Guests

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about President Donald Trump’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Several justices seemed highly skeptical of the administration’s arguments, though a final ruling is not expected for months.

“I think the oral arguments went really well for our side,” says Aarti Kohli, the executive director of the Asian Law Caucus and co-counsel in the Supreme Court case.

We also speak with Norman Wong, a descendant of Wong Kim Ark, whose landmark 1898 Supreme Court case affirmed birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Citing the Bruce Springsteen song, Wong says that being “Born in the U.S.A.” means someone is part of the national community. “We need to stand as Americans together, regardless of color or religion or where we came from,” he says. “We haven’t always gotten it right with all the people here. But that doesn’t mean we should make it worse.”

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on one of the most consequential cases of the year, the constitutionality of President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order declaring children born in the United States to parents without permanent legal status would no longer be granted citizenship automatically. The case has been working its way through the courts. Last July, a federal appeals court in California said the order violates the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to, quote, “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” unquote.

In 1898, the Supreme Court reaffirmed birthright citizenship. That case was brought by Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. He was barred from reentering the U.S. despite being a citizen.

AMY GOODMAN: Questions from both conservative and liberal members of the court revealed skepticism of the Trump administration’s arguments.

Cecillia Wang of the ACLU argued against the constitutionality of the [executive order]. Speaking to reporters and supporters after leaving the court, she, a birthright citizen herself, said she was confident in their arguments.

CECILLIA WANG: I come out of the court today with the thought of my parents and so many of our parents and ancestors who came to this country seeking refuge, seeking new opportunities, and who relied on the rule that we’ve had in this country for 150 years that everyone born here is a United States citizen, all alike. And I’m confident that the court is going to turn back this president’s effort to radically rewrite our 14th Amendment rule of birthright citizenship. I want to thank the whole team behind me who have brought this case from the very beginning. We have a nation of millions on our side, and we couldn’t be more confident about our arguments here. Thank you.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: President Trump broke precedent by attending the arguments in person, sitting in the front row before leaving the court early. During a luncheon at the White House afterwards, he criticized the justices.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You could have a case where the person you’re suing admits they’re guilty, and if you’re in front of a Democrat judge, they’ll overturn that admittance. Now, it’s very unfair. Republicans, judges and justices, they always want to show that they’re independent. “I can — I don’t care if Trump appointed me. I don’t care if — he doesn’t make any difference to me. I’m voting against him.” Because they want to show their independence. You know, stupid people. …

So, Pam and I were over there with some people. We watched, and actually nobody knew what the hell was going on. Simple subject. Simple subject. It’s — look at the time. It was passed right at the end of the Civil War. It was for the babies of slaves.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests. Norman Wong joins us from Washington, D.C., great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark. He gathered with supporters outside the Supreme Court yesterday. Aarti Kohli is the executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, co-counsel in the case. She attended oral arguments yesterday, joining us from Oakland, California.

Aarti, let’s begin with you. Talk about how the oral arguments went yesterday. Trump walked out after his side was argued. But the significance of what the justices, across the political spectrum, asked, and where you think this case is headed?

AARTI KOHLI: Yeah, I think the oral arguments went really well for our side. As you may know, the Asian Law Caucus is co-counsel in the case with the ACLU. And I thought Cecillia Wang did a phenomenal, phenomenal job. And the justices had a lot of questions for General Sauer.

And I think it was also pretty notable that President Trump came to the courtroom. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate the justices. But, you know, once he sat down, people were focused on the court and the questions, and there was really not much attention paid to him.

So, yeah, I think the oral arguments went really well. I felt like justices were quite skeptical of General Sauer’s arguments.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Aarti, if you could talk about what specifically Trump is attempting to do? Because, of course, there are many levels of birthright citizenship, and what he’s trying to do is eradicate unrestricted birthright citizenship, which I understand only Canada and the U.S. have, at least among developed countries or advanced wealthy countries.

AARTI KOHLI: A very simple and clear rule, and it actually has made America what it is, which is a very vibrant and diverse society. And so, the current rule is, if you are a child born on American soil, you are a U.S. citizen, and with very limited, narrow exceptions, unless you’re born — you’re a child of an ambassador or part of a tribal community.

So, what the executive order does is say, if your parents — at least one parent has to be either a green card holder or a U.S. citizen. So, we’re talking about students, researchers, undocumented people, H-1Bs, asylum seekers, people who have not yet been granted asylum, temporary protected status, DACA. I mean, we’re talking about hundreds and thousands of babies. And for some of them, they would get citizenship through their parents’ birthplace, but many would be stateless. So, you know, they would have no documentation and no ability to travel. And, you know, it would be a game changer for not just those children, but for the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Wong, I’d like to bring you into the conversation. Tell us what happened to your great-grandfather, Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese American whose citizenship was challenged by the U.S. government in 1895.

NORMAN WONG: Well, like Bruce Springsteen, Wong Kim Ark, my great-grandfather, was born in the U.S.A., in San Francisco Chinatown specifically. His parents weren’t allowed to become U.S. citizens, but they were allowed to come, man and wife, to America. They were trying to make their dreams here. The parents and Wong Kim Ark left, and they — but he came back as a child to live the American dream, because when he was born here and raised here and left here, when he was, I think, about 7, in his soul was really American. His behavior was American. And so he came back as a very young boy, I believe, to work in the United States in the gold mines as cooks’ help. And everything I find out about him says he definitely was born in the U.S.A.

And I grew up — I was born in the U.S.A. I was born here. And I believe I thought like the way he must have thought, and that’s why he had a sense, not of entitlement, but of fair play. He had a sense that America was a land of opportunity and that he could do things that he couldn’t do if he was in China as Chinese, because, actually, the Chinese, in a sense, were a conquered people. The Manchus ran that country, and it was being carved up by the Europeans, so it was under great, great stress. America provided the opportunity that his parents didn’t have here or in China, because they were chased out in 1877 when the Chinatowns were burned down. So, he saw America as a safe place and a place of opportunity. I saw that, too, when I was a child.

And I thank people like Bruce Springsteen for singing and standing up for us. In San Francisco, we took his words and used them in our speeches to convey what we — how we felt, and so I appreciate it. Yesterday, we had African Americans who spoke eloquently in front of the Supreme Court in our behalf, and I thank them, because we need to stand as Americans together, regardless of color or religion or where we came from, because most all of us, I understand more than 300 million Americans, owe their citizenship, ultimately, to birthright citizenship. Only the Indigenous people came, are the first people, the first nation, are not birthright citizenship. They had their original place in our country.

And I feel that we haven’t always gotten it right with all the people here, but that doesn’t mean we should make it worse. We should try to fix what we’ve done wrong and make amends where we can make amends and try to make this indivisible one country, under God, with life, liberty and justice for all. I’m sorry if I got the pledge wrong, because it’s been many years since I had to say it. But I think we all understood what it meant even as a child. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Aarti Kohli, as we wrap up, we just have 30 seconds. But the reference to enslaved people, how they fit in to the issue of birthright citizenship?

AARTI KOHLI: Yes, I mean, we have the 14th Amendment because the government at that time, Lincoln wanted to make sure that the children of enslaved people were born Americans, and wanted to make it clear that anybody born on American soil was Americans. And that’s how the law has been interpreted for the past 150 years, since the Amendment was ratified. And that’s what Wong Kim Ark decided. And, you know, that court, the Wong Kim Ark court, was not a progressive court. This is the court that decided Plessy v. Ferguson, and they reluctantly affirmed this right. And it’s something that all Americans have benefited from since its inception.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us. We’ll be talking much more about this in the coming weeks. Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, co-counsel on the birth citizenship case, oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court yesterday. And Norman Wong, great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark.

Coming up, we look at Israel’s new death penalty law, designed only to apply to Palestinians. Back in 20 seconds.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Resistance Revival Chorus.