California Senate adopts resolution defending birthright citizenship

Senate Resolution 32, introduced on the floor by Sen. Wahab, was adopted by the California State Senate to affirm support for birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and to reject federal actions seeking to rescind that right.

The resolution, the subject of extended floor debate before the chamber, expresses that ‘‘those born here’’ should remain citizens of the United States and calls for defending the constitutional guarantee against executive actions such as Executive Order number 14160 referenced during debate.

Sen. Wahab, the author of the resolution, said the measure was intended to protect children born in the U.S. and to rebut recent federal proposals. "To overturn a fundamental right established more than a hundred and 50 years ago ... would be a betrayal of the American dream," Sen. Wahab said on the floor. She told colleagues that birthright citizenship "breathes new life into our communities with every generation that receives the benefits of being a citizen."

Sen. Padilla said the Fourteenth Amendment and the nation’s legal tradition support birthright citizenship and questioned the legality and morality of attempts to revoke it. "I can't imagine the more un-American thing to try to reverse a fundamental bedrock constitutional principle," Padilla said, calling such actions reckless and legally questionable.

Supporters, including Sen. Wiener and Sen. Rubio, drew on history and precedent. Sen. Wiener noted the Wong Kim Ark decision and the role of San Francisco in that case; he said the lawsuit established the modern understanding that birthright protection applies to children born here. "We need to push back very, very hard and lock arms to protect all citizens," Wiener said.

Opponents urged caution and pointed to historical language in the Fourteenth Amendment that refers to being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Sen. Strickland argued that the amendment’s framers included that language to limit the class of persons included and urged deference to the courts on interpretation rather than to resolution alone. Another member who identified personal family immigration history called the issue complex and said the Supreme Court’s interpretation remains the dispositive guide.

The resolution also prompted several members to note potential harms of changing longstanding policy. Sen. Cervantes cited the Fourteenth Amendment’s plain text and described the resolution as a defense of a constitutional guarantee; she also noted a bill she said she had introduced to move parental birthplace information to the confidential portion of California birth certificates in order to protect families from federal targeting.

After debate, the resolution was adopted by recorded vote. The clerk announced the tally as Ayes 27, No 0; the resolution was adopted.

The measure is ceremonial and declaratory in the state context: it expresses the Senate’s position and does not by itself change federal law. Several senators emphasized that any final determination about the constitutionality of federal action will be decided by the courts.

Votes at a glance: SR 32 — adopted, Ayes 27, No 0.

The debate and vote took place during the Senate’s floor session; members returned the chamber’s attention to other business after the resolution was adopted.