Florida RoundTable

Birthright Citizenship The Supreme Decision with Mike O'Neill, Landmark Legal Foundation

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
On April first, the Supreme Court took up a challenge
to President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship in the
United States. At issue, if you're born in the US,
are you a citizen here? No matter if your parents
are here legally or not. Welcome to the weekend and
this edition of the Florida Round Table. I'm Bill Mick.
Catch up with me and our podcasts at Bill Mick

(00:24):
dot com. Looking at this citizenship issue with us this
week is Mike O'Neil, vice president of Legal Affairs with
the Landmark Legal Foundation. Has the Court telegraphed this decision
and the questions posed to attorneys arguing this issue on
what foundations will the Court's decision rest and who are
the what are the implications of this decision? Join me

(00:46):
and Mike O'Neil for the answers this weekend on the
Florida Roundtable. Nice to have you with us on the
Florida News Network. Birthright citizenship? Will the Supreme Court flip
the law on an executive order? We find out today?
This is Bill Mick, my financial advisor's Art McPherson at
the McPherson Financial Group, preparing for retirement takes a personalized

(01:07):
financial plan, protecting what you've built and providing the income
you need in retirement. It all starts when you sit
down with the McPherson Financial Group as you get to
know each other. There's no cost. It's a chance to
set the stage and lay out your goals and abilities
and develop that strategy for your retirement planning. They'll work
with you to build that individual plan based on your

(01:27):
abilities and your goals. And while taxes are a concern,
not just once a year, but year round, their tax
strategies help you solidify your financial legacy. It's financial planning
designed around you with the McPherson Financial Group Call three
two one four two five eighty five fifty or go
to McPherson Financialgroup dot com. Securities offered through World Equity

(01:49):
Group member FENRA and sipik, a registered investment advisor. It's
the McPherson Financial Group called three two one four two
five eighty five fifty.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
What does it mean to register as an organ donor?
Saying yes means your legacy can live on through others.
It can give someone the chance for more laughter, milestones
and time with the people they love. This is National
Donate Life month. Join the ten million Floridians who have
registered Save Lives Say Yes. Register now at Donatelife Florida

(02:22):
dot org. The choice is yours, the gift is theirs.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
Hungry for something healthy, Fresh from Florida seafood is the
perfect way to lighten up your plate. Always fresh, always local,
and harvested right here in the Sunshine State. You can't
beat the flavor. From shrimp to snapper, grouper to clams,
Florida seafood brings sunshine straight to your table. So when
you're at the seafood counter or dining at your favorite restaurant,

(02:48):
ask for fresh from Florida seafood. Fresh, local, healthy, that's
Florida's catch, Fresh from Florida, trust is grown here.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Nice to have you with us this weekend on the
Florida News Network, Bill Mick along with Mike O'Neil from
the Landmark Legal Foundation, as we take a look at
birthright citizenship and the challenge that was heard by the
Supreme Court just on April the first. And Mike, welcome back.
It's good to have you back on the show. Appreciate
you taking the time and joining us here.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
Oh, it's always my pleasure Bill Good to be with you.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Just remind everybody very quickly what the Landmark Legal Foundation does,
what you guys exist to do.

Speaker 4 (03:33):
Sure, Landmark Legal Foundation is a national public interest law firm.
We exist to promote separation of powers. We want to
ensure that each level of government operates within their constitutional framework.
We want to make sure that the legislature legislates, the
judiciary calls balls and strikes, and the executive branch stays
within their Article two powers. We are promote constitutional conservatism.
We have offices in Leesburg, Virginia and Kansas City, Missouri.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
All right, very good, Let's get into the history of
citizenship before we dig into the specifics of this challenge
at the Supreme Court. How big of an issue was
it in early America and leading up to the Civil War.
How was citizenship determined? Did you declare it? Did you
have to be accepted? What went on there?

Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well, we had remember what we had up until the
fourteenth and the Reconstruction amendments. Generally speaking, you had the
African Americans were excluded from citizenship, right. You had slaves
who'd been imported and were part of the economy part
of the country, and they were denied citizenship, so we
were it was contingent obviously on race was a consideration.

(04:36):
Gender obviously was a consideration. Wives and mothers were considered citizens.
But again there was no right to enfranchisement, so voting
was restricted to white men. That was kind of a
holdover from the colonial era, from the English era, enfranchisement,
full enfranchisement for women didn't even occur until the twentieth century,
and for African Americans not until after the Civil War.

(05:01):
Citizenship again, so you could consider whether a person is
a citizenship with the full rights and privileges assigned under
our constitution. So we know that there were barriers to
that good. The positive that you draw from it is
that our framers envisioned a world where probably the political
realities of the time were such that they were back
in the eighteenth century, but put in place a framework

(05:24):
whereby change could be effectuated. Now, of course, that's not
excusing the slavery from the eighteenth century and the legacy
of the slavery and how terrible it was. That being said,
the amendment process was enshrined in our constitution. So what happened,
obviously was the waging of the Civil War, slavery with
the direct cause of that, of course, was slavery, and
in the post in the reconstruction era, when when you

(05:47):
were trying to advocate and bring back in the sou
and then integrate back these Southern states, there was a
process which was put in place in the thirteen, fourteenth
and fifteen Amendments were enacted to guard against a lot
of the appropriation of rights that could have occurred when
you were reintegrating these Southern states. So you have the
fourteenth Amendment for example, of course, that established what was

(06:09):
known as birthright citizenship, which which we're talking about today,
and that was envisioned to ensure that former slaves and
their descendants and children of slaves were not denied the
full rights of citizenship, and in other words, to ensure
that anybody born in the United States, born in the
territory of the United States, was conveyed citizenship. And again,
the intent of the ratifiers of the fourteenth Amendment, the

(06:31):
drafters of the fourteenth Amendment at the time, of course,
was to ensure that former slaves and their descendants, children
and their descendants were not denied the full rights of citizenship. So,
of course we've had a rocky history with this, but
the amendment. In the reconstruction era, we fought a civil
war over slavery, and a lot of the amendments, the
thirteenth from fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were put in place
for a reason, and of course one of those reasons

(06:53):
was birthright citizenship for slaves and former slaves and their descendants.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
And eventually challenges came about even as to whether those
slaves who are now citizens could own property in the like.
There were cases that were put into play. I've got
just under a minute here. What were the major challenges
that were hit there?

Speaker 4 (07:11):
Well, Yeah, of course, when you see in the late
eighteen hundreds and the eight through the eighteen sixties through
the nineteen even the nineteen sixties, you had one hundred
years of Jim Crow laws that were in place, and
that was really kind of the efforts you saw the
pushback to I think kind of reinforces the need to
have this rite and shrine, particularly as applicable to slaves
and former slaves, because you saw the links to which

(07:33):
Southern states went to deny rights to African Americans. And
I think that in my perspective, that kind of reinforces
what the purpose of was to have this citizenship clause
enshrined within the fourteenth Amendment. Of course, what is the
actual meaning of the language and its applicability to immigration
was yet to be resolved, and of course was resolved,
was addressed at certain points, and we'll come back to that,

(07:53):
I guess going.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
And we will do that shortly on the Florida round Table.
Glad you're with us. This weekend.

Speaker 5 (08:01):
April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. Parents, even on the
hardest days, reaching out shows strength. Prevent child abuse. Florida
offers support when you need it most. Life can be
a struggle. Our partners have statewide resources tailored to meet
your family's needs. Florida invests in you because every parent

(08:21):
deserves support and every child deserves a loving home. Learn
more at Prevent Child Abuse fl dot org.

Speaker 6 (08:28):
Are fungus gnats driving you crazy? Afraid of using chemical
insecticides around your kids and pets? Stop fungus gnats with
all natural biological mosquitobits. The bacteria in mosquitobits is lethal
to mosquitos and fungus nat larvae, but harmless to people, plants,
and pets. Just mix a tablespoon per cord of water
and apply mosquitobits kills fungus, nat larvae and breaks the
life cycles, so you can get back to enjoying your

(08:49):
houseplants without those annoying gnats. Fight the bite and the gnats.
Find mosquitobits at your local gardener hardware store or order
online at Summit Responsible Solutions dot com.

Speaker 7 (09:00):
Hello, I'm Hector Alessandro, Emmy Award winning actor, and I
want to talk to you about getting older. My body hurts,
my joints ache, and sometimes I forget.

Speaker 8 (09:12):
I forget the Doing all your own scenes for a
movie isn't always the best decision, especially when you gallop
inside saddle down a countryside road on a horse named
Archiebello who seems to have only one speed high and
pulling on his reins only.

Speaker 9 (09:27):
Seems to encourage him to go hum and faster. So,
of course, my body hurts and my joints ache. But
it's not because of my age. It's because I'm living
my life. Oh Archibello, don't let life pass you by.
Take care of your brain health. It may just help
you stay on top of your game.

Speaker 7 (09:43):
As soon as this scene wraps, I'm gonna kiss the ground.
Thank Archibello for his outstanding performance, Feed him a carrot,
and visit brainhealth dot gov. Find out how you can
make the most of your brain as you age at
brainhealth dot gov.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
Continuing, Mike O'Neil from the Landmark Legal Foundation, as we
take a look at birthright citizenship and the challenge that's
currently in front of the US Supreme Court. The court
heard arguments on this April first. I wonder if there's
any significance to the date chosen, Mike, and the case
is Trump versus Barbara, and it has to do with

(10:26):
the President's executive order on birthright citizenship. What brought this
challenge into play? Who challenged it?

Speaker 4 (10:33):
Sure this was the case. This is one of President
Trump's first executive orders shortly after he took office in
January of twenty twenty five. Heed, we all know this
that they've all they've been challenged in various degrees. But
he issued a bevyf of executive orders. Of course, one
of them was this birthright citizenship and it was positing
an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was of

(10:55):
course going contra what has been kind of the common
understand of the fourteenth Amendment. The common understanding for now
the better part of the twentieth century and into the
twenty first century, is that birthright that the Fourteenth Amendments clause,
the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that stipulates
that any person born within the United States and subject

(11:16):
to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States.
So that that term has been interpreted up until the
executive order by the executive branch Congress immigration authorities to me,
if you were born within the territorial confines of the
United States, regardless of what your immigration status of your parents,
of your mother is, you are automatically considered a citizen

(11:38):
of America. Well, the executive order contravened that said, no,
that's an incorrect interpretation of the of the Amendment. This
is how we the executive order is going to be
interpreted going forward. This is how the Amendment is going
to be interpreted going forward. And I am directing my
executive agencies, of course, the immigration agencies to interpret it
in this in such a manner and no longer consider

(11:59):
anybody born in the United States simply simply by virtue
of your birth and the torritorial conference in the United
States a citizen. Of course, that was challenged immediately. It
went up to the Supreme Court in the in the
Trump versus Kasa case where it was considering a universal injunction.
It was, of course a district court judge had immediately

(12:19):
enjoined it. That issue took precedent and the Supreme Court
and Trump versus Costa last year. You recall that was
the case dealing with universal injunctions, same set of fact,
facts and circumstances, same challenge went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court did not get into the constitutional issue,
just dealt dealt with universal injunctions, kicked it back down.
Now it migrated back up to the Supreme Court and

(12:41):
Trump versus Barbara. Barbara is I think is a I
don't think that's actual name of the individual challenging it,
but it is an individual who's a parent, who's an immigrant,
who's given birth, who's in a position to challenge the
start standing and challenge the constitutionality and legality of the
executive order. All things considered, this has come up to

(13:01):
the Court fairly in fairly quick order for it to
considering it's a constitutional issue. We're talking a little over
a year and a half for it to get to
the Court to decide on the merits.

Speaker 1 (13:11):
Mike, you say this could be the Court's most dramatic case.
Why do you say that.

Speaker 4 (13:17):
Yeah, I think so, because this has, first of all,
just a couple of things on the surface of it.
It's the last it's the last case they heard. Essentially,
they heard, as you indicated, they heard oral arguments in April. First,
they're going to probably issue decision the last case of it.
It's going to probably be the last decision issued this term,
so they expected in June or or early July. I
think it has. It represents a dramatic change right we've

(13:39):
had since at least since the nineteen fifties. The common
interpretation of this, of this clause of the fourteenth Amendment
has then been that birthright citizenship is automatically conveyed, and
what is that done? That's triggered just so many, so
many effects. There have been so many. I mean, you
could get into the effects that this has had. Obviously,
it's an incentive for immigrat legal or otherwise. It incentivizes

(14:03):
anchor babies to be born. Of course, when you have
one baby born in the United States, that's a citizen,
a whole bevy of that has a whole cascade of effects.
It also has incentivized birth tourism. You've known that our
adversaries have identified a potential weakness in our capabilities here
and are exploiting that. You have stories, of course of

(14:24):
Chinese billionaires having children here in the United States, identifying
a structural weakness and possibly exploiting that. From a national
security perspective, there have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions, of individuals who've been born in the United States,
who are born every year, whose parents aren't citizens, who
are automatic birthright citizenship, So there's a lot of effects

(14:46):
that this could change. Of course, it's important to note
that the executive order is prospective, not retrospective. That means
it would anybody who has birthright citizenship now whose parents
were illegal immigrants, for example, or are not here legally
or not citizens in the United States, and we're born
here still are citizens. It will be applied prospectively, not retrospectively.

Speaker 1 (15:07):
Does that apply even should let's say the court's decision
comes out in July, Does it go back to the
date of the President's executive order, or only after the
decision has been released.

Speaker 4 (15:19):
It would be when the decision would be released, the
injunction would have to be lifted, and then it would
be going. It would be operative from the date it's
deemed the injunction is lifted, so it would be again
it would they wouldn't be even retroactive to July twenty fifth,
which July twenty fifth, I think twenty twenty five when
he issued the order.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
All right, you mentioned the birth tourism and issues we've
been talking recently with No King's protests, other protests across
the country over the last several years, and some perspective
protests that people are planning for and training people for.
I saw a story just recently where one of the

(15:59):
funders of that, the guy who is pushing money, actually
lives in Shanghai, was born in America, lives there and
is funding these various left leaning protest groups in the country.
And the first thought in my mind when I saw
that is, I wonder if he is the product of
birthright citizenship here.

Speaker 4 (16:19):
Yeah, I mean possibly, And that's a bigger issue here
that we could talk about if you want to. But
there you have to know what underlies a lot of
these challenges, and I think we've talked about this before
in your program. What underlies a lot of these legal challenges.
Our adversaries in the United States are foreign adversaries. You'll
have the Soros funded NGOs for example. Now you can

(16:42):
talk about money coming in from from China that obviously,
as I said before, they recognize they thrive on cass
Our adversaries thrive on casts and swimming casts in the
United States, and they understand that if you wanted to,
you could take advantage of our systems by exploiting these loopholes.
And I think clearly it's within the Chinese national security

(17:03):
interests and again an identified advers area of the United
States to exploit this loophole to have babies born in
the United States via surgacy, brought back to China, indoctrinated
in CCP propaganda and communism, with full rights of American citizens.
So you can exploit our national security interest You can
exploit our electoral interests here too. We've talked about this before.

(17:24):
We know that it doesn't take more than several thousand
voters to swing an election. So if you have birth
tourism and you have ten thousand Chinese nationals who are
American citizens who you want to import back into a
district to swing a congressional district, for example. It's not
beyond the plausibility that that happens. What we're talking about here, Bill,
of course, is all of the practical effects here. Now,

(17:45):
whether that moved the Supreme Court remains to be seen,
but you could see all the complications that have arisen
from the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in such a
manner as to convey birthright citizenship based on territorial presence.
Tons of practical implications here, security, electrical, electoral, uh uh,
even even entitlements you're talking about. I think you read

(18:07):
you can read our articles about exploiting medicaid and Medicare rights.
Turkish nationals come in and have babies and they're subject,
they're they're they're qualified for medicare. So lots of practical
effects and and and and problems that have arisen with this.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
This is going to hinge on definitions. Yeah, I think
the phrase born or naturalized in the United States is
fairly clear. I mean, I know what birth is, we
know what the naturalization process is. But then there's the
phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof right and the definition

(18:45):
of that. People who are here certainly subject to our
laws and our jurisdiction while they're here, if they're unless
they're diplomats, in which case they have those those immunities
in play. What's the proper definition as far as you're concerned,
or what's one of the definitions being argued when it
comes to.

Speaker 4 (19:02):
This and this is this is the crux of the matter. Right,
So when we're going to get into a constitutional analysis,
and so words matter. What does the phrase? What do
these what does this phrase mean? What did the ratifiers
and drafters of the fourteenth Amendment mean when they said
subject to the jurisdiction they're up? And so that's if
you listen to oral arguments that was ninety percent of it.

(19:23):
What does that mean? You have two competing interests? I
think what the first thing you do is you start
with the text of the fourteenth Amendment and that section.
And if you look at Section one of the fourteenth Amendment,
you see jurisdiction mentioned in two parts right at the
beginning of the citizenship clause. If you go down to
Section one of the fourteenth Amendment, you also see the
clause that deals with equal protection and what is it

(19:46):
due process and equal protection clause right at the end
of the Section one of the fourteenth Amendment, and that
case in that term, if you read there, it says
within the jurisdiction, So you see within the jurisdiction, individuals
within the jurisdiction have due process and equal protection rights.
Now you can get into a question about what's due
process and equal protection, we'll put that aside for right now.
But you see within the jurisdiction right there, and then

(20:08):
right at the beginning of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section one,
you see subject to the jurisdiction for citizenship. So I
think the argument starts there. The drafters and ratifiers use
two different words there. They use subject to the jurisdiction
and within the jurisdiction. I think you can read it well.
Within the jurisdiction means within the territorial confines of the

(20:28):
United States. Subject to the jurisdiction means something more than
just simply by nature of your mirror territorial presence within
the United States. So I think you start with that.
The next thing you go into is you go into
what were you can look at what were they talking
about it at the time, and again I go back
to what we were talking about earlier with applicability to
former slaves and their descendants, and the need to ensure

(20:51):
the recognized problems that were going to happen with reintegrating
Southern states, and the efforts of those states were going
to go to to ensure that African Americans were not
given the full due process and rights and everything, citizenship rights.
For that, we fought the Civil War for right. So
I think you start with the text, you start with
the context of the historical what was happening at the

(21:13):
time when the ratifiers. Then you can get into other
things like legislative history, what was talked about in the debates,
what was discussed. I personally come down on it. There
are good arguments on the other side. I'm not gonna
I'm not gonna hide the ball from you. There are
there are other arguments that the opponents to the executive
order posited regarding English common law, something known as ju

(21:33):
so lee, which is of the soil, which is something
that our forefathers had always intended. There are other arguments
on the other side, But I generally come down on
the side regarding you start with the text. You start
with the context of when historical context of when the
fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the applicability to former slaves, the
fact that you could never that that immigration was something

(21:54):
that was never even on the on the agenda or
on the minds of the individuals who were who were
ratifying that this amendment or right and drafting this amendment.
And I think that always in favor of, of course, supporting
the president's executive order. From a constitutional perspective.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
To me, it almost sounds as if subject to the
jurisdiction would imply owing an allegiance that maybe if you're
a visitor here you don't have.

Speaker 4 (22:19):
Yeah, And that's exactly when you say, well, it means
something more subject to rather than within. And that's what
the advocates for the Solicitor General kept coming back to.
You owe some sort of allegiance to political allegiance, You
need some sort of oath or loyalty. You also need
some sort of permanence here, some sort of representation that
you're here permanent, that you haven't just arrived, given birth

(22:40):
and then gone out of the country. So it came
up in more arguments a lot of the term domicile,
that you've actually established a domicile in the United States,
that jurisdiction equals domicile in a domiciliary.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
Mike Ohneil's with us. We're talking birthright citizenship, and the
Supreme Court will continue on the roundtable.

Speaker 10 (23:00):
Fresh Florida tomatoes, these ripe red rubies are the jewels
of the produce section, making every dish a real gem,
sliced or dice, purade or sauteed. They are the soul
of soups and salads, the toppings of pizzas and pastas.
They put the tea in blt. Literally, is there nothing
that Florida tomato can't do? Florida tomatoes the Swiss Army

(23:22):
knife of vegetables, even if they are of fruit. Technically,
just see you what Florida tomatoes can do for you.
Visit Fresh from Florida dot com.

Speaker 11 (23:31):
Every forty four seconds, another car crash happens in Florida.
One in seven of those crashes involves a distracted driver. Texting,
talking on the phone, eating, playing loud music, or even
adjusting your radio are all distractions, and all can cause
you to swerve off the road, speed, or even worse,
cause a wreck. And injuries. Whatever it is, put it

(23:54):
down and focus on the road. Brought to you by
the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Speaker 12 (24:01):
Hi, I'm Johnny Erkson Tata. Growing up with a brother
with autism, Sarah Krumf witness firsthand how kids with disabilities
felt left out by their peers. It's why, at the
age of fifteen, Sarah approached her cheerleading coach with an
idea to include girls with disabilities on her school's cheer team. Well.
What started out as an inclusive high school cheer team

(24:23):
in a small town in Iowa has led to what
is now known as Sparkle Effect, a thriving nonprofit with
over one hundred and eighty cheer teams across the United States,
bringing students with and without disabilities together through cheerleading. The
result more confidence, higher grades, and better school attendance for
kids with disabilities, and for those without a disability, new

(24:47):
friends and a greater empathy. Do you want to learn more,
well visit Disability campaign dot org, where we have posted
a link to the fabulous work known as the Sparkle Effect.

Speaker 4 (25:03):
We're here early before they wake up.

Speaker 3 (25:07):
We stay late, we stay informed.

Speaker 7 (25:10):
We invest in the latest technology.

Speaker 9 (25:14):
We take the time to train the next generation of
doctors and nurses.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
We work together to make sure we heal their bodies
and their minds.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
We do this not because it's our job, but because
this is about our veterans' lives.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
This is our mission.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
More than three hundred thousand of us working as one
together with families and loved ones, no matter where they
live in this country, we'll be there.

Speaker 13 (25:46):
We all come together and stand together to serve our veterans.
We stand strong united, stand with us and caring for
our veterans.

Speaker 14 (26:00):
Imagine imagine being denied an apartment because of your religion,
or your race, or because you have children or a disability.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
It's so wrong, yes, But who has the power to
stop this?

Speaker 14 (26:13):
You do. Each of us has the power. The law
is on your side. It's illegal for landlords to discriminate
because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or
familial status. If you suspect that you have experienced housing discrimination,
find a complaint with hud immediately so we can investigate it.

(26:35):
Fair housing is your right. Use it to learn more.
Visit huddut gov slash fair Housing. That's HUDDUT gov slash
fair Housing or call one eight hundred sixty six' nine
nine seven seven seven one eight hundred six six' nine
nine seven seven seven a public service MESSAGE from hud

(26:56):
in partnership with a National Fair, housing Alliance.

Speaker 1 (27:05):
The Landmark. Legal foundations mike O'Neil with us as we
continue the. Round Table I'm. Bill mick thank you for.
Joining us make sure you catch our podcast top of
the Page At bill mick. Dot com you can catch
up with anything we've. Done, there mike we're talking, birthright
Citizenship The President's executive order having been Heard on april
first By The. Supreme court that decision Anticipated in June

(27:28):
or july of, this year When the court starts to
release or finishes releasing. Those opinions let's let's talk for
a minute about historical interpretations of allegiance to the country
and jurisdiction and how that plays. In here what are you?

Speaker 4 (27:43):
Thinking, here yeah there's again there's a lot of a
lot of scholars and a lot Of. Amicus brits if
you go to, the docket it's interesting going To The supreme.
Court docket you can read all the briefs that are
filed in any of, these cases they're Open to you
don't need. Special access you can just access the docket
for this case and read all. Of it and it's
funny when you go, through them because there's scholars on

(28:04):
one side who conclude that the historical evidence supports the
executive order right supports the Arguments that i'm, positing today
and then you have scholars on the other side who've
done a lot of research and a lot of work
saying that it doesn't. Support it that the juice lee
that of the soil was a common. Law application in,

(28:24):
other words if you're born in this under the flag of,
a jurisdiction that's enough to Convey r that means you're
subject to. The jurisdiction so that goes Back to english.
Common law and again these are the folks arguing that
subject to the jurisdiction just means simple. Territorial presence so
if you're born under, the flag that makes you. A
citizen and they go to, some again they Go to english,

(28:46):
common law the rule of kings that you were born in,
their jurisdiction you're subject of the rule in the law of.
The king they also Go back they also talk about
a lot of both sides. Do this both sides quote
sources from, the time and you can go into. The
record they can go into the congressional record at, the
time and then go into some of the debates at
the time during the ratification of, the amendment and you

(29:09):
can see both sides and having some sort. Of evidence
again on the, other side talking about loyal, you know
one of the most beautiful things and the amazing Thing
about america and the Uniqueness, in america is that you
don't have to have. An allegiance you don't have to owe.
An allegiance you're a citizen by nature of you, being
here and that makes us an. Exceptional country that's one side.

(29:30):
Of it, of course the other side is what we've
been talking, about too, the text starting with, the text,
the slave the former, slave issue the context of. The
time we also talk about, the allegiance the fact that
there's of course individuals at the time, who cited who
are the ratifiers and drafters who cited that you had
to owe, something more you had to have a domicile
In The, united states that you had to have something

(29:50):
beyond a. Political allegiance you couldn't just automatically establish subject
to the jurisdiction merely by the subject of your mere
presence In The united.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
States territory, all right, Very good not that it will
necessarily matter To The. Supreme court but you mentioned they
Brought up english, common, law like how do other countries? Treat, this,
if Say an americans go.

Speaker 4 (30:11):
Back to, my, yeah oh go back to my. OTHER
point i think that. THEY don't, I DON'T and i
think this question was actually specifically uh point was raised
By The solicitor general and then quickly. Shut down doesn't
matter what other, Countries do and that's, That's fair but
it's it's a. FAIR question i don't THINK any i
think we're unique. IN this i don't think other countries
convey automatic citizenship by nature of your territorial birth within

(30:34):
the confines of. That COUNTRY so i think we are
unique that that that could be. An example the other
side would argue that this is an Example of, american
Exceptionalism that america is different and special because we. Do
this others could, argue, that hey we're the only ones who,
do this and we don't recognize all the vulnerability, it creates.
I e all the.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
Practical problem does it make us also? Uniquely? Vulnerable yeah.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
It's unique, IT'S certainly, I think, i mean there's a
lot of things that are Unique about america that make us.
UNIQUELY vulnerable, i mean our openness is. A society that's
another discussion, to have but certainly. It does they're a
host of. Practical problems immigration In The united states is,
you know for four years Under the biden administration was
completely an. Open door but, generally speaking we have an,

(31:17):
open society and this has been one OF the, i
mean and someone argue that that's a, good thing and
that this is one of the hallmarks of our. Open
society we're so open and, so welcoming is, so exceptional
and that all you have to do is be born
here and You're an. American citizen look at how amazing,
this is and that that was an argument that's profit
in a lot of a lot of, the briefs not

(31:37):
not insignificant briefs positive by really, you know. Scholarly heavyweights
of course they're arguing on the, Other, side.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
Sure there's another argument that, was Made and i'll want
your distinction in this councilor asking that the court decide
this on, statutory, grounds yeah versus the. Constitutional, question yes
a water statutory grounds or what's? That mean and b
sure if they don't want to decide on the, constitutional

(32:06):
question are they afraid of what the constitution?

Speaker 4 (32:08):
Really, means yeah this is a let's unpack this because
it's interesting and there's a lot of balls in. The
air there's a lot of sophisticated points here to. Make,
About okay so we're gonna take our time and unpack
it because it's really an important thing and it really
might turn on. Winsor losses there's. A law there was

(32:29):
a law passed in nineteen forty and then repassed in nineteen,
fifty Two. Eight usc fourteen. Oh one if you read,
the law And again i'm making this is. A law
this Is The United. States code this is Not. The
constitution so it's an important distinction to make Between the
constitution and. The law So. Eight usc fourteen, oh one
if you read, that law the language mirrors The, fourteenth

(32:49):
amendment so you, would, say okay you first read it
and your initial inclination, Is, okay well this is just
Codifying the, constitutional amendment making a you have a, constitutional
right you also have a legal, right here well. And
good this law has been on the book since, nineteen
fifty it's been the interpretation. Of everyone the court could.

(33:12):
Do this there's something known as the canon of constitutional
avoidance when you're analyzing a constitutional when a constitutional issue
comes before, a court you can if you can avoid
making an interpretation of that, constitutional amendment then you will
take that. Exit, ramp now why would you want to
avoid Interpreting the constitution in such? A manner in, Any,

(33:33):
manner well it's a fairly. Final decision if you Interpret
The fourteenth amendment as conveying automatic birthright citizenship as we
understand it, right now if that means you, are saying
and again the court hasn't. Defined it They have Wong,
kid mark but that was. A define you could distinguish
that case and we could get it too that in.
A second but if the court says you have a

(33:55):
constitutional right to birthright citizenship by nature of your birth
In The, united states then. That's absolute the only way
to get, rid of to do away with, birthright citizenship
is to pass another. Constitutional amendment and we know that
the process of enacting a constitutional amendment.

Speaker 14 (34:14):
Is.

Speaker 4 (34:15):
Enormous right that means birthright citizenship is enshrined In The,
fourteenth amendment just like your right to free speech and
your right to freedom of religion are enshrined In The.
First amendment so that is, a big big decision with
a lot of results. And implications That means congress can't
pass a law Saying that chinese billionaires who want to

(34:36):
engage in birth tourism could come in here and have
a baby and then have. That baby That means congress
can't pass that law because. That law even if ninety
five Percent of Americans want congress to pass, that law
they can't. Do it their hands. Are tied you're essentially
tying the hands of the political branches by engaging in
that interpretation Of The constitutional amendment in. That manner, so
therefore the canon of constitutional avoidance is something that can.

(34:58):
Be utilized so when we're talking about wins and, losses
here this is. The stakes If the court limits its
decision to an INTERPRETATION. Eight usc fourteen oh one and
simply Concludes That President's Trump president trump's executive order violates,
the law not, the constitution just violates, the law then

(35:19):
there's an. Exit ramp that Means if congress, next year,
you know again this is this is hypothesizing, that law
but that Means if congress next year wants to pass
the law saying that you can't engage in, birth Tourism
then congress can pass a law. That way so that
leaves the political uh exit ramp open by engaging by

(35:41):
utilizing the canon of. Constitutional, ones now so it raises.
The stakes now if, the court if the court, Uses
this so this Is what i'm. Talking About If donald,
trump loses If the trump, administration loses they can, lose
small or they can. Lose big they. Lose small if
the court simply says, the law YOU'RE your eo violates,

(36:01):
The law we're going to limit our interpretation to. The
law we're not going to get into The. Fourteenth amendment that's,
a loss but there's still a political solution. To it
you can lose big if the, court, says nope we're
going to go beyond interpreting the, Law here we're going
to interpret. The constitution there's a right there closes all
avenues other than a. Constitutional, amendment oh that would.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
Be, tough now You, mentioned congress and let me ask
this what we've got some? Time here do they have,
A role could they in effect write a law defining this?
Is citizenship this is what we mean and birthright is. Out, whatever, yeah.

Speaker 4 (36:37):
Yeah that's a fantastic. Question here so when we're talking
about we're talking, about actions we're talking about. Government actions, the,
law obviously a constitutional amendment is the highest action right
that has the highest levels. Of protection then you have
a law Passed by congress that covers a lot that.
Encourages deference courts are to defer to the legitimate see

(37:00):
of a law unless. Demonstrated otherwise then at the, lowest
level you have an. Executive. Order right executive orders. Aren't
permanent they can. Be revoked the president can enact in
an executive order and then. Can revoke the next president
can revoke an. Executive order so, levels Here if congress
passes a law that's subject to a lot more deference
via the courts in an, executive order and that gets
opens the door of some of the Weaknesses Here donald

(37:22):
trump's case and the fact that this is an, executive,
order right and the court, might, say hey wait, a
minute this is something that's better left To the congress.
To decide this is the separation of.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
Powers issue i've got one friend who appears on the
show pretty regularly says he doubts that the court will
will really decide this on an. Executive order are you in?

Speaker 4 (37:41):
That, camp well that's certainly. A weakness i think that
the court could. Do that the court could, simply say
and again this is levels of. Loss here the court could,
simply say we're going to conclude that the executive order
violates the law and avoid again The fourteenth.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
Amendment interpretation more on birthright citizenship as, we continue.

Speaker 15 (37:58):
Stick around you park in the, same spot you eat the,
same lunch and you have your favorite go.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
To genes we are creatures. Of habit we do what
makes us.

Speaker 15 (38:07):
Feel comfortable, but lather rinse and repeat might not be
the best idea when it comes to.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Your finances take, retirement planning.

Speaker 15 (38:13):
For example as interest rates have, gone up the stock
and bond mix in your four to one case has probably.
Gone down when was the last time you made any?
Significant adjustments the choices you made thirty years ago might
not be serving you. Well today art McPherson and can
show you options that you might not know existed that
can stay in your comfort zone but get you out
of that same old stock and. Bond Mentality call art
McPherson today and ask for a complimentary consultation that includes

(38:34):
a personalized deep dive into your. Retirement plan call three
two one four two five eighty five fifty it's three
two one four two five eight five five zero or
online at artomoney radio. Dot com those genes with the
holes make, you happy but finding holes in your retirement
plan is a. Necessary change three two one four two
five eight five five zero or online at artomoney radio.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
Dot com the.

Speaker 16 (38:55):
Securities Offered Through World equity Group member FINRA, and sipc
a redstret.

Speaker 17 (38:59):
Investment Advisor green specialists has the plants products and friendly
expert advice to keep your garden healthy. And Bountiful quality
green has thousands, of, plants, trees, flowers herbs vegetables, and
more plus high quality organic based, fertilizers products even comprehensive.
Soil testing Visit D Land's beautiful nursery and find fertilizer

(39:19):
store conveniently open nine to, four daily located at three
Thirty Five West. Michigan avenue qualitygreenspecialists dot com top, quality
plants sustainable, gardening products friendly.

Speaker 5 (39:29):
Expert advice every child deserves, a happy, healthy home and
every parent deserves support to make. That Happen Prevent Child
abuse florida reminds You that April Is Child Abuse. Prevention
Month Strong families start with. Strong Communities Prevent Child abuse florida, offers,
tools guidance and connections to real. World support when parents,

(39:52):
feel supported. Children Thrive Visit Prevent child abuse fl dot
org to. Learn, more.

Speaker 1 (40:04):
Oh another fast paced edition Of The. Florida roundtable thanks
for being with us here On The Florida. News network
mike O'Neil's with as vice President Of legal affairs With
The Landmark legal foundation as We Consider president trump's executive
order in the challenge That The supreme court's. Already, heard
now we're just waiting for the decision that'll be released
In late june or Maybe. Early, july mike you mentioned

(40:26):
there had been another case decided earlier. Regarding this it
was eighteen, ninety Eight The united States Versus wong kim
arc tell me.

Speaker 4 (40:36):
The, story yeah this is a case that received a
lot of attention in. Oral arguments how are you to?
Interpret THIS and i think that's why kind of an
interesting point With The supreme court is a case written
over one hundred and thirty years ago or thereabouts one
hundred and thirty years ago could still demand this much
attention in twenty. Twenty six so this is a case

(40:57):
from again eighteen, ninety eight Which involved chinese nationals who
had settled On the west coast Of The united states
and gave birth to. A child now a. Couple things they,
were here the individuals, were here the parents were, here
legally so you could distinguish that from the illegal immigrants
who come here and are applicable to the. Executive order
so these individuals were, here legally they had established a

(41:20):
residence and a, domicile here so they'd shown some sort
of allegiance and demonstrated some allegiance To The. United states
the child was born In The, united states and the
question was whether the baby was a citizen. Or not
and there is language in it that solidifies the argument
that by nature a subject to the jurisdiction thereof means

(41:41):
born In The united states just ju so sol born of,
the Soil not, jews sanguine which is blood of. The
parents so or you're, born here then you're. A citizen
when you're distinguishing, this case and there was a lot,
of distinguishing there was a lot of effort to distinguish
it because at, its surface, you, say well this is.
Controlling precedent, and well one more thing to Mention About

(42:03):
Wan kim mark is that it's served as the foundational for,
birthright citizenship so subsequent cases have relied, On it so
it almost gets into that level of. Super. Precedent here
the question then becomes is the court going, to say
is the court going to overrule a decision that was
decided over one hundred almost one hundred and thirty years
ago that served as a foundational case for this and

(42:25):
also served as a foundation for subsequent law that we,
talked about the nineteen fifty law that was enacted or
nineteen fifty two law that, Was enacted and so the
question becomes whether we're going To Overrule Wan kim mark
and whether it's direct. Directly, applicable interestingly this listener general
kind of did a little bit of jiu jitsu in
oral arguments. With this he was able To identify i've

(42:45):
mentioned to you just a few, minutes ago the term domicile,
he was And The justice alito picked up. On this
he was able to identify one of the operative Provisions
In Wang kim mark for the establishment of birthright citizenship
was the fact that the parents had established a, domicile
here and that domicile was integral into the court's interpretation

(43:06):
of subjects to. The jurisdiction. They're up so that, WORD appeared,
i think and it's funny you actually. Hear it you
actually heard the justices. Counting it domicile appeared in twenty.
Two times So The solicitor general was able to take
that case and kind of jiu jitsu it, and, say
look one can art can be read in such a
manner as to establish, our position to support. Our position in,
other Words these chinese nationals that were here who gave

(43:28):
birth to this child, were, domiciles domiciliaries and that's part
of that is necessary to establish subject to. The jurisdiction.
They're Up so, chinese, nationals domiciles domicile important for subject to.
The jurisdiction. They're off if you think about it as, A,
diagram yeah.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
Very true did you watch the oral arguments or did
you read them after the fact.

Speaker 4 (43:49):
That, yeah yeah you listened. To them the. Good news
the interesting thing, with this and again nerds like me can,
hear this is you can just turn. Them on they're.
Broadcast live there's no cameras in, the COURTROOM which i
think is a good thing because you get you get
a lot of play acting. With that but you can
there there's. Oral arguments there's a live stream, for this
so you can. Read it it's very trans the process.
Is transparent you can read all, the briefs listen to

(44:10):
all the. Oral arguments, of course you don't get behind
closed doors and understand what each justices are are talking
about when they're debating the. Air issue but when you
listen to, or arguments you can find you kind of
get an inkling of what's, particularly interested uh which each individual.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
Justice well based on that counselor after your experience, and
observations did the court telegraph any leanings in how they? Were, questioning,
yeah yeah a.

Speaker 4 (44:33):
Little bit, of course you got Some justice kagan was
she's she's, really smart and she raised she's of course
one of the liberal justices if you want to put
them in, that bucket and she raised a lot of
the kind Of the pandora's box. Issues here and this
is a fundamental problem WITH what i was getting at
from uh WITH when i was intimating with the, executive
order is that If the president has the power to

(44:56):
Interpret The fourteenth amendment in, this manner then he has
the power to Interpret The fourteenth amendment and. Other manners in,
other words what if he could say that children of
illegal immigrants are no longer are, not citizens then he
could say that children of green card holders. Aren't, citizens so,
you know we talked about some of the practical problems
of ruling of the executive order of Interpreting the Fourteenth

(45:18):
the member in, this way, you know. I e the
birth towars. And etc there's also practical problems if you
interpret the president's power in such a manner as to
do what, He's doing and that was sussed out a
little Bit By. Justice Kagan justice kavanaugh was focused on
the Role. Of congress isn't this a decision better to
be Left? To congress so you got a little bit
of what he's. Interested in. Constitutional avoidance we all know

(45:40):
the candon of, constitutional voidance we all know is something
that's near and dear To The chief. Justice's heart so
those are two of the justices that are swinging justices
that this. Could augur what Happens in june And, Late july.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
I'm going to ask you for, your judgment. Your honor
when we come back On The Florida, Round table mike
O'Neill with, us here stick Around fresh.

Speaker 10 (45:59):
Florida tomato these ripe red rubies are the jewels of the,
produce section making every dish a, real gem sliced, or
dice purade. Or sauteed they are the soul of soups,
and salads the toppings of pizzas. And pastas they put
the tea. In, blt literally is there Nothing that florida tomato?
Can't do florida Tomatoes The swiss army knife, of vegetables

(46:22):
even if they are. Of, fruit technically just see You
what florida tomatoes can do. For You visit Fresh from florida.

Speaker 11 (46:27):
Dot com April Is Distracted driving. Awareness month since twenty,
twenty one texting and driving citations have increased by eighty.
Three percent looking down at your phone while operating your vehicle.
Is dangerous you should be locked in, on driving not
your message or news feeds before you get behind. The
wheel enable do not disturb or focus settings on your
smartphone to silence. All notifications your phone, can wait put

(46:51):
it down and focus on. The road brought to you
By The florida Department Of highway safety and. Motor vehicles from.

Speaker 16 (46:58):
Snorkeling and diving to harvesting, stone crabs lobsters, and scallops
divers down safety on the water is all about visibility and.
Safe distances there are many options for divers. Down, devices
however the goal is always the same to be clearly
visible from. All directions and while distance regulations should be
maintained at, all times boat operators should allow even more.
When possible know the regulations for divers down, warning devices

(47:20):
and keep. Everyone safe brought to you By The florida
Fish And Wildlife. Conservation COMMISSION visit myfwc dot com for.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
More information what does it mean to register as an?
Organ donor saying yes means your legacy can live on.
Through others it can give someone the chance for, more,
laughter milestones and.

Speaker 3 (47:38):
Time with the people.

Speaker 2 (47:39):
They love This Is National Donate. Life month join the
Ten million floridians who Have registered save lives. Say yes
register now At donatelife florida. Dot org the choice, is
yours the gift. Is theirs. Shorten us we're at Patients
confused temp one oh.

Speaker 4 (47:59):
Two infection what's?

Speaker 3 (48:00):
Going on it's becoming symptoms, antibiotics started, but ready let's.

Speaker 18 (48:04):
Move in infections could lead to a deadly chain reaction
in your body. Called sepsis, very quickly cepsis could cause,
tissue damage, organ failure and. Even death if you know,
the risks can spot the symptoms and, act fast then
you can get ahead. Of sepsis learn MORE at cdc
dot com slash sepsis my.

Speaker 4 (48:26):
MUSCLES eight i was tired all. The time my son
had a full blown.

Speaker 7 (48:30):
Asthma attack it came out.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
Of nowhere the unsettling thing about some SYMPTOMS.

Speaker 12 (48:34):
Is i had a fever and these.

Speaker 10 (48:35):
Terrible headaches you.

Speaker 1 (48:36):
Don't always know what's.

Speaker 4 (48:37):
Causing them it was line disease from.

Speaker 14 (48:40):
A tidbite i had zecovirus from.

Speaker 7 (48:42):
A mosquito you had a reaction.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
To cockroachrillergans threats to your health can come from. Unexpected
places get.

Speaker 9 (48:50):
The facts visit pestoral, dot org a public service message
From The National Pest.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Management association back to wrap up this week's edition Of
The Florida round table here On The Florida. News network
podcasts for You At bill mick. Dot com by, The
way mike O'Neil From The Landmark legal foundation with us
as We Weigh president trump's executive order on. Birthright citizenship

(49:15):
my couple of questions left in the limited time. We Have,
number one you watched and you heard, These arguments you've
weighed what was? Out there where are you Putting your
calci money on? This one if you're making, the call
how are they going?

Speaker 4 (49:28):
To, go yeah. It's interesting now there's actually betting markets on.
This stuff now it seems like there's.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
Go, Ahead yeah i'm, just Saying, that's calshi that's what.

Speaker 4 (49:36):
We're, saying, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah you go betting markets
on all of. This stuff. It's amazing you can bet on.
The outcome you can actually bet money on the Outcomes
Of supreme court, opinion decisions which is mind boggling.

Speaker 1 (49:46):
To, me well considering that our lives are in, the
balance why?

Speaker 14 (49:49):
Not?

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Sure? EXACTLY well I think i think this is going
to be an l for the. Betting markets say about
six percent Chance That president trump's executive order, is UPHELD
and i THINK that's i was originally about twenty five
to thirty percent chance of Success For. PRESIDENT trump i
think it's lower. Than that the betting markets are about,
Six PERCENT so i think it's probably about a one
to ten chance that he comes that. IT'S upheld i

(50:13):
think what you get here is to break. This down
you're gonna, get obviously you have the three of the
liberal justices who are predisposed to be ruling against him in,
this case and the swing if you want to call
them the. Swing justices you can break it. Down THAT
as i, Said Before JUSTICE roberts i think is leary
of waiting into the constitutionality of this because of THE

(50:33):
deference i Think, to CONGRESS and I Think justice kavanaugh
possibly holds that position. As well he would think that
this is kind of the separation of. Powers issue in,
other words who's the best body to make? This decision
is it the present by an executive order or Is
it congress that wants to make? This decision and they've
already Weighed the congress already made this decision in nineteen
fifty or nineteen. Fifty two and if they want to

(50:54):
make a decision again limiting, birthright citizenship then they have
the power and authority to. Do that we're not going
to get, into STRICTLY and i think that they might
be disposed Those THREE. Justices acb Kavanaugh and roberts might
be predisposed to not getting into the constitutionality of it
because a couple. Of reasons, number one they recognize the magnitude,
of that and, number two they want to ensure that

(51:17):
there is a political solution. To this that they probably
recognize the practicality of the situation that ninety Percent of
americans are not in favor of, birth tourism and that
they want to preserve. That avenue in, Other words congress
wants to pass a Lot outline chinese billionaires from coming
into the country, having birth giving birth to one HUNDRED kids,
vii surrogacy having them over Raised, in china and bringing

(51:39):
them back To The united states to. WREAK havoc i
think they want To under they understand, those practicalities and
they can hold that'st to their principles by clinging to
the notion of. Constitutional AVOIDANCE so i think.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
It comes down. That way then You think congress then has,
an opportunity in a, bipartisan way, to say you, know
what this kind of citizenship's wrong and we're going to.

Speaker 4 (51:59):
Outlaw, THAT well i think they have an opportunity to.
Do this recent recent history Is indicated i'm increasingly Skeptical
about congress's ability to get, anything done the fact that
they can't even get voter, identification through which is something
eighty five percent of us. Agree on, but again the court, Operates,
from hey we're proceeding from a. Principal standpoint we can't

(52:21):
deal with the problem.

Speaker 1 (52:22):
Real quickly because we're beat out. Of time if it
goes the other way And the president does win by,
some miracle what are the. Implications, THERE yeah i mean if,
he wins then.

Speaker 4 (52:32):
Huge implications that means obviously there's no that that will
cut off the incentive of illegal immigrants to come into
the country and. Give BIRTH so i think it would
be a disincentive if he. DOES lose i think you're
going to have to find, other WAYS and i think
they're doing. That Already the president, is securing securing, our
borders ensuring that people can't Cross into america illegally to.
Give birth an, Interesting.

Speaker 1 (52:53):
Topic mike we will not, decide today but we'll look for.
That decision mike O'Neil with a landmark legal foundation all
he is, a pleasure. My friend look forward to having.
You back we'll see you folks next week here On
The florida roundtable From The Florida. News network you've been

(53:18):
listening To The florida Roundtable with bill may on news
and public affairs presentation Of The Florida. News network the
views and opinions expressed during this programmer those of the
participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of, this, station,
management owners. Or sponsors for questions, or Concerns Contact florida

(53:38):
roundtable at fnnonline. Dot net