1-31-25 - 7am - Fourtheenth Amendment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh damn you, what's going on?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I reached I turned around to get my Constitution out
of my file comment and I put my ear bug
back in and all I hear is this the Hillary?

Speaker 1 (00:26):
What happened?

Speaker 3 (00:33):
There's no new talkbacks? There were no talkbacks, no new talkbacks?

Speaker 1 (00:40):
How was that filmed?

Speaker 3 (00:41):
Again?

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Don't don't mess with Dragon.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
We have very few rules around here. We like to
break a lot of the rules, well bend them, but
this is one you hold firm on.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah, we're pretty adamant the You have a job to do. Yeah,
considering how much we pay you. Good grief. There is
no birthright citizenship in this program. This is going to
automatically get you the privilege of listening to the high

(01:21):
quality radio that you get with me and Dragon Redbeard. So,
by golly, you gotta end up. You gotta look at
that paycheck we send every week. You need some time
and think about it. I'm in the fourteenth United States Constitutions,
Section one. All persons born are naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the

(01:43):
United States and other States whereen they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or see I'm sorry. I want you to hear
the entire first section of the First Amendment, and I
want you to think. I want you to think about

(02:04):
every sentence, but I want you to think about the
paragraph as a whole. All persons born are naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens of the United States and of the States wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of

(02:28):
the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. My argument is that the Fourteenth
Amendment citizenship clause does not provide automatic citizenship for anybody

(02:52):
that's born on American soil. I don't care what the
circumstances are, and I'm not the only one. There are
legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum that agree,
and you can find all sorts of books, law reviews, articles,
congressional testimony, legal briefs. You can find it everywhere. The

(03:19):
argument is pretty clear. The text of the fourteenth Amendment
contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth. One
must be born in the United States and not or
and the subject to its jurisdiction. Now, everybody thinks that

(03:42):
if you're born here, you're subject to the jurisdiction of
the country. But the proper understanding of the clause turns
on what what do the drafters mean, when do they
draft this, when do they ratify it? And what do
they mean by subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Because I

(04:05):
can go to France, I can go to any foreign
country and I am subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I
go to Mexico's let's bring it down right down to
or Guatemala. I've been to Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Costa Rica, Mexico,

(04:31):
and anytime I was in those countries, I was subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. I was subject to their laws,
but I was temporarily subject to their laws. So was
it a partial temporary jurisdiction that applies to anyone who

(04:54):
are subject to our laws while they're within our borders,
or does it instead only apply to those who are
subject to a complete jurisdiction, a jurisdiction that manifests itself
as owing allegiance to the United States and not to
any foreign power. Remember when I mentioned in the last
hour that as an American citizen, I am subject to

(05:19):
the laws of treason. Being born here, a natural born citizen,
I'm a citizen of this country, and I owe my
allegiance to this country. And if I attack this country,
try to destroy this country, if I become an enemy within,

(05:40):
then I'm subject to the laws of treason, and upon
due process of a trial, found guilty, could be put
to death. We go back to my France exhibit. Somebody
from France, let's reverse the example from from France comes here.

(06:03):
They you know, a French couple. They they they've seen
the Eiffel Tower. You know, they live near the Art
de Triumph and they live in Mantra and they and
they want to come here, they want to see our sights. Well,
when they come here, they're subject to our partial or

(06:23):
territorial jurisdiction. What do I mean by that, Well, they
have to they have to obey the speed limit. They
have to you know, they can't rob a bank. They
stop at the stop sign. They they can't write a
hot check, they can't fraudulently use a credit card, they
they can't vandalize property. They are while they are here

(06:48):
subject to the jurisdiction of this country, but they don't
owe allegiance to the country any more than I owe
any allegiance When I go to any foreign country, I
don't owe any allegiance to that country. The person who
comes here, the Frenchman that comes here with his wife,
neither one of them are subject to the draft. And

(07:11):
to my point, they can't be prosecuted for treason because
if they take up arms against the United States, they
breached no oath of allegiance. Now they can obviously if
they take up arms, if they storm the Capitol and
they try to take Nancy Pelosi hostage, then that's kidnapping.

(07:36):
It's not an insurrection, it's kidnapping. So what does it
mean subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. It's pretty
easy to understand. The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment unambiguously

(07:56):
pointed out that it means complete jurisdiction such as existed
under the law at the time, which is the Civil
Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, which excluded from citizenship
those born on US soil who were subject to a
foreign power. Let me repeat that, complete jurisdiction. The Civil

(08:21):
Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, when this was adopted,
excluded from citizenship those born on US soil who were
subject to a forum power.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
So someone born.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
Let's just say in eighteen sixty six, this won't even
make it modern. In eighteen sixty six, someone is here
from Mexico. They've come up there. They're on a cattle drive.
They're on a cattle drive from Mexico, and they brought
their wife with them, and the wife has a baby.

(09:01):
Their subject to a foreign power. They're Mexicans. And when
that baby is born, that baby is a Mexican born
to these Mexican parents. Now, although when I talked about
this the last time, which has been a few weeks ago,
it was indicta, meaning it wasn't a part of the

(09:23):
decision of the case. But in the first case addressing
the Fourteenth Amendment after it was adopted, a case called
the Slaughterhouse Cases, cited in eighteen seventy two, they wrote this,
the phrase subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude

(09:46):
from its operation children of ministers, councils, and citizens or
subjects of foreign states born within the United States. Let
me repeat that the Supreme Court the phrase subject to
its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children

(10:09):
of ministers, I would say, ambassadors, ministers, or consuls, and
citizens or subjects of foreign states born within this country.
It then confirmed the understanding in the eighteen eighty four
case of Elke versus Wilkins that the quote subject to

(10:30):
the jurisdiction phrase required that one be not merely subject
in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the
United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and
only and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. John Elk,

(10:52):
a Native American claimant in that case, did not meet
that requirement because, as a member of an Indian tribe
at his birth, he owed he owed immediate allegiance to
his tribe, not to the United States. There's a treatise

(11:13):
written in that era by Thomas Coley, who wrote that
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant full
and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and
not any qualified or partial jurisdiction such as may consist
with allegiance to some other government. Well, those are Mexicans, Gualdumbaland's, Hondurans, Venezuelans.

(11:39):
Their allegiance is to their country. Think about this. If
I just if I just pick up my bags this
afternoon and tell Tammer, you know what, we're going to
go to France for the weekend. And am I now
somehow owing allegiance to France. No, if we go, let's

(12:05):
just say, you know, France is too far, Let's just
go to Cabo for the weekend. I'm a now Mexican soil.
Do I owe allegiance now in my subject to the
jurisdiction of Mexico. Yeah, I've got to owe Mexican laws.
You know, if if the waiter that's bringing my little
umbrella drink to me offends me and I stand up

(12:26):
and punch him in the face, that's as salt and battery.
So I'm subject to that. I'm subject to those jurisdiction.
But I'm not automatically and a Mexican citizen because of
the subject to the jurisdiction thereof, I would add something else.

(12:47):
And Professor Eastman, who used to teach up at see
you said one time that more fundamentally, this understanding of
the citizenship clause is the only one compatible with the
consent of the government principle that's articulated in the Declaration
of Independence. It's many people argue, I've got to address

(13:18):
the case of the United States versus Wong kim Arc
eighteen ninety eight case. If you're honest about that case,
you've got to acknowledge that Wong kim Arc involved a
child born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the
United States, not those who were here temporarily, and certainly

(13:42):
not someone who was here illegally. Never forget that when
you cross the border illegally, and I don't care whether
it's a civil penalty or criminal penalty, you have violated
the law of the United States of America. You have
come here illegally. How can you possibly argue that by

(14:06):
committing a crime of coming here illegally, and just because
you're pregnant, you bring your womb, to use the editorial
boards language from the Denver Gazette, you bring that impregnated
womb across the border illegally. You drop the baby in
a hospital in El Paso, Texas, and suddenly we are

(14:31):
supposed to interpret the Constitution as, oh, that's an American citizen.
It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, if you go
to walkim Ark and you read that case, you'll realize
that the court never held that the children of illegal
aliens or even those that are just visiting here are

(14:52):
constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship nearly by virtue of the
birth in the United States. And you have to ignore
college as true. The claim that Trump made in his
executive order that the fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted
in any formal binding way to extend citizenship universally to

(15:12):
anybody born in the United States. Trump is absolutely correct
about that. Think about the incentive death. I don't think
this makes a difference, except that it shows that my
interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the predominantly

(15:35):
held view because there is no other country in the
world that does what we do, because they recognize that
we want citizens that owe loyalty and allegiance to this country.
You know, I've had many opportunity. That's one of the
greatest things that I got to do is the under

(15:56):
Secretary of Home Land Security was to participate in those
naturalization ceremonies where people came here applied for they came
here legally, they got a visa, and while they were
here they started the process to become citizens. And once
they became citizens, sometimes by joining the military. They would

(16:19):
come here and then they would join the US military
and would I would look out across the sea of faces.
I remember one in particular in San Diego, just a
sea of faces, some of them holding up video you know,
the old style video cameras, not a modern smartphone. They'd
hold it in one hand and they would try to

(16:39):
hold an American flag in the same hand they're holding
their video camera and raise their right hand and take
the oath of allegiance to the United States of America.
They didn't get citizenship simply because they dropped a baby.
People who oppose or people who think that it's subject
the jurisdiction thereof they overlook the Declaration of Independence, which

(17:03):
is very absolute about it that we are absolved from
all allegiance to the British Crown. It's about allegiance and loyalties,
it's not about birth.

Speaker 4 (17:15):
Good morning, Michael, Good morning Dragon. I have to say
I'm extremely disappointed in the six am listeners for subjecting
us seven am listeners to that cackle. Yes, I should
get up earlier, but I didn't, And I blame you.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
By you, I assume you mean the six am listeners.
You know this is great.

Speaker 4 (17:40):
Dragon.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
Now we've got a fight going on between the different audiences.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
I'm okay with that.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
I am too. I think it's wonderful. So now we
got this fight going on out there, and they're gonna
blame each other. So that means we can just talk
about do anything we want to do. Just you know
what are week there sounds good to me. So there,
I want to give you an example of how absurd
this idea about born here birthright citizenship is. This comes

(18:11):
from test I forget the let's see, this was the hearing.
This is a two thousand and five hearing. Doctor Eastman
was the witness and his testimony was rethinking birthright citizenship

(18:32):
in the wake of nine to eleven. And he tells
a story, and I want you to hear the story,
and I want you to think about how illogical it
is that we interpret subject to the jurisdiction thereof as
meaning you are a US citizen. At four h five
pm on the afternoon of September twenty sixth, nineteen eighty.

(18:54):
That was a three hundred and twenty seven of the
Iranian hostage crisis. Nadia Hussei Homdi born Nadia Hussein Fada
in Keith, Saudi Arabia, gave birth to a son, Yaser
Isam Homdi, at the Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

(19:15):
Ya Sir Homdi might just as ealy have easily had
been the son of parents of Iran, who was then
in a hostile standoff with this country, as he was
of Saudi Arabia. The boy's father, Isam Fadi Homdi, a
native of Mecca and still a Saudi citizen, was residing

(19:39):
at the time in Baton Rouge on a temporary visa
to work as a chemical engineer on a project for Exxon.
While the boy was still a toddler. The Homdi family
returned to its native Saudi Arabia and for the next
twenty years, Yes, Sir Isam Homdi, the son, who was
born in Louisiana, would not set foot again on American soil,

(20:05):
but the sun's path after coming of age would would
instead take him to the hills of Afghanistan. Where he
took up with a Taliban and perhaps the Altaida terrorist
organization is harbored in its war against the forces of
the Northern Alliance and ultimately against the armed forces of

(20:25):
the United States as well. So the kids born in
Louisiana the Saudi parents during the Iranian hostage crisis. So,
and that's only pertinent because think about what you would
think if he had been born to Iranians that were
here on a work visa and the Iranians were holding

(20:48):
hostages at the time. What would you think about that
kid being an American citizen whose parents' loyalty is to
the Iranians that were holding American hostages. But here it
was Saudi And they go back to Mecca and for
twenty years, the kid grows up in Mecca, but eventually
decides unit upon coming of age, I'm going to Afghanistan

(21:09):
and he takes up with the Taliban. In late two
thousand and one, during a battle near Condu's between the
Northern Alliance forces in the Taliban unit in which Homdi
was serving and while armed with kalishianakov Ak forty seven
assault rifle, Homdi surrendered to the Northern Alliance forces and
was taken by them to a military prison in Afghanistan.

(21:32):
From there he is transferred to Sheburgan, Afghanistan, where he
was interrogated by a US interrogation team, determined to be
an enemy combatant, and eventually transferred to US control, first
in Kandahar and then to Guantanamo. Unlike his fellow enemy
combatants being detained in Gemo, Homdi had to get out

(21:56):
of Cuba card free card get out of Cuba free card.
When US officials learned that Homdy had been born in Louisiana,
they transferred him free of charge to the Naval brig
in Norfolk, Virginia, where, under the auspices of his father
acting as his next friend, he started a legal battle

(22:17):
seeking access to lawyers and a writ of habeas corpus
compelling his release. This because, under the generally accepted interpretation
of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause, Homdy's birth to Saudi
parents who were temporarily visiting one of the United States
at the time of his birth, made him a US
citizen entitled to the full panoply of rights that the

(22:39):
US Constitution guarantees to its US citizens. He petitioned the
Federal defect court in Virginia for a rid of habeas corpus,
seeking to challenge his detentions. His case was ultimately heard
by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held,
in an opinion by Justice O'Connor that Homdy had a
due process right to challenge the factual basis for his
classifications and detention as an enemy combatant. In the dissent,

(23:05):
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Stevens, declined to accept that
Homdi was actually a citizen, referring to him instead as
a presumed American citizen at the outset of his opinion. Now,
discalia brief let me go off track here was pretty oblique,

(23:26):
but it challenged the wisdom of the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendments citizenship clause. And I think it is worth
thinking about as an original matter. Mere birth on us
soil alone is in sufficient to confer citizenship as a
matter of a constitutional right. Rather birth together with being
a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of

(23:49):
the United States, i e. Not owing allegiance to another sovereign,
which his parents clearly were, was the constitutional mandate a
floor for citizens below which Congress cannot go in the
exercise of its Article one power over naturalization. While Congress
remains free to offer citizenship to persons who have no

(24:11):
constitutional entitlement to citizenship, it has not done so mere
birth to foreign nationals who happen to be visiting the
United States at the time, as with the case of
Homdi that the Taliban should not result in citizenship. So
Denver Editorial Board, there's an example. Someone born on American soil,

(24:39):
goes back to Mecca, spends twenty years, but we think
he's a citizen. And in fact, when he's captured as
an enemy combatant taking up arms against American and the
Northern Alliance soldiers, he gets sent to Gimo, eventually ends
up in Gipmo, where he petitions for a rid of
habeas corpus. It's transferred at our taxpayer expense to Norfolk, Virginia,

(25:04):
where ultimately the Supreme Court here's this case, and they
determine that, oh yeah, he's now a citizen. He gets
all of the due process rights that some would would
had they committed murder on the streets of New York
or Denver. Which is why I've always been adamant about
the enemy combatants like Clake Sheik Muhammad KSM being held

(25:28):
in Gitmo because I do not believe they are entitled
to the constitutional due process rights because they are enemy combatants.
They owe no allegiance to this country, and neither did
Hamdi just because he was born here. No, it takes

(25:49):
much more than that. It takes I think affirmative steps.
At least, I would require affirmative steps, and that's what
Trump's trying to do. The bomb does matter, editorial board,
and the Open Borders acts as an attraction to that
womb to come and drop a baby here, because now

(26:13):
your parents get all of these freebies, something that which
hard working Americans are being tacked out the wall zoo for,
so that we can provide, to the detriment of our
own children, to the detriment of our own healthcare, all
of these benefits conferred upon people who simply, because of
an impregnated womb, come here to drop a baby so

(26:33):
they can get all the freebies. But set aside those
practical reasons. I have a baby, tamer has a baby,
which would be a miracle. Tamra has a baby in
Paris or London, and we should claim that that child
is now a citizen of the UK or France. It
makes no sense whatsoever. So if that doesn't make any sense,

(26:57):
why does this make sense? And you can't tell me
it's because of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fourteenth Amendment was
specifically designed to say to the states, those people that
were brought here as slaves by force are citizens of
the states in which they reside and are entitled to citizenship.

(27:21):
They are citizens of this country. It was a slave amendment.
But no, no, the progressives, the Marxists in this country
want to misinterpret the fourteenth Amendment so that they can
use it to make sure that anybody that comes here enemy, foe, friend, indifferent.

(27:44):
I don't care. As long as you drop that baby
on American soil, you get to be an American citizen.
And that is morally and legally wrong. And thank goodness,
Trump's trying to stop it. So Editorial Board, it is
worth the fire eight. The Denver Gazette is completely off
the reservation on this one morning.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
Brownie, this is Bill Clinton. Please stop.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
I hear enough of that at home.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
Jokes on you guys who actually love the cackles, keep
them coming.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
And the fights on. The fight is on. I want
you to think about think about it this way. If
you're born to US citizens abroad, I go back to

(28:42):
the point of tamer and I miracle of miracles. Having
a baby while we're visiting a foreign country, does that
child get dual citizenship in that country. No, there's not
a country in the world where that happens. We're visiting Beijing.
The child born to us is an American citizen, automatically

(29:05):
American citizen because it was born to US citizens. We
go to any other country in the world, same thing
is true. If somebody points out on the text line,
what's his name, Petra, the president of Columbia refuse to
accept that first planeload of illegal aliens that we had

(29:29):
shackled because they were members of gangs and criminals, and
refused to accept them in handcuffs. Why because those are
Columbia Colombian citizens. He acknowledged that they are Colombian citizens.
So if they're Colombian citizens, just because they have a

(29:50):
baby in this country, why should we say then they
are an American citizen. This cuts both ways. Somebody asks
about permanent resident aliens, Well, again, because of this interpretation
of the Fourteenth Amendment, you're a permanent resident alien yes,

(30:14):
that child would be an automatic citizen of the United States,
but not because of the permanent resident alien status of
the parents, but because of the mere birth of being
born in the country. The permanent resident aliens, and that
is the specific language in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
You can become a permanent resident alien, meaning that you

(30:38):
are not a US citizen. You just have a permanent
status so that you can reside here, but you still
have to get your status renewed. But that child, based
on this absurd interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment, does become
a US citizen. And I don't think I may be

(31:00):
wrong about this. I'm not an immigration attorney, but I
don't think that that child then has automatic dual citizenship.
I think that depends on a lot of other factors,
which I frankly just I don't want to get into
because I don't think that. I fully I don't understand
it well enough to try to explain it. But if

(31:25):
I mean, there was all this controversy, remember when John
McCain's running, and we'd had all the controversy about you know,
where Barack Obama was born and the birth certificate and
all that bull crap. Well, some would argue that Barack Obama,
if you accept the premise that he was born in Hawaii,
some would would have argued that he still was not

(31:46):
a US citizen because his father was not a US citizen.
But the problem is his mother was, so one of
the parents is an American citizen. If you assume he's
born in Hawaii, then Barack Obama is a U A citizen.
John McCain the same thing. John McCain was born in
the Panama Canal Zone, but too American citizens, so therefore

(32:11):
as an American citizen. Same thing with me and Tamera.
Child's born in Paris, child's born in Beirute, child's born
in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Do you think that suddenly
the child is in Israeli? No, not at all, and
there's no dual citizenship there. So I don't know what

(32:33):
the hell the editorial board of the Denver Gazette's thinking,
But this is an argument worth having because we have
a lot. This is why I'm such so adminant about language,
because you start, you let the progressive start in interpretation,
and suddenly it just becomes accepted dogma that this is

(32:56):
exactly what the Constitution means. When in fact, if you
really wanted to get into the details about the Wrong case,
the focus there was really on domicile, which is a
legal residence. So I would argue that even though the
parents were here illegally, they were domiciled is what the

(33:18):
court focused on, and so they would interpret that they're
therefore of them, he must be an American citizen. But
they weren't. They didn't have legal residence here. They had
no legal residence. So I think that, you know, the
chief Justice in that case wrote the dissent that supports

(33:41):
this position. So just because there's one case that says, oh,
they were born here, so the naturally citizens doesn't mean
that a current court couldn't say that was wrongly decided.
Now it'll be controversial, just like the Dobbs decision was
saying that oh Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and
abortion is an issue for the states. Well, here they

(34:03):
could say that the wrong case was wrongly decided and
that the fourteenth Amendment does not automatically conferge confer citizenship.
And besides, that is just wrong. It makes no sense.
What's the will