How broadly should birthright citizenship apply?

Yeah, I mean, I agree with what you're saying. In addition, people shouldn't be able to do the tourism thing. We should handle that. I do think we should have an exception here for people who have been non-criminals, who are here illegally. Because we, as America, Republicans, especially during the time when they were pro-free trade NAFTA and really waved in a large percentage of the immigrants who were here, obviously Biden did that as well, I think we have a moral obligation to those people since we waved them in and we waved them in to work at our businesses because we wanted to pay under minimum wage to them. Those people suffered here in our country to take those jobs, to make us richer, to make our country richer. We have a moral and ethical obligation to them and to their children. We should give them a path to citizenship unless they're criminals and their children should be Americans. Since they came here to live the American dream, whether it was illegal or not, we waved them in. That was our mistake. And now that we've closed the border, we should make amends to those 20 million people. That's my personal opinion. I don't think we have... Chamath, you need more time to think about it. And Sacks, what's your thought?

Seek to 1:07:02

Well, look, the question here is what the Constitution says, and my view is that the original purpose and understanding of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that the children of freed slaves would have citizenship rights. That was the purpose of it. That was obvious. And I don't think it speaks to the situations you're talking about, and Congress should just make the law about those situations. But now Congress cannot make the law because the Supreme Court has ruled that citizenship is determined by birthright. So in that case, anyone who's born here.

Seek to 1:01:42

Well, my point is we're all just making arguments about what the law should be. And these are the kinds of arguments that Congress should be making and deliberating over. And these are the edge cases. These are the nuances that should be handled in a citizenship law. And what the Supreme Court has done here is remove that space for Congress to legislate. And I think Congress needs that space because there are these edge cases. And instead, it's interpreted the 14th Amendment in a way that I don't think is consistent with why it was ratified in the first place. And Friedberg is totally right about Dred Scott, which was one of the most awful, probably the most awful Supreme Court ruling of all time. It came out in 1857, and it ruled that black people, whether enslaved or free, were not US citizens, and therefore they had no right to sue in federal courts. And the Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the decision, I mean, he was extremely racist. He wrote that black people had, quote, no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And that decision furthermore ruled that Congress could not ban slavery in the new Western territories, which meant that it struck down the Missouri Compromise, which was the law that had kept the peace between the free and slave states for decades. And that is one of the direct things that then triggered the Civil War three years later. So it was this historically bad decision that I guess then the 14th Amendment tried to correct by saying that no, freed slaves and their children would be American citizens.

Seek to 1:08:08