CSPAN - Washington Journal 05/15/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 15, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:50

Washington Journal 05/15/2025

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 30:25

tammy thueringer

cspan 05:18

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:38

chris murphy

sen/d 01:55

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:15

mike johnson

rep/r 02:18

robert f kennedy-jr

admin 00:35

Clips

chad pergram

fox 00:05

donald j trump

admin 00:05

john goglia

00:12

sgt major justin jd lehew

00:11

will scharf

00:05

Callers

mark in florida

callers 00:13

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		On today's oral argument on the issue of birthright citizenship.
		Also, Bloomberg Government Congress reporter Jack Fitzpatrick talks about the latest on the Republican budget reconciliation process.
		And later we'll pick up the conversation about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case first with John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation and later with Vermont Democratic Congresswoman Becca Ballant.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Thursday, May 15th.
		The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case challenging the Trump administration's attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented and temporary legal migrants in the United States.
		It stems from an executive order signed by the president on his first day in office, which was challenged and then blocked by lower courts.
		Joining us to discuss and take your calls is Jess Raven, Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal.
		Welcome to the program.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So tell us about this case.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Give us the background and how it came to this point.
unidentified		Well, with this case, there are really two, in a sense, almost unrelated issues to keep in mind.
		One is what you just talked about, what's called birthright citizenship.
		The 14th Amendment says that all children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
		And that was ratified in 1868 to eradicate the Dred Scott decision, which held that black people could not be citizens from the 1850s and before the Civil War.
		And for more than a century, it has been understood to mean pretty much every child in the U.S. other than children of foreign diplomats and previously in the early years, children from some Indian tribes were automatically citizens of the United States.
		And that is the issue that President Trump, I suppose you can say, triggered on January 20th with an executive order saying, no, that's wrong.
		People have been applying the Constitution the wrong way.
		And in fact, it does not apply to children whose parents do not include at least one U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident of the United States.
		So unauthorized migrants, tourists, people on student visas, temporary visas, their children would not count.
		So that's the substantive issue, and it's really a remarkable one.
		It's, I think, the first time we've seen a president unilaterally redefine what the Constitution means and what's been really a settled understanding.
		But there are a few scholars who dispute that, and the president agrees with them and thus issued this order.
		So that's the substantive issue.
		There is a procedural issue which is almost as important, and that is actually what the administration is appealing.
		That's the technical matter that the government brought to the Supreme Court, and that is something called a universal or nationwide injunction.
		As you said, Mimi, there are three lower courts that have blocked this order and said it's patently unconstitutional.
		And they blocked it for the entire United States, not just for the coalition of 20-plus states and some immigrant rights groups that brought lawsuits in these three jurisdictions, but throughout the entire United States.
		And the government argues that even if they're entitled, the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction blocking this order for now while litigation goes forward, and litigation would be quite complex over the coming months and years, it should not apply to states and parties who are not involved in the lawsuit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So effectively, if somebody didn't actually sue, they shouldn't have this injunction applied to them.
unidentified		Right, right.
		And that would have, and assuming that the states are entitled to bring this lawsuit, and the government isn't sure about that, but they, you know, we know states sue the federal government all the time.
		So assuming that they are, that means that if the government gets what it wants regarding those injunctions, they don't want any injunctions, but assuming that they allow those preliminary injunctions to go into effect, that means you have a situation where in about half the country, children born to non-legal permanent residents would be U.S. citizens and half the country where they would not.
		And that would be a very, I suppose if you're the county clerk registering births, that might be an interesting situation to be in.
		So that is the procedural issue.
		And the background is that there have been dozens of these universal or nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against controversial Trump administration policies that they have found are likely unlawful and therefore they are blocking them and many of those are blocked nationwide and the Trump administration feels they're being having their agenda stymied improperly by the lower courts and that they don't want these nationwide injunctions.
		They want the court to say federal judges don't have the power to block a policy for everybody, only for the parties before them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And how long has that been in place, the ability for a lower court judge to do an injunction for the entire country?
unidentified		Well, it really became these broad injunctions began perhaps in the early 1960s, but in the current political realm, they really started coming up fairly recently through the Obama, Trump, Biden, and now Trump again administrations, where you had a much more litigious, partisan kind of environment.
		And so you had a situation where during a Democratic administration, you had a lot of Republican-led states suing to block nationwide policies that the Democratic president implemented and vice versa under President Trump.
		And President Trump has faced more of these than did either Obama or Biden.
		The administration says that's because we're being singled out because, you know, for unfair treatment by these activist judges.
		The other side says that's because you're doing all this illegal stuff and the judges are therefore have no choice but to stop you.
		So it depends which side of the coin you're on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's take a look at President Trump announcing signing that executive order and what he said about it.
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?
		That one is likely to be.
		Could be.
		We think we have good grounds, but you could be right.
		I mean, you'll find out.
		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 just a quick before you comment on that, the fact-checked by the Washington Post about the United States being the only country granting birthright citizenship.
		This is the Washington Post that says that 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.
		That's at the Washington Post.
unidentified		That's right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Any comments on the signing of that executive order?
unidentified		Well, well, he signed it for sure.
		The question, though, is this, and this is really a question you can ask about many of the Trump administration policies, which is that he is trying to do it unilaterally, to reinterpret the Constitution as it has been understood for many, many, many generations and decades, including by the federal government and presidents of both parties.
		There is a way to do that where there would not be any question about its validity, and that is to amend the Constitution.
		There is a process for doing that, and that is in fact why the 14th Amendment was enacted in the first place to change the constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
		So a question could be, if there really is a broad consensus around the country to eliminate this practice, and there are certainly policy reasons why a country might want to do that, as you say, many countries have rolled it back.
		Why not amend the Constitution?
		That's traditionally the way that we go forward in that.
		And that's because it's harder.
		It is harder, but it's supposed to be harder.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation, if you have a question for Jess Braven of the Wall Street Journal, you can go ahead and give us a call now.
		The lines are bipartisan.
		So Democrats are on 2028-8000.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202748-8002.
		Well, there's another clip that I want to show you.
		Earlier this year, it was Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown talked about the cases.
		And this is after a federal judge in Seattle blocked that executive order.
		Take a look.
unidentified		It is a pleasure to be here again outside of this courthouse where once again the U.S. Constitution was defended, where the rule of law was defended, and we reaffirmed what it means to be an American in this country.
		I want to thank our partners from Northwest Immigrants' Rights Project for their outstanding advocacy, for the outstanding men and women of our civil rights division, for helping remind this country that we do not have a king.
		We have a president who must abide by the laws.
		And if they want to amend the Constitution, there is a process by which to do that.
		Because as of today, we're back to the status quo that we've had in this country for 150 years, that you are an American if you are born on U.S. soil.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of that, Jess?
		And, you know, he said just kind of what you had just said, that this has always been the case.
		And if you want to change it, go ahead and change the Constitution.
unidentified		Well, he may not exactly be right when he says 150 years.
		It's true that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
		But several decades after that, in the 1890s, there was a case that looked at this question of birthright citizenship, and it's called Wang Kim Ark versus United States.
		And in that case, it involved a child of Chinese migrants who was born in San Francisco.
		And the parents were there as laborers.
		They were not ambassadors of the Chinese emperor or anything at the time.
		And later they went back to China, and the kid went back and forth to China and the U.S. to visit relatives and what have you back there.
		And when he tried to re-enter the United States in the 1890s, the U.S. government said, no, you can't come in.
		Why?
		Because at the time, there was on the books something known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was simply said people of the Chinese race are not admitted to the United States.
		There was a lot of hostility to Chinese immigration at that time.
		And he sued, well, I'm a United States citizen.
		I was born in the United States.
		And the Supreme Court held that, yes, he was a United States citizen.
		He was entitled to re-enter the U.S. because he was born here.
		And that is really what set the table for what we're doing now.
		Now, there are some scholars, very, very conservative legal scholars, who argue that, well, technically, Wong Kim Arc's parents were legal residents.
		In others, they had not illegally entered the United States because there was no Chinese Exclusion Act at the time they entered and when he was born.
		So therefore, it doesn't really settle the question about illegal migration today.
		And maybe there's a little wiggle room there.
		That's what the entire government case is based on.
		So it was really there.
		You had in the 1890s, the U.S. government said, yeah, you were born on United States soil, but you're not a U.S. citizen.
		And that position was rejected.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Jess, regarding universal injunctions, do we know how the justices feel about that, what their views have been about it?
unidentified		Well, I would say that in principle, they would say there's been a lot of criticism about these, and for the same reasons that the Trump administration and before them, the Biden administration made.
		In fact, any administration does not like these, which is that you have a single judge, perhaps they've been selected by the plaintiffs because they know where that judge's jurisprudence might lead them to block a policy that affects the entire country.
		You can find some courthouse in some remote corner of the country where perhaps you know a judge is very sympathetic to your philosophy or your approach to the law, and that's where you bring your case.
		And as the government points out, challengers could bring cases all over the country, and they only need to get one right, only need to get one order from a judge blocking it nationwide, while the government has to succeed everywhere in order to get its policy to go forward.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But this really goes to the heart of judicial power.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the Supreme Court justices would be willing to strike that down and weaken judicial power?
unidentified		You know, the thing is that the thing, you know, in law school, maybe one learns pretty quickly is that every rule has an exception.
		And it is hard to imagine judges ever wanting to foreclose forever in every single situation.
		There will never, ever be any circumstance anywhere in which this type of judicial order is appropriate.
		You know, for example, let's think about other provisions of the Constitution.
		What if a future president reinterpreted the militia clause of the Second Amendment?
		Or what if a future president reinterpreted the Third Amendment and said people now have to quarter soldiers in their homes during peacetime?
		That could go into effect everywhere in the country for months or years if judges were not permitted to issue a nationwide injunction.
		Maybe you or I could go to court and say we don't want these soldiers quartered in our house during peacetime without an act of Congress.
		And maybe we could get that order, so they just move into the neighbor's house down the street.
		So in other words, it's hard to imagine a situation where judges foreclose ever, but maybe they will because some justices have criticized the practice of these universal injunctions, both left and right, often depending on whose ox is being gored at the moment.
		So the question is, how can you come up with a principle that applies that lower court judges can understand and consistently enforce throughout the country?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		We'll start on the Republican line with Charlie in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
		Good morning, Charlie.
unidentified		Hello.
		I think the 14th Amendment was referring only to freed slaves.
		And I think everybody else knows that as well.
		They form an argument based on a lie.
		They think it makes them clever, but it doesn't.
		And it's a shame.
		This does need to be corrected.
		The argument is based on a lie.
		They should admit it.
		They phrase it in a way that it was never intended.
		And black folks have been treated good here in Arkansas, I must say.
		I think none of them want to go back to Africa.
		I think they are free citizens, and that's all that amendment refers to.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Jess?
unidentified		Well, that's not what the amendment refers to.
		I mean, if the framers had wanted to limit it to freed people, they could have written it that way.
		It could have said, you know, all persons previously under condition of slavery in the United States are, I mean, they could have written it more narrowly.
		They wrote it very broadly.
		And what the government said actually in the 1990s, there was legislation which sought to eliminate birthright citizenship.
		That would be on somewhat firmer ground than just a unilateral presidential order had that passed.
		And the Justice Department provided an opinion saying that they believe it would require an amendment to the Constitution to change that.
		And they based their reasoning really on the same reasoning that the Wong Kim R Court looked at.
		What they did in that decision from the 1890s, And I should mention Santa, that was not really the most liberal progressive court in history.
		That was the same court that also decided Plessy versus Ferguson that said separate but equal is constitutional.
		So we're not talking about a real radical leftist court at the time.
		But they looked at, well, where did the framers of the 14th Amendment get their ideas?
		They looked to English common law, which is the basis of American law.
		And in English common law at the time, anyone who was born in the realm of the crown was a subject of the crown, regardless of their status or their parents' status, except for foreign ambassadors or enemy soldiers who were occupying the country through warfare or people on board ships outside.
		But everyone else under English common law was automatically a British subject, even if their parents did not have lawful status within the country.
		So the Justice Department and the Supreme Court in the 19th century said, well, that is what they had in mind when they wrote that phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
		Now, that's not what the government says now, and there is always room for debate in law.
		That's what law is all about.
		But that was, in fact, what English common law said and what most scholars believe the 14th Amendment was drawn from.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jerry in Bowie, Maryland, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jerry.
unidentified		Hey, how's it going?
		Good.
		Good.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		My question is to your guests.
		I wanted to know how does this, because I know this is out of from the Heritage Foundation, this idea and Project 2025.
		I wanted to know how would this actually affect, because they make an argument about one thing, but how would this actually affect African Americans if the law is reinterpreted or re-uprooted?
		How will this affect African Americans?
		I want you to be honest about this because every time we try to give you guys a chance not to be a little racist, you kind of prove our point and come on places like this and, you know, try to explain yourself away, but it's really about something else.
		Could you please explain how this will affect African Americans, those who contribute to this country for hundreds of years?
		Well, it would affect African Americans the same way it would affect anyone else if their parents, if either the mom or the dad is a U.S. citizen or has a green card as a permanent legal resident, then the children would be U.S. citizens.
		So for the vast majority of African Americans in the United States, their children would be U.S. citizens.
		Now, what if it is somebody who came from another country, someone who came from a country in Africa or just a black person who came from another England, whatever, Canada, then the same rules would apply to them.
		But if their family has been in the United States for generations or centuries, then there wouldn't be any change for them.
		This is really targeting unlawful migration.
		It's not targeting families of African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved and brought here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And if it did take effect, it would not be retroactive.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It would be children born after.
unidentified		In the future.
		That's what the executive order says.
		Although if you can issue this one, you can also issue a new executive order that makes it retroactive theoretically.
		But the current executive order would apply prospectively.
		And by the way, the president did say in the executive order that the purpose of this clause in the 14th Amendment was to nullify the Dred Scott decision.
		So he doesn't challenge that.
		He says this was to help the freed enslaved people and their descendants.
		He accepts that.
		He's not trying to alter that part.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's John, a Democrat in Bulligy, Alabama.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		About the birthright citizenship, I think the only reason the Supreme Court has accepted this case is because just like they did with Roe versus Wage, just like they did with the Insurrection Act that was brought before them, they want to change it.
		That's the only reason.
		And the Supreme Court, to me, is looking like a rogue court because Trump clearly states that he was part of an insurrection.
		And when he became president, he pardoned over a thousand of people who had stormed the White House.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, John, we're getting off this subject.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you want to come back to the case?
unidentified		But what I'm saying is the Supreme Court is looking at this.
		They are a rogue Supreme Court.
		And I'm just bringing these other examples up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's take that up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Jess?
unidentified		Well, since Trump was inaugurated for his second term, there have been about a dozen emergency applications that the government has filed at the Supreme Court asking them to block things that lower courts have done that are contrary to administration policy.
		And about half the time, the government has won, and the other half the time, the government has not.
		I mean, the Supreme Court already has taken action contrary to the government in several cases.
		One famous one is the Salvadoran man mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador, Kilmar Brego-Garcia.
		The Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate his return.
		They haven't done that yet, but that was not the outcome the government wanted.
		And there are several other cases involving funding for the U.S. AID contractors and so on where the government lost at the Supreme Court in these similar cases.
		So I don't think we can say that this court is moving in lockstep with the administration, even if many of the justices have expressed sympathy for some of the theories of executive power that the government puts forward.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got a question for you from Dana in New Jersey who says, I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated the business of birthright citizenship.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Paying to get across the border at nine months pregnant to have your baby here and receive every benefit available.
unidentified		That may be true because in the mid-19th century, we didn't have mass migration like we have today in the 21st century.
		And there was no federal immigration law, period.
		There wasn't, I mean, it wasn't enough of an issue for Congress to act in that way.
		However, the way the Constitution is interpreted is not based on what we would want to enact today if there was a consensus in this country.
		It's based on, at least according to the originalist interpretive method that the majority of the Supreme Court favors, it's based on what was the original public meaning of this language in the 19th century.
		And that's why there is going to be a lot of discussion about what did, or there will be maybe some discussion about what did the framers mean by subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
		But for those who might be tuning in on C-SPAN to listen to the argument, get ready for there to be a lot of discussion about procedural grounds for injunctions.
		That will probably be most of what's discussed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Will they get to birthright citizenship?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, will they rule on that?
unidentified		Well, they're not going to rule.
		They're not going to answer this question definitively in this case, but they will have to say whether all, some, or none of the country will recognize birthright citizenship going forward.
		So that's what they will say for now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		In other words, the 22 states, like that would, there would be a split up then?
unidentified		It could be.
		It could be.
		I mean, the government would like all those injunctions lifted, period.
		However, here they're really looking to say just limit them to the parties.
		Again, they're the Supreme Court.
		They can do whatever they want.
		But they're going to say what is the status of the President's executive order purporting to eliminate birthright citizenship while the litigation goes forward, while we're waiting for the ultimate resolution from the Supreme Court after trial courts, appeals courts, and what have you.
		So in other words, what is the status of this order going to be until the Supreme Court gets to address it through the merits, through full briefing, and all the other rigmarole they go through before making a major decision.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what's the timeline for getting a decision?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How fast would we get a decision, at least on the injunction part?
unidentified		Well, we probably will get a decision before they abscond for the summer vacation in early July.
		So I would say, I mean, it's now May, so it's not too far from now anyway.
		So I would say probably at the end of June or early July is when the court clears out its docket.
		This case has a lot of very important issues in it.
		They also are hearing it two weeks after their regular schedule ended.
		I mean, they have a regular calendar that ends in April.
		That's when they hear their last argument.
		They added an extra day two weeks after their calendar ended just to hear this case.
		So we'll get an answer relatively quickly from them, but probably not before the end of June.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joseph is a Republican in New Jersey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, how are you?
		I just got two points to make.
		The Wall Street Journal, I don't know what happened to you guys, but you got a little bit of Trump deranging syndrome.
		But let me just make two points.
		The first one, what I want to say is he keeps kind of taking away the power of the president.
		They're Article 2, right?
		The judiciary is Article 3.
		And you keep saying about the Constitution, the Constitution, Trump's not listening to it, whatever.
		It doesn't say anything about injunctions or any kind of judiciary other than the Supreme Court.
		Congress made those district courts so we can get rid of them if we want.
		Birthright citizenship is wrong.
		Let me ask you a question, sir.
		Were Indians that were born in, let's say, in Virginia, the Indians that were in New York and Virginia, they were born, some of them were born after America was created.
		Were they considered citizens?
		No, they were dumped out to other parts of the territories.
		They didn't get any rights.
		You told me a terrorist gang member is going to have rights because he's born in this country?
		It's crazy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joseph.
unidentified		Well, one thing, you know, just sort of, I don't know if this is ironic or not, but as he said, in the 19th century and most of the 20th century, in the UK, they had birthright citizenship.
		But they did roll it back in the 1980s, and they've been constricting their immigration rules ever since.
		They don't have it anymore in the U.K.
		The difference is that in the UK, they don't have a written constitution like the United States does.
		They have what's called an unwritten constitution.
		So Parliament is supreme and can change its provisions when it wishes under their own procedures.
		We have a written constitution which is supposed to be more stable.
		And Congress, even if it had passed a law eliminating birthright citizenship, that itself would probably be challenges unconstitutional.
		We have this opinion from the Department of Justice saying that to end it, you would have to amend the U.S. Constitution.
		The caller mentioned, by the way, do federal courts have the power to issue injunctions at all.
		It may be that the word injunction does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the term judicial power does.
		And Article III says the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and whatever lower courts Congress establishes.
		So judicial power is the concept, much like executive power is in Article II of the Constitution.
		And courts have always understood the judicial power, including the right to enjoin unlawful conduct.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got a question on X from Ellerby.
		Why can't the Supreme Court interpret the whole Constitution, start to finish, and then each additional amendment that is added?
		It could set precedent and save a lot of time by limiting frivolous challenges so our government can get on with the people's business.
unidentified		Well, actually, there's a very simple reason for that.
		The Article III of the Constitution says that the judicial power is limited to cases and controversies.
		And the Supreme Court has always taken the position that that means it does not give advisory opinions.
		There has to be a specific dispute that comes up involving actual parties who have a concrete injury that they are seeking a remedy for.
		They cannot give advisory opinions.
		Now, some courts can, some state courts can, some foreign courts do that in their systems, but our United States Supreme Court does not have the power to prospectively answer constitutional questions.
		And of course, they couldn't imagine every question that comes up.
		We have to see what happens in reality before we know what provisions get challenged.
		However, if you're interested in this, the Library of Congress publishes something called the U.S. Constitution Annotated.
		And there they have very authoritative assessments of each provision of the Constitution with analysis from scholars and relevant court cases.
		And anyone can go there online and read about what the official interpretation of the Constitution is as it's understood now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Rhonda, Independent in Sacramento, California.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rhonda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you.
		Yes, sir.
		Thank you for shedding light on this really important issue.
		My question to you is, sir, you know, in the past, in our history, we've taken in refugees.
		In the 60s, it was Vietnamese and the Cuban boatlift.
		We take in refugees from the Middle East and so on and so forth.
		So this policy, this new decision, how would that affect the future if we decide our country decides, well, let's take in more refugees?
		How would this then affect them?
		And I appreciate you, Span, and I'll take my answer off the air.
		Thank you.
		Thanks, Rhonda.
		If the refugees are admitted to the United States as legal permanent residents and the government can do that, then their children would become U.S. citizens and they would be eligible to apply for citizenship themselves, the parents, at some point down the line.
		So it really turns on whether, assuming the president's order were in effect, it really turns on the status of the parents.
		If the government chooses to admit them and give them legal status, legal permanent residency status, then their children would be entitled to citizenship even under this order.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got Walter in Washington, D.C. Democrat, good morning, Walter.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, Mimi, and good morning, guests.
		Now, the 14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship Clause, the foundation of that is from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
		And it was Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull that came up with the Birth Rights Citizenship Clause because Democrats back then didn't want to recognize black folks as citizens.
		And what happened with that when Andrew Johnson vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, that's when they decided to write the post-Civil War Amendments 13, 14th, and 15th Amendment, which Dr. Claude Anderson made it crystal clear that's for black people and black people only.
		But also too, you had the 1924 Indian Rights Act, which also made it clear to Native Americans.
		And when Senator Trumbull wrote this, he made it clear it's not for foreign nationals.
		He made it, no, he didn't call them foreign nationals, but it's not under a foreign power, not for Indians, not for diplomats.
		It's for black people only.
		It was written exclusively for black folks, and that's how it always been.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Walter, let's get a response on that point.
unidentified		Well, the thing is that I don't know exactly what Senator Trumbull said about it at the time, but to pass an amendment to amend the Constitution, a lot of people are involved in that.
		A lot of people vote on it.
		A lot of people are involved in the deliberations within the states, within the Congress.
		And what each of them thought it was that they were enacting, we can't really say.
		It wasn't Senator Trumbull alone who enacted the 14th Amendment.
		So how does the Supreme Court decide?
		What does something mean?
		They look at the text of the amendment first.
		And the text does not limit itself to any one class.
		In fact, it is a universal text.
		It says, you know, it says all persons born in the United States.
		So if they had wanted to limit it to freed people, they could have.
		They knew how to do that.
		They didn't.
		And so the question is, should the Supreme Court read into this amendment words that are not in the amendment itself?
		The question is really going to turn on to this clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
		What does that mean?
		That is, as I said, historically been understood to mean people who are here as emissaries of a foreign country are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
		You've heard of diplomatic immunity.
		That's why they don't pay parking tickets in New York City and so forth, right?
		So there's that.
		The Trump administration argues that, well, actually, the jurisdiction thereof is a little bit broader.
		Sure, they're subject to the jurisdiction, let's say, illegal migrants.
		They're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because if they commit a crime here, we're going to prosecute them.
		They don't have immunity.
		They have exactly the opposite of immunity.
		They have maybe even extra liability for it.
		But there's another kind of jurisdiction which we think of as political jurisdiction, and that has to do with their allegiance to the United States or their allegiance to a foreign king or country.
		And they don't have their lack of full allegiance to the United States means that their children can be assumed to also not have that allegiance and therefore they are not subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States.
		That's really the theory.
		And again, we're not talking about injunctions, we're talking about the substance of this case, which may not be decided for a long time, is what does that little exclusion mean?
		How big a loophole is it in birthright citizenship?
		Obviously, there's a lot of people who get birthright citizenship.
		I did.
		Maybe you did too.
		But there is a loophole, an exception.
		How big is that exception?
		And is it only foreign diplomats?
		Or is it much, much broader to encompass millions, millions more people?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And AZ Tech, real quick on X, are there any other countries that have birthright citizenship?
		We did answer that question earlier.
		This is the Washington Post.
		What is birthright citizenship and which countries have it?
		And you can read that article and it will list all the countries that do have it, unless there's something you want to add on that.
unidentified		No, that's right.
		But you can think about it.
		There are two basic theories of citizenship.
		One is based on, you might say, soil, where you are born, and that was the old British practice, and that is the generally understood U.S. practice.
		And then there is citizenship based on blood, the bloodline of your parents.
		You know, your citizenship descends from their blood as opposed to the place where you were born.
		So those are the two basic methods that are recognized around the world of ascertaining a child's citizenship.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Jess Braven, Supreme Court correspondent at the Wall Street Journal.
		His work is at WSJ.com.
		Jess, thanks for coming in this morning.
		I know you've got a long day ahead of you at the Supreme Court.
unidentified		You bet, Mimi.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Later in the program, we'll get another perspective on today's birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court with the Heritage Foundation's John Malcolm.
		But first, we'll go to open forum so you can start calling in now.
		The numbers are on your screen.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		While you're dialing in, we will take you over to the Supreme Court.
		Our Tammy Thuringer is there, and she's talking to folks outside of the building.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mimi.
		Good morning.
		We're showing you the front of the line.
		We're standing out here with people who are waiting to get into today's oral arguments with me.
		I have Jonathan, Sanjay, and Kenneth.
		They came down from New Jersey to be here, to get in.
		Jonathan, what time did you all arrive?
unidentified		We got here around 4:45 yesterday.
unidentified		We had to wait overnight.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And you all, you were telling me that you're freshman in college, you just finished your freshman year.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What's your interest in coming down and hearing the oral arguments today?
unidentified		Well, so when we were in high school, we did a civics competition called We the People.
		And so a lot of it was reading up on case law and listening to oral arguments so that we understood the questions that we had.
		And so, you know, reading about it for hours and listening to all this stuff for hours really sparked our interest in wanting to come down here and see it for ourselves in person.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And what are you hoping to hear today if you get in?
unidentified		So like today's a very big case.
		It's about birthright citizenship.
		It's also about the power of district courts to issue universal injunctions.
		So the court has a lot to settle today and whether it decides to grant a partial stay to the government for the injunction granted by the district court, that'll be a huge deal in terms of what courts can do to regulate the Trump administration's further actions, you know, later down the line.
		So we're hoping to hear more about how the court understands universal injunctions and more about how we interpret the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.
		So big case.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And tell our audience what school you're going to and what you're studying.
unidentified		Sanjay and I, we go to Rutgers University and we're both studying poli sci.
unidentified		I go to Princeton, I study applied math, but I dab a little bit in the law, so yeah.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And I know you were talking about possibly going into law school in the future.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think being here today may benefit you?
unidentified		Well I think it shows us the process.
		I mean this is the highest court in the United States of America and just being here seeing the justices interact with counsel I think it's an eye-opening experience and I think it's beneficial for anyone in the public who wants to come and watch.
		I was gonna say hopefully you know it's us one day and so seeing it from the people that are the best at it at the highest court of the land I think it can be really beneficial.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What are your expectations if you were to get in there?
unidentified		We're hoping to see all the justices asking some really great questions, the oral advocates, and we're hoping to hear some really great answers and understand where the court's headed on these issues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		All right, thank you so much for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are in open forum.
		You can see on your screen, that's the Supreme Court.
		It's a dreary, cloudy day here in Washington, D.C. People have already, as you heard from yesterday, lined up outside hoping to get in and to attend those oral arguments.
		We will have that for you on C-SPAN 3.
		It's set to start at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.
		You can listen to that.
		Obviously, there's no, we're not able to get our C-SPAN cameras inside the Supreme Court, but we do have the audio and we will have that for you starting at 10 a.m. over on C-SPAN 3.
		A couple of things for your awareness, Politico, on that situation with the Wisconsin judge.
		If you remember, the judge was arrested.
		Wisconsin judge argues she's entitled to judicial immunity.
		This is on Politico.
		Our attorneys for arrested judge Hannah Dugan argue that her conduct on the day in question amounted to directing people's movement in and around her courtroom.
		She has been charged, and we will watch that as that case develops.
		But that's at Politico if you'd like to see that.
		Let's go to the calls now.
		John is in Hampton, Virginia.
		I'm Democrat.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Just quickly, I just want to say to my fellow Arkansas and I am from Arkansas, for him to open his mouth and say Arkansas have treated blacks good.
		Does he know about Leroc Central?
		I'm so glad I moved from that state.
		And also, so the South Africans that came to the United States the other day, where are all these people talking about the Hispanics getting free benefits?
		Okay, so who's paying for the South Africans for their living expenses?
		Where are they going to stay?
		The medical benefits?
		And also, is there anywhere I could find where how many companies have moved back to the United States in the past seven or eight years because Trump acts like he can put a company on an airplane and move it back to the United States and people to start to work next week?
		Thanks, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And John mentioned the white South Africans that have arrived in the United States as refugees.
		That is the Associated Press here from two days ago saying what to know as Trump brings a group of white South Africans to the U.S. as refugees.
		They arrived at Washington's Dulles airport a few days ago.
		It says it's the start of a larger relocation effort for members of the minority Afrikaner group who are being persecuted by their black-led government because of their race.
		59 South Africans had their applications fast-tracked by the U.S. after President Donald Trump announced the relocation program in February.
		He said Monday that white Afrikaner farmers are facing a, quote, genocide in their homeland, an allegation strongly denied by the South African government.
		The Trump administration has taken an anti-migrant stance, suspending refugee programs and halting arrivals from other parts of the world, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and most countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
		Here's Cynthia in Spring, Texas, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Well, as far as the immigration, the Constitution on that, you know, when the framers, I don't think that the framers would even imagine that we would have an administration and a president that would completely ignore our immigration laws and allow people to just pour across anybody from the entire world, to pour across our border, and then have babies and say that there are Americans.
		citizens.
		I mean, it started with our president breaking the immigration law.
		So, you know, I'd like to get people's their ideas on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's Carol, Palm Springs, California, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Carol.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
		I came in late, so my question may already have been answered.
		I want to know about children born to citizens and military working out of the country.
		What category do they fall in?
		Are they immigrants or are they citizens?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, if you're serving overseas in the military, they would be American citizens.
		So my understanding is any child born to an American citizen, even overseas, does get American citizenship.
		But we'll check that for you, Carol.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Kathleen, Dayton, Ohio, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kathleen.
unidentified		Hey, thank you.
		Thank you always for Washington Journal and C-STAN.
		Listen, Dayton was selected to host the spring 2025 NATO parliamentary assembly.
		So there will be people coming into Dayton from all over the world between May 22nd and the 26th.
		They're having their parliamentary assembly meetings discussing what's going on on the planet and in regard to NATO.
		But we as citizens, residents of Dayton, Ohio, are trying to get the media, people who will be coming into Dayton, to really cover what is actually going on in Dayton, Ohio.
		Most people know Dayton as being, you know, its history being a large or a good-sized manufacturing town during the 60s, 70s.
		And all those jobs were, of course, exported south and then overseas.
		And so Dayton lost half its population, has a pathetic circumstances in regard to economics, and except for their gentrified areas in Dayton, Ohio.
		And we're trying to get the media to cover, like say up North Main Street, just from where they'll be focused in downtown Dayton, having all their meetings.
		We want them to get out of that little quadrant and get up onto North Main Street, out on the east side of Dayton, and see what's really going on.
		Dayton is in quite economic shambles.
		There's a lot of boarded up houses.
		There's a lot of poverty.
		The disparity issue in Dayton is huge.
		And we want the media to cover that when they come to this NATO conference.
		I have three friends who are activists in Dayton who said I could mention their names.
		One guy, Michael Harbaugh, H-A-R-B-A-U-G-H, will be doing a protest march from Deeds at Deeds Park on May 24th, Deeds Park.
		So we'd love to get the media there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Kathleen.
		And yesterday, the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., was on Capitol Hill speaking to senators.
		And here's an exchange between him and Senator Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy about his views on vaccines.
unidentified		A look.
chris murphy ▲ ● ▼		Just this morning, in front of the House of Representatives, you also said that you, in fact, would not recommend that kids get vaccinated for measles.
		You said you would just lay out the pros and cons.
		So, this is the summation of everything that you have said to compromise people's faith in the measles vaccine, in particular, is contrary to what you said before this committee.
		You said you support the measles vaccine, but then you have laid out a set of facts that are contested.
		I will submit information for the record from experts who can test what you've said about the vaccine.
		And the result is to undermine faith in the vaccine.
		It's kind of like saying, listen, I think you should swim in that lake, but you know, the lake is probably toxic, and there's probably a ton of snakes and alligators in that lake, but I think you should swim in it.
		Nobody's going to swim in that lake if that's what you say.
		And so, I want you to acknowledge that when you say you support the measles vaccine and then go out and repeatedly undermine the vaccine with information that is contested by public health experts, that is not supporting the vaccine.
		And so, I guess I have two simple questions for you.
		One is, can you clarify what you said in the House this morning?
		Are you or are you not recommending that families get their children vaccinated, or are you just giving people the pros and cons?
		And do you understand that when you say these things about the measles vaccine, what ends up happening is less people get the vaccine?
		That may be what you want, but do you understand that the result of constantly questioning the efficacy or safety of the vaccine results in less people getting the vaccine?
		So, I don't necessarily want to spend the remaining 20 seconds in an argument over the science, but do you at least understand that that's the consequence of what you're saying?
		And are you actually still recommending people get the vaccine or are you not?
robert f kennedy-jr ▲ ● ▼		Senator, if I advise you to swim in a lake that I knew there to be alligators, and wouldn't you want me to tell you there were alligators in it?
chris murphy ▲ ● ▼		So, are you recommending?
chris murphy ▲ ● ▼		Are you recommending the measles vaccine or not?
robert f kennedy-jr ▲ ● ▼		What I've said and what I said and doesn't sound like you are.
		If that's are you going to let me answer?
		Are you going to keep it?
chris murphy ▲ ● ▼		Are you or are you not?
robert f kennedy-jr ▲ ● ▼		Are you going to let me answer?
		What I pledged before this committee when I during my confirmation is that I would tell the truth, that I would have radical transparency.
		I'm going to tell the truth about everything we know and we don't know about vaccines.
chris murphy ▲ ● ▼		Are you recommending the measles vaccine or not?
robert f kennedy-jr ▲ ● ▼		I am not going to just tell people everything is safe and effective if I know that there's issues.
robert f kennedy-jr ▲ ● ▼		I need to respect people's intelligence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday on Capitol Hill.
		You can see the full hearing on our website, cspan.org.
		And just to answer the caller's question about children born overseas to U.S. citizens, this is the travel.state.gov obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child born abroad.
		So, the simple answer is yes, they would be considered U.S. citizens.
		There are certain things that those parents would need to go through to go ahead and get that done if they're overseas, but they are definitely eligible to be U.S. citizens.
		And our cameras are outside the Supreme Court.
		We'll go back to Tammy Thuringer, and she's talking to some people out there.
		Hi, Tammy.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mimi.
		A couple more people who are waiting in line.
		I have Rose and Ellis.
		Rose, tell us what you do.
unidentified		I'm a research assistant at the Institute for Justice.
unidentified		It's a public interest law firm in Arlington, so right here in D.C.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And Ellis, what do you do?
unidentified		I work at the Federal Reserve here in D.C.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And tell us how long you have been waiting in line.
unidentified		I got in line around 7:30.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Last night.
unidentified		Last night.
unidentified		And I was right behind her, so at around 8 last night.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And obviously important for you to be here today.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Tell us why.
unidentified		For me, my public interest law firm, we're working on lots of constitutional law cases.
		And I think that whichever side of the political divide you're on, the power of the courts and the role of the judicial branch is just absolutely instrumental in the role of our government.
		And so for me, it's really important to see that preliminary injunctions are justified and validated by the court today.
		And I think also, you know, coming from Buffalo, New York, my mom is a social worker who works with refugees and asylum seekers.
		And so on a personal level, it's really important to me to see that birthright citizenship is also validated in that way.
		Yeah, this is more of a personal curiosity.
		I think we certainly live in very interesting times where the Constitution has been placed at the forefront of even ordinary citizens' minds, and there's a level of engagement that people don't ordinarily have.
		And so to see a landmark case in person, to see hopefully upon entering the justices, to see counsel, to see also those affected by it, I think it adds a very corporeal element to the law.
		It makes it a lot more tangible and understandable.
		And I think that's valuable to have.
		I think it's interesting in its own right.
		And I think it's just the start of many more such cases potentially down the road, given the state of the current state of affairs and the way things are going.
		And I think it's the most face-to-face aspect of seeing something as abstract as constitutional law.
		But in the case of birthright citizenship, it's very fundamental and it affects untold millions of people.
		Potentially, I mean, I don't know the technical aspects, but I imagine it's a very high-stakes issue.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Neither of you have been into oral arguments before.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What are your expectations for today?
unidentified		Well, I'm really excited to actually be able to see the justices interact with each other and with the lawyers because however many audio recordings you listen to, you really just can't get the full picture.
		And so I'm excited to see them all in person.
		There's some personal heroes of mine on the bench.
		And so, of course, that's exciting for me as well.
		And I think also just seeing the gravity and the beauty of the court system at its highest level, watching these excellent attorneys, I'm sure on both sides perform.
		I agree.
		I think it's about seeing how the law or people's opinions of the law are made in substance so you can see the personalities of the justices come out and how they interrogate counsel and how counsel responds.
		I think it just adds such an interesting human aspect to something as abstract as the law.
		And I think the decorum of the place, I mean, it's a beautiful building and room from what I've seen, but it's to see the heart of the constitutional order in America and to be amidst, like to be inside and to see it in action, that's quite something and it leaves a big impression.
		But really to see like the justices come alive and actually interrogate and see them come out.
		And it wraps up within an hour or so though, or an hour, hour and a half.
		And so it's interesting to see all of that condensed, all of this legal theorizing and interrogation condense into an hour.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		It'll be a little while before we get a decision from the justices.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Do you feel like they may rule one way or the other?
unidentified		I'm hoping that the conservative justices Who have previously sided more with Trump on different issues are also going to go back to their previous allegiance to upholding our Constitution.
		And I think that because the 14th Amendment has a lot less leeway than more controversial cases they've done in the past, I think that we're going to get a ruling in favor of CASA and the other plaintiffs.
		But I can't say that for sure.
		So I don't want to put my money on anything yet.
		Yeah, so notwithstanding the technical and legal aspects, which I'm just not very familiar with, I would reckon that given the stakes of what's being discussed, that whatever the decision that's rendered would take into account the fact that there are probably millions or tens of millions of people that would be directly affected by executive action being allowed to proceed.
		And to the extent that that weighs on their mind, I think it does, because there's, I mean, commentary or like a body of literature that says justices to some extent, at least in their personal papers, in like retrospect, they do consider, even if it's in the privacy of their own thinking, they consider what is it like on the social effects.
		They might know law clerks that affect actually how they view the law because they have, I think, a very intimate relationship with the law clerks among the justices.
		So I would wager that that does factor into their thinking, or at least I would hope so.
		That there's a very human element and it's probably at a very high magnitude, the decision.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And last question for you.
		You've been out here now for over 12 hours waiting to get in, including overnight.
		Best part and worst part?
unidentified		I would say the company.
		Honestly, I think someone compared it to the Breakfast Club, and I think that's what we really have here.
		People are coming from all over the country.
		They're coming from all sorts of backgrounds, not just law.
		And they're coming with all sorts of viewpoints on the case, some that I hadn't considered before.
		And I think I've learned about law and I've learned about how people find out about the Constitution.
		Of course, we're not all agreeing, but as people who are interested in law, there's been a lot of debate going on tonight.
		And that's what's kept us up.
		But I think honestly, it's been cool to make relationships with people who I think I would have maybe not otherwise interacted with.
		I think it's the best part was the time flying by, because it really did go by very quickly.
		But I think what facilitated that was indeed having discussion with, I mean, honestly, complete strangers, but you're in the same crucible of waiting to get in, and people have strong opinions on this way or that about the topic at hand.
		And that's actually quite nice to have an organic, like free-flowing, you meet strangers, but the passage of time is not very noticeable because you have, even if it's not about the case, you just talk about why they're here.
		What kind of work do they do?
		Maybe they do work in immigration law, so they have an interest in this, or they're just like me here out of curiosity.
		But it's the other people waiting around that definitely make it bearable and enjoyable even.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Rose and Elias, thank you for your time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'll meet a little bit later with all those people that are standing outside the Supreme Court waiting to get in.
		You can listen to today's Supreme Court oral arguments at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN 3.
		If you can't watch it, then you can certainly listen in on our website, c-span.org, or on our free app, C-SPANNow.
unidentified		Yeah, we're just talking about all day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we'll go back to your calls.
		Christian, Phoenix, Arizona, Republican.
		Hi, Christian.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you so much for taking my call.
		First of all, I just want to congratulate the President of the United States on one of the most successful weeks, really, I would say in all of both of his two terms.
mark in florida ▲ ● ▼		And obviously, Trump far exceeds any president that we've ever seen as far as his greatness, his greatness and his resiliency.
unidentified		Since Lincoln, have we seen this?
		Trump, the Saudi Arabia trip, the Qatar trip, the news about inflation dropping, the news about the amount of revenue brought in from the tariffs.
		And now you have this birthright citizenship, which I think will rack up on this very easily.
		The U.S. Supreme Court has already given deference to the president in multiple decisions, multiple cases.
		Even if you read the executive order, the executive order itself actually refers to 8 U.S.C. 1401, and that demonstrates part of the federal law on immigration.
		Even when you read the INA in 212F, it actually states that the president actually does have the authority to suspend entry of aliens if he deems that there are certain people who are seeking entry that may be detrimental to the United States.
		And this is, I think, it would be detrimental when you have people who are attempting to have a baby in the United States just simply to grant their child a golden U.S. citizenship.
		I mean, that's basically what they're doing.
		They're reaping the benefits of having their child in the United States so that that child can have, so that they can, in turn, get benefits.
		And we've been told for decades, year after year, that non-citizens did not get benefits, and we found out that that wasn't true.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Christian mentioned the overseas trip by the president to the Middle East.
		This is the front page of the Washington Times that is talking about here.
		The leader of Qatar is right here, welcomes President Trump to Doha.
		Yesterday, build on bilateral relationship.
		Mr. Trump said, quote, I'm proud that our growing friendship has brought us into a full-fledged economic and security partnership.
		The headline here, Trump secures $1.2 trillion from Qatar.
		Well, House Speaker Johnson was asked yesterday about President Trump's plans to accept a luxury jet from Qatar, and here is his response.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Look, I've been a little busy on reconciliation, so I'm not following all the twists and turns of the Qatar jet.
		I've certainly heard about it.
		My understanding is it's not a personal gift to the president.
		It's a gift to the United States, and other nations give us gifts all the time.
		But I'm going to leave it to the administration.
		They know much more about the details of that, okay?
		I'm just, it's not my lane.
		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Mr. Speaker, you were very critical of President Biden and his family's foreign business dealings.
		You supported an impeachment inquiry as a result of it.
		Are you equally concerned about President Trump's family's business dealings, especially given the fact that he is in a region now where his family has billions of dollars in investments in Doha and Saudi Arabia, and the fact that he has a crypto business now where he's auctioned off access to the White House for the highest bidder in his meeting?
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Look, there are authorities that police executive branch ethics rules.
		I'm not an expert in that.
		My expertise is here in the House, okay?
		I will say that the reason many people refer to the Bidens as the Biden crime family is because they were doing all this stuff behind curtains, but in the back rooms.
		They were trying to conceal it, and they repeatedly lied about it, and they set up shell companies, and the family was all engaged in getting all on the dole.
		Whatever President Trump is doing is out in the open.
		They're not trying to conceal anything.
unidentified		Mr. Speaker, the investment in the meme coin, those folks are not transparent.
unidentified		We do not know who those people are.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		I don't know anything about the meme coin thing.
		I don't know.
		I can just tell you that, I mean, President Trump has had nothing to hide.
		He's very upfront about it.
		And there are people who watch all the ethics of that.
		But, I mean, I've got to be concerned with running the House of Representatives, and that's what I do.
unidentified		Oversight, though, that's the congressional responsibility, isn't it?
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Congress has oversight responsibility, but I think so far as I know, the ethics are all being followed.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		So, yes, sir.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the Speaker of the House talking about the gift of the Qatari Jet.
		And we're going to pause our open forum calls for a few minutes while we speak to Jack Fitzpatrick.
		He's a Congress reporter for Bloomberg government about the budget plan.
		Jack, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, the Speaker yesterday said that Republicans were still on track to deliver and vote on President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill by Memorial Day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are you hearing from members about that timeline?
unidentified		They want that to happen.
		On track is a positive but not necessarily unrealistic way of looking at it.
		They still are negotiating some key pieces.
		Right now, it looks like the biggest fight is over the state and local tax deduction cap.
		That was a $10,000 cap that was set on deductions, especially for people in high-tax states and localities, set in the 2017 bill.
		They're going to raise that.
		It's a question of how much.
		So, there's a small group of about a handful of blue state Republicans in the House who say increasing that to $30,000 might not be enough.
		How high do they have to go?
		We will find out.
		But they are trying to negotiate that.
		If that comes together and they can get almost unanimous support in the House where they have very narrow margins, then they'll take it to the floor for a vote.
		It's not going to be easy essentially until it's done, though.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Another issue where there's a disagreement among Republicans is on Medicaid and how much cuts and what kind of changes to make to that program.
unidentified		Yes, and that's something to watch in both chambers.
		There are Republicans in the House and Senate who have expressed concerns.
		That is a little bit less of a live negotiation than the SALT cap issue, where they're talking about specific numbers that they're trying to negotiate now.
		I'd say even if they do get this through the House, there are senators in the more populist vein, people like Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have expressed concerns about possible Medicaid cuts.
		So we all should keep in mind that House passage is one thing, but then there's going to be a back and forth between the House and Senate, and the Medicaid issue is difficult in both chambers.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		As far as work requirements for Medicaid, is there agreement among Republicans on that?
unidentified		The general idea of stricter work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents is something they've largely rallied around.
		And I say this is a little bit less of a live negotiation than the SALT issue, though, because there's a little bit more political rhetoric.
		When you ask Senator Hawley, when you ask some of the more populist members, they want to review the final product and say they're concerned about the idea of major cuts to Medicaid.
		So that general idea of work requirements isn't the thing that's getting a ton of pushback, but there's some hesitance about the overall effects and how it's going to affect the number of people without health insurance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Who are the key members that you're really keeping an eye on?
unidentified		You know, because the SALT deduction is the biggest thing, I would say the New York, New Jersey, California House members, including Mike Lawler, Andrew Garberino, Young Kim from California.
		There are five or six.
		Nicole Maliatakis is a little bit less hardline on that issue, and maybe she's almost the point person of the SALT caucus for leadership in a more favorable way.
		So right now, what we call the SALT caucus in the House from those blue state Republicans are, it seems the main holdup.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The House Budget Committee is going to be meeting tomorrow to start putting together the full bill.
		What's that process?
		Explain what's going to be happening.
unidentified		It's strange because these bills get put together by a variety of authorizing committees and then they go to the budget committee, which has almost a ceremonial role.
		There are amendments offered, probably entirely by Democrats, but the role of the budget committee is taking all these different bills and making it one bill.
		So in theory, there are not going to be changes made to it.
		It's just taking a bunch of different pieces of legislation and making it sort of an omnibus package before it goes to the Rules Committee, where then changes are still possible.
		There are members who hold out hope to get an amendment added in in the rules committee.
		Budget may be more about political rhetoric and Republicans rejecting Democratic proposals than actual negotiations happening and changes to the bill.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what about voting next week?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are we looking at as far as timing?
unidentified		We will know if they do get through budget and do get through rules.
		Budget, as you said, is supposed to be Friday morning.
		Rules is supposed to meet Monday.
		If that goes well, when you have the votes, you take the vote, so they'll want to move quickly to the floor.
		But again, the challenges of getting it through, getting a SALT agreement, if there's a publicly announced handshake deal on SALT, that would be probably the key thing that sets up a floor vote.
		But it could happen pretty quickly next week if they clear those hurdles.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And finally, something we didn't talk about, which was SNAP benefits.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Was there any determinations or anything that came out of the Ag Committee yesterday?
unidentified		Yes.
		Basically, the Ag Committee measure would shift money, shift spending on SNAP nutrition aid to states.
		The baseline number is 5% of the cost, but there's sort of a penalty for any inaccuracy on eligibility that could drive it up to 25% of the cost for states.
		And that would apply historically to about half, if not more than half, of states.
		So there is a significant cost burden shifting from the federal government to state governments to provide that nutrition aid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Jack Fitzpatrick, Congress reporter for Bloomberg government.
		His work is at bgov.com.
		Thanks so much for coming in.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will go back to open forum.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		While you're dialing in, we will check in with Tammy Thuringer over at the Supreme Court.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mimi.
		A couple more people who are in line this morning.
		It's Katie and Brian.
		They estimate that they're in the 40s in terms of number of people to get in line.
		It stretches down a ways.
		There isn't as long of a line as there has been because this term the Supreme Court has a pilot project in place that includes a lottery for some of the seats.
		So not as many people from the same amount of people from the general public will be allowed in, but not as many people from the line, which may impact you, Katie, and Brian.
		Tell us where you're from and what you do.
unidentified		So we come from Long Island, New York, and we're both immigration paralegals.
unidentified		That's why we're so interested in this case.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And why did you want to be here beside your other than your work?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What brought you down from Long Island?
unidentified		Well, I'm a first-generation individual here.
		My parents are immigrants from El Salvador, so this is a case that would not only directly influence, could have influenced me, but it could influence so many people that I know, so many people from the Hispanic community, the Latin community, any immigrant community whatsoever.
		So that's why we're here.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And have you been to oral arguments before?
unidentified		No, this is our first time.
		So for us, it's a privilege to be here.
		Hopefully we get in, but it's something that we're very much looking forward to.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Why is it important to be inside versus listening to the audio?
unidentified		Well, for me personally, I think the importance on a historical level, being able to sit in and actually see it firsthand in person rather than listening to it, because personally, like Katie said, this is something that's really personal to me as well as a son of immigrants.
		This is definitely one of the cases that's definitely had the biggest impact on me and my family.
		So I think for me personally, being able to sit there and actually see it firsthand would mean a lot personally, just being able to witness that.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Obviously important for you to get in.
		You said that you got in line at 4 a.m. this morning.
		We hope that you get in.
		If you do, what are your expectations?
		What are you hoping to see?
unidentified		I'm hoping to just really, like Brian said, to witness the historical factor and just understand the interpretation of our Constitution.
		That's what's really important here, the rule of law and understanding that we're here for the advocacy portion.
		We're here to not only represent where we work, but also to represent our ancestors and represent our family who's here.
		So yeah, to make them proud.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And you have just a little bit of time before they start letting people in.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What's your plan B if you aren't in oral arguments today?
unidentified		Well, I guess the best option would be just to listen, hopefully, to the stream.
		If we can't get in, again, it's something that I definitely don't want to miss, but any chance I get to listen in at least would mean a lot.
		So again, I am optimistic that we will get in, but if not, we are more than ready just to listen in another way if we can.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And this is something that you work on as paralegals in the immigration area.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		In terms of the case, how do you think the justices may rule?
unidentified		Honestly, I'm not really sure.
		I have my own personal opinions on how I would definitely rule in this case, but I'm really not sure.
		It's really a 50-50 chance for us, in our opinion.
		That's why we're here.
		We want to see how the Constitution will be interpreted.
		This is really a landmark case, so we have no idea.
		For me, I'm optimistic again.
		I know that in the past there's been certain decisions that have been very controversial with the Supreme Court.
		However, we've also seen recently that the court has fought back against the administration.
		And again, many of these justices follow the Constitution point by point, some hoping that they will do the right thing and uphold the Constitution as they should.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Katie and Brian, thank you for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that is outside the Supreme Court.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will have oral arguments for you on C-SPAN 3 starting at about 10 a.m. this morning.
unidentified		Once they get underway, we will have that for you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're in Open Forum.
		We're taking your calls.
		And this is Rob in Kansas City, Missouri, line for Democrats.
		Hi, Rob.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		So some scholars said that, you know, the founding fathers didn't know anything about what the future is going to be.
		But then they know that in the future we're going to have military style assault weapons that are used to mow down children sitting in classrooms.
		So they have to run DNA tests to even identify them.
		So, why is the Trump administration and the Republicans not addressing the issue, saying, Wait a minute, the founding fathers are wrong on the Second Amendment.
		We need to take a look at it.
		You cannot have an unlimited amount of any weapons you like.
		So, it's funny.
		I mean, if we're going to go back and just figure out what the founding fathers meant or didn't mean, we can basically rewrite the entire Constitution, get rid of habeas corpus like they don't have that in Russia and other authoritarian nations.
		So, I think this is a slippery, slippery slope.
		That if the Supreme Court sides with the president, that it's going to be a never-ending thing, and I don't trust Thomas, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito.
		They vote in lockstep with the president instead of figuring out what's right in the Constitution and what's right for the people that it serves.
		So, I don't trust the Supreme Court, and I wouldn't be surprised if they overturned birthright citizenship, just like they overturned Roe after nearly 50 years.
		Thank you for letting me have my opinion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Peter, in North Conway, New Hampshire, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi.
		I think most Americans don't quite understand immigration laws.
		20 years ago, I worked with foreign students under a State Department work travel program, and they would come to North Conway area, which is recreational, and they would work in hotels and restaurants on a trip with them.
		We stopped in Manchester to what is today the ICE office.
		The officer there asked for their papers, and one of them had left it in the car.
		And the ICE officer was very stern.
		He said, You are to carry those papers with you at all times.
		The immigration laws are for a separate status.
		This I came to learn after this incident.
		Foreigners who want to enter the United States submit a petition, not an application, because foreigners have no right to enter the United States.
		They have to make a request, and that puts them in a separate class.
		So I'm hoping that the Supreme Court, with the cases before them today, will explore and explain the limitations on immigration status.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Peter.
		And here is Fox News with this headline: it says, House Republicans, mull consequences for Dems who, quote, stormed ICE facility.
		Hakeem Jeffries says arrests or sanctions against Democrats would be a quote red line.
		Let's take a look at what the Speaker of the House said about that.
		But before we do, we're going to show you.
		It looks like President Trump has just arrived in the UAE.
		We'll show you live footage of that as that's happening.
		He is there in the middle of your screen, and the welcome ceremony is lined up alongside.
		It was live footage of President Trump in Abu Dhabi.
		That's the capital of the UAE, United Arab Emirates.
		Now we'll get back to that part that I was just mentioning about House Speaker Mike Johnson yesterday talking about this issue on the Democrats who were at the ICE facility in New Jersey.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Well, look, there's three possible disciplinary actions that Congress, the House, can take.
		Okay, you can censure a member, and that probably does seem appropriate here.
		You can kick them off committees.
		That's a new tradition begun by the Democrats in recent years.
		And you can expel someone from Congress.
		Now, expulsion requires a two-thirds vote.
		That's not likely because the margins are small on both sides.
		But, you know, we're looking at what is appropriate.
		Look, I think it's pretty clear that the law was violated.
		You might have noticed the Wisconsin judge that was trying to conceal the illegal alien that was going to be apprehended by ICE.
		A federal grand jury indicted the judge.
		I think that was late yesterday.
		And I'm told that she'll be brought up on charge, maybe facing potentially six years in jail and $350,000 in fines because she obstructed the proceedings, obstructed justice, and was engaged in other activities.
		So look, what these House Democrats did is in that same lane, the same vein of what the judge is being indicted for.
		So I think there's some legal ramifications to play out here, and we'll see how it works.
		We're talking through all the possibilities.
		Yes, ma'am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries responded to a question about that same issue about potential disciplinary measures and even arrests of House Democrats in a press briefing on Tuesday.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion of that.
chad pergram ▲ ● ▼		What would you, your statement the other day after there was this incident in Newark, you said they better not touch our members.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
unidentified		What happens if they were to go and arrest these members or if they were to try to sanction them during the House representatives?
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		They'll find out.
unidentified		What would you do, though?
		I mean, they'll find out.
		Of course.
		I mean, but doesn't that broach a go across?
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		That's a red line.
unidentified		What's the red line, though?
unidentified		I mean, I know we have this.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		It's a red line.
		It's very clear.
		First of all, I think that the so-called Homeland Security spokesperson is a joke.
		It's a joke.
		They know better than to go down that road.
		And it's been made loudly and abundantly clear to the Trump administration.
		We're not going to be intimidated by their tactics to try to force principled opposition from not standing up to their extremism.
		It hasn't happened during the entirety of this failed term.
		It didn't happen when Donald Trump temporarily was sitting high in the immediate aftermath of the election.
		Do you think it's going to happen now when he's the most unpopular president in American history after his first 100 days?
		Give me a break.
		No one's intimidated by this dude.
		No one.
		And so there are clear lines that they just dare not cross.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to see either of those full press conferences, you can.
		They're on our website at c-span.org.
		And we're an open forum.
		This is Teresa in South Carolina, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank you so much for taking the call.
		I have three points.
		I'll try to go through them quickly.
		I am so glad to see young people who are interested in the Constitution are going to watch the whole thing in process.
		I've sat on juries before and have always felt this deep responsibility to understand and listen.
		I am a Republican who could be called liberal.
		So I am not, I would just like to see two parties be friendly.
		I just feel like there's this fight that I don't like to see.
		It's not good for us to show our children that you always have to fight to make things so.
		And also, I want to ask this question: if a child is given citizenship birth, right, do the parents still have to go through the regular application to be citizen?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Because I do think they do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Teresa, it doesn't affect the parents' legal status.
unidentified		Perfect.
		Okay.
		I think that's good.
		And I also wonder sometimes, of all the millions that came in, how many really love America?
		And I think that's where the people who've gone through immigration in the regular way, which would be harder with so many people now, but how many really love America?
		Because that's the kind of people who immigrated here.
		They wanted a better chance in life, but they also loved the idea of American citizenship.
		And I also listened to the controversy going on in the Congress, and I'm really amazed that we can't be civil to each other.
		We can't look at anybody's other side.
		It's important to look at both sides.
		Yes, I have strong opinions, but it doesn't mean I don't listen and consider.
		I'm also very proud that our president has been such a leader in the world.
		He has an agenda, and I know that he feels the need to get as many things through as possible.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Teresa.
unidentified		I hope.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Then move on to Harry in Norcross, Georgia, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, C-SPAN.
		Thank you.
		I would just say it's a bit of irony here when you have a bunch of white folks, Republicans, trying to alienate Indigenous people from America.
		I mean, where did we come from in the first place?
		Who was here when the immigrants got here?
		The original immigrants were English, Spanish, and the Indigenous people are the ones they're trying to shut out now.
		It's not Kind of strike you as hypocritical or something.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we've got this on X from Bloomberg White House reporter Akela Gardner.
		She says, The Kremlin says President Putin will not take part in talks in Turkey with Ukraine.
		These are the peace talks.
		There's also currently no plans for a meeting with Putin and President Trump in the coming days either.
		She says just now, that's at 8.05 a.m.
		The president President Trump says, quote, nothing is going to happen until Putin and I get together, okay?
		He wasn't going if I wasn't there.
		This is referring to talks in Turkey.
		Zelensky, President Zelensky of Ukraine, has arrived in Turkey and Ankara for those talks.
		President Putin not going to be there.
		This is John, Syracuse, New York, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, I'm a Democrat that voted for Trump because of the immigration issue, and I strongly support the birthright citizenship elimination loophole to eliminate that loophole.
		People are cheating.
		They're cheating to get into the country.
		And then they fall back.
		Well, it's in the Constitution.
		Well, we got freedom of speech, but that's not unlimited.
		You can't yell fire in a theater.
		So just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean that people can cheat to get into this country.
		I learned on C-SPAN, you had a caller call up that said that he was on vacation in Miami and the place was full of pregnant women.
		So are you maybe you can explain to me, Mimi, if a woman comes over and gives birth in America and that child is legally here, they're not going to deport the mother.
		We're not going to keep the kid and deport the mother.
		They're all going to depart.
		John, they actually have been doing that, actually.
		Separating a mother from a newborn?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's, well, so I know of a case of a two-year-old.
		Let me find that for you.
		So we can talk about that.
		But there's a two-year-old that was, yes, indeed, separated from both the parents who were deported.
		Looks like we lost him.
		Reck in Ackworth, Georgia, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		It's a beautiful morning in Georgia, by the way.
		Anyways, I want to comment.
		You were talking about, I saw Hakeem Jeffries defending the mayor and the congress people that, in my opinion, seemed like they were rioting and the defense that you better not go after congresspeople or elected officials.
sgt major justin jd lehew ▲ ● ▼		My point is it's a darn good thing that we went after Bob Menendez, who was a sitting U.S. Senator and now, I believe, is either going to jail or sitting in jail.
unidentified		That's my point.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rick.
		And later in the program, we'll have Vermont Democrat Becca Ballant on Republican efforts on passing President Trump's domestic policy bill.
		Coming up next, we've got Heritage Foundation's John Malcolm on today's Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship.
		So we continue our conversation about that.
		But during the break, we'll go back to Tammy Thuringer, who's at the Supreme Court.
		Tammy.
unidentified		No hate for you guys, Stafford.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mimi.
		I am out here with Scott.
		He's the end of the line.
		I just moved down a bit.
		We'll get him caught up down there, and hopefully, he doesn't lose his spot.
		But Scott, tell us.
		You said you were just retired.
		Tell us about your career and what brought you out here today.
unidentified		Well, I'm a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force and also a retired 787 captain with American Airlines.
		And I retired in July, so my wife works downtown here, so I caught a ride with her.
		She's at HHS.
		And I always told myself I live just outside of DC and to take the opportunity to come down and witness some history here today.
		All it does is take a little bit of hours of my time to come down and enjoy this.
		Hopefully I get a seat inside and have a chance to witness some history today.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And you said that you've been to oral arguments once before.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Tell us about that.
unidentified		It was a couple of years ago.
		My wife, being an attorney, was invited to come down as they do.
		Some federal attorneys invite them down and to give them a presentation that allows them to do arguments.
		And it was kind of a family affair, so we came in and got a chance to watch a case that was brought by the New York state attorney.
		And I think it had something to do with the price of propane gas up there.
		But it was very interesting to see, and I wish everybody had an opportunity to see what goes on and see how history is made in our country.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And fast forward to today's case.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Is it the case topic that brought you down here or just the opportunity to see it play out?
unidentified		A little bit of both.
		Yeah, a little bit of both.
		Yeah, I know this one's very important to our country right now.
		And I think it's important that both sides take a look at what's going on and that we can work together to work and let the Constitution work the way it's supposed to work.
		This is, I think, a rewriting or a tweaking of something that's been proposed.
		But yeah, I enjoyed learning a little bit about history and how it works and how it goes back and forth between the three different branches and how now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to kind of maybe clarify some of the things on birthright citizenships.
		I know it's only limited to about 30 countries in the world, so we're pretty unique that we allow that opportunity to happen.
		But again, I like to see how the system works and let the system work out and play out the best it can.
		And hopefully I get a seat and a chance to get in and witness it in person.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And having been in oral arguments before, having seen it, what are your expectations for today?
unidentified		Well, I know that they'll present their arguments and then they go back to deliberation and we'll continue to understand and navigate through a really difficult topic.
		And then their decision will come down, I think, in a couple of weeks.
		So I don't really expect to see much.
		I'm more interested in the process and how it works and how they present and who's doing the speaking and just some of the nuances, the kind of the inside baseball, as I like to say, about how things are done at the highest level of our judicial system.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Your wife was admitted a couple years ago, you said, to the bar.
		That's something that they do here before oral arguments start.
		Having seen the justices before, was there anyone in particular that you enjoyed watching their interactions or their expressions?
		People don't see that when the audio is only streamed.
unidentified		Nobody in particular, but I like to almost have a roster like you would in a baseball game.
		Where are they from?
		Where'd they go to law school?
		Most of our judges went to law school at Harvard and Yale.
		I know we've got one that went to Niltre Dame, but just to see how the interaction goes with the clerks that handle them and how they present and are they paying attention and what questions they ask is to me is all part of the system and it's pretty fascinating to see how it works.
		So I don't expect much to happen today or much come out of it other than their oral arguments to be presented and then a couple of weeks hopefully we hear something and we'll see how the system works.
		I'll see how it plays out.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We hope you get in today.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		If you don't, is there another case down the road that you'll try again?
unidentified		No, I'll just keep an eye and if I don't get in I'd like to work with C-SPAN crew if I could and help carry a boomstick or something like that or help throw bags with American Airlines because it's just down the road.
		But no, nothing in particular right now.
		I'll keep an eye open for whether it be a Senate confirmation hearing or something else at the Supreme Court.
		But that's it.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Scott, thank you for your time.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
unidentified		He didn't kick me in the shin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Helpful of him.
		We will come back now with you to our next guest who is going to talk to us about birthrights, the birthright citizenship case and nationwide injunctions, and that's John Malcolm.
		He's a Heritage Foundation Institute for Constitutional Government Vice President.
		He was also former Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division during the first George W. Bush administration.
		John Malcolm, welcome to the program.
unidentified		It's great to be with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We are expecting oral arguments to start in this case at about 10 a.m. Eastern.
		We'll have that on C-SPAN 3.
		But remind us about what exactly the administration is asking the Supreme Court for.
unidentified		So this case, as you just alluded to, has two issues.
		The one that everyone was talking about in the previous segment is birthright citizenship.
		I actually, it's possible the court is going to address the merits of the executive order that President Trump signed trying to end birthright citizenship, at least as it's been understood by a number of scholars.
		However, the real issue that I think the court is going to take up is the propriety of nationwide injunctions.
		So when President Trump came into office on January 20th, he signed a flurry of executive orders, including one that would purport to end birthright citizenship on a going-forward basis.
		So it's long been assumed, I think probably incorrectly, but we'll see what the justices have to say, that anybody who is born on U.S. soil, with the exception of U.S., the children of U.S. diplomats, automatically becomes a citizen of the United States.
		And he said no in this executive order, that children that are born here, if their parents are here lawfully, if they're lawful permanent residents or obviously citizens, then they become U.S. citizens automatically.
		Otherwise, they do not, and they won't get issued things like passports, et cetera, have voting rights.
		That executive order was challenged in a number of different jurisdictions, and three different federal district court judges in three disparate areas not only declared that that executive order was unconstitutional, but it entered a nationwide injunction saying that this injunction would apply not just to the parties in the lawsuits before them, not just to the people in the state where that judge happens to be sitting, but all across the nation.
		Nationwide injunctions have been around for a while, but they have grown dramatically in scope, particularly against the Trump administration.
		So to put this in perspective.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, but John, how did it cut you off?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So just kind of the bottom line, how you see it, do you see nationwide injunctions as an abuse of judicial power?
unidentified		Yeah, I do for a variety of reasons.
		I think they're extremely bad policy for reasons that I can discuss.
		I also think that they go against a binding Supreme Court president.
		And I also have real questions about the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions because judges are only supposed to consider actual cases or controversies.
		And when they are issuing edicts that apply to people all across the nation, non-parties who have not been involved in any litigation, I think that calls into question whether as to those parties, there is an actual case or controversy.
		The merits of the birthright citizenship issue are more complex, and I'm happy to discuss those as well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So how do you respond to people who say that there needs to be a way to check expansive executive power?
		You know, this is ballotpedia showing how many executive orders the previous, the recent presidents, going back to George Bush, have signed.
		So first day, this show's first day, first 100 days, first year.
		Mr. Trump's second term is by far by probably an order of magnitude larger than previous administrations.
unidentified		Yeah, I think that's right.
		Executive orders are a lot more popular ever since President Barack Obama declared that if Congress wasn't going to act, he could use his phone and his pen to make things happen.
		They are controversial, some more so than others.
		And I'm not at all saying that there isn't a vehicle for challenging the propriety of executive orders or entered by any president, whether it's Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
		It's just what is the orderly process for challenging those executive orders.
		And does a single district court judge, there are 677 authorized federal district court judges, plus a larger number, a large number that are still on the bench as having taken senior status.
		And if any one of those judges can prevent a national policy from being implemented, does that create order and efficiency or does that create chaos?
		So, you know, look, any district court judge can enter an order.
		Different judges can come to different conclusions.
		Those cases bubble their way up to the circuit courts of appeals.
		They get to weigh in on these issues.
		And ultimately, if the issue is important enough, they come up to the Supreme Court.
		Just a question of what process is used and how long it takes if you want to challenge something that a president is doing, believing it to be unlawful.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to ask a question of our guest, John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, you can do so.
		Our lines are open.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202748-8002.
		So, John's supporters of nationwide injunctions will say that, you know, it's very difficult for each and every state, each and every individual to bring suit when they want to challenge an executive order, for instance.
		What's your response to that?
unidentified		Yeah, it doesn't have to be each and every state.
		I mean, there have been myriad lawsuits filed in several jurisdictions against the Trump executive orders.
		Not by coincidence, they have been filed in blue states where they're more likely to have the case decided by a judge who was appointed by a Democratic president.
		But if you get a critical mass and these judges all disagree with each other, at some point the Supreme Court is saying, we'll say, okay, this is an important issue.
		Judges are disagreeing all over the map.
		We need to weigh in.
		But at least now, we have the benefit of some very bright judges having considered all of these arguments and having reached different conclusions.
		And we can consider all of those arguments and all of that reasoning when we reach our decision, which will govern the nation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are your thoughts on how the Supreme Court justices will look at this?
		You know, we have a 6-3 conservative majority.
		Do you have any clues as to how they might rule on this?
unidentified		Some clues, none of them definitive.
		So at this point, although the vast majority of nationwide injunctions have been entered against the Trump administration, they were not exclusively entered against the Trump administration.
		During the Biden administration, there were 22 nationwide injunctions entered against him on things like his eviction moratorium or private employer vaccine mandates, student loan forgiveness.
		So both parties, if you will, have had their ox gored when it comes to this issue.
		Five of the justices, either in opinions or in speeches, have indicated that they have real doubts about both the historical precedent and legality of nationwide injunctions.
		Those five are Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Elena Kagan.
		So it's sort of a mess.
		I think that nationwide injunctions have actually exacerbated the perception that people are engaging in rampant judge shopping.
		I think that's actually indisputably true.
		It's also exacerbated the perception that judges are making these rulings based on their personal political preferences rather than based on law.
		And I think that things are getting out of control, and the Supreme Court is either going to want to end this practice or at least put very, very tight strictures around it.
		I would also add that Congress is also considering this issue.
		There are a number of proposals to rein in nationwide injunctions.
		Most of those essentially say that if somebody requests a nationwide injunction, the case would automatically be assigned to a randomly selected three-judge panel with a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
		We'll see what the court does, and depending on what the court does, we'll see what Congress does.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you like that idea of the three, the randomly selected judge?
unidentified		I certainly think it's better than the current system.
		It would ameliorate the effect of judge shopping.
		It would also give you a little bit more percolation and that you'd hear the considered views of three judges.
		It would also squarely present an issue to the Supreme Court review if it's of sufficient importance.
		I also have questions about the legality of nationwide injunctions, because again, if you're issuing an injunction that applies to non-parties, people who are not in the lawsuit before you, is there an actual case or controversy as to those people?
		The only thing that's akin to that are class actions.
		There's a federal rule of civil procedure 23 in which a judge can certify a class action.
		That would include potentially a nationwide class action, and you could grant relief to that nationwide class action.
		But there are standards that have to be met before a nationwide class action can be certified.
		People can challenge whether or not those standards have been addressed.
		And actually, by judges doing what they're doing without such a certification, they're essentially rendering the rules about nationwide class action superfluous.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's bring viewers into the conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll start with Michael in Strongsville, Ohio, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, how are you today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		Good.
		We're talking about birthright citizenship.
		Is that what we're talking about here?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
unidentified		Yeah, it's a challenge trying to separate people when they have kids.
		So it's kind of a gray area there.
		You know what I mean?
		But I noticed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, I was going to say when you say separate people when they have kids, what do you mean?
unidentified		Well, you were saying that some kid got separated, right?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Right, for deportations.
unidentified		Yeah, deportation, right?
		It's kind of a challenge.
		It's kind of tough when you're dealing with kids.
		It's a source subject, you know.
		I noticed you said there was only one kid that you knew of, though.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		So I was going to look that up.
		Let me have actually our producer look up the case that I was talking about.
		That's the case that I read about.
		But is that what you were calling about as far as deportation?
unidentified		It just seems like it's only one, so it's not a lot, but one's too many, but it's not a lot where it's being actually done on purpose, if you will.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you know, the administration has said that they're not going to use that as an excuse to not deport people.
		So they're not going to say, you know, just because you have kids that are American citizens doesn't mean that you get to stay here.
		You get a pass.
		In other words, that's what Tom Homan has said.
		Any other comment on that one?
unidentified		Let me ask you a question.
		Do you think that it's fair to people that came here legally to just anybody just be able to just do what they want?
		I mean, why are we seeing all these deportations of these criminals?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, okay, we'll give that to our guest, John Malcolm.
unidentified		Well, I don't have much of a comment.
		I mean, the question about who is a citizen of the United States and all and who is entitled to all the rights and privileges that come along with citizenship, which are many, is a different question from what our nation's immigration laws are and how they are enforced.
		The two are obviously related because citizens get more due process rights than people who are not citizens, but they're only related to that extent.
		You can have robust debate, no doubt, have and no doubt will about how our nation's immigration laws ought to be enforced.
		But that's really different from the question of who is entitled to citizenship and whether you are entitled to that based solely on the fact that you were born on our soil.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so let me just follow up.
		So there is a this is ABC News.
		The Venezuelan toddler who was kept in the U.S. after parents were deported is returned to Venezuela.
		So this Venezuelan toddler, I believe she's a little girl, two years old, was in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement for 302 days.
		That's according to the DHS posting on X.
		The child's mother oversees recruitment of young women.
		Oh, they're claiming that she oversees recruitment of young women for drug smuggling and prostitution for Trenda Aragua.
		The two-year-old was returned to her home country after her mother was deported to Venezuela.
		Her father had been in that prison in El Salvador.
		So that's the case that we were talking about.
		Here is Walter Butler, Indiana, Republican.
		Good morning, Walter.
unidentified		Good morning, ma'am.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		As far as birthright citizenship, if you break into our country legally and you turn around and pop out a child, once we get the parents, we take the child, we duct tape them to the back of the child, and we send them back home.
		And as far as the rights of Americans and all this, we don't have rights, we have privileges, and all you have to do is look up the Japanese internment camps where they took legal American citizens and they rounded them up and they put them in prisons.
		So let's just cut to the chase.
		Why don't we do a five-year moratorium where nobody comes into this country five years, we shut it all down and then clean out what we need to clean out.
		And the Statue of Liberty, everybody says we want you tired, you're weak, you're huddled masses, but they failed to read the last four lines.
		And the last four lines are beside the golden door.
		And if we have a door, we have a hinge, and we're supposed to be responsible and monitor who comes in our house.
		So let's just round, if you break the law, you're going to have to pay the price.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Walter, let's get a response on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He says we don't have rights, we have privileges.
unidentified		Well, I actually strongly disagree with that.
		We do have rights and we do have liberties.
		Privileges are something that you get from the government, and they can be taken away by the government.
		Here, we definitely have rights that the government cannot take away: the right to free speech, the right to freely exercise our religion, the right to be, you know, our homes to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant.
		So, we do have rights.
		They're in the Constitution.
		Some of them come from God, natural rights, and they cannot be taken away by a government.
		That's why we had a Declaration of Independence that said that we had rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those rights were endowed by our Creator, not a gift from the government that can be taken away.
		But let's talk a little bit about what the birthright citizenship question is.
		So, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows: It says, all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
		The 14th Amendment came in to overturn perhaps the Supreme Court's most infamous decision, which was his 1857 decision in Dred Scott versus Sanford, that said essentially that black people were property and could never become citizens of the United States.
		These were people who had been brought to our shores.
		They had no other country or they were born on our shores.
		Whatever allegiance they had, it was clearly not to a foreign power.
		It was to the United States, and it was allegiance by force.
		They didn't come here of their own volition.
		And the 14th Amendment was clearly designed to say these people become citizens.
		So this all boils down to what does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean?
		Does it mean you're in our country and our laws apply to you?
		Or does it mean you have, by dint of your birth, some political allegiance to the United States because of your parents' status?
		Or were they, for instance, ambassadors' children who were born here are not citizens, even if they are born on our soil?
		Because clearly the ambassador has a political allegiance to another country.
		Native Americans, the 14th Amendment did not apply to them.
		They were considered separate sovereigns.
		They became U.S. citizens because of an act of Congress, not because of the 14th Amendment.
		If there was an invading army that took over part of the United States and some, you know, a birth happened within the ranks of that invading army, that person would not be a citizen of the United States because clearly they have a political allegiance to the country that did the invading.
		So, really, the question becomes: what does that phrase mean?
		And there is scholarship on both sides of the issue.
		And ultimately, when the Supreme Court gets around to deciding that case, and they will, I'm not sure it's going to be the case that's being argued today, that is what they will grapple with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jack in Hamilton, Ohio, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jack.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call, and I appreciate speaking to a scholar here.
		I have a couple questions for him.
		I'm curious about European nations.
		Do they have birthright citizenship as the United States does?
		Most do not.
		I forget what the numbers are, but there are very, very few countries that acknowledge what's referred to as use solely, which is basically of the soil, and automatically grant citizenship to people who are born on their soil.
		Usually, you have to profess an interest in becoming a citizen and then passing whatever the qualifications are to attain that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Melinda in Georgia, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Melinda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would just like to know: you know, the other day there was some African subs, white people that came from South Africa, and they let them in the country.
		And I'm wondering why is it that they could come in and we're not letting anybody else in because they're not at war.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is a South African Afrikaners who are being classified as refugees.
unidentified		Right.
		Well, again, this is not a question of birthright citizenship.
		It's a question of the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.
		You know, I believe that the argument is that the South African government under President Ramposa, I believe that's how he pronounces his name, they're expropriating property from white, you know, white South Africans, but not from black South Africans.
		They're, in fact, taking their property and transferring it to black South Africans.
		And the administration has taken the position that that is extremely unfair and that they are subject to abuse and therefore they ought to get temporary protective status in this country.
		You know, we have temporary protective status.
		It's in our immigration laws.
		It's been exercised for all kinds of reasons.
		That there's a natural disaster in Haiti, for instance, who can bring in a large number of Haitians and give them a temporary protective status.
		We have our asylum laws are based on the fact that they're going to be subject to extreme discrimination, if not in danger of their life or liberty, if they remain in a particular country.
		And this is just an application of that, whether you agree with it or don't agree with that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got a question on X. Can you please ask for clarification on the two-year-old being, quote, deported?
		And I'll let you respond to that, John.
		But this is the Associated Press with the headline: Family of two-year-old U.S. citizen deported to Honduras drops lawsuit against Trump administration.
		So this is a different two-year-old.
		This is Honduran.
		This is not the one that we had talked about before.
		It said that the lawyers have confirmed on Tuesday that the family was dropping its lawsuit against the administration.
		The girl is one of three U.S.-born children who were deported alongside their Honduran-born mothers.
unidentified		Yeah, I don't know anything about the case.
		I mean, obviously, if she was born in this country, then there's the open question of whether she is a citizen or not.
		Obviously, her parents have been deported.
		This administration has taken the position that they are not going to give any quarter, no incentives to come to this country illegally.
		And one of those incentives is to give birth to a child who would automatically get the rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen.
		And I'm assuming that what happened is the parents were deported.
		The child was here to see whether it was going to go with another relative or friend in the country.
		And ultimately, the decision was made, no, go rejoin your parents.
		But I don't know the facts and circumstances of that particular case.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Tom Holman has said that he's not, quote, deporting these children.
		He's, I guess, sending them along with the parents who are choosing to take their parents with them.
		This is Woodrow in Augusta, Georgia, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, how are you doing?
		Just got two quick points.
		For your guests sitting there, I get so sick and tired.
		I was a military man 25 years.
		I get so sick and tired of hearing these people try to take the 14th Amendment, stuff that applied to slaves who were bought over on the Armistar ships and stuff against our will.
		Our great-great-grandparents, they didn't break into the country.
		They were drugged into here.
		And every time somebody come here illegally, they always want to call upon the 14th Amendment.
		But let me tell you one thing: me and all three of my brothers, we all retired from the military, about 79 years total.
		All of our children that was born overseas, they weren't naturally Japanese children.
		The ones that were born in Germany ain't German children.
		So how in the Hades these people come over here and want to have their children and think they're Americans?
		That ain't the way it works.
		And like the man asked the question a while ago, is there any other country that you can go have a baby and that child automatically gets on welfare, gets the benefits and everything else when it's not a citizen?
		Nowhere but here.
		And it's time for all that foolishness to stop and stop trying to tie everything to what they meant for the Africans.
		They didn't do it to the Indians, but they want to give everybody something.
		Them bleeding hard Democrats, they want to give everybody everything.
		But hell, somebody has to pay for it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Woodrow.
unidentified		Well, I want to thank Woodrow and his brothers for their service to our country.
		I'm extremely grateful, as we all should be, for the sacrifices that they made.
		I think that there are, in fact, one or two other countries, but I couldn't tell you what they are who recognize citizenship by dint of the fact that you are born on their soil.
		You know, the rest of it of what he said was a comment.
		You know, obviously the birthright citizenship issue comes up because of the 14th Amendment.
		The main reason to have the 14th Amendment was that the laws were supposed to apply equally, and that black people who had indeed been compelled here against their will from other countries and then raised families here, had children born in the soil, that they were entitled to all of the rights and accoutrements that come along with citizenship.
		And it overturned, as I said, the Supreme Court's most infamous decision in Dred Scott.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I'll just remind people that the Washington Post does have an article that lists the countries that do have birthright citizenship, if you're interested.
		It's about 30 countries that do have that.
		Here's Cynthia, St. Petersburg, Florida, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead, Cynthia.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		I have a question about the 14th Amendment.
		Everyone seems to be focused on the fact of the immigration part.
		But the 14th Amendment is also about me as a citizen.
		All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside.
		No state shall make or enforce any law that 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.
		So my question, if the Trump administration wants to get rid of Section 1 of Amendment 14, how will that affect me as a citizen of this country?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Cynthia, do you mean as regards to due process, life, liberty, process?
unidentified		Yes, a life, liberty, or property that I have without due process of law, deny me protection under the law.
		That's what I'm talking about, because it's not just about immigration.
		It's about people, about citizens like me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John Malcolm.
unidentified		Well, thank you very much for your question, Cynthia.
		You did leave out when you read the 14th Amendment the end subject to the jurisdiction thereof portion.
		That is a germane provision in terms of who gets all of the privileges and immunities and right to equal protection of the laws, et cetera, that you so correctly chronicled.
		People are going to have differences probably based on their views of Donald Trump and the policies that he is implementing about whether this is going to constitute a violation of the equal protection of the laws or a violation of due process.
		We are having lots and lots and lots of those political discussions.
		However, I don't think that anybody is questioning that the Constitution is the Constitution, that it should be fully and faithfully enforced, and that indeed, as a citizen, you are entitled to all of the rights and privileges that the 14th Amendment, and indeed all the other amendments and all the substantive provisions of the original Constitution entitle you to.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Eddie in New York, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, yes.
		I was just wondering, I would like to know if your guest knows what a Chinese maternity house is.
		There are houses where the Chinese government takes citizens that when they're in their seventh or eighth month, they ship them here for a month.
		They let them have their children.
		And then once they have their children, they take them back to China, where now they're U.S. citizens, but they're raised in China.
		They're loyal to China.
		We know they're doing it, but they're still getting away with it.
		And on the other one, with that two-year-old kid, I noticed how when you read this thing that the daughter was from the two-year-old where the baby was here, we kept her here because the mother was from Trenton Day, Al Agua.
		And why would we send a baby back with a mother like that?
		Thank you.
		Well, with respect to the latter, it's just my opinion.
		A mother is still a mother.
		Can be a bad person, but still a mother.
		And unless you're engaging in active child abuse, she's still a mother.
		With respect to your first comment, yes, one of the, there is a birth tourism industry where people will pay to come to our shores in their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy when it's still relatively safe to travel, and they will then stay in hospitals until they give birth and they will go back into their countries.
		And there are certainly evidence out there that there are some countries, surprise me if it was China, that are in fact sending people here to give birth so that at some point they can take those children who have been living back in China for many, many years and bring them back to the United States and then claim that the people that are coming back to the United States are in fact U.S. citizens by dint of the fact that they were born on our shores.
		I believe it is exactly abuses like that among many that led President Trump to enter the executive order that he did.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's John Malcolm, president of the Institute for Constitutional Government, sorry, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us.
unidentified		It was a pleasure being with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Coming up next, Vermont Democrat Becca Ballant on Republican efforts to pass President Trump's domestic policy bill and the case before the Supreme Court.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Ernest Cuneo played Ivy League football at Columbia University and was in the old Brooklyn Dodgers NFL franchise before becoming a City Hall lawyer and a brain trust aide to President Franklin Roosevelt.
		While on the payroll of National Radio Columnist Walter Winchell, Cuneo mingled with the famous and powerful, but his status as a spy remained a secret, hiding in plain sight.
		All of this is the way Hanover Square Press introduces readers to Thomas Mayer's book, The Invisible Spy.
		Mayer, a graduate of Fordham and Columbia, is an author and a television producer.
unidentified		Author Thomas Mayer with his book The Invisible Spy, Churchill's Rockefeller Center Spy Ring, and America's First Secret Agent of World War II on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, at 3 p.m. Eastern, Holocaust survivors speak at a remembrance ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Nazi concentration camps in 1945.
		The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum hosted the event at the U.S. Capitol.
		Then at 5:45 p.m. Eastern, Tom Hanks' immersive The Moonwalkers film on the Apollo missions to the moon and the astronauts who walked its surface.
		Mr. Hanks co-wrote the script and narrated the film.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, University of Texas history professor Mark Lawrence on the rise of Ronald Reagan, his impact on the conservative movement, and the Reagan administration's performance in his first term.
		And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, presidential historian Lindsay Chervinski talks about First Ladies Abigail Adams and Betty Ford, both known for their independence of thought and as political advisors to their husbands.
		Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
		Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 6:30 p.m. Eastern, NPR international correspondent Emily Fang shares her book, Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, where she reports on individuals in China who are pushing back against efforts to control free expression.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern, Columbia University's John McWhorter talks about the use and evolution of language and argues that the current controversy over pronoun usage in America is largely overblown in his book, Pronoun Trouble.
		At 9.15 p.m. Eastern, Steve Olson, author of Eruption, recalls the volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens in southwestern Washington on May 18, 1980, which resulted in the deaths of 57 people.
		Then, at 10 p.m. Eastern on afterwards, University of Michigan law professor Leah Littman explains why she believes the Supreme Court isn't making rulings based on legal principles in her book, Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.
		She is interviewed by author and Nation magazine justice correspondent Ellie Mistal.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		Joining us now is Representative Becca Ballant.
		She's a Democrat of Vermont and a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Budget Committee.
		Congresswoman, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So let's start with the case that is in front of the Supreme Court today.
		It's about birthright citizenship.
		Your views on that case.
unidentified		I think it's abundantly clear that the Constitution guarantees the right of birthright citizenship in this country.
		And it's shocking to me that we're even having this conversation, that it has worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court because we have had previous rulings on this and it's been clear.
		And some of the judges that have ruled have said that this is almost a laughable case because the language could not be any more clear than it is.
		And I think it is creating anxiety and fear among Americans that are already feeling a sense of anxiety because of economic pressures.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is why would Americans feel anxiety?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They're already Americans.
unidentified		Oh, but you see, you see, we are also facing an administration that is challenging our due process.
		And in the last week, you had Stephen Miller saying we're going to go after the writ of habeas corpus.
		The very foundations of what make us Americans, this is what I always say to constituents, regardless of party.
		The thing that makes us exceptional in the world is that we guarantee these rights to everyone who lives here and not just citizens.
		And so it's not just birthright citizenship on its own.
		It's the whole menu of things that this administration is pushing forward that is questioning the very foundation of who we are as Americans.
		So I find it terrifying.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Going back to the birthright citizenship, though, as you know, it is abused.
		I mean, you do have women coming who are pregnant just to have children here, just to give them American citizenship.
		You have people that have come into the country illegally, having children, and then those children now having all the rights and privileges of an American citizen.
		Do you think that that's fair just on the level, regardless of what the Constitution says?
unidentified		No.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think it's fair?
unidentified		But the thing is, that's an irrelevant question, whether it's fair or not.
		That's what's in the Constitution.
		We have a system to change the Constitution, and it's the amendment process.
		So This sense that somehow the president, regardless of party, can make these decisions about what is in or what isn't in the Constitution.
		It's in the Constitution.
		If you do not like it, if you think birthright citizenship should be changed, there is a process to do that.
		And so the question of whether it's fair or not, it's irrelevant.
		It's white noise because we have a structure.
		We have a constitution.
		That is what foundationally makes us Americans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, what the administration is arguing, though, is that the 14th Amendment says, as you know, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
		That's the phrase that have been coming.
		So all persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
		Their argument is that immigrants that are not here legally are not subject to the jurisdiction.
unidentified		And that is not at all how it's been interpreted for judges throughout our history.
		So we are plowing ground that's already been settled.
		And so I understand that that is their argument, but just because it's their argument doesn't make it valid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now another issue that is coming before the court is this idea of universal injunctions that one particular judge, wherever that might be, says we are stopping this and letting it go through the process, but it is stopped nationally.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		I think it's a check on the system and we desperately need a check right now.
		Look, the way the framers set up our government is that Congress would be an active check on the executive branch.
		We don't have this right now.
		My colleagues in committee are not being a check on this president.
		So you have to use the tools in the toolbox and one of those tools is these injunctions.
		And so regardless of who's in the White House, I think it's a tool that can be used to check the power of the president.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation with Becca Ballant, a Democrat of Vermont, you can do so.
		Our lines are by party.
		So Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202748-8002.
		You can start calling in now.
		Let's go to the other committee that you're on, which is budget.
		Your thoughts on the GOP reconciliation package as it stands now.
unidentified		I think it's a shocking betrayal of the middle class and the working class in this country.
		The fact that we are having a bill and a process pushed through that will kick off health care, you know, over 13 million Americans, the fact that there's a $230 billion cut to food benefits.
		This doesn't affect just our children.
		It affects our veterans.
		It affects the elderly.
		I think that when you look at the things that this president campaigned on, he did not campaign to the American people on giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy and to increasing our federal deficit.
		That's the piece that I want people to understand, that they are making cuts that are going to impact regular people, and they are giving another massive tax break to the wealthy while also adding over $2 trillion to the deficit.
		This doesn't make any sense.
		It doesn't pass the straight face test.
		I think most Americans see that.
		At a time when we have such gross economic inequality in this country, to be taking away food assistance, to be taking people away from the health care that they rely on, I think people are going to be outraged if this goes through.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, are there any changes to, let's say, Medicaid and SNAP benefits that you would accept?
unidentified		Well, again, I think it's the wrong question because right now, you have Medicaid, which is an incredibly tight system.
		There isn't massive fraud in the system.
		We know this.
		So we keep falling back on this rhetoric of waste, fraud, and abuse.
		There isn't that waste fraud and abuse.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How do you know that, Congresswoman?
unidentified		We have the data.
		We have the data.
		And when you look at who's committing fraud within Medicaid, it's not individual people.
		It is healthcare facilities.
		It is people overcharging.
		It's not the people.
		So when my colleagues sit in committee and say we have to go after those people who are not entitled to this insurance, that's not where the waste is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's been estimated at $150 billion a year of fraud.
		Now, regardless of, you know, you say it's not the people, it's not corporations.
		It could even be foreign actors.
unidentified		So let's go after that.
		So let's not fire illegally the inspectors general that are supposed to be doing the work.
		I mean, stuff is happening so fast and furious in this administration that you can hardly keep track of what happened in the first couple weeks of this administration.
		There will always be some waste in any system that's human created.
		I will grant you that.
		But the rhetoric that's being used is not about going after the systems that abuse it.
		It's about going after individual Americans, and they're not the ones causing the waste.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Janice, who is in San Diego, California, Republican line.
		Good morning, Janice.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a comment and then a question.
		My comment is directly directed to the entire Democrat Party of Congress and the senators.
		I was a Democrat, but I will never go back.
		The performances that you guys are putting on is disgraceful.
		It's embarrassing.
		Charging ICE officers, cursing in the streets like petulant children throwing temper tantrums.
		It is embarrassing.
		And the way that you continue to keep fighting for these illegal aliens, not just illegal aliens, but criminal illegal aliens, is not only disgraceful, it's traitorous behavior.
		My question is, I'd like to know, and another thing, that's why you guys lost.
		And the name calling, I've been called a Nazi.
		I'm a black woman.
		And you guys have truthfully, completely brainwashed your constituents because they all sound exactly like your party.
		And my question is, when will you start putting Americans first in America?
		Because until you do, you will continue to lose.
		Have a blessed day.
		So I didn't catch her name.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Janice.
unidentified		Janice, thank you.
		Janice, thanks for calling in.
		And I can hear the frustration and the anger in your voice.
		And I want to make it really clear to you that I am fighting for due process for Americans.
		That's why some of the actions of this administration is so alarming to me.
		And let me give you an example.
		There was a case in Oklahoma City a few weeks ago, and we talked about it in the Judiciary Committee.
		And you can go back and look at the tapes from that committee.
		It was a family of Americans living in Oklahoma City.
		ICE and Homeland Security and some local officials swooped down on this household of American citizens, forced the woman and her daughters out onto the streets in the middle of the night, in the rain, while they ransacked the house.
		And you don't have to just take my word for it.
		You can just Google this instance and you can see that this happened.
		And they continue to say, we are Americans.
		Why are you doing this?
		We have due process.
		You have the wrong family.
		You have the wrong house.
		And to this day, they still haven't had their belongings returned to them.
		They still haven't had their money and their electronic devices and computers returned to them.
		They are American citizens.
		So it is important to stand up for due process for everyone in this country because that's what the Constitution says.
		Now, in terms of what you were saying about being called names, that is not something that I condone.
		I take Nazism very seriously.
		My own family was impacted directly by Nazis.
		And I don't think that kind of dehumanizing rhetoric is helpful right now.
		So I am sorry that you have had that experience.
		But I can tell you that because of my experience and because I was taught at a very early age to be wary of any government, Democrat, Republican, Independent, that's going after my due process rights or the Constitution, that is incredibly worrying to me.
		But I do appreciate your call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jerry in Washington, D.C., a Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, this is Jerry.
		And I have two quick questions.
		And my first question is, do you think this is an inrun by the Trump administration to simply get rid of the 14th Amendment?
		And my question number two is, do you have the same fear that many Americans like me have, that one day we're going to wake up before the Trump administration is over and Russian tanks will be rolling down the streets of America?
		Thank you.
		Jerry, I really appreciate your question.
		I do have a lot of anxiety about this moment that we're in, as I said earlier, because of my family's experience, but also because I've studied authoritarian regimes.
		And unfortunately, what we're seeing right now from this administration is textbook.
		They go after education.
		They go after science.
		They are being in many ways thought-police about what we can and can't say.
		I was in a very chilling committee hearing the other day.
		And again, people can go back and look.
		Don't take my word for it.
		I was in a judiciary markup.
		It took between eight and nine hours.
		My Republican colleagues refused to talk with us.
		There was no debate.
		They looked at their feet.
		They left the room.
		Eight, over eight hours of silence from them, would not engage with us.
		And so these are the signs that give me a lot of concern.
		The comments that President Trump made in the Oval Office when you had Vladimir Zelensky there from Ukraine, the way in which he is willing to take gifts from regimes that are not our friends and seems to have no concern about the security concerns of our nation.
		He has decimated our foreign service and diplomacy around the world.
		So yes, I am very concerned that our president is more comfortable cozying up to autocrats than our allies.
		I mean, I live in Vermont.
		We have very strong relationships with Quebec.
		We do a lot of business with Quebec.
		We have travelers that come back and forth between our two borders.
		And the fact that he's going after some of our strongest allies and trading partners while cozying up to our adversaries is very disturbing to me.
		And I felt like you had a question at the top.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, Russian tanks rolling right now.
unidentified		Yes.
		So I think it's going to be much more subtle than that, honestly.
		I think what happens in these kinds of situations where people, as I said, my colleagues across the aisle in Congress are not using their power right now for checks on the system.
		It's going to be much less dramatic than that.
		But we're going to wake up and we're going to realize we didn't speak up enough for our due process rights in our Constitution, and we will find that they have been dramatically eroded.
		And I am concerned about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's your take on impeachment of President Trump?
		One of your Democratic colleagues had planned to file articles of impeachment.
		Then, according to CNN, Representative Jerry Nadler, who was in charge of impeaching Trump in 2019, said that that idea was, quote, idiotic.
		What do you think?
unidentified		Look, I know many people in this country looking at this presidency have said there are already so many instances of him committing high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and federal law.
		And impeachment proceedings cannot be done lightly.
		They cannot be done on a whim.
		It is something that takes weeks and months to develop in earnest with your top legal minds, making sure that you have the articles of impeachment ready in not just to document everything that's going wrong, but to make the case, because ultimately impeachment is making a case to the American people.
		And it can't be done on a whim.
		And so I have had my constituents ask me, do I think at this point there have been impeachable offenses?
		I think there's an argument to be made there.
		But we also know we have impeached this president twice.
		My colleagues across the aisle will not convict.
		And so right now in this moment, I am focusing on saving Medicaid, saving food benefits, making sure that the Constitution is respecting, or rather, this administration is respecting due process.
		Like we have battles to fight right now.
		And as I think the colleague that had those articles of impeachment that he was preparing them, he said he's gathering more information.
		I think that's what we all have to do.
		But in this moment, I'm trying to save the Americans who are about to be kicked off their health care.
		And that also is an urgent undertaking.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the Independent line, Melissa is in Bloomfield, Iowa.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Melissa.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Representative Blent, it's very rich coming from you that you're talking about due process.
		Where was my due process when illegals come across the border and rape a friend of mine and then nothing is done to them?
		Where's her due process?
		Where's every other American's due process when they come across the border, oh yes, and rape and steal, which causes everybody else's insurance and everything else to go up?
		They completely keep our emergency rooms full because they have no insurance and guess who pays for their medical care?
		We do.
		We are sick and tired of you worrying about everybody else that does not belong here.
		The children that were born here from these illegals, they don't belong here either for the simple fact that if their parents didn't come here illegally, they would have never have been born here.
		The only reason they do it is to get a check.
		How do I know?
		Because I go to Algona, Iowa, a freedom rally every year, and there's people that come up from Mexico and laugh because they have children born up here, go back to Mexico and live high on the hog off of our welfare that they get because we're too stupid not to pay them that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your response.
unidentified		Melissa, I'm very, I'm going to say at the top, I'm very sorry that your friend had that horrible, horrible experience.
		Nobody should have to go through that kind of brutality.
		So I have to say that before I say anything else.
		And I can hear your anger, your frustration.
		And again, I don't pick and choose whose due process rights I stand up for because the Constitution is clear.
		If you are in this country, you're entitled to them.
		That being said, I think that there is so much misinformation about what migrant workers bring to this country.
		And I can tell you that in my home state of Vermont and in states across the country, without migrant labor, our agricultural industry would collapse.
		I want legal pathways for people to come here and work legally.
		I want there to be a system for people to travel back and forth legally.
		They want to work here.
		They pay billions of dollars in taxes.
		And they don't get a dime back in services.
		They pay into the system, but they don't get it back.
		Now, I know that Americans want a safe and secure border.
		They want legal pathways for citizenship, legal pathways for people to work here.
		And we've been trying to work on that.
		And there was a bill in the Senate last Congress to do just that.
		And Donald Trump instructed the Republican senators to kill that bill.
		I also think it's important to acknowledge that right now, you've got a president who ran on border security.
		Crossings are down.
		He said he was going to go after the worst of the worst.
		But that's not what we're seeing.
		We're seeing this administration go after students who have had their free speech rights violated.
		He's going after a legal resident in Vermont.
		He's been here for 10 years, never had a charge against him.
		He was lured into an immigration hearing.
		His very last immigration hearing, he followed all the rules.
		He did everything right.
		And he was arrested and taken away by masked, hooded people in unmarked cars.
		I don't think that's the kind of country we want to live in.
		But again, I hear that you are feeling angry and feeling unsafe.
		And I think this is a situation that we have to work together on in Congress.
		But we don't seem to have willing partners right now who want comprehensive immigration reform.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Mike, a Republican in Bessemer City, North Carolina.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
		I got a couple points for the representative, if you don't mind and give me a couple minutes.
		First of all, you know, I know all the Democrats, when in 2020, they said Trump said he lost the election, that he won the election, it was the big lie.
		But all the liberal media, all the Democrats, the true big lie, is covering up for Biden's incompetency and his dementia.
		Mike, can I ask you a question?
		Are you still there?
		Yes, ma'am.
		Okay, so just it was a little hard to hear you.
		I have a little bit of a cold, so my ears are clogged up, so I apologize.
		Are you saying that the 2020 election was won by Trump?
		In my opinion, it was the win or lose thing is beyond the point.
		It's the so-called the big lie.
		But the Democrats are saying, you know, the big lie really in the liberal media is everybody covering up for Biden's dementia.
		You see, everybody now got their hand caught in the cookie jar and they're going to get rich for writing books like Jake Tapper.
		But the thing on the immigration thing, you, Representative, you voted against the SAVE Act.
		You voted against the Lake and Riley Act.
		And Vermont is one of the whitest, whitest country or states in the Union.
		Now, every liberal Democrat that wants to go like Garcia down there in El Salvador.
		Every one of y'all that are trying so hard to get all these criminals back out of El Salvador and stopping the deportations of illegals, you are, why don't every one of y'all that are for this, you take in the families, you pay for them from cradle to grave, you take care of responsibility, not the American taxpayer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mike, let's get a response.
unidentified		Mike, thanks for the call.
		I just want to make it really clear here.
		The issue is that we haven't been told what these people have done.
		They are being sent off on a plane to sit in essentially a penal colony that they will never get out of.
		We cannot find out whether they are alive.
		They have not been told what they're charged with.
		Again, if they can do this to people that they pick off the street, they can do this to anyone.
		And as I was saying earlier, you have an administration right now that is saying they would like to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which means that we all have a right to have our day in court.
		We all have a right not to be held without being told of the charges.
		And so, again, for me, I want to make sure that as Americans, we understand that if we are willing to suspend due process for some people, then those rights are not protected for all of us.
		And the reason why I voted against the Lake and Riley Act was specifically on this issue.
		The language was too broad, and it was clear to me that they would be going after due process, and that's exactly what's happening.
		Now, to your point, I wasn't quite sure what your point was about Vermont being the whitest state of the Union.
		I'm not sure what you mean by that.
		It doesn't impact my views on migration or immigration.
		We have been a refugee site for Afghan allies who helped us in the Afghan war.
		We have many people in Vermont who come from all over the world to work there.
		Again, we have many migrant workers who work on our farms.
		And so I want a comprehensive legal system of migration and immigration.
		And I think that's what most people want.
		They don't want their neighbors to be carted off in the middle of the night and never be told what charges they're being held because of.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He brought up the new book about former President Biden's decline and possible cover-up by his AIDS.
unidentified		So I haven't read it.
		I know I've heard the tale on the hill that Jake Tapper is on a book tour.
		I don't know anything about it.
		I will tell you that it's clear to me, even before any revelations come from this book, that Joe Biden should not have run again.
		It should have been an open primary, and we should have had an opportunity to have a full primary to see who should be carrying the torch.
		And I'm still very frustrated about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Becca Ballant, a representative from Vermont, a Democrat, a member of the judiciary, and the budget committees.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will finish up our program with open forum.
		So you can go ahead and call in now about anything that might be on your mind.
		The numbers are on your screen.
		You can, of course, talk about the Supreme Court case hearing about birthright citizenship or other issues.
		We will be right back after a break.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturday is on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, at 3 p.m. Eastern, Holocaust survivors speak at a remembrance ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Nazi concentration camps in 1945.
		The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum hosted the event at the U.S. Capitol.
		Then at 5.45 p.m. Eastern, Tom Hanks' immersive The Moonwalkers film on the Apollo missions to the moon and the astronauts who walked its surface.
		Mr. Hanks co-wrote the script and narrated the film.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, University of Texas history professor Mark Lawrence on the rise of Ronald Reagan, his impact on the conservative movement, and the Reagan administration's performance in his first term.
		And at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, presidential historian Lindsay Chervinski talks about First Ladies Abigail Adams and Betty Ford, both known for their independence of thought and as political advisors to their husbands.
		Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 6.30 p.m. Eastern, NPR international correspondent Emily Fang shares her book, Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, where she reports on individuals in China who are pushing back against efforts to control free expression.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern, Columbia University's John McWhorter talks about the use and evolution of language and argues that the current controversy over pronoun usage in America is largely overblown in his book, Pronoun Trouble.
		At 9.15 p.m. Eastern, Steve Olson, author of Eruption, recalls the volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens in southwestern Washington on May 18, 1980, which resulted in the deaths of 57 people.
		Then, at 10 p.m. Eastern on afterwards, University of Michigan law professor Leah Littman explains why she believes the Supreme Court isn't making rulings based on legal principles in her book, Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.
		She is interviewed by author and Nation magazine justice correspondent Ellie Mistal.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		This is Washington Journal.
		For those of you who are watching on C-SPAN 3, welcome.
		We are simulcasting now on that network as well because coming up at 10 a.m. C-SPAN will take you to our typical gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House.
		But we will remain with you here on C-SPAN 3 and take you to the Supreme Court for those oral arguments about birthright citizenship.
		We're also outside of the Supreme Court and we have our colleague Tammy Thuringer talking to some folks standing out there.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mimi.
		There are still people waiting in line.
		They did let some people in about an hour ago.
		They only let five people into the line.
		They're now waiting to see if they're going to allow any more in or if that will be it for today.
		Two people who have been in line for a very long time, Caitlin and Tal, thank you for being with us.
		Caitlin, tell us, you live here in DC, what you do, and your interest in being out here today.
unidentified		Sure.
		So I work in transportation research and policy, so it's not very tied to today's case, but I've been tracking a lot of other litigation and court cases that do relate to the realm that I'm in.
		But because of that work and that tracking, I've just gotten more interested in the courts and the work that they do, and I actually live in the neighborhood, so I figured I should take advantage of that while I can and come out and see if I can't get in.
		And this is kind of a once-in-a-lifetime sort of opportunity.
		And I'm a student at Georgetown Law here in the district, and I'm studying to do civil rights impact litigation.
		So this case is really important.
		Birthright citizenship is crucial to the United States as a country.
		We're one of the only countries to do so.
		And immigrants make this country and make this country beautiful.
		And so I'm here for the civil rights aspect of it.
		And as a law student, I also think nationwide injunctions are really important for curbing excessive administrative and executive power, which we're seeing from the current administration.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And we are keeping our fingers crossed for you.
		We're hoping that somebody's going to walk down and give you tickets to get inside still.
		If you were to get in there, what are your expectations?
		What were you hoping to see?
unidentified		Honestly, I've never been in the building, so anything is going to be great.
		But I'm really excited to see the justices and hear the oral arguments and just really feel the atmosphere.
		I feel like it's going to be really surreal to be in a building that old with that much history, knowing the cases that have gone there before and the decisions that have been made.
		So I'm just really looking forward to being a part of history and hearing the case.
		Yeah, and I think for me, one of my professors is arguing today, so I'd be excited to see her.
		I've seen her argue at the court before.
		Also, one of my professors writes a lot about nationwide injunctions.
		Both are at Georgetown Law.
		So I'm excited to see that come to fruition.
		Also, you know, it's interesting to be back and see cases in person.
		We listen to a lot of cases live online, but it's different when you go in person.
		I think also this is a historic moment and a big moment where the court continues to either establish legitimacy or questions its legitimacy based on how it rules here.
		And so being there for a historic moment that hopefully can expand rights to people and continue the rights that have existed for a long time is really, really important to me.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You work in law, but not immigration.
		You are a law student.
		What are your expectations for the case?
		Having reading a little bit about it, do you think that the justices will rule one way or the other?
unidentified		Well, I'm pretty, aside from law, I work in transportation.
		I've just been tracking cases.
		So I'm kind of a lay person, I feel like, very much a member of the public.
		But I do hope that they do not uphold this executive order.
		I don't think it'll be unanimous.
		My boyfriend and I disagree on this, but I don't think it'll be quite unanimous.
		But I don't think it makes sense for it to continue as is.
		I just think practically speaking, it won't make sense.
		And I don't think that it is who we are as a nation.
		I think the court has participated in a lot of unprecedented rolling back of civil rights that really matter to a lot of marginalized folks in this country.
		So I'm not confident with what they will do here.
		I hope that they will follow the law and follow what's right and follow what America's built on and uphold birthright citizenship and uphold the importance of nationwide injunctions.
		But I don't have confidence in the court as a body.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And you, along with others in this line who have been here for a very long time, have bonded after spending overnight on the sidewalk here outside the Supreme Court.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Tell us what time you got here and your thoughts on the Supreme Court using a lottery system to get people in this year.
unidentified		So we got here right before 9 p.m. last night, which was a bit of a surprise for us.
		We actually thought we would roll in around midnight.
		We grabbed a pizza last night and thought, oh, we should just swing by, see if there's anybody there.
		And when we came by, there was already a pretty good line.
		So we hustled right on over and set up camp.
		I think the lottery, I understand the incentive, I think, behind it, wanting to give more people opportunity.
		Not everybody has the ability to come out and stay overnight.
		That's, you know, families, parents, people with disabilities.
		I understand there's a lot of folks that probably can't do what we did.
		But I do think it takes away some of the excitement and the dedication that people are willing to put forward.
		So I would hope to see some sort of mix going forward.
		Yeah, so I was at dinner with one of my clients.
		I'm in the clinic at my law school.
		And I just came to check out the line.
		And then I was going to go home.
		I was supposed to go to my friend's concert.
		I was supposed to go get some sleep and then come back.
		But I came here and there were already 11 people in the line.
		And I heard they might only be letting 15 in.
		So I decided to stay for a little bit.
		And then honestly, the people are what kept me here.
		You know, you can go home and listen to the argument online and you can really engage with it intellectually.
		But we started talking.
		We started talking about political things.
		We started talking about fun things.
		And we had a lot of disagreements.
		But people that were open to disagreements and people that were ready to engage and people that, you know, ended up having more middle grounds than we might expect.
		And those conversations and those like friendships that have formed here honestly are one of the reasons why I say it instead of going to listen at home.
		So that was part of it.
		And then I think in terms of the system, I think, you know, it's important that the courts are open to the public.
		And I think the Supreme Court should open more seats to the public.
		I think that would be really good for the public to be able to see more Supreme Court oral arguments and for it to be more accessible.
		And I'm not sure that the lottery system does that, but also recognizing that it's very hard for people to just come sit out here, especially when you have work and things like that.
		So I'm not sure what the right system is, but I think it should be more accessible to the public for sure.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Well, we do hope you get in.
		If you don't and you don't already have it, you can download the free C-SPAN Now app and stream the arguments live on that.
		But Caitlin and Tal, thank you so much for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And as Tammy just said, you can listen to the oral arguments.
		Those are set to start at about 10 a.m. Eastern, a little under 20 minutes from now.
		We will take you there on C-SPAN 3.
		You can also take a listen on our website.
		It's also on our app, C-SPAN Now, and it's on C-SPAN radio.
		So if you're in the DC area or if you're on SiriusXM, you can listen on the radio as well to that.
		Let's go to William in Triangle, Virginia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		I'm a retired Marine, 100% disabled with aid and attendance, which I got serious injuries.
john goglia ▲ ● ▼		But on the birthrights thing, I tell you what it all boils down to is white America is afraid they're going to become the minority.
unidentified		And all these people that are coming in are brown and black people.
		They got Europeans coming in.
		You'd never hear about European immigrants being sent home.
		And he let the white South Africans in.
		What was Trump when all the black South Africans were getting dominated and mutilated and everything else in South Africa and their land taken away from them?
		They're just reversing what happened to them.
		Okay.
		So that's what it's all about.
		The country's becoming browner.
		And there'll no longer be a minority.
		I'm going to say majority.
		Whites would be a minority.
		Blacks would be a minority.
		Spanish, it'll be a minority country.
		And the white people can't take that because they've been in charge in charge of this country the whole time.
		And that's what they're afraid of.
		Buchanan talked about this back in the 80s.
		So this is nothing new.
		Trump is just putting it in place.
		And these are my comments.
		Thanks for listening.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Scott is in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, Republican line.
		Scott, hi, Scott.
		Go right ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, I have two questions.
		One deals with the due process question for this Democratic senator.
		Can I ask you a question?
		Where was the due process for, in general, all the U.S. citizens, when these illegals that you allowed, breaking the law under Joe Biden, to just pour across the border, there was no due process for us to protect us from all this influx of all these voters that you know that you let into this country because you knew once they got in here, then you would pull out the due process and say, oh, well,
		now they need new process in order for us to remove them.
		And the whole idea is knowing that it's going to take forever to do that.
		So in the meantime, you've got a pile of new voters.
		And that's why also, where's the due process for Americans on all the benefits that you just handed to them as soon as they came across the border?
		Phones, health care, this, that, all on our dime.
		Where was our due process?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Scott.
		And CNN is reporting this.
		FEMA is, quote, not ready for hurricane season, according to an internal agency review.
		It says, so hurricane season starts June 1st.
		It's about two weeks.
		It says, prepared at the direction of new acting administrator David Richardson as part of a problem-solving exercise at FEMA.
		The document outlines the agency's struggles in recent months and raises a number of red flags ahead of hurricane season, including a general uncertainty around its mission, lack of coordination with states and other federal agencies, low morale, and red tape that will likely slow responses.
		The document says, quote, as FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood.
		Thus, FEMA is not ready.
		You can read that at CNN.com.
		And this is John, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
unidentified		Hello, Mimi.
		Good morning.
		My call is primarily about a frontline show that was on PBS about the Miami mamas.
		And this is where Russian women would come to the United States and pay $50,000 to have a child here to the Trump hotels.
		And I just wondered if that was brought up at all at your discussion about the immigrants.
		These women would have babies here, they'd stay here about six weeks and then go back to Russia.
		Their children would be considered American citizens.
		And that was on PBS frontline.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The other thing, too, is a- So wait, before you go to that, I actually do have something from South Florida NBC, a local station.
		FBI raids Miami Mama businesses in Hollandale Beach.
		It says that this is a business that specializes in providing pregnant mothers from foreign countries the option to have their babies born in America to obtain citizenship.
		It's called Miami Mama LLC, and it's located in Florida.
		The FBI confirmed that they were conducting, quote, law enforcement activity in the vicinity of the Broward County building, but gave no other information.
		It says that Russian women who want to give birth to their child in the best climate and with the best quality of health care.
		That's what the company's website says.
		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		And they were paying $50,000 to the Trump organization.
unidentified		The other thing is, too, to change the amendment, 14th Amendment, doesn't that have to go through the two-thirds of Congress and also two-thirds of the states before they can actually change an amendment, the 14th Amendment?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's pretty rigorous.
unidentified		How does the Supreme Court fit in that?
unidentified		I don't understand how the Supreme Court can judge on this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So the Supreme Court's going to interpret what they believe the 14th Amendment says or means, or that's where the Supreme Court comes in.
unidentified		Okay, well, I don't understand how they can rule on it when it has to go through the Congress and also through all the states, the United States to change an amendment.
		I don't understand how that's possible.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Here's Ben, Longwood, Florida, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Ben.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I have a very simple question for the representative from Vermont, and that is: is it legal for people to come into the United States without documentation?
		And I believe that this question is the underlying reason why the Democrats lost the last election.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Bill, who is in Florida, lying for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
		Hope all is well with everybody.
		I have a couple questions, and I'll put this out with the birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court.
		I asked the four white men on the Supreme Court to check back on their lineage because I would bet they were born under birthright citizenship.
		The four white men, I'm not talking about the others, just the four white men.
		And my other point is here in Florida, they're taking people off of construction sites.
		I call them refugees.
		They're not migrants, they're human beings.
		And they're taking them off construction sites.
		And my clock is correct.
		It's only a couple weeks till hurricane season.
		And this is very detrimental to Florida as well as the country.
		So my question, my other question is: will you pay $10 for a salad now if they remove all these so-called migrants, which I think the human beings, we're going to be paying $100 for a salad when we go out to eat in a year from now.
		And those are my two points, but mainly the Supreme Court.
		Ask the white men their lineage.
		They were born, I bet, under it.
		So that's my point.
		How's that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Barbara in Philadelphia, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Barbara.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just ask that I hear it mainly from white Republicans.
		If you can just settle down for a moment, because everything is immigrants, immigrants.
		No one is stopping to listen.
		You're so passionate.
		And this is also for blacks.
		We need to just focus on what was said today by the host, the representative that was on.
		The movement of this administration is subtle.
		They want you to focus on other things so they can move right on in and take over.
		Now, I know you don't want to hear this, people, because there are a lot of folks out here saying, oh, it's not going to be me.
		I have a good job.
		I have this, that, and the other.
		Before you know it, it'll be you.
		Nothing is wrong with focusing on immigration.
		You can do what you want to do and try to stop this, get the criminals, all of it.
		But stop and think about you and what will happen to you down the road.
		That's all I ask.
		That's what my motto is going to be for the next couple of years.
		I want people to calm down and think about the big picture.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Barbara.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Jess Braven was with us earlier this morning talking about this case in front of the Supreme Court and outlying the issues.
unidentified		In this case, there are really two, in a sense, almost unrelated issues to keep in mind.
		One is what you just talked about, what's called birthright citizenship.
		The 14th Amendment says that all children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
		And that was ratified in 1868 to eradicate the Dred Scott decision, which held that black people could not be citizens from the 1850s and before the Civil War.
		And for more than a century, it has been understood to mean pretty much every child in the U.S. other than children of foreign diplomats and previously in the early years, children from some Indian tribes were automatically citizens of the United States.
		And that is the issue that President Trump, I suppose you can say, triggered on January 20th with an executive order saying, no, that's wrong.
		People have been applying the Constitution the wrong way.
		And in fact, it does not apply to children whose parents do not include at least one U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident of the United States.
		So unauthorized migrants, tourists, people on student visas, temporary visas, their children would not count.
		So that's the substantive issue.
		And it's really a remarkable one.
		It's, I think, the first time we've seen a president unilaterally redefine what the Constitution means and what's been really a settled understanding.
		But there are a few scholars who dispute that, and the president agrees with them and thus issued this order.
		So that's the substantive issue.
		There is a procedural issue which is almost as important, and that is actually what the administration is appealing.
		That's the technical matter that the government brought to the Supreme Court, and that is something called a universal or nationwide injunction.
		As you said, Mimi, there are three lower courts that have blocked this order and said it's patently unconstitutional.
		And they blocked it for the entire United States, not just for the coalition of 20-plus states and some immigrant rights groups that brought lawsuits in these three jurisdictions, but throughout the entire United States.
		And the government argues that even if they're entitled, the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction blocking this order for now while litigation goes forward, and litigation would be quite complex over the coming months and years, it should not apply to states and parties who are not involved in the lawsuit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So effectively, if somebody didn't actually sue, they shouldn't have this injunction apply to them.
unidentified		Right, right.
		And assuming that the states are entitled to bring this lawsuit, and the government isn't sure about that, but we know states sue the federal government all the time.
		So assuming that they are, that means that if the government gets what it wants regarding those injunctions, they don't want any injunctions, but assuming that they allow those preliminary injunctions to go into effect, that means you have a situation where in about half the country, children born to non-legal permanent residents would be U.S. citizens and half the country where they would not.
		And that would be a very, I suppose if you're the county clerk registering births, that might be an interesting situation to be in.
		So that is the procedural issue.
		And the background is that there have been dozens of these universal or nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against controversial Trump administration policies that they have found are likely unlawful and therefore they are blocking them and many of those are blocked nationwide and the Trump administration feels they're being having their agenda stymied improperly by the lower courts and that they don't want these nationwide injunctions.
		They want the court to say federal judges don't have the power to block a policy for everybody, only for the parties before them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was on this program earlier this morning, and you're looking at live footage of outside the Supreme Court.
		You see, there's protesters there, people lined up.
		They have started letting some people come into the building, but we will stay with you until we take you over there at their scheduled to start in about five minutes on C-SPAN 3, and we'll take you to the house over on C-SPAN.
		Jay Edgewater, Florida, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Boy, that was a long five minutes of listening to him gloviate again.
		That's the second time you played the exact same stuff with him.
		You misled everybody on a couple of callers ago that was talking about the Miami situation.
		You let him go on and accuse Donald Trump's organization of receiving money.
		There is nothing in those articles.
		And while you were looking it over while he was talking, you didn't stop him and say that there was nothing in there about Donald Trump's organization taking money from these people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sorry about that, Jay.
		I didn't get to read the entire article.
		And I hadn't heard about it.
unidentified		I wasn't able to know that that's what he was doing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I only read the very beginning of the article.
		So if you want to read the rest, you can.
		And I will let people know where that they can find that article and if they'd like to read it.
		So Lizzie in Bloomington, Indiana, Democrat.
		Good morning, Lizzie.
unidentified		Hello.
		Glad for C-SPAN.
		Hello, America.
		Hoping to stay America.
		What is really happening to be in the news is we have been taken over by the very filthy rich people and Donald Trump and the Heritage Foundation.
		Project 2025 is all happening in front of our eyes.
		People need to wake up.
		They're taking our Social Security, our Medicare, our Medicaid.
		They're getting ready to vote on a tax cut for the richest, and they want to pass that.
		And my representative here, Aaron Houchin, won't even write me a letter back and explain to me why they're taking over our country.
		We have a dictator right now.
		Not that I want to admit it, but he is, he just took a gift.
		They're not supposed to take dip or, you know, a momulance from countries that isn't okay.
		And those people have killed news people.
		They have killed, I can't say his name, Khajogi or something like that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Shamal Khashoggi.
		Yes.
		Saudi Arabia, yes.
unidentified		Yes.
		And I mean, we need to wake up because this is how it happens.
		If you go back to history to Hitler, just look at how it all happened.
		He goes after the education.
		He tells people lies.
		They lie, lie, lie.
		I mean, we have to wake up.
		Please, America, please get this to stop.
		Don't let the Supreme Court.
		I mean, we have our birthrights.

▲