Mark Krikorian, More SCOTUS Arguments, DHS Compromise, Newsom News

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 85 General Jack Keane will join us give us his assessment of the president's statement last night and then at 835 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're currently drafting a decision that would affirm birthright citizenship and the way you interpret the 14th amendment just recognize you're agreeing with Katanji Brown Jackson. You 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 Cracorian Center for Immigration Studies. I don't know Mr. Cracorian. 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 the way Justice Brown Jackson suggested it should be in other words to everybody. But that 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 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 might I mean I suspect that will be challenged as well. I mean ultimately this has to decide. Yeah it will be and ultimately so does will have to decide. But the fifth section five of the 14th amendment the last part of it specifically said Congress shall pass or may pass legislation to enforce the terms of the amendment. Well there you go. So that's yeah sure sure sure there that that does make sense. And Congress has like I said they passed during FDRs administration as 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 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 Kremlinologist. So take all that and four dollars to put that we'll get your cup of coffee. Starbuck. 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 Kataji Brown Jackson. But then that wasn't surprising you know it could be perfectly honest. So no I don't but again you can't really know what they're going to 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 going to lose the case. But I don't think that they're going to say and therefore this phrase means every Chinese tourist gets to have a U.S. citizen kid forever because it's in the Constitution. They're going to say it's ambiguous. You guys the political body it's your job to decide this. Congress passed 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 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. 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 or agents I should say excuse me more accurately. 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 enforcing our immigration laws making sure that the border is secure and making sure the 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 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 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 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've really instituted a big increase yet in work related enforcement. We got to leave it there always a great conversation with Mark McCorrian Center for Immigration Studies and thank you so you've talked me off the ledge I appreciate it it's not done done done it's just done thank you Mark. Appreciate it. No problem thank you. 7.715. Next roll with Vernon Davis the transformative journeys of athletes artists and entrepreneurs. Ladies and gentlemen lights out Sean Merriman. I want to be the biggest and the best when I do and so whatever it takes I'll get it done in business and everything else all I do is know how to fight and earn what I want. My man Malik asks what actor comedian what you want to collaborate with me Jamie Foxley Kevin Hart in a movie we said it on Vernon Davis podcast so we'll circle back be like yep it's gonna clear. Next roll with Vernon Davis follow and listen on your favorite platform. A little flavor of yesterday's historic arguments cut 16 please. How would it work you're not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not. Are you suggesting that when a baby is born people have to have documents present documents is this happening in the delivery room. We're in a new world now where eight billion people are one plane right away from having a a child who's a U.S. citizen. Well it's a new world this is same constitution. Yeah that last line is a good one I got to say from John Roberts although I don't know if it necessarily applies cut 17. Neil Gorsuch as you know is from Colorado and oftentimes with his Western perspective a lot of these issues he likes to bring up the the perspective of Native Americans Native Americans that was a thing you know in the mid 19th century we're still dealing with Indian reservations Native Americans who were here you know we've only been around for about four score and seven well by this time five score let's or four and a half score let's call it four and a half score and so when they implemented the 14th amendment and you know granted citizenship to the African slaves that had been brought here against their will there was a big question about well what about these Native and what about the ones who were here before we got here are the American citizens too how does that work so Neil Gorsuch and Justice Gorsuch brought that up Native Americans today are birthright citizens under your test and of your friend's test I think so I mean obviously they've been granted citizenship by statute put aside the statute you think they're birthright citizens no I think the the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright I understand that's what they said but your test is the domicile of the parents and that would be the test you'd have a supply today right yes yes so if a tribal Indian for example you know gives up allegiance to born today birthright citizens I think so on our test yeah they're awfully domiciled here okay and then not sure I have to think that through but but that's my reaction I'll take the yes that's all right that's again no no offense at mr. Sauer isn't a fantastic litigator and uh the solicitor general but I don't think that's a good look isn't it when you when you sound that unsure and that's sort of maybe I don't know I haven't thought about that yeah I guess so and then of course you're getting into debate about Native Americans and I understand the difference in tribal land and all of that but yeah um yeah not the best moment by the way back to I mean I'm sorry I can't quit her Katanji Brown Jackson the greatest legal mind of our age I don't know if you caught this or not but when she was saying well how are you gonna enforce this are people gonna bring documents to the delivery by the way when you're checked in to deliver a baby at the hospital you know they do ask for identification and such I'm just saying yes no matter if you are literally about to deliver that baby they're like paperwork first please that's right that's just saying that's why all newborn parents recognize that you know you do all that ahead of time if possible pre-register you know and all those things so there's less to worry about but uh that said I don't know if you caught this or not but this was a really really important moment in Katanji Brown Jackson's lifetime when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule and I think that's directly addressed in the SSA guidance that's cited in our brief what SSA says is there's currently a system where for example social security numbers are generated based on the birth certificate they say this can still be for the vast majority of institutes completely transparent you will still get you're not transparent I'm just talking about the particulars because now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States and I think Justice Barrett brought this up so we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions there it was did you hear it did you hear it oh yeah exactly turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States and I think Justice Barrett brought this up so we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions so this bigot this sexist intolerant bigot is now making the case before God and everyone while sitting at the Supreme Court we all have it on record now this bigot suggests that it's only pregnant women who are having babies how dare she how many who's going to be the first liberal senator to call for her impeachment absolutely intolerable I next you're going to tell me that she can even tell you what a woman is she's not a biologist are you a biologist justice Jackson she is not a biologist she didn't say birthing people she didn't say pregnant men or women pregnant women giving a deposition I'm triggered beyond belief cut 18 Amy Coney Barrett seemed rather skeptical of this entire thing and let's talk about its applications so you know there are some I can imagine it being messy in some applications so how what would you do with what the common law called families you know what when did she become an uptalker I remember her her testimony her her confirmation hearing she's brilliant she was fantastic but now suddenly over the what has has uptalk creep happened here is this because of some of her clerks but that but right citizen shop but what what what happened to this woman well she got into those chambers and right the leaders chambers at supreme court and all the clerks the college fresh out of college kids all talk like that she's surrounded by it sounds like you know suddenly it's a a tri-delta meeting there maybe alpha fee as they're figuring out the next fund are you an alpha fee yes president president um my ex-wife was an alpha fee oh lord you guys get along she's we're gonna have to rethink this entire relationship all right I didn't mean to interrupt the fine justice up talking her way through the arguments let's take a listen called foundlings you know the thing about this is then you have to adjudicate if you're looking at parents and if you're looking at parents domicile then you have to adjudicate both residents and intent to say what if you don't know who the parents are I think there are marginal cases that one I think has the benefit of being addressed in 1401 f where it talks about yeah yeah yeah but what about the constitution under the constitution it's domicile is a constitutional standard in all kinds of other situations well and it's hard versus jurisdiction personal jurisdiction well yeah and personal jurisdiction I mean 1332 diversity jurisdiction and the thing is it has to be litigated because it turns on intent and both the virtue of both you solely and you sanguines whichever one you pick it's a bright line rule how would it work how would you adjudicate these cases you're not going to know at the time of birth after the response from mr. sour Amy coney barrett just finished with a oh my god and called it a day it's 724 now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the wm al app o'connor and company good thursday morning to you at 736 and it's the second day of april you're listening to o'connor and company to get your day started the right way coming up at 805 general jack keen will join us to analyze president trump's statement to the nation about the orang conflict and the night at 35 court schlickter senior columnist at town hall larry o'connor with cassie smetley good morning cassie good morning larry this would be a good space wake up song i've been thinking about that all morning i wonder what they did you know they've been awake for 36 minutes now our heroic astronauts i wonder what song they did we'll have to research that we'll let you know momentarily what song they were am i spotting i didn't notice this earlier in the morning you have a uh are you is that a no kings shirt you're wearing there were you part of the no kings rally over the weekend i do see a crown on your shirt yeah no this is for my kansas city royals it's kind of a cool take on my kansas city royals spirit shirt do they still have a baseball team there oh lol nope it's like the shuttle cock the famous shuttle cocks at the nelson museum of art in kansas city with the royals crown we're very prideful in kansas city we love it are you what are you speaking of which what do you think of missouri's favorite son christigal radio talk show host podcaster throwing his hat in the ring running from missouri six yes i know this was all all the talk of the family text chain yeah about sam graves retiring christigal of course such a great guy i know you guys very good friends very good friends um i think he'll be a good messenger i think he's got that going for him well the uh for those of you who are wondering and have been tracking this the filing deadline is over he is going to face a primary challenge from a sitting city councilman in kansas city uh although i've i've taken a look at his track record uh and his voting record i don't think there's a lot to be proud of there on the city council of kansas city to tell you the truth it's a tough spot to be a lone republican voice on the city council of kansas city well but i don't but you know what we believe in primaries in the absolutely primary iron sharpens iron good guys that's right two good guys but i well well no it's only a win if christigal wins say it with me i'm all right you're not prepared to make an endorsement but we'll get you there all right so let's talk about i'd announced it yesterday from speaker the house mike johnson uh it really depends on who you read about how this worked out but it does look like speaker johnson let's say uh has relented let's say as you know just to remind you the senate sent a funding bill back to the house and uh basically they did not approve the appropriations both of the house had passed the speaker johnson had done all the heavy lifting on they said yeah yeah you need to rewrite this and remove homeless or remove homeless security from the package and then just throw that into reconciliation and and i think the initial reaction from speaker of the house mike johnson and leadership and basically congress in general was i'm sorry we don't work for you we're not we're not your clerks here we're not it's not our job to sort of draft bills to john thunes liking or chuck or even worse chuck schumer's liking we're the house of representatives we did our work i got a better idea how about we passed a continuing resolution with clean funding for everything and you passed what we drafted and we basically have gone through a few days of that which by the way is completely appropriate response i think i speaker johnson you very rarely see him p owed he was p owed at this whole thing and john thune doing it in the dead of night and getting out of town uh that said it appears as though they have worked out a deal in speaker johnson's statement he said in the coming days republicans in the senate and the house will be following through with the president's directive by fully funding the entire department of home and security on two parallel tracks through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process so they are going to move forward with reconciliation one small beautiful bill that will fund i and and and here's what's important in the language of this statement they will fund ice and the department of homeland security and all immigration enforcement through the end of the president's term so democrats can't jerk around with this again problem kassie and the challenge i should say is that during the reconciliation process if you're spending new money you have to come up with offsets you have to it has to be a zero balance sort of process through reconciliation and they got to come up to out of fix those numbers so we'll see we'll see what that looks like it's not going to be easy with both leaders in both chambers working with very small margins of error right this is progress this is i feel optimistic but it's not like oh we just paved a nice clean straight road no problem um there's still got some road to travel here and we'll see what happens but hopefully i'm i do think that hopefully that'll gather a lot of support just on the fact of the three years of funding that there's nearly three years of funding yeah so that it's like okay at the very least we can move on from this battle and they've got to move on to the rest of their agenda these guys have got to have something that they can write home about and i that's what's holding all of that up this is what's holding all that up and this is why i still think and and i know that i i think in this town in washington i'm in the minority and i used to agree with those who i disagree with now on this issue but i just i'm resolved that they just have to get rid of the filibuster they they have to modify the filibuster rule so that they can get something done otherwise what exactly are they going back to voters this november and and showing them that they got accomplished i knew you were going to say this and we were going to go back to this and you you're bringing me around even though i've been a stalwart no the filibuster is what separates the house from the senate and be thoughtful but when you go ahead well no no no i you're right i mean it is what separates the house from the senate but you know what else separates the house from the senate the senate minority party not shutting down the government three times in 12 months it's like it's not it's not john thune and republicans who will be upsetting the norms and sort of changing the face of the of the senate and the senate's character chuck schumer's already done that they they have have you have you seen the numbers with how they have blocked anything from happening in the last 12 months it's absolute insanity and you've made the point of we will regret that we did not take advantage of this political opportunity get rid of the filibuster to codify into law the things that are high priority for our party in our base because they will do it as soon as they have the chance because there's no longer the wall of cinema and mansion there's nobody left on the democrat side who are going to hold the line for it so the fact that john thune is is standing ground on this and mitch mcconnell and all the other republicans who refuse to modify the filibuster so that they can actually get something done it seems to me that their argument is uh that they are trusting the word of chuck schumer i think that by by showing restraint by not removing the filibuster they are taking a leap of faith that if democrats ever get back in charge of the senate they will show equal restraint i'm sorry that that position lacks evidence to support it i just don't see why they should make that leap of faith yeah i mean again i i want to be a holdout for it but chuck schumer's your best hope and i don't think chuck schumer's gonna be around much longer to be your best hope and even then do we trust him as far as we can throw him yeah so i don't tell me don't tell me about maintaining the the long storied history of the of the senate and the norms of the senate and tradition of the senate when you've got a man on the other side of the aisle who was willing to shut down the government and keep members of the military and members of tsa from getting paid for weeks on end and he's done it three times this year uh any norms in the senate any tradition any respect it's all been chucked out the window if i may use the term chucked out the window senator schumer it's 744 do it later stop do your friggin taxes now that was a really good fashion voice did you like it you do that more frequently please yes every show from now on stacking benjamin's follow and listen on your favorite platform it is 752 now a connor and company and uh chris rufo broke a story yesterday about a gavin newson's fraud and there's a lot of fraud in gavin newson's california but according to chris rufo's research multiple senior hhs officials estimate that under gavin newson california state medicaid program lost 25 of its budget to fraud one out of every four dollars fraudulent it would mean that it's currently losing 50 billion dollars a year to scammers fraudsters and organized crime rings and i have no doubt this is true it was like a open uh cookie jar during covid 19 and during the pandemic and they knew there was fraud going on but they didn't care oh we just got to get money out to people we just got to get money out to people and they'll say oh it was a pandemic we didn't have any guardrails no this is now systemic at this point gavin newson has an entire team of functionaries who sole purpose is to write dunks on twitter and they're absolutely terrible at it says chris rufo because the only response that uh they were they gave was some sort of snark on the x platform instead of actual responses to the fraud allegations of course the snark is always their response but but you know what democrats please make him your frontrunner for your presidential candidate do it yeah here's his wife by the way we've been talking about the first partner quite a bit and he decided to attack as she decided to attack uh the very base of voters that abandoned the democrats young men listen my sons um are really into sports are some of my girls but my sons will watch their favorite athletes on youtube or and then all of a sudden you'll you'll find this sort of alt right extreme you know jordan peterson type speaking to my sons right it's insane right connected to the sports alt right extremism like jordan peterson you know the canadian psychologist who says you know men should you know make their bed and be responsible and take order of their lives so that they can actually you know be a man in society you go with that dear if you're going to call jordan peterson an alt right extremist well and i had a thought about this because remember when gavin newson was interviewing the late charlie kerrk and said that his son asked his dad if he could stay home from school to meet charlie yeah and now she's talking about how her kid is running into videos of jordan peterson that's called an algorithm honey her son is trying to get around whatever drivel his parents are feeding him at the at the kitchen table amen and i just think that this is one area where um they maybe need to check what what their kids are trying to to learn because i think they're following their parents yeah yeah exactly or kids uh you might want to use a vp on so your parents can't see it just 755 hi i'm joe sol c hi host of 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 file 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 friggin taxes now that was a really good fashion voice did you like it 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