CSPAN - Washington Journal Open Phones

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 24, 2025 19:15-19:43 - CSPAN

27:48

Washington Journal Open Phones

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 07:32

Appearances

Clips

bruce westerman

rep/r 00:26

donald j trump

admin 00:08

will scharf

00:05

Callers

gene in georgia

callers 00:02

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
bruce westerman ▲ ● ▼		To create a resilient system and control burning plays a huge role in that, but you can't control burn in areas where you've excluded fire for a century and it needs to be thinned first so that you're not getting these horrendous fires that are going to occur naturally or whenever, you know, arson or whatever, when the fire starts, it's just hard to put them out.
unidentified		And the Endangered Species Act is one of the tools that has been used to stop forest management.
		And we've got some very well-meaning laws that were put in place back in the 1970s that people have figured out how to abuse those laws to push their political agendas.
		I really like what my colleague Scott Peters, who wrote the Fixer Forest Act with me, he said these weren't laws written on tablets by Moses, said they were put in place at the time to serve a purpose, and we still want to meet the objectives of that purpose, but we need to modify these laws to deal with the circumstances that we're dealing with today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Representative Bruce Westerman, a Republican of Arkansas and chair of the Natural Resources Committee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you, Mamie.
unidentified		Have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll start with a portion from Monday in the Oval Office where President Trump is signing that executive order, and then he gave a few comments to the press.
will scharf ▲ ● ▼		This next order relates to the definition of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment of the United States.
unidentified		That's a good one.
		Birthright.
		That's a big one.
		What about that one in the court?
		That one is likely, could be.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We think we have good grounds, but you could be right.
unidentified		I mean, you'll find out.
unidentified		It's ridiculous.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know.
unidentified		And it's just absolutely ridiculous.
		But, you know, we'll see.
		We think we have very good grounds.
		Certain people have wanted to do this for decades.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is what the Washington Post says.
		It says, what is birthright citizenship and which countries have it?
		President Donald Trump has falsely claimed the U.S. is alone in offering citizenship as a birthright.
		More than 30 countries do, but some have rolled it back.
		And this is from the Washington Examiner.
		Federal judge temporarily halts Trump birthright citizenship order nationwide.
		This is a federal judge in Seattle.
		His name is Judge John Coffenor.
		He's a Reagan appointee.
		He called the order blatantly unconstitutional.
		Quote, frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order.
		And here is the Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown yesterday on why he joined other attorneys in filing this lawsuit.
unidentified		Are thrilled that the judge issued a temporary restraining order directing the United States government to take no further action in enforcing and implementing the unconstitutional and un-American executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship in America.
unidentified		This is step one, but to hear the judge from the bench say that in his 40 years as a judge, he has never seen something so blatantly unconstitutional sets the tone for the seriousness of this effort.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, in response to the judge's order to halt, that's a two-week halt until this plays out in court, this is USAID Today is reporting that Donald Trump has said, quote, obviously we'll appeal it on the birthright citizenship restraining order.
		He said this yesterday on Thursday, and he says, obviously, we'll repeal it, we'll appeal it.
		Sorry, they put it before a certain judge in Seattle, I guess, right?
		And there's no surprises with that judge.
		We are taking your calls this morning.
		Our question is about birthright citizenship, that attempt to ban it.
		If you support the president's action on that, it's 202-748-8000.
		If you're against it, it's 202-748-8001.
		And if you're not sure, we have that line at 202-748-8002.
		We'll start with Harold in Melbourne, Florida, on the line for opposing.
		Hi, Harold.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The reason I oppose this is that this is obviously in the Constitution of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
		And the President of the United States is supposed to uphold and defend our Constitution.
		Here he's placing himself above the Constitution, stating that as the President, he can change the rules himself with an executive order.
		It's obviously unconstitutional, yet he doesn't seem to care about the Constitution.
		And I find this abhorrent as an American citizen, that somebody that's supposed to defend and uphold the Constitution would ignore it and blatantly go against it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Harold, would you be in favor of changing the Constitution?
unidentified		I have no problem with the American citizens or legislature amending the Constitution.
		But when the Constitution is as it is, we are a country of law and order.
		And I think we have to go with the laws as they are until we were to change the laws in a lawful manner, not through an executive order, which is, I mean, it's just blows my mind that people watch this, shrug their shoulders, and see this autocratic dictatorial tendency of Trump to just say,
		whatever I say is the right way.
		And to hell with the Constitution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Harold.
		Well, let's take a look at what the Constitution actually says.
		This is the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
		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.
		No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
		Here's Joe in Ella J, Georgia support.
		Go ahead, Joe.
unidentified		Yes, I've been watching and calling you in the C-SPAN for 30 years.
		You all do a fantastic job.
		I just want to say I totally support the ban.
		I support everything Trump's doing.
		I think he's the best leader in world history.
		I think we'll have the best stock market, the best economy in the history of the world.
		So I'm so fired up.
		But Donald Trump, I'm having a hard time sleeping.
		But I think happy days are here again.
gene in georgia ▲ ● ▼		That's my theme song.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is Rory in Rancho Santa Margarita, California on the line for oppose.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		I oppose mainly because for practical reasons, if it becomes illegal, that's one thing.
		But if things stay that way, I believe Trump is going to make American-born babies stay here, but their parents forced to go back to their home country.
		I also believe if say parents choose to take their babies with them, there's going to have to be something set up for when they're 18 to come back to America.
		In other words, the whole thing really rests on chain migration.
		They don't want the babies here because then you get other relatives all the way down the route along the road with this.
		So you may have a bunch of orphanages where the mother will have to determine whether the baby is left here as an American or goes back and tries to come back 20 years later.
		That's what I'm stating.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rory.
		And this is Glenn in Lakeland, Florida, also opposed.
		Hi, Glenn.
unidentified		How are you doing?
		Good.
		Yeah, I oppose this situation because we all know what this is about.
		This is all about trying to rid this country of Hispanics, whether you're legally born or whether you're not legally born.
		And all he's doing is tying this up in the courts and going from the Supreme Court and lower courts and everything else just to make sure that at some point you're going to have enough Republican judges in place that are going to go with his idea of what he wants to do.
		But here's my real question.
		Please give me time to talk.
		Here's my situation.
		We're talking about immigration here.
		We're talking about getting rid of all the Hispanic people from this country, whether you're legal or illegal, legal or legal, including what we're trying to do here.
		But what I never hear, or I never hear nobody talk about, is the amount of white, European, Canadian people that live in this country that are illegally here and they are not citizens.
		There's a lot of those people here, but you never hear about them.
		You don't ever hear what the numbers are.
		It's all about brown people and black people.
		So when are we going to start talking about the illegal Europeans and white people in this country?
		Because apparently they're not being targeted to be sent back to their homeland the way that Hispanics and blacks, like Haitians, and Jamaicans are.
		So when are we going to start talking about that?
		When are the numbers going to come up?
		Because apparently, if you're going to make this happen, make sure that everybody that's illegal here, either birthright citizenship, what he's trying to do, or anybody illegal here, whether they came in a plan from Europe or whether they came from Canada across the border, why aren't they being targeted?
		Because when you start making all these moves, they need to leave too.
		I don't like the fact that he's trying to do this, but if you're going to do it, do it the right way.
		Everybody has to go.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
		And let's take a look at a portion of that executive order.
		It says this.
		The privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States.
		One, when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
		Or two, when that person's mother's presence in the U.S. at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary, such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the visa waiver program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa.
		And the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
		You can read the entire thing at whitehouse.gov if you'd like to review that.
		And we'll talk to Helen next in Long Beach, California, line for support.
unidentified		Yes, I support it.
		And there was a person who called earlier who talked about how Trump was not upholding the Constitution.
		This was written in here, and we have to follow it.
		But the reason Trump was elected is because he doesn't follow the Constitution.
		He's an autocrat.
		And people knew that.
		We know he's an autocrat.
		We know he's not representing the Constitution, but he's representing the will of the people.
		And I guess I'm going to clarify is that we our country under the Biden administration with the open borders and the preoccupation with Ukraine and so forth lost its legitimacy.
		The Constitution has lost its legitimacy.
		And people don't care that much about the Constitution as they care about the quality of life and they care about the future of their country.
		So Trump was elected because he's not going to respect the Constitution as we expect him to do, as prior experience has taught us, but because he's going to take action on what we see as a gross wrongdoing done to us by the last administration, who just flagrantly disregarded the will of the people.
		We are a republic.
		Our politicians are our servants who represent the will of us.
		So Helen wants to do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I've got a question for you about that.
		Would you be okay with the next president?
		Let's see after the four years, if it's a Democrat or a Republican, the next president also disregarding the Constitution and just following what he or she thinks is the will of the people.
		What do you think of that?
		Or is this just specific to President Trump?
unidentified		It'll never be specific again.
		It will never be because the precedent's been set.
		And we have had autocrats in the past.
		They've always claimed national emergencies in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
		We have had governments and presidential administrations who have disregarded the Constitution.
		So it's not that it's just popped up out of nowhere.
		This has been in motion for a while.
		So, but what I'm saying is we don't, the Constitution doesn't hold weight as it did before.
		It doesn't matter as much.
		We need to take action.
		This is a man who promised to take action, and he was elected.
		And that's what the people want.
		Now, this is a dangerous road that we're going to be going down.
		As far as the Constitution, it still stands, but it doesn't stand very well.
		As I said, it doesn't have legitimacy anymore.
		But we are going down the road of autocracy, and we have to be wary of a dictatorship evolving into an empire-emperor dictatorship.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But it sounds to me that you welcome that path towards autocracy.
unidentified		Is that I voted for it?
		I voted for it.
		Many people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But then you said we have to be careful, careful of what?
unidentified		Yeah, we have to have when the crisis has resolved, which is what Trump is dealing with as an autocrat.
		When the crisis has resolved, then we may restore the Constitution.
		That's our hope.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		That's our hope.
		But is it President Trump then that decides when that crisis is?
		Because I think anybody could say, well, I still think prices are too high, or I still think my quality of life is not as good as it could be.
unidentified		Well, that's a slippery slope logic.
		And what I'm saying is it will be restored when the people want it restored.
		And that's the difference in America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Helen.
		Here's Randy in Millington, Michigan, on the line for oppose.
		Hi, Randy.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		I'd like to start by thanking you, and along with all the other men and women it takes to bring this program to us.
		You're doing a great nation, the nation, a great service.
		I oppose it because you start with this one part of the Constitution and eliminate it.
		When the next president comes in, maybe he'll decide that we can finally put an end to these shootings in the schools by eliminating the right to have guns.
		You can't just open up the Constitution and say, well, I'm just going to pull out this part of the Constitution.
		The person before me, you want to throw it out?
		There's no reviving the Constitution once you burn it because you've got 300 million people and you only had 70 million of them, 70 some odd million vote for this criminal we have now as a president.
		And it shows you when you put a criminal in charge of a country, criminal activity just seems to flourish in a nation.
		You talk about one bad moon rising.
		We've got it rising right now in the White House.
		I thank you for my time, and you have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Chris in Milford, Michigan, support.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Chris.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just wanted to say, I don't agree with that last caller.
		He says that we have a criminal in the White House.
		Was he charged?
		He wasn't charged with those 34 counts.
		He was not found guilty of those charges, first of all.
		Another thing I believe in the ban because people come to this country need to come here legally.
		They come here legally, then they're able to, then that baby will have citizenship.
		But if they're breaking the law, they're illegal, so therefore they don't deserve, that child should not deserve status as being here, as being a citizen of this country.
		That's what I believe.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Chris, I've got a question for you.
		And that is, I understand what you said about breaking the law coming illegally.
		This also applies to people that are here legally but temporarily.
		So let's say you're doing, you're on a student visa, you're studying at a university, you get married to another student who is here temporarily and you have a child.
		Do you think that child should have citizenship or no?
unidentified		No, I still don't because they're not a citizen of this country.
		Their parents are not citizens of this country.
		That's what I believed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So it should only be citizens and not green card holders?
unidentified		People.
		People that are living here full-time that are here legally.
		It should be anything else to me, in my opinion, doesn't matter if you're a student or not.
		It matters if you live here.
		You come here legally and you have a child, and yes, your kid will have citizenship.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's hear from Ann.
		You're done.
		Ann in Middletown, Connecticut.
		Go ahead, Ann.
		What do you think?
unidentified		Hi.
		I just want to say that this birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment, I'm a retired American history teacher, and it was made after the Civil War.
		The 13th Amendment got rid of slavery, and the 14th Amendment says that if you're born here, you're a citizen.
		This was made because in the Dred Scott decision, which was one of the causes of the Civil War, they said that they tried to say that even if a slave was born here, he wasn't a citizen.
		So that's the situation.
		Now, I think that Trump is trying to get rid of this birthright citizenship because I think it's being abused.
		I think that people are coming here from other countries just in time to deliver babies so that they'll be American citizens and the American taxpayers are putting the bill for the rest of their lives.
		Okay?
		So this birthright citizenship, the way it's being used now, is not what the forefathers intended.
		Our forefathers, I think, are turning over in their graves over the way it's being abused.
		I think during Trump's last term, if I remember correctly, they raided some Chinese, the Chinese were coming here and just having birthing houses where they Chinese were coming here and having babies just to have citizens, to have citizenship.
		So the bottom line is, I think something has to be done because I think the only reason why Trump is putting this forth, you're right, it's not what the Constitution says, but I think the reason why he's putting it forth is because I think this is really being abused.
		You know, I think people are coming here just to have babies, just to have citizenship.
		I think I agree with that other guy that if you're here legally, then you should have a citizenship.
		Or maybe, you know, if they're there like here for a year, living here for a year or something, but this is going to be determined by the Supreme Court in the end.
		So whatever the Supreme Court decides, that's going to be the final answer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and this is Representative Randy Weber of Texas, a Republican.
		He agrees with you, and he says, here's the truth: the 14th Amendment was never intended to serve as a blank check for illegal immigration.
		It was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of people who broke our laws to enter the country and birthright citizenships.
		And this is Representative Jimmy Panetta.
		Checks and balances are the cornerstone of our democracy.
		A federal judge has rightly blocked the unconstitutional executive order attempting to undermine birthright citizenship.
		I strongly oppose this EO and will continue to defend our Constitution.
		And Darrell in Altadena, California.
		Good morning, Darrell.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've been watching you for years.
		I like your look.
		Unfortunately, I'm an evacuee from Altadena.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And yeah, so where are you now, Darryl?
unidentified		Oh, well, fortunately, I have insurance, and I had to run with my wife on my back out of my house because we had about a half an hour notice to get out as the fire was coming down on us where I live in Altadena.
		My wife was unconscious, semi-comatose, and we barely made it out.
		I was able to get to the hospital and then ended up in Cerritos with my sister-in-law.
		Then my wife expired three days later.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm so sorry to hear that, Darrell.
unidentified		Yeah, but I just want to say I really like the way you look now, and you're a little bit more palliable to me.
		But just like the lady before me, the 14th Amendment was forced to make slaves citizens.
		It was not for these people.
		I retired from Li County.
		Well, I went to another job out there at LA County, but 50 years ago, we would get patients in from everywhere, known to man, mostly from Mexico, just to have a baby so they could have a kid that was born in America.
		And just like the previous caller, we had Chinese birthing centers.
		People abusing the system, which it was never meant to do.
		They need to have a constitutional amendment to amend that, not to be used like it's being used now for people that are coming here illegally that have no right to be here to start off with.
		They're taking all our everything that is American citizens that I fought for in the Army in 1966 to use that have no right to use it.
		It's just not right.
		And people think that people think that Trump is a crook.
		Just look at the Biden crime family.
		You've got to be kidding me.
		Why would he pardon all those people if he thinks that Biden was such a good person for that other color?
		And I'm just embarrassed about, I'm a cherry.
		I'm embarrassed about veterans and people of color that want to support people using all of our assets that have no right to use them.
		It's just not right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Daryl.
		And have you heard what happened to your, were you living in a house or an apartment?
		Have you heard what's happened?
unidentified		If you see the it's amazing, you know, we still have the National Guard still up here.
		I went, my home survived, but all around me is gone.
		It's just amazing how the fire went.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, we wish you the best, Darryl.
		And sorry that you're going through that.
		Jim in Florida, good morning.
		What do you think about birthright citizenship?
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		And the last two callers have executed right.
		I think actually it was in 1918.
		I've been binging on C-SPAN the last couple of days.
		And you had one of your, just like you, have the picture of the Chinese guy.
		It was a Chinese, the irony in this thing, whose parents came here, had a child, and went back to China, came back, and the Supreme Court found that, yes, he was a American citizen.
		Now, things change.
		Again, back, but we have, like the lady said, birthright citizenship.
		You know, China's been sending their citizens here to have an American baby, as you get one, and go back.
		And then who knows all the spies that are going to be setting up for national security.
		And that may not be the case, but birthright citizenship.
		I can't believe the Democrats, particularly, or any American could stand for this.
		You have hospitals.
		We lived in San Diego for a while.
		We have hospitals along the southern border where they come in hours before they have a baby to have an American child.
		I read a news article at one time in my local paper.
		You had a woman farm worker in this country who had eight kids.
		And when Helena came through, the only thing she was, because she couldn't do the work because the fields were sort of destroyed or whatever, but she had eight kids.
		How could she be a farm worker and have seven or eight kids?
		And she was surviving on what her kids got from the American government for chips, chip and wick, and all the other stuff that we handed out to these people.
		This has got to stop.
		It's amazing.
		Any American could be for this.
		And I'm a veteran, a guy before me was a veteran.
		And it's ridiculous that we, as veterans, we wouldn't just go after these people.
		And these American people got to get out more and learn about this.
		Birthright tourism.
		Think about it.
		People coming here and our southern border overrun where they almost had to shut down her emergency room where these people were showing up and having babies just to get American citizenship took in.
		They come across the border every month, collect their check, and then go back to Mexico.
		You've got to wise up, America.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Jim, just to clarify what you were talking about before, the Supreme Court upheld the right of birthright citizenship.
		It was 1898.
		It ruled that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, but had been denied reentry to the United States after a trip abroad because of his Chinese descent, was a U.S. citizen.
		So this is now Chris in Southbridge, Massachusetts.
		Good morning, Chris.
		What do you think?
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just wanted to say that I think they finally got on the awareness of it all.
		I think Trump writes all these executive orders so that people become aware of them because there's been control by the Democratic Party over the last four years to go in one direction, i.e., Schumer.

▲