The Lars Larson Show Interviews
Lars Larson has been asking the hard questions for decades and he's not stopping now. Every weekday, Lars hosts two of the most listened-to talk radio programs in the country.
From noon to 3pm PT, he anchors a Northwest-focused program heard across more than 100 affiliates in Washington and Oregon, covering the stories and policies hitting closest to home.
Then, from 3 to 6 pm PT, he takes it national with a syndicated program reaching listeners from coast to coast.
No talking points. No agenda-driven nonsense. Just the news, the debates, and the conversations that actually move the needle. Subscribe and find out why millions of listeners keep coming back.
The Lars Larson Show Interviews
Christopher Hajec - Did the Supreme Court get birthright citizenship wrong?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
The Supreme Court has ruled that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil remains an American citizen. Did the Court correctly interpret the Constitution, or miss what the Fourteenth Amendment intended?
Christopher Hajec is Deputy General Counsel at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He joins the show to discuss the Court's birthright citizenship decision, its constitutional reasoning, and what it means for future immigration policy.
Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson Show. It's a pleasure to be with you, and I don't have to be happy about all of these Supreme Court decisions. There was certainly one today I wasn't happy with, but the Supreme Court has handed Donald Trump two massive wins when it comes to illegal immigration to the United States. And the biggest one, of course, is going to drop very soon birthright citizenship. So I thought we'd check in with Chris Hayek, who serves as uh the serves with the Federation for American Immigration Reform as its deputy general counsel. Uh Chris, welcome back. Yeah, hi Lars. So what what should we make of the two rulings we do know about that the Supreme Court has handed uh to Donald Trump and they sound like big wins.
SPEAKER_00Oh yeah. I mean, I'm I don't think the court could have could have done anything else than those two uh decisions.
SPEAKER_01On temporary protected status, tell my audience what they meant what they amount to.
SPEAKER_00Well, you know, that case was just about whether the court had jurisdiction to review the uh claims of the plaintiffs. Uh and they didn't. The statute said you can't re courts cannot review any uh determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security about TPS. And the and the court just recognized that, and it really couldn't have done anything else.
SPEAKER_01So how did we end up in this situation where people got so-called temporary protected status that in some cases, uh at least in a couple of cases, went on for decades?
SPEAKER_00Yes, 35 years, yeah. It it it it morphed into a substitute immigration program. And uh and and Trump is just restoring it to what it was meant to be, which is a temporary humanitarian program to protect people from you know an earthquake or things like that.
SPEAKER_01So why is it that that we saw that kind of delay that that instead of just uh administrations reviewing these things, they have entire departments of people who do nothing but that. Why wouldn't they have reviewed TPS and said, okay, your TPS is done. You need to go home or make a choice about changing your status.
SPEAKER_00Right. I I I really can't answer that. I mean, I think it's just um there's a there's a a push for some reason to extend it as long as possible.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so tell me where you think, because at this point we know to a fair certainty the U.S. Supreme Court's gonna have to re release its birthright citizenship decision. What, tomorrow, Wednesday, maybe Thursday at the latest, certainly before Friday?
SPEAKER_00Yes, I I read on I heard on SCOTU that SCOTA's blog said tomorrow was the last day of Tuesday.
SPEAKER_01I've heard that. If that's the case, it'll be tomorrow. Got any guesses as to where they're gonna go based on the questions they asked when they heard oral arguments and based on the facts involved in the case?
SPEAKER_00Well, I I would just say that the oral argument was kind of a fiasco for the uh uh government side, and I don't think the just the conservative justices were got much out of it. And if what they had to do do is go back and rethink. And we gave them a brief at at fair that um is different from the government's position, and I think it's something they could go with and it would give Trump not a complete victory but a ninety percent victory.
SPEAKER_01Okay, would you mind describing for my audience what uh what it is you were suggesting they do?
SPEAKER_00Right. Look at the the case Wonke Mark decided in 1898, and realize what its real holding was. It's they said in Wonka Mark that if you you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, provided that you have the permission of the United States to reside here.
SPEAKER_01Yep.
SPEAKER_00And and that is not possessed by illegal aliens or by tourists. So that would be approximately three hundred and twenty thousand um births a year that would not be considered citizens under uh Wankamark. And it would be uh but there are still a f uh sum, about thirty thousand, thirty-five thousand that would be uh births to foreign students, foreign workers, and people on visas of that kind that permit them to reside here for years.
SPEAKER_01So in the in those cases, their children, if they produce children while they're here, would be American citizens, but the purely illegal aliens who are in this country, their children would not be American citizens, is that it?
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Yeah, they're their children and and birth tourism, you know, birth tourists' children.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, because because when you've got an overt attempt to circumvent American immigration law and say, come on over, we'll arrange for your flight, we'll arrange for you to place to stay, you're an already pregnant woman, you'll deliver your baby, and then you'll take your brand new citizen baby with a birth certificate, maybe even a passport too, and go right back to wherever you came from, China or whatever. And and you'll have this junior American citizen who in 20 years will be your meal ticket to bring mom and dad and grandma and grandpa back to the United States.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, or whatever they else uh else they think they can do with it. It it's uh I mean, I I guess if that person has to end up paying taxes and maybe being drafted, maybe they renounce their citizenship. I don't know.
SPEAKER_01Although have we even, you know, I've had this question a hundred times. You know, if you're here illegally, you're still or a lot you're still required to uh to sign up with selective service. Do you think that's even being enforced on most illegals?
SPEAKER_00No, no. Nothing's being enforced on them. We don't even know who they are. No half the time.
SPEAKER_01Well, and in fact, even when they offered DACA status, what was it? The total number estimated to be in the country is like one and a half million, and maybe six hundred thousand of them actually bothered to sign up for it because if they didn't, it was, you know, I think their their attitude was, what are you gonna do to me if I don't sign up for DACA? I'll stay anywhere.
SPEAKER_00Right, right. Yeah. Um it you know, it has to be enforced. You know, the law has to be enforced or it's just it's meaningless.
SPEAKER_01Well, I certainly hope they go with your solution because you know, at that point, then the next administration, whether it's Republican or Democrat, will be stuck with that interpretation of the 14th Amendment. And if it corrects 90 percent of the problem, then I guess that's that's a good result, isn't it?
SPEAKER_00Yes, it is a very good result. It's uh, you know, if it happens, if uh for some somehow if they go with the plaintiffs, uh what it means is that we we really have to make sure we don't have illegal aliens here having children.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I guess that's uh the only way to actually make that work out that way. That's Chris Hayek. Chris is the Deputy General Counsel for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. And Chris, we always appreciate you coming on. By the way, do you really want another summer like last summer where you barely slept at all all night because it was too hot? People blame the summertime heat for their bad sleep. But what it really might be is their mattress trapping that heat right up next to you. And if you already sleep hot, summer only makes the problem worse. And that's why I switched to a ghost bed. Helps keep you cool all night long. No waking up sweaty or tossing and turning or throwing the covers off at 2 a.m. Cooling technology built into every ghost bed mattress. And it's not an expensive upgrade you have to pay extra for. Hot sleepers are some of Ghostbed's happiest customers. Just read the reviews. Plus, support is incredible. Less stiffness, deeper sleep, and more rested mornings. Ghostbed gives you 101 nights to try it out for yourself at home. You can sleep on it all summer long and feel the difference for yourself. How many more summers are you gonna waste on bad sleep? Right now, Ghostbed is celebrating its 4th of July sale. My loyal Lars listeners get an extra 10% off. With financing, some ghost beds come out at about a dollar a day. Go to ghostbed.comslash Lars and then use promo code Lars. That's ghostbed.comslash Lars, promo code Lars. Check me out on Instagram. We got a great feed there, and we're on X as well and on Alexa.