April 1, 2026
Happening Now: SCOTUS and POTUS in The Same Room; At Stake: What It Means to Be An American
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A landmark case is being heard at the Supreme Court today and President Trump is making history in the process by attending. Trump is the first sitting President to ever hear oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Tje justices are listening to arguments on limiting birthright citizenship. This all boils down to the justices interpretation of our 14th amendment, which up until now has guaranteed citizenship to most babies born in this country, regardless of their parents’ legal status. The Trump administration is trying to change that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:11
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, See it is Wednesday, April first, and it is twenty twenty six, and as we speak, we're having arguments about what it means to be an American. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Landmark case at the Supreme Court happening right now over birthright citizenship. Arguments are underway as we speak. One side, the President's side, has gone so far, and that's what we're going to talk about in this particular episode.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Ropes.
00:00:38
Speaker 1: We haven't discussed this ahead of time, but we listen to every second of the arguments in which the Solicitor General was making the case on behalf of the president. After listening to that, we're not legal scholars, how do you think is going for the president?
00:00:51
Speaker 3: It seems like a lot of the justices have questions implying just how messy this ask is implications of how you will determine all these different scenarios, because this is a very different way of viewing what it means to be an American and will impact obviously so many people, and I think it's just confusing. So it seems like to me, and again so not used to listening to Supreme Court justices and this has actually been fascinating to listen to it, but it doesn't seem like it's going great for the president.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: Learn more in the past hour, probably about American history than I did in three years of junior high school. This is fascinating, folks. If you hadn't, this is just amazing stuff to listen to. These debates happened. But the fourteenth Amendment, everybody in this country knows. You've learned it in school. Everybody knows. If you're born in the US, you are a US citizen. Automatically remind folks, I know you have it in front of you. There are folks robes. The actual language of the fourteenth Amendment will just hit you with that first.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Yes, 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.
00:02:09
Speaker 1: So at times over the years where opes this has been challenged in court, and it's been deemed controversial at times, but I think almost one hundred percent of the time when this case has come up with a fourteen Amendment is challenged, courts have ruled yes. In fact, if you are born on American soil' American citizen. That's everybody on the same page there right period.
00:02:31
Speaker 3: It's been interpreted many, many times, yes, to give citizenship to every single baby born in the United States. The exceptions have been to children of diplomats and invading armies, and it did exclude Native Americans until nineteen twenty four. But short of that, everyone else becomes an American citizen.
00:02:52
Speaker 1: All right, that's what everybody believes, and that's what everybody essentially knows a cement and has been taught. The president doesn't believe it. President Trumpy one, Oh my goodness.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: This was day one, day.
00:03:02
Speaker 4: One executive order.
00:03:03
Speaker 3: It was one of the first things he did when he became president for the second time of this.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: Country, signed an executive order getting rid of birthright citizenship, essentially saying and yes, he was making the argument this was targeted towards obviously undocumented immigrants. And also he's using the argument here lately that it has to do with birth tourism, particularly China is focused on so many companies have a whole thing they can send people here, you have your baby here, that baby gets American citizenship. That's the argument he's making. So that was challenged in court, challenged almost immediately, and it has made its way to the Supreme Court. That has brought us to today. They're hearing arguments. Robes very important to note as we get into these arguments. The audience today at the Supreme Court is a historic one.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: He's in the building.
00:03:49
Speaker 3: President Trump left the White House with Pambondy, correct Attorney General Pambondy and Yes, for the first time in our nation's history, a sitting US president listened to oral arguments of a Supreme Court case. And look, it's significant because there are a lot of folks wondering what his motivation is. Sure he could be curious. Yes, this is his baby. This is very important and crucial to a lot of the policies he's put in place and what he wants to see happen going forward in this country when it comes to immigration and legal status. But there's a lot of folks out there who believe this is a form of intimidation.
00:04:27
Speaker 1: And they say it's absolutely inappropriate. Again, that's not us. We are listened to legal scholars. It's inappropriate for him to be sitting there. There is a separation of powers. We didn't learn that in school. As well learn that, but he is there. So the reason we're able to hear this is that yet they were live audio. They don't have cameras in there, but live audio is often put out. So around ten oh five, it was scheduled for ten o'clock. With ten oh five, the audio pops up and they do get going, and they get into it immediately. I did not hear I'm pretty sure there was not. There was nothing you hear in the audio that would suggest that President Trump was in the room or had any bearing on what was happening.
00:05:00
Speaker 3: No, And I think, look, it's interesting, Yes he's there, and yes his presence could maybe be potentially intimidating to Supreme Court justices. But these are Supreme Court justices who have been I don't want to say heckled but kind of publicly heckled on truth social by this president and conservative members of the court that the President even put there in that court wasn't happy with how they ruled, kind of felt like maybe they weren't being loyal.
00:05:28
Speaker 4: To him, which of course they're not supposed to be.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: So look, I do think among this group, they're fairly used to President Trump and him not being happy with them and them being okay with it, even just the state of the Union just having him walk in right after having said all sorts of stuff about them on social media.
00:05:51
Speaker 5: So this is a tried and true bunch.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: You know. I'm curious how actually what the setup is in the room. I don't know where he's sitting physically, like how far away he's actually from the justices and from the attorneys as this is happening. I was only pointing to the screen that robes as we are talking. This is still going on, and we would you say that was a pretty good crowd.
00:06:07
Speaker 4: Oh, it's a huge crowd that is assembled.
00:06:11
Speaker 3: And we did get word that he left, correct after the state or the government, the state presented its arguments. Now that the ACLU, who was leading the charge to argue their side of this, he left.
00:06:22
Speaker 4: He didn't even want to hear what they had to say.
00:06:24
Speaker 1: No, I wonder if that was always the plan or if he went over and go, well, this isn't going well, let me get the hell out of here. Because again, we are not legal scholars. But if you're listening to this, I mean you're hearing justices use words like your arguments are quirky, quirky, it's kind of obscure what you're trying to do. It's kind of a stress. Those are words they used in their arguments. And again, once we listened to the other side, maybe we'll say, ah, they got problems with that. But this clearly are not justices, including the conservative ones who seem to be on board. There's a quote I often use. The things in human affairs are often a pull rather than a push. You're going to have to almost pull them kicking and screaming towards your argument.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Is how it felt.
00:07:05
Speaker 3: Yes, that is exactly what my interpretation, or at least my read on what I heard so far.
00:07:12
Speaker 4: And there are.
00:07:12
Speaker 3: Thousands of people outside the Supreme Court right now. It's a beautiful day in DC, so I'm sure that helps. But there were reports of folks who came and traveled from around the country and spent days, nights sleeping, they say, in very cold conditions on cold concrete to get in line to get a seat in the Supreme Court. But then there are just so many others who have come out just to witness history right now, not.
00:07:34
Speaker 5: Historic, just because the president is there.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: But I heard someone describe it as this and this makes a lot of sense for folks just to get the perspective here. This is one of the most important cases that the Supreme Court has heard in the last one hundred years. The implications of what the Supreme Court decides is going to be significant, and if they were to take the President's side on this, it would be earth shattering, like this would the.
00:08:02
Speaker 5: Legal status of so many people.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: And I know Roe v.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Wade was a big shift in a precedent setting case, right to have that overturned, But we are talking about a one hundred and how many years we go back. We're talking about the Constitution, an amendment that is central to our identity as a nation. The possibility that we are about to redefine what it means to be a citizen of this country, we are about to redefine potentially what it means to be an American, is huge. And the first question we heard today Robes, came from Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas, and the first case he brought up, and a question he had was about dred Scott. And I encourage everybody you might remember dred Scott, You might have heard Wang kim Ark a little bit. Look up those two legal cases dred Scott versus Sandford and then the US versus Wang kim Ark. Those two cases came up a loes today, But the dread Scott decision is the one everybody agrees ropes.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: They call it maybe.
00:09:05
Speaker 1: The worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court just egregious, in which they denied citizenship to a freed black man.
00:09:14
Speaker 3: Yes, they said that he could not enjoy the rights and the privileges that the Constitution affords to American citizens. And yes, it is considered the worst Supreme Court decision in the United States history. They said it obviously was over racism and certainly judicial activism, and that is what these justices are obviously trying to avoid. This is to say this is a controversial case, is h I guess just there's no real way to put just how important this decision is. And it would be undoing just over one hundred years of precedent that was set.
00:09:54
Speaker 5: And look, you you mentioned the other case.
00:09:57
Speaker 4: I'm you want Kimark.
00:09:59
Speaker 3: But if they were too, And one of the justices I can't remember which one, asked, are you asking us? Are you saying that we should basically be overturning that decision which allowed for a man of Chinese origin whose parents were not legal citizens but lived here, but lived here in San Francisco. They the Supreme Court decided in eighteen, nineteen ninety eight to give him citizenship all of his his offspring generations of families. Would they now lose their citizenship because his was deemed it would literally undo that ruling if they were decide with President Trump.
00:10:37
Speaker 1: And I don't know why then I know the one who's arguing is the US Solicitor General John Southern Sower. John Sowers arguing did argue on behalf of the administration. I don't know why. And this is where we would need a legal scholar. Why he was so against saying we want you to overturn that like nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. And there was confusion. I'd say confusion. Obviously they they're justices. I was confused as to why, Like, how far do you want us to go? What exactly is it you're asking us to Do you want us to overturn that president's setting case? Do you want us to compare it to dred Scott? Do you want are we doing it based on people's domicile or their allegiance. That came up a lot, and we need to hit on that. But Robes that the justices are doing their job, and I listening to them, some of them sounded genuinely conf like what is it exactly you're asking us to do? And then after we do it, how do you implement it? And Katanji Brown Jackson at the she was I think she was the last person to question Brobe. She she might have been the longest Q and A of any of the justices. She might have been and I hate to use the word because it applies to a woman here, but she was as fiery and animated and direct and wasn't trying to hear it as any of the justices that I heard.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Is that fair? I'm trying to She spoke.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: Very plainly and saying that, hey, sour, pretty sure you're going to have a number of hurdles to overcome.
00:12:08
Speaker 4: With your argument.
00:12:09
Speaker 3: And so she made it very clear where she stood and how there were just way too many questions and not enough concrete, legally based answers at this point, and you could you could hear and again not to say that the justices were confused, but they were confused by the arguments being made.
00:12:27
Speaker 1: Yes, like, well, if you want to do this, but then we have to do that. Wait, wait, you're saying this or that. And I was robes this idea and the confusion. I can't remember which one and several did bring this up. But you heard the words domicile and allegiance. Yes, like your your citizenship is based on domicile and allegiance, and they use all kinds of legal cases and legal precedents, said in previous cases, but are you a citizen, Rogues based on where you lived? Simply At some points he seemed to be arguing that dom you have to be a resident of this place and intend to continue living here. But then in another argument, Rogues said, allegiance is what really matters. That it's not just a matter of you born here and live here. You have to actually have some allegiance to that country. And this was a part of their confut like which is it, because it didn't sound like you could have both, Like which argument are you making?
00:13:25
Speaker 2: This is some of the most I'm telling you.
00:13:27
Speaker 1: I learn more about American history today that I did in junior high.
00:13:31
Speaker 4: Yes, it was fascinating. I had to look up domicile.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: To be honest, I really wasn't sure the lawful presence with intention of it becoming permanent. So you're here lawfully and you intend on staying. So again, I was giggling things as I was listening, trying to make sense of what I was hearing, while the justices were trying to make sense of what John Souer was arguing.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're hearing you intend on staying. But what does that have to do? Does it mean you need to have an allegiance to this country? They use so many little examples, and I thought, I'm like, wow, it's something I don't know, I'm used to doing, or I'm used to people doing to me in everyday normal conversation where you're talking about one issue and then say, well what about this, Well what if this happens?
00:14:17
Speaker 2: Well what if dad?
00:14:18
Speaker 1: They used all these scenarios, Well, what if a diplomat's kid is born? Well what if somebody lives in Norway and they come back to visit the United States and have a kid, but they're US citizen, They go back to North Like all these little things.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: They had no intention of staying in this country. Do their kids then still get to be US citizens.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: It actually is the art.
00:14:38
Speaker 3: There are so many questions that arise from a new interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: And some of them for and I said, well, we can't consider every little thing. But then I thought this is the exact point, and they were making an argument rogues.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: I guess you caught it as.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: Well, about how what are we supposed to do with the fourteenth Amendment? The framers how they wrote this thing. Are we supposed to assume that they wrote it as a general rule to apply to anything that might come up in the future, or did they write it as a rule that we now have the ability to interpret for the times.
00:15:15
Speaker 3: I don't know an amendment to an amendment, I don't know what you do is kind of what it sounds like. But I just thought it was interesting. I started thinking listening to this. Okay, so what baby's born right now? Automatically you get you know, in a hospital, you get US citizenship. Now what do they have to do? Investigate? The parents have to prove one of them as a citizen or here legally before they'll even issue a birth certificate. I mean, I was just thinking all of what would happen even at a hospital, or it's really now you start to recognize what all would be involved in trying to apply this new interpretation.
00:15:49
Speaker 1: You said, that's had you thinking, Oh, no, you weren't alone. Katanji Brown Jackson was thinking that exact same thing.
00:15:55
Speaker 2: Stay here.
00:15:56
Speaker 1: It was the most interesting part that we heard of the debates, Katanji Brown Jackson literally asking the question, what the hell is supposed to happen in the delivery room?
00:16:14
Speaker 2: All right?
00:16:14
Speaker 1: Continuing here on Amy and TJ on this April first. Arguments continue as we speak in the Supreme Court right now over birthright citizenship. The President's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is in the fourteenth Amendment, is being challenged. Hearing arguments today on a landmark case. I guess we should say ropes. There won't be a decision obviously today. I think this summer, did you see I don't know which I don't know. Do they have an actual target time?
00:16:42
Speaker 5: It's like June ish, isn't it?
00:16:45
Speaker 3: Usually it's within Yes, it's not an immediate decision. We're not waiting for a verdict or for you know, yay or nay. But no, it will take months before we will hear from the Supreme Court as to where they fall on this. Yes, we can all try to read the tea leaves as we hear the justices interact with each side, and it doesn't seem like it's going great for the Trump administration.
00:17:08
Speaker 5: But I haven't even listened to any analysis.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: And sorry you much adept to these things. But no, we have seen no, no, no, no. We have been following some of the live reporting that's going on. Several folks have people in the room between NBC News and AP News and NPR, and they're folks in there. So we have been following, and we often get after we hear arguments, there's almost a consensus when you see the news, Ooh, it doesn't look like they're leaning towards this, doesn't look like they're leaning towards that. And yes, right now, it doesn't feel like they're really buying much of the President's arguments. I'm sure we do this when we watch criminal trials. We hear one side like, wow, he's innocent here the other side like he's definitely guilty. So I'm sure we hear the other side will have a different opinion. But Katanji Brown Jackson wrote she brought up a very important point. She's said, I I want you to talk to me about logistically, how do we do this if we do it the way you're talking about in Rome, she went right to the delivery room. How are you supposed to established legal domicile allegiance.
00:18:14
Speaker 2: And intent for where you're going to stay in the livery room?
00:18:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, And then I even started thinking about how that might discourage folks from going to them think, and that made me feel very concerned for actual the health and safety of the mother and the baby. I would imagine a lot of folks would avoid having to answer questions or have to provide documentation just all of the implications of what this decision could lead to if it changes the interpretation, so many things would have to change in terms of how.
00:18:47
Speaker 4: We go about what we've been doing now.
00:18:49
Speaker 5: In this country for more than one hundred years when babies were born.
00:18:53
Speaker 1: You know, we should note that at least the president's side, a solicitor of General sour did say that they don't have any intention or asking for this to go back and be applied. Rich Rack, You know how many people are couldn't even so we should probably say that out loud, that is not what they're asking for. But Ketajie Brown jasking Justice Jackson, Well, she said the argument of she you. I guess it's sarcastic, but it's kind of for real. Are we bringing women in for depositions? What are you supposed to do? And the it's it's some people might say this is the way to go, but I was surprised to hear General Sauer said, yes, we have a system, a computer system that would generate the status of the parents in the delivery room. So before your child gets a birth certificate, before it gets a Social Security number, before it gets we can check the status of the parents. His words, would generate the the status of the parents at.
00:20:03
Speaker 3: Okay, but I have questions here because and I'm sure this is if you really started to get into the details of that.
00:20:09
Speaker 4: Okay, they can say that.
00:20:11
Speaker 3: But now how many times is paternity unknown? Obviously the mom's the mom, but you need according to what the Trump administration would have the fourteenth Amendment interpreted, a is that you have to have at least one parent who either is a citizen or is here legally correct. All right, so what if you just got a guy who's a citizen to say you're the dad. Now, so literally, this is what would end up happening, because the only way to prove who the father is a test. Yeah, there are going to be plenty of ways if you need one person. Okay, so mom's here illegally, but the father is a citizen and oh, he's the dad, And then you could start paying men to say, yep, I'm the dad, unless you're now going to go and have to make someone prove who the father is. And every time, I mean, this gets really complicated if you have to prove that one parent is here legally.
00:21:09
Speaker 1: That scenario never even crossed my mind. But you are absolutely correct.
00:21:14
Speaker 2: It's a mess, and.
00:21:17
Speaker 3: There are absolutely going to be ways to get around it and to it's just where does it end? And I know, I thought it was really interesting when John Sower, the US Solicitor General.
00:21:27
Speaker 5: Brought up the fact that most other.
00:21:30
Speaker 3: Countries in Europe have this same law in place, or the same understanding in place, where you have to have a parent be a legal citizen before that child is given legal status as a citizen of that country. And the justices were very quick to say, what does that have to do with her? Absolutely, what does that have to do with our country policy. Why. I am sure, that's interesting, but it has nothing to do with the legality of this and our council here in the United States.
00:22:01
Speaker 1: I thought that was fine because it was, you know what, he asked a question that a layperson would ask, like, what.
00:22:07
Speaker 2: Was I have to do anything? Are we talking about this?
00:22:11
Speaker 3: He was like, it's interesting from a policy standpoint, but it has nothing to do with the legality of anything that we're discussing here.
00:22:18
Speaker 1: And the audio, we encourage you. The audio is going to be available later. It's happening live, really still going on as we speak. But it is just really robes. It's interesting to take a look inside the Supreme Court.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Yes, they do these arguments all the time, and they're live and you can see the audio. And here where do they hear the audio? But robes.
00:22:37
Speaker 1: There are not a lot of cases that rise to the level that most everyday Americans would go, hum, this is interesting.
00:22:43
Speaker 2: I should pay attention. This is one and I encourage you should listen to it.
00:22:46
Speaker 1: Absolutely should. I was fascinated from start to finish. You learn a little bit about the personalities of these people who are oftentimes just seen as left or right or good or bad that the President demonizes. To hear them, Robes, even to hear their voices, I wo'na be hones with you. I heard some voice.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: I'm like, this sounds like a fifteen year old kid.
00:23:03
Speaker 4: That's so funny.
00:23:04
Speaker 3: I was just gonna say the same thing where I couldn't believe how youthful and how energetic some of these Supreme Court justices had Amy Cony Barrett to be specific. Yes, sounded so young and youthful. I was surprised, because you're right, we do think of these Supreme Court justices almost as these scary I can't get too close figures.
00:23:26
Speaker 4: They're not like me.
00:23:27
Speaker 3: And then you hear them and you realize, oh, they're just really smart human beings.
00:23:31
Speaker 2: Yes, they're colloquial.
00:23:33
Speaker 1: And how they speak sometimes they use commonly, they're not using big legal lease a lot of time.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: And how they cut for it is interesting. They will cut.
00:23:41
Speaker 1: No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm trying to get you back on track here, and it is great to listen to. This is a robes. I cannot believe that something that was put in place this country can never get past its origins. We cannot get past how we started at twenty twenty six. We are discussing and debating an amendment that was put in place because this country brought people here that didn't want to be here and kids were born. This is still slavery, This is still racism. It this wee cannot It's twenty twenty six, baby, and we're the Supreme Court arguing over an amendment to our constitution, our most sacred document, that had to do with slavery.
00:24:29
Speaker 4: Yeah, and you bring this up. And it was interesting because we heard President.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: Trump yesterday emphatically talking to members of the press at the Oval Office. I have his exact quote, and I'm going to quote him because we would say enslaved people. He did not, But he said that this was basically the fourteenth Amendment had everything to do with birthright citizenship.
00:24:48
Speaker 4: It was the end of the Civil War.
00:24:50
Speaker 3: The reason was it had to do with babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves.
00:24:55
Speaker 4: It didn't have to do with the.
00:24:56
Speaker 3: Protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. He's referring to the birth tourism there that was mentioned in the Supreme Court arguments today.
00:25:06
Speaker 4: But he does break that down and the.
00:25:09
Speaker 3: Question is if it was meant or intended for that purpose, are we applying the intention of our forefathers or our founding fathers correctly in twenty twenty six.
00:25:20
Speaker 1: So I thought that was interesting that when Sauer was asked about birth tourism, he didn't have hard numbers. They said, well, is the general idea of how many folks are doing this? He started quoting news sources he did. He didn't have an answer. I don't know how big of an industry it is.
00:25:38
Speaker 3: Honestly, it's kind of the first I've heard about it in the last couple of weeks. I didn't even know this thing existed. Because this tourism industry existed.
00:25:45
Speaker 1: Well, we hear about it here and there, and stories we cover over the years it's come up. But who was the which justice was it saying, I'm kind of surprised this really is all about illegal immigration, but you all don't even dedicate that much of your argument to it.
00:26:03
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, it was a female, one of the female justices who said, look, you're making and also you're giving very specific, small, small instances and then wanting to apply it to something that you barely even discuss in your arguments a lah undocumented immigrants.
00:26:17
Speaker 4: So did point that out.
00:26:18
Speaker 1: It was soa marior because she said, it's like ten pages to this and only three pages to that. Isn't this all about undocumented immigrants? Isn't this all this is about? This is about billion And who's talking about millias?
00:26:30
Speaker 2: That was a millionaire.
00:26:31
Speaker 4: He's not trying to stop Chinese millionaires.
00:26:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, basically purchasing in a sense, a US citizenship for their child by making sure their baby's born there.
00:26:40
Speaker 2: Thank you for simplifying. That's what I was trying to see.
00:26:42
Speaker 3: He's acting like he's protecting this country from rich people who are cheating basically by using their money to get their American their children American citizenships.
00:26:52
Speaker 4: It's less about that. They're focused on that.
00:26:55
Speaker 3: But the reality is, yes, President Trump and the Trump administration wants to make sure that undocumented immer prints can't come to this country, have a baby and then claim that their child belongs here.
00:27:06
Speaker 1: This decision is going to becoming very close to the midterms. This decision is going to be talked about plenty and once again on documented immigrants are going to be at the center and romes. We know this has the potential to split people. I think both sides, no matter what the decision is, thinks they have an issue going into the midterms for their For their side.
00:27:30
Speaker 3: Well, they will rally their basis because the extreme opinions on either side will rally those folks to come out to the polls based on what this decision is. So yes, they'll get a core group of folks who might come to the polls for this issue. But I don't know where the country is split on this.
00:27:48
Speaker 5: I actually don't know.
00:27:52
Speaker 1: I don't baby there is some Look, we just came up with it. It's a part of who we are. It's a country, and quite frankly, it's a part of this country that, for whatever reason, is endearing. There is something about you're here, you're born here, you're one of us.
00:28:08
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:28:09
Speaker 1: I know people take advantage of it, but I think generally speaking, people are trying to get here, not because they want to do what's harm, but because they want.
00:28:18
Speaker 2: A part of the dream that they're seeing.
00:28:19
Speaker 1: And I absolutely don't want anybody here who shouldn't be here or is not documented here. That's I understand that, But it is just something about it that maybe I need to bring us.
00:28:29
Speaker 5: You're tired, bring us yours.
00:28:31
Speaker 3: It's that whole concept, the whole foundation of who we are as a country. I was surprised though, when they have a map up NBC News does on where birthright citizenship is.
00:28:41
Speaker 5: Granted in the world, and it's it's pretty much the America's.
00:28:44
Speaker 3: There are a few countries here and there, but most countries do not allow for it.
00:28:48
Speaker 2: Well, we say, but they like to point to Europe.
00:28:53
Speaker 3: Right.
00:28:53
Speaker 1: That map you have is lit up from Canada all the way down to Brazil, ain't it.
00:28:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the America's, it's North amer America, it's Central America, it's South America. There are pretty much unconditional birthright opportunities for anyone born in this hemisphere.
00:29:12
Speaker 4: That's I was surprised.
00:29:14
Speaker 1: Because all the arguments you hear about other countries don't. Other countries don't. Other countries don't. Yeah, Europe doesn't, but plenty others do. Or it continues again, folks, we will give you our plan to hop back on and let you know what the other side how those arguments went as well, But as of the real you never know what they're going to do, but it sounded like there was a hill to climb for the administration to convince these justices also rogues. We do this every once in a while, that's the PSA. Sometimes I got uncomfortable to a certain degree listening.
00:29:47
Speaker 2: I heard it said repeatedly, slaves. I heard slaves, slaves.
00:29:52
Speaker 1: I get it in the conversation, slaves, slaves. Just the heads up, everybody. It's one of those things that has many people have been trying to get out of the habit of calling black folks Africans who were brought stop calling them slaves. And it's just a matter of folks. They are human beings. They were enslaved.
00:30:16
Speaker 4: They didn't choose it, but.
00:30:17
Speaker 1: They weren't slaves. And I know some people say, well, yeah, that's what they that's fine. I'm just a heads up to you. If you don't realize and recognize, there'll be some circles you might be in and you say the word slaves and people will really take offense to it.
00:30:30
Speaker 3: So just a heads up, and it's about something respectful because it does change how you view so many people who were brought here against their will. They aren't what they were forced to do. And I think that they were. Obviously that's not their identity, but that's what we make it when we use that word, and that makes a lot of sense.
00:30:50
Speaker 5: It's an easy change to make.
00:30:52
Speaker 3: It might take some getting used to, it has for me for sure, but it absolutely makes one hundred percent sense.
00:30:58
Speaker 4: And it's about respect.
00:31:00
Speaker 2: It's not the end of the world if you don't, but it had to.
00:31:02
Speaker 1: I think I was surprised that some people that are in our circle sometimes talked to and had no idea like wait, what just That's why I don't think anyone sent enslaved individuals at all during this I.
00:31:14
Speaker 4: Only heard I. Actually it's funny.
00:31:15
Speaker 3: We haven't discussed this, but I heard slave the entire time. The President said it yesterday as well, So, yes, that is the word they were using that I was.
00:31:24
Speaker 5: I was definitely a little thrilling.
00:31:26
Speaker 1: All right, Well, uh, folk, we are keeping I say, keeping an eye on. We're keeping an ear or two. What's happening at the Supreme Court today. We'll hop back on. Let you know how the other side, what's her name, Alicia, no Cecilia.
00:31:40
Speaker 2: She is putting on as we speak.
00:31:42
Speaker 1: We'll take a listen to her and let you know how that went, but we always appreciate you spending some time with us. From my dear Amy Roboc, I am TJ.
00:31:48
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk to us soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, See it is Wednesday, April first, and it is twenty twenty six, and as we speak, we're having arguments about what it means to be an American. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Landmark case at the Supreme Court happening right now over birthright citizenship. Arguments are underway as we speak. One side, the President's side, has gone so far, and that's what we're going to talk about in this particular episode.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Ropes.
00:00:38
Speaker 1: We haven't discussed this ahead of time, but we listen to every second of the arguments in which the Solicitor General was making the case on behalf of the president. After listening to that, we're not legal scholars, how do you think is going for the president?
00:00:51
Speaker 3: It seems like a lot of the justices have questions implying just how messy this ask is implications of how you will determine all these different scenarios, because this is a very different way of viewing what it means to be an American and will impact obviously so many people, and I think it's just confusing. So it seems like to me, and again so not used to listening to Supreme Court justices and this has actually been fascinating to listen to it, but it doesn't seem like it's going great for the president.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: Learn more in the past hour, probably about American history than I did in three years of junior high school. This is fascinating, folks. If you hadn't, this is just amazing stuff to listen to. These debates happened. But the fourteenth Amendment, everybody in this country knows. You've learned it in school. Everybody knows. If you're born in the US, you are a US citizen. Automatically remind folks, I know you have it in front of you. There are folks robes. The actual language of the fourteenth Amendment will just hit you with that first.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Yes, 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.
00:02:09
Speaker 1: So at times over the years where opes this has been challenged in court, and it's been deemed controversial at times, but I think almost one hundred percent of the time when this case has come up with a fourteen Amendment is challenged, courts have ruled yes. In fact, if you are born on American soil' American citizen. That's everybody on the same page there right period.
00:02:31
Speaker 3: It's been interpreted many, many times, yes, to give citizenship to every single baby born in the United States. The exceptions have been to children of diplomats and invading armies, and it did exclude Native Americans until nineteen twenty four. But short of that, everyone else becomes an American citizen.
00:02:52
Speaker 1: All right, that's what everybody believes, and that's what everybody essentially knows a cement and has been taught. The president doesn't believe it. President Trumpy one, Oh my goodness.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: This was day one, day.
00:03:02
Speaker 4: One executive order.
00:03:03
Speaker 3: It was one of the first things he did when he became president for the second time of this.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: Country, signed an executive order getting rid of birthright citizenship, essentially saying and yes, he was making the argument this was targeted towards obviously undocumented immigrants. And also he's using the argument here lately that it has to do with birth tourism, particularly China is focused on so many companies have a whole thing they can send people here, you have your baby here, that baby gets American citizenship. That's the argument he's making. So that was challenged in court, challenged almost immediately, and it has made its way to the Supreme Court. That has brought us to today. They're hearing arguments. Robes very important to note as we get into these arguments. The audience today at the Supreme Court is a historic one.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: He's in the building.
00:03:49
Speaker 3: President Trump left the White House with Pambondy, correct Attorney General Pambondy and Yes, for the first time in our nation's history, a sitting US president listened to oral arguments of a Supreme Court case. And look, it's significant because there are a lot of folks wondering what his motivation is. Sure he could be curious. Yes, this is his baby. This is very important and crucial to a lot of the policies he's put in place and what he wants to see happen going forward in this country when it comes to immigration and legal status. But there's a lot of folks out there who believe this is a form of intimidation.
00:04:27
Speaker 1: And they say it's absolutely inappropriate. Again, that's not us. We are listened to legal scholars. It's inappropriate for him to be sitting there. There is a separation of powers. We didn't learn that in school. As well learn that, but he is there. So the reason we're able to hear this is that yet they were live audio. They don't have cameras in there, but live audio is often put out. So around ten oh five, it was scheduled for ten o'clock. With ten oh five, the audio pops up and they do get going, and they get into it immediately. I did not hear I'm pretty sure there was not. There was nothing you hear in the audio that would suggest that President Trump was in the room or had any bearing on what was happening.
00:05:00
Speaker 3: No, And I think, look, it's interesting, Yes he's there, and yes his presence could maybe be potentially intimidating to Supreme Court justices. But these are Supreme Court justices who have been I don't want to say heckled but kind of publicly heckled on truth social by this president and conservative members of the court that the President even put there in that court wasn't happy with how they ruled, kind of felt like maybe they weren't being loyal.
00:05:28
Speaker 4: To him, which of course they're not supposed to be.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: So look, I do think among this group, they're fairly used to President Trump and him not being happy with them and them being okay with it, even just the state of the Union just having him walk in right after having said all sorts of stuff about them on social media.
00:05:51
Speaker 5: So this is a tried and true bunch.
00:05:53
Speaker 1: You know. I'm curious how actually what the setup is in the room. I don't know where he's sitting physically, like how far away he's actually from the justices and from the attorneys as this is happening. I was only pointing to the screen that robes as we are talking. This is still going on, and we would you say that was a pretty good crowd.
00:06:07
Speaker 4: Oh, it's a huge crowd that is assembled.
00:06:11
Speaker 3: And we did get word that he left, correct after the state or the government, the state presented its arguments. Now that the ACLU, who was leading the charge to argue their side of this, he left.
00:06:22
Speaker 4: He didn't even want to hear what they had to say.
00:06:24
Speaker 1: No, I wonder if that was always the plan or if he went over and go, well, this isn't going well, let me get the hell out of here. Because again, we are not legal scholars. But if you're listening to this, I mean you're hearing justices use words like your arguments are quirky, quirky, it's kind of obscure what you're trying to do. It's kind of a stress. Those are words they used in their arguments. And again, once we listened to the other side, maybe we'll say, ah, they got problems with that. But this clearly are not justices, including the conservative ones who seem to be on board. There's a quote I often use. The things in human affairs are often a pull rather than a push. You're going to have to almost pull them kicking and screaming towards your argument.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Is how it felt.
00:07:05
Speaker 3: Yes, that is exactly what my interpretation, or at least my read on what I heard so far.
00:07:12
Speaker 4: And there are.
00:07:12
Speaker 3: Thousands of people outside the Supreme Court right now. It's a beautiful day in DC, so I'm sure that helps. But there were reports of folks who came and traveled from around the country and spent days, nights sleeping, they say, in very cold conditions on cold concrete to get in line to get a seat in the Supreme Court. But then there are just so many others who have come out just to witness history right now, not.
00:07:34
Speaker 5: Historic, just because the president is there.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: But I heard someone describe it as this and this makes a lot of sense for folks just to get the perspective here. This is one of the most important cases that the Supreme Court has heard in the last one hundred years. The implications of what the Supreme Court decides is going to be significant, and if they were to take the President's side on this, it would be earth shattering, like this would the.
00:08:02
Speaker 5: Legal status of so many people.
00:08:05
Speaker 2: And I know Roe v.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Wade was a big shift in a precedent setting case, right to have that overturned, But we are talking about a one hundred and how many years we go back. We're talking about the Constitution, an amendment that is central to our identity as a nation. The possibility that we are about to redefine what it means to be a citizen of this country, we are about to redefine potentially what it means to be an American, is huge. And the first question we heard today Robes, came from Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas, and the first case he brought up, and a question he had was about dred Scott. And I encourage everybody you might remember dred Scott, You might have heard Wang kim Ark a little bit. Look up those two legal cases dred Scott versus Sandford and then the US versus Wang kim Ark. Those two cases came up a loes today, But the dread Scott decision is the one everybody agrees ropes.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: They call it maybe.
00:09:05
Speaker 1: The worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court just egregious, in which they denied citizenship to a freed black man.
00:09:14
Speaker 3: Yes, they said that he could not enjoy the rights and the privileges that the Constitution affords to American citizens. And yes, it is considered the worst Supreme Court decision in the United States history. They said it obviously was over racism and certainly judicial activism, and that is what these justices are obviously trying to avoid. This is to say this is a controversial case, is h I guess just there's no real way to put just how important this decision is. And it would be undoing just over one hundred years of precedent that was set.
00:09:54
Speaker 5: And look, you you mentioned the other case.
00:09:57
Speaker 4: I'm you want Kimark.
00:09:59
Speaker 3: But if they were too, And one of the justices I can't remember which one, asked, are you asking us? Are you saying that we should basically be overturning that decision which allowed for a man of Chinese origin whose parents were not legal citizens but lived here, but lived here in San Francisco. They the Supreme Court decided in eighteen, nineteen ninety eight to give him citizenship all of his his offspring generations of families. Would they now lose their citizenship because his was deemed it would literally undo that ruling if they were decide with President Trump.
00:10:37
Speaker 1: And I don't know why then I know the one who's arguing is the US Solicitor General John Southern Sower. John Sowers arguing did argue on behalf of the administration. I don't know why. And this is where we would need a legal scholar. Why he was so against saying we want you to overturn that like nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. And there was confusion. I'd say confusion. Obviously they they're justices. I was confused as to why, Like, how far do you want us to go? What exactly is it you're asking us to Do you want us to overturn that president's setting case? Do you want us to compare it to dred Scott? Do you want are we doing it based on people's domicile or their allegiance. That came up a lot, and we need to hit on that. But Robes that the justices are doing their job, and I listening to them, some of them sounded genuinely conf like what is it exactly you're asking us to do? And then after we do it, how do you implement it? And Katanji Brown Jackson at the she was I think she was the last person to question Brobe. She she might have been the longest Q and A of any of the justices. She might have been and I hate to use the word because it applies to a woman here, but she was as fiery and animated and direct and wasn't trying to hear it as any of the justices that I heard.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Is that fair? I'm trying to She spoke.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: Very plainly and saying that, hey, sour, pretty sure you're going to have a number of hurdles to overcome.
00:12:08
Speaker 4: With your argument.
00:12:09
Speaker 3: And so she made it very clear where she stood and how there were just way too many questions and not enough concrete, legally based answers at this point, and you could you could hear and again not to say that the justices were confused, but they were confused by the arguments being made.
00:12:27
Speaker 1: Yes, like, well, if you want to do this, but then we have to do that. Wait, wait, you're saying this or that. And I was robes this idea and the confusion. I can't remember which one and several did bring this up. But you heard the words domicile and allegiance. Yes, like your your citizenship is based on domicile and allegiance, and they use all kinds of legal cases and legal precedents, said in previous cases, but are you a citizen, Rogues based on where you lived? Simply At some points he seemed to be arguing that dom you have to be a resident of this place and intend to continue living here. But then in another argument, Rogues said, allegiance is what really matters. That it's not just a matter of you born here and live here. You have to actually have some allegiance to that country. And this was a part of their confut like which is it, because it didn't sound like you could have both, Like which argument are you making?
00:13:25
Speaker 2: This is some of the most I'm telling you.
00:13:27
Speaker 1: I learn more about American history today that I did in junior high.
00:13:31
Speaker 4: Yes, it was fascinating. I had to look up domicile.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: To be honest, I really wasn't sure the lawful presence with intention of it becoming permanent. So you're here lawfully and you intend on staying. So again, I was giggling things as I was listening, trying to make sense of what I was hearing, while the justices were trying to make sense of what John Souer was arguing.
00:13:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're hearing you intend on staying. But what does that have to do? Does it mean you need to have an allegiance to this country? They use so many little examples, and I thought, I'm like, wow, it's something I don't know, I'm used to doing, or I'm used to people doing to me in everyday normal conversation where you're talking about one issue and then say, well what about this, Well what if this happens?
00:14:17
Speaker 2: Well what if dad?
00:14:18
Speaker 1: They used all these scenarios, Well, what if a diplomat's kid is born? Well what if somebody lives in Norway and they come back to visit the United States and have a kid, but they're US citizen, They go back to North Like all these little things.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: They had no intention of staying in this country. Do their kids then still get to be US citizens.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: It actually is the art.
00:14:38
Speaker 3: There are so many questions that arise from a new interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: And some of them for and I said, well, we can't consider every little thing. But then I thought this is the exact point, and they were making an argument rogues.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: I guess you caught it as.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: Well, about how what are we supposed to do with the fourteenth Amendment? The framers how they wrote this thing. Are we supposed to assume that they wrote it as a general rule to apply to anything that might come up in the future, or did they write it as a rule that we now have the ability to interpret for the times.
00:15:15
Speaker 3: I don't know an amendment to an amendment, I don't know what you do is kind of what it sounds like. But I just thought it was interesting. I started thinking listening to this. Okay, so what baby's born right now? Automatically you get you know, in a hospital, you get US citizenship. Now what do they have to do? Investigate? The parents have to prove one of them as a citizen or here legally before they'll even issue a birth certificate. I mean, I was just thinking all of what would happen even at a hospital, or it's really now you start to recognize what all would be involved in trying to apply this new interpretation.
00:15:49
Speaker 1: You said, that's had you thinking, Oh, no, you weren't alone. Katanji Brown Jackson was thinking that exact same thing.
00:15:55
Speaker 2: Stay here.
00:15:56
Speaker 1: It was the most interesting part that we heard of the debates, Katanji Brown Jackson literally asking the question, what the hell is supposed to happen in the delivery room?
00:16:14
Speaker 2: All right?
00:16:14
Speaker 1: Continuing here on Amy and TJ on this April first. Arguments continue as we speak in the Supreme Court right now over birthright citizenship. The President's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is in the fourteenth Amendment, is being challenged. Hearing arguments today on a landmark case. I guess we should say ropes. There won't be a decision obviously today. I think this summer, did you see I don't know which I don't know. Do they have an actual target time?
00:16:42
Speaker 5: It's like June ish, isn't it?
00:16:45
Speaker 3: Usually it's within Yes, it's not an immediate decision. We're not waiting for a verdict or for you know, yay or nay. But no, it will take months before we will hear from the Supreme Court as to where they fall on this. Yes, we can all try to read the tea leaves as we hear the justices interact with each side, and it doesn't seem like it's going great for the Trump administration.
00:17:08
Speaker 5: But I haven't even listened to any analysis.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: And sorry you much adept to these things. But no, we have seen no, no, no, no. We have been following some of the live reporting that's going on. Several folks have people in the room between NBC News and AP News and NPR, and they're folks in there. So we have been following, and we often get after we hear arguments, there's almost a consensus when you see the news, Ooh, it doesn't look like they're leaning towards this, doesn't look like they're leaning towards that. And yes, right now, it doesn't feel like they're really buying much of the President's arguments. I'm sure we do this when we watch criminal trials. We hear one side like, wow, he's innocent here the other side like he's definitely guilty. So I'm sure we hear the other side will have a different opinion. But Katanji Brown Jackson wrote she brought up a very important point. She's said, I I want you to talk to me about logistically, how do we do this if we do it the way you're talking about in Rome, she went right to the delivery room. How are you supposed to established legal domicile allegiance.
00:18:14
Speaker 2: And intent for where you're going to stay in the livery room?
00:18:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, And then I even started thinking about how that might discourage folks from going to them think, and that made me feel very concerned for actual the health and safety of the mother and the baby. I would imagine a lot of folks would avoid having to answer questions or have to provide documentation just all of the implications of what this decision could lead to if it changes the interpretation, so many things would have to change in terms of how.
00:18:47
Speaker 4: We go about what we've been doing now.
00:18:49
Speaker 5: In this country for more than one hundred years when babies were born.
00:18:53
Speaker 1: You know, we should note that at least the president's side, a solicitor of General sour did say that they don't have any intention or asking for this to go back and be applied. Rich Rack, You know how many people are couldn't even so we should probably say that out loud, that is not what they're asking for. But Ketajie Brown jasking Justice Jackson, Well, she said the argument of she you. I guess it's sarcastic, but it's kind of for real. Are we bringing women in for depositions? What are you supposed to do? And the it's it's some people might say this is the way to go, but I was surprised to hear General Sauer said, yes, we have a system, a computer system that would generate the status of the parents in the delivery room. So before your child gets a birth certificate, before it gets a Social Security number, before it gets we can check the status of the parents. His words, would generate the the status of the parents at.
00:20:03
Speaker 3: Okay, but I have questions here because and I'm sure this is if you really started to get into the details of that.
00:20:09
Speaker 4: Okay, they can say that.
00:20:11
Speaker 3: But now how many times is paternity unknown? Obviously the mom's the mom, but you need according to what the Trump administration would have the fourteenth Amendment interpreted, a is that you have to have at least one parent who either is a citizen or is here legally correct. All right, so what if you just got a guy who's a citizen to say you're the dad. Now, so literally, this is what would end up happening, because the only way to prove who the father is a test. Yeah, there are going to be plenty of ways if you need one person. Okay, so mom's here illegally, but the father is a citizen and oh, he's the dad, And then you could start paying men to say, yep, I'm the dad, unless you're now going to go and have to make someone prove who the father is. And every time, I mean, this gets really complicated if you have to prove that one parent is here legally.
00:21:09
Speaker 1: That scenario never even crossed my mind. But you are absolutely correct.
00:21:14
Speaker 2: It's a mess, and.
00:21:17
Speaker 3: There are absolutely going to be ways to get around it and to it's just where does it end? And I know, I thought it was really interesting when John Sower, the US Solicitor General.
00:21:27
Speaker 5: Brought up the fact that most other.
00:21:30
Speaker 3: Countries in Europe have this same law in place, or the same understanding in place, where you have to have a parent be a legal citizen before that child is given legal status as a citizen of that country. And the justices were very quick to say, what does that have to do with her? Absolutely, what does that have to do with our country policy. Why. I am sure, that's interesting, but it has nothing to do with the legality of this and our council here in the United States.
00:22:01
Speaker 1: I thought that was fine because it was, you know what, he asked a question that a layperson would ask, like, what.
00:22:07
Speaker 2: Was I have to do anything? Are we talking about this?
00:22:11
Speaker 3: He was like, it's interesting from a policy standpoint, but it has nothing to do with the legality of anything that we're discussing here.
00:22:18
Speaker 1: And the audio, we encourage you. The audio is going to be available later. It's happening live, really still going on as we speak. But it is just really robes. It's interesting to take a look inside the Supreme Court.
00:22:32
Speaker 2: Yes, they do these arguments all the time, and they're live and you can see the audio. And here where do they hear the audio? But robes.
00:22:37
Speaker 1: There are not a lot of cases that rise to the level that most everyday Americans would go, hum, this is interesting.
00:22:43
Speaker 2: I should pay attention. This is one and I encourage you should listen to it.
00:22:46
Speaker 1: Absolutely should. I was fascinated from start to finish. You learn a little bit about the personalities of these people who are oftentimes just seen as left or right or good or bad that the President demonizes. To hear them, Robes, even to hear their voices, I wo'na be hones with you. I heard some voice.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: I'm like, this sounds like a fifteen year old kid.
00:23:03
Speaker 4: That's so funny.
00:23:04
Speaker 3: I was just gonna say the same thing where I couldn't believe how youthful and how energetic some of these Supreme Court justices had Amy Cony Barrett to be specific. Yes, sounded so young and youthful. I was surprised, because you're right, we do think of these Supreme Court justices almost as these scary I can't get too close figures.
00:23:26
Speaker 4: They're not like me.
00:23:27
Speaker 3: And then you hear them and you realize, oh, they're just really smart human beings.
00:23:31
Speaker 2: Yes, they're colloquial.
00:23:33
Speaker 1: And how they speak sometimes they use commonly, they're not using big legal lease a lot of time.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: And how they cut for it is interesting. They will cut.
00:23:41
Speaker 1: No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm trying to get you back on track here, and it is great to listen to. This is a robes. I cannot believe that something that was put in place this country can never get past its origins. We cannot get past how we started at twenty twenty six. We are discussing and debating an amendment that was put in place because this country brought people here that didn't want to be here and kids were born. This is still slavery, This is still racism. It this wee cannot It's twenty twenty six, baby, and we're the Supreme Court arguing over an amendment to our constitution, our most sacred document, that had to do with slavery.
00:24:29
Speaker 4: Yeah, and you bring this up. And it was interesting because we heard President.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: Trump yesterday emphatically talking to members of the press at the Oval Office. I have his exact quote, and I'm going to quote him because we would say enslaved people. He did not, But he said that this was basically the fourteenth Amendment had everything to do with birthright citizenship.
00:24:48
Speaker 4: It was the end of the Civil War.
00:24:50
Speaker 3: The reason was it had to do with babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves.
00:24:55
Speaker 4: It didn't have to do with the.
00:24:56
Speaker 3: Protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. He's referring to the birth tourism there that was mentioned in the Supreme Court arguments today.
00:25:06
Speaker 4: But he does break that down and the.
00:25:09
Speaker 3: Question is if it was meant or intended for that purpose, are we applying the intention of our forefathers or our founding fathers correctly in twenty twenty six.
00:25:20
Speaker 1: So I thought that was interesting that when Sauer was asked about birth tourism, he didn't have hard numbers. They said, well, is the general idea of how many folks are doing this? He started quoting news sources he did. He didn't have an answer. I don't know how big of an industry it is.
00:25:38
Speaker 3: Honestly, it's kind of the first I've heard about it in the last couple of weeks. I didn't even know this thing existed. Because this tourism industry existed.
00:25:45
Speaker 1: Well, we hear about it here and there, and stories we cover over the years it's come up. But who was the which justice was it saying, I'm kind of surprised this really is all about illegal immigration, but you all don't even dedicate that much of your argument to it.
00:26:03
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, it was a female, one of the female justices who said, look, you're making and also you're giving very specific, small, small instances and then wanting to apply it to something that you barely even discuss in your arguments a lah undocumented immigrants.
00:26:17
Speaker 4: So did point that out.
00:26:18
Speaker 1: It was soa marior because she said, it's like ten pages to this and only three pages to that. Isn't this all about undocumented immigrants? Isn't this all this is about? This is about billion And who's talking about millias?
00:26:30
Speaker 2: That was a millionaire.
00:26:31
Speaker 4: He's not trying to stop Chinese millionaires.
00:26:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, basically purchasing in a sense, a US citizenship for their child by making sure their baby's born there.
00:26:40
Speaker 2: Thank you for simplifying. That's what I was trying to see.
00:26:42
Speaker 3: He's acting like he's protecting this country from rich people who are cheating basically by using their money to get their American their children American citizenships.
00:26:52
Speaker 4: It's less about that. They're focused on that.
00:26:55
Speaker 3: But the reality is, yes, President Trump and the Trump administration wants to make sure that undocumented immer prints can't come to this country, have a baby and then claim that their child belongs here.
00:27:06
Speaker 1: This decision is going to becoming very close to the midterms. This decision is going to be talked about plenty and once again on documented immigrants are going to be at the center and romes. We know this has the potential to split people. I think both sides, no matter what the decision is, thinks they have an issue going into the midterms for their For their side.
00:27:30
Speaker 3: Well, they will rally their basis because the extreme opinions on either side will rally those folks to come out to the polls based on what this decision is. So yes, they'll get a core group of folks who might come to the polls for this issue. But I don't know where the country is split on this.
00:27:48
Speaker 5: I actually don't know.
00:27:52
Speaker 1: I don't baby there is some Look, we just came up with it. It's a part of who we are. It's a country, and quite frankly, it's a part of this country that, for whatever reason, is endearing. There is something about you're here, you're born here, you're one of us.
00:28:08
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:28:09
Speaker 1: I know people take advantage of it, but I think generally speaking, people are trying to get here, not because they want to do what's harm, but because they want.
00:28:18
Speaker 2: A part of the dream that they're seeing.
00:28:19
Speaker 1: And I absolutely don't want anybody here who shouldn't be here or is not documented here. That's I understand that, But it is just something about it that maybe I need to bring us.
00:28:29
Speaker 5: You're tired, bring us yours.
00:28:31
Speaker 3: It's that whole concept, the whole foundation of who we are as a country. I was surprised though, when they have a map up NBC News does on where birthright citizenship is.
00:28:41
Speaker 5: Granted in the world, and it's it's pretty much the America's.
00:28:44
Speaker 3: There are a few countries here and there, but most countries do not allow for it.
00:28:48
Speaker 2: Well, we say, but they like to point to Europe.
00:28:53
Speaker 3: Right.
00:28:53
Speaker 1: That map you have is lit up from Canada all the way down to Brazil, ain't it.
00:28:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the America's, it's North amer America, it's Central America, it's South America. There are pretty much unconditional birthright opportunities for anyone born in this hemisphere.
00:29:12
Speaker 4: That's I was surprised.
00:29:14
Speaker 1: Because all the arguments you hear about other countries don't. Other countries don't. Other countries don't. Yeah, Europe doesn't, but plenty others do. Or it continues again, folks, we will give you our plan to hop back on and let you know what the other side how those arguments went as well, But as of the real you never know what they're going to do, but it sounded like there was a hill to climb for the administration to convince these justices also rogues. We do this every once in a while, that's the PSA. Sometimes I got uncomfortable to a certain degree listening.
00:29:47
Speaker 2: I heard it said repeatedly, slaves. I heard slaves, slaves.
00:29:52
Speaker 1: I get it in the conversation, slaves, slaves. Just the heads up, everybody. It's one of those things that has many people have been trying to get out of the habit of calling black folks Africans who were brought stop calling them slaves. And it's just a matter of folks. They are human beings. They were enslaved.
00:30:16
Speaker 4: They didn't choose it, but.
00:30:17
Speaker 1: They weren't slaves. And I know some people say, well, yeah, that's what they that's fine. I'm just a heads up to you. If you don't realize and recognize, there'll be some circles you might be in and you say the word slaves and people will really take offense to it.
00:30:30
Speaker 3: So just a heads up, and it's about something respectful because it does change how you view so many people who were brought here against their will. They aren't what they were forced to do. And I think that they were. Obviously that's not their identity, but that's what we make it when we use that word, and that makes a lot of sense.
00:30:50
Speaker 5: It's an easy change to make.
00:30:52
Speaker 3: It might take some getting used to, it has for me for sure, but it absolutely makes one hundred percent sense.
00:30:58
Speaker 4: And it's about respect.
00:31:00
Speaker 2: It's not the end of the world if you don't, but it had to.
00:31:02
Speaker 1: I think I was surprised that some people that are in our circle sometimes talked to and had no idea like wait, what just That's why I don't think anyone sent enslaved individuals at all during this I.
00:31:14
Speaker 4: Only heard I. Actually it's funny.
00:31:15
Speaker 3: We haven't discussed this, but I heard slave the entire time. The President said it yesterday as well, So, yes, that is the word they were using that I was.
00:31:24
Speaker 5: I was definitely a little thrilling.
00:31:26
Speaker 1: All right, Well, uh, folk, we are keeping I say, keeping an eye on. We're keeping an ear or two. What's happening at the Supreme Court today. We'll hop back on. Let you know how the other side, what's her name, Alicia, no Cecilia.
00:31:40
Speaker 2: She is putting on as we speak.
00:31:42
Speaker 1: We'll take a listen to her and let you know how that went, but we always appreciate you spending some time with us. From my dear Amy Roboc, I am TJ.
00:31:48
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk to us soon.