Mark Krikorian on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Debate

Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app O'Connor and company. It is 7 0 7 it's O'Connor and company on this second day of April coming off a very busy Wednesday launching into an equally busy Thursday. Thanks for joining us here from your nation's capital. It 805 General Jack Keen will join us give us his assessment of the president's statement last night and then a 35 ditto with Kurt Schlickter retired Army Colonel. It's also a retired lawyer so we'll see where he thinks the Supreme Court decision is going to go from yesterday's arguments. I'm Larry O'Connor that's Cassie Smedley. Good morning Cassie. Good morning Larry. Great to be with you and excited for this lineup. Yeah and in case they missed it I just want to reiterate to the clerks of John Roberts just understand if you are currently drafting a decision that would affirm birthright citizenship and the way you interpret the 14th Amendment just recognize you are agreeing with Katanji Brown Jackson. You are saying to the world for John Roberts legacy. Yep Katanji has a point. She convinced me. I was on the fence but Katanji Brown Jackson's legal brilliance has won me over joining us now Mark Kirkorian Center for Immigration Studies. I don't know Mr. Kirkorian. I didn't have super high hopes that the Supreme Court would affirm what the obvious real meaning of the 14th Amendment is and I feel even worse after yesterday's argument. So talk me off the ledge. Where do things stand? Yeah don't don't jump out the window yet. Okay. I think the just just not to go into all the detail. The whole point is what does the 14th Amendment phrase subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. What does that mean as far as whose kids get to be citizens. Is it anybody a foreigner buying a stick of gum or does it mean somebody who has a commitment to the United States. That's the basic question and I don't think the Supreme Court is even going to decide that question. In other words they're not going to go with Justice Brown. But I don't think they're all going to say yes the president has the authority to do this by executive order and knock yourselves out. I think they're going to kind of punt and they're going to say this is something for Congress to do. Congress passed a law what is it now 80 years ago I think in the during the FDR administration that just literally used the exact verbatim words of the amendment and Supreme Court is going to say that phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof is ambiguous and it's up to Congress to legislate what it means. They've done that the executive for the past 80 years has been applying it the way you you know the way Justice Brown Jackson suggested it should be in other words to everybody but the Congress if they want can change it and when they do and somebody sues then we'll decide on the merits of the issue. So I think they're going to punt and say the president can't do it through executive order but maybe Congress can and if they do then give us a call. Is there a just real fast mark and I sorry if I'm asking you a question that's sort of outside your wheelhouse but is there a legal precedent for Congress to basically interpret the language and meaning of a phrase in an amendment to the Constitution and will that hold up because I'm I mean I suspect that'll be challenged as well I mean ultimately SCOTUS has to decide. Yeah it will be and ultimately SCOTUS will have to decide but the fifth section five of the 14th amendment the last part of it specifically says Congress shall pass or may pass legislation to enforce the terms of the amendment. Oh there you go. I mean so that's yeah sure sure sure there that that does make sense and Congress has like I said they passed during FDRs administration is a provision in the law was passed back then that says literally just verbatim of the words of the amendment and so I think they're going to say look that was a legitimate interpretation because Congress didn't object and the executive has been doing this but Congress has the power to change it when they do then we will grapple with the issue and I think then we would win but it has to be Congress that does it not the president through an executive order that's just my guess and I think that might even be the right decision you know just objectively speaking given these facts but you know I'm not a supreme court criminologist so take all that and four dollars to plus that we'll get your cup of coffee at Starbucks. There you go. Well it does seem like that's where the supreme court likes to sit when things are ambiguous of well then you need Congress to do more on this but were there any lines of questioning yesterday that surprised you that maybe saw someone going in a direction you didn't anticipate? No I don't think so I mean clearly the justices were not you know sort of given adaboys to the Solicitor General the you know the administration representative but they had some real questions for the ACLU person too who was the one you know the plaintiffs they were the one bringing the lawsuit you know the only thing that was kind of loopy was justice Katanji Brown Jackson but then that wasn't surprising you know it could be perfectly honest so so so no I don't but but again you can't really know what they're gonna say based on their questioning but I think you can probably know that they're not going to back the president's position in other words the president's gonna lose the case but I don't think that they're gonna say and therefore this phrase means every Chinese tourist gets to have a US citizen kid forever because it's in the Constitution um they're gonna say it's ambiguous you guys the political body it's your job to decide this Congress pass a law if you don't like it and of course Congress can't even get together to pay our TSA agents right now so um that sadly we remain skeptical if that will ever get done but all right I don't feel quite as horrible Mark or Corey and I appreciate that and thank you for it uh if I could just sort of on the same subject as the the war over the use of ICE to enforce our immigration laws continues and there's a constant upheaval right now where democrats still think that they have an upper hand here by demonizing these federal law enforcement officers our agents I should say excuse me more accurately uh with all of that going on in the background after Minneapolis can can you from your perspective at Center for Immigration Studies sort of give us an update on whether there's still an effective policy going on here directed by Tom Homan with regard to uh enforcing our immigration laws making sure that the border is secure and making sure that criminals who are here illegally are actually being detained and deported because it appears despite all the noise and all the rhetoric it's still business as usual and they're still achieving quite a bit well they definitely are I mean you don't the reason you heard about Minneapolis so much is because there was all of this confrontation with the agents in places where the government isn't allowing that kind of thing to happen the state or local government you know deportations are going on like you said almost in a routine but you know in a scaled up manner so in like red states they're deporting people right and left and again they're focusing on criminals this is what um Tom Homan said and you know I wrote a piece on this I'm just a whole other segment I don't want to sidetrack this but no it's fine two two groups of illegal aliens in a sense you have the people who are threats to public safety and the people who aren't and they're all criminals honestly I mean they're not even just jumping the border that's ID theft tax fraud perjury all of that every illegal alien has committed multiple federal felonies but the ones who are a threat to public safety are the ones you need ice to grab up with their body armor and throw out of the country the rest of them need to be dealt with differently because you can't one by one arrest everybody's millions of them you need to make them unemployable by doing work related enforcement paperwork enforcement with the IRS social security so that employers he don't hire them when they're unemployable and they can't open bank accounts and they can't get driver's licenses you're going to see uh self deportation increase significantly that's what they need to ramp up Tom Homan understands that but I don't it's not clear that they really instituted a big increase yet in work related enforcement we got to leave it there always a great conversation with marker Korean Center for Immigration Studies and thank you see you've talked me off the ledge I appreciate it it's not done done done it's just done thank you Mark appreciate no problem thank you seven seven fifteen Vince Conez is redefining news talk I'm Vince Conez host 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 it's a show with an obsessive focus on what's good for America you are going to love Vince the Vince show following listen on your favorite platform hi I'm Joe Saul see I hosted the stacking Benjamin's podcast you know what a lot of us get taxes wrong filing your taxes is basically data entry there's been this trend of people going oh it's so cool to follow my taxes in August it's so awesome don't worry I have an extension it'll be fine I'd like totally do it later stop do your frigging taxes now that was a really good fashion voice did you like you do that more frequently please yes every show for now I'll be like that stacking Benjamin's follow and listen on your favorite platform