For the first time, a president has joined oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump listened in.

As attorneys argued before our highest court as to whether or not we should allow illegal immigrants

to have children in this country and grant them citizenship.

And oh boy, was it contentious. Now, many people are saying it may fall

six to three. It was really bad for Trump's side, for our side. The argument coming from Roberts

says, the country may have changed, the world may have changed, but the constitution remains the

same, which presents many moral philosophical

challenges for our nation. The argument, I suppose, from John Roberts is that, though a country

may face an existential crisis, if the structure of such a country permits its own destruction, it must be destroyed.

I didn't say that explicitly, but that is the philosophy behind the arguments from a conservative

judge who says, let the country be damned.

Now, of course, everyone's favorite Supreme Court justices, Thomas and

Alito, seemed very much to agree or may lean more towards birthright citizen was never supposed

to extend to birth tourism companies or illegal immigrants. The principal argument from the

government is this.

Even in Wang Kim Ark, which set the precedent that if you're born or you're a citizen,

they said you must be domiciled here.

What does that mean?

It means you live here.

You have legal permanent residence and the intention to stay.

Ergo, if you are here illegally, you are not domiciled here.

...