President-elect Donald Trump was interviewed for the edition of NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” that aired on Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (Photo courtesy of NBC News)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump vowed to sign an executive order on his first day in office to end the constitutional right to U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the country, during an extensive Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.”

But Trump also admitted there would be legal hurdles to carrying out his policy goal of amending the 14th Amendment. Many constitutional legal scholars have argued that Trump could not halt what is known as birthright citizenship through an executive order.

“We have to end it,” Trump told Welker. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”

On other immigration topics, he said he is willing to make a deal with Democrats on keeping so-called Dreamers in the U.S., and he supports deporting entire families in his mass deportation plans, even if the children themselves are U.S. citizens.

But some of his most extensive comments were on birthright citizenship. “We’re gonna have to get it changed,” Trump said of the 14th Amendment.

Ratified in 1868

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country.

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

Trump said that he will try to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, “if we can.”

Experts take issue. “There is today no serious scholarly debate about whether a president can, through executive action, contradict the Supreme Court’s long-standing and consistent interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment,” Gerald Neuman, director of the human rights program at Harvard Law School, said in a statement in 2018 along with a group of constitutional law scholars.

Two-thirds of both the U.S. House and Senate would be required to vote to approve an amendment changing the Constitution, and three-fourths of state legislatures would have to ratify such an amendment for it to take effect. A convention could also be called by two-thirds of state legislatures.

While Republicans are set to control both chambers by January, it’s not by a margin of two-thirds.

During the interview, Trump also inaccurately claimed that the United States is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship. More than a dozen countries bestow birthright citizenship, from Canada to Brazil.

Some countries have birthright citizenship, but with restrictions, such as France, which requires at least one parent be a citizen in order for the child to obtain citizenship.

A branch extended to Dreamers

Welker asked Trump what his plans are for the Dreamers, the more than 500,000 people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that he tried to end during his first administration. The DACA program is currently waiting for a federal court to decide its legal fate.

“These are people that have been brought here at a very young age and many of these are middle-aged people now, they don’t even speak the language of their country,” he said.

Trump said that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan,” but did not elaborate on any details.

Welker asked Trump about his mass deportation plans, a campaign pledge to deport millions of undocumented people, and how that would affect the more than 4 million mixed-status families, meaning families with different immigration statuses.

“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Welker asked if that included, “even kids who are here legally?”

“Whatcha gonna do if they want to stay with the father?” Trump said. “We have to have rules and regulations.”

Trump did not answer repeated questions as to whether he would bring back one of his harshest immigration policies, known as family separation, that separated parents from their children at the border. While most have been reunited, there are still about a quarter of children who are not with their parents.

“We don’t have to separate families,” Trump said. “We’ll send the whole family very humanely, back to the country where they came.”

Protesters in front of the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol urged Congress to pass the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, in December 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — After concluding oral arguments Thursday, a panel of federal judges will determine the fate of a program that has shielded from deportation more than half a million immigrants lacking permanent legal status who came into the United States as children.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a 12-year program that was meant to be temporary during the Obama administration while Congress passed a pathway to citizenship, has been caught in a years-long battle after the Trump administration moved to end the program.

Greisa Martinez Rosas, the executive director for the youth immigration organization United We Dream, said in a statement that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit should reject the “baseless lawsuit” brought by Texas and other states.

“DACA recipients have withstood over a decade of attacks by violent, anti-immigrant officials and have kept DACA alive through their courage and resilience,” Rosas said. “I urge President (Joe) Biden and every elected official to treat this moment with the urgency it requires and to take bold and swift action to protect all immigrants once and for all. ”

A panel of three judges on the appeals court heard oral arguments on behalf of the program from the Justice Department, the state of New Jersey and an immigration rights group, all advocating the legality of the Biden administration’s 2021 final rule to codify the program.

Last year the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas declared it unlawful and allowed current DACA recipients to continue renewing their status, but barred new applicants.

The Justice Department and the others asked the appeals court judges to consider three things. They are challenging whether the state of Texas has standing to show it was harmed by DACA; whether the regulation is lawful within presidential authority; and whether the trial court had the authority to place a nationwide injunction on the program.

The judges are Jerry Edwin Smith, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan; Edith Brown Clement, appointed by former President George W. Bush; and Stephen A. Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama.

The 5th Circuit in New Orleans covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, and typically delivers conservative rulings.

Joseph N. Mazzara, arguing on behalf of the state of Texas, said that DACA harmed the state because there is a “pocketbook cost to Texas with regard to education and medical care.”

He said that the end of DACA would likely lead recipients to self-deport and “return to their country of origin,” which he argued would alleviate Texas’ financial costs.

It could take weeks or months for a ruling, which is likely to head to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the fate of DACA may be left to the incoming administration.

In a statement on Thursday’s oral arguments, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, slammed the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, for “targeting young people who grew up pledging allegiance to America.”

“Regardless of the outcome of this case, we should be very clear about what is at stake in this election,” she said. “Donald Trump tried to end DACA once, and if given the chance, he will not rest until he is successful.”

The Supreme Court in 2020 overturned the Trump administration’s decision to end the program, but on the grounds that the White House didn’t follow the proper procedure. The high court did not make a decision whether the program itself was unlawful or not.

States’ standing

Brian Boynton argued on behalf of the Biden administration.

He argued that the eight states that sued the Biden administration along with Texas have no standing because they did not demonstrate any harm caused by DACA.

Those other states challenging DACA include Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

“Any person in the state of Texas, citizen or noncitizen, is entitled to precisely the same types of services, emergency health care services and public K through 12 education,” he said. “It’s not a situation where only someone with DACA is entitled to the services.”

Boynton asked the panel to uphold U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s policy of keeping DACA in place for current recipients – about 535,000 people – if the court decides to strike the program down while DACA continues to undergo the appeals process.

Hanen ruled in 2021 that DACA was unlawful, determining that the Obama administration exceeded its presidential authority in creating the program. He allowed current DACA recipients to remain in the program, but barred the federal government from accepting new applicants.

It’s estimated that there are 95,000 applicants that are blocked due to that order, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data. 

The Biden administration then went through the formal rulemaking, which Hanen reviewed and again deemed unlawful, prompting the appeal before the three judges.

Boynton argued against a nationwide injunction on DACA recipients being able to apply for the program.

“With respect to the propriety of nationwide injunctions, it’s very clear that an injunction should be narrowly crafted to provide a remedy only to the party that is injured, and here that would be Texas,” he said.

Nina Perales, of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued that Texas in its legal arguments is including spending costs for students in K-12 schools who cannot be DACA recipients because those recipients are over 18 and have aged out of the program.

Perales addressed the health care argument from Texas and said Texas did not show the incurred health costs of just DACA recipients.

“Texas points to health care spending on the entire undocumented immigrant population, as Texas estimates it,” she said. “Not DACA recipients.”

“It’s been widely understood that DACA recipients overall provide a net benefit to their state,” she added.