Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Legal Expert Hans von Spakovsky Birthright/SCOTUS Case

Transcript

Legal Expert Hans von Spakovsky Birthright/SCOTUS Case · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Hi, good morning, friends, welcome to the Third Hour, Ruminators.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: We appreciate you joining us Thursday here on The Morning Show,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: April ninth, Show fifty five seventy nine. He is Jose.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: I am Preston and joining us back on the program,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: senior legal fellow with the Advancing American Freedom organization. It's
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Advancingamericanfreedom dot com is the website. Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: how are you a friend?
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: I'm doing just great. I was actually down in your
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: neighborhood last week, like a lot of other people. I
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: spent the spring breakdown in Florida.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Oh my goodness, did you survive it?
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: I did. The weather was great, and driving back we
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: actually managed to catch a glimpse of Artemis going up.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Thanks great and nice, very good, very good. I'm glad
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: you enjoyed your stay here in the Sunshine State. Hans.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: I reached out to you because I when I watched
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: and listened to not watch, when I listened to the
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: arguments in the latest Supreme Court case that really has
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: a lot of people's attention, and it's Trump versus Barbara
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: that I was argued last week. I was unsatisfied, but
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I want to get your thoughts on whether I should
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: be or not. By asking you first, for the sake
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: of our listeners, share the backdrop to why this case
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: is so important. Tell us about it.
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: The citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendments very short. It
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: was one of the reconstruction amendments passed after the end
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: of Civil War. It was to make sure that slaves
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: and their children would be considered citizens. And it basically
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: says that you're a citizen if you're born in the
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. Now,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: all of those who are saying, oh, that means birthright citizenship,
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: they're ignoring the second half of that phrase. And that's
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: what all the arguments were about. What does that mean
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: that when you're born you're subject to the jurisdiction of
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: the US. Now, if you go back to what the
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: sponsors of the fourteenth Amendment said, it's an easy call.
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: What they said was that you owed your political allegiance
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: to the US government when you were born. If your
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: parents are American citizens, then obviously you're an American citizen
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: when you're born. But if you're a Mexican citizen in
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: the country illegally when you're born, you're a Mexican citizen
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: automatically because your parent is a Mexican citizen, so you
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: owe your political allegiance to the Mexican government. But that's
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: what they were arguing about. The ACLU, A lawyer up
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: there was totally disputing that, and there was a huge
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: discussion and questioning about dominsile and that was basically because
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: of that language, and they were asking how and when
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: can you establish the the US is your domicile. My
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: argument would be that if you're in the country illegally,
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: you can never do that. You can't establish that you're
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: domicile in the country because you're here illegally. But that's
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: what the fight was about.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: I am curious. Do you think that the Solicitor General,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: John Sowers made a good case?
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah? Actually I think he did, And I think the
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: media criticisms of him were unfair and wrong. I mean,
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: for example, everybody's citing him saying, well, we're in a
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: new world now, the Chief Justice saying, well, it's a
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: new world but it's the same constitution. Actually, the Chief
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: Justice was asking him about birth tourism, you know, did
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: that exists at the time, and John's hours said no,
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: he said, but he wasn't saying that somehow birth tourism
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: today should change the original understanding. When he answered that question,
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: he was saying, the arise of birth tourism shows that
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: the misinterpretation of the citizenship clause has had dire consequences.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: So I think he was unfairly criticized about that. Similarly,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: you know, everybody's quoting Amy Cony Barrett saying, well, you're
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: that's not textual, But in fact, what she was asking
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: him about was the fact that there's nothing in the
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: text to show that the purpose of the fourteenth Amendment
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: was to make the children of slaves citizens, And what
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: he was saying was, yeah, but if you look at
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: the debate and what the sponsors were saying at the
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: time the fourteenth Amendment was passed, that's clearly what was
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: going on. But that does not apply to illegal aliens
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: who are the US and who have kids here.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Hans von Spakowski is a national expert on a lot
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: of legal and constitutional issues, and we're talking about maybe
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: the most important case that's going to be heard. Hans.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: This is a massively important case.
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: Isn't it. It is the consequences of this decision, if
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: I think, if it's wrongly decided, will affect the makeup
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: of the citizen population of the United States from now
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: into the future. Birthright citizenship, which has been wrongly applied
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: by the federal government now for about seventy years, is
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: a huge magnet for pulling illegal aliens into the country.
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: And what folks need to understand is contrary to what
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: the Acou lawyer was saying. She kept trying to say, Oh,
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: it's been understood that way ever since the fourteenth Amendment
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: was passed. That's just wrong, that's historically inaccurate. For really,
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: basically for the first I say seventy years, everybody understood
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: that that provision did not provide birthright citizenship. In fact,
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: there was a case just a couple of years after
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: the fourteenth Amendment was passed where an American Indian actually
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: sued saying, hey, you need to consider me a citizen
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: because I was born in the United States, and there
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: was US Supreme Court. Supreme Court said you are not
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: a citizen. Why You're not subject to the jurisdiction of
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: the US government. You're subject to the jurisdiction of your
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: tribal government. And Indians didn't become citizens until Congress passed
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: the law, the Indian Citizenship Act, in the nineteen twenties. Well,
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: if birthright citizenship was only criteria, the Supreme Court would
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: have said, Yeah, you're obviously a citizen, Hans.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: Is it oversimplified? I've made this argument long before this
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: case even got heard by the Supreme Court? Is it
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: oversimplified to say, Look, when ambassadors from foreign nations are
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: in America and a birth happens in their family, their
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: child does not become a citizen of US. They become
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: a citizen of the nation that sent them to be
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: an ambassador here. Is that over Is that overly simplified
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: to this No.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: That's exactly right, And it doesn't matter whether you're an
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: ambassador or anybody else. Look, if if American parents, let's say,
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: the State Department sends you abroad, this is one not
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: even making the State Department. You work for in a
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: US corporation, and they station you in Europe, and your
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: wife has a child in Europe, that child is automatically
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: a US citizen because the child's parents are US citizens.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: And the same is true, like I said, of Mexicans
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: who are in this country illegally. Their children are automatically
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: citizens of Mexico when they're born, so they are not
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: they don't meet the second part of that citizenship clause.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: But like I said, you know, they feel you and
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: all the other people's wanted entirely the other way, and
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: they're they're just row and I hope the Supreme Court
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: does not give into that. They I'll tell you what
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: I was disappointed in. I don't think the Justices pushed
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: back hard enough in their question on the a CLU
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: lawyers claim that we've always had birthright citizenship in this
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: country because historically, like I said, that is just not accurate.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: Advancing Americanfreedom dot com it's a group founded by former
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: Vice President Mike Pence, and like all things, I don't
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: agree with everything that the former vice president you know, espouses,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: but I sure respect him. I know he loves Jesus
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: and joining us is senior legal fellow Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: we're talking about the case Trump versus Barbara. What do
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: you think the outcome is going to be?
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: I have to say I think, unfortunately, I think the
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: Trump administration is fighting an uphill battle. I completely agree
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: with their view of the proper interpretation citizenship clause. I
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: think at best they might get a five to four
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: decision in their favor. On the other hand, you know,
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: there's a possibility that they might kind of split the baby.
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: You know, what they might say is, if you're born
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: to aliens who are here illegally, you're not a citizen
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: because an illegal alien can't establish they have any right
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: to domicile in the US. But if you're born to
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: an alien who's here legally, you're a citizen. That wouldn't
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: get everything we need, but it would be a big
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: help given the fact that the latest numbers, the latest
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: estimates are there's upwards of probably twenty five million illegal
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: aliens in the US, ten million of whom came in
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: during just the four years of the Biden administration, and
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: that that would be a big help. If they totally
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: rule against the president, it is going to cause enormous problems,
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: Like I said, from today going forward into the far future.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: Well, our friend Peter Schwitzer based here in Tallahassee with
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: the Accountability Institute. Peter's book Invisible Coup. Some of the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: data from his book found its way into those arguments,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: and he details how the Chinese are using this process
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: and are going to flood this country with better than
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: a million a million and a half voters in the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: next maybe decade or so that will upturn and overturn
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: an election.
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Now, Peter Schweitzer is great, and nobody beats him
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: for the research that he and his people put together.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: And I believe that. Remember, just a couple of years ago,
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: the Justice Department for the first time filed a massive
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: criminal prosecution against three different birth tourism agencies in California
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: and died it convicted about two dozen people. All of
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: these agencies had one purpose getting Chinese women, many of
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: them relatives of high up Chinese government Communist officials, into
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: the US just so they could have their children here
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: so they could then claim citizenship. And that was the
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: first time in history that they'd had those kind of indictments.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: And they're all being educated back in China by the
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Communist Party and are going to be a proxy commis
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: in our country.
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, they are moles. They are deep cover moles
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: where they're not even that deep cover. They're moles for
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: the Chinese Communist government.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Last question for you, if the ruling goes the other way,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: which I'm leaning towards that. I think maybe deep down
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: you might think the same. I don't know, but I
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: think that it's going to come out against what remedies
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: exist for Congress.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, it was very interesting at one point,
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: as Kavanaugh said, can't we make this decision on a
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: statutory basis rather than a constitutional basis? And what he
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: was referring to is the fact that there is a
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: federal statute on this, but all it does is repeat
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: the language of the fourteenth Amendment with absolutely no change.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: And if they, for for example, were to issue a
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: decision saying, oh, well, we're not dealing with the Amendment,
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: We're only interpreting the applicable statute and it requires birthright citizenship,
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: then Condress potentially could change that statute to say, all
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: our interpretation the Fourteenth Amendment is birthright citizenship is not recognized.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: You would get then another court fight, but that would
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: be one way of trying to fix the problem.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: I would have maybe even lower hopes there because we've
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: got eighty three percent approval for the Save Act and
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: we can't get the Senate to cross the finish line
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: with it.
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that really shows how adamant. The Democratic Party
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: is they want. Look, they completely supported bringing having an
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: open border, bringing in ten million illegal aliens. They want
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: aliens registering and voting even though it's illegal. And why
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: is that. Ultimately, it's because they believe that will allow
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: them to remain a political force, remain in power, and
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: that's what we're up against.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Hans is always I appreciate the time you offer us
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: and good to speak with you again, and we'll talk
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: again soon.
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: Great, thanks for having me.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: Thank you, sir, Hans von Spakowski with us from Advancing
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Americanfreedom dot com. I got that right twice. Look at me.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: It's The Morning Show with Preston Scott.