forest management is, you are working with nature to create a resilient system. controlled burning plays a huge role in that but you cannot control burn in areas where you've excluded fire for a century and it needs to be thinned first so you're not getting her into his fires. they will occur naturally, arson or whatever when the fire starts, it's just hard to put them out. the endangered species act is one of the tools that's been used to stop forest management, we have some well-meaning laws put in place in the 1970's, people have figured out how to abuse those laws to push their agendas. i like how my colleague scott peters said these weren't laws written on tablets by moses, they were put in place at the time to serve a purpose and we

need to meet the objectives but we need to deal with the circumstances we are dealing with today. host: representative bruce westerman, thank you for joining us today. host: welcome to washington journal, we will start with a portion from the oval office where president trump is signing the executive order and gave a few comments to the press. >> this next order relates to the definition of birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. pres. trump: that is a good one, birthright, a big one. could be. we think we have a good ground but you could be right, you will find out. it is ridiculous, we are the only country in the world that does this with birthright as you know. it's absolutely ridiculous but we will see.

we think we have very good grounds. people have wanted to do this for decades. host: here is what the washington post says, it says what is birthright citizenship and which countries have at? president trump has falsely claimed the u.s. is alone in offering citizenship as a birthright. more than 30 countries do but some have rolled it back. this is from the washington examiner, federal judge temporarily halts birthright citizenship order nationwide, this is a federal judge in seattle, his name is judge john coffin or, he called it lately unconstitutional and he said frankly i have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally this is a constitutional order. here is the washington state attorney general nick brown

yesterday on why he joined other attorneys and filing this lawsuit. hy he joined other attorneys in filing this lawsuit. >> i'm thrilled that the judge issued a restraining order directing the united states government to take no further action in initiating this un-american executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship in america. this is step one, but to hear the judge saved from the bench that he has never seen something so blatantly unconstitutional sets the tone for the seriousness of the effort. host: the judge has ordered a two week halt until this plays out in court. this is "usa today," reporting that donald trump has said "obviously we will appeal it on the birthright citizenship restraining order." he said this

yesterday. "they put it before audge in seattle, right, so no surises with that." taking your calls this morning, question isbout birthright citizenship, the attempt to n it. if you support the presidential action on that, it'(202) 748-8000. if you are against it, it's (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, we had that line, (202) 748-8002. we will start with harold in melbourne, florida, on the line for opposing. hello, harold. caller: good morning. the reason i oppose it is that this is obviously in the constitution of the united states under the 14th amendment. the president of the united states is supposed to uphold and defend the constitution. here he is placing himself above the constitution, stating that

as the president, he can change the rules himself with an executive order. it's obviously unconstitutional. he doesn't seem to care about the constitution. i find this abhorrent as an american citizen. somebody that is supposed to defend and uphold the constitution would ignore it and blatantly go against it. host: would you be in favor of changing the constitution? caller: i have no problem with the american citizens or legislature amending the constitution. but when the constitution says we are a country of law and order, i think

caller: i just want to say i support the ban and everything comes doing, i think he's the best leader in world history and i think we will have the best stock market and history -- in history. i'm so fired up i have a hard time sleeping, happy days are here again. host: here is worried from california on the line for opposed. caller: i oppose mainly for practical reasons. if it becomes illegal that is one thing but if things stay that way, i believe trump is going to make american born babies go back to their home country and if parents take babies with them, they will have to be something set up for when they are 18 to come back to america.

the whole thing rests on chain migration. they don't want the babies here because you get other relatives all the way down the road with this. you have a bunch of orphanages where the mother will have to determine if the baby is left as an american or goes back and tries to come back 20 years later. that's what i am stating. host: this is glenn in florida, also opposed. caller: i opposed this situation because we know what this is about. it's about trying -- all he's doing is tying it in the courts and the lower courts in every thing else, just to make sure at some point he will have enough republican judges in place that will go with his idea of what he

wants to do. please give me time to talk. we are talking about immigration, getting rid of the people from the country, legal or illegal, including what we are doing here. what i never hear anybody talk about is the amount of white european, canadian people who live in this country who are illegally here and not citizens. there are a lot of those people here but you never hear about them, you don't hear what the numbers are, it's all about brown and black people. one is a going to start talking about the illegal europeans and white people in this country. they are not being targeted to sent back to their homeland. when we going to start talking about that? he's trying to make this happen and make sure everyone who is illegal here, a birthright citizen, whether they came in a

plane from europe or from canada across the border, why are they being targeted? when you look at these moves, they need to leave too. i don't like that he's gonna do this but if you're gonna do it, everybody has to go. right way, everybody has to be gone. host: taking a look at a portion of that executive order, it "the privilege of u.s. cihip does n automatically extend to persons born in the united states when that person's mother was states and the father was not ed u.s. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the tisaid person's birth or when person's mother's presence in the u.s. at the time d person's birth wasl but temporary, such as but not limitedo visiting the united states under the auspices of the visa waiver program or visiting on a student, work, or tri

visa and the father was not a u.s. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth." you can read the entire thing at whitehouse.gov if you want to read that. helen is next, long beach, california. caller: i support it. there was a person who called earlier who talked about how trump was not upholding the constitution, this was written in here and we have to follow it , but the reason trump was elected was because he doesn't follow the constitution. he's an autocrat. people knew that. we know he is an autocrat. we know he doesn't represent the constitution, he's representing the will of the people. to clarify, our country under the biden administration with the open borders and the preoccupation with ukraine and so forth, lost its legitimacy.

the constitution lost legitimacy . people don't care that much about the constitution as they care about their quality of life and the future of their country. trump was elected because he's not going to respect the constitution as we expect him to do, as prior experience has taught us, but because he is going to take action on what we see is a gross wrongdoing done to us by the constitution, which flagrant -- frequently disregarded the will of the people. we are a republic. politicians are servants who represent the will of us host:. i have a question for you about that. would you be ok with the next president, let's say, after four years, democrat or republican, the next president also disregarding the constitution and just following what he or

she thinks is the will of the people. what do you think of that? or is this just specific to president trump? >> it will never be specific again because the precedent has been set. we have had autocrats in the past. they have always claimed national emergencies in the interest of, you know, health, safety, welfare of the public. we have had governments and presidential administrations who have disregarded the constitution. so, it's not that it popped up out of nowhere. this has been in motion for a while. but what i'm saying is we don't, the constitution doesn't hold weight like it did before. it doesn't matter as much. we need to take action. this is a man who promised to take action and he was elected, that's what the people want.

this is a dangerous road that we are going to be going down as far as the constitution, it stands but it doesn't stand well and doesn't have legitimacy anymore. we are going down the road of autocracy and of a dictatorship, evolving into an empire, emperor dictatorship. caller: it sounds -- host: it sounds to me that you welcome that path, welcome the path towards autocracy? caller: i welcome it. i voted for it. host: but then you said we have to be careful. careful of what? caller: when the crisis has resolved, which is what trump is dealing with as an autocrat, when the crisis resolves, they may restore the constitution. that's our help. that's our hope. host: is it president trump who decides when the crisis is -- because i think anybody can say,

well, i still think the crisis is high, my quality of life is not as good as it could be. caller: that's slippery slope logic. what i'm saying is, it will be restored when the people want it restored, and that's the difference in america. host: here's randy in michigan on the line for a pose. hello, randy. caller: i would like to start by thanking you along with all the men and women it takes to bring this program to us. you are doing a great nation, the nation a great service. i oppose it. because you start with this one part of the constitution and eliminate it. when the next president comes in , maybe he decides we can finally put an end to the shootings in the schools by eliminating the right to have guns. you can't just open up the constitution and say, well, i'm

just going to pull out this part of the constitution. the person before me, wanted to throw it out. there's no reviving the constitution once you burn it. you've got 300 million people and you only have 70 million of them, 70 some odd million voting for this criminal that we have now is the president. it shows you that when you put a criminal in charge of a country, criminal activity just seems to flourish in the nation. you talk about one bad moon rising, we've got it rising right now in the white house. thank you for my time and you have a great day. host: chris in milford, michigan , support, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i agree with the last caller, who said that we have a criminal in the white house. was he charged? he wasn't charged with those 34 counts, found guilty of those

charges, first of all? i believe in the van. because people come to this country, they need to come here illegally. they come here legally, than they are able to, then that baby will have citizenship. if they are breaking the law, they are illegal, therefore they don't deserve, that child does not deserve status as being here -- you have a child, do you think that child should have citizenship or no? caller: i still don't because they are not a citizen, their

parents are not a citizen of this country. that's what i believe. host: it should only be citizens and not green card holders? caller: people who are living here full-time here legally. anything else to me in my opinion doesn't matter if you are a student or not. it matters if you live here, you come here legally and you have a child, yes, your kid will have citizenship. host: middletown, connecticut. what do you think? caller: i just want to say this birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, i am a retired american history teacher, it was made after the civil war, the 13th of mimic got rid of slavery in the 14th amendment says if you are born here you are a citizen. it was made because in the dred scott decision, one of the

causes of the civil war, they tried to say that even if a slave was born here he wasn't a citizen. that's the situation. i think trump is trying to get rid of birthright citizenship because i think it's being abused. i think people are coming here from other countries just in time to deliver babies so they will be american citizens and the american taxpayers are footing the bill for the rest of their lives. this birthright citizenship and the way it's used now is not what the forefathers intended. i think the forefathers are turning over in their graves over how it's being abused. i think during trump's last term if i remember correctly, they rated -- the chinese were coming here and having birthing houses, the chinese were coming here and having babies just to have

citizenship. the bottom line is i think something has to be done because i think the only reason why trump is putting this forth, you are right, it's not what the constitution says but i think the reason why he is putting it forth is i think it is being abused. i think people are coming here just to have babies, just to have citizenship. i think i agree with that other guy that if you are here legally, you should have citizenship. or maybe if they are there like for a year or something. but this will be determined by the supreme court in the end so whatever the supreme court decides, that will be the final answer. host: all right. representative randy weber of texas agrees with you, he says the truth is the 14th amendment was never intended to serve as a

blank check for illegal immigration, never intended to grant citizenship to the children of people who broke our laws to enter the country. end birthright citizenship's. this is jimmy panetta. checks and balances are the cornerstone of our democracy. a federal judge has rightly blocked the unconstitutional executive order attempting to undermine birthright citizenship. i strongly oppose this eo and will continue to defend our constitution. darrell from california, good morning. caller: i've been watching you for years. i like your look, unfortunately i'm in an evacuee. host: where are you now? caller: fortunately i have insurance. i had to run with my wife on my back, we had about half an hour

to get out as the fire was coming down on us. where i live in alta dena. my wife was unconscious. we barely made it out. i was able to get to the hospital and we are in serene dose with my sister-in-law. host: i'm so sorry to hear that. caller: i just want to say i like the way you look now, you look more palatable to me. like the lady before me, the 14th amendment was to make slaves citizens. it was not for these people -- i retired from l.a. county.

we would get patients from everywhere. mostly from mexico, just to have a baby so they could have a kid born in america. like the previous caller, we had chinese birthing centers, people abusing the system, which was never meant to do. we need a constitutional amendment to amend that. not to be used like it's being used now for people to come here illegally that have no right to be here to start off with. . everything that i fought for in the army in 1966, to use that have no right to use it. that's not right.

people think that trump is a crook. look at the biden crime family, you've got to be kidding me. that other color things biden is such a good person. i'm embarrassed about people of color that want to support people using our assets that have no right to use them. it's not right. host: were you living in a house or apartment, have you heard what has happened? caller: it is amazing, my home survived but all around me is gone. it's amazing how the fire went. host: we wish you the best. sorry you are going through that. jim in florida, what do you

think about birthright citizenship? caller: the last two colors have exactly right. 1918, and i've been binging on c-span the last couple of days and there was a picture of a chinese guy whose parents came here, had a child and went back to china, came back in the supreme court found he was an american citizen. things change. like the lady said, birthright citizenship. china has been sending their citizens here to have an american baby and who knows the spies they will be sending for american -- four american security. i can't believe any american could stand for this. we lived in san diego a while and we had hospitals along the

southern border where they come in hours before they have a baby to have an american child. i read a news article at one time in my local paper. there was a woman farmworker who had eight kids and when helene came through, she couldn't do the work because the fields were destroyed but she had eight kids, how could she be a farmworker and have seven or eight kids and she was surviving on what her kids got and what we hand out to these people. it's amazing that any american could before this. i'm a veteran and the guy before me was a veteran. it's amazing that we wouldn't go after these people, these american people have to learn about this. birthright tourism. the southern border is overrun. they had to shut down an emergency room where people were

coming into have babies. you've got to wise up, america. host: just to clarify what you're talking about, the supreme court upheld the right of birthright citizenship, 1898, it ruled that a man born in san francisco but denied reentry to the united states after a trip abroad because of his chinese dissent was -- chinese descent was an american citizen. chris from massachusetts, what do you think? caller: i think they finally got on the awareness of it all, i think trump writes these executive orders so people become aware of them because there's been control in the democratic party the last several years to go in one direction. now he's opening up this issue that's never been truly solved and needs to be revisited.

like a lot of stuff in the constitution. host: is that we wanted to say? caller: i think it has to do with awareness because i don't think the senate or house would have brought it up in a million years. now they have to. host: let's look at a republican representative from texas. he has legislation that would codify trump's birthright citizenship executive order into law. here is a portion from yesterday. >> president trump has many clear that restoring fairness to our immigration system and defending the true intent of the 14th amendment are central to his vision of making america great again. this historic executive order to end birthright citizenship marks a critical step forward and now with birthright citizenship act of 2025, we can solidify these