>> The U.S. Supreme Court is agreeing to hear arguments next month over President Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Immigrant rights advocates point to the 14th Amendment which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if their parents came here illegally.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration argues children of non-citizens are not quote, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Joining us our Alina away, a deputy director of the nonprofit Orleans Americus.

That's Chicago based network of American immigrant groups and on Zoom, Richard Porter, former Illinois Republican National committeeman.

And we saw also mention of both of you are attorneys.

So that's good because we have to talk about some legal stuff.

let's start with you.

Please tell us what the Trump administration is trying to change about this longstanding law.

>> Trump administration is trying concede or at 10th and no rain to put a shunt off.

They come amendment of the Constitution that defined 2 the city center and hoist not a single cent minutes trying to exclude everyone whose parents are not here on a percentage basis.

>> Richard, that this is something that Donald Trump campaigned on day one in office for this term.

He signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship.

Your thoughts on whether this longstanding law needs to be evaluated.

>> Well, so it's not a long standing along the I think what I think you're I think you're mischaracterizing that.

But first, I just want to say to Alaina welcomes the United States.

I understand you came to the United States in the Fulbright Scholarship and you're here on a work visa United States is richer for having immigrants of talent skill and ethics.

Joining our citizen created.

So thank you for coming tonight.

States.

So if you look at the 14th Amendment, of course, the 14th Amendment, the section one of the 14, the meme was passed to clarify the slaves.

Former slaves were citizens.

And that was original purpose of this section.

But what it says it is all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, our citizens of the United States.

And the question is, what's subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean and in the case in the Supreme Court in 18, 98, the screams were heard a case involving a legal immigrant.

Somebody that was here on a permanent legal basis.

They have children, one of whom was young man who traveled to China when he was 21.

And they came back and he was told he wasn't a U.S. citizen.

And this case was brought before the Supreme Court Supreme Court held that the child of a legal resident, legal resident of the United States was pursuant to this clause, a citizen of the United States.

The Supreme Court has never reached the question of whether a child of aghast.

You know, some of that.

This was a visitor to the United States or is an illegal immigrant to the United States, whether the subject to the jurisdiction thereof extends to cover the child either illegal immigrants or some is merely a terse so is your day.

a question asked the Supreme Court.

>> Do you believe are you under the impression that that some people come here from other countries to just to give birth to their children simply so that their children will have that that citizenship.

>> Yeah.

The Senate Center for Immigration Studies estimates about 35,000 people a year come in on Mir visitors visas to have children and then go back to their country of origin.

Plus, hundreds of thousands of more people who are illegal immigrants come in pregnant or get great.

It's really out there here.

So there is a relatively large pool of people for whom this is now active question.

And I I think unfortunately, that that because the system has been abused, the U.S. has been relatively flexible about this over the course of many years as a matter of practice, it hasn't scrutinize these issues to carefully.

But because of the wave of emigration was so strong and the and the extent of illegal immigration has got to be so great.

And because now the costs associated with this are also very large.

There's real scrutiny being placed on the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof will in in a reverse is.

>> But will that I want to back to that if we can, just because there's a lot to get to specifically with what the Supreme Court is going to be taking up.

But, Elaine, I wanted to get your thoughts on on some of what we're hearing from your cope analysts, Richard Porter, with regards to on people coming to the country just for the purposes of of having children.

>> Well, I wonder what is the basis for that extremely high number?

I think that but tourism is really an exception rather than a massive practice.

It is true that many people come to United States to study, particularly a new credit students and they may have come with their spouses or they may have a relationship.

A pair had become parents.

Those children would also be scolded under the interpretation of the executive order.

They're also people will import children would excluded.

Richard, go ahead.

>> If you're a child of illegal immigrants, I think that the existing Supreme Court precedent covers that situation.

think the focus of the executive order is children of people who are here merely visiting or that are illegal immigrants that don't have a legal status within the United States.

that the Supreme Court, when it looked at this question in 18, 98 focused on the question of allegiance.

But it looked at the subject to the jurisdiction thereof that if the United States owes no allegiance to the child or the child and the child owes allegiance back to the United States that that is what the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So the question is just illegal allegiance to the United States.

Well, Richard, so it is a little complicated.

What is the Supreme Court is actually considering?

Right?

Because in this instance, they are not necessarily deciding the merits >> of the birthright citizenship law.

It's actually about the enforcement of this.

this executive order because of the states that have sued to stop it and what lower court, what appeals court judges have ruled.

So explain if you what the difference is and what lined the judges are actually walking, where they actually deciding.

>> Well, so I think one of the first questions the court's going to have to decide is whether there's a case or controversy, whether they have jurisdiction over the matter, which is to say there has to be an actual live case in which someone who is a child of someone who is a legal and illegal immigrant.

>> Or you know, a visitor brings the question before the court.

The court doesn't give advisory opinion.

So I'm not really sure.

>> All the court is necessarily a reach.

The ultimate question, one point want to point out, though, in the 14th Amendment, Section 5 says that Congress has the authority to enforce the other provisions of Article 14 by legislation.

And so it says that Congress have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation.

The provisions of this article, which includes Section one and question of birthright citizenship pull punters to be a question of interpretation to of does that.

Does the president have power under the executive just here to executive authority to also create interpretations of that section, right?

Because in this instance the Congress has not created a lot other than obviously what the Constitution currently says.

>> Alana, what are your thoughts on this and what the justices are?

What arguments here expecting to hear before the Supreme Court the discussion of this moment is really going to be this scope of this suspension of the executive order.

And this is something that the Trump administration has been complaining about because there are a number of judiciales orders that have interrupted many of actions and policies.

Of course, this happens in every administration.

>> And now it has been made an issue, but we not going to discuss the merits on this case.

And I think that that's concerning because many children of parents born abroad have being felt have felt that this decision is heading, that you would not an American when they grew up feeling American because they understanding east.

If you're born the United States, you are a U.S. citizen and that really that much just a fabric of society.

And that should be a concern for Nestle.

What if the Supreme Court should side with the Trump administration on this particular issue, which is that his executive order can be enforced in some states but not others.

What if what if that is the case?

We're going to see then a flood of in the courts because of court Spartans have the expectation the children are U.S. citizens and there important support from the Latino community could because this a meant that the score our understanding of what being an American person, are you surprised that the Supreme Court decided to take this up?

It is surprising, but there's been a lot of pressure from the administration.

So ultimately it had to give in.

And I think it decided that this going west discussion.

Richard, I hear you're trying to weigh in.

>> Well, what I was gonna say is I do think that the laws on immigration need to be uniform.

Article one of the Constitution provides the cause has authority statutes for the uniform Application of Naturalization Laws.

So I think whatever interpretation will cover all of the United States and the president does have power that's been delegated to him by Congress in the existing immigration laws.

So it will be a question of the extent of the delegation of authority to the president and his exercise of that of that power that he has inherently under article 2, but also under the immigration statutes that exist when they to put a couple things up.

Well, We're going to have to have that discussion next time we have you apologize because we're actually out of time.