for morning this case is about the constitution this case is about about the powers given under the constitution to the federal government and to the states the way that that that i see this this citizenship issue and in our case is who has the power to decide the fact of where an individual is born with in the of any given state or our constitutional system is one that gives the federal government limited powers and the states have many more powers and under the tenth amendment i propose that state of texas or any other state has the power to determine who is born within their borders now this doesn't mean that the state of texas has authority over immigration law this means that the state of texas has the authority to cite the fact of where an individual within its limit is born the constitution says in the fourteenth amendment to to make a retracted decision and to grant his mother of custody full custody as opposed to joint custody of of him and  the purpose of this was to affect immigration policy and so so that that case is a little bit different in that case the court made clear yeah that that that was california what they were saying is even though bustamante was born in a different country i mean he was mexico him even though he was one of this in country we're going to go back and we're going to change our judgment our original judgment so that we can help you out basically to to to effectuate your immigration purposes this the state may not do and i see the stamen not do this because that is a power that had been specifically given in granted to the federal government but it had nothing to do work with the question of whether the person had been more now garcia to carry on the other hand did have everything to do with where the person was born a really garcia had been born in in texas and arguably similar to our case garcia had been issued a birth certificate from the state of texas mexico that the person difficult in mexico was not a valid one now the garcia court used the case of most a month to support his position or to support its argument that even if the state of texas decides that individual is born in texas that that is not controlling as to the question of citizenship op on the federal government but but i don't find anything in the constitution that says that the federal government has the power to define who is born in texas the district court based on basing its up on understanding at the time basically said that even if for example has or has stated that that the fourteenth amendment basically changed the character of article one section eight and basically what the court said was or what i understand from that case is that that when when the forty four men came about it was only to to make sure that not too true congress could by ordinary act change the definition of what it meant to be or what it was a united states citizen and basically there were a couple requirements the person could either be born or naturalized and if the person was born he had to be born subject to use of the united states to be a united states citizen now basically when i was younger stanier that under the common law it is still the understand today is that if if an individual is born even if he is born in the state of texas but if you know his his his father or mother happened to be here on official business from the government to mexico let's say in the ambassador well that individual was not subject to use the action of the united states or if it was in a territory that was occupied by you know in cases of an invasion of the invading our army and not subject to the musician of united states so those those issues of loss exceptions are not course relevant here but but overruled an earlier case and it took them ten years to overrule that case so to me my understanding of these cases or what these cases stand were is the proposition that the fact of  clearly within the tenth amendment power granted to the states and in this case the state of texas in exercise of its power according to the rules that established the mystery rules had a he cited university of tennessee versus elliot in that case the court basically explained that even if the even if article four was not a political will to the federal government that under common law principles that there was no reason to not apply the spirit of of of of of of the fourth of article for because basically the the idea is for that proposition i don't believe either of the briefs pointed this out if they did i missed it but the city of man of morris mexico is that directly across the rio grande from brownsville yes it it yes yes just separated by a bridge yes that is that is correct yes if you do actual notice of that if i don't believe either side is point that out that that that is true and and i don't morris is where the government sa your client was born and brown who is where you say he was born that is correct and they are basically vaughn with twin cities you know one from the u s separated by by bridge i do believe that that that that the government correctly pointed much as as i can so i didn't even though i was about five or ten minutes away from there i did actually cross over over the bridge to go and check out where the birth certificates and in martha morris are kept at that time so to conclude basically we we believe that it is clear that if the state of texas in fact decides a fact of birth then it is also clear that  article fourteen citizenship by birth is is granted by by by that constitutional statute it is actually a limit both on and state and on the federal government and so under our  district judge made oral finding in fact in conclusions of law but then at the end of the proceeding instructed the parties to draw up an order and a judgment and on the date of the judgment the twenty seventh of june also filed written findings of fact in conclusions of law with those prepared by you i run i prepared a draft for the court that is actually in the record and then afterwards a judge to prepare one that is close there are very similar but they not the same the judge did make changes to the proposed findings of fact a conclusion of law we sent to the court but they they are very similar we will not deny that your hon they would apply in three requisites were met that the same parties were present that the parties had an adequate opportunity to litigate the same issue and that the effect of the administrative decision were the same university of tennessee was a employment discrimination case in which the same parties were present and they argued the same issues before in the district of judge by way of contrast drawn in this case the same parties were not present before the state administrative judge it was the state of texas party and the plaintiff not or whether or not they derive citizenship and cited the bustamante but rather a decision you know run of the issue is actually the same in both a case of alleged citizenship by birth and allez citizenship through derivation the issue is whether or not the individual automatically the acquire citizenship so in both cases if there's a ledge of birth that automatically acquires citizenship of birth or bustamante perera they would automatically acquire it when the mother became a citizen so the issue is actually the same made a finding that the individual there was born in san francisco the ninth circuit then stated despite what that registrar stated that doesn't tell to no binding effect so it's made that case as well is controlling we also know that addition to the immigration basis as to why the supremacy clause controls in the us has jurisdiction is also the passport issue which was discussed most recently by the supreme court and was of a topsy recent case that dealt with the place of birth being jerusalem and whether or not you could what the government could put down as a place of birth and the interesting thing about that case runners is that not only did the supreme court say the federal government has control over the place of birth on the passport but they actually said the executive branch itself even trumps congress and that in fact they said the place of birth is an executive decision so they actually went further than even we than even the issue in this case your honour's we would also know that there would be we would submit dire consequences for fifteen or three l igants if the contention of the plaintiff were adopted in this case namely if someone went through this administrative law judicial proceeding in the state and lost if that case that decision by that l j were to be conclusive s i think the most obvious one is getting the age wrong as we noted and as the mother of the plaintiff can see that she was in fact twenty years old at the time that birth certificate was issued and we would submit that it should not be conclusive on this court to find that eighty seven minus sixty seven equals twenty one we would submit that wasn't right for they all james should not be conclusive on this court or district court and there are also obvious other problems that we mention the brief regarding the fourteenth amendment all that states as in this was not that despite what counsel stated this is not disputed by the the court in this case it just states that a someone is born and this is action or fourteen a one a of title eight and we believe under our constitutional avoidance fourteen zero one a should be governing in this case so this court does not have to decide the constitutional issue all it states is that if a person is born in the jurisdiction that they are citizens the judge in fact stated that in her findings of fact conclusions of law in this case so what happens in this case is that she noted and was never disputed that if there was a finding that the person was in fact one in texas that person would be a us citizen of course would some of the evidence here is overwhelming that the person was not born in the us i'm there no furthe questions on the first point your honors i'd like to move to the second point the second point your honor deals with i'll just be very quick as to whether or not the twenty two a one cause of action and the all writs act action should have been dismissed we submit they were properly dismissed however during the trial the credibility was shown to be questionable because her own mother her own father and her twin sister all testified she was born in mexico and they would thought it was noteworthy that her twin sister testified and her twin sister for lack of a better term became a citizen the right way she legally got a green card in the early naturalized and her twin sister the mother made a claim that she was born in in texas we also know there is also border credibility because the birth certificate issue that councils referr the mother stated in that she was born in mexico yet she also has a birth certificate stating she was born in texas so we would submit that because of this issue the plymouth this place of birth was also relevant and although at the end of the day council did state that there was properly denied there were three documents at issue in the motion for a new trial an expert report that was prepared for weeks after the trial which we submit by definition is not new evidence than the other two documents were the birth record immediately before end of the day the final one that is signed by the judge would have to be i rose i'm sort of being put in a having to pick one of the other if there was some sort of conflict i believe since the last thing before final judgment with a written decision that would be the controlling the control and the decision of the court because final judgment was entered right in accordance with that on a separate document pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure but we would see me on that since they are the same over the language rubs it wasn't the same because drug rosenthal was doing it orally and did not have the time to articulate it as clearly as she would writing that there is no sort of issue regarding this for a dispute between the two of findings by the court was written and so in in in my point of view that is controlling in this case article one section eight does not rule the fourteenth amendment and defamation with which gives the states the power to decide who is one states citizen well the only thing i would submit in that in their regard is that my client's mother was not a trial my client's mother did not have the ability to respond to that and i have the ability i was not representative you are you do you raises an issue and should have not been touched by that but by the district court i was not representing the mother the mother did not have counsel and she did not have and had a good opportunity to be heard on on that issue so she made a finding at the record just made  finding that that my client's mother was not a united states citizen and that was not part of that was not part of the case it was not case and controversy was not something that she had the power to decide yes like i also believe that the docked in the same thing that and illustrate a body in the board of immigration appeals or any other body has it's an area of specialized knowledge and normally the court will refer to to the decisions from from those