Alex Lovit:  Who is an American, and who gets to decide? The Trump administration is attempting to force changes to both of those questions in ways that could have significant and lasting consequences for our country.

But it’s not too late. Today, we’ll meet one of the folks on the front lines of the fight for inclusion. You are listening to The Context. It’s a show from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation about how to get democracy to work for everyone, and why that’s so hard to do. I’m your host, Alex Lovit.

My guest today is John C. Yang. John is the president and executive director of the civil rights advocacy organization, Asian Americans Advancing Justice. He’s also a proud first-generation immigrant to the United States, and he’s here today to tell us how this administration’s exclusionary policies affect all Americans, and especially the Asian American community. And why an inclusive vision of American identity makes our country stronger. John C. Yang, welcome to The Context.

John C. Yang:  Thank you for having me.

Alex Lovit: So, you’re the president of the organization, Asian Americans Advancing Justice. Tell me about AAJC and how you came to work there.

John C. Yang: Sure. So, the mission of our organization is to advance the civil and human rights of Asian Americans and to promote a fair and equitable society for all. What does that mean? That means we represent the Asian American community, really thinking about how civil rights affects our community, but then how we fit into the greater democracy as a whole.

How I came to this work was twofold. One is, I’m a lawyer by trade. For a number of years, I was in-house counsel for an American company, working actually in Shanghai. Then I actually had a stint in the Obama administration as well.

At the end of the Obama administration, as all of us would remember, when then candidate Trump announced his candidacy for the president, the first speech he gave was about how he wanted to get rid of, “Illegal aliens that were gangsters, rapists and drains on our society.”

So, one other aspect of my history is that I was actually an undocumented immigrant. I got my path to citizenship when I was actually still in high school, through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, that was signed by Ronald Reagan, that was bipartisan legislation. Since then, I have always felt that I have been not a drain on society, but someone that actually contributed to our democracy.

When I heard those words, I actually did take it pretty personally. So, when I had this opportunity to take on this job working for our community, demonstrating how all of us are better because we are here in the United States, personally appealed to why I should be in this fight at this moment.

Alex Lovit: So, you were a kid when you were undocumented in the U.S. Were you conscious of it? Were you scared?

John C. Yang: I’ll admit, and this is probably something that’s very true for a lot of undocumented families, they shielded their kids from it. So, I actually did not know until we had that path to citizenship. I laugh about it now, especially given the work that I do now, but I guess I was somewhat politically ignorant.

And it’s interesting because even when I applied to college, I was actually undocumented, and all I was told by my parents is, “You should not apply for certain loans. There are certain things that you are not eligible for.” But frankly, I didn’t question it at that time, and it’s only later in life, when we had that path to citizenship, that it became revealed to me that that was our status.

Alex Lovit: I think we’re in a moment when there’s a lot of debate in our politics right now about who gets included in American identity, who has access to citizenship, and of course that’s sort of always been true. There’s a long history of various groups trying to fight to be included. There’s an Asian American version of that history, fighting against some pretty severe prejudice at various points in history. And then there’s various other versions of that story by other minority groups, religious minorities, LGBTQ+ people, et cetera. And so my question is, when you think about all that history, how do you think about the Asian American version of that story as a part of that broader story?

John C. Yang: How do we define who is an American? That’s both always been the beauty of America, but it’s also been the struggle of America. I absolutely think that that is what we’re living through right now. There are those that are trying to define America in a way that literally would make the Asian American community invisible.

Currently, with some of this administration’s policies, they’re trying to return to an early 1950s version of America. And if you are looking at an early 1950s version of America, the Asian American population was less than half a percent in the United States. There were laws that prohibited us from immigrating to the United States. It wasn’t until the Immigration Nationality Act of 1965 was passed that we saw Asian Americans coming to the United States in large quantities.

But you are right that history also includes the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American incarceration during World War II. It’s a difficult history, but I actually also think about how much progress we continue to make even, though that progress can be uneven. Part of it is making sure that we all recognize that we’re all part of that same ecosystem, and then for us as Asian Americans think about what we can do to contribute to that progress.

Alex Lovit: Let’s talk about how some of these over inclusion are playing out right now during the second Trump administration. In a lot of ways, AAJC is trying to push back on some of the things that Trump is doing to try to make American identity more exclusive. And maybe the biggest example of that, and probably the central policy priority of the Trump administration, is deporting undocumented people.

And often when we think about undocumented people, Latinos or other groups are the kind of headline, but there are more than a million and a half undocumented Asians in the United States right now. But of course, citizens also get affected by this because they might have undocumented friends or relatives, because they might get swept up in ICE raids. How are Trump’s aggressive deportation policies affecting the Asian American community?

John C. Yang: Yeah, and you are absolutely right that sometimes people don’t think about the effect on the Asian American community. The reality is for about one in 10 Asian Americans, actually probably a little bit more than that, are undocumented because among the 22 million or so Asian Americans in the United States, it’s about 1.5 to 2 million that are undocumented.

Among undocumented people generally, probably about one in four are Asian American. So, whereas the headlines and some of the photos that we see might not be of Asian Americans, we are undoubtedly affected. The number of people that have been caught up in the raids, caught up in the deportations is significant.

It doesn’t make the headlines in the same way, aside from let’s say the Hyundai plant in Atlanta earlier in the year. But certainly, beneath the surface, what our communities are seeing, whether it is in the Chinatown, whether it is certain factories, certain nail salons, is the same thing that Latino Americans, other immigrant communities are facing.

Alex Lovit: Is there a legal challenge here? We’re about to talk about a bunch of lawsuits that AAJC is involved in, but is this a case where you’re opposed to the policy, but the president does have the right to do this?

John C. Yang: It depends on how the deportation is happening. Certainly one thing that we are looking at is with respect to deporting people that already have protected status of various sorts.

One recent case that we have was actually not involving Asian Americans, but immigrants from Africa. Trump was deporting people to Ghana with the understanding that those people being deported to Ghana would then be re-deported to countries like Gambia and Nigeria.

The problem with that is these individuals already had an immigration judge recognize that they would be politically persecuted if they went back to Gambia or Nigeria. So, the Trump administration was making an end run around immigration judge rulings. Certainly, that’s a case of where we would want to challenge what the administration is doing.

Well, look, we recognize that people could talk about protecting borders, but the administration should not be talking about trying to protect this country from gangsters, from criminals, when at the same time all they are doing is trying to meet their quotas by deporting people that they could find because they’re easier to find.

Alex Lovit: Talk to me a little bit more about that. Who is getting targeted by this immigration enforcement?

John C. Yang: Well, it is everyday people that are getting targeted. And that’s why I was saying, whether you think about, at least in our community, at the Hyundai plant, people at the nail salon or people working in healthcare, farmers, those are places where Asian-Americans oftentimes are working. What we are getting is reports of raids happening in those types of settings.

These are important industries for the United States, but nevertheless, because the administration has determined that they could find undocumented people there, they’re going to prioritize going to those places so that they could meet their quotas or find individuals that they could say, “Look how many people we have deported.”

Alex Lovit:So, that’s a little bit about this question of who is allowed to be in the United States. Let’s talk about the question of who has American citizenship. And again, Trump is trying to kind of narrow the circle of who gets to be an American citizen, in part by attempting to end birthright citizenship. First of all, just what is birthright citizenship?

John C. Yang: So, birthright citizenship means that as long as you were born on American soil, you are an American citizen. And that comes from our 14th Amendment. This is enshrined in our constitution. And to be clear, part of this came from the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments because of slavery. Because prior to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment, slaves were actually literally considered three-fifths of a person here in the United States and did not automatically have citizenship.

That’s why it was important, during the 1860s, to pass these amendments to establish American citizenship. After that, that was challenged, actually involving a Chinese immigrant, who was born on American soil, but it was unclear whether his parents were born on American soil or American citizens. But the case was brought, it was a case called Wong Kim Ark, that because he could establish he was born on American soil, he should, by definition under the constitution, be an American citizen. And the Supreme Court decided that that is the case, and that is the prevailing law of the land.

Alex Lovit: The case you’re talking about Wong Kim Ark is from 1898, so that’s a little while ago. This has been established law for over a century now. What is Trump trying to do?

John C. Yang: Well, so Trump is trying to say that that is not the law. He is trying to say that unless you are a citizen or a permanent resident, then you would not be a citizen automatically because you’re born in the United States. So, he’s literally, from our perspective, redefining what the Constitution says in terms of who gets to be an American citizen.

Alex Lovit: What’s the legal argument against that? What’s wrong with Trump’s argument?

John C. Yang: At bottom, it is for all the conservatives that talk about textualism in the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution literally said, “All people born in the United States are citizens.” And so it flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, or in this case the 14th Amendment.

Alex Lovit: If Trump gets his way, if birthright citizenship were ended, how would that affect people? What would that look like?

John C. Yang: What that looks like is for people that are here in, let’s say a political refugee status, immigration judge has already established that they should not return to their home country because they would face political persecution, but they are not going to be permanent residents right away. If that individual who is a political refugee has a baby here in the United States, that baby would not be granted American citizenship, which means that they would be in somewhat of a gray world in terms of where they belong. So, that’s one example of where the citizenship status of babies, of children, is going to be unsettled.

Another example might be with respect to DACA, which is Deferred Action for Children Born Abroad, some DACA kids who are now adults, the status of their kids could be undetermined because again, they do not necessarily have a legal permanent residence status or citizenship status.

The way Trump wants to frame this or the administration wants to frame this, is only people that are already citizens or what are called legal, permanent residents, would be entitled to have kids that would become American citizens automatically.

Alex Lovit: And so your organization, AAJC, is among a number of organizations that have sued to block this Trump executive order. Can you tell us where that case stands right now?

John C. Yang: Sure. Our case right now is on what’s called a partial summary judgment here in the District of Columbia where our case is filed. There are similar cases, one in New Hampshire, one in Seattle, that have already granted some forms of relief, saying that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional.

And part of this, I would say is the reason that there are these multiple cases is because the Supreme Court has expressed concern about having what are called nationwide injunctions, having relief being given on a nationwide basis based simply on one judge’s order. So, part of why there are these multiple cases is because we want to make sure that, whatever relief that we can get, will be applicable to anyone here in the United States.

Alex Lovit: So, you’re talking about the Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this year that didn’t address the substantive question of birthright citizenship, but did say that district courts can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, which was previously the practice. For those of us that aren’t lawyers, we don’t think a lot about nationwide injunctions or district courts. How big of a deal is this?

John C. Yang: It is and it isn’t. I don’t want to overplay this, right? So, number one is it’s important that we understand this because when the Supreme Court first ruled, I think there were some people that thought that meant that birthright citizenship was no longer the law under the Constitution. So, part of it was making sure that people understood the Supreme Court decision didn’t address the substantive issue on birthright citizenship.

But the nationwide injunction issue is big in the sense that it does force lawyers to have to file more cases to make sure that we are protecting everyone here in the United States. An injunction is basically telling the administration to stop enforcing its order until they can have more time to develop the arguments.

The fact that we can’t have a nationwide injunction right now means that we need to file a case in DC, someone needs to file a case maybe in Seattle or California. We need to potentially file multiple cases to get the same relief.

Alex Lovit: Let’s talk a little bit about voting. Trump has signed an executive order, which requires every state to require proof of citizenship before allowing people to register to vote. What would this look like? What is the Trump administration asking for here?

John C. Yang: Right, so the Trump administration, under that executive order, is asking for people to either produce a passport or potentially a birth certificate. What that means in practice is we know that over 20 million Americans do not have either document, and so how they would prove that they are a citizen eligible to vote starts to look different. Especially for the Asian American community that would have a pretty significant effect. About two-thirds of our community are what we call first-generation immigrants, i.e. they were born abroad. So by definition, they do not have an American birth certificate.

In that situation, under what the administration seems to be proposing, then they would need to produce a passport. And again, we all recognize that not everyone that are citizens here in the United States have the means to obtain a passport. So, the restrictions, potentially on a person’s right to vote, could be pretty serious. If you are a citizen over 18 years of age, under the Constitution, you are entitled to vote.

Now, certainly the government can impose certain restrictions to make sure that you are eligible to vote, but the issue here is we should make American democracy as accessible to everyone as possible, and we should not be erecting areas that are unnecessary.

All of the studies that anyone has produced has shown that the notion of voter fraud, the notion of non-citizens participating in American elections is very, very, very low. It is virtually non-existent. This is not a problem that requires a fix. So, if we’re doing a cost-benefit analysis, the cost of preventing legitimate citizens of voting far outweighs any benefit of restricting non-citizens from voting.

Alex Lovit: And where does that case stand now?

John C. Yang: And that case, we brought a number of sister organizations like the Brennan Center, like ACLU. The court has imposed an injunction, so the administration cannot execute on its executive order. At this point, I don’t believe the administration has even appealed that order. We have heard rumors that the administration might seek to put forward another executive order of some type, but we have yet to see that.

Alex Lovit: So far, we’ve talked about who’s allowed in the country, who gets citizenship, who gets the right to vote. Those are pretty important things, I think people have emotional attachments to those. I want to ask about another series of cases that your organization is involved in that I think people won’t have the same emotional attachment to, which is about the Trump administration canceling previously awarded federal grants. Help us understand, should we be outraged? Why should we be outraged?

John C. Yang: Yes, this is a great area to talk about because I think you’re right, that on one level this is not an area that people understand that much, but the significance of it is pretty great. And for us, among other things, it’s about our federal government living up to its obligations.

Congress authorized money to be spent in the way of grants to organizations or local state governments to help address the problem of hate crimes. The federal government agreed that on certain issues, for example, on hate crimes, the government needs to be involved to make sure that hate crimes gets reported, people get assistance when they’re victims of hate crimes. After Congress authorized that, for the administration to capriciously and without any reason, cancel those grants or say, “We’re not going to pay.” To us is both certainly a breach of contract in many respects, but it is a breach of the separation of powers.

On one hand, Congress is supposed to appropriate these monies. The president should not have discretion to then say, “Well, I do not want to spend that.” So at core, that’s what this debate is about, and we have another lawsuit involving grants for the naturalization process.

We have a process for once the citizenship test is administered, the process of becoming citizens and being integrated into the United States. The federal government recognizes it cannot do all of its on its own. And so that’s why we have this process of grants that are given to organizations to help administer this process.

But basically, now we have a federal government that is saying, “Even though you’ve passed all the tests, even though you’ve done what you need to become an American citizen, nevertheless we’re not going to help you anymore.” And that began to us as fundamentally un-American, as well as a breach of separation of powers and a breach of what the federal government agreed to do.

Alex Lovit: And so there’s ongoing litigation about these cases too. Where do those cases stand right now?

John C. Yang: So, those cases are still pending. Some of them are in the appellate classes, some of them are still in the pretty early stages.

Alex Lovit:

But in this case, the Trump administration’s actions have not been blocked by the court, is that correct?

John C. Yang: That correct. Unfortunately, in these particular cases, Trump’s revocation of these grants have been allowed to stay thus far.

Alex Lovit: And what are the effects of that?

John C. Yang: The effects of that, among other things, is that we actually have organizations that have to lay off people because they don’t have these federal grants to employ people to help with the citizenship process or to help victims of hate crimes. Perhaps more importantly, it is the victims of hate crimes or it is the people that are eligible to become citizens, that are not getting the services that they need to get to resolution on their hate crime or to help become a citizen.

Alex Lovit: Let me ask about another way that the Trump administration is trying to restrict who has access to American identity, which is his policy declaring English to be the only official language of the United States. That’s the first time that’s happened in American history. I don’t know if there’s a lawsuit going on here, but can you explain what the effects will be of this?

John C. Yang: On one hand, it’s interesting because some people would say, “Well, English should be the language of the United States.” And to be clear, organizations like ours, among other things really work to make sure that Asian Americans have access to be able to learn English.

At the same time, let’s recognize that immigrants will not always come here with English as an ability. About 30% of our Asian American community is what’s called limited English proficiency. Just because English is not your first language does not mean that you are less of a citizen. What this executive order potentially has the effect of doing is allowing the federal government not to have translated services, which can be against the law in some cases.

But just if you think about our websites with respect to whether it’s social security benefits, whether it is with respect to disability benefits, if you only have English, then you are effectively barring a large segment of our American population from accessing those benefits. If you think about the diversity of our country, that would have a very significant impact.

With respect to why this is so important, let’s think about what happens during a hurricane or a natural disaster, how we get information to our citizens, our residents, about where to evacuate to, where to go. If you are only providing those services in English, then we have a large segment of our American population that literally could be stranded in a hurricane zone, literally would have their life, their health be jeopardized.

Alex Lovit: We’ve gone through kind of a number of different Trump policies that AAJC is challenging legally or is lobbying against. Is there anything I’ve left out? Is there anything else you would want to mention that sort of is emblematic of the way that Trump is trying to restrict inclusion in the United States and that you’re trying to push back on?

John C. Yang: In terms of how the administration is trying to restrict inclusion, we have an administration that is trying to portray this as trying to make America safer, is trying to protect America from criminals, and the suggestion that immigrants are part of the enemy or that somehow we are invading this country, that is obviously not the narrative of who America is.

America has always been an immigrant country. Other than Native Americans who have been here forever, other than African-Americans that were literally brought here in chains, this country is a nation of immigrants. So, any attempt to redefine who America is, is very dangerous.

Now, going further than that, in terms of what we are seeing in our Asian American community, again, it’s not just targeted at people that are so-called breaking the law. In the news, you see how they are trying to portray Asian American students as spies. They’re trying to portray workers that are here on what’s called H-1B visas, still… worker visas, as people that are taking away American jobs.

Those are all similar attempts to redefine who should be in the United States. And I bring those up because again, it’s not just about low-wage workers. It’s not just about people that break the law. It’s about trying to redefine, as a whole, that there’s only a specific segment of the world that somehow should belong in the United States.

Alex Lovit: Is there anything people can do to help fight that culture question?

John C. Yang: It is maybe as simple as reaching out to your neighbor that is an immigrant and say, “You belong here.” The number of people in our Asian American community, and this does go back to COVID-19, that feel like they don’t belong here anymore, even though they’re citizens even, is unfortunately, shockingly high.

Part of this has to be the message that America is an inclusive society. America has always been a diverse society. We celebrate that. We are not a static society. I think that has what has made this country so vibrant is the fact that we welcome new people, new ideas. We try to portray ourselves as the land of innovation. If we are to live up to those values, then we need to speak those values and have policies that reflect those values.

So, I absolutely think that this is one space where we as citizens, you could do your part in making sure that people recognize that there’s a beauty in that diversity. There’s a beauty in that inclusion that, has made this country so strong.

Alex Lovit: A lot of what Trump has attempted to do is to centralize power in the executive branch, for the president to be able to do things that in the past, Congress has been able to do. So, he’s trying to have control over how money is spent, which traditionally Congress has the power of the purse. With the birthright citizenship case, he’s trying to interpret the Constitution, which traditionally the Supreme Court gets to do. And in some ways, the Supreme Court has allowed this expansion of executive power.

Do you think that will continue to play out? So, if we do continue to have relatively free and fair elections and we do have transfers of power, will the presidency just be more powerful after this term?

John C. Yang: That’s an interesting question. Will the presidency be more powerful after this term? On one level, I think that answer is probably yes, but I also think about this in terms of ebbs and flows, and so is, that a permanent state? Unclear, because we have seen, if you think about Franklin Delano Roosevelt even, and the New Deal, that was in which the President did have significant power, and even though Congress and the Supreme Court existed, there was a different field.

It’s an interesting conversation also to have in terms of what is the right balance, because maybe it’s a good thing that the president can act because that could be more efficient because Congress is not doing its job. On one hand, that might feel like a good answer at the time. On the other hand, having just one entity in a position that it can act for the entire nation, I think is exceptionally dangerous.

Alex Lovit: Why is that dangerous?

John C. Yang: I actually worked in China for six years, from 2008 to 2014. And on one level, you could say how the Chinese government is very efficient because it is centralized. But you also saw what happened in COVID-19 when it didn’t adjust the circumstances, the country remained locked down.

You think about the Chinese system on one level, again, because it is centralized, how much government surveillance, how little autonomy, perceived autonomy, Chinese citizens have compared to what the United States and American citizens have.

One of the great things about the United States is the freedom that it offers. As flawed as it is at times, we are still a country that has incredible liberties. And when you start centralizing power, there’s a danger that those liberties start to go away.

Alex Lovit: What would it look like for Congress or for the courts to reassert themselves and kind of reclaim some of this power that the executive has claimed?

John C. Yang: I think it would look like a Congress that started passing more legislation, certainly would be one space. Certainly, the court definitely can assert itself through some of the upcoming decisions, even. Those would be spaces that this could happen.

The other place that we haven’t really talked about is state and local governments. I still have a great hope for that because even there, I have heard so-called conservative governors and so-called progressive governors, getting together to talk about how they work together, talk about asserting themselves in their own state and local systems to make sure that they’re delivering for their people. So, that definitely gives me hope as well.

Alex Lovit: You’re involved in a lot of lawsuits that ultimately will or can end up in front of the Supreme Court, and that court hasn’t always been friendly, I think, to your perspective. Do you have faith that this court, this current court, will hold the line on issues like birthright citizenship, on these issues of long settled law about executive power?

John C. Yang: On one level, I think I have to have faith because the counter narrative, to not having the faith in the Supreme Court, is to say that I do not have faith in the rule of law. And I think that is untenable because then it does lead literally to the demise of democracy.

Do I have concerns about where they will come out on individual cases? Absolutely. And the direction of the court overall? Absolutely. And then for those, then I have to think about how do we work, whether again with state and local governments? How do we work with communities to protect those that are the most vulnerable from what I perceive to be a wrong-headed Supreme Court decision?

Alex Lovit: You’re involved in a number of lawsuits. You’re seeing a lot of challenges, both at the cultural level and the legal level of how American identity is being restricted and made more exclusive, less inclusive. What should Americans do right now? What should we think right now? How can people be a part of the solution here?

John C. Yang: I know this sounds simple and incredibly naive to some, but people need to register and people need to vote. They need to make their voices heard. Elections do send a signal to those that are already in power. So, that would be number one.

Number two is to think about all the ways that you could participate in our community as a whole. Now is not the time to withdraw from society. I know that it might feel hard and it might feel like now is the time just to worry about yourself a little bit and just get in your own little, whole bubble zone of comfort. I understand that. I understand that if you need to do that for even a couple of weeks or something.

But we do need people to be writing letters to Congress. That actually does make a difference. I know some people think, “Oh, what does that do?” Members of Congress do listen, especially people that are from their districts. Phone calls matter, letters matter, letters to the editor matter, letters to the editor that complain about how something is being covered matter.

All of those small pieces add up to a larger whole. If you think about the course of our history, if you think about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it wasn’t because of just one person. Certainly, Martin Luther King was a leader. Certainly John Lewis was a leader. But it wasn’t just the leaders’ actions alone that caused these things to happen.

It was because people whose names we will never know marched in the streets; people whose names we will never know, that made signs that news agencies covered. Don’t minimize yourself in this because if you do, then you’re not going to have the government that you want.

On one hand, yes, that’s going to feel small and that will feel like, “Well, can it make a difference?” It will. It will. So, that would be my final message to people that are listening is that don’t lose hope. Stay engaged. Think about what your little piece in this will be, because your piece is actually not that little.

Alex Lovit: Well, John C. Yang, thank you for those inspirational words, and thank you for joining me on The Context.

John C. Yang: Thank you very much.

Alex Lovit: The Context is a production of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Our producers are George Drake Jr. and Emily Vaughn. Melinda Gilmore is our director of communications. The rest of our team includes Jamaal Bell, Tayo Clyburn, Jasmine Olaore, and Darla Minnick. We’ll be back in two weeks with another conversation about the democracy.

In the meantime, visit our website kettering.org to learn more about the foundation or to sign up for our newsletter. If you have comments for the show, you can reach us at thecontext@kettering.org. If you liked the show, leave us a rating or a review wherever you get your podcasts, or just tell a friend about us. I’m Alex Lovit. I’m a senior program officer and historian here at Kettering. Thanks for listening.

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guests. They’re not the views and opinions of the Kettering Foundation. The Foundation’s support of this podcast is not an endorsement of its content.

Speaker 3: This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.