>> Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical this week of an executive order aimed at ending the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

President Donald Trump signed the order on his first day in office, but multiple federal judges have blocked it.

Ruling it an uncommon ruling it unconstitutional.

The case is now in the hands of the nation's highest court with the final decision expected by June or early July.

Joining us to break down the arguments are Richard Porter attorney, longtime member of the Republican National Committee and former White House adviser to President George HW Bush and vice president quickly.

And Charles Ross, director of appellate litigation, the National Immigrant Justice Center.

Thank you both for joining us.

There's a lot to talk about.

Yeah, so let's let's get to it.

Justices appeared skeptical as I mention of arguments led by the Trump administration that would allow the executive order to stand, but they also pointed out some tough questions at the ACLU lawyer arguing the opposing side, Richard, what did you take away from Tuesday's arguments that it's a close call?

And it's interesting because this is one of those topics that I think.

>> 5 years ago and was really thinking about was just one of those those topics that we just didn't really consider.

And it was until President Trump issued the executive order that I think a lot of people step back and said, well, what is the exact scope with the 14th Amendment?

What is the 14th Amendment say?

One of the cases that interpret that provision say too, what's important is it talks about birthright citizenship for people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

The question is, what does that mean?

Now?

The 14th Amendment was passed to assure that freed slaves became recognized as Citizens United States.

The circumstances of 2026 were not in the minds of the people are drafting the 14th Amendment.

Still, the language is subject is supposed to be timeless and has written a Broadway.

So what you saw the court wrestling with was what's it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof and they're calling a historical precedent.

For example, Indians, we're not considered United States citizens upon birth because they were part of a tribe.

They will take on the of Americans to try to have a need of Americans.

And so the old allegiance to their own tribe.

And so by analogy, what the Trump administration was arguing is that when you owe allegiance to another sovereign to another state to another government, then if you just happen to be United States or worse, if you're here illegally, you're not allowed to be here, but you're hearing them the less that the the 14th Amendment guarantee of bump Earth does not extend to you.

And so that was the basis of the argument.

And Charles, what are your thoughts?

Well, it is the Supreme Court is what it is.

And so I think we would expected this to be a close call a few years ago.

But you think it's a cull a close call?

I don't think I don't think it's going to be a close But I you know, I wouldn't want to bet my house on >> The there's a six-member majority of the Republicans and the court is certainly willing to re examine presidents.

The one would have thought were sacrosanct.

And so decision, I mean, implications of overruling birthright citizenship with massive.

But I don't know if that matters to all of the court, although the only case they're really analyze this question with 18 90's Yeah, and it was a question >> Chinese couple that was here.

They're here and the color of law.

They were here illegally to work the same kind of laws that we have today.

their child, the question was their child who was born here while they were here, does that child in town to the 14th Amendment guarantee of health, that it was.

But that's distinguishable because of the nature of their domiciled because they were here under color of law.

There wasn't a the same issue with someone who's here illegally or Just visiting one of the things the government pointed out was that there are more than 500 companies in China alone offering trips to United States for so that you can give birth United States and their bike grant.

Here's your child.

Must do to them this wonderful thing.

If United States citizenship, when he would only bring what you have to say about that.

>> He's he's bringing in the case of 1989. don't want to respond You know, the people who show up here pregnant are likely to be turned away at the port of entry.

so exaggerated.

The idea that people are going to come on and have cut.

>> If they were going to have kids here.

The reason why they would want to do that is because China is that a very safe place to be.

And so.

let's imagine that birthright citizenship had not been the case.

the individual of Asian parents couldn't themselves become a citizen because naturalization was barred for reasons.

Becton.

So that person, if you stayed in the United States and had children, he himself not being a citizen, couldn't pass on his citizenship, his kids, his grandkids, great grandkids.

generations upon generations of undocumented.

documented people living in.

Is that really what we want to go as a country?

You know, that is a question of what's going to ask could limiting birthright citizenship, create a population of state list or non citizenship individuals in the U.S.

>> I mean that with the administration's what they're proposing on on its face, doesn't there's a no, this isn't going to be retroactive.

This is going to be prospective only and it's only going to apply people who undocumented or translator.

Second play permanent residents.

But the logic of it.

>> Doesn't stop there.

you engine jurisdiction where allegiance to.

So let's say somebody is here under color of law, but there are Chinese citizen.

their allegiance.

Let's talk about 49 because you spoke about her little bit.

Now, President Trump has said that the 14 amendment was created.

You said as well for babies.

The slaves.

>> And it isn't suited for modern-day immigration and tourism.

Is that a sound legal argument to you?

>> Well, the as I think I mean, if the words were clear on their face, you should apply them as the as the founders intended, but working in a circumstance here, which is beyond the scope of the founders imagination.

The United States represents 4.2% of the world's population.

Our poverty line is just under $17,000 for an individual just over 33,004 family of 4.

10% of Americans are below the poverty line.

85% of the rest of the world is below our poverty line.

So if you've been getting United States, you're automatically becoming wealthier person for 85% of the world's population.

So we've created this wonderful thing in America.

We generate wealth like no other society ever has.

As a result of that, there's a lot of people like to get here and tap into that.

As a matter of fact or that more than 70 billion dollars a year is being transmitted by people mostly below poverty line back to other countries from the United States.

So with this wonderful engine of prosperity, it's a great place to be we can understand why people want to be here.

But if we just open the gate, anyone can come in, you can see how we could, you know, fastly overwhelmed would overwhelm our very generous welfare systems and so forth.

And so I mean, I don't want to have been coming for decades correcting me.

What are your thoughts from what he's saying?

Well, it sort of a red herring.

And just like will open wide the doors and we had We did for 4 was kind of crazy >> Fighting they stopped enforcing the law, you know, and and, you know, the Trump administration makes these rules supposedly are going to apply to undocumented people.

Next thing, you know, it's the U.S.

citizens who good affected just as much so because those are some that is also a point of some of the arguments as we heard in hearings.

There is a is there any room in the language of Trump administration's order to revoke birthright citizenship retroactively?

>> To those who already are citizens.

>> In the order doesn't say so.

But logically speaking, if the Constitution doesn't doesn't make somebody a citizen today didn't do so yesterday either.

And it didn't do so the week before.

And so it's hard to see how the effect of this is and ultimately to permit the unraveling of a whole lot of peoples immigration history with that I think that's a red herring.

Actually.

I think you can make a prospective decision.

>> When something is uncertain like that, and they're settled expectations that people have.

I mean, someone born here and their parents were here illegally and enough.

25 or 30 years old.

You're not going travel that to think they should have.

They should that this.

This is what it is.

But I think going forward, what it does is it sets people's expectations what they can get if they come here in that circumstance.

Right?

And so people are getting what they expect in that circumstance.

important to have rules of general application that are understandable and, you know, can be easily follow.

>> And I want to mention something when Axel a disater solicitor General John our couldn't give a clear answer on whether you also mentioned it or not.

Native Americans born in the U.S.

would be citizens under Trump's executive order.

Let's take a listen to that.

>> Does need of Americans today are purse, right?

Citizens under your test.

Your friends test.

>> think so.

I mean, obviously been granted citizenship.

My statues.

>> Those that respond with statute.

I mean, the Constitution is for the outer bounds.

And so Congress can give rights beyond what's in the Constitution.

And so if they are the statute hasn't been repealed.

And so people would still have that birthright citizenship you have any thoughts on that.

Well, if we were talking about statutes, you would wonder why the Trump administration had to rely on an executive order rather than the statute passed by Congress in will be a different situation.

If we had congressional statute trying to take we birthright citizenship, you don't have that.

And to the country.

The statute says just follows the constitution.

so we don't even really need to reach the Constitution.

The statute should resolve this case and some people think it will.

It is an interesting question.

I think the you could it seems to me have a split decision here with a core holes is not a constitutional question.

And the Constitution is subject to these other.

Bring interpretations.

But the statute may have a settled interpretation that they may not want to check.

And so I think there's another way to cut the statutes can do more.

Then with the Constitution does don't have to be contiguous in terms application.

How do you expect this to to turn around how you expect to see this?

some are betting markets have a 20 to that the executive order will be in effect by August.

I almost think that's worth a bet.

But here's the problem.

actually think they're gonna have a split decision a long life where I think they're going to give a partial win.

We're going forward.

There will be the ability to limit who gets the birthright