Native lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with Reason Choice Media.
Nobody knows.
Let's turn our attention to the Supreme Court case Claire Thomas.
Let's start with.
Him, you know, every now and then, not every now and then Anyway, today Claire Thomas asked this question about dres Scott, and that's not the question we have. But I do want to roll the first Claire's Thomas question we have. I just want to acknowledge Donald Trump, who has been in the room for our arguments we're saying today. But it's going to end tomorrow, obviously, but this is still fresh, so we don't have it all together. I do want to roll this claireence Thomas question.
Generally, you're getting a lot of questions about immigration, and they harke it back, of course, to the citizenship, which is defined in or set out in the fourteenth Amendment. How much of the debates around the fourteenth Amendment had anything to do with immigration.
I think that the principal focus of those debates has to do really not with immigrants, but with the Indian tribes. I mean, obviously the main goal that one pervading purpose of this Court said in the Slaughterhouse cases was to establish the citizenship of the freed slaves and their children. But they were very concerned about the problem of something that they all accepted as a given, which is that the children of tribal Indians are not within the rule
of birthright citizenship. So I think that's what they focus and we draw an analogy to that to the issue of temporary sojourners. But there are mentions of temporary sojourneying multiple places in the congressional debates, and all of those quotes go in our direction.
So that's the first one. I don't know if y'all want to get into another part of the orals here, but what is I think really fascinating. The lead attorney on our side of the issue is a child of immigrants arguing birthright citizenship. And you see the blatant hypocrisy not only of the Republican Party, the Trump administration, and probably some of these justices when this ruling will eventually come out, are on this particular issue, some of them being children of immigrants themselves.
But I don't know, I wanted to if.
I could just back up a second to mention because I know we've all been wiscons in this case, as we've heard or arguments today before the you know, the
High Court. But what's that question here is that the President has signed an executive order several months back that basically says that redefines the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which established, just for all of our knowledge, that an individual born here in the United States is considered a citizen of the United States of America, regardless of where
their parents originated. And there are a few exceptions to that rule, usually having to deal with diplomats, foreign diplomats and high ministers to respective country, and in the case of foreign occupation that the law doesn't apply to those individuals those individuals, but they're basically four exceptions to the law.
And it really even though you heard the mention of dred Scott the Fourteenth Amendments, how it came into formation in the first place in eighteen sixty eight, it was part of what we now know as the sort of reconstruction clauses of the Constitution, and those were the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendment, giving black folks in this country access to the constitutional guarantees that we were denied at the forming of this country, but it dates back to you know,
the early sixteen hundreds as part of Calvin's case in Great Britain that established that anyone born under the jurisdiction of the king had to be basically obedient and is a subject of the king, regardless again of what their
parents did or where they came from. So, although it's been the law of the land for one hundred and fifty years coming into formation since the fourteenth Amendment, it has been the practice of the United States, mostly for white men, but the practice of the United States since before the founding of the United States of America. So this man has the audacity to challenge this constitutional amendment that basically black people are responsible for it having come
into formation in the first place. And I just think we are to as a community, really understand the import of this debate today, this week, and in the weeks ahead as the Supreme Court sort of deals with this. I think a lot of people are assuming that it's going to go one way. But I thought the same thing about others settled pieces of law, that the court, this court, this conservative court, would go one way, and it ended up going a different one. So let's just
pay attention to what's happening here. The fourteenth Miendment exists because of us, but as affirmed for in future cases, it applies to everybody and anybody born here in the United States on our soil.
And that's just the party.
I do think I appreciate you backing into context here, Andrew's important. Donald Trump, moments after leaving the oral arguments, went to truth Social number. By the way, this is the only time in history documented that sitting president attended oral arguments, so that's also a major We can argue that he was there to try to intimidate the justices in some way, but he posted on true Social shortly after leaving, we are the only country in the world
stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship. He's wrong. Thirty other
countries at least also have birthright citizenship. The other piece that I think is really important here, and I actually want to at least commend John Roberts for this one statement he made the Solicitor General General arguing that even though the Framers didn't have in mind, which was John Roberts question, that this is the type of situation that would come up people coming here, you know, falling in love with someone who was already a citizen here and
having a child, how do you determine whose parent is that you know is responsible for the baby and where their citizenship lay. And the Solicitor General Sours says, we're in a new world now, and John Roberts, Chief Justice John Roberts says, back, it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. And so I think there are these
interesting pockets where you see their humanity. But to Andrew's point, we are literally one Supreme Court decision away from the dismantling and the gutting and the wrongful interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment, of any amendment in any single case, in any single case, they could decide not to rely on President.
They could they could decide to rely on.
Court president case President that is not in our favor, right like it ain't always been.
The Supreme Court decision they're talking about dread Scott.
Dread Scott is not what established birthright citizenship. It was the case that broke dread Scott's hard enough to cause his death because they did not see him as a citizen, as a human, because.
He was an en slave person right property, that's right. Chatto, I can ask one question though.
One of the things, because I think both of you and Andrew, you highlighted the importance Angela and Andrew gave us the history. But one of the questions we haven't answered for listeners, and I want to see what you three think and and kind of just trim it down is why, you know, what, why are they going through this? Why are they going through this exercise? Practically like why?
Yeah, I don't want to I want bread to be able to wait.
I mean, I'm a lawyer, but I have been black my whole life, a Negro.
As those.
I'm from Saint Louis, which means every MLK day the show me state period, y'all know, I put on for Saint Louis, And every mlkday we marched from Pala Symphony Hall to the old Courthouse in downtown Saint Louis where Dread and Harriet Scott stood before the Missouri State Supreme Court. They were also members of the church that my father later passored, the second oldest church founded by freeing enslaved
black people in the state of Missouri. And thinking about that history, what is clear to me is that what they told Dread and Harriet about what they thought about their dignity and humanity remains true. So they didn't recognize their humanity and their dignity, then they don't. These folks don't have any intent on recognizing our humanity or dignity now. And just because they're using us as the cudgel to try to make their argument doesn't mean that we're safe.
And I think it's really really important that those of us who can trace our families back four and five generations on this land, don't get comfortable and think that this thing can apply to us, because it absolutely can. I just think that they want the whole thing to themselves. That's just what I think it comes down to.
I think brit is right. I do want to just if I can drop in another clip. We have a dissenter in chief in the Supreme Court. Her name is Katanji Brown Jackson, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, and today she demonstrates I think a great in her questioning Bikari an answer suggested answer to your why, let's roll that.
Did I understand you to say that domicile is going to be eventually or is controlled by Congress? Who is domiciled? I'm struggling to figure out who is domiciled.
In your argument, the domiciliaries are people who are lawfully present and have an intent to remain permanently. So that's the kind of black letter understanding of domicile. Now, Congress can't dictate the certain classes of people legal entrance and so forth, cannot awfully lack of legal capacity to form a legally binding Docit is that.
So then doesn't it make the domicile for the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment turned then ultimately on Congress's will in a way that the framers did not intend. I mean, my understanding was the Framers put this citizenship clause into the Constitution to prevent future Congresses from being able to affect citizenship in this way.
For sure, Very briefly, No, I don't think so, because it is up to the alien whether or not they want to be domiciled here. Now, there may be.
Said Congress can make determinations as to who counts as being domiciled here. So that's true, Then it ultimately would impact in your theory whether or not this person can claim that they have citizenship for Fourteenth Amendment purposes based on Congress's determination. I just thought that's what the Fourteenth Amendment was trying to get away from.
Yes, very briefly, I just point you to the discussion in Professor Worman's im GUS brief where he talks about this is not a new problem, going back even to the British common law. There's a situation of people who lack a safe conduct and are passing through the King's domains without permission. And he says, the best reading of the common laws, they are not in the protection of the King, and they're not covered by their royal birthright.
Citizenship passing through. He's been real colorful with the language there. But I will tell you, first of all, I'll say Justice Jackson and I would add to that Justice Soto Mayor both have a way of making the High Court accessible in their questions and the way in which they summarize their questions. As a non lawyer, I feel like I can access what it is that they're trying to say and what the crux of the argument is about.
To Bakari's question, because I think it really it's a great one and it's one that we all ought to consider, Like why now, why after terms before the founding of this nation, does it decide under Trump and his stooges to redefine who a US citizen is. And although a lot of us may think that this thing is powered by the immigration of Latin Americans, I think into the US, that's who they like to use as today's sort of boogeyman. I think it has everything to do with what surfaces
in Donald Trump's voice. Every time he has the opportunity to talk about the kinds of people he believes ought to be in the United States, he talks about people from shithole countries, places that we don't want.
Right.
He talks about South America at the whole continent of Africa to forgive him. He doesn't know the demographic diversity that exists on the continent, but whatever be that as it may. And then when he talks about Europe, he talks about Europe losing its authenticity, its identity because of the immigration of brown peace. So lets none of us get it confused that what this theme is about isn't
just about Latin American immigration in this country. They wish to reverse the wheels of immigrant of the census of this country going forward. They know that white folks have a lower birth rate than any other group. They know that the browning of America is real, that is here, and that it will increase, and so to preserve their power, they believe they need a more Eurocentric United States of America.
This is this is based in racism, as was of the origination here, as was the Fourteenth Amendment which saved us from it, as was the Southern States then implementing their own discriminatory laws after the Fourteenth Amendment to keep us from accessing power. So they're not talking about black people, they're not name checking us right now as the problem. They're using us and escapegoading us as part of the solution through the fourteenth minis and on this argument. But
don't get it twisted. They see us as big a threat as they see Latin American immigration. They don't want us counted in the census, and they don't want us being the majority. Ultimately, I think this is about what you hear Donald Trump say, which is he wants a whiter America and he wants an America that brings people in from European countries who are also just European and Dutch people from South Africa. Don't forget.
They going back. They don't even like it here. They all go back.
They say this is a way, They say, we ain't want to be in the ghetto.
I think that, you know, just summarily, it's two things, and I think Andrew hit the nail on the head. I mean, it's it's about power, and it's about fear. It's the fear of losing what they believe to be theirs, the browning of America, this inability to understand Angela rise phrase that this joint for free right, and not acknowledging that the equity of of of what diversity has put into this country, not recognizing those contributions. And I think lastly,
it's about just not valuing diversity. You know, that power, that that power talking point is so real because it comes down to elections. They see themselves having a better opportunity winning an election, maintaining power with the fewer black and brown folk in this country, period, point blank, fullstop.
And I honestly don't think that that Donald Trump. I find him to be a useful idiot for those of it, those individuals who are around him, because I think that we don't we talk about it a lot, but the Stephen Millers and the Bannons of the world are the
ones who are orchestrating this. And then the sad part is the the Cassidys and the Cottons of the world, the Hallies of the world, the Vanceas of the world don't have the testicular fortitude to be able to rise up to this case, this occasion and actually recognize what America is and or her value. So I think power and I think fear are whatsdrivingness.
Power, though right, fear is how you maintain power. I say this all the time, and I teach on this every single conflict in the West, in America, in particular, in white dominant culture, comes down to the desire to hoard power. White dominant culture teaches us that power is a pie and there are only so many slices to
go around. The idea that we are all born with innate power and it is therefore abundant, and we can share it and all be better when we share it is foreign to a white the ideology of whiteness, right, it is it is natural to our communities, It is foreign to them. So they're going to maintain power by any means necessary and at all costs, which means stoking fear, which means stoking violence very intentionally, right, because that's always
a tool of power. Because they mean to, they intend to ensure that they don't share power with anybody but themselves. And if there are wealthy people of color who think they're gonna get in on no pie, they are sadly mistaken.
Native Lampid is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.