Bates, Professor Amar, Professor discussed on We The People
Thank you for that, very important. A note of of of agreement two final points, just say subject to the jurisdiction kid of an illegal alien in is possibly subject to the jurisdiction of some other country that he's never been to never will be to m maybe okay. But then that would be true of an illegal alien to not just an illegal alien. So if the test is somehow is there any other country that that could possibly reggae you born at dual citizen or something. And that makes you now not an American citizen because let's imagine your parents are legal aliens less. Imagine actually that their permanent residence their green card holders. But at you are on the day, you're born not just born in American under the fourteenth amendment, but you also might inherit adore citizenship from Canada or England or some other jurisdiction. So so if he says off subject jurisdiction means you can't either has to be no other foreign government possibly in the pitcher. Wow. That's a radical proposition. That's true. Not the children of illegal aliens, the children of legal aliens, not just stick people on student visas. Not just people are tourists, but actually permanent green card holders event while ou- while I'm and and now you see the clear contradiction between that and want him all our on his facts. And he says, oh the supreme court. They don't know what they're doing. And he's right. Sometimes they don't but. I'm not sure that it's his the pants doors box. Once you open. It can be limited. Just children of illegal aliens disadvantage of a very big and dangerous wedge that I think a squarely into long Kim art and the third point my final point is there is no I've read the debates about the fourteenth amendment two. I've written a bunch of books actually on the fourteenth amendment and not just this one-sentence. An I emphatically disagree with his account of actually what they say. And don't say and oh, by the way, Eric wonders on my side. And I'd rather have him than any other single person. And I actually think virtually all that reconstruction the story whom I know, and I know a lot of them, you know, with the on my said, here's the point their conversation. Doesn't began in eighteen sixty six they are building on what Bates has done in eighteen sixty two in their statutes in eighteen sixty six their amendment and. Dates his building on an eighteen forty four case that he explicitly references that is based on English rules of soil. So all this stuff about English royalists. You might not like it professor early. You might think it collapses subject witnesses and ship, but on the relevant question, actually, which is not subject versus citizenship. And it's not whether you can renounce your birthrights or not that on the question. Basically, a we in America gonna be a law of the soil place or law the blood place eighteen forty four says we're allowed the soil place. Eighteen sixty two Bates where law the soil place at place. That's what the framers of the fourteenth amendment actually say again, and again, and again, even for children of Chinese people themselves can't be citizens, but the children of foreign in America, can and they're only three exceptions and two of them come from English law all the way back in Blackstone, conquering armies and foreign diplomats and we add third for American Indians. Because it's in tribes because this is a different regime. Thank you so much akilah Moore and Edward earlier for a extremely vigorous. But also extremely deep specific and eliminating debate about this hobby contested constitutional topic. Dear with the people listeners, you have been treated to what is indeed a deep dive into this important case, and your homework is to take one of these statutes or cases that was discussed read it and see if you agree with professor Amar, professor earlier and right to me to tell me what you think keel Amar Edward earlier. Thank you so much for joining. Thank you. My pleasure. Today show is engineered by Kim and Kilburn and.