On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Wednesday, host and American lawyer Mark Levin challenged other lawyers and members of academia to show him evidence that “birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment.”
“I challenge you, all those who have a different view from me, in academia, practicing lawyers or former federal this or former that, I challenge you to show me the evidence in the 1860s that supports your position that birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment,” Levin said. “Just give us one piece of evidence.”
Levin’s remarks came after President Donald Trump announced his intention to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, on the grounds that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.
Below is a transcript of Levin’s remarks from his show on Wednesday:
“The history of this amendment is not in dispute. It’s not in doubt. It's not up for debate. So, what changed? Nothing in the Constitution changed. Nothing legally changed, as a matter of statutory law.
“In the 1960s, the bureaucracy, under the great deal, decided to confer citizenship on babies born of illegal aliens in this country. And now we’re told, in order to reverse that, the president of the United States has to push for a constitutional amendment, or Congress has to pass a statute. But he’s not allowed to reverse what the bureaucracy did in the 1960s with an executive order. How insane is that?
“I challenge you, all those who have a different view from me, in academia, practicing lawyers or former federal this or former that, I challenge you to show me the evidence in the 1860s that supports your position that birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Just give us one piece of evidence. I challenge you to show me any statutory authority where Congress intended and, in fact, affirmatively granted birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. And I challenge you to explain, in some kind of coherent way, how something that is done by the federal bureaucracy cannot be undone by the president directing the federal bureaucracy, which is what an executive order is.
“Now, if you’ll tell me he’d have a stronger case if it was a statute, he’s not going to get a statute, and I don’t understand why that’s a stronger case. If it’s your position that it’s enshrined in the Constitution, then nothing can change it but a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.”