January 23, 2025 • 36 mins
Federal judge in Seattle blocks Trump's EO on birthright citizenship. Confirmation battles: AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she'll vote against Hegseth. We create the economic incentives for illegal immigration and make it easy for people to scam the system. Why have borders at all if you don't enforce the law? Triumph the insult dog is making comedy funny again.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, Third hour, Clay and Buck kicks off. Now,
thank you for being with us. We've got some breaking
news for you. Not unexpected, but still breaking news. A
federal judge, John Cogan Hour. That's a tough one. I
don't know how to say that one to Clay. John
(00:20):
c Coogan Hour has let me see, sided with the states.
Basically here, the Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has
now been hit by a judge who says it is unconstant,
blatantly unconstitutional. You've also had twenty two states, along with
(00:44):
activist groups, filing lawsuits to halt the so called order.
They say it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. This is US
District Court for the Western District of Washington State. This
guy's a Reagan appointee, and he has said that, yeah,
this has been blocked, so temporarily blocked. This was to
(01:08):
be expected. And here here's where this is going to go.
It's going to go to the Supreme Court. I think
we all know that that's the plan. Just to be clear,
there's no surprise here. This is actually the process. You know,
this is what they were hoping the response would be,
or I shouldn't say hoping what they knew the response
would be, and now it'll make its way up to
the Supreme Court. Clay, It's it's going to be interesting.
(01:32):
I think that a lot of people who disagree with
Trump Trump's executive order on this issue, they think this
is just going to get swept aside by the Supreme
Court and that this is all it's all so clear.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Well, here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
The amendment in question, when you look at it, has
what is effectively a redundancy with the subject to the
jurisdiction there of clause. And when you understand the history
of these kinds of laws and the way citizenship has
worked in many, many other countries, they're going to have
(02:14):
to explain why they would add the subject. Because if
it's just you're born here, you're good, why do you
have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof I mean,
because you're all right. If you're on us soil, of
course you're subject to US jurisdiction at some level. That
point of again, those who agree with you and me
on what should happen here, that point of redundancy in
(02:36):
the amendment is what's going to get so much focused
because you are subject to the jurisdiction of your actual
nationality while in the United States, and that would be
a conflicting, a conflicting jurisdiction. So this is where the issue,
I think becomes very much more complicated and a closer
(02:58):
affair than a lot of people realize.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
So quick synopsis of where we are. Trump says birthright
citizenship is not in the Constitution. This judge, without reading
his order, I'm sure, is saying it is. And the dispute,
and this is going to sound like super legal nerd,
as you just laid out, comes down to the fourteenth Amendment.
(03:23):
And the reason that language is in there is because
when Abraham Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves
were not considered citizens of the United States in full
sum total. Remember, for those of you who are history nerds,
the Three Fifths compromise in terms of how to count
population for purposes of representation, as a part of the
(03:48):
congressional battle, as part of the constitutional battles, all of
those different things are going to come into play, and
there are going to be two different aspects. I'm telling
you a preview of how this is eventually going to play,
not only in the district court, but also on the
Circuit court and then on the Supreme Court. There's going
to be an argument between people who say, Okay, what
(04:08):
was the original intent of this amendment when it was
put in place in eighteen sixty ratified in eighteen sixty
eight ish, whatever year that was, And then there are
others that are going to say, well, as it's been
applied since then, we're not looking at the original intent.
We're considering the larger circumstances surrounding it. And that is
(04:32):
going to effectively be an argument over what exactly it means.
And I don't know how this is going to play out.
I'm fascinated by it. Let me give you a hypothetical, Buck,
I don't know the answer. Some of you may be
scholars in this field. What happens the subject to the
(04:53):
jurisdiction of Let me give you a hypothetical, Buck, you
may have some idea on this. If you are here
living and working at an embassy. Let's say you are
Russian and you are here in the United States, and
you are part of the staff at the Russian embassy.
And while you are here as one of those workers
(05:15):
at the Russian embassy, you have a baby in the
United States. Is your baby a United States citizen? I
don't know, maybe some of you have experienced this. Obviously,
it doesn't have to be Russia. It could be Venezuela,
it could be Brazil, it could be China, because technically
there's an argument that you are still a citizen of
(05:37):
another country.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
There are there cases on this. This is one of
the things that I'm fascinated by.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
This is very interesting.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
And keep in mind that this is where this becomes
more Again, I think people who a lot of people
think of this as just an open and shut thing
because it has been this way, so it will always
be this way.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I think I think that they are wrong if you
you are the.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Children of like like, let's let's say the Russian ambassador to.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
The US has a kid living in the United States
as the ambassador.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
You know, his wife, who is also on the on
the diplomatic list. There's these sort of clear designations of
who is a you know, a a duly, a duly
registered and uh and recognized diplomat.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
That child is not a US citizen.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Okay, But if you are not a technically on the
DIP list to the diplomat list, and you are staff
in the consulate.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I believe the way it has gone.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Is like so the so, the like lower level person
working at the Russian embassy that's not technically a diplomat.
They have a child here, that child is treated as
a US citizen.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
That's kind of sense.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And I don't know how how the implication that that's
that's fascinating if true. And let me give you the
opposite right and some of you have probably experienced this,
who are listening to us right now. If you are
married or have a baby on a base in South
Korea or a base in Germany stationed while being an
(07:17):
American overseas, your child is not a citizen of South
Korea or Germany. Those countries don't convey citizenship based on
birthright location. Now that's a little bit different, maybe because
of the military service. But let's say that you went
(07:39):
overseas and you're living in Japan and your wife gets
pregnant there, and you guys have kids in Japan. Your
kids are not Japanese. It's very hard to become a
Japanese citizen. In other words, birth tourism or just births
that happen to happen because of jobs do not convey
citizenship most of the places around the world.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Remember that there are thou and thousands of birth tourism
cases that happen in the US every year. It's illegal,
and the companies and the people involved in this can
be federally prosecuted for enabling this. But if the judge,
let's say this judge in Washington State, if what he
(08:18):
says is actually the law, and remember this has never
been ruled, tot's say it's blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
has never ruled on this. That has not actually happened.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
They have not No one has ever tried to say
birthright citizenship is not legal as Trump is doing to
promote provoke this is what he's doing, provoke a constitutional
examination and challenge. This is the intent.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yes, And a big part of this is, you know,
you can fly here from you know, Chile or Bangladesh
or wherever in a day.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
It's a very different thing you think about when these
laws were under consideration. It wasn't something that people nobody
was going to come here for a few weeks from
Shanghai to happen. Like if they came here, they were
staying here.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Back when these.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
You know, you go back before, you know, mass commercial
air travel was was the standard around the world, So
things have changed a lot. That's that's one part of this.
But the other part of this is, if this federal
judge in Washington is correct, somebody who comes here from
Beijing and their cases of exactly this happening. This isn't
just some wild hypothetical. Somebody who comes here from Beijing
(09:28):
for the explicit purpose of staying in a bird tourism
hotel in San Francisco, gives birth to their child here
in the US, goes back to China with their child,
raises them until they're you know, eighteen years old, and
then says, hey, I want my US passport.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
My child is a US citizen, the same as all
of you Americans, the same rights, the same everything. I
demand this. Now, if that judge and Washington is correct,
then this person this you know, this hypothetical both but
it happens all the time of the Chinese national whose
parents are Chinese nationals gets to say, well, now this
(10:11):
is a US citizen.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
I don't think that that.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I don't think that anybody looks at that and says
that makes sense. I also think that anybody looking at
people who come across the border illegally and say, hey,
I need asylum, and then their asylum claim is turned
down because they were lying. But they had a kid
in the interim of the year or two or whatever
it is, they waited for their asylum hearing. They have
a US citizen child. Now that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
How does that make sense? It's a great question. And
let me just tell you how this is going to go.
I don't think it's coincidental that the first judge to
strike this down is in a blue state. I think
this is calculated. I this will then lead to the
Ninth Circuit taking this case up. The Ninth Circuit is
(11:01):
going to I'm just telling you how it's going to go.
The Ninth Circuit is going to say that Trump's birthright
citizenship order is unconstitutional. Now, there may be so called
circuit conflicts. That is, I live in Tennessee in the
sixth Circuit, and that is Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, among other states.
(11:23):
I used to know this way better when I did
the bar exam, and the sixth Circuit may well have
a different interpretation. There will probably you're going to get confused.
Many of you, because there's going to be so many
headlines about so many different rulings. Different circuit courts will
have different perspectives. That conflict will then lead to the
(11:44):
Supreme Court, and ultimately the nine justices of the Supreme
Court will decide what the Fourteenth Amendment means in the
context of birthright citizenship. Now, there are a lot I
was talking about this with my wife last night, super
exciting converse station in the Travis household. She's also a lawyer.
One of the things that has to be applied here
(12:06):
is Buck, what do you do about all of the
people that have been granted birthright citizenship already? So this
would have to be a forward looking process, right.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I don't think you could take away citizenship from people
who currently have citizenship, and I would not think that's
going to happen. And I think that that's too I
think that that's unfair, that's problematic. I don't think you
could do that, but I do think you need clarity
on this going forward.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
I agree. The challenge is then people will have equal
protection claims because if you had citizenship granted and you
were born in twenty twenty three, and then the Supreme
Court comes down with a ruling and you were born
in twenty twenty six, the people born in twenty twenty
six are going to sue and say they have an
equal protection claim. Again, that's just where.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
But again, the statutes change, and you don't get to say,
you know, if something is made illegal that wasn't illegal before,
you don't get to say, well, you know, you guys change,
you know, you see what I'm saying like that, there
can be changes, totally understand.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
I'm just I'm just saying this is gonna be a
multi year battle. I give Trump credit because I think
he's right on it, and I think it's an important action.
I'm just saying this is not something for people out
there who think that it's like a light switch, like
you flip it, and it's like, this is going to
go on. The challenges to this for multiple years, and
I don't have a strong take on exactly how how
(13:34):
they're going to be able to handle. I think it's
one of the this is I always like to say,
this is a perfect law school hypothetical, and law school
exams are basically they give you a bunch of hypotheticals
and you have to analyze it and nobody knows exactly
what the right answer is until those nine justices ultimately
render their opinions, which I can't wait to read.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Yes, so we'll see if you have thoughts on this one.
By the way, love to take your calls on it.
It's a very important issue. It's a very contentious issue.
But it really goes to whether America is a country
with borders, laws and sovereignty or not. Because if our
law requires that you can game the system and get
(14:19):
away with it, it makes a mockery of the whole thing,
doesn't it. And what does it mean to be a
citizen in the world that we described where people can
come here, just have a baby here, leave and then
twenty or thirty or whatever years later say, yeah, I'm
an American just like all of you. I'm the same
as all of you, even though I didn't have American
parents and didn't live in America. My friend's Inflation is
(14:42):
still a big problem something we have to continue to
contest with. It means the cost of things you're buying
every day are going up faster than the wages that
you were in It also means our government can't pay
all their bills without printing more money. The dollars in
your savings account are going to be worth less year in,
year out, same as the dollars in your four to
one case. So how can you protect the value of
our savings account from further eroding? You invest a portion
(15:05):
of it in gold. That's the single best way for
you to protect the value of your savings account in
four oh one K, especially if you've got a four
oh one K you're not really doing much with, maybe
from an old job that's just been sitting there. Going
with gold and silver is the way to go. Birch
Gold is who we suggest you work with. Birch Gold
Group can help convert in an IRA or four oh
one k into an iray and physical gold without costing
(15:26):
you a penny out of pocket. Text my name Buck
to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight to get your
free info kit that's Buck Buck to ninety eight ninety
eight ninety eight, or go online to Birch Gold dot
com slash buck that's Birch Gold dot com slash bu ck.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
Views and politics, but also a little comic relief.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts and.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We're talking about the
confirmation battles that are underway. Lisa Murkowski has announced in
the last twenty or thirty minutes that she will not
be supporting Pete Hegseeth and his nomination for Defense Secretary.
(16:18):
That means that one Republican is off the board. Heg
Seth can afford to lose three total. Jad Vance can
break a fifty to fifty tie to put heg Seth
in as Defense Secretary. Buck, I would just say this,
and I know we got a lot of people who
listen in Alaska because I hear from you guys. In fact,
you've been to Alaska. I want to take a trip
(16:40):
up there. That may be a summer destination for the
Travis family. I really want to go to me. This
would be a Lisa Murkowski never gets my vote again
kind of situation in Alaska. Like it is a red state.
Trump won Alaska overwhelmingly. Trump deserves the right to pick
the person that he wants to be Defense Secretary. And
(17:01):
if the senator from red state Alaska is not voting
for it. That would be a no for me on
her going forward. I'm just speaking if I were in
Alaskan personally, that stands out to me. I think Trump
deserves his nominees to get confirmed by Republican senators.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
I agree with.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
That sentiment, and I would just add I think that
Mitch McConnell is a likely no vote as well, would
be my I'm guessing now. I mean people have been
reporting on this both ways. I think Mitch McConnell is
probably not gonna because they can't.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
He doesn't care. They're not.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
No one's gonna do anything to Mitch McConnell and politically,
and I think Susan Collins is going to be tough too.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
So Susan Collins Buck, I'll say, makes more sense to
me because she represents a blue state, so she has
to be more moderate in some ways. That's a rational
choice by her. Murkowski, to me, is a poor decision
and Alaskan should be thinking about it when they go
to ballad boxes.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Wireless cell phone carriers with retail stores like to lure
you in with the deal of the century, a free
cell phone waiting for you and the only thing you
have to do is sign one hundred dollars a month
in sell service charges, but Puretalk offers a much better deal.
With a qualifying plan of just forty five dollars a month,
you can get a free Samsung Galaxy and yes, this
is for premium service, unlimited talk, text, twenty five gigs
(18:16):
of data, and mobile hotspot at a fraction of the
price of the big guys. And it's all in America's
most dependable five G network. Get your free Samsung Galaxy
by dialing pound two fifty and say the keywords Clay
and Buck from Pure Talks. US customer service team will
help you make the switch. Dial pound two five zero
say the keywords Clay and Buck. You can claim your
(18:37):
free Samsung Galaxy with qualifying purchase from Pure Talk. I've
got a Pure Talk phone. It's incredible. I use it
here in the States, use it overseas. The best plan,
the best money, and by far the best customer service.
Dial pound two five zero say the keywords Clay and Buck.
Today welcome back into Clay and Buck. As we know,
the breaking news from this hour is that a federal
judge in Washington has stopped Trump's executive order for now
(19:04):
on birthright citizenship. Very important issue. Going to take a
long time for this to be resolved. It's going to
require a lot of wrangling in the courts and in
the court of public opinion too.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
It's going to be a lot of arguing about this.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
We've got a lot of calls lighting us up. Also
some VIP emails coming in. Wanted to get some of
your calls now, Mike in Augusta, Georgia, you have an
interesting experience you want to tell us about. Go for it.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
Yeah, I was in the Navy station in Athens, Greece.
I'm a retired chief and met my wife there. She's British.
There was no way that she was going to have
kids down there. She wanted to go home and had
the children. So she goes home July of eighty nine
as the girl December of ninety has a boy. We
(19:49):
go to leave and they give us both birth certificates,
American and British. I don't know if the British one
was a souvenir, but those kids have two birth certificates.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
So now your wife is British, right, so that would
make sense.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Well, this is what I was gonna say, is that
is that that makes sense from the subject, Mike, your
military abroad, your subject to u CMJ and the jurisdiction
of the United States clearly, so that's of course your
child born abrably you're deployed, is an American and your
wife being British and having her child in the UK.
You know, people can have dual citizenship. We know this,
(20:24):
so that to me it has there. So does your
your kids have two birth certificates? Couldn't they get an
EU passport though?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I assume so, Yeah, certainly, certainly they could get an
EU passport. In fact, some countries are very lenient in
granting EU passports. For instance, you can pay like I
think several hundred thousand dollars in Malta will give you
a EU passport you can get You can even buy
dual citizenship in some of these countries. But yeah, I
(20:57):
mean if if the kids applied, they could get a
British passport as well, because they're I mean their mom's British.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Yeah, okay, so yeah, Mike, that all makes sense. Thank you.
Do you have any thoughts on this? You wanted to add?
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Are you good?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I'll just let me know.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
No.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Cool. We wanted to hear about the experience. Thank you
so much, Susan in Ohio.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
This is interesting. Go ahead, Susan.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Hello, Yes, you were you were a PI and you
have some interesting experience on this issue.
Speaker 7 (21:26):
Go for it.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Yeah. I've been licenses here in Ohile for over thirty years.
I have a client in Taiwan and up until about
four years ago, they had me collecting medical records in
California and the women that were flying in from China
to give birth, they didn't stay for a month. They
(21:48):
would come when they were like eight and a half
months pregnant, right, they would stay for a month after
delivery and then go back home. And that is considered
a citizen. And when they're eighteen, they can come back
and bring their family with them.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
That's another part of it that's very important that I
left out of this is that then the US citizen
child sponsors the whole family, which is why the birth
tourism thing is so worthwhile. I said, you know, yeah,
you get your passport and you can you know, you're
an American citizen and you can go to you know,
cal Berkeley in state tuition whatever.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You then it's kind of the the wow.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Yeah, I mean this is this is the the ways
that people are scamming the system.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Susan, Well, yeah, I did. I get over eighty cases.
And with the insurance company in China was really upset
because these people would come here. They're not allowed even
to fly after seven months, and they would they would
hire a company there in China that would make the
arrangements about where they were going to stay well at
(22:52):
the hospital, they'd go to the doctor and everything. They
paid thirty thousand dollars these companies in China, and then
they would come and they would see a doctor once
a week for maybe tour or three visits and pay
the doctor's twenty five hundred dollars cash. They would go
to the hospital. The average two day bill was forty
(23:15):
eight thousand dollars and they would plead poverty so they
would pay five thousand dollars and the people in California
had to pay the rest.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Yeah, thank you for the call. And this is super important, Buck,
because it goes to when I say they're going to
have to analyze the fourteenth Amendment. Remember in eighteen sixty eight,
you couldn't just decide when you were, as the caller
just said, when you were eight months pregnant.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
This is what I meant about the planes.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
You can't you can't get here eight and a half
months pregnant from Shanghai. Come here for a few weeks
and go back. You know, a steamship was a big deal.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
The idea of intentionally coming for a short period of
time to have a baby after you were already pregnant
was not technologically feasible when the fourteenth Amendment was passed.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
And I can tell you from my time at the
border and with border patrol, with this asylum, with these
so called they're fake asylum cases by those people are
eighty ninety percent of them or total scams on the
asylum system. But a lot of pregnant, eight months pregnant
women showing up at the US Mexico border from all
over the world for obvious reasons.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Yes, And look, the other thing here to say is
we create the incentive. You can't get upset at people
for taking advantage of the incentive that you created. It
is acting as a magnet. We say this, but it's important.
There are two reasons why people come here. One is
our economy is better than any in the world because
(24:49):
of its historical embrace of capitalism, and whatever salary you
make here is way more than the average person could
make in Venezuela. So the poor person here is living
far better than the poor person in almost any country
in the world. So economic incentive is real. And I've
always said this, Buck, a lot of you out there
listening to us right now. If you could make ten
(25:12):
x your salary, if you went to Mexico, a lot
of you would go to Mexico. And if you could
make ten x your salary, if you went to Canada,
a lot of you would go to Canada. Economics, a
lot of you will change states if you can make
more money, If you can make twenty percent more money. Right,
economic concentives are real.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
But part of this, also, Clay, is that. And I
think there's been an awakening among the American people, and
particularly even on the right, about this. What makes America Americas,
the American people, It's not just this piece of land,
It's not just an economic zone. It is we, the
culch people. There is something about americanness, how we do things,
(25:54):
what our culture is, the way that we operate, our history,
are ties to each other and to this country. All
of that, I mean, it is an incredibly complicated and
incredibly powerful thing. And to cheapen it by just saying,
you know, it's a free for all. Anyone could show up.
Everyone who gets here is the same everyone. You know,
obey our laws, don't obey our laws. Have a kid
(26:16):
here for a week, and then go back to China
and then come back later with the whole family and
say you're Americans too. People are tired of this, and
they also recognize that if it continues, this will not
be America, this will be another country. Some smaller European
countries have figured this out the hard way. You know,
is Sweden really Sweden if it imports a million refugees
(26:38):
and a half a million Syrian refugees and they don't
learn the language, they don't share the culture. That well,
Sweden's only got ten million people. And the refugees are
having a much larger, faster, you know, much faster family
growth than the natives are. Guess what, your country starts
to be a different place. And people feel that here
in America and they're tired of it.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Correct, And that is one is the draw economically. The
second one is the one that you can control. Now
you can put more security at the border and try
to restrict in gressigress all those things which we're doing.
Second one, though, is birthright citizenship, and it needs to be,
in my opinion, removed. Now we'll see what the Supreme
Court is going to say. I know a lot of
(27:20):
federal district courts are going to disagree with me, some
circuit courts are going to agree, some are going to disagree.
But ultimately it's going to come down to the nine
men and women sitting on the Supreme Court. Here's the
question my wife asked, which is a good one? Your
point is, I think a very solid one, Buck, because
what it ultimately leads to is, if what you argued
(27:40):
isn't true, why do countries have borders at all? Why
do we have countries? I mean, why not just one
big map and people can just go anywhere they want
in the world. What is the significance of a border?
What is the significance of a cultural choice of a
country we have?
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And this gets to some This gets to some some
deep uh foundational issues of patriotism along with nationality. You know,
this came up recently with the and it was on
the right that this debate was happening with h one
B visas and how it is largely now abused and
(28:21):
a scam, and some people didn't seem to know that,
and they got very mouthy about H one B visas
publicly without understanding what was really going on. But you know,
when you look at core issues of patriotism, if if
this country was invaded by a foreign doesn't matter what
the country is. If this country, if someone you know
landed on the shores of New Jersey or California, all
(28:46):
of us listening, the guys who were listening were military
age and gay gals who were listening. If they wanted to,
we would. We would be called upon to fight, to
possibly die for this place.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
That's something that.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I don't think people take can do account enough on
some of this illegal immigration stuff like oh, just show up,
get your stuff, don't learn the language. You can kind
of do whatever you want, come and go as you please.
We talking about the birth poorism scam. The people who
are here love this place and would die for it.
That's not something that should just be cast aside as
some kind of a joke because people want to feel
(29:19):
good about themselves, because they want to pretend that the
whole world could come here and it's still America.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I would love to and just also ask the question
of people who are making this argument, in addition to
why do we have borders in the first place, what
number would be too many? They're seven billion people in
the world, I've making for years because there's never to them.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Clay, we take a million legal legal, and.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Quite honestly, I think that number is probably too high.
That's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Now for for Biden, we've been paying, we've been and
by the way, that's not you know, people go home,
but don't you Yeah, lots of immigrant friends.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
The point is we're setting policies for the future to
def find what our future is a country will be,
and we have to have lines. We've got, you know,
the same reason to have a country, You've gotta draw
lines on a map.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
There's something arbitrary about all of this.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
But if we don't hold it together and believe in it,
then it all falls apart.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
And there are seven billion people in the world. How
many of those people wish they were American? Four billion,
five billion?
Speaker 1 (30:21):
You see here, here's how many of them wish they
could be in America and get the benefits of being here, Bill,
you know, a couple billion. I mean, you would many
of them really want How many of them want to
believe in the Constitution? How many of them want to
learn our language? By the way, I think Trump should
push for the national language to be English. I don't
know why this isn't higher on the radar. And this
(30:43):
is something I'm sensitive to in South Florida. By the way,
everybody who's here should be able to speak English. There
should not be ballots in New York City in fifteen
different languages or twenty different languages.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Coreact, I mean what I would vote in New York.
I'm like, I don't even know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
There's there's like Sanskrit, there's tie. I mean, there's stuff
that you're like, well, what is this that the national
language should be English? You know, we we are a
country that is held together by ideals and ideals and
our laws and our history. That shouldn't be something that
we're shy about, uh and and promoting for the next generation.
(31:17):
But Clay showing up here and getting welfare and talking
about how like racist or Baptist country is all the time?
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Is that is that a I mean, even.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Coming here illegally. That makes you an American. Now now
you're an American. That also, I don't I don't sign
on to that.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
My argument is that for legal immigration, we should be
benefiting off of the people that we're bringing in. That is,
we bring in highly skilled legal immigrants who have a
lot of assets that they can provide to the country.
You know, the analogy I've used is like, you know,
these should be the lottery picks, the NBA draft lottery
(31:55):
picks of the rest of the world. That's nice, should be.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Less than I don't know, I mean, I could get
the real that the reality is that and I agree
with you on that sentiment. That's less than ten percent
of the legal migrants we're taking in. It's almost all
chain migration via people who are we're just talking about
they sponsor the rest of the family. And you know,
Canada has done this thing for the last ten years
of oh we're going to have a points based system.
(32:19):
Everything has gotten worse economically in Canada while that's been
going on.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Everything has gotten worse.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Also, they just didn't justin. Trudeau just announced like three
weeks ago that they were ending all immigration.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
After cutting back the immigration dramatically because it's a massive
failure because the points system, you know, it doesn't work
the way they have it set up, it doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
But I would just love I mean, I would love
to hear somebody say, what's the right number? Should we
have four hundred million new Americans? Like, what is the number?
Where Elizabeth Warren would say, oh, no, no, no, that's
too many. Well why what is the why that you're
going to draw this election? Answered that question with ten
million plus legals in four years?
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Too much?
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Yeah, that's too much the American at least. But I
would love to hear what Elizabeth Warren would say.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
I'll call you a racist, Clay, go play your flute.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
Pow wow chow. Indeed, I'd love to get Pocahontas on
the show at some point. If you're planning a historic figure.
If you're planning to watch the NFC and the AFC
Championship this weekend, make sure you've downloaded the Prize Picks
app makes watching live sports a lot more fun. Best
place to win cash while watching the playoffs. You can
win up to a thousand times your money on Price
(33:30):
Picks all about the players, and here's a free one
Free Square. Can't lose on this one. Jayden Daniel is
gonna throw for at least one yard this weekend. More
or less. If that happens, you got a winner. You
can add a few more and you can get hooked
up and have a fabulous time all over the country.
(33:54):
Forty different states California, Texas, Georgia, Florida. Join over ten
million Price members. I'm going to give you a pick
tomorrow headed into the weekend. You can get fifty dollars
instantly when you sign up right now. Go to prizepicks
dot com. My name Clay, that's pricepicks dot com. C Lay.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh, and they do
(34:16):
a lot of it with the Sunday Hang. Join Clay
and Buck as they laugh.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
It up in the Clay and Buck podcast feed on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Welcome back in Trump. CIA director John Ratcliffe confirmed seventy
four to twenty five the vote on Pete hegg Seth.
Mitch McConnell votes yes. Buck So Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell,
who was one of the unclear votes, has voted yes,
(34:48):
and that basically means that Pete Hegseth is going to
be Yeah, he's going to be your next Defense secretary.
So we will see what other senators do aside to
put out there one Lisa Markowski out, the CIA director confirmed,
and so we will see what ends up happening with
(35:11):
this going forward. Let's get a couple of these. Well,
we wanted to play a funny audio clip for you,
and this is from the protesters. These are the people
we saw.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
We saw, we saw we were walking past this protest.
It's very sad protest in DC.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
At the People's March. We're here with everyone in America
who thinks Joe Scarborough and Nika Prazinski still have good
on screen chemistry. This diverse crowd covers a full spectrum
of literally every stage of depression.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Good morning, Look at you guys. You guys are mobilized.
Yeah you don't energize. Yeah you're three months too late.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Thik.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
If you could just say your name and all your
genders from the camera, please, Oh, I'll turn.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Let's face it.
Speaker 8 (36:01):
No one here is going to smash any windows at
the Capitol that would require upper body strain. But you know,
eight years ago in fairness, there were like millions of
people here. Do you think the numbers of women participating
in this march have dropped off because they don't see
themselves represented by the Democrats or because you kept talking
(36:22):
to them about Deadpool? Seriously, looking around here, I've never
seen so many people worried about losing the right to
contraceptives for purely hypothetical reasons.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
I mean, let's triumph the insert insult comic dog and
the buck. The fact that they're now making fun of
left wingers is just another sign of the culture shift.
Do you remember people walking around in mainstream media ripping
eight years.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Ago, Let's make comedians funny again.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Assistance provider for veterans military families
All right, Third hour, Clay and Buck kicks off. Now,
thank you for being with us. We've got some breaking
news for you. Not unexpected, but still breaking news. A
federal judge, John Cogan Hour. That's a tough one. I
don't know how to say that one to Clay. John
(00:20):
c Coogan Hour has let me see, sided with the states.
Basically here, the Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has
now been hit by a judge who says it is unconstant,
blatantly unconstitutional. You've also had twenty two states, along with
(00:44):
activist groups, filing lawsuits to halt the so called order.
They say it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. This is US
District Court for the Western District of Washington State. This
guy's a Reagan appointee, and he has said that, yeah,
this has been blocked, so temporarily blocked. This was to
(01:08):
be expected. And here here's where this is going to go.
It's going to go to the Supreme Court. I think
we all know that that's the plan. Just to be clear,
there's no surprise here. This is actually the process. You know,
this is what they were hoping the response would be,
or I shouldn't say hoping what they knew the response
would be, and now it'll make its way up to
the Supreme Court. Clay, It's it's going to be interesting.
(01:32):
I think that a lot of people who disagree with
Trump Trump's executive order on this issue, they think this
is just going to get swept aside by the Supreme
Court and that this is all it's all so clear.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Well, here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
The amendment in question, when you look at it, has
what is effectively a redundancy with the subject to the
jurisdiction there of clause. And when you understand the history
of these kinds of laws and the way citizenship has
worked in many, many other countries, they're going to have
(02:14):
to explain why they would add the subject. Because if
it's just you're born here, you're good, why do you
have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof I mean,
because you're all right. If you're on us soil, of
course you're subject to US jurisdiction at some level. That
point of again, those who agree with you and me
on what should happen here, that point of redundancy in
(02:36):
the amendment is what's going to get so much focused
because you are subject to the jurisdiction of your actual
nationality while in the United States, and that would be
a conflicting, a conflicting jurisdiction. So this is where the issue,
I think becomes very much more complicated and a closer
(02:58):
affair than a lot of people realize.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
So quick synopsis of where we are. Trump says birthright
citizenship is not in the Constitution. This judge, without reading
his order, I'm sure, is saying it is. And the dispute,
and this is going to sound like super legal nerd,
as you just laid out, comes down to the fourteenth Amendment.
(03:23):
And the reason that language is in there is because
when Abraham Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves
were not considered citizens of the United States in full
sum total. Remember, for those of you who are history nerds,
the Three Fifths compromise in terms of how to count
population for purposes of representation, as a part of the
(03:48):
congressional battle, as part of the constitutional battles, all of
those different things are going to come into play, and
there are going to be two different aspects. I'm telling
you a preview of how this is eventually going to play,
not only in the district court, but also on the
Circuit court and then on the Supreme Court. There's going
to be an argument between people who say, Okay, what
(04:08):
was the original intent of this amendment when it was
put in place in eighteen sixty ratified in eighteen sixty
eight ish, whatever year that was, And then there are
others that are going to say, well, as it's been
applied since then, we're not looking at the original intent.
We're considering the larger circumstances surrounding it. And that is
(04:32):
going to effectively be an argument over what exactly it means.
And I don't know how this is going to play out.
I'm fascinated by it. Let me give you a hypothetical, Buck,
I don't know the answer. Some of you may be
scholars in this field. What happens the subject to the
(04:53):
jurisdiction of Let me give you a hypothetical, Buck, you
may have some idea on this. If you are here
living and working at an embassy. Let's say you are
Russian and you are here in the United States, and
you are part of the staff at the Russian embassy.
And while you are here as one of those workers
(05:15):
at the Russian embassy, you have a baby in the
United States. Is your baby a United States citizen? I
don't know, maybe some of you have experienced this. Obviously,
it doesn't have to be Russia. It could be Venezuela,
it could be Brazil, it could be China, because technically
there's an argument that you are still a citizen of
(05:37):
another country.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
There are there cases on this. This is one of
the things that I'm fascinated by.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
This is very interesting.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
And keep in mind that this is where this becomes
more Again, I think people who a lot of people
think of this as just an open and shut thing
because it has been this way, so it will always
be this way.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I think I think that they are wrong if you
you are the.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Children of like like, let's let's say the Russian ambassador to.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
The US has a kid living in the United States
as the ambassador.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
You know, his wife, who is also on the on
the diplomatic list. There's these sort of clear designations of
who is a you know, a a duly, a duly
registered and uh and recognized diplomat.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
That child is not a US citizen.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Okay, But if you are not a technically on the
DIP list to the diplomat list, and you are staff
in the consulate.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I believe the way it has gone.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Is like so the so, the like lower level person
working at the Russian embassy that's not technically a diplomat.
They have a child here, that child is treated as
a US citizen.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
That's kind of sense.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And I don't know how how the implication that that's
that's fascinating if true. And let me give you the
opposite right and some of you have probably experienced this,
who are listening to us right now. If you are
married or have a baby on a base in South
Korea or a base in Germany stationed while being an
(07:17):
American overseas, your child is not a citizen of South
Korea or Germany. Those countries don't convey citizenship based on
birthright location. Now that's a little bit different, maybe because
of the military service. But let's say that you went
(07:39):
overseas and you're living in Japan and your wife gets
pregnant there, and you guys have kids in Japan. Your
kids are not Japanese. It's very hard to become a
Japanese citizen. In other words, birth tourism or just births
that happen to happen because of jobs do not convey
citizenship most of the places around the world.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Remember that there are thou and thousands of birth tourism
cases that happen in the US every year. It's illegal,
and the companies and the people involved in this can
be federally prosecuted for enabling this. But if the judge,
let's say this judge in Washington State, if what he
(08:18):
says is actually the law, and remember this has never
been ruled, tot's say it's blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
has never ruled on this. That has not actually happened.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
They have not No one has ever tried to say
birthright citizenship is not legal as Trump is doing to
promote provoke this is what he's doing, provoke a constitutional
examination and challenge. This is the intent.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yes, And a big part of this is, you know,
you can fly here from you know, Chile or Bangladesh
or wherever in a day.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
It's a very different thing you think about when these
laws were under consideration. It wasn't something that people nobody
was going to come here for a few weeks from
Shanghai to happen. Like if they came here, they were
staying here.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Back when these.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
You know, you go back before, you know, mass commercial
air travel was was the standard around the world, So
things have changed a lot. That's that's one part of this.
But the other part of this is, if this federal
judge in Washington is correct, somebody who comes here from
Beijing and their cases of exactly this happening. This isn't
just some wild hypothetical. Somebody who comes here from Beijing
(09:28):
for the explicit purpose of staying in a bird tourism
hotel in San Francisco, gives birth to their child here
in the US, goes back to China with their child,
raises them until they're you know, eighteen years old, and
then says, hey, I want my US passport.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
My child is a US citizen, the same as all
of you Americans, the same rights, the same everything. I
demand this. Now, if that judge and Washington is correct,
then this person this you know, this hypothetical both but
it happens all the time of the Chinese national whose
parents are Chinese nationals gets to say, well, now this
(10:11):
is a US citizen.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
I don't think that that.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I don't think that anybody looks at that and says
that makes sense. I also think that anybody looking at
people who come across the border illegally and say, hey,
I need asylum, and then their asylum claim is turned
down because they were lying. But they had a kid
in the interim of the year or two or whatever
it is, they waited for their asylum hearing. They have
a US citizen child. Now that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
How does that make sense? It's a great question. And
let me just tell you how this is going to go.
I don't think it's coincidental that the first judge to
strike this down is in a blue state. I think
this is calculated. I this will then lead to the
Ninth Circuit taking this case up. The Ninth Circuit is
(11:01):
going to I'm just telling you how it's going to go.
The Ninth Circuit is going to say that Trump's birthright
citizenship order is unconstitutional. Now, there may be so called
circuit conflicts. That is, I live in Tennessee in the
sixth Circuit, and that is Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, among other states.
(11:23):
I used to know this way better when I did
the bar exam, and the sixth Circuit may well have
a different interpretation. There will probably you're going to get confused.
Many of you, because there's going to be so many
headlines about so many different rulings. Different circuit courts will
have different perspectives. That conflict will then lead to the
(11:44):
Supreme Court, and ultimately the nine justices of the Supreme
Court will decide what the Fourteenth Amendment means in the
context of birthright citizenship. Now, there are a lot I
was talking about this with my wife last night, super
exciting converse station in the Travis household. She's also a lawyer.
One of the things that has to be applied here
(12:06):
is Buck, what do you do about all of the
people that have been granted birthright citizenship already? So this
would have to be a forward looking process, right.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I don't think you could take away citizenship from people
who currently have citizenship, and I would not think that's
going to happen. And I think that that's too I
think that that's unfair, that's problematic. I don't think you
could do that, but I do think you need clarity
on this going forward.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
I agree. The challenge is then people will have equal
protection claims because if you had citizenship granted and you
were born in twenty twenty three, and then the Supreme
Court comes down with a ruling and you were born
in twenty twenty six, the people born in twenty twenty
six are going to sue and say they have an
equal protection claim. Again, that's just where.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
But again, the statutes change, and you don't get to say,
you know, if something is made illegal that wasn't illegal before,
you don't get to say, well, you know, you guys change,
you know, you see what I'm saying like that, there
can be changes, totally understand.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
I'm just I'm just saying this is gonna be a
multi year battle. I give Trump credit because I think
he's right on it, and I think it's an important action.
I'm just saying this is not something for people out
there who think that it's like a light switch, like
you flip it, and it's like, this is going to
go on. The challenges to this for multiple years, and
I don't have a strong take on exactly how how
(13:34):
they're going to be able to handle. I think it's
one of the this is I always like to say,
this is a perfect law school hypothetical, and law school
exams are basically they give you a bunch of hypotheticals
and you have to analyze it and nobody knows exactly
what the right answer is until those nine justices ultimately
render their opinions, which I can't wait to read.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Yes, so we'll see if you have thoughts on this one.
By the way, love to take your calls on it.
It's a very important issue. It's a very contentious issue.
But it really goes to whether America is a country
with borders, laws and sovereignty or not. Because if our
law requires that you can game the system and get
(14:19):
away with it, it makes a mockery of the whole thing,
doesn't it. And what does it mean to be a
citizen in the world that we described where people can
come here, just have a baby here, leave and then
twenty or thirty or whatever years later say, yeah, I'm
an American just like all of you. I'm the same
as all of you, even though I didn't have American
parents and didn't live in America. My friend's Inflation is
(14:42):
still a big problem something we have to continue to
contest with. It means the cost of things you're buying
every day are going up faster than the wages that
you were in It also means our government can't pay
all their bills without printing more money. The dollars in
your savings account are going to be worth less year in,
year out, same as the dollars in your four to
one case. So how can you protect the value of
our savings account from further eroding? You invest a portion
(15:05):
of it in gold. That's the single best way for
you to protect the value of your savings account in
four oh one K, especially if you've got a four
oh one K you're not really doing much with, maybe
from an old job that's just been sitting there. Going
with gold and silver is the way to go. Birch
Gold is who we suggest you work with. Birch Gold
Group can help convert in an IRA or four oh
one k into an iray and physical gold without costing
(15:26):
you a penny out of pocket. Text my name Buck
to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight to get your
free info kit that's Buck Buck to ninety eight ninety
eight ninety eight, or go online to Birch Gold dot
com slash buck that's Birch Gold dot com slash bu ck.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
Views and politics, but also a little comic relief.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts and.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We're talking about the
confirmation battles that are underway. Lisa Murkowski has announced in
the last twenty or thirty minutes that she will not
be supporting Pete Hegseeth and his nomination for Defense Secretary.
(16:18):
That means that one Republican is off the board. Heg
Seth can afford to lose three total. Jad Vance can
break a fifty to fifty tie to put heg Seth
in as Defense Secretary. Buck, I would just say this,
and I know we got a lot of people who
listen in Alaska because I hear from you guys. In fact,
you've been to Alaska. I want to take a trip
(16:40):
up there. That may be a summer destination for the
Travis family. I really want to go to me. This
would be a Lisa Murkowski never gets my vote again
kind of situation in Alaska. Like it is a red state.
Trump won Alaska overwhelmingly. Trump deserves the right to pick
the person that he wants to be Defense Secretary. And
(17:01):
if the senator from red state Alaska is not voting
for it. That would be a no for me on
her going forward. I'm just speaking if I were in
Alaskan personally, that stands out to me. I think Trump
deserves his nominees to get confirmed by Republican senators.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
I agree with.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
That sentiment, and I would just add I think that
Mitch McConnell is a likely no vote as well, would
be my I'm guessing now. I mean people have been
reporting on this both ways. I think Mitch McConnell is
probably not gonna because they can't.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
He doesn't care. They're not.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
No one's gonna do anything to Mitch McConnell and politically,
and I think Susan Collins is going to be tough too.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
So Susan Collins Buck, I'll say, makes more sense to
me because she represents a blue state, so she has
to be more moderate in some ways. That's a rational
choice by her. Murkowski, to me, is a poor decision
and Alaskan should be thinking about it when they go
to ballad boxes.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Wireless cell phone carriers with retail stores like to lure
you in with the deal of the century, a free
cell phone waiting for you and the only thing you
have to do is sign one hundred dollars a month
in sell service charges, but Puretalk offers a much better deal.
With a qualifying plan of just forty five dollars a month,
you can get a free Samsung Galaxy and yes, this
is for premium service, unlimited talk, text, twenty five gigs
(18:16):
of data, and mobile hotspot at a fraction of the
price of the big guys. And it's all in America's
most dependable five G network. Get your free Samsung Galaxy
by dialing pound two fifty and say the keywords Clay
and Buck from Pure Talks. US customer service team will
help you make the switch. Dial pound two five zero
say the keywords Clay and Buck. You can claim your
(18:37):
free Samsung Galaxy with qualifying purchase from Pure Talk. I've
got a Pure Talk phone. It's incredible. I use it
here in the States, use it overseas. The best plan,
the best money, and by far the best customer service.
Dial pound two five zero say the keywords Clay and Buck.
Today welcome back into Clay and Buck. As we know,
the breaking news from this hour is that a federal
judge in Washington has stopped Trump's executive order for now
(19:04):
on birthright citizenship. Very important issue. Going to take a
long time for this to be resolved. It's going to
require a lot of wrangling in the courts and in
the court of public opinion too.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
It's going to be a lot of arguing about this.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
We've got a lot of calls lighting us up. Also
some VIP emails coming in. Wanted to get some of
your calls now, Mike in Augusta, Georgia, you have an
interesting experience you want to tell us about. Go for it.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
Yeah, I was in the Navy station in Athens, Greece.
I'm a retired chief and met my wife there. She's British.
There was no way that she was going to have
kids down there. She wanted to go home and had
the children. So she goes home July of eighty nine
as the girl December of ninety has a boy. We
(19:49):
go to leave and they give us both birth certificates,
American and British. I don't know if the British one
was a souvenir, but those kids have two birth certificates.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
So now your wife is British, right, so that would
make sense.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Well, this is what I was gonna say, is that
is that that makes sense from the subject, Mike, your
military abroad, your subject to u CMJ and the jurisdiction
of the United States clearly, so that's of course your
child born abrably you're deployed, is an American and your
wife being British and having her child in the UK.
You know, people can have dual citizenship. We know this,
(20:24):
so that to me it has there. So does your
your kids have two birth certificates? Couldn't they get an
EU passport though?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I assume so, Yeah, certainly, certainly they could get an
EU passport. In fact, some countries are very lenient in
granting EU passports. For instance, you can pay like I
think several hundred thousand dollars in Malta will give you
a EU passport you can get You can even buy
dual citizenship in some of these countries. But yeah, I
(20:57):
mean if if the kids applied, they could get a
British passport as well, because they're I mean their mom's British.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Yeah, okay, so yeah, Mike, that all makes sense. Thank you.
Do you have any thoughts on this? You wanted to add?
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Are you good?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I'll just let me know.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
No.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Cool. We wanted to hear about the experience. Thank you
so much, Susan in Ohio.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
This is interesting. Go ahead, Susan.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Hello, Yes, you were you were a PI and you
have some interesting experience on this issue.
Speaker 7 (21:26):
Go for it.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Yeah. I've been licenses here in Ohile for over thirty years.
I have a client in Taiwan and up until about
four years ago, they had me collecting medical records in
California and the women that were flying in from China
to give birth, they didn't stay for a month. They
(21:48):
would come when they were like eight and a half
months pregnant, right, they would stay for a month after
delivery and then go back home. And that is considered
a citizen. And when they're eighteen, they can come back
and bring their family with them.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
That's another part of it that's very important that I
left out of this is that then the US citizen
child sponsors the whole family, which is why the birth
tourism thing is so worthwhile. I said, you know, yeah,
you get your passport and you can you know, you're
an American citizen and you can go to you know,
cal Berkeley in state tuition whatever.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You then it's kind of the the wow.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Yeah, I mean this is this is the the ways
that people are scamming the system.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Susan, Well, yeah, I did. I get over eighty cases.
And with the insurance company in China was really upset
because these people would come here. They're not allowed even
to fly after seven months, and they would they would
hire a company there in China that would make the
arrangements about where they were going to stay well at
(22:52):
the hospital, they'd go to the doctor and everything. They
paid thirty thousand dollars these companies in China, and then
they would come and they would see a doctor once
a week for maybe tour or three visits and pay
the doctor's twenty five hundred dollars cash. They would go
to the hospital. The average two day bill was forty
(23:15):
eight thousand dollars and they would plead poverty so they
would pay five thousand dollars and the people in California
had to pay the rest.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Yeah, thank you for the call. And this is super important, Buck,
because it goes to when I say they're going to
have to analyze the fourteenth Amendment. Remember in eighteen sixty eight,
you couldn't just decide when you were, as the caller
just said, when you were eight months pregnant.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
This is what I meant about the planes.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
You can't you can't get here eight and a half
months pregnant from Shanghai. Come here for a few weeks
and go back. You know, a steamship was a big deal.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
The idea of intentionally coming for a short period of
time to have a baby after you were already pregnant
was not technologically feasible when the fourteenth Amendment was passed.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
And I can tell you from my time at the
border and with border patrol, with this asylum, with these
so called they're fake asylum cases by those people are
eighty ninety percent of them or total scams on the
asylum system. But a lot of pregnant, eight months pregnant
women showing up at the US Mexico border from all
over the world for obvious reasons.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Yes, And look, the other thing here to say is
we create the incentive. You can't get upset at people
for taking advantage of the incentive that you created. It
is acting as a magnet. We say this, but it's important.
There are two reasons why people come here. One is
our economy is better than any in the world because
(24:49):
of its historical embrace of capitalism, and whatever salary you
make here is way more than the average person could
make in Venezuela. So the poor person here is living
far better than the poor person in almost any country
in the world. So economic incentive is real. And I've
always said this, Buck, a lot of you out there
listening to us right now. If you could make ten
(25:12):
x your salary, if you went to Mexico, a lot
of you would go to Mexico. And if you could
make ten x your salary, if you went to Canada,
a lot of you would go to Canada. Economics, a
lot of you will change states if you can make
more money, If you can make twenty percent more money. Right,
economic concentives are real.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
But part of this, also, Clay, is that. And I
think there's been an awakening among the American people, and
particularly even on the right, about this. What makes America Americas,
the American people, It's not just this piece of land,
It's not just an economic zone. It is we, the
culch people. There is something about americanness, how we do things,
(25:54):
what our culture is, the way that we operate, our history,
are ties to each other and to this country. All
of that, I mean, it is an incredibly complicated and
incredibly powerful thing. And to cheapen it by just saying,
you know, it's a free for all. Anyone could show up.
Everyone who gets here is the same everyone. You know,
obey our laws, don't obey our laws. Have a kid
(26:16):
here for a week, and then go back to China
and then come back later with the whole family and
say you're Americans too. People are tired of this, and
they also recognize that if it continues, this will not
be America, this will be another country. Some smaller European
countries have figured this out the hard way. You know,
is Sweden really Sweden if it imports a million refugees
(26:38):
and a half a million Syrian refugees and they don't
learn the language, they don't share the culture. That well,
Sweden's only got ten million people. And the refugees are
having a much larger, faster, you know, much faster family
growth than the natives are. Guess what, your country starts
to be a different place. And people feel that here
in America and they're tired of it.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Correct, And that is one is the draw economically. The
second one is the one that you can control. Now
you can put more security at the border and try
to restrict in gressigress all those things which we're doing.
Second one, though, is birthright citizenship, and it needs to be,
in my opinion, removed. Now we'll see what the Supreme
Court is going to say. I know a lot of
(27:20):
federal district courts are going to disagree with me, some
circuit courts are going to agree, some are going to disagree.
But ultimately it's going to come down to the nine
men and women sitting on the Supreme Court. Here's the
question my wife asked, which is a good one? Your
point is, I think a very solid one, Buck, because
what it ultimately leads to is, if what you argued
(27:40):
isn't true, why do countries have borders at all? Why
do we have countries? I mean, why not just one
big map and people can just go anywhere they want
in the world. What is the significance of a border?
What is the significance of a cultural choice of a
country we have?
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And this gets to some This gets to some some
deep uh foundational issues of patriotism along with nationality. You know,
this came up recently with the and it was on
the right that this debate was happening with h one
B visas and how it is largely now abused and
(28:21):
a scam, and some people didn't seem to know that,
and they got very mouthy about H one B visas
publicly without understanding what was really going on. But you know,
when you look at core issues of patriotism, if if
this country was invaded by a foreign doesn't matter what
the country is. If this country, if someone you know
landed on the shores of New Jersey or California, all
(28:46):
of us listening, the guys who were listening were military
age and gay gals who were listening. If they wanted to,
we would. We would be called upon to fight, to
possibly die for this place.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
That's something that.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I don't think people take can do account enough on
some of this illegal immigration stuff like oh, just show up,
get your stuff, don't learn the language. You can kind
of do whatever you want, come and go as you please.
We talking about the birth poorism scam. The people who
are here love this place and would die for it.
That's not something that should just be cast aside as
some kind of a joke because people want to feel
(29:19):
good about themselves, because they want to pretend that the
whole world could come here and it's still America.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I would love to and just also ask the question
of people who are making this argument, in addition to
why do we have borders in the first place, what
number would be too many? They're seven billion people in
the world, I've making for years because there's never to them.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Clay, we take a million legal legal, and.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Quite honestly, I think that number is probably too high.
That's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Now for for Biden, we've been paying, we've been and
by the way, that's not you know, people go home,
but don't you Yeah, lots of immigrant friends.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
The point is we're setting policies for the future to
def find what our future is a country will be,
and we have to have lines. We've got, you know,
the same reason to have a country, You've gotta draw
lines on a map.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
There's something arbitrary about all of this.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
But if we don't hold it together and believe in it,
then it all falls apart.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
And there are seven billion people in the world. How
many of those people wish they were American? Four billion,
five billion?
Speaker 1 (30:21):
You see here, here's how many of them wish they
could be in America and get the benefits of being here, Bill,
you know, a couple billion. I mean, you would many
of them really want How many of them want to
believe in the Constitution? How many of them want to
learn our language? By the way, I think Trump should
push for the national language to be English. I don't
know why this isn't higher on the radar. And this
(30:43):
is something I'm sensitive to in South Florida. By the way,
everybody who's here should be able to speak English. There
should not be ballots in New York City in fifteen
different languages or twenty different languages.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Coreact, I mean what I would vote in New York.
I'm like, I don't even know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
There's there's like Sanskrit, there's tie. I mean, there's stuff
that you're like, well, what is this that the national
language should be English? You know, we we are a
country that is held together by ideals and ideals and
our laws and our history. That shouldn't be something that
we're shy about, uh and and promoting for the next generation.
(31:17):
But Clay showing up here and getting welfare and talking
about how like racist or Baptist country is all the time?
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Is that is that a I mean, even.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Coming here illegally. That makes you an American. Now now
you're an American. That also, I don't I don't sign
on to that.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
My argument is that for legal immigration, we should be
benefiting off of the people that we're bringing in. That is,
we bring in highly skilled legal immigrants who have a
lot of assets that they can provide to the country.
You know, the analogy I've used is like, you know,
these should be the lottery picks, the NBA draft lottery
(31:55):
picks of the rest of the world. That's nice, should be.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Less than I don't know, I mean, I could get
the real that the reality is that and I agree
with you on that sentiment. That's less than ten percent
of the legal migrants we're taking in. It's almost all
chain migration via people who are we're just talking about
they sponsor the rest of the family. And you know,
Canada has done this thing for the last ten years
of oh we're going to have a points based system.
(32:19):
Everything has gotten worse economically in Canada while that's been
going on.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Everything has gotten worse.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Also, they just didn't justin. Trudeau just announced like three
weeks ago that they were ending all immigration.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
After cutting back the immigration dramatically because it's a massive
failure because the points system, you know, it doesn't work
the way they have it set up, it doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
But I would just love I mean, I would love
to hear somebody say, what's the right number? Should we
have four hundred million new Americans? Like, what is the number?
Where Elizabeth Warren would say, oh, no, no, no, that's
too many. Well why what is the why that you're
going to draw this election? Answered that question with ten
million plus legals in four years?
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Too much?
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Yeah, that's too much the American at least. But I
would love to hear what Elizabeth Warren would say.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
I'll call you a racist, Clay, go play your flute.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
Pow wow chow. Indeed, I'd love to get Pocahontas on
the show at some point. If you're planning a historic figure.
If you're planning to watch the NFC and the AFC
Championship this weekend, make sure you've downloaded the Prize Picks
app makes watching live sports a lot more fun. Best
place to win cash while watching the playoffs. You can
win up to a thousand times your money on Price
(33:30):
Picks all about the players, and here's a free one
Free Square. Can't lose on this one. Jayden Daniel is
gonna throw for at least one yard this weekend. More
or less. If that happens, you got a winner. You
can add a few more and you can get hooked
up and have a fabulous time all over the country.
(33:54):
Forty different states California, Texas, Georgia, Florida. Join over ten
million Price members. I'm going to give you a pick
tomorrow headed into the weekend. You can get fifty dollars
instantly when you sign up right now. Go to prizepicks
dot com. My name Clay, that's pricepicks dot com. C Lay.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh, and they do
(34:16):
a lot of it with the Sunday Hang. Join Clay
and Buck as they laugh.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
It up in the Clay and Buck podcast feed on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Welcome back in Trump. CIA director John Ratcliffe confirmed seventy
four to twenty five the vote on Pete hegg Seth.
Mitch McConnell votes yes. Buck So Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell,
who was one of the unclear votes, has voted yes,
(34:48):
and that basically means that Pete Hegseth is going to
be Yeah, he's going to be your next Defense secretary.
So we will see what other senators do aside to
put out there one Lisa Markowski out, the CIA director confirmed,
and so we will see what ends up happening with
(35:11):
this going forward. Let's get a couple of these. Well,
we wanted to play a funny audio clip for you,
and this is from the protesters. These are the people
we saw.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
We saw, we saw we were walking past this protest.
It's very sad protest in DC.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
At the People's March. We're here with everyone in America
who thinks Joe Scarborough and Nika Prazinski still have good
on screen chemistry. This diverse crowd covers a full spectrum
of literally every stage of depression.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Good morning, Look at you guys. You guys are mobilized.
Yeah you don't energize. Yeah you're three months too late.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Thik.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
If you could just say your name and all your
genders from the camera, please, Oh, I'll turn.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Let's face it.
Speaker 8 (36:01):
No one here is going to smash any windows at
the Capitol that would require upper body strain. But you know,
eight years ago in fairness, there were like millions of
people here. Do you think the numbers of women participating
in this march have dropped off because they don't see
themselves represented by the Democrats or because you kept talking
(36:22):
to them about Deadpool? Seriously, looking around here, I've never
seen so many people worried about losing the right to
contraceptives for purely hypothetical reasons.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
I mean, let's triumph the insert insult comic dog and
the buck. The fact that they're now making fun of
left wingers is just another sign of the culture shift.
Do you remember people walking around in mainstream media ripping
eight years.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Ago, Let's make comedians funny again.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Assistance provider for veterans military families
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.