Mike Davis

Mike, you just walked right over our joke.

Mike, you just walked right over our joke.

Mike, you just walked right over our joke.

I missed your joke. I'm such a nerd. I apologize. All right, stand by.

I missed your joke. I'm such a nerd. I apologize. All right, stand by.

I missed your joke. I'm such a nerd. I apologize. All right, stand by.

President Trump's executive order is not only right, it's clearly constitutional. He has this power to interpret the Constitution under Article 2 to make sure that the laws that he is enforcing as the president of the United States are constitutional. And essentially what he's saying in this order is if you are –

President Trump's executive order is not only right, it's clearly constitutional. He has this power to interpret the Constitution under Article 2 to make sure that the laws that he is enforcing as the president of the United States are constitutional. And essentially what he's saying in this order is if you are –

President Trump's executive order is not only right, it's clearly constitutional. He has this power to interpret the Constitution under Article 2 to make sure that the laws that he is enforcing as the president of the United States are constitutional. And essentially what he's saying in this order is if you are –

If you are here lawfully, if you're here as a lawful permanent resident, you can get birthright citizenship. But if you're here illegally, if you're here temporarily, you cannot. And that is exactly where the Supreme Court should land on this case. That Chinese exclusion case from over 100 years ago dealt with lawful permanent residents.

If you are here lawfully, if you're here as a lawful permanent resident, you can get birthright citizenship. But if you're here illegally, if you're here temporarily, you cannot. And that is exactly where the Supreme Court should land on this case. That Chinese exclusion case from over 100 years ago dealt with lawful permanent residents.

If you are here lawfully, if you're here as a lawful permanent resident, you can get birthright citizenship. But if you're here illegally, if you're here temporarily, you cannot. And that is exactly where the Supreme Court should land on this case. That Chinese exclusion case from over 100 years ago dealt with lawful permanent residents.

And that was back before we really had the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration that we have today. But even if you follow that Supreme Court precedent, remember, this clause was passed in the 14th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision. It dealt with citizenship for freed slaves and their children.

And that was back before we really had the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration that we have today. But even if you follow that Supreme Court precedent, remember, this clause was passed in the 14th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision. It dealt with citizenship for freed slaves and their children.

And that was back before we really had the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration that we have today. But even if you follow that Supreme Court precedent, remember, this clause was passed in the 14th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision. It dealt with citizenship for freed slaves and their children.

And it was expanded in that case over 100 years ago to lawful permanent But it's very clear that you do not have birthright citizenship for ambassadors and their kids. You don't have birthright citizenship for invading armies and their kids. So why the hell would you have birthright citizenship for, for example, Mexican cartel members who came here or Venezuelan prison gangs who came here?

And it was expanded in that case over 100 years ago to lawful permanent But it's very clear that you do not have birthright citizenship for ambassadors and their kids. You don't have birthright citizenship for invading armies and their kids. So why the hell would you have birthright citizenship for, for example, Mexican cartel members who came here or Venezuelan prison gangs who came here?

And it was expanded in that case over 100 years ago to lawful permanent But it's very clear that you do not have birthright citizenship for ambassadors and their kids. You don't have birthright citizenship for invading armies and their kids. So why the hell would you have birthright citizenship for, for example, Mexican cartel members who came here or Venezuelan prison gangs who came here?

You wouldn't. It's a silly argument. And I think the Supreme Court is largely going to side with President Trump.

You wouldn't. It's a silly argument. And I think the Supreme Court is largely going to side with President Trump.