04-02-26 Part Two - Birthright Citizenship

The semester-by-tag laptop is often held in the internet.

So it's a master's choice.

“I'm saying, you can say that you're a hero.”

You're a master, right? But you don't understand. egal! It's a challenge for you. Do you just do it with this story?

And if you then do it, you'll be able to do it. -That's right? -Safe! This story is... Hold your money. Now you're going to try it.

Now, it's Red Eye Radio, Gary McNamara, and Eric Hurley, talk about everything from politics to social issues.

And news of the day, whether you're up late or you're just starting your day.

Welcome to the show, from the Relief Factor Studios. This is Red Eye Radio. All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Hurley, and I'm Gary McNamara. You're welcome. And good morning. Thanks so much for being here.

Thank you. You know, the Supreme Court, as we know, looked at birthright citizenship yesterday. And where am I? They go on it. I mean, that's still up in the air. I don't think that Saur was that his name.

“I don't think he did as good of a job as I think he could have done.”

I think that when you look, and we went through the saw yesterday, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it today, because we spent a lot of time on it yesterday. We will when they come out with the eventual decision on it. But the 14th Amendment was absolutely about slavery. Yes.

It was about blacks that were brought here as slaves and their children. Right. That's what it was about. Yes. And as we went through yesterday, when you looked at the Civil Rights Act, which was then backed by the 14th Amendment, and we went through yesterday,

the originators of that, the GOP senators, that way back then in the late 1860s actually wrote that, and they excluded tribal Indians who remained loyal to the tribe, because the whole point is you can't have loyalty to two countries. Right.

You know, you have to be somebody. And there was no immigration laws that there were no immigration laws at that time. You could come from another country and settle here. You might not have been a citizen, but you could settle and stay. There was no illegal or legal at that point.

Right. But we looked at it and said, well, no, obviously, it was an exception that was made for blacks that were brought over slaves. And when they omitted tribal Indians who remained loyal to the tribe, as not being citizens, if you're looking for the originalist thought in that,

that was the originalist thought. Because both sides were looking for that. And they were looking at that case. What is the case? Oh, they kept looking at that one case.

The Wong Kim Mark's case. Yeah, exactly. Right. Great case from what one of the judges said in in that decision. Right.

Which made, which made, where we both read it and said, well, you're, you're assuming something that isn't in the 14th amendment or actually the civil rights law. You brought that up to me earlier. I don't know exactly. Yeah, let me, let me, let me find that quote again.

Because it was really, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to throw it on you.

Yeah, we got into a conversation as we always do inside the break.

Right. And I didn't give you warning that that's, I was going to start with that story. But you brought up in our pre-show meeting where you could, with the statement that that judge made in that precedent that they're looking at, where you could say, well, you know, I'd actually look into the law.

Or the 14th amendment.

“And we'll get to that if you can't find it, that's fine, right?”

Yeah, I'll find it here in a second. But, and, and so it doesn't change. I still haven't found a decent argument against that point that we made if you're looking for the original intent of the 14th amendment. Yeah.

I didn't hear an argument come back from the other side on that at all. And so it'll be interesting to see what they, you know, how they rule on this. I did see the Dershowitz. Dershowitz came out Alan Dershowitz and said,

it's ridiculous that we do that. Now he was talking about in the 14th amendment when they talked about under the jurisdiction. Hmm.

even if they reject Trump, what they're saying is Trump can't make an executive order.

But he believes that the 14th amendment not knowing what the future may bring, that they wrote it that Congress could come and say, no, you cannot have, you know, you cannot have birthright citizens. Yeah, because if you think about under the jurisdiction, then that means that jurisdiction would be governed by the lawmakers.

Right. Exactly. Now you and I went, hmm. Okay. We got to have a long bridge to get there.

But I have a lot of respect for Dershowitz. And I, I see how he get that got there.

But I'm not sure that, you know, that would be.

I'm not sure that's the case. I'd like to hear him talk more about that. Hey there. I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible.

Do not ever worry about your salary. You need enough to make sure that you don't in a bad financial position. Once you have that, your salary becomes moot. What matters from that point forward. Upside games.

Any type of ownership stake or ownership potential. That's the money.

“Remember, you can afford anything, just not everything.”

Afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. Yes. So it still hasn't, when I heard the arguments yesterday, it didn't change any, the position that I hold of what I view as the

strongest argument. Right. Now I come, you know, in modern times where we are right now. It's a horrible policy to have. But as I said yesterday in the show, what I think is a horrible policy.

Doesn't mean anything when you talk about the legalities of looking back. Again, to the original thought of those that created the 14th Amendment. Right. And the Civil Rights Act, which is what the 14th Amendment was created for was to back up that legislation of the Civil Rights Act back then, I believe, of 1866.

Right.

“So I mean, that's, that's why it was done.”

And when you look at the thought process and the quotes exist in the history books. They exist. And when you see what they are, you say, no. There's no way that they would have accepted it. But the opposition can go back and go, how do you know we didn't have immigration laws at the time? Well, and it's interesting because Alito actually leaned on the late Justice Scalia,

who once made a case on that and said, Well, you know, if the law was made before microwave ovens, but somebody is charged with stealing a microwave oven or the law doesn't say anything about microwave ovens, but the theft law applies because the microwave oven is property.

And Alito basically said, you can apply this to modern scenarios,

basically use the case. Now, that's a great figured Scalia would come off. Of course. And I love that Alito pointed out that it was Scalia's example. That's a beauty about Scalia's.

He could take law that it times lawyers tried to make complicated, and he could simplify it so everybody could understand it. You know, what is what is theft? You know, you can steal something. And here's the quote from Alito.

Justice Scalia had an example that dealt with his situation. And Alito said, he imagined this is from Fox News.com. He imagined an old theft statute. They're not stealing statues or maybe they were an old theft statute. That was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven.

And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, well, I can't be convicted under this because the microwave oven didn't exist at that time. And, of course, he dismissed that. There's the general rule there.

And you apply it to future applications.

“Because the spirit of the law is about theft property, right?”

And so it's, you can apply this to what's going on now, essentially, and, but also what the intent was of the founders and why the 14th Amendment exists. And this so-called tourism birth scenario where people come across the border.

They come across the border.

“They go to a border hospital in a border town.”

And they get birth. And then the the baby is obsessed. You know, that was not the intent of the 14th Amendment. And it didn't matter that at the time they couldn't, you know, foresee immigration laws, you know, from, for modern times.

It was not the intent. And this has been, of course, the back and forth all along on birthright citizenship.

Again, if we're talking about individuals who are coming here,

the parents who are coming here to make a life here that have permanent status. And then they give birth through, they have a child. That's a different scenario. But if we're talking about people who are here illegally. And they, they really don't have, if you think about it,

they're, they're not supposed to be here. They, we don't know if they have any allegiance to our country or their, their origin country. That's not even relevant. But they have not come through the system properly to be here and applied for permanent status. That, I don't have a problem with if you're here permanently or you intend to be here permanently.

And you're going through the system properly to be here legally, then we can have that conversational day long, because it's implied that your allegiance, your intent is to work to, to be a part of our society long term. And, and so I don't.

The headlines were basically the court looks like they're going to reject Trump's executive order here.

“You know, based on it, but it may not, I think that's a possibility that they could do that reject his executive order,”

but not make a decision on birthright citizenship. I agree. I think that's, but it doesn't, it doesn't that get you back to Dershowitz though, if they don't make a decision. Exactly. Yes, they're, they're saying there are, there, there are areas that can be filled in from legislation.

If Congress, the government wishes to take this up, but it's, the executive order cannot stand, but if Congress takes this up and the representatives of the people take this up, you can apply the 14th Amendment to that. You can apply, again, the word jurisdiction being the key there, you can apply that to it, and I think that probably is the point that Dershowitz is making. Because nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say, I mean, illegal immigrants didn't exist at that time.

Right. But nowhere does it state that illegal immigrants who have children get birthright citizenship, that doesn't exist anywhere. Right. Yeah. And that would be my point looking, and then again, looking at, again, how they viewed tribal Indians who remain loyal to the tribe.

“Yeah. You don't get citizenship. I think this was part of, and this comes from Amy House breakdown.”

By the way, scuttersplug.com, Amy Howell, the whole staff over there, do a tremendous job with this stuff. And we lean on them heavily. We often cite what they write. And in fact, you said yesterday, you can't wait to see her analysis on this. And so this is the breakdown of it. But she writes a majority of the Supreme Court, in that case, that being the case of Wong Kim Ark.

Agreed that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen, writing for the majority, just as Horace Gray explained that, although the main purpose of the 14th Amendment had been to establish the citizenship of black people, including former enslaved persons born in the United States. The amendment applies more broadly, and is not restricted by color or race. Instead, he wrote, the amendment, quote, affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,

in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here, born of resident aliens.

The reason for the 14th Amendment wasn't about skin color.

No, it's not about enslaved people.

“It wasn't about the fact that slaves were black.”

It was about that they were slaves, and they were brought here against their will. And when they were freed to emancipation, then the 14th Amendment was designed to give them the citizenship and all of the rights that come with citizenship, that was the intent. And he's expanding on what the intent was when we clearly know the only reason the 14th Amendment came into being was because-- Right.

Post-civil war, and the union deciding that blacks who were enslaved were no longer enslaved and had full rights of Americans.

Right. And when Justice Gray wrote that the Amendment applies more broadly and is not restricted by color or race. But it wasn't about color or race. It was about the situation that created slavery and the fact that they were being held against their will.

“Right. And he wrote instead of firms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory of the says who?”

To me, that's making law. Right. What's the argument against my opinion being wrong on that? If you read the 14th Amendment, and you read what the creators of the 14th Amendment said. And I think this goes back to--

In writing the law. We can apply it to what Dersuitz said. Juristiction. Juristiction means what?

“Those who are in the land within the power of these individuals which law makers are the ultimate in that case.”

And so the point that he makes that they could change it here and maybe the court says that. Maybe they'd come back and say, well, we strike this down, but we're not going to make a decision on birthright citizenship that would be up to Congress and we can go from there. Maybe. We are right. I radio. Eidling a diesel uses about a gallon of fuel per hour, which can cost you about $180 per week at 450 per gallon if your truck idles eight hours a day. Eidling easily can cost you a few thousand more in fuel alone per year.

Not including the added engine maintenance expense that results from excessive idling. In addition to operating cost, many governments impose no idling laws and regulations with fines as high as $25,000. Instead, there are many alternatives, an extra blanket for cold temperatures. Window screens for when the weather is warm. Bunk heaters and various auxiliary power unit options about in this day and age two, many power just by batteries.

Owner operator business 101 is provided by Overdrive's Partners and Business Program. Go to OverdriveOnline.com to the partners of business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics. Brought to you by Shell Rotella with advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. Coming up more with Gary McNamara and Eric Carley, it's Red Eye Radio. We're Red Eye Radio.

He's our crowning and I'm Gary McNamara. This analysis of Justice Cagan yesterday saying interesting segment from the hearing on birthright citizenship.

Justice Cagan arguing that birthright citizenship could logically exclude children of visitors born on US soil because the nature of their visit to the US was never intended to be permanent.

But the exclusion would not apply to children of illegal immigrants presumably because when the illegal immigrants legally entered the country, their intention was to stay permanently. So their children born on US soil should be given citizenship. That's a cluster. That's it is. I mean, that's a legal cluster right there.

Well, because again, if you have.

But you're visiting.

Just because they intend to stay.

It's no. It would have to be. That it's. But it's illegal status.

“It's the motivation of the foreign citizen.”

Right. That determines whether there are citizen of the United States. Right.

And they and all they have to do is say so.

Right. Not snow. [Music] Observing and analyzing the insanity. They're currently in Gary McNamara nightly on Red Eye Radio.

“And he is early and I'm Gary McNamara download our Red Eye Radio app today and you can listen, when and where you choose.”

So I saw this in a national review yesterday. It's interesting because that didn't see many conservative Republican publications carrying the story. Okay, speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced a plan to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown by pursuing a two track approach that resembles the Senate Republican plan. Johnson dismissed as a joke just last week. Yeah.

Under the plan announced Wednesday Republican leaders. Would look to fund most of DHS through the appropriations process while punting additional funding for US customs and border protection and immigration and customs enforcement to a later date through the budget reconciliation process. This notable shift comes just a few days after the House GOP leadership refused to take up a Senate pass DHS funding bill and spend days criticizing the strategy. On grounds that it did not fund key components of the department's immigration enforcement sub agencies.

The idea now is to fund most of the department through the appropriations process and then fund ice and CBP for three years. The rest of Trump's term through reconciliation, which allows lawmakers to circumvent the filibuster and past legislation with a simple majority vote. But we had said this last week when the criticism came in and I went, "Well, wait a minute, with the game plan that the Senate was talking about what other option do you have?" Right.

“You got two more reconciliation you can do, which takes care of most of the spending that you want to do, right?”

Right. And you're not going to get Democrats to vote for it. We're not going to get Democrats have decided we don't Democrats official position in my opinion is we don't want, we want to get rid of ice. We want to get rid of any enforcement of any illegal immigration laws inside the country. We want illegal immigrant criminals to run free. And our point was when the Senate came up with it, we figured we said, "Okay, they're talking about doing reconciliation. How long would they do if were they funded for the rest of his term?"

We heard 10 years, right now it seems to be the compromises for three years for the rest of Trump's term to fund it. But we looked at it and said, "Well, that's a best you can do. You're not going to get Democrats. If your point you're trying to make is, well, under reconciliation, we don't know if we can get a majority of Republicans to vote for it." Well, then give it up. Well, your debt is a party if you can't fund this as a Republican party, your debt anyway.

You know, something else that didn't really rise to the top yesterday was the president endorsed, basically, he had kind of stayed out of it, the back and forth between the Senate and the House.

But yesterday he did endorse funding immigration and ICE or ICE and board patrol rather through reconciliation. So, is that what pushed the House over the top? Okay, he wants us to get this done. Because he said, "He's at a deadline." He said, "I want this done by June 1." And when I saw that, I was like, "It's a long time. How about May 1?" You know?

Yeah, but what? Remember he-- If it's reconciliation, then that I guess-- But part of Congress claims him because when they thought they might be able to get a deal, he said, "Well, no, nothing gets done unless we have the, what is it? The, the, the, the safe act." Right, yeah.

Yeah. That's a win for you. And if you know, if you, if you believe that you can't get 51 senators, well, 51 Republican, excuse me, 50 Republican senators and JD Vance. Right. To pass future funding for ICE.

And illegal immigration enforcement inside the country, your debt is a political party anyway. Yeah.

“I was thinking, I'm thinking the other day, I'm second of Buddymine, I said, you know?”

For the first time in my life, I'm ready for another party, but it's not going to come into existence, but I'm ready for one.

Yeah. Well, and, and they write there right here at the hill, the hill.com about the Senate and how that bill was rejected by the House. And then they go on to write, but with Trump's endorsement, which was yesterday, Johnson released a joint statement with Thun backing the president. That's, that's what made it happen. It was Johnson's change of heart, probably a call from the president, because he seemed to be on the side of Thun. And let's get this done.

Reconciliation can work everything out. Let's quit stalling here and get this done. Now, if they do this, you know who called this a month ago. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I said this would, this would be, this would be what they would do. This is where they could compromise, because Democrats could say, well, we didn't vote to fund them. We didn't vote to fund. We voted to not to fund ice, whatever.

Well, they would write reconciliation. Actually, I'm not going to go. I said that. And that part of it actually happened when Schumer said that on Friday, because when the story broke, that everything happened to the Senate, Schumer was saying, you know, well, we did, you know, we fought. And we didn't fund ice and blah, blah, blah, blah.

And you know, basically doing this victory lap there. Well, it's not going to work out that way. And they know it because of reconciliation.

And the problem is, if you, if the Republicans, because Johnson's saying, it means he believes he has the vote and has convinced people to do it.

Well, he did say something worse to quote that that just saw that. Conservatives don't pass it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thun on Wednesday announced the deal that if accepted by their members. Oh, okay. So that wasn't a quote. Well, that was shut down. That wasn't a quote.

No, it was not a quote. Okay. But Johnson is the one that has the issue there about it being accepted by their members. So we'll see where that because he didn't wish to accept it. Right. But my point is if they come to an agreement on this, then what the house wrong to Republican party that they weren't communicating a week ago.

Well, this is okay. Let's get this out of the way and move on. So we asked this with the Democrats. Remember with, with the CR bill and all of a sudden, you know, the house is going, no, no, no, no, no, no and Jeffries does his thing.

And then all of a sudden, Schumer falls and goes, yeah, yeah, okay, we'll do this. And then Schumer basically was almost escorted out of the building and out of the party, the Democratic Party.

“And you and I broke down and said, how is it that Schumer's not on the phone with Jeffries in that whole processing look?”

We're going to have to find a work around here because this is going to have to happen. We know it's going to happen. We can't continue the shutdown. We're going to see our done. You guys can stand your ground.

And then, you know, but there was none of that. There seemed to be no communication. And same here with the GOP. Because ultimately, who's whipping the votes on this?

President Trump, as he always does.

Yeah. And so are not whipping the votes, but, but basically bringing the party, leading the party as he is leader for the party. And he has stayed out of it.

“The quite frankly, I believe there's also been some phone calls and it's like,”

you have reconciliation.

Go through the motions. Get to reconciliation.

Let's get this out of the world.

“Well, that's what I was wondering, you know, when the president came in, the save act must be included or were not going to do it.”

Then they talked about putting the save act and reconciliation. We'll know. Don't do that. It's going to be booted out. But if you if you can't number one, if you can't pass it as Republican something where.

What is it? 83% of Americans agree with you on it. Right. You've got a problem. You've got a problem.

A big problem. But still, it's something that the Democrats don't want. You can use it as a sledgehammer. You get what you can get. And then you take the things that you can turn to your advantage that the Democrats don't want.

And you use it as a political sledgehammer. If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. Right. Going into going into November. Yeah.

“You take these 80/20 issues and you pound them and get prices down somehow.”

Exactly. We'll go into it in the near future here. Well, you know, but I just want to make this point go ahead. One year anniversary.

The first generation day was one year ago today.

Oh, yeah. Investment in the United States down manufacturing jobs down 80,000 economic growth less than Canada and a bunch of European, European states that I say direct investment into the United States from foreign governments. Less.

The trade imbalance has not improved. Right. This is still above 2% and with gasoline prices. I don't want to see the inflation report that's coming out. Right.

Yeah. We're going to take that day off. I so I filled up my truck yesterday. 3. 99.

And all we got to say again is prices. Democrats lost because they pretended it didn't exist. Republicans have done the same. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. We've been saying that since a year ago. Yep. When this happened, you cannot increase the cost of doing business and making economy better. And of story.

No. The fact that so many Republicans bought into that boggles my mind after sitting here for 36 years doing talk radio and Republicans constantly saying, Well, if you raise minimum wage, it's going to hurt business because if you raise a cost of doing business, it's going to hurt business overall.

You can help certain sectors, but you're picking and choosing who the winners are, but you heard others. Right. But you can't make an overall economy better by raising the cost of doing business. It's impossible.

Right. Basic economics. Right. And the last year, a ton of Republicans bought in to that complete line of BS.

And that's where we are right now when you look at the two most important things

Republican stand for immigration and the economy. And those are the things that they're underwater on to the Democrats. Oh, the Fox News, although Fox News poll did show that on the economy. And hopefully people realize that the affordability from Democrats is all BS. You know, as bad as Republicans have been, Democrats will be worse.

Right. Hopefully that is a sign that people view the Democrats as not the solution. Right.

“Because what, what are they going to offer more spending, which gets back to inflation?”

Yep. I think that was part of the reason for the speech. You ensured not just that we're not going to be in a long term war, but also prices will settle down with gas and oil. And and it won't be long.

Hopefully that's the case. They're going to go up. Watch them go up the next couple of days. Well, it's not going to be good between now and the end. We are right.

I radio. We'll be right back with more right. I radio with every currently and Gary McNamara. The breaking news from the Artemis to Orion spacecraft is they have solved the number one and number two problem. The toilet has been fixed.

That's good news.

The Artemis to crew reported a blinking fault light and mission control team successfully assessed the data and worked with the crew to troubleshoot and resolved the issue.

Now we're not going to get into the specifics of that. I don't have specifics. But no, but I had we would. I am curious which one of them used the restroom that set off that blinking the fault light. You know, I mean, that's a.

I want to I want to change up the diet there before they go on a mission.

“Very, very, very important to have that.”

They do have the backup, though, by the way. They do have the backup toilets that they they normally use, but this is like a separate room in area where they can actually. Yeah, you know, I guess. Privacy privacy. The crew now is is mapping until 7 a.m. Eastern.

Okay. Another three hours, there'll be napping. Yeah, actually. I wouldn't be able to.

I could never be an astronaut.

There's no way I could sleep. No way. No way. I'd be freaking out the whole time.

“Like this is the most awesome thing ever.”

Yeah. When when I went up with the Thunderbirds in an F-16. Yeah. I had an adrenaline high for 48 hours. Yeah.

Right. I was like, yeah. Yeah. Right.

I could never not be an astronaut.

I'd never sleep. Yep. No. [Music] This is Riddai Radio on Westwood 1.

Hi, I'm Joe Salcei. I hosted the stacking bedrooms podcast. Most economists agree small amount of inflation is actually good. 2% is what you're going for. Why is everybody freaking out?

Oh, because it's the fallout. People don't track their budget. You have this slow slipping that happens every month. To all of a sudden you go, man, I don't have any money. The reason is now two people go to a restaurant.

The bill is $60 for two. Two guys walking to a restaurant. They start screaming. That's hilarious. $60.

Steking Benjamin's. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. Vince Coenaise is redefining news talk. Vince Coenaise hosts of the Vince podcast. I'm bringing you the truth beneath the headlines of all of the nation's top stories,

in-depth interviews. We feature newsmaking interviews with the top guests on the whole planet. And I'll ask the questions you only dream of other interviewers asking.

“And a front row seat to the most important conversations of the day.”

This is show with an obsessive focus on what's good for America. You are going to love Vince. The Vince show, follow and listen on your favorite platform.