TEXAS.
>> Shannon: SOUNDING CONFIDENT
HEADING INTO MIDTERMS,
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IS NEW
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY -- SECTION
ONE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT READS
ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED
IN THE UNITED STATES ARE SUBJECT
TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ARE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE STATE WHEREIN THEY
RESIDE.
JOINING US NOW FOX NEWS
CONTRIBUTOR, AND FORMER DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN YU.
LET ME START WITH THIS FROM
JONATHAN TURLEY WRITING IN USA
TODAY.
THE MEETING OF THESE WORDS,
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
THEREOF, THOSE WORDS MIGHT BE
ANSWERED BY THE NEWLY
RECONSTRUCTED COURT WITH TWO
TRUMP APPOINTEES.
THE TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL
ARGUMENT ARE LIKELY TO APPEAL TO
THE JUSTICES AND COULD LEAVE
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AS
THE SWING VOTE.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS GOES IF
IT WINDS UP AT SCOTUS?
>> I THINK IT'S AN UPHILL
BATTLE.
I WAS IN SYMPATHY WITH WITH WHAT
SENATOR CRUZ HAD TO SAY, IT'S A
VERY BAD POLICY TO GIVE
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE
CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.
AS A LEGAL MATTER IT'S DIFFERENT
TO REVERSE.
I DO THINK THE LOWER THE SPECIES
WOULD GO UP TO THE SUPREME
COURT, THE MORE DIFFICULT TO
REVERSE THE POLICY.
IF THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO DO
THIS BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, I DON'T
THINK HE CAN.
IT MEANS CONGRESS HAS ASSERTED
ITSELF HERE, I DON'T THINK THE
PRESIDENT CAN REVERSE THAT BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I THINK EVEN IF YOU'VE GOT
LEGISLATION, IT'S A 50/50 BEST
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT WOULD
SIGN OFF ON IT AND AN AMENDMENT
IS VERY TOUGH, IT'S HEAVY LIFT.
>> Shannon: THERE ARE OTHER
SCHOLARS OUT THERE CONSERVATIVES
WHO SAY THIS ISN'T WHAT IT SEEMS
ON ITS FACE.
OVER AT THE DAILY SIGNAL, HE
WRITES THE FACT THAT THEY
TOURIST OR ILLEGAL ALIEN IS
SUBJECT TO OUR LAWS DOES NOT
PLACE THEM WITHIN THE CLINICAL
JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, DEFINED BY THE
FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
>> I THINK HANS AND OTHER OF MY
CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS ARE
MISTAKEN.
THAT PHRASE SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION THEREOF ACTUALLY
APPLIES TO THREE DISPARATE
GROUPS OF PEOPLE AT THAT TIME IN
1867, 1868 WHEN THIS AMENDMENT
WAS DRAFTED AND RATIFIED.
IT APPLIES TO INDIANS, THOSE
HAVE BEEN THE LARGEST GROUP NOT
CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS AND IN THE
UNLIKELY EVENT OCCUPYING ENEMY
SOLDIERS.
IT'S VERY PRECISE LANGUAGE.
THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY FROM
THE BEGINNING, THE FOUNDING IN
1788, ALL THE WAY TO THE
PRESENT, THE TRADITIONAL
UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN IF YOU
ARE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES,
NO MATTER WHETHER YOUR PARENTS
ARE CITIZENS OR NOT, YOU'RE A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
THERE HAVE BEEN SUPREME COURT
OPINIONS, THE PRACTICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, THE INTERPRETATION
THAT HANS AND MY OTHER
CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS ARE MAKING
IS INTERESTING BUT IT WOULD
REQUIRE THE SUPREME COURT TO
OVERRULE ITS OWN PRECEDENTS, AND
I THINK THE WIDELY HELD
UNDERSTANDING OF MOST LEGAL
EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS FOR 200
YEARS.
>> Shannon: I WANT TO ASK YOU
BOTH TO WEIGH IN ON THE SAME
IDEA.
DOES CONGRESS DO SOMETHING ON
THIS, DO YOU THINK THEY GET IT
DONE?
>> NO, NOT ANYTIME SOON.
>> Shannon: ESPECIALLY NOT OF
DEMOCRATS WIN THE HOUSE.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW THIS MOVES
OUT OF CONGRESS, I THINK A LOT
OF REPUBLICANS WOULD VOTE
AGAINST IT PLUS THIS IS ONE OF
THE RULES THAT MAKES AMERICA, I
BELIEVE WE ARE AN EXCEPTIONAL
NATION AND THE FACT THAT ALL THE
OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD
ESPECIALLY OLD EUROPE HAVE THE
RULE THAT YOUR PARENTS
CITIZENSHIP, YOUR BLOOD
DETERMINES CITIZENSHIP IS THE
REASON WHY AMERICA SHOULD KEEP
THE RULE.
>> Shannon: PEOPLE POINT TO
THE FACT THAT CANADA AND AMERICA
ARE SOME OF THE ONLY WESTERN
DEVELOPED NATIONS THAT STILL