President Trump (3:23)

Listen, my first preference was always the path of diplomacy. Yet the regime continued their relentless quest for nuclear weapons and rejected every attempt at an agreement. For this reason, in June, I ordered a strike on Iran's key nuclear facilities. An Operation Midnight Hammer. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. Those beautiful B2 bombers performed magnificently. We totally obliterated those nuclear sites. The regime then sought to rebuild their nuclear program at a totally different location, making clear they had no intention of abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons. They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe, and virtually any other place on Earth. Iran's strategy was so obvious. They wanted to produce as many missiles as possible, and they did, with the longest range possible. And they had some weapons that nobody believed they had. We just learned that we took them out. We took them all out so that no one would really dare stop them. And they're raised for a nuclear bomb. A nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon like nobody's ever seen before.

Vince (4:46)

All right, so there's the President of the United States explaining some of where we were in this conflict. And that's, I think, one of the most important recitations of the facts yet. And Marco Rubio said something similar in the last 48 hours where he said that, look, these guys in their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, what they decided to do, they shifted strategy. They decided that they were going to build a massive conventional force of missiles. They wanted to blanket that entire region with missiles in such a way that nobody could really get in there without a massive, massive war breaking out. So the buildup of conventional arms had become really immense. And as Secretary of State Marco Rubio said again now, 48 hours ago, that basically, if we allowed this to continue by this time next year, this would be an utter nightmare to try to resolve. So the window was closing. So that's why they decided to go after this. It's not merely the stage of where the nuclear program is. It was the stage of where the conventional armaments were as a means to build up the nuclear program that we had destroyed again. And so this is where the Trump administration acted very swiftly to try and stop all of this. Now, he said the strategy was obvious. We learned that they had missiles that nobody thought that they had, and they certainly did. Remember, they tried to fire a couple at a US Military base in the Indian Ocean. They were firing just very, very far away, far beyond what the Iranians claimed they even could do. The President said, everybody's learned now that they definitely had these capabilities. And then he went on last night and he said, we've beaten and decimated these guys. We've beaten and decimated completely Iran. Take a listen. Here's the President last night with an update on just how devastating the American military has been here to these fellows. Watch future.

President Trump (6:40)

We don't need it. We haven't needed it, and we don't need it. We've beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated both militarily and economically and every other way. And the countries of the world that do receive oil through the hormones strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it. They can do it easily. We will be helpful. But they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on. So to those countries that can't get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before. Should have done it with us as we asked. Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated the hard part is done, so it should be easy.

Vince (7:48)

All right, so this is a big. A big moment. The President is laying out that we have destroyed so many of the military capabilities of Iran, so many. Now, is it possible for them to continue to be a problem in the Strait of Hormuz? Of course. But who has the biggest interest in seeing the strait open? It's actually not the United States. Clearly, we have an interest just because of the global oil supply, but not at the levels that so many countries in the region have, not at the levels that China has, not at the levels that any of the European countries have. So they need the Strait of Hormuz open, and the President is calling on them to finally man up and do something about it. And he's like, look, I took care of the principal threat. Most of their military capabilities are destroyed. Whatever's left, you need to go in and you need to make sure that the Strait of Hormuz is open. We'll help you. But fundamentally, this is your task. This is the President saying the United States is not going to police everything all the time. You've got to clean up these messes that affect you and your people directly. So here's the President asking them to grow a pair and get in there and actually fight for what they need for their people. And he keeps asking for that, and I don't think that's gonna abate. But that's an important component to this. And it's a clear sign that he's looking to extract the lion's share of the US Presence from the Strait from the region over the course of the next two to three weeks. He laid that out last night. He said he is negotiating with the Iranians. He said that with whoever's. Whoever the new people are that they're dealing with. And here he is last night describing that. Very shortly, we're going to. We're going to hit them very hard over the next two to three weeks, he says, but we are negotiating with them at the very same time. Take a listen.

President Trump (9:35)

Complete all of America's military objectives. Shortly, very shortly, we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change. But regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders. Death. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. Yet if during this period of time, no deal is made, we have eyes on Key target.

Vince (10:15)

All right, The President is. Is really going with carrot and stick here. You know, the carrot is you want a great relationship with the United States. You want a flourishing situation for your people. You want to get out of this, you know, very successfully. That's that. Opportunity awaits. Just say yes. Just say yes. If you say yes, if you stop menacing the Strait of Hormuz, if you play ball with us, you hand over nuclear material, then we'll stop blowing you up. You want a ceasefire? That's how you get a ceasefire. That's all you have to do. But if you don't, we'll keep destroying things until you're brought to your knees and you comply. So you pick one. The easy way or the hard way. Which one is it gonna be? Iran. And now you've got. And he said a regime change was not our goal. We were not out there to try and change the regime. We were out there to stop the threat. But the regime effectively has changed because we've killed everybody at the top. There's a bunch of new people coming up, and those new people, if you're ready to work with us, we're ready to work with you. And if you're not, maybe you meet the fate of the old team. So these are your options. Choose wisely. The President again last night, and then finally, he had a message for the American people and people who are concerned about this conflict and where it goes next. He said, I just need everybody to keep everything in perspective. He used the word perspective last night, which was, I thought, pretty useful. Listen to him explaining that. That in terms of the length of this conflict, it's way shorter than some of the quagmires that the United States has ever been involved in in the past. Here's the President of the United States explaining. Watch.

President Trump (11:54)

It's very important.

Vince (11:55)

And by the way, not all of these are quagmires. Some of these are just, you know, conventional wars that we had to fight.

President Trump (11:59)

Keep this conflict in perspective. American involvement In World War I lasted 1 year, 7 months, and 5 days. World War II lasted for 3 years, 8 months, and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for 3 years, 1 month, and 2 days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, 5 months, and 29 days. Iraq went on for 8 years, 8 months, and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant, against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days, and the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat.

Vince (12:51)

So this goes to a point that I've been making a lot, which is. You've got to keep your perspective. You've got to keep your perspective about the Trump era. You've got to remember just how many victories we've had. You know, I did on the radio show yesterday, I was kind of talking about this at length, but just how, how secure is our border right now? It's the most secure it's ever been in American history. The most secure it's ever been in American history right now. What's the state of illegals in our country? We've deported 3 million of them. 3 million are gone. You know, what's the state of fentanyl in the country? Over half of the fentanyl. Over 50% of the fentanyl flows have dropped off. What's the state of homicides in the country? We're at the lowest murder rate in recorded history. It's, it's. These are all signs that there's been massive successes in the Trump administration. And each one of those things alone would be a justification for why President Trump deserves a massive double down on his agenda going into the midterms. He's got a great case to make. Great case. And as I talk about this point of maintaining perspective, not to get mopey and not to be like, how come everything's horrible? The guy just explained, he goes, look, think about all these incredible conflicts in American history and how many years many of them dragged on. I'm resolving the Iran problem so far in 28 days because I'm asking for two to three more weeks. That's what he's asking from the American people. Is that so much to ask? And I don't think the answer to that is anything but no, it's not. It's not too much to ask. It's not too much to ask. I want him to resolve this. Well, you know, regardless of your feelings, I remember there was some early reporting that maybe J.D. vance or somebody had, was concerned about whether or not we go in. But the report was that his perspective was, if we do, you gotta hit him hard and you gotta win. That's how you gotta handle this. Okay? So whatever your initial feelings were about the president choosing to go into Iran, we're there now. So now the goal is make sure you hit them hard enough and make sure you win. Right? Capiche? I think that makes sense. I think that makes a lot of sense. The president with a big update last night. So thank you for that, Mr. President. By the way, the media got that completely wrong. The press yesterday was had so Many reports that were completely wrong about what the President was going to say. He was going to spend all of his time attacking NATO allies and all this other stuff. None of that happened. None of that happened. He just gave us, as you might imagine, as he, as he's want to do an update because he thinks the American people deserve one. This is the ongoing conversation that the President's always having with us. So that occurred last night. Additionally, last night the President posting to Truth Social that a deal has been struck with the United States Congress to get funding for ICE and Border Patrol or at least a deal that he's okay with. He announced a two phase plan to fund DHS last night. And so here's the update on this story. It's, this is, in some, in some sense it's annoying, but it's clearly a sign that the President is done with the games. He doesn't want to play anymore on this one. Here's what he said. He said, republicans fully support our great men and women of law enforcement. Maybe the word should be love. Americans America thanks each and every one of our wonderful police, Border Patrol, ICE and others for their work to protect our cities, towns, streets and indeed our country itself. Unlike Republicans, Democrats want us to defund the police, Border patrol and all immigration enforcement. They want to allow criminals, the mentally insane, lunatics from all over the world to come into our country totally unvented and unchecked, putting Americans in serious danger. So he goes, this is why we're going to go forward with incredibly funding rather our incredible ICE agents and Border Patrol through a process that doesn't need the radical left Democrat votes. And that bill he says will be on his desk no later than June 1st. Okay, so this, what he means, just to be crystal clear, is he's asking the United States Senate to use reconciliation, the United States Congress to use the reconciliation process to fund ICE and Border Patrol. Now you may be thinking to yourself, Vince, I thought ICE was already funded. I thought they had the money from the big beautiful bill. The answer to that is yes, they do. The people who aren't being funded right now are the administrative employees at ICE and Border Patrol. This would be the civilian workforce at ICE and Border Patrol. The support staff, the guys you got keep turning the lights on and off. The ones who operate all the administrative side, all of those people not getting paid right now and they're probably not going to be paid based on this timetable until midway through the year. Now that's a disaster. It's a huge disaster and is caused by the Democrats who want to protect illegal aliens at the expense of American citizens in our country. But the President saying, this is the only way I can get this done right now. So we're going for it. So he's going for reconciliation to get that funding through. Now, what about the rest of it? What about the TSA funding and the Coast Guard funding and everything else with dhs? Well, that brings us to what the Congress is going to do, which is already this morning, as we're speaking, the United States Senate, once again by voice vote, cleared through that same legislation they sent through last week, which is basically, we'll fund everything else. We'll fund everything else except for the administrative employees at ICE and Border Patrol. We'll do that right now in the Senate. This morning, John Thune appeared for that stupid pro forma session in the Senate. He very quickly just asked for unanimous consent to pass that legislation again, and it went through. No objection. Now it's up to the House. Now Speaker Johnson says they're going to pass it. So you've got President Trump saying, pass it, and then Speaker Johnson saying, we're going to pass it. Speaker Johnson has been furious about this. He didn't want to pass the Senate bill in the first place, according to his own words on the subject. But he and John Thune put out a statement last night saying, we appreciate the President's determination and once from for all, bringing ends of the Democrat shutdown. In the coming days, Republicans in both the Senate and the House will be following through on the President's directive by fully funding the Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks through appropriations and through the reconciliation process. So in summary, this goes back to that Senate bill. The President was able to force the Democrats to the table by giving TSA funding on an emergency basis. So Democrats cried uncle and allowed a massive Senate funding bill to go through. But it wasn't everything. It wasn't everything. It was. It was limited. And that's why the House was so upset about this. And now the President said, you know what? I'm just going to let all of this funding go through by any means necessary. Let's get it through. Upside. There are no restrictions on ice. There are no restrictions on ice. There's no forcing them to reveal their identities to the insane left. There's none of this, like, you know, we need these judicial warrants to freeze up the immigration system. None of that crap. So the President's position to the Democrats is like, up yours. We're not giving you anything you want. We're going to fund all of this on our own, which they are. But of course, it hasn't stopped Chuck Schumer from celebrating overnight. Chuck Schumer is gloating over the fact that they're passing in, in this way. He says, in order, you know, of course, because everything, everything's always like, how can I turn this into a way to attack Trump? He says House Republicans caved. They agreed to pass the Senate bill to fund dhs, except for ICE and cbp, that unanimously passed a week ago. Ok. But again, without any restrictions that Democrats were demanding, designed to imperil ICE agents and designed to make our country less safe. You get none of that. Sup yours, Chuck Schumer. You get none of that. All right. More in a moment. I want to talk to you about that big Supreme Court case yesterday because the, the Supreme Court had oral arguments yesterday about what it means to be an American Citizen. Does the 14th Amendment really confer on every illegal alien who invades our country and has a child? Does it confer American citizenship on that child, give that family privileges in our country after having invaded it? Is that really what it's for? Got the details on that all coming up on this edition of events. I want to thank one of our great sponsors who keep our show powered up. And that sponsor today is Quince, which I'm very excited about for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, a thoughtfully built wardrobe really comes down to pieces that mix well, feel great and actually last. And that's precisely where Quince shines. Premium fabrics, smart design and everyday essentials that stay dependable no matter the season. Now, I love Quince. I upgrade my basics with Quince is my go to. They've got lightweight cashmere sweaters. You see what I'm wearing right now? Look at this. For Those of you rumble.com Vince this is Quint's. This is Quint's stuff right here. Look at this. I even pulled the hoodie up. Can I pull the hoodie up without messing up my, my headphones? I got a hoodie on. Look at that. Amazing. Thanks to Quince. They've got great, great stuff. Short sleeve Mongolian cashmere polos, linen shorts and bottoms, T shirts made from 100% Pima cotton, European jersey linen. They're the kinds of pieces that make a wardrobe work. You can wear them across seasons without ever feeling dated. And the quality, very legit. Alison loves this because it's super soft. She loves it. That's right. The ladies love it, fellas. They don't wrinkle like cheap linen does they work with everything right now? Go to quince.comvince Free shipping 365 day returns. It's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it, and you will. And now for our Canadian friends, it's available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c e.com Vince for free shipping 365 day returns. Quince.com Vince thank you, quince, for outfitting me today and for this, this great sponsorship of our program. Thank you for that. Okay, so Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday were a maddening experience. Chad, did anybody listen to this? Did you guys listen to the oral arguments yesterday? As I told you, you know, if just the tersest possible summary. The 14th amendment was passed to protect the former slaves of the United States people who were held in bondage. It was passed to say you're an American citizen by virtue of your birth. Here, your children are American citizens by virtue of their birth. Here, you're American citizens. It was meant to protect, protect previously enslaved black Americans. That's it. But the left has distorted this beyond recognition. And now if some rich Chinese communist comes to the country, has a baby, and then instantly brings that baby back to China, that baby's an American citizen. How does that make sense? How does that make sense at all? How does it make sense that any illegal alien across the planet can break their way into our country, have a child, and now they have an American citizen and access to welfare? How does that make sense? It doesn't. It doesn't. Yet in the United States Supreme Court yesterday, it was a very frustrating experience to listen to these Supremes, the justices, talk about this. And I want to start with the Chief Justice, John Roberts. Listen to him yesterday. He seemed very confused about why illegals should be excluded from American citizenship. Listen. Well, starting with that theory, you obviously

President Trump (24:20)

put a lot of weight on subject

John Sauer (24:22)

to the jurisdiction thereof.

President Trump (24:24)

But the examples you give to support

John Sauer (24:25)

that strike me as very quirky.

President Trump (24:28)

You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships.

Vince (24:36)

And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I'm not quite sure how you can

President Trump (24:45)

get to that big group from such

John Sauer (24:47)

tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.

Andrew Arthur (24:50)

There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, foreign public ships, tribal Indians is an enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well. But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights act of 1866. And there they didn't say sub to the jurisdiction thereof. There it says not subject to any foreign power. Now, if you go back to Blackstone, in Calvin's case, they say it does not matter if you are subject to any foreign power. If you are born in the king's domains, you. You have this indefeasible duty of allegiance to the king at any time. So there's a clear repudiation in the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights act is this breakwater, which makes it very, very clear that they are not thinking about allegiance in the terms of, like the British common law. They've adopted the republican conception of allegiance. So it's from not subject to any foreign power. And then the debates just a couple months later make it very clear that they're reconifying the same conception. They were dissatisfied with the potential ambiguity in the phrase Indians not tax. And they adopted subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And one.

Vince (25:49)

Okay, perfect. Thank you. So let me. Let me just take you back to what John Roberts started with. There he goes. Well, wait a second. You know, they were. They didn't give citizenship to some narrow categories, he claimed, like the children of foreign diplomats. If a foreign ambassador comes to the United States and has a baby here, they weren't entitled to that child becoming an American citizen. But those are very narrow exceptions, he said. So, so what about a large group like illegal aliens? How could it, how could something that applies to a small group of people apply to a large group of people? What. What kind of argument is that? So if enough people break our laws, they get to do it? Is that really the argument that you're mounting? John Roberts and John Sauer, who is the Solicitor General of the United States, he's. He's the guy with the scratchy voice you heard just arguing the case. He points out something super relevant, which is that back in the mid-1800s, when this whole debate was going on between the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights act, he said, this is. This was fundamentally about people who were subject to foreign powers, who were the subjects of foreign powers. The 14th Amendment is trying to preclude them from citizenship. And I just. I mean, it's. It boggles my mind that John Roberts would sit there and act confused about this. Why should illegals be excluded? There's just so many of them. We can't possibly exclude huge numbers of people from American citizenship. Yes, we should, actually. These are precisely the people who should not be entitled to American citizenship. Meanwhile, on the other end of the of the debate was the American Civil Liberties Union attorney, the aclu. Now I just. It's crazy to even hear those words said out loud because I thought you were for American civil liberties. Now you're fighting for illegals. Yeah, it's. This is. That's why they call themselves the aclu. Listen to the ACLU attorney yesterday saying, just because you have foreign military obligations, just because you owe your allegiance to Iran doesn't mean you should be stopped from becoming an American citizen. Watch.

John Sauer (27:57)

Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?

Ketanji Brown Jackson (28:25)

Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act, Justice Alito, and that's clear from Wong Kim Ark, and it's clear from the debates what the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends basically not a subject of any foreign power that you were that another country considers you sanguineous citizen than lawful permanent residents.

John Sauer (28:51)

All foreign national, ordinary public. Ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not?

Ketanji Brown Jackson (28:59)

Justice Alito, if you think that the language of the 1866 act was ambiguous, as Wong Kim Ark says, the shift to the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity.

John Sauer (29:12)

What I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who were nationals of other countries. If I'm correct, it's true. To a child who's born here to Russian parents, it's true. To a child who's born here to Mexican parents, they're automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of military service. It sure seems to like that's a. That makes them subject to a foreign power.

Vince (29:45)

Yes, but again, just perfect.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (29:46)

That would have meant.

Vince (29:47)

All right, so basically the ACLU attorney is trying to say, well, no big deal. It's no big deal that we have children born in the United States who have military obligations to foreign countries. Actually, it's a massive deal. It's a massive deal. And in no way should you become an American citizen on that basis. That's preposterous. In fact, to be really clear, the children of legal immigrants should not become American citizens in the United States. That wasn't the subject of the debate yesterday. But just because you're here on some sort of temporary legal basis doesn't mean you should be entitled to an American citizen as a child. That's crazy to me. That's crazy. American citizenship should be for the children of American citizens. If you want a child to become an American citizen, then go through the process of becoming a naturalized American citizen. If you really want to look after the well being of this country, then that's the way you would do it. But yesterday the debate revolved pretty simply around whether or not the children of illegal immigrants can be considered American citizens. And one of the most frustrating things was how difficult it was to make the easiest possible case on the planet to that Supreme Court yesterday. I got one more for you and then I want to get to a great guest on the subject, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Yesterday was a disaster as usual. And she suggested yesterday that breaking a nation's laws is how you establish allegiance. I'm sorry, what? Listen to KBJ yesterday. Cut three.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (31:19)

I was thinking about this and I think they, 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 US citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the, 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.

Vince (32:26)

Oh my God. I can't even, I can't even believe how brain dead this is. So by, by stealing a wallet, she's demonstrating her allegiance to Japan. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That's left wing thinking if I've ever heard it. You remember the George Floyd riots? All those people were just demonstrating their allegiance to America when they were burning down cities and killing people and, and doing billions of dollars in destruction. It was just a gigantic pledge of allegiance. We just misunderstood it at the time. Those people actually love the country. They were saying they were pledging their allegiance. That's because that's how you do it. That's exactly right. When you pledge allegiance, the way you do it is you have to commit a crime. What is she in a gang? This is a gang initiation to join a country. That's like the craziest thing I've ever heard. And it was just the last 24 hours. Thank you, Ketanji, Brown Jackson. Not a biologist and shouldn't be a Supreme Court justice either. All right, in a moment, I'm going to talk to a great guest. Andrew Arthur is with us. I'll get his take. He's an expert on immigration. We'll get his take on the Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday and where we go from here. But first, want to thank Blackout Coffee for being a great sponsor of our program. If you want your coffee strong, smooth, roasted fresh for a maximum flavor, then Blackout Coffee is for you. Blackout Coffee is a great America first company. They roast their beans right here in the United States and ship them fresh to your door. Their blends are bold, full bodied and crafted for people who take their coffee seriously. Their medium dark roast delivers a very strong flavor without bitterness. It's smooth, powerful, and it gives you that extra boost you need to stay focused all day. And I love their subscribe and save option because I never run out of coffee. Swap flavors, pause, cancel anytime, get deep discounts plus free shipping, all while earning reward points on every purchase that you can redeem for future orders. It's convenient. It saves you money. They've got whole being ground flavored coffees, espresso single serve options. There's something for Everybody today. Get 20% off your first order, Blackout Coffee dot com. Use the code Vince at checkout. That's Blackout Coffee dot com promo code Vince. Get 20% off your first delicious order, Blackout Coffee dot com promo code VINCE. And then Brickhouse Nutrition is a great sponsor of our program, too. You know those weight loss injections everybody's all over? They're trying to lose a ton of weight. The way they work is they lower your blood sugar and reduce your appetite. But what if you want to lose the weight but you don't want the painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of the side effects. Well, this is precisely why doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created a weight loss supplement called Lean. The results remarkable. The studied ingredients in Lean have been shown to help lower your blood sugar, help you burn fat by converting it into energy, and help you curb your appetite and your cravings so you're less hungry. Listen, Lean by Brickhouse Nutrition is not for the casual dieter, is for frustrated dieters, people who have 10 or more pounds to lose. If that's you, let's get you started. 20% off free rush shipping visit take lean.com Enter the code Vince for your discount. That's promo code Vince. Take lean.com these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, not a substitute or alternative for care from a health care provider. All right. Joining us right now, Andrew Arthur is here. He's the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge. It's great to see you, Art. Thank you very much for being here today.

Vince (35:43)

Thanks so much for having me, Vince. I probably could have used some of that blackout coffee while I was listening to this oral argument yesterday.

Vince (35:50)

Isn't it crazy? So, you know, I actually, I had higher hopes yesterday for the oral arguments. I thought that we'd have more people on the side of sanity here, which is that no, of course, the found the, the people who drafted the 14th amendment did not intend for every illegal alien to have an American citizen child in our country. What did you think of the oral arguments yesterday?

Vince (36:10)

I actually, it was very interesting. It was more or less what I expected it to be. There was tough questioning of both John Sauer, who represented the Trump administration, and Cecilia Wang, who represented the ACLU in that. But the one thing that I was sort of surprised about was Sauer and the Department of Justice had submitted a number of briefs that, you know, were actually well thought out, very sophisticated briefs. They probably, on the briefs, they probably had the better side of the argument. But many of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, didn't really seem to read very deeply into the briefs or weren't buying what Sauer was selling because at one point, Roberts referred to some of the references that Sauer made as quirky. But I mean, we're talking about a law that was passed in 1868. We're talking about a Supreme Court decision that was issued in 1898 based upon English feudal law. So, I mean, you're, you're definitely going to be it's a pretty heady argument. And, you know, it points they did get very deeply into it. So, you know, intellectually it was very stimulating, except for Katanji, Brown, Jackson. But with respect to the, the other arguments, I thought that they were very thoughtful. I think we're going to have the justices, the clerks, they're going to pour over those briefs. And I actually think the government may have a slightly better chance than most people think.

Vince (37:33)

So you actually think that John Sauer did a decent job yesterday? I mean, he did. I mean, he's. I've always been pressed by his. His arguments before the court, and generally, I was yesterday there was a moment where I think Brett Kavanaugh had asked him why it's relevant that so many other countries don't handle immigration the same way we do. He's like, why? Why are you even bringing up the way other countries handle this? Because I'm only interested, really, in American law and the American Constitution, American history. And I thought the answer that John Sauer did not produce to that question would be, well, it's relevant to know how other countries handled this historically, because that would get into the minds of the people who drafted the 14th amendment, wouldn't it?

Vince (38:12)

Yeah, Vince. In fact, it makes me think that you've actually read through John Sauer's brief, because he covers that very well, and he explains that at the time that the. The 14th Amendment was passed and at the time that the Constitution itself was ratified, that the founders had cast off those, you know, feudalistic English principles that governed nationality in Britain and had actually surveyed the world to see what they did, how they treated nationality, so that we could create a very unique American citizenship. If you think about events, the biggest difference between, you know, the new United States and the old British Empire was the fact that we didn't have a king in the United States. The people were sovereign, and therefore, you know, ideas that you are the liege to the king when born there, and thus you gain nationality is a poor fit. And that's really the point that the Justice Department was making in its briefs. But, yeah, I was surprised that Sauer didn't respond in that manner, because that is actually the point that the government made in its briefing as a.

Vince (39:21)

Just as a matter of, like, common sense, like, how could any person be for allowing illegals to jump across our border and have an American citizen child? How could. How could that be? You know, I looked, and you. And you would know the data much better than me, Art. But I looked at the data this week so I could reflect on this, and I was, like, stunned by the number of illegal alien babies who are born in the United States each year. We're talking around 300,000, according to Pew Research data back in 2023. That's in a country that's with about 3 1/2 million births. In other words, there's like 8 or 9% of all US births each year are two illegal aliens in our country. This is a problem of epic proportions.

Vince (40:05)

Yeah, it absolutely is. And, you know, here's sort of the good and the bad. That comes along with having six conservative Supreme Court justices. They really don't care about the practicality of the thing. They care about the intents of the. The framers, the founders, the ratifier of the 14th amendment. Keep in mind, this is the same supreme court that in McGirk vs Oklahoma, found that 42% of a state in the middle of the United States was actually Indian territory. And they did that in 2020.

Vince (40:37)

Right.

Vince (40:38)

So the practicalities of the thing don't really weigh that heavily in, except to the degree that there was a line of questioning about how the interpretation of the 14th Amendment would change given technology and, you know, modern changes. People don't come on, you know, wooden ships. They don't come on steamships. They could fly directly into the United States and give birth. In fact, we've seen birth tourism rings that were cracked that had made, you know, millions of dollars in California and Orange county and around Irvine. So, you know, they actually did explore that issue. But I think they're only going to consider the practicalities of the thing in terms of, you know, how it would, you know, how if the framers had known about these modern technologies, including, you know, in vitro fertilization, you know, how they would have applied the key second clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Vince (41:37)

Yeah. I mean, doesn't the Constitution also include a provision that we can thwart invasion? You know, it's like, we. We're being invaded right now, and then everyone acts like that's totally normal. It's, you know, I, I was frustrated by John Roberts, his questioning, when he suggests. He's like, well, obviously the 14th Amendment, as you point out, John Sauer, precludes a couple of people from having US Citizen children. Like, you know, foreign diplomats can't have American kids if they're born on US Soil. But beyond that, like, how do you stretch that out to illegal aliens? There's just so many of them. And I was like, well, just because there's huge numbers doesn't mean the law doesn't apply, does it?

Vince (42:15)

Yeah, no. And, you know, it's. It's actually a very interesting point, Vince, because at one juncture, I think it was Justice Sotomayor who, you know, or actually was Justice Jackson who, you know, suggested that if the Trump executive order were to take effect, that pregnant woman women would have to be deposed by their doctors to determine what their status was in the United States. Now, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens at maternity hospitals. And I have a very close relative who is an obstetrician. The, the hospital itself, the doctor, the nurses and the delivery suite, the midwives, they don't make the determination of who is a citizen or who isn't. And if you look at a birth record from a hospital, all that it does is record the name of the parents, the size and weight of the baby, you know, the baby's name, if known. They'll occasionally capture APGAR scores on those things, but they don't say anything about citizenship.

Vince (43:11)

It's only gender at birth. Just to be clear, too, that's when they, they assign your gender at that moment.

Vince (43:17)

I knew you were going to go for that one too, Vince, but we'll pass over that one for a second. But, yeah, you know, that document only matters when it comes time for the child to receive some sort of government benefit, to get a Social Security card, to get a passport, to apply. And you and I both know how common this is when the parents go to apply for food stamps for that child. If you look at the amicus brief that was filed by the state of Tennessee, they actually talk about the billions of dollars that states incur providing means tested public benefits, wic, Medicaid, food stamps to, you know, all of those children who are born to illegal aliens in the United States. So again, I think that if the framers had known that, and we can, you know, the Supreme Court's going to try and suss out, you know, what the framers would have thought if they had known that we would have this welfare state, you know, how they would have applied it, which is why I think that the government actually has a slightly better chance than most people do in this case.

Vince (44:15)

Okay. All right. Well, I mean, I'm very happy to hear a little bit of optimism on that subject because I was, I was very pessimistic coming out of that yesterday. But also, can you explain, Art, how like kind of what having a US Citizen child does for an illegal alien parent? So, like, if you're in the country illegally and all of a sudden you have a kid that's considered an American citizen, what does that give you access to? And what, what, what does your future look like now that a US Citizen is a part of your life?

Vince (44:44)

Well, you know, that's a great question. And, you know, we could probably talk for an hour about all of those benefits, but here's really the key one. As soon as you have a United States citizen child, that child is eligible for all those means tested public benefits. I just talked about Medicaid food stamps. One of the things that the center for Immigration Studies has determined is that, you know, aliens in the United States actually use welfare at a higher rate than the native born, notwithstanding the fact that back in 1996, Congress attempted to strip aliens, even green card holders, of their ability to get means tested, public benefits, because there is a public charge test in the Immigration and Nationality Act. So, you know, the most, you know, straightforward one is public benefits. But as soon as that child turns 21, the child can then petition for the parent to get a green card to come here, you know, to reside here and be placed on a path to citizenship. But more.

Vince (45:45)

Well, even if they're here. Well, sorry, even if they're here illegally already, if they're present in the country illegally, the U.S. yeah, well, they would have to.

Vince (45:53)

They would have to go abroad, pick up the visa and come back in, and they'd have to get a waiver of their unlawful presence. But the Biden administration was giving those waivers away like they were Bazooka Joe comics in, you know, a pack of gum.

Vince (46:08)

So, you know, I'm sorry, okay, just. Can we dwell on this for a second? So what you just described is amnesty at scale. If there's 300,000 US citizen children being born in the United States each year, and then when they come of age, the Biden administration was granting pathways to citizenship to all of their parents, is that, I mean, was this a pretty big amnesty that they handed out?

Vince (46:30)

Yeah, I mean, and it is an amnesty under color of law without congressional approval. But yeah, in essence, it's. That is what they were doing. But there's even, you know, one step beyond that. If you are illegally present in the United States and you have a child, you can actually, and you, you get placed into removal proceedings, you can seek a form of relief called cancellation for certain non permanent residents. We call it 42B cancellation because it's the form EOR 42B that people use to apply for that. And as soon as you file that application, your case is put on hold until the judge can adjudicate whether your removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the child. That itself is also a de facto form of amnesty because it allows the parent to remain in the United States for a year, five years, 10 years, until the court can get around to adjudicating those cases. And they're not high priorities. And for that reason, it basically buys you time to remain in the United

Vince (47:35)

States unlawfully, which is where we derive the term anchor baby from all of a sudden now you've, you've bound yourself to the country by virtue of the American citizen child that you've been conferred.

Vince (47:46)

Yes. And you know that child is the first link in chain migration to not only legalize the parent and then once the parent gets citizenship, the parent can then bring the parent's brother and sister, mother and father to the United States, which is why we talk about the chain migration multipliers that exist in the immigration law. And again, the first link is that

Vince (48:11)

baby, it is extraordinary the scale of this problem. And we only know some of the contours of it. Thanks to your great work. Thank you very much, Andrew Arthur of the center for Immigration Studies. Really appreciate you being with me today, sir.

Vince (48:25)

Thanks so much for having me dance.

Vince (48:27)

Always good to chat. There he is. Andrew Arthur. Our thanks to him. Yeah, so look, you know, this is, this is a massive problem. And what's one of the things that stands out to me there is just the fact that these parents are being given pathways to citizenship. So because, because they immigrated illegally. And so the way that they are able to stay here and then become citizens is they have babies in the United States. You hear about that all over the place. I don't think so. Thank you to Andrew Arthur for explaining that. We've got, we've got a massive problems to fix your massive problems. You know, I, I had Dan Bongino, the great Dan Bongino on my radio program yesterday. We're, we're doing crossover episodes each week. I'll be on his podcast next week, Wednesday. And we were chatting about this problem and about the oral arguments yesterday. And I brought up the fact that what you're looking at is the left. The reason the left engages in this system, the reason they love this corrupt system and the reason they're handing out citizenship like candy is because the current American citizenry doesn't like the left. We don't support Democrats, we don't vote for them. If we had fair elections, they'd spend all their time in the political wilderness. If we had secure borders and fair elections, the Democrat Party would be nonexistent. And yet they continue to exist. Why is that? Because we have fraudulent elections. We have a fraudulent media in many cases that lie to the American public about what the Democrats are up to and why people should support them. And then fundamentally they're also importing people by the millions in order to establish ill gotten political power. And that manifests itself in a million different ways to include the electoral College and Congressional seats that they don't deserve and the United States census numbers that don't distinguish between American citizens and illegal aliens, all of those things. But the other piece of this that is probably not appreciated enough in our debates is the extent to which that when these illegal alien parents are having children, if they're conferred American citizenship, the Democrats believe that in the long run that that's going to be to their benefit. That these are, this is a new class of pro Democrat voter coming up in the system. Now it may not be true in every case. There's going to be kids who are born to illegal aliens who might vote for Republicans going into the future. Certainly Democrats had two dimensional views of all Hispanics that turned out to be completely wrong. But the game that they're attempting to play is the long term replacement of American voters. They don't like the American voters. They're not deriving power from American voters. So let's import a new class of voters and go for broke there. Let's hope it works. Now again, who knows if it'll actually work for them in the future. But that's clearly what they're attempting to do. It's not my supposition, it's not my theory, it's their plan. They've written books on the subject. Demographics are destiny. In fact, Dan and I were talking at some length about this yesterday. But as we were talking about that particular phrase and the way the left has wielded it and their attempts to, to truly displace the current crop of American voters, I had this realization. It reminded me a lot of the Matrix. Do you remember the Matrix? The movie, the great movie in the Matrix, which is like, I don't know, is there anybody who hasn't seen it? Like in the Matrix, everybody's living inside of this world where like the computers control everything. Like it's like so. And they don't know it. They're, they're ignorant. Fundamentally, humans are ignorant of this. So everything around you is fake. And in real life you're plugged into the Matrix and you're being manipulated. In fact, your body's being used for energy for the, for the robots. You're powering the Matrix. The human bodies are. And in a way I kind of look at this and say this is kind of the same thing. Democrats are deriving power from millions of people that they are importing into the United States to confer them power. They're creating their own Matrix. They're using illegal aliens as a power source for their party. And it's a total betrayal of Humanity. It's a total betrayal of your liberty. It's a total betrayal of your sovereignty. And it's all done for cruel political power. And meanwhile they're pulling the wool over everybody's eyes. They're generating the matrix before our very eyes. That's what the Democrats are up to. And it's pretty poisonous. It's a very destructive thing. And so I'm encouraged by Andrew Arthur's assessment that the, the court may come to their senses here and give us some sort of favorable ruling that rights this colossal wrong that we're seeing play out before us. I hope he's right about that, that I worry that he's not. But I hope he's right that the justices may, may do the right thing here. Because the truth is, the case that's before the Court right now is an existential case for the United States of America. It's existential. If these Supreme Court justices don't recognize that the very future of our country hangs in the balance, then we may be done for now. Will it be the end of the story if we get a ruling that says the status quo has to be maintained? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell. But understand what the challenges are going forward if the court rules against us, if they continue to say, yeah, of course illegal aliens can pour into the country by the millions and have free American citizen children. Of course Chinese nationals can fly into California, have a baby and have a free American citizen child. Of course Russian oligarchs can fly into Miami and have a baby and then flee and have an American citizen child. If they keep that system going, what options do we have to stop it? Well, we would have to pass a constitutional amendment. Very likely. And what are the chances of that? What are the chances of passing a constitutional amendment in a world where we can't even get Congress to protect voter integrity? What are the chances of passing a constitutional amendment in a world where, where we can't even get them to fund one agency of the federal government with a single piece of legislation? What are the chances? As a practical matter, they're non existent. When we talk about saving America, we mean it. We're in a fight for this country's future. And it's not merely for our territorial integrity. Of course it is. It's for our kids. It's for anybody who has a belief that the future is owed to the people who are actually born here. Actual American citizen children. You know, we are all the beneficiaries of our country's great history. We're, we're the we're the sons and daughters of people who made our country great in the first place. And now our obligation is to do what our ancestors did, leave this great country to the generations that come after us. That's what we're fighting for. And so in this moment, with the United States Supreme Court considering this case, it is really important that once again, we turn to prayer. Always turn to prayer. It has power. It has value. And we just keep reminding these justices, they consume media. They're out there. We just keep reminding these justices and anybody who has any hand in power in the United States, we have a great country, and you should do everything possible to fight for it. President Trump believes that President Trump was present yesterday at the Supreme Court. He went and sat for an hour and a half of the hearing in order to observe it. Now, the left freaked out about it. They thought it was like the craziest thing. Oh, what is he doing? What is he doing? He's going because he cares. That's what he's doing. The left was accusing him of trying to intimidate the justices. That's so silly. How preposterous. Intimidate them how? By sitting there and listening dutifully as they're conducting one of the most important oral arguments that's ever happened in our country. Now, the president was present. He was there because he believes in this country and he wants to protect it. That's the fight he's waging. And if you want to find optimism in all of this, including if the Supreme Court rules against us here, find optimism in Trump's demeanor. President Trump never gives up the fight. The guy's always fighting against all odds. He returned to the presidency. If you can demonstrate 10% of the fight that President Trump has demonstrated for this country, we're going to have an amazing country going forward. We really will. All right. There's. There's so much more I could possibly get to. I want to thank everybody for being here. Congratulations, by the way, to the astronauts on Artemis 2 blasting off yesterday. Just an amazing sight to see as they head off for that moon mission. It's going to be. It's going to be a big one. The president was celebrating it yesterday. To our prayers for our astronauts as they, as they, as they conduct, as we speak, that epic journey around the moon. Just an amazing, amazing thing. And we've got a lot more to get to coming up today on the big national radio show, the Vince Show. You can check your local listings at the Vince show dot com. You can also watch us live from 1 to 3pm Eastern on Rumble. Rumble.com Vince the radio shows from 12 to 3 Eastern each day. God bless everybody who joins me. The best audience anywhere. The chat so good. Also, we've got Dan Bongino's amazing program that's coming up today. Rumble.com/Bongino Very eager to see what he has to say. That's 10 o' clock Eastern on rumble. And then Haley. Karenia, have you seen the Haley show? The Haley show is amazing. Go watch the Haley show. That's at noon Eastern. I don't mind. I give you my permission. You don't even have to listen to the first hour of my radio show. You can go watch Haley. She's phenomenal. Rumble.com Haley Rumble.com Haley she's great. Look, Artemis is on screen. That's really cool. Look at that thing blasting off. Holy cow. Rumble.com Haley Noon Hayley with two Y's. Why? Because she's great. Like an Artemis rocket. Great to talk to you today. Best audience anywhere. I'll be back with you tomorrow.