SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SR 32
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SR 32
Author: Wahab (D)
Amended: 4/24/25
Vote: Majority
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/22/25
AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab,
Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares
SUBJECT: Birthright Citizenship
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This resolution sets forth the Senate’s opposition to Executive Order
No. 14160, which purports to end birthright citizenship in the United States,
affirms the Senate’s commitment to birthright citizenship, and honors Wong Kim
Ark’s fight for legal recognition of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ANALYSIS:
Existing constitutional law:
1) Provides that the United States Congress has the power to establish a uniform
rule of naturalization throughout the United States. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8,
cl. 4.)
2) Provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. (U.S. Const., 14th amend., § 1.)
 SR 32
Page 2
This resolution:
1) Declares that:
a) On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order
No. 14160, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American
Citizenship” (the “Executive Order”), which purports to end birthright
citizenship for children born to (1) a mother who is unlawfully present or
who is lawfully present in the United States but on a temporary basis, and
(2) a father who is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
b) The Constitution has granted birthright citizenship for over 150 years, since
birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after the
Civil War to repudiate the infamous decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393, which held that Black
Americans of African descent could never be United States citizens.
c) Birthright citizenship impacts every child born in California, regardless of
race, color, sex, ability, class, parents’ national origin, parents’ immigration
status, or any characteristic, because all persons born in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
d) Birthright citizenship is especially important in California, where one in four
residents is an immigrant and where about one-half of all children in
California have at least one immigrant parent.
e) Denying birthright citizenship for children of certain immigrants could make
hundreds of thousands of children ineligible for federal and state benefits
and services such as CalWORKs and CalFresh, would damage their
educational, economic, and health prospects, and would undermine
community safety, political participation, and the economy.
f) The unconstitutional Executive Order could block these children’s access to
United States passports, social security cards, free lunch programs, health
care, and federal student aid, and denying these fundamental needs
jeopardizes the well-being of these children and harms the broader
community, leading to devastating social, political, and economic
consequences.
g) After the Executive Order was announced, California joined 18 other states,
the City and County of San Francisco, and the District of Columbia in suing
to block the Executive Order on the ground that it violates the Fourteenth
Amendment to, and Article I of, the United States Constitution, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
 SR 32
Page 3
h) The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was
affirmed over 125 years ago in the landmark United States Supreme Court
decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649, involving San
Francisco-born Chinese American Wong Kim Ark.
i) Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 at 751 Sacramento Street in Chinatown in
the City and County of San Francisco to parents Wong Si Ping and Wee Lee,
who owned a grocery store but were unable to naturalize as United States
citizens due to prevailing anti-Chinese policies.
j) In 1895, Wong Kim Ark returned from visiting his family in China and,
upon reentry, was denied admission on the false basis that he was not a
citizen of the United States and was ordered to be deported under the
Chinese Exclusion Acts.
k) The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association in San Francisco hired an
attorney to fight Wong Kim Ark’s unlawful detention and the case was
ultimately decided on March 28, 1898, which held that the Fourteen
Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes birthright
citizenship, with very few exceptions.
l) The Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169
U.S. 649 extends birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United
States, “including all children here born of resident aliens,” and excludes
only children born to foreign sovereigns or their ministers; children born on
foreign public ships; children born to enemies born within and during a
hostile occupation of our territory; and children of members of some
sovereign Indian tribes.
m) Wong Kim Ark’s legacy and historic fight for justice ensured the United
States Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship and empowers
children born in California to achieve their full potential as Americans to
grow up to become whatever they dream, including President of the United
States.
n) The unconstitutional Executive Order ignores over 100 years of precedent
and condemns babies to a legal status of statelessness, which will limit their
lifetime access to schools, jobs, and medical care and subject them to social
isolation, travel restrictions, and exploitation.
o) The unconstitutional Executive Order is just one of President Trump’s
draconian attempts to scapegoat and instill fear among immigrants, divide
immigrants based on arbitrary distinctions, and roll back constitutional
rights.
p) All residents, regardless of their immigration status, deserve dignity, fair
treatment and due process under the law, and the opportunity to thrive in the
 SR 32
Page 4
United States, and this belief serves as the foundation for state and local
sanctuary laws in California, including the California’s Values Act of 2017.
2) Resolves the following by the Senate of the State of California:
a) The Senate hereby opposes the unconstitutional Executive Order purporting
to end birthright citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
b) The Senate affirms its commitment to birthright citizenship and recognizes
and honors Wong Kim Ark’s fight to affirm the fundamental right of
birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
c) The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit copies of this resolution to the
President and Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of State,
to the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and
Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to
the author for appropriate distribution.
Comments
According to the author of this bill:
Immigrants are the backbone of our workforce and economy, as well as the
cultural fabric of our communities. The Executive Order issued by President
Trump seeks to overturn a fundamental right established more than 125 years
ago that allows every child born in California—in the United States of
America—access to the American Dream. My own parents came to this country
seeking stability and a better life; what they wanted for me, as a beneficiary of
birthright citizenship, was the chance to be anything I could imagine for myself.
In 2023, the Public Policy Institute of California stated that 27% of California
residents—10.6 million people—were foreign born. In 2024, the Children’s
Partnership stated that almost half of the children in California have at least one
immigrant parent—that is 4 million children.
These individuals are our neighbors, our doctors, our law enforcement officers,
our friends.
 SR 32
Page 5
We need to stand up and say that no Executive Order by the President of the
United States can supersede the US Constitution and the rights of millions of
individuals born here in California.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/25/25)
Chinese for Affirmative Action
SEIU California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/25/25)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to SEIU California:
While we do not know the immigration status of our members, ending birthright
citizenship would have devastating consequences in California. Without
citizenship, many of the children of our members who live in immigrant
families and communities would find themselves without access to important
social programs like CalFresh, CalWORKS, and student financial aid. They
would grow up without passports, social security cards, access to jobs, and the
right to vote. This would perpetuate racial inequality, make them vulnerable to
exploitation, and lead to widespread economic, social, and political
marginalization.
Efforts to end birthright citizenship is just one of the many ways the
Administration has used xenophobic rhetoric and cruel executive actions to
wreak havoc on immigrant communities and fuel racial profiling and anti-
immigrant harm.
Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
4/25/25 10:13:48
**** END ****