WATCH: Padilla Defends Constitutional Right to Birthright Citizenship, Slams Detainment of Orange County Father of Three Marines

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, condemned President Trump and Republicans' un-American efforts to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. As the son of Mexican immigrants himself, Padilla underscored that the 14th Amendment clearly grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

Padilla questioned Virginia Law School professor Amanda Frost on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, hearing from her that the provision was added in the 1860s to overturn the Dred Scott case and its harsh legacy after the Civil War. She emphasized that the debates surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment made clear that outside of extremely narrow common law exceptions, everyone born in the United States should be granted citizenship. Frost also underscored that the Supreme Court considered various scenarios in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and ruled that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. She also highlighted that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision multiple times, leading to every lower federal court - including judges nominated by Republican presidents - blocking Trump's unconstitutional executive order.

In his remarks, Padilla also slammed the Administration's treatment of Narciso Barranco - a father of three U.S. citizen Marine veterans - who was violently detained by masked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Orange County last summer. His case was finally dismissed by an immigration judge last month after the Administration tried to deport him.

Alejandro, Narciso's eldest son, served as a witness at today's hearing. Despite risking his life to serve the nation as a Marine, Republicans' efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship could take away citizenship from Alejandro and his brothers, who are active-duty Marines. Padilla rebuked Republicans' for sending such an un-American, hypocritical message to service members and their families by questioning their citizenship. At a hearing last year, Alejandro told Padilla about the dangers of indiscriminate immigration enforcement, including the sweeping up of hardworking people, like his father, with no history of violent crime.

Senator Padilla has been a leading advocate fighting back against Republicans' unconstitutional efforts to erode birthright citizenship. Last month, Padilla joined Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and 26 other Senate Democrats in filing a bicameral amicus brief standing up for birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. In June, Padilla sharply criticized the Supreme Court's ruling to curtail federal courts' power to issue injunctions, arguing that the Court emboldened President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship and incentivized presidential overreach. Earlier last year, Padilla cosponsored the Born in the USA Act to effectively block the implementation of Trump's unconstitutional executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States, or a similar subsequent executive order. Padilla also opposed advancing the nomination of Attorney General Pam Bondi after she repeatedly refused to affirm that birthright citizenship is the law.

Key Excerpts:

• PADILLA: In the Constitution, it's pretty straightforward. Citizenship is granted to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." All persons born in the United States. Doesn't matter if your ancestry goes back to the Mayflower, or if you're first gen like myself, or somewhere in between. If you were born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Full stop, end of story.

• PADILLA: Think about the message that this is sending when Mr. Barranco and his brothers chose to enlist and went to enlist. The United States government, the United States Marine Corps, was more than willing to say, "yes, thank you, welcome. We can use you. We will train you. We will educate you. We will deploy you - at risk." Mr. Barranco has been honorably discharged. He's a veteran. But when it comes to how this Administration is treating the father of three Marines, it is the opposite question. Despite years of living in the United States, despite working, despite paying taxes, despite raising a family, despite encouraging and inspiring not one, not two, but three, service members willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the United States of America, this Administration thinks Mr. Barranco needs to go. Think about the message that this Administration is sending.

• PADILLA: Question for Professor Frost, President Trump is trying to change the way we fundamentally understand citizenship. My question is yes or no, is the 14th Amendment citizenship clause clear about birthright citizenship? Yes or no?

• FROST: Yes.

• PADILLA: All right, so in my minute and a half left, a few more seconds, if you'd like, let me transport you. Let's suggest that you are appearing before the United States Supreme Court. What would your message be to the justices?

• FROST: I would tell the justices that the Reconstruction Congress in 1866 and the nation in 1868 added this provision to overturn Dred Scott and the stain of that decision as it had sullied our Constitution. And during those debates, they made clear that the citizenship clause applied to everyone born on U.S. soil. The only exceptions discussed were the narrow common law exceptions for children of ambassadors and Native Americans, which they added in light of the unique American tradition of Native sovereignty. And then I would point out to the Supreme Court, in addition to that language, in addition to what that Reconstruction Congress told us and what the nation understood at the time, that its own precedent from 1898 established clearly that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States, and everyone else born in the United States, whether here, "for business or pleasure," whether just "passing through," and that's also a quote, is a citizen of the United States. And then this very court, if I'm making this argument before the justices, I'd point out they repeated that in decisions in the 1950s, in the 1960s, and the 1980s, and that's why every lower federal court to address this issue has rejected the Trump Administration's executive order as unconstitutional, including a number of judges who were nominated by Republican presidents.

###