case and matter st impression i'm going to give the us going st twelve minutes if you want it and then the american samoa can have six minutes if you want it and then congress and the supreme court have recognized for well over one hundred years that is for congress to determine whether and under what circumstances individuals born in american samoa and other territories will become citizens until the district court decision here states and the territory along to a not and likewise distinguishes between places within the united states and places that are subject to their jurisdiction so as other services recognize and supreme court  value because it does deal with the th amendment why isn't the framework laid out by the supreme court mack ace really the road map for addressing the issues in this case as opposed to the insular cases states needs or purposes that clause and how the common law sort of filters into that phrase and when other courts have considered discretion it recognized that that type of issue simply wasn't before the court in one q mark and to be sure meaning interpretation and why isn't that an approach that ought to have some balance with the panic we're not even if it did i think we have that phrase in the united states that if you look at the other provisions of the constitution and the shouldn't necessarily assume that birth anywhere where the united states in southern automatically transfers into citizenship and that would in fact you know concluding that want him or actually resolves that question would in fact render you know one hundred plus years of congressional and supreme court practice with respect to the territories not just wrong but simply unconstitutional congress consistently addressed by statute this is a ship of individuals and i think we're going to territories some of our people in the rejected the argument that a person born in the philippines and who enter the united states during the period where the philippines was a territory could be treated as an alien and the immigration law as the court said absolutely not the court congress had the power when it acquired that territory to decide on what terms of what we see happen to that territory and what their status is in fact legislated that they would be treated as aliens you know for these purposes and this is  decide what in the united states meant for those purposes whether it incorporated every aspect of the common law and much less was it asked to decide how in the united states applied to territory that congress acquired by treaty and were congress to decide on what terms to receive their inhabitants and what their status shelby well you know justice browns and downstream up to reject the petitioners claim in that case in your honor and i think that gets to you know one of the broader points here which is that you know the uniform recognition of congress in statutory practice with respect to the philippines why not a marine on islands the virgin islands it would really be a pretty dramatic shift in our understanding of counsel i was somewhat persuaded by the fact that the wrong case was decided nine thousand and ninety eight the st of the insular cases downs in one million and thirteen years later it seemed to me that in the philippines for example where the political determination is made to have the decision not to grant citizenship in the territories to be quite can be created under your argument that is to say you could be a citizen or a national permanently is that is that appropriate is that they  mean this just as as a at the level of doctrine a supreme court has never suggested in a territory ceases being unincorporated simply because it's been a territory for a long period of time so i'm corey go for your make it so you're back to judge to prove it just point which is case where you know one of the virtues of that doctrine is that it permits congress flexibility in how it governs and wires and relinquishes territory and you know as a supreme court recognized for example and some just find a way that includes the ability to aggressively arguing for citizens is that correct that's incorrect consideration is sixty years ago the american someone people promulgated their constitution under the auspices of the united states and in that constitution this was a literal constitutional moment they included in that constitution specific protections for the some one way of life far somma what they did not do was see citizenship what they did not insist upon was greater recognition as part of the united states but what they bargained for with the united states in the united states congress them was re system of democratically elected government and since that time your honour's the history of the relationship between the united states in american samoa is one of great pride to be sure but also of increasing recognition of the self determination rights of the american someone people and this was a council if i can if i may please very quickly are you saying to us that the samoan populace has never question is are you saying we want to throw the key away and forever really do not want us citizenship or are you rd question say we'd like to decide by a unship this is been an issue of great fundamental importance there are people listening on the radio to this argument right now because it's not important to them american some or but they since twenty six well when the two were the case was filed in the congressman a mob to some of the her last election as recently as this year the american someone follow their legislature issued a resolution saying we do not want the extension of birthright citizenship this should be part of the ongoing development which is created the status which i promised right now the american someone people have a degree of self determination and they'd like to decide what they want in a way that protects their culture but at the same time individuals from american some or have not only a path to citizenship but a glide path to citizenship and that's in part due to congresswoman tomatoes work where they have  s citizenship if they choose to take it once they reside in a state of the union and leave american samoa so this is an approach this is so they have a path to citizenship if they leave samoa but if they become a resident of another state your honor you  have a voice and i am representing the people both in washington and pomponne to have that waste and the nd will go very quickly is other territories have made just these sorts of decisions so we've spoken about the philippines which has independence through the treaty of manila but also the federated states of micronesia they made a decision that not only do they not want citizenship but they want an arm's length relationship with the united states they have a compact they still get federal aid the commonwealth of the northern marianas islands said we don't want a lucy goosey unincorporated status we want commonwealth status than plute citizenship so they negotiated with the united states for that and the american samoa government might continue on an arc like that it's fortunate that the congress has great given greater respect to their self determination rights and they view judge one of the citizen not just as a step in the wrong direction but a strong goes right out the door your honor and i feel badly program around my time but i'd like to answer any questions that may why should our personal view or ideological views about who should be back in this decision why should that trump the meaning of the constitution after all one could make the same argument that you did in support of the dred scott decision and that is that individuals were their citizenship should be determined based on what the southern states had adopted because those were democratically elected state officials states micronesia over over the past six years the past one hundred years this is something that has become constitutional but i agree with the government's art it's not the tax but this is something where great story decisis rate has been put on a system that might not got it sorry united states territory of american samo get federal grants him a modern day dred scott a citizen of nowhere you cannot vote he cannot serve on a jury and federal law and his passport they are him to be something less than a citizen the central and emphatic purpose of the citizenship clause was to overrule dred scott and to place the question of who is a citizen by birth beyond the legislative power the government here claims that the clause does not apply to mr francis amano or indeed to any person born in any territory of the united states since and sixty eight dollars that would require this court to accept a highly unlikely premise that the reconstruction congress intended not to or will dred scott in the territories that then comprise nearly half of its land mass including nearly all of the ten circuits all of that save kansas and in fact four years after the th amendment  ratification the state waterhouse cases the citizenship clause in fact put to rest the question of whether those born in the district of columbia or the territories were citizens they were and if that is what demonstrated the essential proposition that one could be a citizen of the united states without being a citizen of any state just revealed in these cases you know i'm just  that the congress that that had just purchased alaska from russia actually had no room for birthright citizenship for that whole territory they were it was a treaty were those people accepted citizenship ye that the citizenship clause applied to territories in post eight hundred and sixty eight i'd say st we would go to the slaughterhouse cases which says unquestionably that that it was put put to rest of question of whether people born in the territories were citizens nd i would want to versus wilkins l perkins else the plaintiff there would not have had a case at all if he had not been if the citizenship clause did not embrace territor united states expresses some doubt about whether the court actually knew or not whether he was born in iowa but judge justice harlan's dissenting opinion on the very st page says he was born within the territorial limits of the united know so that the united states of the united states its position here is that no person born in any territory of the united states and say two hundred and sixty eight benefits from the citizenship and it population of samoa been citizens all along and they didn't have a clue well your honor i think the that that would be the consequence of of our position that w after the deed of session was signed in one thousand eight hundred dollars the th amendment already was in place and when at least when congress accepted that date of session they became a territory of the united states and part of the united states subject this there is no none of the insular cases and and no other decision of the supreme court has a holding with respect to the geographic scope of the citizenship rights the only cases that address under the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo for example my clerks do some research into this whole series of treaties for me there at the time the treaty was signed there was a period of two years during which the citizens of the new territories could elect to be citizens or to elect the citizenship of the republican mexico so if they had  response is that the only pathway to reach that decision that my colleague mr williams urges or that the d c circuit held into well is to conclude st that the citizenship clause does not define its own geographics the united states and and we agreed that the citizenship clause defines its own geographics go and therefore the incorporation framework does not apply the only question is whether territories are part of the united states for purposes of the citizenship clause and that's why the government says it page fifteen of its opening brief the best reading of the clause is that it does not include any territory since eight hundred and sixty eight dollars that's the st point so you have to go through the incorporation doctrine and you can't get there because the citizenship cause defines its own geographic scope the nd and more substantive point is that the central purpose of the citizenship clause was to remove the question of birthright citizenship from the realm of politics and they had a very good reason for doing that the reconstruction congress we had just fought a war of unimaginable quad shed not just over two questions who would be a citizen in our polity and whether dissenters could believe and that's reconstruction congress answered that in the citizenship clause for ever taking this out of the realm of politics the highest purpose of the citizenship clause is to take all of the persons born or naturalized in the united states and bind them together as american citizens the ebbs and flows of ongoing political debates in the territories simply cannot disturb that constitutional command and so what we are left with here is the question of whether the reconstruction congress actually intended to well allegiance to the united states they are not part of any other country and that is why i opened by saying what the government's position here  is that mr fictious simonton who is a citizen of no where he he can only be there because that session the deeds of session of american demand permanent legions through the united states there is no other country involved here this is purely a question of whether the citizenships cause and its term united states includes american samoa and includes territories generally and i want to say just a couple words about wang came art because i do think as judge what it said won him are really any exception to that that is section five of the wonkette mark decision that dispute between the majority and the dissenting one kim ark was not about the contents of the exception to the common law who'll it was china who were deemed by the court to be there only temporarily and the whole dispute of the between the majority in the dissent is whether the united states had ever enacted this common law principle which came down from england birth within the dominion and there is no dispute here that american samoa is within that dominion that is why one k mark is controlled i do want to say just a couple of other things in response to my colleagues from the other side my my friend from the government mentioned the supreme court's decision and rob banks that case did not address the constitutionality of the const did not interpret the citizenship clause it only addressed the interpretation of the statute and that was recognized by both the nd circuit in that month and the th circuit in no lights so that bank cannot be any basis for that decision here the nd thing i want to say is that they in some other cases cannot be extended if the supreme court told us this in june repeating something that had been set sixty five years ago in reverses covert and the united states here is requesting this that this court extend to the insular case to take it from to take down versus bit well from the tax uniformity provision that's uniformity cause and extend that reasoning to the citizenship clause but in doing that i have to say that the united states is asking you to embrace the i what i was at eight i was speaking about the insular cases right so they're asking you to embrace the very most indefensible aspects of the insular cases that birthright citizenship could not possibly apply to people born on welsh and unknown ireland least part of the reason why the supreme court has cautioned time and again do not extend these cases and that's why i think why the government really leads with the argument that we don't need the incorporation doctrine because the clause the citizenship cause defines its own scope so you should not get to the incorporation doctrine and if you do you certainly shouldn't extend it as the united states is asking  there is one more there there is one more very strange result that would come from the united states is rule here a person it is that a person naturalized in the territories as has happened repeatedly and happens all the time including in puerto rico quite often today would not be guaranteed citizenship in a state to which he or she later moves if united states does not include the territories then a person naturalized in the territories as no guarantee of citizenship in the state that is plainly contrary  mcgill your position is then i take it the united states congress has no role in the determination of the citizenship or the church records other than to decide whether whether to make a territory a territory i think that is when it when it when it and that says a territory that territory becomes part of the united states and it would be illegal in for congress to have any treaty that would provide it was i think it was i think that the birthright citizen i think it would be unconstitutional for congress to withhold birthright citizenship i  don't think it would be a birthright citizenship but in the united states i don't think it would be unconstitutional at all for congress to allow such persons to become dual citizens as many statutes do  honor i think it's important to step back and my colleague just gave you sort of a a series of hypotheticals and descriptions of of the territories but what my colleague didn't give me was any account of the longstanding practice with respect to the territories d that has persisted since the late th hundreds up to the present on my colleagues dearie that was an optimum it is to court for every person as soon as the american flag went up in the philippines was one of the philippines was a u s citizen from the moment of their birth they had no say in that congress and no ability to take that to withhold that choice regardless of whether the filipinos wanted it or not and in fact my colleague has really not in his brief given any explanation for how it was of him to lose their citizenship which no one realized and i think it's instructive that when asked about the when to say well you know that's because there was some doubt about which that phrase the united states in the united states throughout the united states has been construed to apply to unincorporated territories not who've been analysing recognizes it actually formally close you know we have the context is it gives congress less ability and it gives congress the authority to govern the different territories in different ways and to respect those traditions and whatever the source of that and there is no question that downs contains language that we are certainly not here to defend whatever the source of that doctrine but present purpose that it serves as your neighbor congress to respect those choices where you have the americans one government here expressing  they do not want to have citizenship sort of imposed on them without say i think that's strong evidence that in the courts of appeals that have consistently recognized that this that the philippines for example i were not in the united states for the relevant purposes on the th amendment or any other constitutional provision for that matter in the d c circuit specifically with respect to american samoa that those courts were correct in understanding that one can mark as a result of this question the supreme court is not to compliment all of you on the quality of the written advocacy in this case and certainly today's oral argument and that also extends i'm sure to the many many key listening and today we appreciate and i call it all thirty or would you like a longer break i