Why Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Constitutional Right

I like things my way, my coffee, my schedule, and my treatment. So I talked to my doctor about self-injecting with the Vivgard-Hytrullo pre-filled syringe, which contains F-Gartigamutalpha and high Lauranidase QVC. It's injected under your skin, subcutaneously. It means I can inject in my space on my time. It's my treatment, my way. Visit Vivgardmyway.com. That's V-Y-V-G-A-R-T-My-Way.com.

And talk to your doctor about Vivgard Hytrullo, brought to you by Argeny. It's called soccer. It's called football. Uh, soccer. Football. Domino's best deal ever let you get any pizza, including stuffed crust, with any toppings for $9.99. We can agree on that.

Yeah, fully. So pineapple? Don't ruin it. Get any pizza including stuffed crust with any topics for $999. Finally something everyone can get behind. And if the rest disagree, that's between them and Domino's, which means that. the only thing left to fight over is who's ordering. Dom.

Mnove. Price is higher for some locations. Excludes Excel and specialty pizzas. Select this offer from 615 to 726. Online only. Size availability varies by crust type. Max, seven topics. Six per pan and New York style crust.

Minimum purchase required for delivery. Prices participation delivery area and charges may vary. And we are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittal's senior elections correspondent at The Federalist and your experience Sherpa on today's quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio at the Federalist.com. Follow us on X at FDRLST. Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and,

of course, to the premium version of our website as well. Our guest today is Ira Melman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, aka Fair. On birthright citizenship, that's what we're going to talk about today, as well as abating the invasion, how enforcement efforts are going in Trump 2.0. Ira, thank you so much for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. Good to be here. Thank you. I think a good starting point would be the recent oral arguments for the Supreme Court.

I know that you folks, fair, kept a close eye on those oral arguments as it relates to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. That is doing away with what I believe to be an absolute abuse of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. others disagree with me on that, obviously. And here's the concern, Ira. At least one can never say ultimately until the decision comes out. But the sense you got was that the majority of these justices are fine with the situation as is. What did you think about the oral arguments in that case? Yeah.

I mean, it's always kind of tricky and dangerous to try to read tea leaves, but they seem to be missing. what the key point here is. The 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause says all persons born unnaturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. And that clause and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is really what it comes down to. What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Does it simply mean that you're here and you have to obey, you know, the laws like everybody else? Or does it mean something deeper?

You know, we know that, for instance, children born to foreign diplomats in the United States are not U.S. citizens because they're, you know, simply not subject to the jurisdiction of this country. But it also, you know, wasn't until an act of Congress in the 1920s that citizenship was automatically bestowed on the children of Indians in this country because they were not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. and that did not seem to come up a lot in the questioning of the justices. You know, I think we can assume that the three liberal justices are not going to take the side that we think they should. But it was concerning that some of the more conservative justices didn't really hit on that very much. Yeah, indeed. And I would have thought that Justice Gorsuch might have hit on your latter point more so. He has been not just, he's been extremely knowledgeable in this area. I think he is a history buff, if you will, on the legal aspect, certainly of the Indian relations

and what, you know, has changed over the years on that front from the beginning. Were you surprised that he didn't go too much into that? just a little mention, if I remember the oral arguments correctly. Yeah. You know, as I said, a lot of the, you know, the omissions in the questioning were concerning. Again, you know, you hard to know what, you know, it's going on in their minds and what, you know, they may already kind of know on their own. But these are the sorts of questions that they should have pressed the, the, both the plaintiff and the defendant,

on this. So yeah, I mean, subject to the jurisdiction thereof is what it comes down to. If the framers had simply wanted anybody who was born on U.S. soil to be a U.S. citizen, they would have stopped right there. They would have just said all persons born and naturalized in the United States are American citizens. But they didn't. They added that clause. And the Constitution does not go in for rhetorical flourishes.

It wasn't like, you know, hey, this will make the sentence sound a little classier. it is there for a reason. And, you know, people who are in the country illegally are not really subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way that you or I are subject to the jurisdiction. You know, even outside the United States, we, the U.S. government has some purchase on us. You know, if we go and live abroad,

we still have to file tax returns here in the United States. You know, if we were a few years younger and there was a draft, be drafted even if we were outside the United States. A foreign national, especially somebody who's in the country illegally and subject to remove it at any time, once they are beyond the geographic boundaries of the United States, they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of this country. And, you know, again, if you go back and you read the contemporaneous arguments that took place in the 1860s, that's what the framers were hitting on. And that's why that

clause is there. No doubt about it. And to me, it is like the birthright citizenship argument, the law really of the land for the last 130 years has been bad law for all of the reasons you just explained. It's reminiscent to me of Roe v. Wade, you know, that goes back 50 years, not plus 50 years Plus, not as long as the issue that we're talking about, but for a long time, people knew that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I would think that these justices who knew that Roe v. Wade, the majority anyway, was bad law, would approach it the same way. I know there are two distinctly different cases, but in regards to the strength of the laws, this seems to me to be a pretty easy decision, but clearly they're wrestling with it.

Yeah, clearly they are. And at least that's the impression that most people came away with from the oral arguments. But again, you know, they're going to go back. They're going to read a lot of the briefs that were submitted, the amicus briefs, that, you know, were submitted by people on both sides of the issue. And perhaps. that may have more sway than the oral arguments themselves. But as I said at the top, you know, reading tea leaves is always a very risky endeavor. What did you think of Solicitor General John Sauer's approach to all of this? I know that some have been critical that there were points that he missed along the way.

I think he did his best to make the sort of arguments that you're talking about here. How did you feel about his argumentation before the court? Yeah, I mean, he didn't really bring up the issues that we've been discussing here, you know, what it really means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That, you know, he clearly could have at some point in the questioning brought that up. You know, some of these questions were kind of broad. And he had the opportunity at many points to step up and say, you know, let's really consider what is at stake here.

Let's consider the wording of the Constitution. And just even the simple logic, you know, somebody shows up here, crosses the border and gives birth 10 minutes later. No connection to the United States, whatever. Automatically, that child is a U.S. citizen or people coming on tourist visas. You know, you have a thriving birth tourism industry here in the United States

where you have people coming to this country on tourist visas. You know, they have paid a lot of, of money to contractors here in the United States to, you know, get them set up in a clinic, give birth in this country. And then they take, you know, they go home. But, you know, with the intent that this child may at some point when he or she reaches the age of majority be able to petition to bring the entire family to this country. So these are the sorts of things that should have been brought up, you know, if not by the justices themselves, then by the solicitor general, who is there to argue on behalf of the court.

of the administration. Agreed. And I think I guess what I was talking about was he did bring up the point that should really resonate with the left side of this bench. They're always talking about the living, breathing constitution. And the argument that John Sauer brought out was, you know, and again, he didn't clearly state what needed to be stated here, but he said, we are living in much, different times now as it relates to border security, as it relates to immigration law, certainly as it relates to immigration law enforcement, which we'll talk about in just a bit. But that has to be, wouldn't you think, on the minds of the justices, textualist, as they may be?

Yeah, you know, in 1868, the immigration laws were, you know, very different. You know, we did not have the kind of immigration laws that we have today. Nobody could have foreseen the possibility of, you know, millions of people coming to the United States from all over the globe. You know, back in 1868, it was an arduous journey. You know, you'd have to get on a boat someplace and come to the United States. It was, it wasn't like today where you can just hop on an airplane and from anywhere on the globe and be here in a matter of hours. So the world has changed dramatically since 1868. the intent of the framers, at least in our opinion, yours and mine, when they included subject to the jurisdiction thereof, was that it didn't apply to just anybody who showed up that there had to be, there were certain qualifications.

But, you know, the framers of that amendment simply had no way of knowing what life would be like in 2026. No doubt about that. And, you know, the times indeed have changed and we are dealing with the reality. I mean, as you said, in 1868, there wasn't a birthright tourism industry that we have seen today. And that has to tell you something, doesn't it? That we have a birthright tourism industry that we have seen today. And that has to tell you something, doesn't it? That we have a birthright tourism industry. industry, and not a tourism industry, a birthright travel industry, where, as you mentioned before, people are coming here to have children here and then leave thereafter so that they can get citizenship for their child and then maybe eventually for themselves. Yeah. You know, citizenship, I mean, we're dealing with a couple of issues here. You know, does where you belong just happen to be, you know, wherever you popped out of the womb or or do you really belong to that society?

What is your connection with this country, the culture of this country? You know, somebody who has been here, you know, for a few days, late stages of pregnancy and gives birth. What is the connection? You know, it's like saying, you know, if somebody in, you know, labor comes into your living room and gives birth in your home, is that child now a member of your family? Are you obligated to provide, you know, control? tribute to the $529 fund so the kid can go to college. What defines being an American? Is it simply geographic boundaries or is it something more than that? Obviously, you know, geography is part of it,

but I think there's a lot more to being a citizen of the United States than simply having been born on U.S. oil. I agree with you completely. But then there is the Ketanji Brown Jackson Brown Jackson, turning Japanese, I really think so, precedent. The justice, according to her statements during oral arguments, has a sense that she can have a certain amount of allegiance to Japan if hypothetically she stole someone's wallet and she was part then taken into the judicial system, or the, or the, criminal justice system in Japan. Let's hear a little bit of that, by the way, because once again, Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson shows us that you don't have to understand the Constitution

or the law in general to be a Supreme Court justice, apparently. Here's some of that. I was thinking about this, and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have, You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I, a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me.

It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on, even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally. owing allegiance in that sense? Well, you heard it. What do you think about Ketanji Brown Jackson's theory?

The turning Japanese, I really think so, precedent. Yeah. You know, there is a distinction between territorial jurisdiction and sovereign jurisdiction. So obviously, you know, if you commit a crime in Japan, you are subject to the laws of Japan, but that doesn't mean that you are somehow, you know, now a member. that society. So yes, anybody who is on U.S. soil is subject to the laws of the United States. If you steal something, we can prosecute you. But, you know, again, subject to the jurisdiction is more than simply, you know, you have to obey the laws just like the rest of us. It is having

an allegiance. It's having a connection to this country. And that doesn't come from sneaking across the border. That doesn't come as a result of getting a tourist visa under false pretext. so that you can give birth here. It's impossible to exactly define what it is, but I think most people understand the difference between, you know, just you're here and you've got to stop at the red lights and what it really means to be an American. I hear what you're saying, but do you think that this court will say what Supreme courts have said over and over again about different laws, including the aforementioned

Roe v. Wade until 2022. It's settled law, Ira. It's been settled. Basically, the precedent was set, again, 130 years ago, and that's where we stand now. Of course, that precedent involves a case that is completely different to the sort of birthright citizenship we've been talking about. But neither here nor there, we hear the argument over and over again, certainly from the left in this case, that it's settled law. Yeah, I mean, as you mentioned, we heard that a lot in Roe v. Wade. But again, it's interesting that the 14th Amendment itself or the citizenship clause was a response to what was then settled law, which was, you know, handed down to the Dred Scott decision.

So the people who framed the 14th Amendment said, no, you know, we, you know, we have an obligation to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves that, You know, they are citizens of the United States because they are here. They, you know, they didn't come voluntarily, but they were here. They were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And therefore, they qualified as citizens. So, yeah, I mean, we've had all sorts of cases where settled law has been unsettled as a result of the Supreme Court looking at different circumstances and saying, yeah, that doesn't apply anymore.

Yeah. Now, we've had a number of cases where settled law, like slavery, the most egregious example was awful inhumane law. But of course, the left argues that if you, if you change the existing law, if you will, it's been in place for 130 years on birthright citizenship, then that's inhumane. And I don't think that's a very strong argument for a number of reasons. Clearly, I know that Fair doesn't believe that. But I think that argument is in some of their briefs before this court. It may well be.

But look, I mean, we have to understand. First of all, these kids are not going to be stateless. They will be recognized as citizens of whatever country their parents are citizens of. And, you know, there's a difference between a punishment and not extending a reward. giving people who come to the United States illegally or come as birth tourists, giving them a reward through their children of U.S. citizenship is very different from punishing them. Nobody's being punished here if we change the way we look at the 14th Amendment. It simply is taking away a reward for violating our laws.

Yeah, it definitely is. We've seen a lot of incentivizing, of course, over the years. under both parties, under both administrations. But at the end of the day, I know we've lost sight of this today, particularly on immigration law, especially what we've seen over the last year plus in this country. The law is the law. The rule of law should be the standard on which we operate. And yet we have all kinds of people in this country because they don't like the law.

They don't want to follow the law, and I think about that, of course, specifically in immigration law enforcement. We're going to talk about that in just a moment. Our guest today is Ira Melman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, otherwise known as Fair, on birthright citizenship and our next topic, abating the invasion. And of course, when I talk about the invasion, I talk about the millions upon millions of illegal aliens. that entered this country over a four-year span by design by the Biden administration. I don't know how much control or input the former president had in all of this. We have had serious concerns about how much he knew about anything for some time. That said, the people around him were pushing this, the Alejandro Majorcas of the world.

and their pals and allies. It does tie directly into this birthright citizenship case, Ira, and that is how far we are getting away from the rule of law for laws that we don't like in this country. Where do you see all of that going on the immigration front? Well, you know, clearly there are sharp differences in this country. You have one party that is essentially, on the side of, you know, no enforcement of immigration laws. You have, you know, the Trump

administration that is endeavoring to enforce them. You know, you mentioned the border. They have effectively closed the border. There's still people coming across. There's been an uptick recently, but it is a trickle compared to what we saw during the four years of the Biden administration. they demonstrated that the laws were sufficient for us to be able to enforce our borders in spite of the fact that Joe Biden for four years swore that he didn't have that power. And they're also moving to remove people from the country over here illegally. And, you know, we have to look at what happened during that four-year period. Some 10 million people crossed the border illegally.

You know, not all of them stayed. Some of them may have been put back and then come back again. And we don't know the exact number. We do know that there were about 2 million gotaways, people who eluded detection by the Border Patrol. They were detected but not apprehended. And at a time when all you had to do was turn yourself into the Border Patrol, you'd be released within 24, 48 hours with a plane ticket to wherever your final destination was.

There was a good reason why those people didn't turn themselves in and paid the smugglers extra to get the. into the country. And you also have to look at the impact that it has had on American society. You know, I remember back in 2023 at the start of the school year, New York City, which was ground zero for the mass influx of illegal aliens. The New York City public school system had to enroll 21,000 new non-English speaking kids. That has an impact on everyone. It has an impact on the taxpayers. You know, at the cost of educating a kid in New York City, that came to about an extra billion dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets. But even more importantly, it came at the expense of the education of lots of other kids in the New York City public school system.

And those are the kids who are most at risk. If you're sitting in one of the executive suites at Goldman Sachs, you are not sending your kids to the New York City public school system. But if you are poor, if you're working class in New York City, you don't have any other options. kid is losing out while the teacher is trying to manage, you know, kids speaking five, six different languages, you know, using Google Translate to be able to communicate with them, your kid is not learning anything. And that is going to be a lifelong disadvantage. So, you know, these are the issues that we have to grapple with. And, you know, in spite of the fact that, you know, the Democrats have their hair on fire every time an illegal alien is arrested,

there are victims of illegal immigration. We may not. be able to put a precise face on them. Oh my goodness. Yes. But real people are being, are being harmed. Yeah. Ask my, my friend Joe Abraham, who lost his daughter, Katie, 20 years old, a year ago, January to an illegal immigrant who was drunk and crashed into the vehicle, Katie was riding. And along with four college friends, two young ladies with so much promise and so much hope, loved by their families, are gone now because an illegal immigrant was allowed to get behind, first of all, get into the country twice, then got behind the wheel of a vehicle and decided to get drunk and drive the vehicle

at 78 miles per hour in a commercial residential zone and then smash into that vehicle. The damage is all over the place and it is growing. And for those who make the argument, well, it's, you know, illegal immigrants don't commit crimes at a higher rate than U.S. citizens. First of all, that is a strained argument, to say the least. And it is ultimately in a logical argument because you would not have the Abraham family mourning the loss of their 20-year-old daughter had this guy not been led into the country. twice along with so many other illegal immigrants. And that's the issue. But is that resonating with people? It resonates with most people. It seems not to resonate with particular people in Washington, D.C. and in state and local government offices. You know, you mentioned the case

of your friend, but that's just one of many, many cases. I, you know, I don't recall whether the perpetrator had ever been arrested by local authorities and turned loose. But, you know, on top of what you just described, you have these sanctuary policies where the rule is, if you arrest somebody who's in the country illegally, and I says, you know, we want that person. We, you know, you release him back into the community. We just saw an example within the past two weeks of Sheridan Gorman,

you know, a college freshman in Chicago, who was murdered by an illegal alien who had been arrested. by the Chicago Police Department for another offense. He was supposed to show up for his trial. He never did. They never went looking for him. And so now Sheridan Gorman is dead. Her family is mourning her loss.

And it happens over and over and over again. Again, you know, you know, we were talking about just simple logic in the birthright citizenship case. This should be simple logic. If you're in the country illegally, if you're arrested for another offense, it doesn't have to be, you know, a serial killer. But, you know, if you're already in custody, if you've already shown a propensity not to obey the laws of this country, and ICE says, hey, we want this guy, it should just be a no-brainer to turn him over to ice. It should be a no-brainer, but you're dealing with people, well, you complete the thought. Who may not have a brain? Well, you mentioned that,

the New York City, exactly. You mentioned the New York City School District having to deal with 21,000 plus students, non-English-speaking students when they began the school year because of this. You talk about children not being able to learn. That's what I think of when I think of the mayor of New York City, when I think of the mayor of Chicago and Los Angeles and all of these sanctuary cities. And remember, they were begging the Biden administration, which ultimately gave them what they wanted, federal taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess that they and the Biden administration made.

That will happen again if this kind of mentality continues moving forward. The taxpayer ultimately is on the hook for this stuff, Ira. It is. And, you know, who knows what their motivations are, you know, maybe it's more federal money. we have, you know, coming up in a few years, the census. Right now, we count just people who are in the country as, you know, for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts and representation. It also affects the number of electoral votes that each state has. So, you know, you look at some of these places where people are fleeing, you know, people are getting out of New York, they're getting out of Chicago, they're getting out of California.

You know, that's costing these local jurisdictions. political clout. It is costing them federal dollars that will be funneled their way. But, you know, I think it's more ideological for them. They simply don't want the laws of the United States enforced when it comes to immigration policy. And everything they do, everything they do, it demonstrates that their highest priority is illegal aliens. You know, you probably saw the clip of Chris Murphy, the Senator, from Connecticut a few weeks ago.

No surprise there. Yeah, it was dug up from 2024. He said the people we care about most are the undocumented residents or whatever term he used. He came right out and said it. He didn't say the other part, though, which I believe he believes in his heart and his motivations, because this is a cynical calculus. It's not so much that a lot of these liberals, Democrats in Congress in positions of authority, not so much that, you know, they believe in welcoming

our new neighbors, as they like to say. They see it, as you mentioned before, the census count. They see it as non-citizens, millions of them, eventually becoming constituents, eventually becoming members of their party. And when that happens, this is the math. they will have one party rule, just like they've had in California for a long time. Are people at all seeing through that? Because that is exactly what's going on, Iron. I don't know what people are seeing, but clearly that seems to be a motivation for these jurisdictions. You know, you look at what is happening.

You know, some of this may be caused by the fact that you do have so many illegal aliens, coming in and it's costing so much money. And, you know, the policies are now going in favor of the illegal aliens. But, you know, people are leaving places like California, places like New York, places like Illinois in droves. You just had, ironically, Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, begging people to come back from Florida. You know, two, three years ago, she told them if you don't like what we're doing here,

why don't you go to Florida? And they said, okay, we're going to Florida. Now she wants them back because her tax base has left.

Did you know one Annie Ann's pretzels is the same amount as an hour of work in Pennsylvania? The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. How is a pretzel worth an hourly wage? Because we keep printing money. Our government is living beyond our means. Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.

Check out the Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. You're absolutely right. I mean, again, they never learn because while they invite people and who's going to rush back to New York and New York City right now, for the love of God. They escaped it for a reason. But, you know, they will say, come on back, you know, we're ready for you. If I'm someone who has fled a New York in Illinois, California, and someone says that to me, the first thing I'm going to say is, yeah, right. And the second thing, if that is my birthplace or my home for a long time and I've had to leave

it because of the idiotic policies theirs, I'm going to say, prove it to me. And every day they prove why people have fled those places. But I want to talk about, you know, some of the polling that's involved here, Ira, because and I think about it this way, because I'm thinking about my dad today, he would have been 90 years old this day. And God rest his soul. When my old, I hear this story, Ira, for my brothers all the time. They're eight and ten years old.

So they think that the kid brother really got a pass from discipline from the folks, you know. I'm not alone and they are not alone in that line of thinking. But they would tell me stories about when dad got home from the pickle factory in Rockford, Illinois, he'd come home smelling of pickles and was very tired from a long day of work. Meanwhile, the two boys were rambunctious as boys are, and they got into all kinds of trouble. And mom would say, wait until your father comes home. And then when dad got home, it was, you don't know what these boys were doing. They did this and they did this.

And they did it. Come on, boys. Come over here. And they got themselves a good spanking because that's what people did back in the 1960s when their children misbehaved. that's a topic for another day. But I feel like the sentiment in America is a lot like that. A lot like this. Let me explain further because as soon as my dad started giving the boys a good

whoopin, mom would come out and say, no, no, no, don't. They're okay. They're all right. And her heart would be there. And my mother had just a big, beautiful heart and compassion for everybody. And I get it. And I'm glad to say that I've picked up a lot of that. But also, I see this as the American people.

They voted for Trump for doing what he is doing right now. And a number of them have said, wait a minute. I think ICE is going way too far. I don't like deporting just, you know, illegal immigrants. They've got to be criminal illegal immigrants. All of these sorts of things. Where do you think all of the, this is going with the back and forth of what these sanctuary communities and states are doing.

Yeah. Just on a person, my dad would have been 97 tomorrow. Oh, very good. Yes. Yeah. We have that in common. But look, look, I think it's okay to have empathy for the illegal aliens. We understand why they're doing what they're doing. You know, we might understand why somebody cheats on their taxes.

but there's a difference between understanding and condoning. And once you start condoning, it starts to spiral out of control. You know, years ago I'd worked for Governor Dick Lamb, Liberal Democrat from Colorado. He added this expression, every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty. So, you know, each individual person has, you know, an infinitesimal impact on society generally. But when you have tens of millions of people doing it, a cumulative effect that is very detrimental to the country. And, you know, one of the other things that we have to remember is that deportation is not a punishment.

It's a remedy. You know, it's like you go into a store and you walk out with that, you know, expensive watch that you've always wanted but couldn't afford. And you get caught. And they say, you have to put that back. Putting it back is not a punishment. It is a remedy. It never belonged to you. It belonged to the store.

You have to put it back. Even if you manage to get out of the store and they happen to catch you a few weeks later and you said, well, you know, I've had this watch now for a couple of weeks and I'm loving it. You still have to put it back. A punishment is if they prosecute you, if you have to do some jail time, if you have to do some community service. But deportation simply restores the status quo before you decided to break the law and come to the United States illegally. See, and I think that's where Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's argument comes. And when you got the watch for three weeks, you can say, well, I'm about to head out to Japan, and I'm under their jurisdiction now. I have some allegiance to Japan. That's the kind of argument that you would hear from the very far left side of the court. In the same token, by the same token, Ira, as I referenced the story of my older brother's discipline and my mother's big heart, do you feel like the president of the United States has become a bit like my mother in that scenario. We've heard things about him,

you know, obviously drawing ice back into less of, you know, drawing them completely, not completely, but drawing them out of Minneapolis, high profile, arrest, these sorts of things. And we've heard that he's talked to folks at DHS. And let's go a little easier on all of this. Do you think he's softening on his position and what he campaigned on. I don't know that he's softening so much as, you know, using different strategies, different tactics. Tom Homan has said that, you know, they're going to continue to enforce the laws. And, you know, he didn't simply just withdraw from Minneapolis.

It sounds like, you know, we were invading army. He wasn't, you know, they have a right to be there. Exactly. But, you know, they did negotiate with some of the local leaders. they soften their positions. You know, so if he can work with these local officials, even in these really adamant sanctuary jurisdictions, and say, look, if you will do A, B, and C,

then we will do DENF, and everybody will be happier. But I don't see any real signs on the part of the administration that they are not going to enforce our immigration laws. The president came into office saying he is going to deport lots of people who are here illegally. That's still the position of the White House. Whether they, you know, how they go about doing it is less important than the result, which is fewer people being in the United States illegally. And in the first year of the Trump administration, DHS said that they deported 675,000 illegal aliens,

which is nice, but also a drop in the bucket. Yeah, about 1.5 million decided, look, you know, circumstances have changed. It's going to be more difficult for me to remain here in the United States illegally, and I'm leaving on my own. That's the way we want to enforce all laws. All laws should be enforced by convincing people, number one, not to break them in the first place. And number two, demonstrating that there's no benefit to continue breaking the law. So about 1.5 million people decided it just isn't worth it.

I'm not sticking around. I'll go home. Yeah, that's a very good point. That is a very good point. I do have the sense, though, that there are certainly Democrat leaders and NGOs, leftist NGOs that are part of this big issue and don't have time to delve into that. But I think they're telling these communities across the border and all of these different countries, well, hold on because eventually you won't have Trump to deal with anymore and we'll get back to the chaos that we had before that.

Let's close where we began, Ira, and that's birthright citizenship. A new Rasmussen poll out today, as a matter of fact. It says that 59% of respondents favor limits on birthright citizenship. So there is the will for the Supreme Court is going to do what it's going to do, but there is a will certainly for Congress to do something about this as well, correct? It is, but let's face it, Congress doesn't do much of anything these days. So, you know, unfortunately, we have reached a point where most things happen by executive action. But, you know, the 59% should not be surprising.

You know, even if people are not constitutional scholars, they do have basic common sense. And to most people, coming to the United States illegally and having a child or coming on a tourist visa and having a child here does not make you or that child an American. It just basic logic and sometimes basic logic is the best thing to have. Hard to have in this system in this current swamp, of course, where we talk about the incentives. There's all kinds of money in play for a lot of these politicians to at least hold the status quo for all kinds of different reasons, or as we've seen on the far left, to rapidly expand for for very politically cynical reasons. I know that Fair will continue to follow this,

and it's always good to catch up and get a little perspective from the people who are on the front lines of this. Thanks to my guest today, Ira Melman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or Fair. You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.

I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.