Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women

>> Bobby Roza: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, preborn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But they can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside them. One ultrasound is just $28. To donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com/afr.

>> Rick Green: We inform religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out their faith, live out their convictions, no matter where they are. We quip, sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech.

>> Rob: We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character hope.

>>  : This is at the Core on American Family Radio.

>> Rick Green: Welcome to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

Rick Green: Supreme Court struck down Colorado ban on gay conversion therapy

I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Thanks for joining me. On this Tuesday we got a couple of big headlines from the Supreme At the Core we got to talk about one from a decision we just got sporting another one, the hearing tomorrow that could be a seismic shift in the definition of citizen and birthright citizenship and anchor babies and all of those things. So, that's a big one. We got to talk about that and got to be watching for that tomorrow. Probably won't get a decision on that for, you know, a couple of months, maybe June, July, somewhere in there. But we did get a decision today already on this conversion therapy. Just the nonsense of states actually saying that a therapist, even a pastor, I mean you can't actually counsel someone away from literally what was a mental illness just a few years ago. So if someone comes to you and they're not sure whether they're a man or a woman, they come to you and they're, you know, struggling with these things and for you to actually counsel them in a biblical way or frankly in a scientific way about the biology of their body or even in the issue of homosexuality, to be able to somebody struggling with same sex attraction. What do you do as a therapist? Are you allowed to counsel them away from that just like you would any other harmful activity or sin and give them the best advice possible and help them through that? Well, no, not according to these leftist states. If you counsel in any way that prevents them from wanting to mutilate their body or enter into, what is clearly by all scientific data, bad for their mental health and bad for their body, then, somehow you're the bad Guy. Well, thankfully, the Supreme At the Core found some sanity, and has struck down Colorado's ban on what they call conversion therapy. So they make it sound like, you know, we're hooking up electrodes to your brain and shocking you and, other things that, you know, the worst possible conjured up images when they're actually just giving good advice and good counsel. And, anyway, Colorado had a ban on this, and so the At the Core has. I haven't read this entire decision, so I'm going off of what Epoch Times said about it, and, just memory of when some of this stuff was being fought a year or two ago. But they base this on free speech, which, you know, I get it. I mean, you got to have some peg to hang the coat on, and, you know, something to base your decision on. But, it's more than just free speech. It's freedom of religion, it's freedom of association, being able to counsel with the people that. That share your values, and you should be able to speak to those things. So I guess free speech is the main thing, but it just seems weird that it's free speech in the privacy of, a therapy session. but anyway, haven't read the whole opinion. I'm sure Gorsuch ties all that together. Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion 8 to 1. Should have been unanimous. Of course. On one hand, we could be surprised that two of the crazy leftist, you know, people on the At the Core found, an acorn. Blind squirrels do find acorns once in a while. But then also be not surprised, I don't know, surprised that Ketanji Brown Jackson, if she doesn't know what a woman is, certainly doesn't, want you counseling someone on what a woman. I mean, I guess that's what it comes down to. It's a little bit comical. so even that blind squirrel couldn't find an acorn in this case. But it is definitely a decision to celebrate. This is a very, very good decision from the Supreme At the Core for a lot of reasons. Just, you know, I guess if we step back for a second and think about how this decision will impact the world and our country. Think about how many young people right now are in need of this kind of counseling. Think about the number of children that have had the onslaught of this, you know, not only the sexual deviancy stuff, but the gender insanity. And that is the right word. I know some people are offended by that, but gender dysphoria is a mental illness. And what they've done is they've planted this poison in the minds of millions and millions of kids over the last 10, 12, 15 years. And those kids are now struggling with whether or not they're in the wrong body and all this ridiculous stuff that, that has been planted in their mind. And so they need good counsel, they need good therapy, they need good, you know, people that can help guide them through this and, and walk them out of it. And so I, I am, I am super thankful that this decision has come down. And you know, my prayer is that we have I, I would love to see a rush of, of young 20 somethings that have felt a calling to go into counseling and go into these fields with a biblical perspective to help these kids get through this nonsense and get this poison out of their system. I would hope that the Supreme At the Core case would open the floodgates of those. So if that's you, if you felt kind of an inkling, a draw to help people through these kind of things to do biblical counseling, then answer that call because we need you and these kids need you. And now the Supreme At the Core has basically said yes, you can counsel them in truth and you can give them a biblical perspective and help them steer away from this poison, this disease that has been planted in their minds. And I think I had seen a poll of something like 15 to 20% of this next generation. These kids are struggling with this. I mean folks, that just tells you right there, if you go from point, whatever percent, like less than 1% to 15 or 20% in a generation or really in about 10 years. And we saw it in the other nations, even more so and that's why they outlawed a lot of this nonsense. then you know that it is susceptible, it is something that you're, it's like any other sin. I mean as Christians we can take that perspective and we recognize that it's any other sin. You plant that sin, you expose that sin more and more to somebody, they're going to be drawn to it and they're going to be confused by it. It's very much what Satan did in the, in the garden, with all of the questions. I'm just asking questions. I can hear Satan saying that now as the serpent, hey Adam and Eve. I'm just asking questions. anyway, what it does is it opens it opens the door to that, to that sin. And so anyway, I just, man, I'm excited about this decision. I'm thankful. I think it's great that it was so nearly unanimous. Eight, one, and I hope that it, is a step in the right direction to reverse the insanity of the last. You know, it's really just been the last 10 or 12 years. I mean, this stuff's been at work for 40 or 50 years. But in the last 10 or 12 years, it became mainstream. It became more popular for you to say, I'm not sure I'm a boy or I'm a girl and I'm in the wrong body. And for you to do the trans thing. That just became popular. It became a way for a lot of kids to be seen and, you know, quickly, get attention. you know, it. Unfortunately, the, you know, the social norms went the wrong direction and it pushed people into the wrong direction. All right, so that's a good one. That, that was just this morning that that was released now tomorrow it's. It's a little. It's a little bit different. Tomorrow we get the actual hearing. Won't see a decision for a couple of months.

This one has to do with birthright citizenship, which is a misnomer

This one we're going to spend a little bit more time on today because it's a great constitutional education issue, and it has to do with birthright citizenship, which is a misnomer. It's like, not a phrase that's, It really was created in an effort to normalize, the immigration invasion of the United States and reward people who broke the law to get here just in time to have a baby, or broke the law, got here and then had a baby a year or two later and give that baby citizenship just because they're born on American soil. This is not a concept that in the history of mankind has been embraced. You normally would have to. To be a citizen of the state, citizen of this country that you're in, you'd have to actually trace that through the father's bloodline originally. but, you know, America embraced the idea that if either parent was a citizen, then, you know, you could have citizenship if born here. And then we bought into this insane idea that even if you're here illegally and you're born and you have a baby, that that baby becomes a citizen. All of this is based on a really twisted view of 14th amendment. If you go to the 14th amendment. Let me just read that. I, think I've got it here. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Put a pin in that. We'll be back. Are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Now, obviously, context is everything, right? You got it. When was the 14th Amendment ratified? When Was it proposed in Congress and when was it ratified? Right after the Civil War. This was clearly targeted to making sure that if you were freed as a slave and you wanted to stay here in the United States, that you had citizenship, that you were given that because you were born here in slavery, you were, you know, or you were even brought here and against your will, that, look, we're going to make a special case scenario here where you're going to get citizenship even though you, you did not have that lineage and your parents weren't necessarily citizens. That was the right thing to do. Okay? That was the focus of this amendment. the entire 14th amendment is genuinely built around, not making a wrong right, but doing the best you could and you know, getting, doing the best you could in terms of these people that were harmed by slavery, making the best case scenario for them here in the United States if they chose to stay. So that, that, that's fair, that makes sense. I'm all for that. But then to fast forward 100 years and take that language and basically ignore like they read. This is how the left reads the 14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That's not what it says though. It's literally ignoring a very important phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What's that mean? What's it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Well, that means that you're here legally, you're following the laws and that you are a subject of, you are a citizen of that, that jurisdiction, that government, your parents are citizens, you're here as a part of that government. Let me give you an example. If you, if you visit. We were supposed to take our scholars to Israel in a couple of weeks. So we had a full trip plan. We're taking all 30 something scholars to Israel. Gonna be amazing. Well, if my daughter in law, who just had a baby, had my fifth grandchild just a few weeks ago, if she had not had the baby yet and we traveled to Israel and we're in the middle of our trip in Israel and she goes into labor and has the baby, is that baby a citizen of Israel? Just because we happen to be on vacation there or visiting there, if we were ambassadors to, I don't know, Zimbabwe and we're there and, and, and we have a baby, is that baby a citizen of that state? Of course not. That, that's that's crazy talk for somebody to think that, but that's exactly what we're saying with birthright citizenship, that however you got here, whatever brought you here, whether you're here legally or illegally, whether you're a citizen or not, whether your parents are citizens, none of that matters. If the baby happens to be born on this soil, that you automatically get citizenship. And that has allowed for millions of people that skirted the law that did this illegally out of good intentions. I mean, I told the scholars this morning, I'm like, look, if I lived in a third world country that was a cesspool, and I knew that my children were going to have not a very good life in that cesspool, and I could get to the United States and give my child that was about to be born the dream of America. Give them the, you know, as some people have called it, the great lottery of life, by letting them enjoy the benefits of being a citizen of America. I would probably try to do that, but the law should not reward me for that. And the law is made for the lawbreaker. I should not get citizenship for that baby. And, and so that's what this decision is all about. Are you a citizen of the United States just because the baby happens to be born on American soil, regardless of how the mom got there or the parents got there? So we'll see what, what Supreme At the Core says. It's gonna be really interesting to listen to the hearings tomorrow. I am very curious. I don't, I don't actually know. I don't have any kind of inside baseball. I have not looked at all at where the nine justices stand on this or where they've kind of come down into the past. So I don't have any kind of a odds to give you on how this thing's going to, going to turn out. So we shall find out soon. Going to take a quick break. I'm Rick Greene, America's Constitution coach. You are listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Greene.

>>  : The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations. You can't use it to change the oil in your vehicle or get rid of carpet stains. It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning or take the kids to practice. But while you're doing those things, you can listen to your favorite AFR content through the app on your phone, smart device, or Roku. Just go to your App store or visit afr.net Listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR app. This is at the Core on American Family Radio with Your host, Rick Green.

A case before the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship will be heard tomorrow

>> Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach, talking about a case before the Supreme that's going to be heard tomorrow dealing with, hitting head on this birthright citizenship thing. It was, it was a case last year, but it was more dealt with, some technicalities on the process of what judges could do to try to block the president from implementing an end to birthright citizenship. But I thought it'd be good, just constitutional education for all of us, including me, to just kind of walk through some of the points of this case because it. This has massive ramifications, like huge electoral ramifications in terms of who does. Who's a citizen or not, who gets to vote or not. Does it go backwards to people that have been treated as citizens even though they never were? and then how's it going to happen? You know, what's it going to mean going forward? So I was mentioning the subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So in the Epoch Times article about this today, which you can get@epictimes theepictimes.com the jurisdiction thereof question. So what does it mean subject to the jurisdiction? So earlier in the program, I was saying leftists like to read the 14th Amendment as if it doesn't even have this clause. But what. And then if you bring it up and you talk about subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they claim, well, that just means that they're following the laws once they're here. That, that if they're, you know, they're subject to the laws, even if they don't follow them, they're subject to. In other words, you could stop them, arrest them for, you know, breaking a law or speeding or give them a ticket or, you know, that type of thing that, that makes them subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That is not the historical interpretation of that phrase or the intention of the Founding fathers when they, when they wrote it. And even, even these ACLU proponents that are arguing this case, what they say, according to this article is, well, you know that children of foreign diplomats and those born in Native American territory, did not receive citizenship historically, and therefore they're treated different. in other words, they claim that diplomats and Native Americans are excluded because they belong to other sovereign nations. Oh, well, in that case, if you sneak across the border, just because you're physically here, don't you still belong to another nation? Aren't you still a citizen of that nation? Just because you're here illegally doesn't suddenly make you a citizen. Of our nation or your child that you have here a citizen of our. I mean that's common sense. But ACLU is not exactly known for common sense. So what the Justice Department, who's arguing this case is basically trying to say is that it really comes down to allegiance. Now I think it should be easier than that. But that's their, that's their argument that if you're not, if you're not, you know, pledging allegiance to this country, are already have some allegiance to this country, then you don't automatically get that citizenship. And if you're, you know, ah, still a citizen of the. Wherever you came from, you're a subject to that country's jurisdiction because that's what your allegiance is to. I think it's probably a pretty good clue if people are marching in the streets with the flags of another nation and claiming, you know, that California is still part of Mexico, that type of thing, which we've seen clearly your allegiance is not to the United States. So maybe the Justice Department has a pretty good, pretty good argument there. We'll see if that actually is what the Supreme At the Core hangs its hat on again. You got to have a peg to hang that on. And so it's going to be a question of what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What did Congress intend when it proposed the 14th amendment?

So Epoch Times helps us with a little bit of history here. What did Congress intend when it proposed the 14th amendment? So it was ratified in 1868, obviously civil war. As I was saying earlier, this was dealing specifically, with those who had been brought here against their will and you know, go through that whole entire argument. And so then there was a case. So this is the part that I think is really, really interesting. Let me find this case. It was 1898, I think it was. And that has basically been how the world has. The leftist world has viewed, the 14th Amendment ever since then. Okay, so if. Let's see, this one was. I thought it was. Seems to me like it was like an Asian name on the case. Anyway, I can't find it. I thought it was in the article here. My bad. I'll look it up and talk about it after the next break. But the whole point is they basically skewed the view of what it means. Here it is. Wong Kim Ark. Okay, so this was, this was a guy. I forget the history inside. I think he was here working and. All right, here we go. This is what the Justice Department is pointing to. So Senator James Wilson, whenever the Civil Rights act was passed in 1866, said this we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition. And that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such states, except children born in our soul to temporary sojourners are representatives of foreign governments. Now, the ACLU says that Wilson's comment was incorrect, conflicted with English common law, and therefore, you know, we need to ignore it. And so they're basically saying that, even Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England said that natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the kingdom's dominions immediately upon their birth. So again, they're twisting. You're born within the king's dominions immediately, on their birth. Well, how were you there in the first place? Like, if you were there because your parents had been there and were part of that kingdom before and already had an allegiance to that kingdom, then, yeah, I'm with you on that. But if you just ran over there with no allegiance, no subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then you're not. It should be that simple. so then you've got the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952, and it used the 14th Amendment's phrasing, stating in part that the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth, a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay. They didn't clear anything up. So in other words, they're just using the exact same language from the 14th Amendment and basically, you know, saying the same thing. So here's why it's so important for the At the Core to, basically rule on this. This is one of those rare scenarios where I actually think, yes, the At the Core should be saying what that phrase means in the Constitution. They should be looking to original intent. They should be going to the debates, just like this article just did of the senators and the congressmen when they proposed the 14th amendment. And if they said things like what that Senator Wilson said, that should matter. That's giving, that's cracking the head open of the people that actually gave you the law. So they're giving you the intent of the law. We should be looking at the debates in the state legislatures when they ratified the 14th amendment. And that's really how you get to the m meaning of a clause in the Constitution. You go back to the time it was debated. That's actually what Jefferson talked about. Even that early in America's history. He'd say, if you're trying to figure out the construction of a phrase in the Constitution. You go back to 1787, and what were the guys in that room, which he was not one of them. Jefferson was not there. But what were the guys in that room telling you they meant by a phrase they put in the Constitution? And then go to the states when they ratified the Constitution, what were they telling you that they interpreted that phrase to mean as they ratified it? And then if you fast forward to amendments, then that might be the Bill of Rights. So it could be as early as the first Congress, or it could be, in this case, the 14th Amendment, which was after the Civil War. Well, you just go back to those debates. Everything's there. It's all right there in the, Journal of Congress. So it's not hard to determine the intent of those who voted in favor of this amendment that ended up in the Constitution and what that language actually meant. And I pray that that's what happens tomorrow. I think you can expect Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, for sure, and to some extent, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to ask questions based on original intent. They're going to ask what did the founders intend with regard to citizenship, and what did the 14th Amendment, 100 years later do to change that? and what was intended by this phrase, subject to the jurisdiction, thereof? So you can expect the ACLU to have some answers. They're not going to be necessarily historically or constitutionally true, but they'll have some answers. They'll have some twisting, of that history and a framing of those stories to try to get the Supreme At the Core to say, yep, if you make it to the. To the physical soil of the United States and you're born there, then you become a citizen. And, I would also expect, and I'm just going to predict that Gorsuch will be the one to ask this. This will be interesting. This is like taking. Taking bets here on the odds of who's going to ask this. I would expect Gorsuch or one of the others to ask, okay, well, what if the opposite is true? What if you're an American citizen, you got five generations of American citizenship, and you travel abroad, and your baby is born in Italy or in, like I said earlier, Zimbabwe or Nigeria or wherever it might be? Does that mean your baby's not an American citizen because you happen to be traveling when the baby was born? what happens if you're on the difference between if you're in an embassy, if you're on embassy soil, which is considered to be our soil, or you're Just, you know, out at a local vineyard in Italy and the baby is born. Okay. Are, do they not now get American citizenship? I mean, clearly the answer, the logical and historical answer would be, of course they're a citizen. They just happen to be traveling. Why? Because they're still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I think that's going to be a really interesting conversation tomorrow.

Could mean millions of people no longer being citizens

All right, so, yeah, what will that mean to us? Could mean millions of people no longer being citizens. If they actually say, hey, this has been implemented wrong for decades and decades, I don't think they'll do that. I don't think that's ex post facto because I don't think there's been a law, interpreted to mean that just because you're born here, you get to be a citizen. that's just been agency, state agency, and federal agency implementation could be wrong on that. Somebody can point that out. more than happy to accept a call on that, for sure. 888-589-8840 by the way, if you want to chime in on birthright citizenship. 888-589-8840. yeah, where was I going with that? So, so if, if, Oh, yeah, I don't think it's exposed facto in that case, but I don't think the At the Core will go that far. They generally don't do that kind of thing. So they're probably going to say, I would predict, without hearing the questions yet and where the hearing goes, they're probably going to say, yeah, you got to be here legally for your baby when they're born here to be a citizen of the United States. Otherwise you're subject to somebody else's jurisdiction. How they handle all of those millions that are now considered citizens is going to be really interesting. Do they say, nope, sorry, if you got put into that class, that was a mistake and you are not a citizen and we're sending you home, that would, that would be. I would think that would be hard to get five votes in the Supreme At the Core to do that. I think that would be the right thing to do. Look, if you, if you got considered a citizen through fraud, you got to reverse. You got to unwind the fraud. You don't just allow the fraud to stand. And if you, if you rushed into our country to have a baby so that they could be, fraudulently become a citizen. Sorry, shouldn't stand that. That absolutely should be reverse. That's not mean. That's not, Every nation on the planet would say the exact same thing. So this is a great time to invoke, Allie Beth Stuckey and her toxic empathy arguments. It's toxic empathy that would make you want to side with the parents that came here illegally to have a baby to try to give it American citizenship. That's toxic empathy. Empathy in and of itself is fine. I, like I said, if I, if I were that person in a cesspool of a country, I would do everything I could to get my kid a better life. And so I understand where they're coming from and I can feel for them. But that doesn't mean that I reward their lawlessness and that I do that to the detriment of my own country, my own family, my own community, which is what you're doing. If you, if you let your empathy for a particular scenario cause you to support breaking of the law, cause you to support this unlimited immigration that comes from birthright citizenship being encouraged. If you do that, it's toxic. So it's no longer good empathy. Now it becomes bad empathy that actually destroys your life, your family's life, your country. And that's what Christians have done with regard to the immigration issue. They've allowed the sob stories that are true. Look, I'm, you know, I understand that, but they've allowed that to move them to a place of irrationality and actually being anti biblical because a sojourner is supposed to be following the law. You treat a sojourner the same because they've become part of the community. They've assimilated, they, they've, they're not breaking the law when they're there. And, and that's essentially what we're doing with with anchor babies. Okey dokey.

Rick Green says if you have baby while serving abroad, it's a citizen

Let's try a couple of phone calls, but I got about a minute here before we're going to break. So how about Cindy in Kansas? Anybody else that wants to call in for. Feel free to do so. It's 8885-8988-4088-8589-8840 and Cindy's up first out of Kansas. Cindy, go ahead.

>> Carmen: You might be able to answer my question because the people that I could ask are no longer living. But m. My sister and brother in law, he was stationed in Japan and it was a lengthy time he was over there. So she went with him and had their fourth child in Japan. The others, the first three were born in the United States but Johnny was born there and, and they were there for some time after his birth and I don't know what they had to do, but they had to do some kind of paperwork when they got back to the United States. So I'll hang up and maybe you can enlighten me on what they had to do.

>> Rick Green: Yeah, well, it's definitely not my area of expertise, so I don't know the specific steps, but, but I know that what you're saying is accurate, that if you have a baby while you're traveling abroad, or especially if you're military, I mean, like, that's a perfect example. We, we would want to encourage our military, or our citizens to serve in the military. And the military is. Once you do that, once you sign the dotted line, you obviously are at the will of the military. And if they want to send you abroad, you got to go. And so if you're, if you have your baby while you're serving abroad, you obviously would want that baby to be a citizen. And therefore, you know, we would set up policies that would encourage that to take place. And so, the paperwork and how you do that I am not entirely sure of. I just know that that is the case that if you are, if both parents are citizens, you're traveling abroad, you have a baby. Absolutely. That baby is considered a citizen of the United States. So I'm looking that up. I don't know if I'll be able to answer that in time before, the break, but yes. So let's see. What's that paperwork called that you're talking about? a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad. You can get that at the nearest US Embassy or consulate in the country where the baby is born. And it becomes, essentially the birth certificate, the US Birth certificate and proof of citizenship. Once you have that, then they get back, you want to apply for a passport. Ah, and all that for your child so that you make sure you document it really, really well. And it's never questioned whether or not they have, have citizenship in the U.S. so great question. And, that's the most I could find. And short, in the short term. Might have more on that when we come back from the break and I see our other callers. I'll, get to you when we come back, from our break. But, man, just. Let's just go back to common sense, folks. If we would pass our laws based on common sense, this would not even be complicated. If you're a citizen, if your spouse is a citizen, it's a slam dunk. Now does get muddy. If you're a citizen and your spouse is not. Okay, now we get into some muddy water. You got to go through some technicalities and figure out if you're a dual citizen and all those things. But most of the scenarios we're dealing with are not that complicated. What we're talking about is someone comes here illegally, run across the border, have a baby. Is that baby a citizen? That should be an easy no. That's what will be before the At the Core tomorrow. Stay with us. We'll be right back. I'm Rick Greene. You're listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Greene.

>> Bobby Roza: abortion moves fast, and right now in our communities, women are being pressured to make irreversible decisions. In moments of fear and panic, they're told to act quickly or risk losing support. Many feel they have no other option. But because of you, they do. At PreBorn Network clinics, a woman who receives what the abortion industry will never offer. Compassion without pressure, clarity about the life growing inside her, real support. To welcome her baby and the hope of the gospel, she's given a free ultrasound and space to breathe. And more than 80% of the time, when a mother sees her baby on a preborn ultrasound, she chooses life. This March, PreBorn is believing to save 6,800 babies. But it will take 124 partners saying yes every day. Here's my. Pause your busy day for just a moment and become a yes right now. Just $28 provides one ultrasound. $140 helps five mothers. Every dollar helps save babies and share hope. To donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250, baby. Or visit preborn.com afr that's preborn.com afr

>>  : this is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

Rick Green is America's Constitution coach. What does that mean?

>> Rick Green: Welcome back to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. Rick Green, I'm, America's Constitution coach. What does that mean? So nobody's really asked me that, but it basically means I make the Constitution fun and I coach people on it. And so I've been doing that for a long time. People started calling me, you know, ah, a Constitution coach. America's Constitution Coach. Because I guess because I probably put more people through the Constitution than, anybody else, individually. I know Hillsdale's done a lot of people doing Constitution classes, but, in terms of personally coaching and, taking people through classes, maybe that's how that happened. But, I definitely make it the most fun. Our Constitution classes, you cannot sleep in. Unlike most Constitution classes, I hate boring history and government So I want it to be real. I want it to be applicable. I want to be able to use it in my own life. And so we do that for our students as well. Anyway, a little bit of a tangent there.

Okay, let's go to Daniel. Daniel's in Texas. 

Okay, let's go to Daniel. Daniel's in Texas. Daniel, you're up next, man. Go ahead.

>> Daniel: Oh, hi, Rick. This is Daniel, from McKinney.

>> Rick Green: McKinney, Texas.

>> Daniel: McKinney, Texas. I listen to you quite often on my lunch break during work.

>> Rick Green: Thank you.

>> Daniel: today I'm actually home. I took the day off because my wife has a doctor's appointment.

Daniel and his wife have three children born in Mexico. They have dual citizenship

I wanted to comment on the birthright. citizenship. Yeah, the lady mentioned a couple calls ago, I guess it was. A lady mentioned, she knew someone that had to go through the process. we actually had three children born in Mexico. the oldest is now 30, 34. but we had to, go to the US embassy in Mexico City and actually apply for citizenship. I, as an American citizen, was able to do that, for our kids. I had to, you know, it's been so long ago, but I had to prove that I had lived in the US So many years, prior to moving to Mexico. I had to document every time I entered and exited the United States. it was. It was quite a process. But thankfully. Is your to get it.

>> Rick Green: Is your wife American citizen as well?

>> Daniel: No, she is.

>> Rick Green: Or was she at the time? She was. Okay. So, yeah, that was one of those kind of muddy scenarios I was talking about. Just because you're exactly right, you have to. If only one of you are a citizen and the other one's a non citizen, you got to prove that you lived in the US for five years before the child's birth. That two of those were after you were 14. It's like a technical, you know, almost like a crossword, puzzle. You got to put all these different things together, and if you get all those things right, then, yes, then the kids get to be American citizens. So that's why yours was a little bit more complicated. But thankfully, you were able to get the right paperwork at the right time and get it done. And so they all three got to be their American citizens.

>> Daniel: Yes. They have dual citizenship.

>> Rick Green: Got it. Yeah. Yeah, that's right.

>> Daniel: So that's.

>> Rick Green: That's exactly the kind of thing.

>> Daniel: On another, interesting fact, we, knew friends, in Mexico that were from Guatemala, and were illegally in Mexico. and he had some. He had a child, at least one child born in Mexico. He was not able to register his child as a Mexican citizen because he was not legal.

>> Rick Green: Imagine that. Right. So all common sense.

>> Daniel: Yeah. Put up a fuss about, you know, how as long as they're born here, the U.S. citizens. that's not the case in Mexico. At least it wasn't, you know, back 30 years ago.

>> Rick Green: Yeah. No, I think, honestly, Daniel, I. If I maybe remember this wrong, somebody correct me, Colin Alred, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are the only nation that does this. I think every other nation says, just because you come here illegally and the baby's born here, we're not going to give you citizenship. I think. I think that's right. I know. I've heard that before. I'll try to, you know, document that and prove it, but. Yeah, but your example is perfect. That. That if you have to prove.

>> Daniel: You have to prove that you are in the country legally.

>> Rick Green: Yeah.

>> Daniel: yeah, for you.

>> Rick Green: That's good, man. Thank you for calling in. Yeah, that's a great call on point and, very good. Very good points.

My son is stationed in Bahrain and has been evacuated to Italy

all right, let's go to Minnesota, home of the leering schools. Carmen, thanks for calling in. What's your comment or question?

>> Carmen: Hi.

>> Carmen: so I have an even muddier situation.

>> Rick Green: Oh, great.

>> Carmen: Is a station.

>> Rick Green: I feel like. I feel like we're turning into a game show here. This is. This is like, you know, it's a. It's a game show. It's a trivia game show. You have to give me the most complicated scenario, and we have to figure out what the law is. Go.

>> Carmen: I win. my son is stationed in Bahrain, who has now been evacuated to Italy, working with the embassy there. He married a Kenyan citizen, in Montana through proxy, and they had a baby in February. And now they're trying to get all the paperwork together for both of them, his wife and his daughter to come back to the united. To the United States so that they are no longer in danger in the Middle East. So there's that.

>> Rick Green: Wow. So. So now you said they got married. They got married in Montana. Did they have the baby in Montana or the baby was born in Italy while they were evacuated?

>> Carmen: No, the baby was born in Bahrain before they were evacuated, and they actually. So they got married in Montana via proxy. They weren't actually in Montana.

>> Rick Green: Oh, wow. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Boy, that is unique marriage. Yeah. Talk about muddy. Yeah. I would think, though, it would be the same scenario as our previous caller, if she's still a citizen of Kenya and not yet a citizen of the United States. That he would just have to apply and prove that he had been in a citizen for previous five years and, you know, all those other.

>> Carmen: Yeah, they're working through all the process, fortunately, you know, it's interesting dealing with.

>> Rick Green: How does he know whether to go to the Italy. Yeah. Which embassy does he go to, though? Because I think you have to go to the one where the baby was born. So he's. What he had. Would they have to wait until they go back to Byron?

>> Carmen: well, I. See. I don't know about that because, So they got married in August via proxy. Baby was born in February. so my understanding was that the paperwork for the baby had to go back to the Bahraini hospital where she was born and get back to the embassy in, Italy, because the embassy in Bahrain is still closed.

>> Rick Green: Wow, man. Yeah, that is. I think you definitely win, Carmen. You're right. That is the most complicated one I've heard of. Yeah, we should be. We should be mailing you some free books or something. I don't know. That's, Yeah. Wild. But the question is, are your grandkids going to go to a Minnesota leering center?

>> Carmen: No. No, no.

>> Rob: You're great.

>> Carmen: Embarrassed to be a Minnesota at the moment.

>> Rick Green: Hey, we're going to turn that around. We're not done with Minnesota. We're going to turn that around. Absolutely.

The Trump administration is considering whether to end birthright citizenship

Carmen, thanks for calling in. Let's go to Rob in Kentucky. Rob, you're up next, man. What's your comment or question today?

>> Rob: Well, I was just going to comment about when I was in Arizona that, when I was in employer, I couldn't afford to lose my license because I was a contractor. So I always told the people that flew over the, the border that if you don't have a green card, you can't work for me. It's as simple as that. You can't just be getting money under the table because I, I'm the one that could go to jail for that. So that's one point. And then my other scenario is I'm just a little bit above pon scum. I'm a foster parent and I adopted three children from this one family, and two of them are Hispanic, half American. The father was not put on the birth paper because he was an illegal immigrant that worked for the cartel. I live in Arkansas. This is where it all happened. When the courts did, not want to give custody back to the mom because hurt issues, they gave custody to us. We adopted the children. Long story short, after about six months, the Cartel found the father who was not on the birth papers and ah, shot, killed him. So where does that leave my two children that are half American, half Hispanic? Does that make them an American legal citizen? Because I'm the one that took us here them under my, under my name.

>> Rick Green: Wow. I feel like we just turned this into an episode of Ozark. so, so you're, but you adopted them. So I would think adoption changes all of that, that they are citizens at that point, once you adopt them.

>> Rob: Yes, I would agree with that because the judge did say, well, who's the father? She kept saying, I don't know. I don't know. The reason she said, I don't know is because she was trying to protect father because he was illegal.

>> Rick Green: Yeah, yeah. I would think that the adoption changes all of that once that goes through and a judge stamps that adoption. But that, that, that is an obscure area I don't know the answer to. I have to look that up. I feel like the program has turned into a legal advice program and I, of course, cannot give legal advice over the radio. here, lose my law license that I don't use that often anyway. But, but what a great topic, man. I'm, I'm actually intrigued whether or not they're going to go this far tomorrow when they have the hearing, because, you know, the heart of this issue is definitely the intentional skirting of the law. That's, that's what, that's what the Trump administration is trying to prevent. They're trying to say, you know, look, if you're, if you're purposefully, coming here illegally to have babies, those babies don't become citizens. I think that's the most simplistic, you know, main question that, that the courts will hopefully have to answer. I do think that they could end up in a lot of this muddy area and potentially, you know, it could either simplify or complicate the whole thing, depending on their decision. But this has been a long time coming, folks. This, this fight over birthright citizenship has been waged by those who are, that care very much about the rule of law and want people to have to follow the law and care very much about the integrity and the, you know, essentially the, the dilution of the American value system and the dilution of the, what it means to be an American citizen. We should hold that in high esteem. It should be something that is, is valued by those who live here and have children here and, you know, want to pass on that citizenship. It should be something that's coveted by the rest of the world that, we make our nation a place where people want to be here, that, that we still have the American dream and that they want to come here in droves, but then we have limits on how many we're able to take in, and that we only let the people in that really do want the American dream and, and. And are willing to assimilate and, and, and bolster the American values rather than dilute them or tear them down. And one of the ways that you can best regulate that, and you're, not. It's not going to be perfect no matter what you do. But the. One of the ways that you. You can best regulate that is make sure that the only ones considered to be citizens are the ones that come here legally. So that when they're coming here, if they're coming legally, we have a vetting process. So just think about it. If you. If anyone's allowed to come here illegally and raise their children to be American citizens, they can be of any mindset, any value system. They can be pro communist, pro socialism, pro Islamism, pro, you know, terrorism. They can be all of that and be citizens. That makes no sense whatsoever. Right? If you have a vetting process where you're saying, okay, if you come here legally, we get to interview you, we get to make sure that you are, in fact, pro Western civilization and pro American values. And then we want so many of those immigrants to be able to come in legally every year. That's good. That's good. Immigrate immigration policy now, right now, obviously, as a side note, we should stop all immigration, period. You know, full stop, no immigration right now until we clean up the system, we get rid of the bad apples and the bad characters that we let in over the last 50 years, and we start fresh. And then we start saying, yes, we want immigration. We want people to come here legally that want the American dream that are willing to assimilate and be a part of the American system. But if you don't have the vetting process at all, which is what? Birthright citizenship as interpreted by these leftist crazies, what it allows for no vetting. And people get to come here and repopulate America with people that aren't of the American value system. If you have no vetting whatsoever and you allow for birthright citizenship, you lose the country. That's how big a deal this hearing is tomorrow. All of this stuff we've talked about over the last few weeks and all of the pain that we're even the joke about Minnesota, embarrassed to be in Minnesota right now, all of this illegal immigration and legal immigration without a good vetting process has led to all of the problems we've been talking about, the devaluing of the things that mattered most in America. Respect for the rule of law, not wanting fraud. I mean, these Somalians want fraud. They think you're foolish if you don't commit fraud because it's a different value system. And so when you're able to vet. When you're able to say only. Only those people who either were born here to American citizens, so they might not have American values because they've been taught wrong and everything else, but they did. They were born here to American citizens. Okay? They're in. They get to be citizens. And we got to work on, you know, trying to convince them the American value system is better than what the socialist system that they've been sold. Okay, that's a different category. But if you're going to get to come here, if you're going to get to get a ticket, get your ticket punched to be a new citizen of America and maybe the first one in your family to be a citizen, then you got to go through the vetting process. And the vetting process should be stringent and rigid, and we should only want the best of the best. I don't know about you. I'm starting to get the idea that Somalia is not sending us their best. I'm starting to get the idea that, you know, maybe even Colombia and some of these other countries, they're not sending their best. And by not vetting, we have to get. We import the third world, we import the cesspools of America. We're going to become the cesspool of America. So that's why this decision tomorrow or this hearing tomorrow is so important. And the decision when it comes down in, a month or two, is going to be so important, it's going to weigh heavily on the future of America and very much could impact even the immediate election, depending on what the, you know, details of the decision end up being.

Walker Wildmon and Rick Green answer your questions at the Core

All right, thanks for all the calls today. Thank you for listening today. Walker will have you tomorrow on Wednesday, and I'll get you back on Thursday. Thanks for listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

>>  : The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.

https://ivoterguide.com/

https://www.afa.net/events

https://x.com/RickGreenTX

https://tours.afa.net/

https://afr.net/podcasts/at-the-core/

https://www.patriotacademy.com/donate

https://www.patriotacademy.tv/series/NlzmnklZ9LO7-the-tavern?channel=shows

https://www.patriotacademy.com/institute/

https://www.patriotacademy.com/build/

https://www.patriotu.com/pages/home/d/patriot-academy

https://www.patriotacademy.com/the-patriot-experience/

https://wallbuilders.com/

https://preborn.com/

https://eightdaysofhope.com/

https://afn.net/

https://afaaction.net/