Supreme Court to weigh future of birthright citizenship

[0:00] in today's spotlight who gets to be an american the supreme court hearing arguments tomorrow in [0:04] a case that will decide the future of birthright citizenship here in the u.s the case stems from [0:10] an executive order president trump signed on the first day of his second term ending the guarantee [0:15] for children who don't have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status [0:21] what the justices decide could impact the legal status of more than a quarter million babies born [0:27] every year here in the u.s and the parents of millions more would have to prove the citizenship [0:32] status of their children joining me now is california attorney general rob bonta thank you [0:38] so much sir for joining us here in studio absolutely so i've got the trump administration's [0:44] argument here in front of me they argue that the constitution does not grant citizenship to [0:48] children born in the u.s to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily you filed a [0:54] lawsuit challenging that why was that [0:57] because they're wrong on what the u.s constitution says it's it's very clear in [1:01] this case is about whether the constitution means what it says when it says in the citizenship clause [1:07] of the 14th amendment that all people born on american soil are americans doesn't mean that [1:12] all people born on american soil are americans the answer is yes and you know that was a amendment [1:18] passed back in 1868 and the u.s supreme court itself affirmed the meaning i just set forth [1:24] that if you're born on american soil you're an american in a [1:27] u.s supreme court case called wong kim ark and this is a fringe theory being advanced by [1:34] a trump administration that's very hostile towards immigrants and has their own personal view of what [1:40] it means to be an american and excludes a lot of actual americans who are americans by the [1:45] constitution and they're trying to rewrite the constitution with a stroke of a pen in an [1:49] executive order there's a way to amend the constitution it's difficult by design you need [1:53] to get two-thirds majorities in each house and then three-fourths ratification by the states [1:58] you need to have a constitutional convention so if they want to make these arguments in the context [2:01] of seeking a constitutional amendment through the way set forth in the u.s constitution they [2:06] may but they may not issue an executive order that amends the constitution what do you think [2:11] of the impact that ending birthright citizenship would have in this country on a human level it [2:18] would exclude the quarter million babies born every year who should be citizens in california [2:24] that's about it's about twenty four thousand born every year probably the most of the event [2:28] any state since california is the the largest state those individuals who should be american [2:33] citizens and should be able to grow up with all of their protections and um privileges of being [2:40] an american citizen uh would be deportable on day one they could never work illegally they wouldn't [2:45] be able to get a passport or a social security number they wouldn't be able to receive federal [2:51] benefits that could help them be healthy if they're sick or or eat if they're hungry they could never [2:59] vote or run for public office we have a social compact now that's enshrined in the 14th amendment [3:04] citizenship clause which says if you're born here then you are a citizen you're part of our [3:07] democracy you can vote you can serve on a jury you can run for office you're part of making our [3:12] democracy vibrant and strong and the president unlawfully and unconstitutionally is trying to [3:17] change that with the stroke of a pen and ending birthright citizenship here in the u.s would [3:21] certainly cause some complications for many let's talk about elections while we have you here some [3:25] are concerned the white house will move to install federal law enforcement or even [3:29] military soldiers at polling sites are you concerned about that what are your thoughts [3:35] i think they are desperate they see what the polls show i think trump's popularity and approval [3:41] ratings are the lowest it's ever been only 30 percent of americans approve of him so with [3:46] desperation comes desperate actions and including the possibility of putting military at polling [3:51] sites it's unlawful under federal law you cannot have the military or armed people near the [3:56] military it's in federal statutory [3:59] language and law now so they would be violating the law but look this is a president who has [4:04] blatantly and brazenly and consistently and frequently violated the law trampled over the [4:08] constitution birthright citizenship is another example having military and armed people at the [4:12] poll would be another example of it but i think he sees no way in a fair election where people [4:17] vote that he can win so he's he's trying to change the rules through intimidation suppression [4:23] um you know he issued a a new executive order today which um uh is very questionable [4:29] and it's lawfulness to change vote by mail in in in the united states so i think we're going to see [4:35] more desperate actions by a man who sees that he's widely unpopular trying to suppress the vote and [4:42] undermine the fundamental right to vote for americans and many democrats have said this would [4:46] disenfranchise many eligible voters to go out there to the polls whether there are military [4:51] folks in place or they can't vote by mail sir thank you so much for coming in really appreciate [4:57] your time thanks for having me absolutely anytime [4:59] you