Latest / Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast / DDH - Birthright Citizenship

Transcript

DDH - Birthright Citizenship · Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast

• 0:00
  History's strange, it's alien, and it won't give us what we
• 0:04
  would like to have. We're dispensing with the Not So
• 0:09
  Special session that we dealt with in our #2 It is the
• 0:12
  headline at dilmic.com because Tuesdays at 8:00 we devote to
• 0:17
  Dave Does History. Of course, we've got new links
• 0:20
  for you there on the show page today, again titled the Not So
• 0:23
  Special session links to Dave Bowman, the What the Frock
• 0:27
  podcast and the Dave Does History elements that Dave does
• 0:30
  and including the ones he does here.
• 0:32
  But he does a lot more than what he does here.
• 0:34
  And if you enjoy what Dave does history wise with us, you're
• 0:37
  going to really enjoy those Dave does history podcast.
• 0:39
  You put a lot of work into those, man.
• 0:40
  It's it's very well done. I, I enjoy it and as I've said
• 0:45
  on numerous occasions, it's a learning process for me because
• 0:48
  not only am I pouring history into it, but I'm also learning
• 0:52
  how to use AI properly as part of that.
• 0:55
  So. I think that's great that that's
• 0:57
  that's what you're doing with it.
• 0:58
  And since you brought up AI, let me remind everybody we're in the
• 1:03
  in the third week of a series of shows on the Florida Roundtable
• 1:06
  about artificial intelligence. We did the cautions and
• 1:08
  concerns. We did a very positive use of AI
• 1:11
  in education last weekend. And this coming weekend,
• 1:14
  attorney Steve Sharpentier joins us as we look at AI and the law,
• 1:18
  which you can't keep up with, much less get ahead of what's
• 1:21
  going on tech wise. So those are fun.
• 1:23
  The podcasts at the top of the page of Bill mick.com along with
• 1:26
  those for this show. So opportunities there for you
• 1:29
  to catch up. So that's good.
• 1:30
  What are we doing history wise today, Dave?
• 1:32
  Last Wednesday was wide open. Wednesday, as they always are.
• 1:36
  Uh huh. Got a caller by the name of
• 1:37
  Mario who asked a question. Do you?
• 1:40
  I don't know if you remember the question or not, but he he
• 1:44
  pondered the idea of he didn't know when the 14th Amendment
• 1:49
  began to be applied to illegal immigration and he was going to
• 1:55
  look that up. I don't know if he did or not,
• 1:56
  but I did. So you don't have to, Mario.
• 1:59
  So, Dave, your problem is solved.
• 2:03
  Birthright citizenship, otherwise known as juusoli.
• 2:07
  It's the legal term. Sounds like a French snack.
• 2:10
  It's Latin, but you know, it does sound French.
• 2:14
  It it actually means the right of the soil and it grants
• 2:17
  citizenship to everyone born in a country's borders.
• 2:20
  Now, there are some countries who practice Usoli.
• 2:23
  There are some that practice what is known as right of the
• 2:26
  blood. In other words, your, your
• 2:28
  bloodline determines your citizenship, not your, your
• 2:31
  birthplace. Think biblically.
• 2:35
  Remember Paul's ranting about he was a Roman citizen.
• 2:39
  Did he become a Roman citizen because of where he was born or
• 2:42
  because of who his father was? Anybody remember?
• 2:46
  I do not. Go look it up.
• 2:47
  That's your homework for the dad.
• 2:49
  Thanks Dave. The.
• 2:50
  The principle of birthright citizenship is embedded, at
• 2:54
  least as far as we understand it, in the Citizenship clause of
• 2:57
  the 14th Amendment. It's the very first sentence of
• 2:59
  the 14th Amendment. All persons born are naturalized
• 3:02
  in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
• 3:06
  citizens of the United States and of the state where they
• 3:08
  reside. That's it.
• 3:10
  That's all it says. When you understand how the 14th
• 3:16
  Amendment comes to be it, it might influence how you see that
• 3:23
  sentence. There are different ways to
• 3:27
  interpret that, and one of the things that upsets people is
• 3:31
  everybody has their own interpretation of what those
• 3:34
  words mean. The problem that we have is, of
• 3:38
  course, we have a system that determines what those words
• 3:40
  mean, and that system, whether we agree with it or not, is the
• 3:46
  way we do things. At the time of its drafting, the
• 3:50
  14th Amendment was absolutely revolutionary.
• 3:53
  It was so revolutionary Bill that many of the Union states
• 3:57
  remember this was 1866. Many of the Union states that
• 4:01
  had just won the Civil War absolutely refused to even
• 4:06
  consider it, let alone ratify it.
• 4:10
  The state of California will not ratify the 14th Amendment until
• 4:16
  1950. They will not say officially we
• 4:21
  agree with it. Now obviously it became part of
• 4:23
  the Constitution in 681868. But some states will, you know,
• 4:28
  symbolically adapt it later on what is so revolutionary in the
• 4:32
  14th Amendment that caused these Northern states to go, yeah, we
• 4:36
  don't like that, while at the same time forcing at the point
• 4:43
  of a gun the former Confederate states to ratify it for
• 4:48
  readmission into the Union, which is essentially how it gets
• 4:52
  ratified. The Northern states are not
• 4:54
  excited about this. The Southern states are forced
• 4:57
  to ratify it. What's in there that's causing
• 5:01
  these states to go? We don't like that.
• 5:05
  We don't like that at all. It's a long story when we don't
• 5:09
  have time for today. But what I will say to you is
• 5:13
  that most legal professors will tell you that the 14th Amendment
• 5:18
  essentially creates a new version of the Constitution of
• 5:23
  the United States for all practical purposes.
• 5:27
  Again, not my opinion. You can go read whoever you
• 5:32
  want, but for all practical purposes, the 14th Amendment
• 5:37
  essentially eviscerates the 10th Amendment.
• 5:41
  You can't have the 10th Amendment and meet the
• 5:44
  qualifications of the 14th Amendment.
• 5:46
  They just don't work together. It comes down to the ideas of
• 5:51
  the 14th Amendment are basically found in the concept of
• 5:56
  incorporation, which incorporates the Bill of Rights,
• 6:02
  the 1st 8 amendments to the Constitution against the states.
• 6:08
  Prior to the 14th amendment, a state could say we're going to
• 6:12
  tell you what the state religion is.
• 6:14
  We're going to take your property without compensation.
• 6:18
  You don't have a right to free speech or freedom of the press.
• 6:22
  After the 14th Amendment, the states are not allowed to do
• 6:25
  that, which you can see some states would have an issue with.
• 6:29
  Obviously then this is what the problem was.
• 6:33
  The citizenship thing is almost, it's almost a secondary
• 6:38
  consideration, even though it's the first sentence.
• 6:41
  And the reason that it's the first sentence is because of the
• 6:44
  Dred Scott ruling in 1857, in which the Tanni court ruled that
• 6:49
  African Americans could never be citizens of the United States.
• 6:56
  Prior to this time, the United States doesn't really have an
• 7:02
  official way of defining citizenship.
• 7:05
  It's never addressed in the original Constitution.
• 7:08
  But in the first Naturalization Act of 1790, they say basically
• 7:13
  anybody that's born here that's free and white and of good moral
• 7:17
  character or has lived here for two years, if they, you know,
• 7:23
  come in and they meet those criteria, they are the citizens.
• 7:28
  Everybody else is not. And there you have it.
• 7:32
  Tani uses that definition to basically decide the Dred Scott
• 7:36
  case, which is the slave who escaped or didn't escape, went
• 7:39
  to Freeland, claimed its citizenship to actually write a
• 7:43
  Supreme Court decision that says black Americans can never be
• 7:48
  citizens of the United States. Even if they're free, they
• 7:51
  cannot be considered citizens. The first sentence essentially
• 7:56
  overturns the Dred Scott decision.
• 7:59
  This is how you overturn a Supreme Court decision.
• 8:02
  You pass a constitutional amendment.
• 8:04
  Of course, nowadays, you just write an executive order and off
• 8:08
  you go. If you Fast forward then to the
• 8:11
  21st century, now we face this debate, which of course
• 8:15
  President Trump has entered into with his executive order
• 8:20
  overturning this concept of birthright citizenship.
• 8:25
  The debate revolves around a crucial, crucial question.
• 8:30
  And that question is, was it designed to accommodate the
• 8:34
  complex realities of immigration in the modern world or was it
• 8:39
  just narrowly tailored to address the post Civil War
• 8:42
  context? Now, again, what you believe
• 8:46
  about that today is based more on your politics than probably
• 8:50
  your understanding of the 14th Amendment of its applications.
• 8:56
  The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
• 9:00
  This is the the part that most people don't comprehend.
• 9:04
  In 1898, the United States Supreme Court decided that what
• 9:08
  it means is exactly what it says.
• 9:11
  Anyone born here is a citizen. You may not like that.
• 9:17
  You may not agree with it, but it comes down to the simple
• 9:21
  question of what are those words under the jurisdiction thereof
• 9:25
  mean, Because there are two different definitions of what
• 9:31
  that means, and that's where we have to go.
• 9:35
  And we're back in 60 seconds on Bill MC Live.
• 9:38
  Dave, does history, birthright citizenship?
• 9:41
  Dave, you talk about that 1898 Supreme Court decision, yet
• 9:45
  Supreme Court decisions can be also also be overturned by the
• 9:49
  Supreme Court, for example, Roe versus Wade.
• 9:53
  So is this whole thing that's going on now to get it in front
• 9:56
  of the court again to see if they'll reverse it?
• 9:58
  Yes, which again if you if you see things a certain way fine.
• 10:10
  The problem with that, Bill comes into this.
• 10:13
  If I can overturn Wong versus Kim, Juan Kim Arc versus United
• 10:19
  States, if I can overturn that, because I've decided that under
• 10:22
  the jurisdiction of means the other thing, can I not
• 10:27
  subsequently with another court and another president, decide
• 10:31
  that a militia being a necessity has a deeper meaning than what
• 10:36
  it does now? So you're saying it's opening up
• 10:39
  a big can of worms? I think this is a road we really
• 10:43
  don't want to go down, but we're headed there and ultimately
• 10:48
  we're going to have dueling Supreme courts.
• 10:52
  That ought to be interesting. And we continue birthright
• 10:54
  citizenship with Dave Does History on Bill Mick live this
• 10:58
  Tuesday morning on 92.7 FM WMMB. We continue in moments.
• 11:03
  We'll take your calls in our final segment of the hour.
• 11:06
  Stick around. It's a take on history you won't
• 11:09
  find anywhere else. Dave does history on Bill Mick
• 11:13
  live. Richmond Transmission and Auto
• 11:17
  Service bringing you this hour the program.
• 11:19
  Dave Bowman taking us through the history of birthright
• 11:23
  citizenship. Dave, where are we moving to
• 11:25
  now? So as we left, we were talking
• 11:29
  about the concept of the words under the jurisdiction thereof.
• 11:35
  And this is really the crux of the argument.
• 11:39
  And it's what the it's the argument that the Trump
• 11:41
  administration is going to make. What does that mean under the
• 11:45
  jurisdiction thereof? Now, it seems on one level to be
• 11:51
  pretty apparent. But is it?
• 11:54
  That's the question, and that's where all of this brouhaha comes
• 11:59
  about. Keep in mind that the United
• 12:02
  States, prior to the 14th Amendment, doesn't really have
• 12:06
  much of A description of what being a citizen is if you're
• 12:11
  white. Good moral character lived here
• 12:14
  for at least two years. You're a citizen paching.
• 12:18
  That's that's what Congress has decided.
• 12:21
  So it's specified Anglo or white or.
• 12:23
  European. Yeah, it is.
• 12:26
  And the sad truth is Bill, and this is the part of our history
• 12:29
  we don't like to talk about. We have always been negatively
• 12:36
  resistive towards immigration of people who we don't like,
• 12:43
  whether they are Irish, what? Or don't.
• 12:48
  Or don't look like us. Don't look like us, whether they
• 12:50
  be Irish or Slavic or Asian. The problem is, much like the
• 13:00
  arguments we used to have in California back when you were
• 13:03
  there, the Asian immigrants, specifically Chinese, were doing
• 13:08
  the jobs the Americans didn't want to do, building the
• 13:11
  railroads. And so there was a massive
• 13:15
  influx of Chinese workers that was seen very negatively by most
• 13:21
  Americans didn't like this, but they enjoyed the benefits
• 13:25
  thereof. Didn't we have a caller last
• 13:27
  hour talking about the benefits of the illegal immigrants, you
• 13:31
  know, picking fruit and building your your houses?
• 13:35
  So you had that same kind of argument.
• 13:38
  But there's this natural resistance to this.
• 13:43
  I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying there was there.
• 13:48
  And there comes a man by the name of Wong Kim Ark who decides
• 13:53
  that he is a citizen of the United States because the 14th
• 13:56
  Amendment first sentence says if you're born here, you're a
• 13:58
  citizen. He sues for his citizenship
• 14:02
  because he wants to do some certain things.
• 14:04
  We don't have time to go through the whole thing.
• 14:05
  The United States argues, no, he's not because his parents are
• 14:10
  not of, you know, good moral character and they're not white.
• 14:13
  They don't meet our our legal definition.
• 14:16
  So the Supreme Court will rule in 1898 that the meaning of
• 14:20
  those words under the jurisdiction thereof mean that
• 14:26
  you're here, you are part of that's a legal definition.
• 14:31
  Physically he is here. They uphold the idea that the
• 14:36
  six to two ruling that what that means is if you are born here,
• 14:41
  you are a citizen, period. The Supreme Court has ruled
• 14:48
  this. There you go.
• 14:51
  Now, as we push on a little bit, we'll find out that this doesn't
• 14:56
  change attitudes. Americans are still, you know,
• 15:01
  anti immigrant, but it does start to change the make up of
• 15:07
  the country. All right, Dave.
• 15:09
  So we've got this decision that's out there and now it's
• 15:13
  coming back into contention. It's what are we going to get?
• 15:16
  This decision is based on the legal reading of those words.
• 15:19
  What does it mean to be under the jurisdiction thereof?
• 15:22
  Legally, you're under the jurisdiction thereof because
• 15:26
  you're here, you're here, you can be arrested.
• 15:29
  What does it have to do with your allegiance to a particular
• 15:32
  nation? Bingo.
• 15:34
  So it would appear. A bingo.
• 15:36
  So you can be arrested for a crime, you're under the
• 15:39
  jurisdiction thereof. But there is another possible
• 15:43
  definition here, which is political, which would have to
• 15:47
  do with where does your allegiance lie?
• 15:49
  And this is the argument that the government makes in the, in
• 15:52
  the Wang Kim Ark case is that his parents, their allegiances
• 15:57
  to China. And so he can't be a citizen.
• 16:02
  And so the the the federal government in 1898 makes the
• 16:05
  argument of political jurisdiction over legal
• 16:08
  jurisdiction. But the court goes the other
• 16:10
  way. Now the question is, why does
• 16:14
  the court go that way? What did the people who wrote
• 16:18
  the 14th Amendment, Section 1 first sentence mean when they
• 16:22
  wrote those words? That's where you should go,
• 16:26
  right? Original intent.
• 16:28
  We would think. So what did anybody know what he
• 16:31
  said? The guy's name was Senator Jacob
• 16:34
  M Howard. And he actually wrote those
• 16:36
  words. And when asked on the floor of
• 16:39
  the Senate during the debates, what does that mean?
• 16:45
  His response, and I'm paraphrasing here because I
• 16:47
  don't have it. I don't have the the pages right
• 16:50
  in front of me, but his response was it doesn't apply to foreign
• 16:55
  diplomats, foreign military, but that it applies to quote most
• 17:03
  other people UN quote. Does that sound political or
• 17:10
  legal? It's more legal than political.
• 17:16
  He's that he never mentions political affiliation.
• 17:20
  He basically says, under his interpretation, the man who
• 17:25
  wrote it said if you're born here, you're a citizen.
• 17:31
  Up to this point, though, we haven't really had an issue with
• 17:35
  illegal immigration. We've had a lot of Chinese
• 17:38
  influx prior to the Civil War, we had a lot of Irish influx.
• 17:43
  But post all this into the Gilded era, we're beginning to
• 17:47
  have issues with immigration. We're getting a lot of people
• 17:50
  that we don't want here, people that are, in the words of the
• 17:55
  Congress, not of good moral character.
• 17:59
  They're coming from places that are potentially anti American.
• 18:04
  And it's during this period, this early 20th century, late
• 18:08
  19th century, early 20th century Mario, that that phrase illegal
• 18:14
  immigrant begins to appear in newspapers.
• 18:19
  And in 1924, the United States passes a, an immigration act,
• 18:23
  the Immigration Act of 1924. And it's after that point that
• 18:28
  it really becomes a, a functional word in our society.
• 18:35
  That 1924 act bans a lot of people from the Slavic
• 18:40
  countries, limits, limits immigration from Ireland and
• 18:46
  basically bans immigration from Asia.
• 18:53
  Now the problem with that is in 1924, we have a fantastic
• 18:59
  relationship with a very pro Western, pro America, pro
• 19:06
  democracy Japan, who is highly offended by the fact that we've
• 19:14
  just lumped them in with all the other Asians.
• 19:20
  And it causes, well, a string of events that comes to its apex on
• 19:28
  December 7th, 1941. Wow.
• 19:33
  And we continue birthright citizenship with Dave Bowman and
• 19:36
  Dave Does history on Bill Mick live in just moments looking
• 19:39
  forward to its conclusion and what you have to say about it.
• 19:42
  When we continue Richmond Transmission and auto service,
• 19:45
  this our sponsor of Bill Mick live, Dave Bowman with us with
• 19:48
  Dave Does history as we contemplate the battle over
• 19:52
  birthright citizenship, taking a look at the history thereof.
• 19:56
  I think what we're seeing in some of this Dave is that like
• 20:00
  the Florida Legislature that we talked about in our previous
• 20:03
  hour, not a lot of folks are looking at long term
• 20:07
  implications of what happens here.
• 20:09
  And the the the example you made with Japan and where that
• 20:15
  ultimately LED is very telling. Well, it's and it's yet another
• 20:21
  example of long term thinking. Yeah, by lumping in the Japanese
• 20:28
  with the Chinese and the Koreans and Mongolians or whoever in
• 20:34
  1924, the United States, which had just won World War One with
• 20:39
  Japan's help, really, and and Japan's culture, and I'm not
• 20:44
  commenting on culture positively or negatively, but their culture
• 20:49
  very much like the Greek culture of honor and, you know, glory.
• 20:55
  And this, it was seen as an insult.
• 20:58
  You're, you're not just saying we can't immigrate to the United
• 21:01
  States, you're saying that we're on the same level as the
• 21:03
  Chinese. And to the Japanese 1924, that
• 21:06
  was an incredible insult. And it led to questions in Japan
• 21:12
  about why are we friends with these people who insult us?
• 21:16
  It eventually leads to the fall of the democratic government in
• 21:20
  Japan, which is replaced with the military dictatorship, which
• 21:25
  again, hated the United States because of these perceived
• 21:28
  insults and these perceived, you know, slights, I guess.
• 21:34
  And you're dealing with, you're dealing with cultural, I don't
• 21:39
  want to call it xenophobia, but this idea that, you know, we're
• 21:41
  superior to your culture. And it ends up with them bombing
• 21:46
  Pearl Harbor on December 7th. You could make an argument that
• 21:51
  the Immigration Act of 1924, which established kind of the
• 21:55
  concept of illegal immigration, contributed to that.
• 22:00
  Did it 'cause it not directly? Was it a factor that should have
• 22:04
  been considered? Probably the bottom line is that
• 22:10
  the statements made by Senator Howard, and yes, I'm aware that
• 22:15
  there are other statements that are reported to have been made,
• 22:20
  but again, the court saw it differently.
• 22:24
  It doesn't matter. What I think what matters is
• 22:28
  that the court said he wasn't clear, The record is not clear.
• 22:33
  And consequently, we have to go with the plain language of the
• 22:36
  Constitution, which says legal as opposed to political
• 22:41
  jurisdiction is what counts. And so they made that decision
• 22:44
  in Huang Kim Ark, which has been precedent since 1898.
• 22:51
  Now, recent challenges are, of course, coming.
• 22:54
  Then we're all in agreement that what Trump is attempting to do
• 22:59
  is get this before the court again.
• 23:02
  And the presumption is that with the majority that he has and I,
• 23:08
  I worry about presumptions when it comes to the court because.
• 23:13
  We've already seen some examples where it's not every ruling like
• 23:17
  Trump would have expected it to go.
• 23:19
  And we don't know what the court's going to look like when
• 23:22
  it gets there. The problem with overturning a
• 23:27
  court precedent is what's to stop a future court from
• 23:32
  overturning that and reinterpreting what words mean
• 23:39
  for its advantage and it's government there.
• 23:43
  There are broad implications here that we should be at least
• 23:47
  considering at least thinking about.
• 23:51
  Do we have an illegal immigration problem?
• 23:53
  Absolutely we do. Is the problem correctable via
• 23:58
  legislation? Is it correctable via policy?
• 24:02
  Is it correctable by, you know, Governor DeSantis or this
• 24:06
  Florida State legislature? No, because immigration is
• 24:11
  exclusively the federal government.
• 24:13
  So I don't even know why they're bothering.
• 24:15
  But that said, it's it's more a question of legislation and
• 24:21
  policy than going back to change this.
• 24:25
  We can change it if we want. Other countries have but I would
• 24:32
  what happened when? Other countries have done it.
• 24:35
  Well, when you think about what those countries are, India has
• 24:38
  done away with juicily the the right of the birth of the land.
• 24:44
  Ireland has done so. Dominican Republic and Malaysia,
• 24:47
  these are countries that I would not consider to be, you know,
• 24:51
  welcoming really to how many of you want to move to Malaysia?
• 24:55
  Not very many would be my guess. Even France has limited it.
• 25:00
  They, they've now limited it to you have to have at least one
• 25:03
  parent born here. But has that helped the
• 25:06
  situation in France at all? Canada's under a lot of pressure
• 25:13
  to do this, to say, well, you must have at least one Canadian
• 25:17
  parent. They haven't actually changed it
• 25:19
  yet, but it's certainly, well, it was being discussed before
• 25:23
  they froze their government. the United Kingdom has done it
• 25:26
  again. Has it helped them or hurt them?
• 25:29
  These are questions that we have to answer.
• 25:32
  These are things that we have to look back to history and draw
• 25:35
  conclusions from. What are the potential dangers
• 25:39
  of doing this versus the benefits of keeping it or the
• 25:42
  benefits of of overturning it versus the dangers of not doing
• 25:45
  so? But it's important that we
• 25:48
  understand how we got here, which was in 1898 and prior to
• 25:54
  that. This isn't, this has been
• 25:57
  decided by the court. The question is whether or not
• 26:01
  we're going to overturn the court, and that's a question
• 26:05
  that each person has to answer for themselves.
• 26:09
  Dave, let's get to some calls on this thing.
• 26:11
  Line one you're up first with Dave does history.
• 26:13
  Good morning. And Bill, Dave, Derrick and
• 26:17
  Brevard. Yeah, go ahead, Eric.
• 26:19
  So, so right off, I'll just make my assertion that I believe that
• 26:24
  this is going to get to the point of when it gets to the
• 26:27
  Supreme Court, that it's probably going to be to answer
• 26:31
  the question, do the the children of illegal immigrants
• 26:36
  count as being under the jurisdiction?
• 26:40
  But I think that the, a part of this, and especially if we're
• 26:44
  going to consider revisiting the amendment, you know, in the, you
• 26:51
  know, in Congress would be that, you know, how is culture
• 26:56
  affected? And I mean, that goes all the
• 26:58
  way back to Old Testament, you know, when God wanted to keep,
• 27:02
  you know, the Jewish people separated and not let them bring
• 27:06
  in other gods, right? And, and I think that this is
• 27:09
  probably something that we've seen over the decades as days,
• 27:13
  you know, describing this resistance to immigrants is
• 27:17
  because of the desire to hold on to your culture, you know, and
• 27:21
  not be influenced by it. And we're certainly seeing that
• 27:24
  in Europe, where the culture is being sacrificed for the for the
• 27:31
  desires of the immigrants. Interesting thoughts, Eric.
• 27:35
  Let me get Dave's response to it before we get another call in.
• 27:38
  Well, again, I don't think the amendment is going to be
• 27:41
  revisited. It's just the interpretation vis
• 27:45
  a vis Wong Kim Ark as to what under the jurisdiction thereof
• 27:49
  means. Is it a political definition or
• 27:50
  is it a legal definition? If it's political, then it'll
• 27:54
  overturn it and do away with us. But here's something we haven't
• 27:56
  considered. Bill, do you understand that
• 28:00
  United States citizenship cannot be revoked except for treason,
• 28:05
  right? That's the law.
• 28:07
  Everybody who? So everybody that's already a
• 28:09
  citizen, how do you take it away from them?
• 28:11
  They're taking it away, they're stopping it from being awarded
• 28:13
  down the road, potentially Line 2.
• 28:15
  You're on Bill Make live. Good morning.
• 28:17
  Hey, good morning. It's Randy from Indialantic.
• 28:18
  Yeah, Randy, go ahead. Yeah, Everything I'm reading
• 28:21
  says that RVUS is pretty much an extremely narrow reading, like
• 28:25
  everything that the Supreme Court does.
• 28:27
  So I'm not sure that it necessarily applies to what's
• 28:30
  going on here. But it sounds like we're talking
• 28:33
  about this being the first abuse of the Constitution.
• 28:36
  But I wonder whether we should talk about phrases like shall
• 28:38
  not be infringed or Commerce Clause or separation of church
• 28:42
  or state and discussed. This is probably not the
• 28:44
  beginning of this battle. Interesting thought, Dave.
• 28:48
  Well, separation of church and state is not in the
• 28:50
  Constitution, so that one's out vis a vis then?
• 28:54
  This is my concern with vis. A vis shall not be infringed.
• 28:58
  Keep in mind there's more to the Second Amendment than just that.
• 29:02
  And So what happens if a court slash president downstream
• 29:06
  decides that if you're not in a militia, you don't have a right
• 29:09
  to keep a gun? Which, by the way, Once Upon a
• 29:12
  time was the Supreme Court's ruling.
• 29:15
  So things change, I get it. But are we sure we want to be
• 29:20
  just Willy nilly changing things without thinking them through?
• 29:25
  Well, and I think going back to Eric's goal, the impact on
• 29:27
  culture of what we're seeing here is an undercurrent to this
• 29:31
  that may get serious consideration.
• 29:35
  Well, and that's that's something I've always been a a
• 29:39
  big advocate of is, you know, we talk about this melting pot.
• 29:42
  We take the best of old other cultures and do away with the
• 29:46
  worst of them. I like the idea of assimilation.
• 29:50
  I like the idea of an immigrant coming here, learning to speak
• 29:52
  English, learning to be part of our culture while maintaining
• 29:56
  the best parts of their old culture.
• 29:58
  Probably their food because I like to eat and I've.
• 30:02
  You know, Taco trucks in downtown Modesto.
• 30:04
  I love those places. Line three.
• 30:07
  You're on Bill Make Live. Good morning.
• 30:09
  Good. Morning, Mario, Cape Canaveral.
• 30:11
  Yeah, Mario, go ahead. The one Kim, our parents were
• 30:16
  not illegal aliens. Also, they were permanent
• 30:19
  residents that had established residency for years.
• 30:22
  The and so I think there's I think there's the problem there
• 30:26
  with with some of the reasoning I'm hearing also, you know, 19th
• 30:31
  century Supreme Court 130 years ago or so and today's 21st
• 30:36
  century Supreme Court can visit those those questions.
• 30:42
  Also. One more thing.
• 30:44
  Americans are not racist. They're not ethnocentrex in
• 30:49
  general. They're very open, loving
• 30:51
  people. What what a lot of Americans
• 30:54
  object to is being overwhelmed with so many foreigners coming
• 31:00
  into this country and and of course, illegal.
• 31:04
  They're you were being overwhelmed with illegal aliens
• 31:06
  also. But but the idea that we are
• 31:09
  creating, we're creating entire towns, you know, cities that are
• 31:14
  just just foreign countries in and of themselves, we're being
• 31:18
  overwhelmed. And that's what they're
• 31:20
  objecting to. Parts of America looking like
• 31:23
  France. Mario, I've got to let you run
• 31:24
  because the show was done. Give Dave a couple of minutes
• 31:27
  here to or a couple of seconds here to wrap it up.
• 31:29
  Dave, we've got about a minute. Fire away.
• 31:30
  So Wong Kim's argument was that his parents were banned from
• 31:34
  being naturalized because they were not white and they were not
• 31:37
  a, you know, apparently good moral culture.
• 31:40
  So that argument not there. But but his argument was that he
• 31:44
  was born here. And therefore, under the plain
• 31:47
  text reading of the 14th Amendment, he should be my only
• 31:50
  caution of all this. And and for the record, I agree.
• 31:53
  I don't think we should have anchor babies, but there's got
• 31:57
  to be a better way to do it than overturning president.
• 32:00
  That's my argument. You talking constitutional
• 32:03
  amendment then? Well.
• 32:04
  We're not going to get a constitutional amendment, but
• 32:08
  stop giving people a reason to come here.
• 32:11
  They won't come here. Yeah, that's very true.
• 32:14
  Dave Bowman always a good job with Dave does history.
• 32:17
  Thank you much my friend. Richmond transmission and auto
• 32:20
  service made this hour possible. Dave if you looked ahead to the
• 32:23
  next Tuesday yet or we still. We are going to talk about the
• 32:26
  Emperor of the United States. Yes, we had one.
• 32:33
  We had an emperor of Florida once.
• 32:34
  He was the emperor with no clothes.
• 32:36
  His name was Rick Scott when he was the governor.
• 32:38
  Anyway, we'll see you in the morning.
• 32:40
  For WIDE OPEN Wednesday, check out more stories from
• 32:46
  history@davedoeshistory.org.