United States, Ghana, Claremont Institute discussed on Dennis Prager
People Janis than professor of law Chapman, university director of the center for constitutional jurisprudence. And he he's now founding the institute for clear thinking. Is that right? John the institute for clear thinking certainly clear thinking, but at the Claremont institute identity, though, I know I mentioned mentioned that I didn't have your chat off. I couldn't hear you know, that should have been on the thing. Absolutely. Anyway, Sean along admirers, you know, and as a professor of law, and especially aware of constitutional law. So let's talk about the fourteenth amendment and the whole issue of if if you're born. To non citizens in the United States. Are you a citizen so review with us first before any analysis? What's the fourteenth amendment say? Well, the fourteenth amendment says 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 where they reside. Right. So okay. So I am not a lawyer. But I am one of your students at the institute for clear thinking. It seems to be. And I may be wrong. I always tell guests if I'm wrong, just tell me, I it's it's a non-issue to be a guest by showing differ with me. But it sounds to me that it isn't all that ambiguous. It sounds to me like if you are subject to the laws, there of beaming, you're a citizen, so your or you're born to citizens, then you are subject to the laws. But if you are if your parents are not there legally, they are not subject to the laws thereof. And you're not a citizen. Well, the difficulty with that. I mean that that's what many people read that phrase subject to the jurisdiction there, meaning merely meaning subject to the laws, and the fact of the matter is even if you're here illegally. You are subject to our lives. But that's not what subject to the jurisdiction met. There were two use it at one a qualified jurisdiction what they called at the time partial territorial jurisdiction and the other a more complete jurisdiction and allegiance owing jurisdiction. And and so the real question is which of those two ideas good, they codify ended a constitution. Give you an example, kind of modern lead to help. Explain the difference. If you're a British citizen visiting here as a tourist you're subject to our laws while you're on our soil, you drive on the right side of the road rather than left or you're going to get a ticket. But but you're not subject to our allegiance. You you. Don't get drafted into our army. You don't get prosecuted for treason, if you take up arms against us because you've got by any of the legions to this country. You remain a citizen of Great Britain. That's the distinction that they codified in the in the fourteenth amendment. But. So that's how I understand it. I don't understand why there's any ambiguity the notion that you're subject to the laws is an absurdity. Of course, you are. Can't murder in the United States. If you are a foreign visitor, right? But, but but but the other side the pro birthright citizenship, and what is really an open borders crowd argument is that well if they're not subject to our jurisdiction, then we couldn't prosecute them for violating. It's stupid argument. They make but that's the essence of their claim. We don't have to speculate about this. There was we didn't have any legal immigration in eighteen sixty eight because we didn't have any restrictions on immigration, but the debate focused on another group of people who were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. And that was native American and the people that opposed the language that you're gonna make citizens of all the Indian because that was the word they used at the time and Senator Howard the guy who authored this language. So that's not true. This language requires that they be subject to the complete jurisdiction. Not only not any partial jurisdiction the. The the the principal sponsor the fourteenth amendment saying the same thing the leading treatise writer of the day said the same thing and the supreme court when it I look at this issue much closer in time than we are now eighteen seventy two and eighteen eighty four said exactly the same thing. It means complete jurisdiction not partially territorial. They're look this partial jurisdiction if I visit Ghana Ghana has partial jurisdiction over me. I can't run a red light in Ghana. Exactly. So so so what's meaningless? It's their argument is meaningless, it's not intellectually honest. That's right. And and it's one of the reasons why they immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. Oh, hold on. Hold on. Remember the ad hominem attack. Folks, if this is not clear, nothing is clear. Back with Johnny moment. Blink home security is a big deal to me why. Because I believe you should have home security. I believe you should have life insurance. I believe you should have health insurance. I believe in doing as much as possible within the bounds of reason to protect oneself and not to rely on others. Also, it's no fun to be burglarized. It's a very painful trauma. And if you could stop it, stop it. You put these cameras up they run on a couple of double A batteries. It's phenomenon. I put him up. And I it was amazing. I saw what happened in front of my home at anytime. I wanted to or if I was alerted because it alerts you it detects motion. You could be in Ghana how like that. And know what's happening on your front porch? And you got to be able to see things. That was good. Actually, it's blink home security. It's terrific. Blink protect dot com. Blinkprotect dot com. It's an Amazon company..