That tanked last week, all coming back, now, slowly but surely. The dow up about a percentage point, the nasdaq up more, and the s and p in the green as well. Your world with neil cavuto starts now. Looking live at the white house, the president is expected to address the issue of ilLegal Immigration and border security, just as were hearing now of a fourth, thats right a fourth caravan of migrants making its way to the southern border. This as the president is pushing to independent birth right citizenship. Critics say he cant do that under the 14th Amendment. A Competition Law Professor says not so fast. Welcome, glad to have you, i im neil cavuto. Thank to you Charles Pairn for filling in ably, too ably, hiel while i us a out. John roberts at the white house, what we can expect to hear from the president of the United States. John . Neil, youre back so soon, i
thought you would have taken the rest of the week off. Neil apparently there was something going on with the markets. The president will be giving us an update on where we stand on the border with immigration at 4 15, out to columbia, missouri for a big rally tonight. The president talking about the deployment of troops on the bor der. Then he will talk in broad brush strokes about something weve been talking about for the last few days, that is some changes to the process of claiming asylum in the United States. The president , if you go to a Port Of Entry you can claim asylum. If you cross illegally, you can claim aeye lum. But the white house wants to change interest so aeye lum claims can only be made asylum claims can only be mailed at a point of entry. Fouf claim asylum at a port of zi, people who enter illegally across the rio grand or across the desert, would not be able to claim asylum, they rye main in custody then sent back to their
country of origin or through a deal thats under negotiation with mexico, maybe be able to be removed directly to mexico. So, the president will only talk, again, in generalities about this, because the white house still has not worked out the legal frame work how to do this. But im told, neil, it could be a combination of authorities between the department of justice, department of Homeland Security, and the president ial powers to protect the country under article 2 of the constitution. But its likely we wont hear about the exact plans for a number of days. The president really trying to keep immigration high up on the radar screen, in terms of election issues. In many states across the country, healthcare is the number one issue, immigration further down the list. Still important. But the president putting that front and center, did it last night in a rally outside of fort myers, going to do it in missouri, then in indiana, and west virginia, and every other Battle Ground state between now and tuesday. Neil . Neil thanks. To the border, u. S. Troops are
starting to arrive, the president saying up to 15,000 of them could be deployed. Rick levin thol that will in el paso with the latest. Outside the gates of fort blils of one of several military institutions in texas, arizona, and california. Serving as Logistics Support hubs for the thousands of troops being deployed at the request of Homeland Security to support the bureau, customs and Border Protection agents who will be deployed along the southern border, in remote locations. They have already arrived, many more military troops on the way now, they include aviation brigades, combat support, medical companies, military police, logistics teams, and lots of Engineering Assets to set up lights, and build fencing and barriers and temporary housing. Not for thing my grants but the agents and the troops tasked with keeping the caravans out. The soldiers headed this way are pmped about it. I would like to say thiets a big honor, that the army has choedzen us to come here, and spearhead this whole operation. Very excited. This is just another way to support my country and do what needs to be done. As a. Com engineer were as a com engineer, were trained in opticals. There are four caravans, with hundreds of migrants, some with thousands. Authorities have suggested some of thing my grants have already been involved in violent confrontations with Mexican Police and could be more violent than others in years pas past. It will be weeks before they reach the southern border with the u. S. If they do at all. Neil thank you, rick. What appears to be getting lost in the debate is who is here legally and who is here illegally. We tend to focus on Illegal Immigrants and not the legal ones already here. Is this an issue that could be a big one five days out . Vince is with the daily caller. This is interesting, that better
than 1. 3 Million People are processed with green cards and ultimate citizenship year in and year out threw this president , democratic president , republican president s. You think in this environment it would stop, shut down the borders, shut down taking in people, when in fact weve been actually building up the number of immigrants, again, the legal immigrants. Thats lost. A reason its lost in the sauce, because you have a lot of people for political reasons trying to conflate the two. IlLegal Immigration and Legal Immigration, are of course completely distinct categories. But you often hear liberal opponents. President conflating the two things. You commonly hear immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born meshes. That americans. That is a con nation of legal and Illegal Immigrants, that shouldnt be done. Ask any legal immigrant about the status of illegal
immigration in the country, its hard to find more fervent opponents to the state of the Immigration System and how Illegal Immigrants get across the border. Interesting dynamic few in the press are willing to talk about. Neil whatever you think of what the president is going to do sending troops to the border and whether it could agitate things or not, we are still taking in record numbers of people from all over the world. Either through green card processing, eventual citizenship. So you get the impression that whatever is happening with caravans, which is a recent phenomenon, no one is coming into the country. That gets little press attention to your point. The danger with that, then, we blur legal with ilLegal Immigration. Thats a big nono. A tremendous danger, should not be done. The president of the United States has shown no appetite to changing Legal Immigration in the sense that he wants to get rid of it. Does he want to change it, he does. Hes talked about how he wants it to be a meritbased system coming into the United States. Thinks the idea we have a Diversity Visa Lottery and chain migration, forms of migration where we dont vet people based on what they contribute to the country needs to be changed. Is he saying we need to get rid of immigration, no. Thats not what you hear from opponents saying hes antiimmigrant. Couldnt be further from the truth, the facts are obvious here. Millions come in legally and the president is okay with that. Neil what worries me, we get a false narrative set up, then therestses racist charge and all of that, when so many from so many parts of the world are coming in. And it loses sight of that and makes it appear that the United States is shut down to accept immigrants. When thats never been the kals. Not only through this president but his predecessor, his predecessor and on and on. Were still netting gains of excess of a million foreigners coming into the country from all over the earth. And americans deserve a chance to have an opportunity to set that system, say is it good
for us and how many should come into the country. Very few people want to have that conversation. Instead, we get mud slung at everybody about how somebody is antiimmigrant, somebody is not pro immigrant enough. That of Course Isnt The Stakes of the debate. Thats emotional, doesnt have anything to do with reason or facts. I want to say one thing on Illegal Immigrants, the idea that a caravan is moving toward the United States how many people make it to the border . Who knows. That is a symbol of the ilLegal Immigration problem. The fact that troops are going to the border isnt for one caravan. In september, 17,000 people were captured by the Border Patrol trying to get into the United States. There are thousands of people every month trying to get into the United States, and something needs to be done in order to fix the problem. Not good for the immigrants and not good for america. Neil on the Legal Immigration it makes a mockery of the process to go through the process of getting a green card, getting your family onboard as well. Something the president will no doubt address. Other issue, coming up with the14th Amendment and whether he has the right to go about doing what he wants to do. And just go back to the notion that just because youre born here doesnt automatically mean youre a citizen here. Thats a tough uphill fight. We will raise it with the professor. He runs into a buzz saw of criticism on both sides on that. A little bit, yeah, he does. But if you look at it from the perspective of is this fair, theres a huge open debate within the United States of america among citizens about the idea that Illegal Immigrants arrive in the country, has a child, that kid instantly becomes a u. S. Citizen. Maybe even leaves the country and never once sets foot on american soil until they return when theyre 18 years old. Not a system that makes sense. Thats a system that probably needs to get a fix. If it just means making sure ilLegal Immigration isnt happening, that will be a fix the president is satisfied by. Neil well put. Thank you. We do have a constitutional expert, professor on this, constitutional studies
professor, he wrote a very fascinating piece here exploring what the president wants to do here. Essentially, arguing that the 14th Amendment isnt as black and white as it would appear noting that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and Subject To The Jurisdiction thereof, crucial words according to the professor, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside. Professor, good to have you. You argue that that leaves some room for interpretation at a minimum, right . It leaves lot of room. As a matter of fact, that clause, Subject To The Jurisdiction, was added precisely, to clarify. We dont put words in the constitution. Theyre not there with no meaning. So the words Subject To The Jurisdiction where there is a debate, does that mean order law, as you abide by Traffic Rules . Or does it mean what they said and what the sponsor of the legislation in the senate said, it means political allegiance. You arent subject to anybody else in terms of your allegiance. It implies something more. The idea that being born here leads to citizenship, the place is not consistent with the ideas of consent and the rule of law in the context of the United States. The idea of inheriting ones citizenship, from ones parents, stemming from their political allegiance, is what is more important. Indeed thats the dominant vow of most countries in developed worlds. All of the countries in ump which we often times like to emulate. Neil all of the countries in europe, what they have they dont look at a right of soil, where you were born. But the blood line, the right of blood. But that is the distinction. Could you sman that . What they mean by right of blood, not that youre gear manic or italian. From parenttochild. Before the child is capable of making the decision of whom they want to be allegiancallegiance,e it based on the parents f the parents are italian the child is italian. If the parents are american the children are italian. When john mccain is born in the an a ma canal zone, hes still an american. Because of his parents. Thats what is consistent with the principles of the american founding. Thats prit why clearly what was intended by the writers of the 14th Amendment. Even the courts, supreme Supreme Court, who upheld this understanding several occasions, when they ruled in 1898, they were only dealing with the question of permanent residents. They were not dealing with people here on a weekend, as a temporary visitor. And not at all dealing with people that were here not legally in the United States. This idea is something that just came about, and was assumed as we went forward, but theres no clear Supreme Court decision. And the law does not say this. The laws of congress which is precisely were y. The president for perfectly reasonable reasons, should issue an Executive Order to clarify, so that those that are under him,
his agents, the agencies, actors, do not do something that is inconsistent with clear Supreme Court mandates or the letter of the law passed by congress. Make sure they arent doing something wrong. Neil were waiting for the tonight clarify at the white house, but when President Obama took Executive Action to shield hundreds of thousands of Undocumented Imgrabts from deportation, this president is using the same argument to do what hes doing. Are they related. Good point. But very different things. Whats the job of the executive, according to the constitution. Its to basically execute the laws under which theyre operating. In the case of President Obama, he wanted to do something that congress specifically did not do indeed they chose not to do it and he wanted to do it anyway. He was going contrary to law. In this case, there isnt law. Congress has laws on who becomes a citizen. But in the particular here, all they do is say Subject To The Jurisdiction of. It leads the 14th Amendment question open. The court has not said what to do with some one whos here illegally or temporarily. This is the case in which the executive, whos responsible for executing the law, should issue an Executive Order clarifying how to execute the law consistent with the law. Hes not doing something that is against something thats there. The problem, its not clear. There noz clarity in the law. Which i think is probably the better way to solve the problem. He should make sure his own administration is not doing something, perhaps giving away citizenship, when they ought not to according to the rules that congress has established. Neil help me with this, i talked to a number of legal scholars, say nothing one has challenged the verasity of the 14th Amendment, you could come back and counter the founders
never would have envisioned the type of situation where many illegals come, in have a child, that child instantly becomes a citizen. They, themselves, by extension ultimately get to stay here that, would have never been envisioned by forefathers. The constitution stants, and they say its never, ever been picked apart to be denied. You say . Well, i see your point. But we have to understand that the constitution is actually written for future circumstances as well. It is clear that although the Immigration Laws we have are much more complicated, the challenges are complicated, the Fourth Amendment comes along after the civil war mainly to deal with freed slaves. They wanted Citizenship Clause and they wanted to make sure it included the right parameters and they added this phrase, Subject To The Jurisdiction of, and told us what it meant. They didnt at one time give away citizenship. Neil i want to be clear this came around 1866, after the
civil war, to help those former slaves. Who were here. Already. Neil that is a distinction. Extremely large distinction. In doing so, they also knew whatever definition they put out there would apply to everyone else. Thats precisely why, saying that youre born and naturalized, isnt sufficient. They came back and added this other clause, Subject To The Jurisdiction thereof, precisely to get out of that loophole which is playing out, i think, unfortunately with people who come here sometimes on a weekend to have a child, to give them citizenship that they might not take advantage have until years lapt where they want to get the benefit. That makes a mockery of