3682 Will Activist Judges Stop President Trump? | Daniel Horowitz and Stefan Molyneux
We are confronted with a jarring reality that the Left has succeeded in growing the power of the courts. President Barack Obama was successful in replacing roughly 30 percent of the district and appellate judges on the federal benches. The United States of America is now facing an unprecedented judicial time bomb, the likes of which the country has never previously witnessed. Daniel Horowitz joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss rising judicial activism in the United States, how President Donald Trump has been thwarted by unelected judges and what can be done to restore sovereignty from the tyrannical court system. Daniel Horowitz is Senior Editor at Conservative Review and the author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.”Book: http://www.fdrurl.com/stolen-sovereigntyWebsite: http://www.conservativereview.comTwitter: http://www. twitter.com/rmconservativeYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
He's a senior editor at Conservative Review and the author of a book I highly recommend.
It really outclasses anything in the late-night horror genre written by Stephen King.
It's called Stolen Sovereignty, How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.
and you can peruse Daniel's work at conservativereview.com and follow his great Twitter feed at twitter.com forward slash rmconservative.
The links will all be in the low bar.
Daniel, thank you so much for taking the time today.
Really enjoy the opportunities Certainly crazy times in politics.
So years ago, I sort of created this analogy, which I was returning to in my mind when reading your book, which was sort of like, there's a car and then there's like a hood ornament.
And sometimes it feels like in a democracy, even in a republic, that voting in a new politician is kind of like changing the hood ornament on a car.
It doesn't fundamentally change the direction.
And this idea of the deep state has been emerging more and more in people's thinking, especially now that the sort of counter candidate Trump is trying to get the will of the people done and seems to be being blocked by a sort of network of judges and lawyers and lawsuits and all this kind of stuff. especially now that the sort of counter candidate Trump is So I think most people associated the deep state with the military industrial complex, with the sort of alphabet soup of security agencies.
But I think that your book really peels back the onion layers with the accompanying tears of what an aspect of the deep state that people haven't really understood.
So I'll start with a quote from the book.
And then if you could sort of start to lead people down the rabbit hole here.
You wrote, we are now at a breaking point at which if nothing is done to rein in the judicial branch of government, we will no longer have representative democracy.
What do you mean by that?
You know, I never imagined my book would be as relevant as it is.
I wrote my book assuming we'd have a Republican president.
When I started writing it, I didn't necessarily assume Trump was going to win.
I think he just started...
making noise about his announcement at that point.
But I said to myself, even if we get yes for an answer from the electorate, we change enough hearts and minds, we get what we want, particularly on what I call the civilization issues, sovereignty, security, society, what sort of society are we going to look like, very much embodied in immigration, which is a what sort of society are we going to look like, very much embodied in immigration, which is a big Pick your favorite president, your favorite governors, your favorite legislatures.
Republicans control 33 legislatures now.
They have roughly the same number of governors.
They have all three branches of the federal government.
And very salient to this discussion now this week, conservatives across the country are seeing nothing matters, nothing changed.
Now, there's several factors.
I mean, many of us believe the Republican Party is kind of a false flag operation.
It has a lot of issues.
But the most foundational constitutional crisis I identified was, as you noted the judicial crisis.
None of our government operates as it was intended to operate.
That's for sure.
We've deviated from that for over 100 years since the progressive era.
But the single biggest crisis we have is judicial supremacy.
The notion that the unelected branch of government, lifetime appointments is nothing you can do, very closed, you know, Arcade profession.
That they are the sole and final arbiter of every social political issue That in itself is a coup King George never thought of.
I mean, that's nuts.
As you point out in the book, what the hell was the point of the American Revolution if unelected judges are making massive changes to society?
As you point out, no social transformation without representation.
And I think it cracks the question for a lot of people, which is when we look at immigration and demographics and third world cultures pouring into the West, nobody asked for this.
People oppose it.
How the hell did it come about?
How did it come about?
And I'm glad you brought that up.
That's the catchphrase of the book.
Social transformation without representation.
And again, I think the book was ahead of its curve.
It came out last year.
And kind of very deep in the weeds, well, immigration and the courts and then the conflation of the two, the courts stealing our sovereignty and immigration – And I warned, we might have a president that wants to uphold the law, that wants to uphold sovereignty.
Guess what?
That will be nullified, and we saw it in spectacular fashion.
The opening page of Chapter 4 predicts what happened, that there's going to come a day, and it only took a few months, where the courts are going to, what I call the final frontier in social transformation without representation, which is, you know, they redefined marriage, they're now redefining sexuality, they're going to take all the BS rights that they gave to their protected classes of Americans and We're
good to go.
Yeah.
a little bit with immigration, which hopefully we can get to.
But I think they can now appreciate elections don't mean anything.
And a lot of people forget, they say, well, Daniel, we're a republic, we're not a democracy.
Of course.
But as Madison said, what does a republic mean that the people always have the decisions at arm's length?
The power always gets back to the people.
They are the source.
Maybe some cases a little bit more indirect, a little bit more filtered, because that's actually better.
On pure democracy, you get elitism.
But at least it all revolves around the people.
What you have now is the most important social issues.
So what's the most important, in my mind, the most important issue a country will ever deal with?
In my mind, it's the future orientation of that country.
The future voting population that will determine every other...
Every other issue.
What's your regulatory system going to look like?
What's your tax benefit structure?
What's your healthcare system going to look like?
I think many of us would say that if you didn't have California becoming what it did, being the breadbasket of Republican voters in Orange County from Ronald Reagan's time to now Orange County, California, 40% of the entire population speaks a language other than English at home.
Again, no one voted for that.
That was done primarily by bureaucrats not following statute.
But now you have the courts doing it.
And what I mean with this social transformation, you know, Madison said being that immigration is the most important issue, that absolutely more than anything else has to be held at arm's length from the people.
Sovereignty has to be up to the people.
We have to decide who we want to let in, who we don't.
So the courts, like I said, they've done all sorts of crazy things.
They're nullifying election law.
They're nullifying voter ID laws, all sorts of things.
But that is the single worst problem because then we have no control over our country.
They are now saying that a guy sitting in a shack in Somalia could petition for a religious liberty right, a First Amendment affirmative right to immigrate.
I'm not kidding.
And their relatives or states could get standing.
To sue on their behalf, say they have an affirmative right to come in here, and there's not a darn thing we can do about it, because you know what we're told?
And this is what I go through in my book, How It's Wrong.
The courts are a judicial veto.
They're the final say.
So, you know, Congress could pass a law, the president could sign it.
That's not final, because the courts can nullify it.
But once a court nullifies it, that is regarded as stare decisis, set of law.
Although 200 years of set of law, they could...
Nullifying the progressive direction, but I call it one-directional stare decisis.
You can't touch that.
Let me just sum it up to say this.
Unelected judges, life tenure, plus one-directional precedent, plus a sole and final arbiter status, plus living and breathing constitution, is a living hell that even King George could have never conjured up.
Right.
I mean, it is a judicial class that can bypass all of the wishes of the American people, does not have to consult the wishes of the American people, and remains unresponsive to preferences in the American population.
I mean, as you point out, a vast majority of voters feel the country is going the wrong way.
Only a tiny minority, like in the low single digits of voters, want massive amounts of increased immigration, yet still it progresses.
And to me, this is just cheating.
I mean, there's lots of other words we could use, but it's just cheating.
I mean, you don't get to stack the deck with people who are going to automatically vote for your party regardless of ideology.
You know, as you point out, four-fifths of the New immigrants are voting for Democrats.
So they lost the ideological war in the 1960s when Khrushchev revealed the crimes of Stalin.
And then it was no coincidence to me that in the 1960s they then went to say, okay, well, we can't win the ideological war because leftism, communism, socialism has been progressively discredited, so to speak.
So we're just going to start stacking the deck.
And that, to me, is putting your finger or your thumb on the scale.
And that's not really – democracy is supposed to be about a debate about ideas, not just importing bodies who are going to check off your little box on the ballot.
No, and that's the funny thing.
They have a fireproof system where even if they have an arson, their political operation gets blown up.
I mean, look, even with the social transformation, I have, you know, entire chapter that moves a little bit away from the courts and just deals with immigration policy, chapter seven, where I think I present in a way that I haven't seen anywhere else just the sheer magnitude of this wave of immigration, both in terms of where I think I present in a way that I haven't seen anywhere else just the sheer magnitude You know, people say immigration is great.
It's like saying shoes are great.
Calories are great.
Fat is great.
Well, how much?
Some of it's needed.
Beyond that is kind of neutral.
Beyond that is toxic.
You know, and Bloomberg will tell you trans fats are really bad.
So certain types of importing the Middle East like Europe did is bad news.
And again, no one voted for that.
But nonetheless, despite that, they still couldn't win.
Republicans have controlled the House for 19 of the last 23 years.
They control the majority of states, although they don't do anything with it.
But officially, people, when they vote for Republicans, are not voting for often what they're getting from Republicans, but they're rejecting what the Democrats are doing.
And that's how they have this fireproof system, this social transformation without representation, where they're able to say, you know what, like you said, cheating.
I love that term because what you're doing is immoral.
This is not an option.
And basically what the courts are doing, look, even at the time of the founding, there were a lot of very in-the-weeds, esoteric disagreements over certain clauses in the Constitution.
But nobody honestly could say with a straight face that That the 14th Amendment forces the states to adopt gay marriage.
Whatever you think is matter of policy, you can't tell me it's in there.
It's of the states.
You can't tell me you have to allow on immigrants when the court said for 200 years that's not true.
But again, it's an ever-evolving system because this is who we are as a people.
And they write it blatantly, Anthony Kennedy and the Obergefell decision.
I always tell people it's not just the gay marriage.
Even if you support gay marriage, you should be appalled by the legal jurisprudence behind it, because what it means is that, I said the same way they could say, this is who we are as a people.
Retroactively, the 14th Amendment was given over to judges at any time in their generation to discover, almost a direct quote, discover new rights as we find them.
Well, they could say, you know what?
We live in an international global society, and, you know, A bunch of illegal immigrants have come.
They've been here for 15 years.
They're a part of our fabric.
They're American.
And that sounds funny, but I can tell you in the lower courts, it's already there.
Straight up judicial amnesty.
We fought...
And this is a great example, by the way, of this social transformation.
We had legislative amnesty.
All these proposals, they got shot down.
They got shot down when Democrats had all three branches of government.
They couldn't pass the DREAM Act.
Remember that in 2010...
Not enough Democrats weren't going to do it.
People didn't want it.
Then we evolved to executive amnesty.
All right, well, I'm just going to do it illegally, nullify the Immigration Nationality Act, do what I want.
All right, well, now you've got Trump in.
So now you have the final frontier, which is judicial amnesty.
And there's not a darn thing you can do about it, which we'll get to in my book.
I actually say they are not the final arbiter, but that is what is regarded in our body politic.
And if we don't deal with this...
Nothing matters.
You know, I know a lot of your audience, they care about the immigration issue in particular.
It's meaningless.
Immigration policy is meaningless if you don't deal with judicial tyranny because the last three months demonstrates that the only reason why it's not worse is because we don't have a party actually doing more robust things.
You would see the courts doing this on a daily basis, but the few things, you know, I would argue I'm very disappointed in a lot of aspects of the Trump administration that But the biggest accomplishment or attempted accomplishment that wasn't just a no-brainer.
Look, you're not going to keep Obama's ban on the Keystone Pipeline.
You get that for free.
You're not going to keep Michelle Obama's crazy lunch program.
You get that for free.
That doesn't take anything out of it.
But when you say, look, I'm going to put a moratorium on refugee resettlement and visas from these six countries, that's plowing new ground.
That I appreciate.
That was a promise kept.
But the courts nullified it.
I mean, there is no – when I say you have a First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment right to immigrate here, there's no end to it.
We literally have no country.
There's one thing you can make that argument as a matter of policy.
Look, I think we're – oh, we need everyone here.
We need all people here, open borders.
Well, you have the right to posit that argument.
But when you enshrine that into statute and really into the Constitution – There's nothing we can do about it.
They have us around the neck or around another part of the body, and there's nothing we can do about it.
The welfare state and this whole army of lawyers and bureaucrats who keep suing everyone who tries to enforce existing law and the revelatory nature of Trump's presidency, which is, you know, he just switches on the light and everyone sees like, oh, wait a minute, the Constitution says that the president has discretion over immigration.
He tries to put in a very mild restriction on a list of countries handed over by Obama and, what, some judge in Hawaii?
What the heck?
So there is this, I think, turning on the light so people can see.
You know, these black cloaked interlopers who are currently holding back the will of the people and engendering a fairly tyrannical rule of non-law.
But right back at the beginning, in the founding of America, let's talk a little bit about the philosophy of the founding fathers and the early jurisprudence figures in what it meant to immigrate to America, what it meant to be part of a community, and what say that community was supposed to have in who took up residence there.
So in the first part of the book, I really go through the legal aspects, just in general, of judicial tyranny, and then specifically honing on immigration.
But then, like you said, we get into the philosophical views.
We always hear, this is our history, tradition, and values.
This is who we are.
And actually, I wanted to write down for all of time, because I felt we were losing this rich history, that actually it's antithetical to our values.
It was the exact opposite, and it speaks literally to the time we're dealing with, especially with these Sharia-adherent immigrants that don't share American values, certainly constitutional values.
Chapter 6, I have all these quotes from our founders and then early political leaders up to Coolidge and Teddy Roosevelt.
This was bipartisan.
There was no disagreement on this.
They hated immigration and they liked immigrants.
What do I mean by that?
And you literally, there was that dichotomy.
What I mean is they hated immigration as an institution.
They didn't want to focus on it.
They didn't want to recognize it.
They loved the act of rugged individualism of someone coming over, especially back then.
You can imagine, by definition, just the physical barriers meant that it was an act of rugged individualism.
You sink or swim on your own.
And you come here to be, you know, we have all these hyphenated Americanism It's funny.
There's a hyphenated American term that they used.
Jefferson used it.
He called it Republican Americans.
That's what he wanted to see, Republican Americans.
So, you know, they actually said this because back then they didn't regulate immigration until 1865, 1881.
There's a lot of reasons for that.
I go through a little bit of it in the book.
But part of it is the lack of inviting immigrants.
Immigrants was the equivalent of restricting it.
Because essentially, back then, if you didn't diplomatically invite people in, they didn't come in large numbers, especially before they had massive passenger ships, you know, 1780s, 90s, didn't have until later in the 19th century.
They didn't come over in mass.
So they were very clear.
We do not encourage emigration.
They used the word E for both directions.
Emigration, for whatever reason, immigration didn't That word didn't exist all after the Civil War.
Emigration.
We don't want emigration.
What do you mean you don't like immigrants?
But then you see they did.
No, it was that they wouldn't invite it.
They didn't want to institutionalize it.
Oh, you're from France.
You're a German.
You're this.
Let the chips fall where they may and that's how it is.
And sorry to interrupt, but if there's a kingdom on the other side of a high mountain and you leave all your belongings behind and you climb using your teeth and crampons over this high mountain in order to engorge yourself in the new values of this other kingdom, I think it's fair to say that you're going to have a pretty strong allegiance to that new kingdom I think it's fair to say that you're going to have a pretty strong allegiance to that new And I think that's part of the challenge, right?
The sea crossing was arduous.
There was no welfare state, that there was a new land to be broken.
You had to clear land.
I mean, the only people who would come were people who loved the American idea of freedom, of limited government, of a non-aristocracy, of separation of church and state to the degree that it existed early on.
And I think having that high barrier and that lack of bribery that is so endemic to immigration now meant that, sure, anybody who makes it over that mountain and comes down in your kingdom, they really, really want to be there, which means you want them to be there too because you share those values.
No, absolutely.
And that's what reinvigorated America.
So when they say immigrants built America, immigrants were great.
Well, yeah, it was that type of immigration.
Now, obviously, the original founders, you know, from the 1700s, they didn't We're
good to go.
There was always the second line of defense, that they always, from 1790 on, regulated naturalization.
And they really guarded that.
I mean, you had to abjure all allegiance, and they meant that term, and they enforced it.
It was very clear if you didn't share our values, you weren't getting citizenship back then.
But in the Great Wave, so part of what people forget, that was the most open period of time.
Not the 1924 to 1965.
Open period.
Man, they were ruthless as hell.
I mean, so, again, this is a myth.
You would have a family come over, you know, nice Jewish family from Russia, certainly not the type from Somalia that's going to blow you up, and you'd have a kid, there's a court case I wrote about, you know, nice-looking family, a kid would come in, you'd have one daughter, the examiner would take one look, feeble-minded, inadmissible, go back across the ocean.
I mean, that's what they did.
I'm just saying, and the point is, The problem nowadays is, and this is rooted in the general problem we have with moral relativity on everything, on everything, that we don't look at a broad picture.
We look at the plight of immigrants in a vacuum.
In a vacuum.
We don't look at the broad consequences.
What, in terms of social compact theory and governing theory, is our first responsibility.
You know, it's like, I live in Baltimore.
You know, Baltimore City is a cesspool.
It's like, You know, I live a little bit outside.
It's like if I would have told my family during the Baltimore riots a year and a half ago, hey, you know, I'm going to leave our door open and go downtown and schlep some people in, you know.
No, I mean, your responsibility is your wife and your kids as the head of the household first and foremost.
And that was a solemn responsibility that they always knew.
Another principle they recognized was that supply and demand.
America was a great place.
Everyone wanted to come.
So we have a tremendous supply.
We'll only bring in the best.
We'll only bring in the people who share our values.
Why should we have any public charge?
Why should we have any anarchism?
Why should we have any problems, any crime?
There's a lot of debate over how much crime, less crime, more crime immigrants commit.
It really depends on the type.
Certainly the legals commit a lot more depending on what part of the world they come from.
But the answer says zero.
Because immigration is an elective policy.
We've got a lot of jerks here, but there's not much you can do about it.
You can't deport them.
But here the idea is if I'm going to let in people electively, we shouldn't have anything.
We shouldn't have any of these problems.
So it's funny.
I want to share an anecdote with your listeners.
They talk about build the fence and make Mexico pay for it.
You know what's funny?
the 1891 immigration law was as such that if you were a shipliner caught transporting an inadmissible alien, which is defined broadly as someone's prostitute,
public charge, anarchist, feeble-minded, and public charge, anarchist, feeble-minded, and this is just the terminology, moral torpitude issues, to quote the statute, basically they were immediately deported and the cost of the deportation was on the shipliner.
Meaning, so much was their desire not to, you know, again, it's not, oh, you're cruel.
It was a matter of, first and foremost, we have a responsibility to the taxpayer, to the American people, and there should be no negative from immigration.
It should only be a positive.
So it's a big thing people forget.
There were a lot of numbers back then, but again, we've surpassed that in sheer terms of numbers, and that's just what we already have, the trajectories even more.
I mean, 95% were from Europe.
You can't ignore that.
You cannot.
I'm sorry, as you pointed in the book, British Protestants were significantly overrepresented, which is, of course, a philosophical tradition, a language tradition, a whole development of common law tradition that allows people to assimilate pretty quickly.
You know, I jet off and start to try and live in Saudi Arabia.
Let's just say it's going to take a while for me to get the hang of things, you know, beat my wife and all that kind of stuff.
Whereas if I were to move back to Ireland where I was born or England or other, you know, Australia, would it really take me that long to integrate with?
Well, no, there's a whole shared tradition, a whole shared culture, a whole shared language that you can't just photocopy and reproduce.
I mean, if you could change people that easily, then why the hell won't newsrooms and academics, academia, why don't they just hire a whole bunch of Republicans and magically transport them into Democrats?
Well, they know that if a Republican comes in, he's unlikely to change his mind.
And there's much more in common with your average European-derived sort of Republican and Democrat than there is from someone from Somalia.
People don't change that much.
They don't change that easily.
And this idea that we're all just water, you just pour us into one container and pour us into another container.
I mean, the Democrats don't even believe that at all.
Otherwise, they'd be out there converting Republicans rather than importing Democrat voters.
No, and that exactly speaks to the fundamental differences between this time and the Great Wave.
I mean, that was exactly the point.
It was 95% European.
I mean, you can't tell me with a straight face that if I bring in 10,000 people from Toronto or Canadian neighbors versus 10,000 people from Somalia, there's no difference.
And the numbers, the origin, and the time, that entire mix, it all gets back to the melting pot.
The melting pot analogy is really a perfect analogy.
If you have a salt and pepper bed, no, they could be really good, but in the right measure.
And that's the point.
Could you bring in some people from the Middle East and it would work out?
Sure.
But if you bring in enough of them over a short period of time, and then among other factors with the Muslim Brotherhood here, the lack of pressure to assimilate, the mollycoddling and all that stuff, Well, you're not just importing a guy to assimilate into Republican American values.
You're importing the values of the Middle East.
And this is a big problem that a lot of people get.
Even some conservatives, they talk about vetting.
We need to better vet the people.
They're missing the point.
The problem we have now is not that, okay...
You, Muhammad, you, Ahmad, coming in here, all right, you have a paper trail with an ISIS al-Qaeda card, you don't.
It doesn't work like that.
They don't have any cards, but it's a cumulative effect.
The lesson from Europe is that it's a cultural effect.
It's the climate that you cultivate.
It's not a matter of vetting.
It's a matter of, you know, culturally, you know, I tell people, I don't care what your politics are, right to left, whatever you think.
If you're an American, do you have the right to abuse your wife and treat them like crap?
Well, if you're not breaking federal law, I mean, you do.
But should we bring in people who do that?
I ask people, should we bring in, if you had a place where people were overwhelmingly white supremacist, would the left say, oh, we should bring them in?
Like, no, you'd say, well, you have the right to First Amendment rights here to espouse your views, whatever you want.
But as a political question, should we bring you in?
Should we bring in people like that?
And then it's the Sharia supremacism.
It's not a matter of are you a terrorist.
It's when you bring in roughly 150,000 a year from the Middle East at this point, especially when you count the student visas.
You wonder why there's a culture of anti-Semitism, a culture of craziness on American college campuses.
A tremendous amount of student visas, 70,000 or so per year from the King Abdullah scholarship program in Saudi Arabia.
I mean, that takes its toll.
It's a cumulative culture effect.
When you have 30 or 50 or so individuals under investigation or arrested in the Minneapolis Somali community for terrorism charges, well, that doesn't happen in a vacuum.
That means that there's a broader community where you could peel back layers who are their family members, who are the mosque leaders, who are their neighbors.
Are all of them problematic?
Probably not.
But a heck of a lot of them cultivate that climate.
A lot of these individuals are either born here, they came here when they were two years old.
There's nothing to vet.
They look like cute little kids.
And this gets back to the Syrian refugee business.
You could give me heart-rending pictures, but that's not a punchline in terms of, we've seen in Europe, they'll bite the hand that feeds them.
They grow up here, they don't assimilate, they resent our culture, and then a certain number of them are going to go and commit attacks.
But even the ones that don't, prospectively, do you want to bring that in?
And this was a no-brainer.
So when people say it's not part of our values to have a moratorium on immigration from the Middle East, it's not part of our values.
Our parents' generation, grandparents' generation, would have never thought to bring them in in the first place.
And what's funny is you go back to Ted Kennedy's statements from 1965, and I do this a little bit in the book.
1965 immigration bill is what broke our system.
But they didn't sell it to the people as that.
It's funny, even the Democrats back then said, will this flood your cities with third world immigrants?
Will this be a...
Now you can't even get conservatives to talk like that.
But Democrats, they lied, but at least they felt the need to speak like that because they knew people understood that.
Lots of other factors in my book, but I want to share one final distinction.
The one final distinction is after all of that, They had the shutoff.
Meaning, why was the Great Wave so successful that people really speak about it?
They had that shutoff.
Here, we double down, triple down, quadruple down, and there's no end in sight.
So then, by definition, you're not giving them a chance.
Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address in 1989, January 1989, he admonished the public to really go back to an informed patriotism.
And he spoke nostalgically about the time he grew up in.
And he said, you know, if you didn't get what it meant to be an American in the home, you usually did.
If you didn't, you got it in school.
If you didn't get it in school, you got it from your neighbors who fought in World War II or World War I back then.
And if you didn't get it from them, by golly, you got it from Hollywood.
You know, and you did.
And that was the America through which the immigrants from 1881 to 1924 became naturalized, the people who were in the home.
The peak naturalization, as I note in the book, was in the 30s, because there's always a delayed reaction.
That was the strong American culture that they were growing into.
What American culture are immigrants growing up into now?
A pile of crap.
Well, and of course, if you pay a woman $500 to go out on a date with you, You're fairly sure she's there for the 500 bucks and doesn't just love your robust masculinity and rapier-like wit and roguish charm.
And the problem, of course, is when you have a welfare state, you don't know if people are coming for the values or for the money.
And when you have a welfare state, you know, one of the things that happened in the 19th century in America, of course, Daniel, was a third of people went back.
They didn't like it.
They didn't cut it.
didn't work for them or whatever, right?
And they had to go back because there was no giant welfare state that could keep them here in opposition to the values.
So when you go to a new country, if there's no welfare state, then you have to find some way to make a living.
You have to find some way to integrate or insert yourself into the economics, which means learning the language, learning the values, understanding the whole process, not offending too many of the local population who otherwise will economically ostracize you.
And so it fundamentally changes when you have a welfare state and As we see in Europe, the people coming in from the Middle East, they have to work 18 hours a day to earn one-tenth what they get from the Swedish welfare state for sitting around on a freshly minted and handed over to them iPad Air or something.
It is a fundamentally different situation from the 19th century to today.
The culture was more robust and there was a lot of exclusion for people.
Like, I mean, religions which come with prefabricated entire political systems, right?
Which is, you know, not all of the religions, but some of them do.
Well, that's going to be a challenge.
And, of course, you point out in the book, social media allows people to continue to have a very strong relationship with their sort of country of origin and so on.
Welfare allows people to segment themselves into communities where only the local languages are spoken.
And of course, this happened with Chinatown as well.
But Chinatown tends to diminish over time as the East Asians make their way economically into the mainstream of society.
But it is a fundamentally different situation now.
And last but not least, as you point out in the book, America wasn't full.
Like when was the last time you were driving down the street at five o'clock in a major thoroughway in some American city looking around going two miles a day, it feels like, and saying, boy, you know, it'd be great.
Another couple of million people in this city would just make it perfect.
I mean, it was empty.
And this is what it means to be a liberal.
There's no sense of proportion, of context.
Oh, you know, we're in a country – well, gee, you had an awful large landmass to fill up.
And I actually addressed this directly.
Thomas Jefferson in the notes on the state of Virginia has a line in there where he's kind of talking to himself and he's contemplating this.
And they were contemplating whether to bring in more immigrants – And he was weighing this.
And this is where he talked about the problems of bringing in too many immigrants.
And he was talking about the need to protect from the Indians and the frontier and everything.
They badly needed people.
And again, of course, he was talking about, you know, he singled out the French.
Again, he was talking about Europeans.
That, you know, it's aristocratic nature.
They don't understand Republican government.
Could you imagine what they would think of...
Bring it in, you know, 15,000 Somalis a year every single year for 24 years since 1993.
I mean, it makes – it literally makes no sense.
And, you know, I am a full libertarian on fiscal and economic issues.
I am a free market guy.
But what I never understood with these people is they think that somehow, oh, free market is just bringing people.
They view America as a spreadsheet, the economic bean counting.
Now, I disagree with this notion that you just import the world and that's the pathway to prosperity.
Boy, I mean, why didn't anyone think of that before?
Economically, it's BS. Well, of course, if Somalis are so economically valuable, then why isn't Somalia like Hong Kong?
Exactly, exactly.
But putting that aside, America is more than that.
And that's what they don't understand.
This is not even a matter of some European nationalism in some countries.
This is just pure American patriotism.
I routed to the Declaration of Governance by the Consent of the Governance, the founders.
That's the thing.
I'm not a European nationalist type, actually.
This is patriotism.
This is what both parties always understood.
You could debate over where you're going to draw the line on immigration, but we have went way over that.
This is the biggest winning issue.
This is the issue that intuitively, a lot of people, you know, I'm knee-deep in healthcare debates.
It's tough.
People don't get it.
It's very complicated.
Health insurance is very complicated.
People get this.
It speaks to their intuitive common sense.
Well, and healthcare debates are entirely related to immigration.
I mean, this is not that complicated.
I mean, if you have people coming in who don't speak the language, who have poor health habits, who have poor health histories, and who the hospitals can't deny service to, guess what's going to happen to your healthcare costs?
They're going to go through the roof.
And one of the reasons why Obamacare, I believe, was put into place was to allow for more illegal immigrants to access healthcare and thus provide that ratcheting in, that sort of chain migration stuff, which we can get to in a second, again, in order to buttress votes for the left, which is lost intellectually.
No, absolutely.
I mean, look, you know, if you bring in Mexico, you're going to get Mexico's health care system.
And that's another thing.
It's also, again, we focus a lot on culture, on, you know, public charge, obviously safety and crime.
But the founders' biggest concern was your political values.
That was their biggest concern.
Again, I think just because it never – the self-immolation of bringing in terrorists and criminals and public charge never even – You're not going to find writings on it because they never entertain such ideas, but they were concerned about the political ideals, and the reality is, especially particularly from Latin America, you see it's very into socialism, and that's what it is, a liberation theology, and that's the mindset.
So when you bring in large numbers, that's the problem you're going to have, but again, getting back to the courts, we can't even hope to change the political class and change hearts and minds, or I would actually say tap into What people intuitively agree with us on and change the system because now the courts are saying do process equal protection.
You have to fund illegal immigrants.
You have to give welfare to them.
You know, Arizona, you have to give driver's licenses to...
Think about this.
Blue states get standing in court to sue Trump to bring in more immigrants when his executive order is pursuant to statute.
Yet the same Ninth Circuit...
It's mandating that Arizona give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, driver's licenses are manifestly a state function, when it's against statute.
I mean, it is completely backwards.
There's nothing we can hope to do.
They are now saying, if you watch what happens with the left over time...
They start out with nut-job, whacked-out political ideas.
But within 10 to 15 years, they get codified as legal mandates.
Because this is who we are.
This is who we are.
We're now into homosexuality, so therefore that means a state must recognize a gay marriage.
Our values as such, you're going to have a point where they're going to start mandating welfare.
Meaning even if the Republicans wanted to repeal Obamacare, you can't do that.
And they're starting to do that with illegal immigrants.
This is not who we are.
Equal protection, due process.
You have to have bilingual education.
So you have that pressure.
They have everything working against assimilation.
One of their observations is also the culture of the immigration groups, people that work in the field.
I don't remember if I had it in a footnote or not, if I wrote about it.
And by the way, if your listeners love what I'm saying in my book, I've written more in my columns at Conservative Review than the amount in my book, and it's mainly new information, too.
Every day we write about this stuff, the courts, immigration, all sorts of issues.
But it's either there or in the book.
Highest, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, back in the 1880s, they were so sensitive about the notion of social transformation that they would make sure to sprinkle around, I guess it was Jewish immigrants predominantly from Eastern Europe then, create enclaves in certain areas.
They were very sensitive to that.
And it's so tragic that that same organization around 130 years later is now, ironically, bringing in Muslims, oh, hey Jews, and clustering them and transforming entire places like Amarillo, Texas.
Oh, don't even get me started on American intellectuals who fiercely defend the right of Israel to remain an ethnostate and then say that all of Western countries, anyway, that's a whole other topic.
So let's talk about some of this sort of legal justifications.
Now, you point out in the book how the leftist activist judges and other – constantly contradict themselves.
Well, that's fine.
That's to be expected.
I mean, just read Sol Alinsky's Rule for Radicals.
They say, the end justifies the means.
We don't mind flipping principles on their head.
It allows us to advance our cause one inch.
It doesn't matter.
You can be black today, white tomorrow, checkered the next day.
It doesn't matter at all.
But what are these sort of surface justifications, Daniel, that they're talking about, which seem to orbit the 14th Amendment, like the planets orbit the sun?
I wonder if you can help people unpack how this original amendment, which was designed to, of course, legitimize black votes and black rights and so on, slave rights, ex-slave rights, how has that been used to transform America to this degree?
Yeah, as you notice, it all gets back to the 14th.
There's several other things there.
You know, what happened there, obviously, everyone knows it was very simple.
That, you know, blacks didn't have any rights in this country.
The bare basic Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property rights, then obviously the voting right.
The 14th Amendment was used to simply give blacks who lived in this country forever, for many years, the same life, liberty, and property rights.
The bare bones minimum.
That's what unalienable rights mean.
Period.
Nothing more than that.
And in fact, it didn't give them the right to vote.
That's why you needed the 15th Amendment.
It was really very basic.
You know, you go back, you'll see quotes from the framers during the congressional debates or House Judiciary Committee proceedings.
They'll actually say, well, this allowed them to sit on the jury?
No.
You know, and again, that's just a fact.
That's what happened.
But the left found a perfect hook.
Well, the Constitution sucked because you see what it did to them.
So that had to repair it.
So the 14th Amendment, until the rest of time...
It's a living and breathing retroactive mechanism to codify any social justice, their agenda, into law.
So what you're starting to see, and this was going on obviously since the Warren era, since the 50s, 60s, but it has reached a crisis mode.
There was kind of a method to their madness back then.
There was some consistency.
They have reached such a point.
Where it's a one-way street, it's a dead end for conservatives, where they will literally, what's a federal power they'll give to the states, what's a state power they'll give to the feds, and then contradict themselves in the same issue when the outcome is the right thing for whoever.
If it's all, you know, to say I'm for blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, so then the means justify the end.
An unalienable right, they read out.
What's antithetical to that, they read in.
It is a complete circus.
But the point is, they're basically, Robert Bork said this in the 90s, and if he would only see what's going on now, I mean, it dwarfs what happened then.
They're engaging in civil disobedience.
They're basically saying, this is not who we are.
It's kind of, you know, Scalia called it legal fog.
They loaded up with crap, but it basically means, this is not who we are.
These are not our values.
So they have – and the thing is they're able to build up over the years a bunch of legal fog and then draw upon it, and then you never go backwards, but you can only add.
It's a ratchet.
I call it in the book a legal ratchet, and you can't – and this is why this whole notion that, oh, we just appoint better judges – Dude, that ship sailed 50 years ago.
I mean, it's so systemically good.
Dude, this is the stuff that you point out.
You say there's these new fundamental rights that have been summoned like demons, like endless brooms in a Mickey Mouse cartoon.
The right to nobility, the right to dignity, the right to define and express your identity, the right not to be stiff.
Stigmatized.
Oh, yeah, yeah, because Lord knows conservatives are never stigmatized in academia or in newspaper rooms and so on.
And this also, I got to tell you, Daniel, really bothers me because slavery was a horrendous exploitation of blacks.
How on earth do you get to advance your leftist agenda by horrendously exploiting a remedy for the horrendous exploitation of?
I mean, it's standing on the grave of one of the greatest tragedies in American history, the sort of enslavement of blacks, and using the remedy for that, the good-hearted, good-natured, positive remedy for some of that immorality, and using that to advance your own agenda, to me, is pretty heinous.
You know, I want to address that point, because I go over in the book, originally, after Stolen Sovereignty, one of my runner-up titles of the book was going to be disenfranchised.
And I use that word a lot in the book, So think about it.
The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that people that were Americans here forever, had their unalienable rights taken away, weren't disenfranchised.
They're using that to disenfranchise all American citizens with social transformation on this notion that, oh, the 14th Amendment says that people could just break into our country unilaterally, assert jurisdiction.
And then say, drop a baby, he's an American, get to vote, get welfare, and there's not a darn thing you can do even prospectively about it.
This is the true tragedy, but what you're starting to see in the courts now is a trend that the social justice agenda is so noble and so moral and anything against that is so immoral that they're violating, they're cheating and stealing to get the results.
So what they're starting...
Part of why the courts...
Just to go back a little bit, a lot of people ask me, Daniel, what does judicial review mean?
You're saying the courts don't have that power, but I thought they have judicial review.
Judicial review is very controversial.
But even if you go with John Marshall and that school of thought, Jefferson didn't like it.
All it meant was this.
It meant that Congress passes a law.
The executive branch enforces it, or for new laws, they have a prerogative to veto it, and the courts interpret the application of the statute.
Now, where does this come from?
Striking down and saying, you violate the Constitution.
That's where we say, look, what happens if Congress passes a law and says anyone named John Witherspoon has to pay an extra 10% in taxes?
I mean, Blatantly, a bill of attainder, that's the term they use.
I mean, blatantly, against the manifest definition of the Constitution as adopted.
Look, I'm a judge.
I swear an oath, like everyone else, to uphold the Constitution.
The ultimate law of the land is not the statute, it's the Constitution.
So, look, what am I supposed to do?
I'm able to grant relief to that legitimate case or controversy that had legitimate standing before me.
They don't strike down the law.
There's no...
Oh, it goes to the president for a veto.
Oh, and then it goes to the judiciary.
No, no, no.
There's no judicial veto.
I mean, even liberals have to agree to this.
It's not – mechanically, it's not how it works.
So the point is you have to have a legitimate case for controversy.
Now, if they're nakedly trying to be political and determine a precedent for national policy as a veto, no, the understanding was how much more so the other branches, which have more robust powers – You know, the courts have neither a force nor will.
They don't have the power of the person.
They don't have the power to execute.
How much more so they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution?
They have to.
So if I have a court saying, you have to arrest someone for not implementing gay marriage, well, I mean, dude, I mean, my version of the 14th Amendment doesn't say that.
So I certainly—they meant even the courts, also the courts, could have a say in this, but not— Only the courts, because philosophically that makes no sense then.
You have the unelected branch sitting on top of the food chain, not co-equal branches.
So anyway, that's what judicial review was.
What's happening now is, among many reasons, in 1958 in Cooper v.
Aaron, the court said, we're the sole and final arbiter.
Madison said, no branch of government could determine the scope of its trust.
I mean, somehow they're able to do that.
But over and beyond that, The reason why we didn't have this problem is because you have to have a legitimate standing.
Let me give you an example.
Ten Commandments.
So someone has a replica of the Ten Commandments on their courthouse.
That was the case with Roy Moore.
I hate the Ten Commandments!
Well, alright, so go into your city council and get rid of it.
But you don't have an injury in fact...
My eyes!
That's the thing.
They can't nullify.
But that's the distinction.
You have to have what's called an injury in fact.
That you have a legitimate, valid grievance.
Otherwise, that's a legislative issue.
This is literally when you hear legislating from the bench.
That's what it means.
So what the courts are doing on immigration now is they're giving foreign national standing, which they never had.
But then also, for example, in Trump's second executive order...
I'll give you a couple examples.
The second executive order, so the first executive order was on people actually who had visas ready and they were denied at the airport.
Now, again, he totally had that power.
They undermined 200 years of case law.
Crazy.
But you could say you had legitimate standing.
Well, I was denied.
Even though there's foreign national that you have no right to remain in the country or come against the national will, even if you're an LPR. It's a disquieting thought, and maybe you might politically want to add them protections, but legally there are no protections.
But anyway, the second executive order was striking down futuristic prospective immigration.
So basically in Hawaii, a relative of someone in Syria was able to get standing in But nothing happened.
They weren't denied entry.
It was the fear looming over them.
That's civil disobedience.
That is not legitimate standing.
In the case that just happened last week with the sanctuary cities, so San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, the judge recognized that they were not listed.
They were not listed.
Nothing happened to them yet.
But the fear looming over them in their budgeting process is enough to give them standing.
Then, again, even if you're a liberal, even if you disagree with everything you and I are saying, that should raise your BS meter.
I'll give you one final example.
I just wrote about this yesterday, and go to Conservative Review and see this.
There's a case on Bank of America Corp.
v.
City of Miami, where the city of Miami is blaming the banks for For all, you know, every major blue city is hell.
I mean, the social problems, the security problems, the gangs, which to a large degree are illegal alien gangs, by the way, and everything.
So they are saying that the banks discriminated against blacks and Hispanics not for not giving them mortgages, for giving them too many mortgages and predatory lending.
Yeah.
Which, now, now, now, by the way, here's the deal.
Forget about the absurdity of this.
I want to talk about the standing.
So, the individuals didn't bring a lawsuit.
It was the city of Miami.
Well, what's your agreements?
Okay.
You ready for this?
Here's the deal.
Okay, hang on.
Let me just get my crash helmet of absurdity on.
Okay, go ahead.
Let me take this low.
Let me take this low.
Clarence Thomas laid this out.
I'm not doing justice.
It's a 20-step process.
So, basically...
You're mean by offering them too many opportunities to get a mortgage when you'll be sued if you do anything otherwise, by the way.
So you get it from both directions.
Then, well, they couldn't pay it, so then you foreclose.
And when you foreclose, there's vacant houses.
When there's vacant houses, then gangs start meeting to the houses.
And then the houses surrounding them, their property values go down.
Their property values go down, and we get less property tax revenue.
It puts a strain on our police.
This is a direct quote.
Police, firefighters, and other social services.
At the time when they brought it in district court, even the left were saying, this is like, they're not going to get sent.
And the district court threw it out.
The 11th Circuit said, no, this is great.
And just Monday...
The Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision.
John Roberts joined with the four liberals.
Even Kennedy didn't.
Gorsuch didn't take part in it yet.
They ruled that, yes, they have standing and it's the bank's fault.
Do you understand the social transformation that that opens up?
That opens the door for every blue city in this country to blame its existing social woes, which we know why they exist.
For a number of reasons to blame them on banks.
You know, I just...
I'm no lawyer, of course, as you know, but one of the ways that you can control the problem of illegal immigrant gangs is to stop allowing illegal immigrants into your city.
That's just, you know, that's another possibility.
Now, let's...
I want to talk about two things and then we'll get to solutions because, you know, what I like to do is, you know, just basically have the elephant of despair sit on people's chest, you know, because that's what you need to see what's going on in the world and then we'll sort of figure out how to...
How to change it.
But I was really struck by, and it sort of accords with my common sense understanding of common law, which is if you come to a country and you're not there as a citizen or as a legal immigrant, you're kind of in this bubble of not here a stand, so to speak, right?
Like you kind of don't have legal standing.
Like the kids, as you point out, the kids of...
The diplomats aren't automatically given American citizenship because the diplomats are there sort of by treaty and they're not full citizens and so on.
There's this weird thing that happened, as of course you point out in the book, which everyone's aware of, this anchor baby issue.
Now, of course, before I understood it from a legal standpoint, it was really confusing to me, Daniel, because to me it's like, okay, if you're here illegally and you have a baby, citizenship is one of the great prizes in the world, like American citizenship.
So if you've committed a crime, I don't think you get to keep the fruits of that crime just because you happen to be – Like, if I go to a bank and make a withdrawal peacefully, I guess it's my money.
If I go there with a gun, then I don't get to keep the product of that crime, even though I'm doing something similar to what other people without the gun are doing.
So keeping the value gained by a crime, which to me was one of the big arguments against anchor babies and birthright citizenship, was one of the basic arguments.
And this idea that you get...
You just get to a country and suddenly you're part of that country.
You don't have to apply.
You don't have to get the approval of people who were there.
Set approval being all the more important now that they're on the hook for your economic failures as they so often occur in the immigrant community.
So help people understand just like this weird footnote thing, how this kind of ratcheted into...
American society.
And then all of this chain migration, which, as you point out, is one of the huge problems that comes out of this very strange interpretation of American legal history.
Wow, yeah.
So, I mean, I have in chapter four in my book, the most consumable, I would argue.
It's the heaviest chapter.
It's a little bit heavier than I wanted it to be.
But I wanted to write down to end of times the legal case.
I kept hearing...
And this is one of the reasons this issue alone really prompted me to write this book, Stolen Sovereignty at its Core.
I couldn't imagine when Trump, and gosh, I'm losing my mind.
This is so long ago already.
This was the end of 2015.
The fall of 2015 is when this blew up.
That's when Trump announced his candidacy, or after he announced his candidacy, he talked about birthright citizenship.
And I would look there and see one after another, there was unanimity of opinion among the conservatives.
You know, I mean, forget about the left.
I mean, among the phony talking heads on Fox News and, you know, outside of a couple of talk shows like Mark Levin, obviously, Conservative Review, we covered it properly in Breitbart.
But they didn't just, you know, support it as a matter of policy.
They were saying legally, and not just those that already have it, even prospectively, they're going to come in and the fortune demand, there's not a darn thing you can do about it.
And right away, your BSP should go up, as we said at the beginning of this.
Deeply rooted in the preamble of the Declaration.
Consent by the consent of the governed.
Governance by the consent of the governed.
You can't do that.
You can't do that to a society.
You can debate what degree of consent, how much status...
How temporary or permanent resident or both parents, the details.
But the notion that someone could come against the consent of the country and unilaterally assert jurisdiction, even if you didn't know the 14th Amendment, the history, and I go through all that, debunk it, it philosophically, it undermines the foundation of who we are.
It undermines everything.
That is the biggest social transformation.
It's like saying a squatter gets ownership of the house.
Of the house.
It's adverse possession, which, by the way, it's called in legal terms adverse possession.
You know, if you have a 50-acre property in this area you don't really pay attention to, so on squats for a certain number of years, depending on the state you're in, there's some legal right to it.
And by the way, that's kind of what I talk about with the judicial remedies, that the judiciary has done that to the other branches, and they allowed that squatters' rights, you know, to play on a double entendre here.
The judiciary has stolen this.
And that's, by the way, the book is Stolen Sovereignty, Stealing of the National Sovereignty.
And the judiciary engaging in it, stealing the individual sovereignty of self-governance and of the other branches of government.
But I digress here.
Anyway, what's happening here with this birthright citizenship is a lot of people think that at some point there was a law passed or there's, you know, it's stupid, we need to overturn it, even those who support it.
That's not what happened.
This is the most consequential thing I ever have seen that evolved by accident.
There was no...
So what I think from my research is that basically, obviously, there were times in our history where only certain people get citizenship.
And then you had laws like Asians, they couldn't get citizenship.
What happened was we didn't really have illegal immigrants in earnest until later on.
And maybe during the 60s, really, and that's when everything went to hell in a handbasket with immigration.
It was around that time...
That you start to have the mix of the bureaucrats not following statute, not following their mandate, and the courts kind of mixing together for the one big ultimate social transformation with our representation.
It was really a laziness of not clamping down on it, not protecting American sovereignty.
There was no law passed.
A lot of it was, like I said, I don't think there was initially an agenda behind it, because illegal immigration kind of happened on its own.
It kind of evolved on its own.
So basically, what happens?
Someone comes to a hospital.
You and I get the bill for it, by the way.
That's a big unfunded liability no one wants to talk about.
And then, well, the hospitals hand out birth certificates.
The Social Security Administration and HHS, whatever you want to say, whatever administration, there's three or so agencies that would oversee this.
Nowadays, I lose track over what happened in the 60s, but it would roughly be SSA, DHS, and HHS having varying jurisdictions over this.
You would mandate that hospitals have to check for proof of citizenship.
They just lazily let that involve.
So you would just have kids that would get a birth certificate.
reaching critical mass throughout the 80s.
He had that amnesty.
It was the late 80s and 90s where people started raising hell about it and you had bills being introduced by the way, by one by Harry Reid, none other than Harry Reid, a very strong version of it too, stronger than any Republican even Steve King is introduced nowadays.
They said, "No, we got to stop that." And by the way, your listeners, if you want to just Google Harry Reid, birthright citizenship, I have a clip of his entire speech.
It's beautiful.
He called that the Democrat Party Memorial Act, just to see how far we've all moved to the left on this issue in 20, 25 years.
It was at that point that the left retroactively manufactured a legal argument.
No!
Actually, it's mandated.
It's by the 14th Amendment.
It says there, it says if you're born on the soil, and then they leave that, and subject the jurisdiction of.
Those are all the details I go through, but that's how it evolves.
So they basically, they draw upon a footnote in Justice Brennan, who is crazy, his opinion in 1982, Plyler v.
Doe, where they mandated that Texas give...
You know, K-12 education to illegals and pay for it.
That was kind of the first, you know, first breach in sovereignty, really, the Plylar v.
Doe case.
A footnote in that opinion, which is dicta, which means it's BS, meaning that's not the opinion.
It's just, you know, if I issue opinions, so that's the opinion.
But if I just emote about random stuff that don't have anything to do with With the case before you, even according to the prevailing standard, which is judicial supremacy, it's not precedent.
So he said, well, there's a case of Wong Kim Ark in the 1890s where they said that the 14th Amendment mandates automatic unqualified birthright citizenship for those born on our soil, and there's no reason it shouldn't apply to illegals.
That was a thing.
So there's never been a case yet on illegals, although the lower courts have clearly indicated that.
And I will tell you, everyone but Clarence Thomas and Alito will totally rule that way, unanimous.
I'm almost positive Gorsuch will be bad on this.
That's a separate issue.
But basically, can you imagine that?
Just real briefly, without getting into the details, Wong Kim Ark was just a family that was allowed here to The Chinese were invited in through a treaty, and they didn't want to give citizenship to them.
But then the question arose in the courts, well, now I have kids.
And that's when they said, well, if you let them in and they are subject to our jurisdiction, which they are, both parents are legal permanent residents.
Even if you don't want to give them citizenship, well, you got the 14th Amendment.
That's a minimum floor.
To say, oh, so therefore there's no difference if they're here against the national will.
So that's the long and short of it.
But I will tell you, it is legal gospel among the right libertarian-leaning legal people that birthright citizenship is mandated.
And it is, to me, astonishing, the idea, because it says subject to the jurisdiction, which means has been accepted by the legal system, has been accepted by the people who vote, and, of course, being there illegally means that, well, the left has always survived by giving out gifts, by bribery, by welfare, and so on.
To me, it's bad enough when there's welfare used as ways of getting people's votes, but when you're actually starting to hand out citizenship, then you're fundamentally altering the entire future trajectory, demographics, and character of the entire society, and that is totally burning the future to feed the present.
I'm going to just give you some of the bullet points that are in your book, now that people are aware.
We're skimming past really, really fast here.
Please read Daniel's book.
Get yourself some scotch and some Leonard Cohen.
Sit down and go through it.
It's really, really important because this is how societies are changing now and the only way to get back to any kind of...
Voter control over the processes is to find a way to interrupt this stuff.
So we've touched on abolish birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.
I wonder if you can talk about the effects.
We touched on it briefly just now, Daniel, with chain migration.
So what it is for, because this is going out worldwide, and how much effect it has on demographics.
Sure.
What chain migration did is, again, getting back to that social compact theory.
And the preamble of the declaration that the keys of the future orientation of society have to be in the hands of the citizenry, what it did was essentially take the keys away and give it to the hands of the immigrants.
So the immigrants decide the future orientation of the country, that's stolen sovereignty for you.
And again, unlike, you know, just like the courts have stolen the sovereignty, this is another example of the bureaucrats and the way they interpret the laws, or at least the way the laws are sold to us.
What I make very clear in Chapter 7 is that even the few bad things that did pass, again, most things were executive and judicial.
They cannot get bad immigration bills passed because people don't want it.
Even the few things that were bad were sold to the people as doing the exact opposite of what it achieved.
And, you know, again, they were saying this is going to bring in more European immigrants.
This is going to not flood your country.
This is going to be high-skilled.
But what happened was, see, if I... Well, what chain migration is, it's a multiplying factor.
It's a force multiplier.
So it basically takes our existing system, which is garbage, and multiply it.
So if you like your immigration system, you can keep it.
So in other words, if you're bringing in crime, terrorists, public charge, Sharia...
It will ensure that you bring in more because it gives preference rather than allowing the American people to choose through narrowly tailored statutes and, you know, a truly merit-based system who we want to come in based on merit.
What it does is it prioritizes all the immigrants could just bring in their relatives and their relatives and their relatives.
And again, given that our system – you know, we still bring in some good immigrants, but given that it's largely low-skilled, public charge, then you've got the whole Sharia aspect from the Middle East.
It just grows legs.
And there's not a darn thing we can do about it.
So until we pass a new law, this law that was sold to us is doing the opposite.
So to me, I tried to identify for the Trump administration force multipliers.
If you have five bullets in that shotgun, that is a way to really take care of this.
And I forget the name of the bill, but since I wrote the book...
Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas introduced exactly what I talked about.
I have a way that I say you could cut 40% of immigration by just simply getting rid of chain migration, and it would be broadly popular, and it won't be that disruptive.
And it really is a force multiplier, and that solves our security problems to a certain extent.
Because again, who do you think brought the lawsuits to bring in...
You know, individuals from Syria and Somalia.
It was relatives that we brought in last couple of years.
Well, and of course, the refugee resettlement, we need to talk about that briefly, of course.
People think that if a country's at war, then you're obligated to bring in refugees.
This is not the case.
I mean, just because a country's at war doesn't mean, at least as the case up here in Canada, just because a country's at war doesn't mean that everybody who claims to be a refugee from that war can gain entrance.
And of course, you can always find some way relative to Western jurisprudence that people in the third world are going to be subject to some kind of maltreatment in their home countries.
And so there is no particular cap on how far this particular aspect of things can go.
So you say that it's really, really important to impose a number of reforms on refugee resettlement.
What are the most important ones in your view?
Sure.
Sure.
This is, again, social transformation without representation where you have not just the you have the unelected bureaucrats, the courts, the U.N., and private parasitic contractors that stand to benefit commensurately with the amount of refugees they bring in. and private parasitic contractors that stand to benefit commensurately with A lot of them get $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 salaries.
The executives of these nine or so volunteer groups, they control the future.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
Sovereignty belongs to the whole of the people, and they control it.
So what I have, obviously, we need a moratorium.
I mean, that's straight up.
But short of that...
I know we're quick on time.
I'll just give one quick thing that would really be a force multiplier.
And again, since then, Representative Scott Perry has introduced a bill doing more or less this.
If you would allow states to decide, in other words, if you structure the refugee program as such, that each of the 50 states, in order for the government to resettle, the feds to resettle refugees in their jurisdictions, because again, the feds to resettle refugees in their jurisdictions, because again, that is social transformation.
Remember, even in our crazy system, there's somewhat supposedly of an organic process.
I mean, you kind of come there, you get a job or whatever.
Refugee resettlement is literally you carte blanche, just uproot people and plop them into Amarillo, Texas.
So, you know, while immigration is national in scope...
This is something that especially really the state should have a say in.
And if you would make it that the default position is you don't have refugees unless a state legislature and the county government would affirmatively vote to bring them in, first of all, that is wildly popular.
I mean, if you would campaign on that, Let the people decide.
Let the local communities decide.
I mean, this is the type of stuff that really breaks down the typical ideological line barriers.
They have taxes and abortion and whatever.
I just think messaging-wise, it's a great idea.
And then practically, it will shut it down in all but the most liberal counties in the liberal states because you would need both.
And then one other thing is the problem we have now is that it's on autopilot.
So now you could bring in any one you want, even though it was sold to us, the 1980 refugee bill, as capping it.
It was a lie.
They had a loophole.
Have refugee resettlement expire every other fiscal year.
So the default would be no refugees unless you stand before the American people in a dramatic vote and renew it.
So that's what that...
Illegal aliens in the census.
I mean, when I grew up, I sort of assumed illegal aliens living in the shadows.
It's like, turns out not a lot of shadows left, as far as that goes.
How does the accounting of illegal aliens in the census skew particular voting districts, Democrat?
Talk about disenfranchising the American people.
I mean, using the 14th Amendment to give them a franchise, to give black Americans a franchise.
Now, taking that...
To disenfranchise all Americans and give illegals voting power.
Now, what do I mean by that?
Now, first of all, illegals do vote, and that's probably addressed briefly in the book.
But even when they don't, they vote.
The American system, as you know, the way the representatives are apportioned from the states is based on the population states have.
So the states are able to buttress their numbers by counting illegal aliens, and they're actually – the left would argue that it's required by the 14th Amendment to count them.
Do you understand that Obamacare is the law of the land in America because of this provision alone?
Why?
The House of Representatives passed Obamacare by 217 to 212.
Three-vote swing would make the difference.
California alone gets an extra five seats because they count illegal aliens.
And then there's other states, you know, it's at least a dozen total in the country.
That is, I mean, it is an outrage, again, if people were made more aware of this.
So that is...
Sorry, the Somalis also voted for Al Franken, who was a pretty deciding vote in that.
So, yeah, this is all very important regarding big, big programs.
Yeah.
No, absolutely.
It's a multiplying factor, meaning whatever issue you care about on the right...
This is a big part of it.
It gives them more representation.
Again, California is tough to work against to begin with.
When you give them extra votes, that is just insurmountable.
Now, let's talk about the judicial reforms.
I've saved the spiciest topic for the last.
Judicial reforms...
The idea that the courts can be reined in, that there can be laws stripping federal courts of their ability to rule on sensitive social issues, that should, of course, be the province of Congress and votes and kicking people out if they don't follow the will of the people and so on.
What are the major reforms that you would like to, you know, magic one time, right, that you would like to see that would return some of the sovereignty back to the people?
The single biggest thing is understanding the power of Congress over the courts.
It boggles my mind that this is the single biggest silver bullet, and it doesn't even get an earring, and it's straight out in the Constitution.
I mean, we need a revolution.
But, you know, at least let's try everything that's written in the Constitution.
Let's use our constitutional tools.
And it amazes me that we have an entire generation of Americans that think the courts are the solemn final order.
They're not.
Everything they've done is wrong.
We go through in the book what judicial review means versus judicial supremacy.
You know, the other branches don't have to listen to that when they believe they're right.
But nonetheless, even with this system, there is a remedy to take back jurisdiction.
People don't realize Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the entire jurisdiction of the courts over subject matter, of the Supreme Court, much less the lower courts, which are a creation of Congress, is subject to, quote, the exceptions and regulations that Congress should make. quote, the exceptions and regulations that Congress should make.
Now, what's funny is everything that's not in the Constitution they put in, and then what's in plain language everyone forgets about.
You know, it's kind of funny.
Oh, no, it doesn't mean that.
So in case you think it doesn't mean that, it means something weird, I have an entire chapter going through the most foundational debates at the Constitutional Convention, and what John Marshall himself said that meant that it was a full, what's called plenary power, constitution, Congress could strip them.
Congress could say the courts consist of one chief justice sitting with a candle on a desk who has jurisdiction over bankruptcy law, you know, and done.
So they could easily, what I advocate is taking broadly societal and political issues out of their jurisdiction.
Marriage, religious liberty, immigration, obviously you're not getting anywhere with any of the things we mentioned.
My point is you could talk about birthright citizenship, counting illegals in the census, chain migration.
You could talk about that from now until tomorrow.
And when I wrote the book, it was a warning.
Now I don't have to warn people.
It happened.
So you see you're not going to get that unless you do judicial reform.
You strip the jurisdiction.
Here's what that means in plain English.
Until now, the phony right in America has been caught up on just amend the Constitution or appoint better judges.
They just don't get it.
The point, better judges, I shouldn't even need to explain how, you know, we're done with that already.
I mean, I'm all for a constitutional amendment, but you tell me how to get 38 states.
This is something that with a simple majority and whatever, get rid of the stinking filibuster, the same way you want to do healthcare reform and tax or whatever promises, you could end this tomorrow.
You could end it tomorrow.
This is statutory.
This is congressional authority.
They have full power over that.
There's a lot of different ranges you could do.
If you don't want to do all the courts, you can at least take away the lower courts, which is an even stronger case because they're completely created by Congress.
They're not even mentioned in the Constitution.
You don't have to do it.
What does that do?
Think about it.
How many cases does the court hear a year, the Supreme Court?
85?
So if you have conservative states at a federal level doing 100 good things, it's jailbreak.
I mean, maybe they could hit you on two, three things.
The problem now what you see with Trump is every stinking puny loser district judge could now put a nationwide injunction on anything, and you're done.
So all they have to do is shop around to one district court anywhere, and you're done.
That's how you end it.
You take away from their jurisdiction immigration enforcement.
Done.
It shocks me that people, you don't need a constitutional amendment.
That is something that is congressional power.
But there's a lot of other things they can do.
They could break up the Ninth Circuit.
They can break up the circuit courts.
They could say, hey, you Ninth Circuit, you have a jurisdiction of one mile in Death Valley.
They could literally – there is nothing – they could do that.
And you know what?
You do it once.
People always say, well, the courts will fight – the courts will rule that that's unconstitutional.
Well, you've got to get on the playing field.
You know what I mean?
And right now, the courts realize they can do anything.
They are God.
They are above God.
There's nothing they could do that will elicit a response.
If you start doing that, you start impeaching judges, which, you know, they don't have to rob a bank to elicit impeachment.
If you engage in civil disobedience against the law, that is a check that the founders said impeachment was for, not just if you kill someone.
If you commit a felony in that sense.
And again, there's other levels.
I have some other clever ideas there.
Even if you want to say that the courts are a veto, they have the final say.
Who says it has to be 5-4?
All the administrative procedures of the courts are pursuant to statute.
What do you think they get it from?
People don't understand.
The branches of government are not co-equal.
That's the truth.
The truth be told, they each have certain very specific roles.
But Madison said in a Republican form of government, the legislature necessarily predominates, which is obvious.
Social compact theory, like we're saying, the power has to be reserved to the people.
They get all their power from the people.
I go through the history of this.
I go through Congress had to enact legislation for the courts to even turn on the lights.
There was a time when they shut down a session.
You can't, you know, in the Jefferson era, an entire year.
There's a lot of clever ways you could make the judges what's called a ride circuit.
You have to sit on a circuit court.
They could do anything they want to them.
What is going on now is tantamount to a 100-pound woman taking a 300-pound wrestler and not just somehow getting in a lucky shot, but openly picking the person up and doing a body slam and doing ground and pound, and you just sit there and there's nothing you can do.
Oh, the courts, the courts, the law.
Are you kidding me?
The founders, you know, Mark Levin in his opening forward to my books is the founders envisioned a lot of problems.
They knew there were, they thought the president might be a king, certain things might be.
They never envisioned that we would have such a loser, obsequious, beta society that would outsource our cojones to the courts.
I mean, the notion that you would sit there and do nothing.
I wish I had the quote in front of me.
I don't have it in my book.
But there's an individual, his name is Larry Kramer.
He's kind of more of a left-to-center guy who was the former dean of Stanford Law School.
Had an amazing quote saying, our parents and our grandparents' generation could never imagine a time where we would abdicate our responsibility as Republican citizens to such a point.
And elevate the role of the court to such a point where we would make presidential elections like you just saw.
Not about the president.
That doesn't matter.
But about who will get to make the appointments to the court.
Something would have gone terribly wrong that we've gotten to that position.
And that's what my book is really...
It's really...
Almost the truth-telling that the right of center legal profession has failed us in America.
It's a racket.
Oh, just the poor in our federalist society, guys.
Really?
I mean, Gorsuch got up there and said, and he is God.
I mean, that is like the best thing.
If you ever want to criticize Trump for keeping Obama's amnesty or screwing us on Obamacare, Gorsuch is a punchline to shout that down.
He stood up there at the confirmation hearings, proving the thesis of my book, by the way, through One Directional Ratchets.
Rowan Obergefell, the abortion and marriage cases are a set of law.
I mean, I'm just saying, that's the mentality.
We will never fix it once you say to the left, your cheating and stealing is the law of the land, but we're going to try to get better guys into cheating and stealing.
You lost it.
I mean, if I told you Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are going to create a legislative army, blatantly against the Constitution, a congressional army to direct them across the country, across the nation, just their own army.
They're going to raise, instead of the commander-in-chief, they're going to run a legislative army.
And then we have a confirmation hearing on who's going to be the chief of staff of the legislative army.
Like, hmm, let's see, is this a good...
Wait, time out!
We got a crisis here.
This whole thing is unconstitutional.
This whole thing is a crisis.
And I thought that some of the recent cases, even before I wrote my book, would have been a rallying cry.
But our people did nothing.
And what shocks me is that since I wrote my book, the courts, I didn't even write about this in my book, but I have columns on it.
They have nullified every state voter integrity law.
Every Republican map.
Not enough blacks in the district.
Done.
You know, they literally say, blacks are too stupid to know how to vote.
When you cut through the legal fog, there were opinions I've read that said, I'm not kidding you, if you don't have ballots that spell out the party label, because one, in Michigan, they didn't have party labels, or they didn't have what's called, I forgot the name of it, where you automatically render a party line, straight party line ballot.
So rather than going through each one, checking off, you just write Democrat, it renders a Democrat down ballot.
They didn't have that function ever.
I mean, they just didn't have that in Michigan.
And that was their law.
The court said you have to have it because it violates the 14th Amendment equal protection against blacks because it will create voter irregularities and long lines in black neighborhoods.
I am not kidding you.
That's what a progressive judge said.
That is like saying they're too dumb to know who the Democrat is.
They're too dumb and stupid to be able to get a voter ID, photo ID, even when the state, all the states that pass those laws provide it for whoever.
God knows why they wouldn't have it.
You have to have one to buy a Sudafed or to get on a train to do anything.
But for whatever reason, if you don't have one, they provide it for you to There is no limit.
You know what's going to happen?
They're going to eventually say, we're going to rape all Republican women.
And the Republican men will get up there and say, well, I strongly disagree.
It's the law of the land.
So my book, a lot of people have been warning about judicial tyranny.
My book is to say, we have reached beyond crisis mode.
And if you don't act on this, we have nothing left.
Yeah, stop playing around with replacing the hood on, I'm going to get behind the wheel and turn it, because that's where the real power is.
So, Daniel, I'm not going to try to improve upon that very great and passionate speech, so I just wanted to remind people, we'll put links to this below.
Dolan Sovereignty, colon, How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.
You can check out Daniel's work at conservativereview.com.
Follow him on Twitter, twitter.com forward slash rm.
Conservative, thanks for making a very accessible and powerful book available to everyone.
You know, get the information, make your choices, make your commitment, get the word out there.
Is it going to guarantee a change?
That's all the apt choice and willpower, but certainly it gives us the possibility of reigning in some of this tyranny.
