Tangle - Trump’s birthright citizenship comments

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump gave his first network television interview since the election, speaking with NBC's Kristen Welker for Meet The Press. During the interview, Trump said he would seek to end birthright citizenship, possibly through executive action, calling the practice “ridiculous” and saying the U.S. is the only country that grants the right. Legal experts doubt that the president has the power to curtail birthright citizenship, but Trump’s transition team has indicated it will attempt to do so as one of his first executive actions when he returns to office. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up! You can also give the gift of a Tangle podcast subscription by clicking here.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think about ending birthright citizenship? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A few days ago, I started to feel under the weather. But I have Maple, an app that lets you see a real doctor on your phone in minutes, 24-7. Sure enough, I got to see the doctor right away. She asked all about my symptoms and gave me a diagnosis in no time. And since I saw the doctor so quickly, I already feel... better. Get Maple? Get well sooner. Download the app or visit GetMaple.ca and As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month, every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money.

Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're gonna be talking about the birthright citizenship debate.

That's right, Donald Trump is pushing to end birthright citizenship. We're gonna break down the history of that in the 14th Amendment and share some arguments about his proposal from across the political spectrum. Before we do, a couple of quick notes, first of all, I want to shout out Will K. Back, our editor who manned the podcast yesterday.

Will sent me a note saying, you know, he lives in New York. He had a lot of thoughts about this issue. He had seen me write about it twice already, and he wanted to offer his thoughts about it to this angle audience. And I thought it was really interesting. I thought it was a great read. I didn't agree with him about everything but it wasn't my take, it was his take and I thought he did an awesome job and it was thoughtful and thought-provoking so kudos to Will

and of course you know I hope we get to continue introducing different members of the Tangle team to you guys going forward and giving them opportunities to use their voices too. Cause it's a nice little peek behind the curtain that, I often am giving my take that's edited and massaged and challenged a little bit by our team. But at the end of the day, it is my take. And we have other people on staff who have views

that diverge from mine in certain places. So it's always fun to see them kind of come out of the shadows and get to share their voices a bit. So that's one. Second, speaking of sharing people's voices, every now and again, there's a story that just punctures the news in a way that feels important and notable. And this week, the story was the murder

of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. We received a deluge of reader feedback, criticism and questions about our coverage of his murder and what we can learn about the US from the story. So tomorrow we're going to address that in a reader feedback edition. That's the kind of edition where we share some reader feedback, we respond to some of that and we leave some of it unanswered.

We just let people's criticism stand on their own for us and let you guys take from it what you want. A reminder though, that these Friday edition podcasts, along with our Sunday edition podcasts, are now behind a paywall. They're for members only. If you want to become a Tangle member on the podcast, you can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com. And when you do that, you'll also unlock ad-free podcasts into your feeds, which a lot of people really love. So you can again, go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to set up a paid Tangle podcast membership.

And that is just for the podcast. We also have newsletter memberships on our website, readtangle.com. And soon, I think maybe this month, we're going to be bundling those subscriptions together. So you can manage your subscriptions all in one place. And if you are both a newsletter reader and a podcast listener, you can get a discount when you bundle the subscription. So lots of cool stuff coming on the membership side and appreciate all you guys bearing with us. With that lengthy intro, I'm going to pass it over to John for the main pod.

And I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac. And welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced its director Christopher Wray would resign at the end of the Biden administration. Wray had three years remaining on his appointed 10 year term as director, but President-elect Donald Trump recently stated his intention to seek Ray's resignation or fire him. Trump will nominate former federal prosecutor Cash Patel to lead the agency. 2.

Hamas has reportedly agreed to two Israeli demands as part of a proposed ceasefire deal in Gaza, allowing Israeli forces to remain in Gaza temporarily while the fighting stops and sharing a full list of hostages it would release. The concessions raised the prospect of a ceasefire or truce after months of stalled talks. 3. Grocery companies Kroger and Albertsons ended their planned $24.6 billion merger, which would have been the largest in U.S. supermarket history, after two judges halted the deal earlier this week. Albertson said it had filed a lawsuit against Kroger for allegedly failing to fulfill its obligations.

4. President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of approximately 1,500 people and pardoned 39 others, all of whom were convicted of nonviolent crimes. The White House said that the actions represent the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. And number 5. A U.S. bankruptcy judge halted the satirical news site The Onion from purchasing Alex Jones's Infowars website as part of Jones's bankruptcy proceedings, ruling that the auction to sell

the site was marred by procedural errors. You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan? Yeah, absolutely. The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action? Well, we're gonna have to get a change. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it.

On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump gave his first network television interview since the election, speaking with NBC's Kristen Welker for Meet the Press. During the interview, Trump said he would seek to end birthright citizenship, possibly through executive action, calling the practice ridiculous press. During the interview, Trump said he would seek to end birthright citizenship, possibly through executive action, calling the practice ridiculous and saying that the U.S. is the

only country that grants the right. Legal experts doubt that the president has the power to curtail birthright citizenship, but Trump's transition team has indicated it will attempt to do so as one of its first executive actions when he returns to office. In the United States, birthrate citizenship takes two forms. Je sanguinis, or ancestry-based citizenship, means that a child born outside of the U.S. to at least one citizen parent is entitled to U.S. citizenship under certain conditions. Je soleil, or birthplace-based citizenship, grants automatic citizenship to everyone born

in the U.S. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Jusceli citizenship in its 1898 decision in the United States v. Wong Kim Arc. During Trump's first term, he stated he would sign an executive order removing birthright citizenship but ultimately did not do so. However, he raised the prospect again during his 2024 presidential campaign, vowing to

take executive action on his first day in office to restrict citizenship to those with at least one citizen or lawful permanent resident parent. Many constitutional scholars have argued that any executive action targeting birthright citizenship would be struck down by the courts, citing the precedent established in Wong Kim Ark. In his interview with Welker, Trump suggested that he could take the issue back to the people if executive action failed, suggesting passing a constitutional amendment. Doing so would require two-thirds approval from the House and Senate,

as well as ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each state. However, Trump's transition team has contended that the language of the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizens, arguing that unauthorized migrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as stipulated by the Citizenship Clause. In response, opponents say the Supreme Court's

Wong Kim Arc decision makes clear that the only groups not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus excluded from birthright citizenship are people who cannot be prosecuted in the U.S., such as ambassadors and foreign ministers. Today, we'll explore arguments about Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship with perspectives from the right and the left, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Prince who would come to be known as Scar. So glad I brought some crickets. Bring your whole family. Come on, Mufasa. Let's get in some trouble. On December 20th, a kingdom of adventure awaits. We can do this. We're busy. Let's hustle. Disney's Mufasa the Lion King in theaters and IMAX December 20th. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month, every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money.

Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at fizz.ca. All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the proposal, but many argue that Trump has a credible legal case to curtail birthright citizenship. Some say ending birthright citizenship is key to Trump's immigration agenda. Others say Trump's plan is ill-advised. In the Daily Signal, Amy Swerer said, Trump can end universal birthright citizenship.

The Constitution never required it. It's true that in an 1898 case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. born child of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the United States was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, Swearer wrote. But the holding in Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and supersede Congress's clear intent.

The assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous. At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government's attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens by any means, Swearer said. This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting Jersouli and universal birthright

citizenship as the law of the land, it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, Americanized Jersouli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile. In the New York Post, Daniel McCarthy argued Trump's proposal could help stem the border crisis. Birthright citizenship may sound benign, but thanks to an overarching Supreme Court decision 126 years ago, it's the biggest legal hole in our border. President-elect Donald Trump has the opportunity to seal it, but it won't be easy, McCarthy

wrote. When the Supreme Court handed down its United States v. Wong Kim Arc decision in 1898, illegal immigration was nothing like the crisis it is now, and the subject of that case, Wong Kim Arc, was the son of legal immigrants, permanent residents, in fact. But in the 21st century, liberal legal experts insist the court's ruling now means any child born on American soil is automatically a citizen. The dangers of birthright citizenship are about more than just illegal immigration. Holders of valid tourist visas who don't have any intention of becoming Americans can arrive

pregnant and depart with a newly minted U.S. citizen added to the family. It's a threat to national security and sovereignty itself," McCarthy said. Trump is trying to restore us to the understanding of citizenship held by the framers of the amendment that guaranteed equal protection for all Americans. It's a battle Trump must fight, all the way to the Supreme Court. In The Wall Street Journal, Jason L. Reilly criticized Trump's misguided attack on birthright citizenship. In an interview with NBC News that aired Sunday, Donald Trump said that he wanted to work with Democrats in Congress

to do something about the legal limbo of so-called Dreamers, the name given to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and have lived here most of their lives, Riley wrote. as children and have lived here most of their lives," Raleigh wrote. Like many supporters of the Dreamers, Mr. Trump believes that it would be unjust to make children pay for the illegal acts of their parents. In the same NBC News interview, Mr. Trump vowed to ban birthright citizenship by executive order on his first day back in office. Mr. Trump campaigned successfully on a promise of reducing the size of the country's illegal population and prioritizing the removal of the country's illegal population and

prioritizing the removal of foreign nationals with criminal histories is popular and makes sense. But ending birthright citizenship would almost certainly be at cross purposes with his larger goal. Children who automatically become citizens would be counted going forward as illegal like their parents and the size of the illegal population would swell by millions, Riley said. There's also a moral case for leaving birthright citizenship in place, including for the offspring of undocumented parents. And it's similar to the case Mr. Trump has made for accommodating the dreamers. Why punish children for the sins of their parents? Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes Trump's plan and doesn't think it will survive in court.

Some say the effort underscores Trump's authoritarian impulses. Others say Trump may be foreshadowing other moves to reduce legal immigration. In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby wrote, Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right that Trump can't revoke. Birthright citizenship isn't a privilege that presidents can bestow or withdraw at will. It is a constitutional mandate enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, Jacoby said. The meaning of that constitutional language has never been in doubt. Though the amendment's citizenship clause was drafted specifically to nullify the Supreme Court's extracurricled Dred Scott decision, which denied birthright citizenship to anyone

of black African descent, its intended scope was considerably broader. If Trump or Republican nativists in Congress want to change generations of settled law and withhold citizenship from children born to migrants who entered the country without authorization, their sole option is to amend the Constitution," Jacoby wrote. It is one of the finest aspects of American exceptionalism that American citizenship is extended to all who enter the world within America's borders. Thanks to the 14th Amendment, their rights do not depend on the color of their skin, the blood in their veins, the religion of their forebears, or the immigration status of their

parents. The Constitution says that every baby born here is the equal of every other. In The Hill, Max Burns called Trump's plan authoritarianism 101. America's legal institutions may not be as strong a bulwark against the MAGA movement's xenophobia as institutionalists think, Burns said. Democrats' high-minded plan to wave the Constitution in Trump's face isn't going to win many arguments in a government that openly idolizes the muscular use of executive power. At any rate, some of the MAGA movement's most loyal lawmakers are already hard at work undermining the clear meaning of clauses like the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship

to all people born within the country. Senator Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, offered the opening salvo in the Wright's War on citizenship rights. He argues that the amendment's first sentence, all persons born or naturalized in the Wright's War on Citizenship Rights. He argues that the amendment's first sentence, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, empowers lawmakers to determine who is a citizen.

That reading is exactly backward in every possible way, Burns wrote. Lee needs to make these big theoretical jumps, because otherwise, Republicans would need to amend the Constitution in order to remove birthright citizenship, something even they acknowledge is politically impossible. In New York Magazine, Ed Kilgore said, Trump's birthright citizenship threat shows his true target.

Reducing all forms of immigration has been an abiding goal of Stephen Miller, Trump's longtime immigration advisor and future White House Deputy Chief of Staff, for policy. So it was always safe to assume that a second Trump administration would attempt to reduce various forms of legal immigration, Kilgore wrote. But now Trump himself has pledged to do something far more sweeping on his first day in office, issue an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. This would presumably expose millions to deportation from the land where they were born. Raising the question of birthright citizenship right off the bat

could benefit Trump strategically in two ways. First, challenging this might make it more politically palatable to separate the estimated 4.3 million US citizens whose parents are undocumented from their soon-to-be-deported family members, Kilgore said. Second, Trump and Miller may simply want to begin their nativist crusade with the most expansive and audacious proposals in their arsenal. Perhaps they believe that once eliminating birthright citizenship is on the table, their more legally defensible plans will seem less draconian. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. ["The Last Supper"] All right, that is it for it

with the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So I wanna start with three simple but important points before I get into what I think is the most interesting part of this story. Number one, first of all, perhaps most importantly, I want to say that I am extremely skeptical that Trump is going to change birthright citizenship or related precedent in the United States. If he goes the executive order route, he'll need some very friendly help from the Supreme Court and the courts underneath them, which I don't think is going

to happen. He could try passing a narrow piece of legislation that invites the kind of 14th Amendment challenge he wants to take to the Supreme Court, but that also seems like a losing venture. I'm not even sure he could get such legislation passed. Otherwise, he'll need a constitutional amendment, which obviously is not happening. And number two, it is not true that other countries don't have birthright citizenship laws. Over 30 do, including both of the countries we border, Canada and Mexico. These laws can differ by country, and it's true that some, like the United Kingdom, have indeed abandoned them. Still, it's just untrue that the US.S. is unique in birthright citizenship,

as Trump has repeatedly claimed. And number three, despite numbers one and two, and the reality that I think this is an open and shut legal question, given all the precedent here, I do think there is actually an interesting debate to be had around the 14th Amendment's language and the argument that the people who drafted it intended to put the children of people who immigrated here illegally outside the qualifications for birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, I found most of the Left's analysis of that

debate absent or boring and simply avoidant of the right's main points. Instead of engaging in good faith legal or historical arguments, many are just pointing to ghoulish past comments from people in Trump's orbit and proclaiming this plan is a monument to xenophobia. So absent this discussion from the left, I'd like to engage in the arguments from the right. First of all, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted in a very specific way for a long time. And since legal precedent undergirds our current system,

it is not at all likely to be overturned in court. But the language in the amendment itself is not at all crystal clear, and its historical context obscures its meaning further. I think Amy Swearer in The Daily Signal advanced the best argument that this language could have been misinterpreted for the last many years. Swearer starts by hinging the question of birthright citizenship on what the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. Are people here illegally subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

By our contemporary understanding, the answer is yes. They must abide by our laws, and we can put them in prison if they don't, or deport them if they are detained. On the other hand, there's a way to interpret jurisdiction differently. Unauthorized migrants can't vote. they don't have access to certain rights, and are not recognized in many legal contexts. That could easily mean they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but to the country from which they came. To me, the crux of Swearer's argument comes in this portion of her piece.

She says, Senator Lyman Trumbull, the Republican from Illinois, a key figure in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that subject to the jurisdiction meant not owing allegiance to any other country. It seems obvious that a child born to Mexican citizens illegally in the U.S. is a citizen of Mexico, owes his political allegiance to Mexico, and does not meet his jurisdictional requirement in the amendment." Suera makes the case that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended birthright citizenship

to apply to people under quote, complete political jurisdiction of the United States, not owing allegiance to any other country." She further argues that it's obvious a child of Mexican citizens illegally in the U.S. does not meet this burden. There are some obvious holes here. Dual citizens are still under U.S. does not meet this burden. There are some obvious holes here. Dual citizens are still under U.S. jurisdiction while owing another country allegiance, and Trump-Bowles was not the only opinion that mattered. Even so, I actually don't think Swears' last point is obvious at all. Take a personal example. As long-time readers know, I own property in West

Texas and have spent my summers or winters along the US Mexico border every year since I was 13 years old. Over the years, I've met several Mexicans living here illegally who have been for decades, some since childhood. Getting to know these people, I can assure you their political allegiance is not to Mexico but to the United States. Many feel foreign in their country of origin and despite their legal status here,

consider the US their home. And remember, and despite their illegal status here, consider the U.S. their home. And remember, it's their children we are talking about, who would be even more Americanized and have stronger allegiances to the U.S. than they do. In some cases, these Mexicans already have kids in their teens who know nothing of life in Mexico and don't even speak the language. Is it obvious that these people have less allegiance to America than, say, a person born in Calgary, Canada, to a Cuban mother with no U.S. citizenship and an American father, like Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas?

To me, it's not obvious at all. Yet ancestry citizenship makes Cruz an American, but Swearer thinks birthright citizenship shouldn't make her a hypothetical Mexican one. Of course, Trump has floated some kind of exception for people brought to the U.S. as children, but this just illustrates how the line Swearer is drawing in defining political allegiance or jurisdiction is really not all that clear. Swearer, like every writer I found making the case Trump has a path to undo birthright citizenship, also makes the point that we must draw the line somewhere.

Even conservatives who disagree with her, like Jason Riley in the Wall Street Journal under what the right is saying, point to the words of Walter Dellinger, a former head of the White House Office of Legal Counsel, who has said the framers believe, quote, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural born subject,

with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel. In other words, by the definition we use today, there are already exceptions to the rule that every person born within the US is granted citizenship, which makes sense. If a Russian ambassador in the US for a month of work gave birth here, we would not consider her child a US citizen. The same is true for the children of an invading army. So we clearly draw some lines, and the people backing Trump are just arguing that court precedent aside, people here illegally should be on the other side of these lines. In a

vacuum, I think this is an interesting debate, but we don't live in a vacuum. Instead, we have over a hundred years of precedent behind the accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, starting with United States V. Wong Kim Arc, and people like Swearer who want to overturn that precedent are a considerable minority. Even stalwart conservative judges appointed by Donald Trump, like Judge James C. Ho, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals, have written that birthright citizenship is, quote, Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have written that birthright citizenship is, quote, protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers, end quote. So while the thought experiment is interesting and engaging, I just don't see a world where Trump has a path to any major changes. And I don't think he'd be on the right side of this argument, even without the legal winds blowing against him.

even without the legal winds blowing against him. We'll be right back after this quick break. Recently, I felt like I was getting sick, but I downloaded Maple, an app that lets you see a real doctor on your phone in minutes, 24-7. You can even get a prescription if needed. So I quickly got to see the doctor, discussed my symptoms, and she prescribed medication. Starting my treatment earlier means I'm feeling like myself. Ah, earlier too. Get Maple Get well sooner. Download the app or visit GetMaple.ca

Timothy Chalamet transforms into the enigmatic Bob Dylan in a complete unknown, a cinematic captivation that explores the tumultuous life of a musical icon. This mesmerizing film captures the essence of Dylan's rebellious spirit and his relentless pursuit of artistic innovation. From the director of acclaimed films, Walk the Line and Logan, this extraordinary cinematic experience is a testament to the power of music and the enduring legacy of a true visionary. Watch the trailer now and secure your tickets for a truly unforgettable cinematic experience. A complete unknown. Only in theaters December 25th. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered.

This one's from Jack in St. Louis, Missouri. Jack said, can you explore the juxtaposition of the UnitedHealthcare CEO assassination versus the ex-marine who killed the man on the subway? Why is one man celebrated and the other vilified? And this goes both ways. It seems that one group of people celebrates one and hates the other and another group of people just the opposite. So we received some version of this question a lot last week and frankly, I think these

two stories provide a perfect example of how our environment of hyper-partisanship seems to always force people to an extreme. If I strongly believe something, then anyone who disagrees with that thing must be my enemy. And if I strongly disagree with something, anyone that fights against that thing must be on my side. When you think like that, it's easy to see disagreements as fights and people who disagree with you as enemies. And when you're fighting an enemy, there are no half measures. So it isn't enough to dislike or disagree with Biden or Trump. You've got to lock them up.

It isn't enough to criticize Israel. You have to align with Hamas. It isn't enough to say that some people struggling with homelessness or addiction are threats, but that they're literally enemies. It isn't enough to say that our healthcare system needs to be seriously reformed, but that anyone who leads a health insurer are literally enemies. This hyperpartisan framework flattens the world into comic book narratives of good versus evil and the right side versus the wrong side.

And I can hear the responses now. Those are false equivalences. My thing, whichever one it is, is different. Daniel Penny was protecting people while the CEO shooter was a vigilante, or the healthcare system is way more dangerous than mentally ill people on trains. But the question isn't about which of those things is worse.

It's about why people are so forgiving of one and not the other. Think about yourself here. Were you more forgiving of Penny or the CEO shooter than the other? When you learned about either of these stories, did you see one side as the right side and one side as wrong?

Think about how that changes the way you interpret things. It is really, really hard to deprogram that way of thinking. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm gonna send it back to John for the rest of the podcast and I'll see you guys tomorrow for our Friday edition. Don't forget, tanglemedia.supercast.com if you wanna unlock those editions.

And of course, if you don't want any more annoying ads, you can do that too. I'll see you guys then. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. The price of coffee beans has surged in 2024, with Arabica coffee beans, the most popular beans in the world, reaching a 47-year price high this week. While adverse weather conditions in Southeast Asia are partially responsible for rising

costs, consumer preferences and farmer livelihoods are also factors. According to Will Corby, director of Coffee and Social Impact at supplier Pact Coffee, the higher prices are a natural response to conditions in the coffee trade. Huge coffee companies might say these market highs are bad news, but in reality, farmers are finally being paid enough to live on, Corby said. The Independent has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright, next up is our numbers section. The unauthorized number of babies born to unauthorized migrant parents in 2014 was 275,000, according to Pew Research. The approximate number of U.S.-born children younger than 18 living with unauthorized immigrant

parents in the U.S. in 2014 was 4.7 million. The number of countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship is 33, according to World Population Review. The number of countries with some form of restricted birthright citizenship is 32. The percentage of Americans in 2015 who said being born in the United States is important to be considered truly American is 58%, according to a Public Religion Research Institute survey.

The percentage of Americans in 2022 who said being born in the United States is important to be considered truly American is 44%. The percentage of Americans who favor changing the Constitution to prevent children who are born in the United States to non-U.S. citizens from being granted citizenship is 42%. The percentage of Republicans who favor this change to the constitution is 67% and the percentage of Democrats who favor this change to the constitution is 25%. Alright, and last but not least our have a nice day story.

Animal trafficking has led to rare species from Madagascar being illegally smuggled into Thailand. But during an operation in May, Thai police recovered 1,117 animals, including the endangered species of spider tortoises, radiated tortoises, ring-tailed lemurs, and brown lemurs. Although some of these animals passed away while in captivity, 961 live animals are being repatriated to Madagascar in the largest ever effort between the two countries. CNN has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode.

As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up for a premium podcast membership, which gets you access to ad-free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content, and so much more. I'm excited and honored to be joining Isaac and Ari on this Sunday's podcast. So the three of us will talk to you then.

For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by Dima Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will K. Back, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bikova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website at readtangle.com.

That's readtangle.com. ["The Daily Show"] Recently, I felt like I was getting sick, but I downloaded Maple, an app that lets you see a real doctor on your phone in minutes, 24-7. You can even get a prescription if needed. So I quickly got to see the doctor, discussed my symptoms, and she prescribed medication. Starting my treatment earlier means I'm feeling like myself.

Ah, earlier too. Get Maple. Get well sooner. Download the app or visit getmaple.ca. Get ready for the movie event of the year with Disney's Mufasa the Lion King. It's time I tell you a story. A story? About Mufasa and the prince who would come

to be known as Scar. So glad I brought some crickets. Bring your whole family. Come on, Mufasa, N prince who would come to be known as Scar. So glad I brought some crickets. Bring your whole family. Come on, Mufasa, let's get in some trouble. On December 20th, a kingdom of adventure awaits. We can do this. We're busy, let's hustle. Disney's Mufasa the Lion King in theaters and IMAX December 20th.

As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month, every month. At FIS, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at FIS.ca.