The history of how birthright citizenship started in California after an 1898 Supreme Court case

Good morning everyone. Rob Bonte, California attorney General, thanks for being here today. I wanna first welcome my longtime friend in San Francisco City Attorney David Chu, who you’ll be hearing from shortly as well as Gabriel Medina, executive director of La Raza Community Resource Center. And also Larry Yee, president of the Lee Family Association, *** member of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. We’ll hear from everyone shortly. We’ll do some questions after and uh before we get into it, I want, I want to recognize my team in the civil rights enforcement section at the California Department of Justice who’ve been working overtime, literally around the clock, especially the last 24 hours, uh, without them, uh, what I’m about to talk to, talk about, uh, wouldn’t be possible. I am deeply disappointed that we’re here one day into the new administration and also not at all surprised. In the hours after President Trump was sworn into office, he issued an onslaught of disastrous and damaging executive orders, including one that seeks to end birthright citizenship. In one fell swoop, he stripped the constitutional right to citizenship for children who will be born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The president chose to start his 2nd term by knocking down one of our country’s foundational long-standing rights and disregarding our nation’s governing document. *** terrifying tone to set for the rest of his term. Sadly, this order and many others come as no shock. Trump is following through on *** campaign promise. Today I’m also following through on *** promise. To take action if Trump violates the law and infringes on our rights, on your rights. As he did today with what is frankly an un-American executive order. I have one message for President Trump. I’ll see you in court. We are filed. Our case is filed now as we speak moments ago in the District of Massachusetts in the First Circuit, uh, this morning, um, as stated, the lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order, uh, is on file. It has multiple grounds it. States that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, violates our US Constitution. It also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and flouts more than 125 years, *** century and *** quarter of long standing, well established precedent set by the US Supreme Court. The president has overstepped his authority by *** mile. And we will hold them accountable. I’m asking the court for *** preliminary injunction to immediately block this order from taking effect and ensure that the rights of the many American born children harmed by it should be in effect while the litigation proceeds. Fortunately I do not stand alone. I’m joined by my co-leads, the attorneys general from Massachusetts and New Jersey, as well as attorneys general from 15 other states around the country, as well as Washington DC and the great city and county of San Francisco. I want to be clear that this isn’t some theoretical legal disagreement I have with the president. If allowed to stand, this order would endanger thousands of US citizens who will be born in the next year, real children. And families just trying to live their lives in peace. It would strip Americans of their most basic rights and their privileges they owed as citizens. Children would be forced to live under the threat of deportation. The fear, anxiety, and trauma of that alone is enormously detrimental to their mental and emotional wellbeing. They lose the ability to obtain Social Security numbers and *** passport. When they grow up, they wouldn’t be able to work legally. They wouldn’t be able to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain political offices. They lose eligibility for *** wide range of federal programs such as federal food and housing assistance, federal financial aid for students and more. This stands to impact more than 20,000 babies born each year in California. Who would have, who would have been citizens who should be citizens. On top of the impact on vulnerable, innocent children and their families, disorder will directly harm our state. The great state of California. California will lose critical federal funding for programs that thousands of people rely on, including Medi-Cal and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, uh, commonly regarded, uh, referred to as CHIPP. The state’s ability to receive federal funding for those programs and others hinges on the immigration status of the persons they’re serving. Not to mention the massive administrative burden this will put on California agencies that will have to alter their operations immediately to implement changes by February 19th when the order goes into effect, changes that will come at considerable expense. The ripple effect of this order on families, communities, and our state is truly devastating. Birthright citizenship is foundational. To our nation’s history, to California’s history, to our very identity. Let’s be clear, it’s not new. Not at all radical. It’s *** it’s *** tradition that dates back to the beginning of our nation’s history. In the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, the court wrongly denied birthright citizenship to descendants of slaves. That terrible decision, *** stain on our nation’s history, along with slavery, was remedied after the Civil War by the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The amendment promises. The citizenship clause of the US Constitution states, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein. They resign. It’s *** right that has already been challenged in the US Supreme Court twice. And twice upheld. One such case centered around *** San Francisco born Chinese American named Wong Kim Mark. And I know the city attorney will talk more about this, who successfully sued the United States when he was denied entry back into his own country after visiting family in China. Officials wrongly claimed. He wasn’t *** citizen. In 1898, the Supreme Court took up Mr. Ark’s case and affirmed that children born to immigrants in the US like Arc. Could not be denied citizenship. That case was 125 years ago. Over 125 years ago. The questions around birthright citizenship have been asked and answered. This is settled. This is established. Resolved in the highest court of the land, the US Supreme Court. This is done and dusted. This is decided. Birthright citizenship should not be up for debate. Of course, to Trump, law and order, judicial precedents, Constitutional rights have little bearing. He does what he wants to do when he wants to do it, how he wants to do it, regardless of the law, unfortunately. In California, we won’t allow that as California’s chief law enforcement officer, I won’t allow that. I won’t allow our president to willfully violate the US Constitution. And violate the rights of US citizens and get away with it. So we’re in court. Make no mistake, we’re *** nation of immigrants. It’s in our DNA, especially here in California. We’re home to more immigrants than any other state, 11 million strong, nearly half from Latin America, more than 40% from Asia, uh, making up almost 30% of our population. Immigrants who contributed and contribute enormously to our workforce, fuel our economic might and strength and power. Who make up 1 in 3 of our workers who pay taxes, who bring in new ideas, innovations, and perspectives, who grow our food, run flourishing businesses, and lead our communities who enliven our cities with their rich cultures and favorite traditions, immigrants who are our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones. Families who came from across Latin America, Asia, and around the world dreaming, longing for *** better life. *** brighter future for their children for opportunity that they didn’t have. People like my own mom who was born and raised in the Philippines. Who had me in the Philippines and came here lawfully with me in tow at 2 months old when she feared the rise of *** dictator and martial law in her home country which were both around the corner. Who lived here legally with *** green card for many years. And eventually became *** citizen so she could vote for me in her, in my first election. In California, we stand by our immigrant communities, we stand up for our immigrant communities. Because we know Our diversity is both our story and our strength. It makes us great. It makes us strong. As California attorney General, I will always defend that belief. I will always protect Californians, including our immigrants. And their children. I will always enforce and defend our laws. Immigrants are and always will be welcome in California. I’m here to make sure of it. The executive orders Trump released yesterday may be the first, but we can be sure they’re not the last. Between Trump 1.0, Project 2025, and his campaign promises, we’ve had *** good idea of what’s to come, and we’ve been preparing. My team is actively reviewing each order and you can be sure that where we see laws violated, rights trampled on, freedoms attacked, we will take action. We are ready to take on the challenges of *** second Trump administration. To ensure that in California our progress will continue and that our progress will prevail. We will be here to choose calm over chaos. Belonging over blame unity over division, us and we over I and me. To stand on the side of law and order, respect the history of this nation, protect the rights of our people. It’s who we are. In the Golden State, nothing and no one. Can change that. No matter who is in the White House, no matter who holds control of Congress in California. We’re gonna keep moving forward. We’re gonna stay on our path of progress. Before I close, I again want to express my appreciation for my team at DOJ who prepared this lawsuit and who are working tirelessly to defend the rights of all Californians as our nation. Embarks on this new chapter. They don’t do it for the recognition, but I’m going to embarrass them anyway. Denise Levy. Irina Tresoven, Marissa Malouf, Christina Boll Art, Michael Newman, Damon Brown, Francesca Gesner, Danielle O’Bannon, thank you. I appreciate your work. I’m honored to be your colleague. Thank you for all you have done, are doing, will continue to do. Thank you for getting us to this very important point in this litigation. I will now turn it over to my great friend and the incredible city attorney of the San Francisco City Attorney’s office, David Chu. Good morning. I want to thank all of you for being here and so it begins. Let me start by thanking our great Attorney General Banta for his leadership on so many fronts, particularly during these times that we find ourselves in. AG Bonta and I have worked side by side over many years in many fights for justice, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity for myself, our office, the city and county of San Francisco to team up with AG Banta, his great Department of Justice, and your state attorney general colleagues around the country on this lawsuit. And uh taking *** lead from them, I also wanna take *** moment and recognize my staff who have been working around the clock in recent weeks on this, Ivanne Moray, David Lau, Molly Eleon, Molly Lee, who’s not here, Jenort, Kenneth Chen and others. Yesterday, Donald Trump made good on his campaign promise to target our immigrant communities, our family members, our workforce. Immigrants have made our country great, are crucial to our economic success, are central to our nation’s social and cultural fabric. This is *** tragedy as our nation can no longer stand true to the promise of the Statue of Lady Liberty and America’s history of welcoming immigrants. Now, before this week, we’ve heard Donald Trump repeatedly and blatantly disregard the rule of law. With his executive order ending birthright citizenship, acting without legal authority, Donald Trump continues to cast aside long standing constitutional principles. As RAG described, birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in 1868 with the post-Civil War ratification of the 14th Amendment. And if I may plainly state it again, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside. It is simple, it is clear, it is plain. The 14th Amendment’s guarantee is regardless of race, color, or background. And this principle, grounded in fairness and accountability and inclusivity, has remained constitutional bedrock for 157 years. The story of birthright citizenship is as San Francisco as they come. San Francisco has *** unique connection to birthright citizenship, when one of our very own citizens stood up for his constitutional right in the late 1800s. Wong Kimmark was born in San Francisco on Sacramento Street to immigrant parents. He became *** cook. In 1895, while traveling back from China to his home in San Francisco, he was denied reentry back in the US due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. And despite the anti-immigrant era and anti-Chinese bigotry, As well as the fact that the then US Solicitor General was prosecuting his case, Wong Kim Ark had the courage to challenge this decision. Chinese family networks pulled resources through the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association to provide him with legal counsel. And I want to thank the leadership of the CCBA for being here and you will hear from them momentarily. In 1898, the US Supreme Court recognized Wong Kimmark’s citizenship, reaffirming the 14th Amendment principle that anyone born in our country is *** citizen. And that case has been the law of the land for 127 years. Now, overturning this 127 year precedent is contrary to our American values and *** ruthless attack on newborns and future generations of Americans. Ending birthright citizenship would impede their integration and their assimilation into society, their educational and economic future, and that hurts all of us. To deny some children the basic rights that other children in our country have will create *** permanent multi-generational underclass of those who will have been born in our country, but will never have lived anywhere else and be effectively stateless. These children will not be able to naturalize or obtain citizenship from another country. They will live under constant threat of deportation. And as they age, they won’t be able to work lawfully or vote. They will have limited ability to travel and will be challenged in accessing health care. Now like our attorney general, this is personal to me as the first child born in this country to my immigrant parents, this is personal to *** large majority of San Franciscans of Californians and Americans who are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. It will be so harmful to our economy, in addition to creating intense personal chaos for so many in our community. I’ll note that this executive order will also result in the loss of federal funding to state and local governments such as San Francisco. For example, San Francisco is responsible for administering federal state funded public benefits programs like Cow Works and CalFresh. San Francisco receives funding based in part on the number of eligible recipients, and eligibility is determined by proof of *** valid Social Security number. Without Social Security numbers, San Francisco cannot verify otherwise eligible newborns who qualify for these programs. This executive order will result in the direct loss of significant federal funding to San Francisco to provide aid and administer these programs. San Francisco, on the other hand, will still have to bear the inherent costs of caring for our residents whether or not they have Social Security numbers and are eligible for assistance. Let me close by saying that I’m here, are AG’s others, we’re here and hopeful that our federal judges will take their oaths of office seriously, that they will uphold longstanding constitutional principles and do the right thing, and we look forward to litigating this in the courts alongside our attorney general. Introduce. Um, this moment, I’d like to introduce from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, the association that, uh, many, many years ago helped to defend Wong Kim Mark, Larry Yee, to say *** few words. Uh, first of all, my name is Larry Yee from the Chinese Consolid Benevolent Association, past president, and, uh, with me, I have my president from the Say up, uh, Steven Liu, and also lead uh Ding Lee. He’s our historical chair. Um, so, I wanna also thank, uh, Attorney General Rob Monte for fighting this fight, along with our city attorney, David Chiu, and all our communities, uh, members who has, uh, stand with this, uh, birthright. Uh, the Chinese Consolidated Bement Association. Took this on 17, 128 years ago before it went to the Supreme Court. We challenged it, and we supported uh Wong Kimak in his right to be having the birthright citizenship that we all enjoy. I know me, myself, as *** child of immigrant too, and I can see the benefits that this to hold this birthright. And make it the 14th Amendment. Still, you know, whatever Trump says, we need to fight it and fight it to the max and continue to fight this. I know it’s gonna be *** tough fight. Uh, this guy will probably throw the kitchen sink at us, but the Chinese Consolid Benevolent Association mandate this 127 years ago, that birthright is our right, is our civil right. is our economic right and we’ll continue to fight this. And, and again, thank you again, um, Attorney General Rob Monte, uh City Attorney David Chiu, and all the attorney generals throughout the states, we need to continue this fight. Thank you. Good good good morning everybody. My name is Gabriel Medina. I’m the executive director with La Raza Community Resource Center here in San Francisco for the last 55 years. Uh, with me is Del Del Medina, uh, one of our board members for La Raza Community Resource Center. We are *** family family resource center and immigration Legal defense center, as well as *** basic needs center. And uh we serve as *** bridge uh between, you know, newcomer families and San Francisco and uh I’m very grateful uh to the Attorney General Rob Banta today for introducing this, uh, standing up for our civil rights and also for City Attorney David Chu as well. Thank you so much, uh, consistently fighting for our civil rights here in San Francisco. Last night I was watching, um, you know, kind of the executive orders being rolled out on the news with my grandma, uh, on, and, you know, in, in Oak Grove, you know, she’s 93 years old. Uh, her, my mom, and my great grandma all came here as immigrants from Mexico, you know, um, and, uh, on, on the news popped up attorney General, uh, Rob Bonta’s face saying we will fight for your rights. So just my mom, my grandma cannot hear, but on, on the script it says, uh, I will fight for your rights. You have rights. I will fight for you. I’ll protect you. I don’t think that that gives *** lot of inspiration, uh, not just to my grandma and my family. But immigrants all over the state, all over the country, that there are people fighting for our civil rights, and that’s what I want to thank, uh, the attorney general for doing that. Uh, the 14th Amendment, you know, obviously, uh, uh, I, I’m *** beneficiary of, of being born of, of immigrant my mom and my grandma and my and my and my great grandma, so I wanna thank for that. Um, I wanna also, uh, make sure that people know, uh, any immigrant family immigrant child knows they should continue to go to school. They need to continue to go to school, continue to receive services continue to visit food pantries continue to show up for your immigration appointments continue to work whatever you can do I because I know that San Francisco will fight for your rights, and I know that with the leaders here we can do that. And I also want to, uh, urge, um, you know, just any families that are out there if they, if they see, you know, any reports just make sure to call the rapid response hotline. We’re proudly *** member of SF Immigration Legal Education Network SF Immigration Legal Defense Collaborative, and the Rapid Response Network, and it’s just very important to make sure to call the hotlines, uh, to make sure we can respond quickly and provide adequate legal representation, but just make sure that you know you continue to receive services, and I wanna thank, uh, all the leaders here and the and the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association as well for the historic fight for our civil rights. Thank you very much. make you Let me thank again Gabriel and Larry and my great friend and incredible leader San Francisco City Attorney David Chu for being here and standing together on this important issue, um, on this important morning and I do want to say just two quick things will open up the questions. One, there’s *** way if you seek to amend the US Constitution to do so spelled out in black and white, right in the US Constitution. You gotta get 2/3 votes in both houses of the US Congress and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify. That’s how you do it. You can’t do it by executive order. Um, as the president of the United States, you definitely have *** good amount of authority, but it is not unlimited and you cannot, you absolutely cannot unilaterally amend the US Constitution. So, um, this is an attack on children. It’s an attack on US citizens. It’s an attack on our foundational document, the US Constitution, and we will not let it stand. Uh, we will see, uh, Mr. Trump in court, and we will help ensure that the right to birthright citizenship, uh, continues and lives on. With that, I can open up to any questions. Yeah, is it *** concern at all? The legislative Or is that more of *** stopgap for anticipated loss going forward? The 25 million in the special session. Not worried, uh, it’s moving forward. Uh, we expect it to pass. Um, of course there’s *** process and *** timeline to do that, so it’s um. All expected, uh, no concerns. Um, we’re grateful for the governor pushing for the $25 million and the legislature for considering it. We, we hope and believe, uh, that it will get passed, especially seeing all these executive orders, the need to ramp up our operation. Uh, the importance of protecting fundamental, um, constitutional rights as well as pulling down important federal dollars, *** $25 million investment will have massive ROI in terms of the federal dollars that we’ll get when in Trump 1.0 it was billions of dollars that our lawsuits led to California receiving. So not concerned, um, if they need time to think about it and, and go through their process, they ought to, um, uh, but we’re grateful for the consideration and hopeful for the funding to come through soon. Are you gonna be able to say it in Spanish or say anything. Not from here. Is this lawsuit, uh, and the attorneys general’s lawsuit separate from the ACLU lawsuit over this? It it’s separate. Um, the ACLU’s lawsuit is filed in the same circuit, but *** different district court. I think they’re in the district of New Hampshire or in the District of Massachusetts. Um, they could be related, um, at some point and certainly they will rise to the, the, the same circuit, um, so, uh. There has been some discussion between us and them. We’re very aware and we’re not surprised by their filing. I’m sure they’re very aware, not surprised by ours. Um, they are representing organizational plaintiffs as well as individuals. um, uh, we were representing states and the city and county of San Francisco and the District of Columbia, so, uh, I believe they’re aligned and all part of the same important effort to protect and defend birthright citizenship. And it’s it’s possible that this could go. Supreme Court, um, legal scholars say it’s not likely the Supreme Court will reverse the previous decision, especially if it’s been the law of land for over 100 years, but theoretically they could decide to reinterpret the 14th Amendment. How concerned are you about that? Not concerned on the substance. I feel very strongly in the merits of our case, uh, the well established precedent of birthright citizenship multiple times in the highest court in the land, um, the plain and unambiguous language of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, we feel very strongly. And could this case go to the US Supreme Court? Of course it could. It’s filed in federal court. Um, it could it could and will likely be appealed, whatever the result in the district court and could get to the US Supreme Court. But, um, I think. You give us an objective for where we can present the law and the facts. We feel very confident in our likelihood of uh prevailing on the merits. What is the timeline on this? You know, the, the order is. Interesting in it’s um. Effective date. It’s an order issued yesterday but effective in 30 days. I think that’s good for us because we can file and before anyone is harmed present our arguments to *** court so that they can prevent anyone from being harmed before the effective date 30 days out so um. It is interesting and different in some ways in an executive order that is effective upon its issuance. Um, there’s *** 30 day delay. I have no idea why you have to ask the Trump administration about that, but I think it works in our favor to provide an opportunity for deliberation and consideration by *** judicial body to receive and review our arguments and make *** sound decision, and we think that sound decision is to strike down immediately, um, and enjoin any implementation. Of the executive order 30 days from now executive order signed by expect you to Potentially Challenge and I’ll say we’re reviewing all of them. This one Jumped off the page as one that needed immediate um legal action by us in the states and in in San Francisco. Um, others are, are, are interesting in their design. They, they ask for more information. To be reported back to the president. Um, in, in, in some, you know, certain amount of days, so it’s information gathering on an issue that should that information lead to action could be ***, um, reason for us to file *** lawsuit, but just the fact gathering part itself does not, uh, we don’t believe is ripe for litigation immediately. um, some of the. The ramp up that could lead to the deployment of military, uh, to be involved with immigration enforcement. Um, we’ll have to see what the military actually does, what their role is. Are they directly involved in immigration enforcement on American soil, or are they in *** support role or or something else? Some of it will be fact specific, so we’ll have to see how the order is implemented on the ground, um, and assess that. Our North Star is, is what the federal government is what the Trump administration doing unlawful, um, until we’re certain. And have *** good faith and strong belief that it is, we won’t act. If they act lawfully, there is absolutely nothing for us to do. And honestly, I hope for that. Um, not *** lot to ask for your president to act lawfully. But if he doesn’t, as he has not here, uh, with this birthright citizenship executive order, we will act, we will act swiftly, we will act decisively, we will act aggressively. So, uh, we’re monitoring all the executive orders. We don’t expect yesterday’s executive orders to be an exhaustion of all executive orders that Mr. Trump will issue. It could be more today. We’re watching all of them and we’re looking for that moment where it crosses the threshold and is illegal, at which point we will act. Can you look at this isazole. What happens to the kids. Well, our hope is that we get the, the. An injunction and and it uh that we get the executive order enjoined, halted, stopped, not implemented while we litigate the case. That is an important part of our action, uh, to put *** hold, to put *** stop on any implementation, and then we continue to discuss it, um, move it through the district court, perhaps the appellate court, maybe the US Supreme Court, but that whole time our hope, uh, is that the, that there is no adverse consequences from the EO on, on children. Any other questions? Thank you, uh, to San Francisco. I met this woman, she was pregnant *** couple of months ago. She definitely gave birth here. She’s still, she’s still homeless. Especially Latino community that is Fearing what Trump is doing now, but also being homeless in San Francisco. My message is I I’ve been thinking about you for months, uh, you, your future, your family, what the Trump administration could mean for you. And I’m absolutely committed to defending and protecting your rights, your freedoms, your future, and making sure that the Trump administration does not break the law, uh, in his efforts to harm you, um, and uh other immigrant communities, and you will always have an attorney general who will use the full force of the law and the full authority of my office to protect and defend you, your family, your rights, and your freedoms. Hi. We’re joining me to see you again this was my order. How encourage you I feel great about that. I, I feel fantastic about the fact that we have like-minded other states who are in this fight, committed to the rule of law, committed to uplifting constitutional rights and protecting them from the attacks of *** president who is violating the law, um. This moment calls all of us into action and into service, and it means that we need to stand up, uh, together and support one another. I, I’ve always believed that we’re stronger when we’re working together when it’s us and we instead of I and me and *** lot of these attorneys general are absolutely incredible, uh, working on their own, and I have incredible admiration and respect for them. Uh, we’re even stronger when we’re working together. So our, our commitment to one another to this cause, to this moment, to defending rights and freedoms protecting our constitution, I think is *** uh *** sign of hope and inspiration, uh, when you’re seeing some, some darkness coming from uh the White House. Anyone else? Do you have *** message for Republican states that may not get involved in this out of fear of retaliation from the president, even if they have high immigrant populations who are impacted. *** couple. Um, You have birthright citizens in your state. Item number one, they’re deserving uh protection of their constitutional right. Um. Overcome your fear and have some courage and commitment to your principles. This is about principles. No more important principle than those enshrined in our founding document, the US Constitution. If you’re not going to fight for those, what are you going to fight for? And you can do multiple things at one time. You can fight for constitutional rights. You can also cooperate with the president and the Trump administration on things that you see, um, with like mind and and have common ground on that’s what I’m hoping for. I’m gonna be meeting with all the US attorneys that the Trump administration appoints here in California, gonna work with them on tackling fentanyl and human trafficking and hate crimes and organized retail crime. We can and we should work together on that. We should team up for the public safety of our state. And it will be absolutely non-negotiable. That I will sue the Trump administration anytime he violates the law or violates the Constitution. There’s no such thing as um. I’m only gonna have *** relationship with you between the federal administration and the state if you allow me to trample over the US Constitution. That’s not the deal, that’s not *** thing. So, looking forward to working with the Trump administration in all ways possible and we’ll hold him accountable when he breaks the law. Anyone else? We already start receiving calls on the news from people saying that they’ve been. Scammers because they’re trying to help them with their immigration stuff. So what is the message for them in order to prevent them from being victims of this scammers. For the people that is doing this. You know it’s it’s not right. Thank It it’s *** very sad and. Predatory and inappropriate thing to take advantage of someone’s fear, anxiety, worry in the time, uh, where the Trump administration is going after our immigrants and to use that to line your pockets and have dollar signs in your eyes, uh, to take advantage of of people who are vulnerable, um, that’s wrong and that’s where we come in the city attorney’s office, me, law enforcement. Report those incidents to us so we can take action and hold accountable the perpetrators who are violating the law and seeking to scam you defraud you violate your rights and break the law that’s what we’re here for. So we’re on your side on this, but we don’t know what we don’t know you have to tell us so please reach out and we’ll take it from there. Also respect *** ruling on. The whole idea of the of the injunction is for it to be immediate, so quick, um, before the 30 day implementation day is, uh, we, we need an order so we, so we know if it’s gonna go into effect in 30 days or not. So it’s it’s all on shortened time, it’s all quick, uh, it is designed to stop irreparable injury from being implemented, uh, before it’s actually implemented and so before that order goes into effect in 30 days, we hope to have enjoined. That executive order stopped and prohibited it from going into effect. was *** The District of Massachusetts. Was there *** reason why they filed in Massachusetts and not. No, um, you know, every. Case you have different partners um we have the leads of uh Massachusetts is one of the co-leads here with the state of California, the state of New Jersey, um, the District of Massachusetts is the local court for the Massachusetts AEG, um, it made sense for this case. Um, there was *** different court for the at the ACLU wanted to file in in in New Hampshire. Um, the Northern District of California is *** great court. I’m sure you’ll see us filing cases in the Northern District in the future. How many other attorneys I think we’re 18 states plus DC plus San Francisco. But 18 states One district and one incredible city and county. Any other questions? Thank you.

The history of how birthright citizenship started in California after an 1898 Supreme Court case

Updated: 7:54 PM EST Jan 21, 2025

The origins of the United States’ birthright citizenship guaranteeing legal status in the country can be traced back to Sacramento Street in San Francisco.Video above: California AG Rob Bonta sues Trump over birthright citizenship executive orderWong Kim Ark, a San Francisco-born Chinese American man, tried to return to the country in 1895 after visiting family in China.However, the San Francisco Collector of Customs claimed he was not a citizen despite being born in 1873 on Sacramento Street in the city.On Tuesday, California’s top prosecutor announced the state is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.Under the 14th Amendment, anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen of the country regardless of ethnicity, nationality or the status of their parents. Because of this, many children of immigrants do not have to go through a naturalization process.Also in effect at the time of Ark’s denial back into the country was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur, it enacted a 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States.Non-laborers also found it extremely difficult to enter the country because the act defined laborers as “skilled and unskilled … and Chinese employed in mining.”For the Chinese who were already in the country, they had to obtain certification to re-enter if they left the States.It was the first federal law of its kind prohibiting entry to the country based on race.This ban posed a problem for Ark, who was now fighting his classification as a non-citizen. He challenged his denial back into the country at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, escalating his case to the Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the highest court of the land.The Supreme Court ultimately decided that Ark had a right to return to the U.S. as a natural-born citizen. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller wrote the dissent. You can read the full opinion here. This ruling set the precedent that is now being challenged by the executive order after being the commonplace standard for more than a century.“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment reads.Bonta said he filed a preliminary injunction in an attempt to halt the executive order from taking immediate effect. California’s lawsuit is one of several filed by several other states, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. Read the full complaint here.Watch the full news conference announcing the lawsuit in the video player below.

The origins of the United States’ birthright citizenship guaranteeing legal status in the country can be traced back to Sacramento Street in San Francisco.

Video above: California AG Rob Bonta sues Trump over birthright citizenship executive order

Wong Kim Ark, a San Francisco-born Chinese American man, tried to return to the country in 1895 after visiting family in China.

However, the San Francisco Collector of Customs claimed he was not a citizen despite being born in 1873 on Sacramento Street in the city.

On Tuesday, California’s top prosecutor announced the state is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.

Under the 14th Amendment, anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen of the country regardless of ethnicity, nationality or the status of their parents. Because of this, many children of immigrants do not have to go through a naturalization process.

Also in effect at the time of Ark’s denial back into the country was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur, it enacted a 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States.

Non-laborers also found it extremely difficult to enter the country because the act defined laborers as “skilled and unskilled … and Chinese employed in mining.”

For the Chinese who were already in the country, they had to obtain certification to re-enter if they left the States.

It was the first federal law of its kind prohibiting entry to the country based on race.

This ban posed a problem for Ark, who was now fighting his classification as a non-citizen. He challenged his denial back into the country at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, escalating his case to the Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the highest court of the land.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that Ark had a right to return to the U.S. as a natural-born citizen. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller wrote the dissent. You can read the full opinion here.

This ruling set the precedent that is now being challenged by the executive order after being the commonplace standard for more than a century.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment reads.

Bonta said he filed a preliminary injunction in an attempt to halt the executive order from taking immediate effect. California’s lawsuit is one of several filed by several other states, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. Read the full complaint here.

Watch the full news conference announcing the lawsuit in the video player below.