JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
President Trump is trying to end birthright citizenship with a new executive order, but it is already under attack in the courts. There are at least four lawsuits filed, including from the ACLU and two groups of states, arguing that the right of those born in the U.S. to be automatically granted citizenship in this country is enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be abolished unilaterally by a president. Meanwhile, the president considers the right, quote, "ridiculous." California has signed onto the lawsuit, and state Attorney General Rob Bonta joins me now. Welcome to the program.
ROB BONTA: Thanks for having me. Grateful to be here.
SUMMERS: So this sort of sets a start date that, as of February 19 of this year, babies born to parents here in the United States without legal status will not be American citizens. As we mentioned, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the order, but I'd like to ask you, if it should go forward, what will that mean to people in your state of California and around the country?
BONTA: My hope and belief, first and foremost, is that it never goes forward. It's blatantly unconstitutional. A judge found that today, issuing a temporary restraining order in the state of Washington. On Day 1, President Trump, with this action, managed to trample over the U.S. Constitution, attack American citizens, attack children and do something that's very un-American and contrary to the law and to U.S. Constitution.
Should it go forward, it could create great irreparable harm and injury to those born after it goes into place, 30 days from its issuance date. In California, we think there's about 25,000 almost children who would be born every year that would be entitled to birthright citizenship...
SUMMERS: OK.
BONTA: ...Who would then be, if this executive order went into place, deportable at any time, wouldn't have access to federal programs that provide food assistance or housing...
SUMMERS: Right.
BONTA: ...Or health care, things like Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program and many other services, programs and privileges of citizenship.
SUMMERS: If I could...
BONTA: So...
SUMMERS: I want to jump in here on the citizenship argument if I can. This is predicated on the 14th Amendment, which reads, and I'm going to quote in part here, "all persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," end quote. They're automatically citizens. But as you may have heard, some conservative legal scholars argue that this phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that it has been misinterpreted, that it actually does not apply to children born in this country to noncitizens. How do you respond to that?
BONTA: They're wrong, and they're advancing a fringe theory that no court the United States of America have ever adopted and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected twice. So they can posit the theory that they wish. It's a fringe theory and it's a Hail Mary at best. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean what it says it means. It's plain and unambiguous. If you're a person, and these are persons born in the United States, then you're an American citizen. And the subject to the jurisdiction thereof is meant to address foreign diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - they're subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign home nation - and also potentially for foreign military forces...
SUMMERS: OK.
BONTA: ...Occupying the United States of America. That is not what this executive order is about. So it goes far beyond the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, the plain and unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment, and it's blatantly unconstitutional.
SUMMERS: Right. I hear that. But that said, the courts look dramatically different than they did before President Trump's first term, all the way up to the Supreme Court. How confident are you that the precedent that we are discussing will stand?
BONTA: We're very confident. And today's decision shows what a federal judge thinks about it. He used words like it was mind-boggling. It boggled his mind that the U.S. government could even take this position. He said it was blatantly unconstitutional, their position. He said in four decades of service, since Reagan - President Reagan - a Republican appointed him, that he had never seen a case like this that was so wrong from the United States government.
So we expect that similar reception from courts throughout the United States. Any court that is fair, that is objective, that looks at the facts and applies the law, I believe will find the same way. Of course, we know that U.S. Supreme Court looks different...
SUMMERS: Right.
BONTA: ...But they must follow precedent. They must follow the U.S. Constitution, and I believe they will here.
SUMMERS: And the Justice Department has also turned attention to so-called sanctuary cities, indicating that officials who get in the way of immigration enforcement should face criminal charges. How are you planning to navigate that situation? Are there steps you are taking to protect local officials in your state in those sanctuary cities?
BONTA: Yeah, absolutely. Unfortunately, that memo yesterday from a political appointee in the Trump administration was a blatant scare tactic and attempt to bully state and local governments and law enforcement entities. We are fully within our rights to take the position that we have throughout the United States to say in a very unremarkable way that the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement. That's their job. They can do their job, and of course, we will allow them to do their job, but they cannot force us to do their job for them. The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, the anti-commandeering principle therein...
SUMMERS: OK.
BONTA: ...Makes that clear and has upheld the law that we have in the state of California, SB 54, that says, we're going to use our law enforcement resources to fight crime, not to be involved in immigration enforcement.
SUMMERS: Quick answer here if we can, this order revoking birthright citizenship, it's just part of a host of actions from the Trump administration that are meant to reshape the immigration system. We have about 30 seconds. Any concern that putting so much energy into fighting this order will draw resources and attention away from other actions?
BONTA: No. We do it all. We walk and chew gum at the same time. Anytime there's an unlawful action and unconstitutional action, we will see Mr. Trump in court, and we'll hold him accountable, and we'll stop him from taking that action. This was a Day 1...
SUMMERS: OK.
BONTA: ...Action that was clearly unconstitutional, so we stopped him.
SUMMERS: All rightie.
BONTA: Any other time there is similar actions, we'll stop him there, too.
SUMMERS: Rob Bonta, California's attorney general. Thank you so much.
BONTA: Thanks for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF PARADE'S "SING TO ME") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
