent residents into an unwritten
rule for every newborn regardless of the status, do you
get the distinction? So, if you read the Wong case,

(26:09):
like those who are opposed to birthright citizenship would argue,
they would argue that, oh, because you are here and
the parents are domiciled here, and they are lawfully here,
albeit temporarily, the child born here is automatically a citizen.

Speaker 5 (26:27):
No.

Speaker 1 (26:28):
Not correct.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
The majority did not write such a rule, and the
dissent actually warned against that. Read correctly, Wong is entirely
consistent with a view that parental domicile and permission to
remain are central to jurisdiction in the constitutional sense. Think
about the structure, just the structure now before that, let's

(26:53):
do this. Let's go back to some commentary. This comes
from c SPAN. I just want you to hear this
before going to the structure.

Speaker 5 (27:01):
We'll let you know if your guests knows what the
Chinese maternity house is, their houses where.

Speaker 7 (27:06):
The Chinese government takes citizens that when they're in there
seven to eighth months, they ship them here for a month,
they let them have their children, and then once they
have their children, they take them back to China where
now they're US citizens, but they're raised in China.

Speaker 5 (27:21):
They're loyal to China. We know they're doing it, but
they're still getting away with it. And on the other one,
with that two year old kid, I noticed how when
you read the thing that the daughter was from the
two year old where the baby, the baby was here.
We kept her here because the mother was from Trenda
al Agua. And why would we send a baby back

(27:43):
with a mother like that?

Speaker 4 (27:45):
Thank you well, I distracted the ladder. It's just my opinion.
A mother is still a mother. Be a bad person,
but still a mother. And you know, unless you're engaging
in active child abuse, she's still a mother.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
You know.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
With respect to your first comment, yes, there is a
birth tourism industry where people will pay to come to
our shores in their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy,
when it's still relatively safe to travel, and they will
then stay in hospitals until they give birth, and they
will go back into their countries. And there are certainly

(28:23):
evidence out there that there are some countries surprised me
if who was China, that are in fact sending people
here to give birth so that at some point they
can take those children who have been living back in China.
For many, many years and bring them back to the
United States and then claim that they are that the
people that are coming back to the United States are
in fact US citizens by dint of the fact that

(28:45):
they were born on our shores. I believe it is
exactly abuses like that, among many that led President Trump
to enter the executive order that he did.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
There's some the Heritage Foundation.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
Now moving on to the structure, think about the clause
of structure. The Constitution uses jurisdiction in a demanding way.
It's not a synonym for physical control at any given moment.
It is a relation of rightful governance and reciprocal obligation.
People temporarily present are physically within the sovereign's reach. In

(29:21):
other words, you're on American soil, but you're a French
citizen and you commit a crime, you are subject to
the criminal You're subject to the criminal laws of this country.
Yet that French citizens, their allegiance remains elsewhere. So the
Congress during reconstruction understood that distinction, and they wrote the

(29:43):
text to capture that distinction. A baby born to two
tourists leaves the hospital with a passport to the parents
nation because allegiance follows parentage, which is where the domicile
does not tie the family to the US. So born,
for example, to a diplomat is a stereotypical case. The

(30:05):
diplomat is unquestionably within US territory and subject to some
local laws, subject to some jurisdiction. Yet everyone concedes that
a child born in that household is not a citizen
at birth. Why because the clause is about membership. It's
not about latitude or longitude. It's not about where you

(30:28):
were born. It's about where your allegiance.

Speaker 8 (30:32):
Is a term native, and that's kind of a loaded term.
I just I kind of wonder sometimes what does it
really mean to be Native? How does that differ from
I don't know, aboriginal. I was born in Montana, therefore
I'm a Native Montana correct, Well what does that mean?

Speaker 1 (30:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 8 (30:51):
Can you help me define that?

Speaker 1 (30:55):
Well, no, I can't.

Speaker 3 (30:57):
But it's used in it's used as part of the
whole concept of identity politics. We can no longer say
that you're an Indian because somehow that's become majority. My
grandfather was always quite proud of the fact that he
was a Cherokee Indian. I don't get why now we
have to say native American, Who is a Native American?

(31:21):
What is a Native American? What's a Native Montana. It's
like it's like in Colorado. You know, everybody, you know,
everyone likes to claim that they are not everybody else.
Lots of people like to claim that they are Native
Colorado's Well, does that mean that you've been here since birth?
Or does that mean that you were born here but

(31:43):
then moved away and then came back. Does it mean
that you've been here for thirty plus years or longer.
It's just a meaningless phrase that somehow gives you some
sort of I don't know, monarchical status, some sort of
status that you're a native. I just I just don't

(32:03):
like it. I don't like it because I can't define it,
and I don't think you can't. Well obviously you can't either,
and you just admit that you couldn't do it. So yeah,
it's a it's a politically correct term used to obfuscate
whatever they're trying to obfuscate. So why all this discussion

(32:24):
about birthright citizenship? Because Trump has an opportunity and the
Supreme Court has an opportunity to clear.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
This up once and for all.

Speaker 3 (32:38):
The Court should grant sorceraria I should grant cert inn,
whereas they should agree to hear the case that involves
Trump's executive order defining birthright citizenship and set the case
for argument for sometime next year in this current term,
so for twenty twenty six. In doing so, everybody will

(33:01):
get a chance to file briefs. So the parties will
obviously file briefs, but then people that are opposed to
birthright citizenship will file amekus briefs, Friends of the Court briefs,
and those who support are opposed to birthright citizenship will
do the same thing. So it will be fully brief.

(33:22):
There will be it'll be like an incredible history lesson
about everything involving the fourteenth Amendment and how it got
to where it was. And then the court will hear
oral arguments, at least I would imagine they will in
the case that's big, They'll hear oral arguments and will
have an opportunity for at least six of the justices.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
I would hope eight.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
Jackson Brown's an anomaly that will look at the history
and the actual text of the language and come to
a realization that, oh, we can demonstrate that the executive
Will leaves intact citizenship for children of citizens and lawful
permanent residents. It doesn't retroactively disturb any status, and going

(34:10):
forward we can say that, oh, subject to the jurisdiction
thereof means you come here illegally, unlawfully and have a baby,
that baby is not a citizen.