Will the Supreme Court Allow Birth Tourism to Continue?

Full Investigation Transcript

Auto-generated transcript. May contain errors.

in this day and age where we have millions of non-citizens coming into the United States, the idea that the resulting anchor babies are citizens because of this clause of the 14th Amendment, it just doesn’t hold water with me. So, there was big news this week about the issue of birthright citizenship as the Supreme Court held oral arguments about President Trump’s executive order uh essentially upholding the notion that unless you’re a legal resident of the United States, uh you uh your child, if it’s born here, isn’t automatically a citizen. Under the current reading of the Constitution and the um and federal law, which essentially uh codifies the Constitution the relevant constitutional provision, an illegal alien can show up here and even for 10 minutes, have a kid, and the kid becomes a citizen. And that’s just objectionable to me on its face and strains credulity that anyone would think that it complies with the Constitution. And the relevant part of the Constitution that the Supreme Court was grappling with was the 14th Amendment. And here’s the section at issue. It’s pretty relatively straightforward. Well, section one of the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so what does that mean to you? Okay, there’s a there’s a clause there. If you’re born or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Does that mean that uh you know, the provisions typically have been an invading army isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A foreign diplomat isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, etc. But is an illegal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under this reading of the Constitution? That’s the debate. And it’s an important one. And I don’t know how the Supreme Court’s going to come out after this oral argument. I’ll talk about that in a bit. But it’s so important, to his credit, President Trump attended a Supreme Court argument in person. First time a president, according to reports, has ever done so, which is surprising to me, and I’m glad he did it. Cuz the left was going apoplectic because they’re he’s trying to intimidate the judges or the justices, which is just absurd. He’s the president of the United States. He has the right to attend uh these proceedings like any other citizen, certainly as president. But I’m also glad he did it, and I would recommend every president attend Supreme Court proceedings, either when they’re president or if they’re even thinking about running for president, because the oral arguments are, you know, obviously we get the opinions of the court that tells us what they’re thinking in the in terms of uh the final thoughts, right? But the only public engagement or operations of the court in terms of seeing the individual justice justices ask questions and interact with each other occur at these oral arguments. And it would seem to me if you’re picking justices to be appointed and confirmed to be confirmed and appointed or you’re trying to evaluate how the justices you have picked are performing on the bench, what better way than to show up and watch? And no, listening to it audio is important and gives you a some flavor of what goes on, but there’s no no substitution for showing up in court uh and watching the interaction and the questioning. And uh and I encourage if you’re here in Washington, D.C., you get to go visit Washington, D.C. I encourage everyone to visit our nation’s capital. Uh the Supreme Court, if they’re in session and conducting arguments, try to get in. Try to get in. It’s easier than you think, and there are ways of you know, look it up to see how you can attend a Supreme Court argument. I won’t I won’t bore you with that. But I am so happy that the president attended the Supreme Court argument. And how did it go? Well, you know, as I said, the core issue is and I think the president has the better of the argument. Cuz it’s let’s be clear, it’s a complicated argument. And I mean, just because I think it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean there’s not a fitting Look, this is the way we’ve been doing it for 150 years. It makes life a lot easier. We don’t have to figure out if a baby’s parents were citizens or not citizens. Just babies that are born, we just consider citizens, and it just makes things easier. And that may be a policy that’s maybe persuasive policy-wise. It’s not persuasive constitutional-wise. But my point is it this case could go either way. Uh and I think the president has the stronger of the arguments. This is um I think this is a quote from his executive order. It doesn’t matter uh but it because it’s it is the president’s position. The 14th Amendment, I post I posted this, says “Always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that a person a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.” 8 USC 1401, generally mirroring the 14th Amendment’s text. So, in theory, Congress could have expanded the citizenship um statutorily to include additional people. But they kept it to the line set by the by the Constitution or the floor set where by the Constitution. Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States when that person one uh that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the said person’s birth or when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary, such as but not limited to visiting United States under the auspices of a visa waiver program or visiting as a student, work, or tourist on a student, work, or tourist visa, and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the said person’s birth. That makes sense to me. That makes sense to me. And in this day and age where we have millions of non-citizens coming into the United States, the idea that the resulting anchor babies are citizens because of this clause of the 14th Amendment, it just doesn’t hold water with me. Now, you can examine the case more carefully and look at the arguments to and fro as to what subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It seems to me an illegal alien, and this is my common sense approach, a legal an illegal alien avoiding the law to cross the border illegally or overstaying a visa, for example, and residing here knowingly and willfully illegally is rejecting the jurisdiction of the United States necessarily. Just as an invading army might be. They are saying, “I am not going to follow your law on lawful presence. I am above that.” How on earth is an illegal alien present in knowing violation of the law subject to the jurisdiction thereof under the sense listed here in the 14th Amendment? To me, their presence is a rejection of such jurisdiction. Just because they can be arrested, that’s not what they mean by subject to the jurisdiction. In the in the context, subject to the jurisdiction is someone who is not who is a non-citizen who is not here lawfully or is here in such a temporary fashion as to make it nonsensical that their child becomes a citizen just because they’re passing through. So, we’ve clipped out a few portions of the argument for you, and you can listen to the full argument. I think we’ll put a link below. I think the transcript is probably out there by now as well. So, if you don’t want to listen, you can read it. And I encourage you to read it cuz you may although this one you might not come across you may come away more confused than if you just read maybe the government’s briefs and and the opponent’s briefs. All of which are accessible. I mean, you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure this out. You know, you just can be persuaded as a citizen in the end. I mean, in the end, it’s about us, right? I mean, the Constitution is something that can be changed. For example, if the Supreme Court finds it to be okay for illegal alien invaders to have children and they get the benefit of citizenship and all the privileges thereof, we can change the Constitution. So this is a fight about how we govern ourselves and our sovereignty and you have a right to understand it and weigh in in my view. Getting a little heated about this cuz I think this is the exact opposite of what a serious country would be doing and the fact that we’re even at this stage is to me is just unbelievable. So here’s a section where just of the argument where Justice Alito was making I think some salient points but to be fair to the ACLU lawyer who was arguing on behalf of the um the petitioners made some good points and back back and forth. So here, listen. Uh not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. Um a boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act Justice Alito and that’s clear from Wong Kim Ark and it’s clear from the debates. What the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically not a subject of any foreign power, that you were that another country considers you a you sanguinis citizen, then lawful permanent permanent residents all foreign nationals » Well, ordinary public ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not? Justice Alito, if you think that the language of the 1866 Act was ambiguous as Wong Kim Ark says, the shift to the language of the 14th Amendment which is the operative text certainly clears up any ambiguity. Well, what I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who are nationals of other countries. If I’m correct, it’s true to a child who’s born here to Russian parents. It’s true to a child who’s born here to Mexican parents. They’re automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of of military service. It sure seems like that’s a that makes them subject to a foreign power. But again Justice Alito, that would have meant that the children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants which Wong Kim Ark refers to in the debate the framers referred to would not have been citizens either because if the only test is whether that US-born child is considered a citizen by another country under their you sanguinis laws, then no no foreign nationals children » Well, well all of in all of those cases the parents could be naturalized and then the children would be derivatively naturalized naturalized when the when the parents were naturalized. So what they were talking about what I think was that 1866 citizenship law that was preceded the 14th Amendment that most observers have pointed to as an indication of what they meant by subject to the jurisdiction thereof and I think in the 1866 law the language was for citizenship not subject to foreign power. I mean I I just am aghast that anyone would think that an illegal alien just coming across the border residing here illegally gets the benefit of citizenship for their children. I I there’s I don’t buy it. You know, maybe you are maybe you buy it. Maybe there are conservative justices that buy it. It looks like there might be a few. Here’s Chief Justice Roberts uh arguing with the Solicitor General John Sauer. Sauer was referencing and you’ll hear him referencing the birth tourism industry where most infamously uh Chinese Communist essentially run operations where uh Chinese citizens come to the United States have babies and leave and their babies become citizens and they get all the benefits and access to the United States while essentially being uh subjects of China practically speaking given their familial ties. But how is that like not the equivalent of an invading army? I don’t know how anyone could think otherwise. I think the last stat I checked is like at least 35,000 have occurred. I don’t know if it was annually or at least recently but the numbers are significant. And obviously it’s an inducement for illegal aliens to come here to the United States if they know if they have children here whether or not they are lawfully present the children become citizens. That would be the biggest inducement to come here illegally for many. They’re human beings. Who wouldn’t want their children to be US citizens given how great our country is? So here’s the little round robin between the Solicitor General of the United States and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose what business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to to that nation. Uh having said all that, you do agree that if that has no impact on the legal analysis before us? I think it’s I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdi dissent where they had where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they made a mess their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn’t a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course we’re we’re in a new world now as Justice Alito pointed out to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a a child is a US citizen. Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution. Yeah, with all due due respect to the Chief’s point, it’s doesn’t answer the he’s not answering the question. Does does that language result in the absurd notion that those 500 tourist agencies tourist birth agencies in China can gain citizenship in this abusive manner, invasive manner? And I think John Sauer has the better of the argument that the writers of the 14th Amendment that’s not what they were planning on. Now there’s a Supreme Court opinion that overruled another Supreme Court opinion that said otherwise suggesting that illegal aliens here could be citizens or their children could be citizens if they’re born here. Well, the argument that that just so you know generally the uh the Wong Ark opinion that’s referenced repeatedly does it say it as directly as it’s defenders suggest. So I don’t know how this decision’s going to hang out go out in the end. I don’t know what the outcome’s going to be. I’ve no clue based on what I read about the hearing, what I listened to, what I read. Now what I found interesting is that many thought going into this into the argument that the president was going to lose big time. That it was going to be a route. Well, it didn’t turn into a route because the ACLU received as many tough questions as President Trump’s lawyer did, the Solicitor General. So it’s going to be closer but many are predicting that President Trump’s position on this case and I think the most constitutional position on this case won’t win out. But on the other hand I guess hope springs eternal, right? I just don’t know that the Supreme Court is willing to say or at least there’s a majority of the court willing to say that someone like Joe Biden can let 20 million people into the United States and they’re here illegally and everyone any of them who have children, their children get to be citizens because they’re quote subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It just doesn’t make any sense they that’s the fair reading of the Constitution and to me to kind of cement that in a constitutional in a Supreme Court opinion would be extreme. I think it would be an extremist position to say that. To make that type of pronouncement. Now the Supreme Court will say that’s what we’re paid to do. I’m like, well, no, you’re not. You’re not paid to to make a pronouncement with certainty in an area in the least which is uncertain. » I mean, you could I mean, as a jurist, you could look at the the 14th Amendment. Let’s bring that up. I mean, to be fair, even the people who don’t know what it means. It’s like all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you could say, “Look, I don’t have enough information as to what that means. So, therefore, I’m not going to rule one way or the other. I don’t know what it means.” This is where not being a lawyer, I’d be interested to know what the constitutional lawyers think of that position. It’s like, “I don’t know, right?” Or or you could be I I guess my point is I don’t because I’m not sure what it means, I’m unwilling to say it means X or Y. It may not mean that every non-citizen who has a child here in all circumstances who isn’t lawfully present, that child is not a citizen. But it also may not mean also of the extreme version of the opposite side that say, “You just come in here for a minute and a half, you have the baby, the baby’s a citizen, you go on to your next stop.” Go right straight back to China. So, it’s going to be interesting to see. I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court comes down with a compromise position that protects our sovereignty and our citizenship from being further decimated cuz it already has been by the left. Cuz in the end, remember what the left wants. And this is kind of what this fight, in my view, is about from the left perspective. They want to eliminate the distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. They hate the United States. They hate the idea of of of nation states. They want one world government, the equivalent thereof. Let’s be blunt. They don’t like the idea of citizenship and special rights attending to someone because they’re a citizen of a nation. Now, they sometimes may say that, but they don’t believe it. They only say it for convenience purposes, when it’s convenient to them. So, they want to end citizenship as we know it. So, in many ways, the Supreme Court argument here, and I’m saying the justices are thinking this way, even those who disagree with me, but it it’s what it’s about. What does citizenship mean? Do we have citizens of the United States in a that have a a meaning meaningfully distinct legal status here in the United States? The left is opposed to that. They want them to vote. They want them to get your money. They want to protect them from deportation, no matter what they do. How else can you conclude that they believe in citizen they believe in citizenship? They don’t. They don’t. So, this is a bigger story than just one Supreme Court decision. This is about whether we’re going to have a country or not. Cuz if you don’t have citizens or the idea of citizenship, you don’t have a country. So, dear citizen, we’ll find out in a few months what the Supreme Court thinks on this. But in the meantime, you can be sure that Judicial Watch will continue to participate in this debate and also seek the enforcement of the immigration laws as they were written to protect us from those politicians and bureaucrats, etc., who want to allow the law to be broken to destroy the republic. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.