I'm John Bachelor with Professor John U at the Civitas Institute, as well as the University of California

at law school at Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley. And I am learning from John,

from the professor, about the birthright citizenship debate at the Supreme Court that I witnessed,

thanks to television and recording most recently,

John Sauer for the government, Solicitor General of the U.S., making the case that birthright

citizenship is not extend to every child born here. And then there's the caveat. But the caveat

turns on where the parents are born and raised and where they

live, not that they've come to the United States without permission. However, John, United States

versus Wang Kim Ark, a Chinese parenting of a Chinese citizen born in a Chinese child born in the United States is judged by the

Supreme Court, not a liberal court at all, if I remember 1898, to be an American citizen,

though his parents are not. Isn't that plain, John?

I think so. It actually comes back to this domicile argument was the Trump administration's effort to wiggle out of Wankhamark.

But as you say, Wankhamark is the case of someone whose parents were from China, but who was born in the United States, leaves, and then comes back.

And there was a law called the Chinese Exclusion Act passed about 10 years before this case came up that tried to bar Chinese from becoming

citizens. It actually prohibited Chinese immigration and tried to prevent Chinese from

becoming citizens. And the same arguments

that were really presented to the court now were the same ones presented back then. And the

Supreme Court said, no, the 14th Amendment's text is clear. Everyone born here is a citizen. And then

the court read that language, the exception, subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, very narrowly, unlike the Trump administration, and said, that's not about

illegal aliens, illegal migrants. That phrase is about people who could be on our territory,

but are not under the flag of the United States.

...