Nearly two thirds of Arizonans think children of illegal immigrants should not be entitled to U.S. citizenship just because they were born in this country, a new statewide survey shows.
The findings release Monday by Rasmussen Reports come as state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is weighing legislation that would forbid the state from issuing birth certificates to a child unless at least one parent could prove citizenship. Mere presence in this country, legal or otherwise, would not qualify.
A similar measure dealing with what are called "anchor babies'' was introduced during the 2008 legislative session by Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, with Pearce signed on as a sponsor. But that proposal never got a hearing.
Since that time, though, Pearce has crafted and engineered passage of the toughest state law aimed at illegal immigrants in the country. At the same time, immigration has become the focal point of Arizona politics.
But the controversy is not limited to Arizona: Rasmussen reports that 58 percent of people nationwide say citizenship should not be conferred on someone solely because of the location of that child's birth.
The question is deeper than simply denying a birth certificate. It also means that the children of illegal immigrants, now entitled to various public benefits, would find them off limits.
Pearce acknowledged that courts have ruled the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in the wake of the Civil War to provide equal protection under the law, guarantees citizenship to anyone born in this country.
But he said extending that right to babies born of parents in the U.S. illegally is based on a misreading of the amendment.
He notes it says citizenship requires not just birth in the United States but also that the person is "subject to the jurisdiction'' of this country. He said that does not apply to people here illegally.
And Pearce said he believes a federal court, given a fresh chance to look at the issue, would reach the same conclusion.
But Rep. David Lujan, D-Phoenix, said Monday it is Pearce who is misreading the Constitution. Lujan, who is an attorney, said visitors, legal or otherwise, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Lujan, however, said the poll results are not surprising.
"I think it's a reflection of people's frustration with the federal government not doing anything when it comes to immigration,'' he said. "Until we can address our immigration issues at the national level, states are going to continue to do these things and people are going to continue to be frustrated.''
Repeated calls Monday to press aides to Gov. Jan Brewer seeking her stance on the issue were not returned.
One possible foe will be the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. The organization opposed the similar plan from several years ago amid concerns about putting these facilities, which actually issue birth certificates, in a law enforcement role and eroding trust with patients.
The telephone survey of 500 likely voters, conducted June 29, has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:20 pm on Mon, Jul 5, 2010.
"The question is deeper than simply denying a birth certificate. It also means that the children of illegal immigrants, now entitled to various public benefits, would find them off limits" -- AS IT SHOULD BE!!! Mr. President, are you listening? Want to tackle the ILLEGAL immigration problem? Get rid of anchor baby policy. ENFORCE DEPORTATION. STRENGTHEN the border. In the long run, the elimination of the drain from Government coffers (FEDERAL and STATE) would pay for it. You promised CHANGE. You want my vote, get rid of the problem. You give amnesty again, and you'd be doing the same old song and dance.....
forkedlift1 posted at 3:09 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Who funds these Rasmussen "polls" anyway? And who orders them? Who are Rasmussen's "clients" or "customers"?
On this latest one I'd like to see a copy of the exact questions asked, exactly as they were asked of the party supposedly answering the phone, and in the exact sequence that each question was asked.... not an analysis by Rasmussen of the supposed answers.
AZMomma posted at 4:22 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Not surprising that Lujan reads the Immigration law differently.
It will go to the SCOTUS and we will see if the old ruling, applied against a totally different situation will have validity today.
No one wants to deny LEGAL citizens the full rights and benefits of this Country. However, granting such rights to Illegals and their spawn is just ludicrous.
IceCat posted at 6:23 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
I guess one could make a point, if anchor babies aren't US Citizens, neither are children born overseas to US Military parents.
Personally I would like to see the debate get back to moving Arizona forward, budget issues, growing the economy instead of trying to be the 1950's Alabama of the west.
snipes posted at 7:31 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Headline should have read:
"Survey: Most Arizonans don't approve of U.S. Constitution"
snipes posted at 7:39 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Rasmussen:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/64_in_arizona_say_children_of_illegal_immigrants_should_not_automatically_become_u_s_citizens
snipes posted at 7:40 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
The Poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/toplines/toplines_arizona_immigration_june_29_2010
snipes posted at 7:45 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
The Rasmussen article:
http://www.tinyurl.com/354lq2v
The Poll questions:
http://www.tinyurl.com/28crmba
RollerCam posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
CASE ONE: Two American citizens, one or both of them serving in our military, have a child outside of the borders of the USA, likely at a US Military base..
CASE TWO: A pregnant, illegal alien invader from Mexico sneaks over the AZ-Mex border to give birth in the ER at a Nogales, AZ hospital.
How in the wildest stretch of imagination can an open-borders cheerleader like "IceCat" try to equate these situations?
Amazingly, she appears to be serious.
SunWorshiper posted at 8:58 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
IceCat, I believe your statement regarding children being born overseas to military not being citizens is incorrect. If both parents are US citizens, the child is US citizen. And in those cases, both parents are more than likely under the "jurisdiction" of the US Military at that base. If, however, one parent is the citizen of that country the militaty base is in (or another country), the child gets the benefit of "dual citizenship" and the added benefit of picking and chosing which country they want to become citizens of at age 18 (or they can remain "dual" forever). The US doesn't recognize "dual citizens" and if that child wants to become a US citizen, they must give up their allegiance to any country other than the US in order to vote and that type of thing that is the right of US citizens only. The non-US parent is generally a permanent resident alien. I have a relative that is "dual" and that's how it was explained to me.
There was also an article when SB 1070 was signed that indicated some illegal parents here with US citizen children were going to the Consulate(?) to fill out papers making their children dual US/Mex citizens, just in case they returned to Mex they must have needed that to get the child Mex recognition, but still would be able for the chld to go back/forth legally? Don't know..
Accuracy posted at 9:38 am on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Survey: Most Arizonans don't approve of automatic citizenship . . . But, do they disagree with the Fourteenth Amendment?
Birthright citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:
"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."
avsolar posted at 1:25 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
The proposed law should be retroactive for 500 years. Then all those who want this law could follow the law and go back to Europe.
TruthSeeker posted at 3:33 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
Then why are diplomats' children born on U.S. soil specifically not considered citizens? Could it be that since they are foreigners that they are not "subject to jurisdiction?"
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:11 pm on Tue, Jul 6, 2010.
SunWorshipper is correct. My wife was born of two US citizens at an Air Force base in England. However, she's a citizen of the USA....
forkedlift1 posted at 9:38 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
SunWorshiper, the U.S. DOES recognize dual citizenship. Google "dual citizenship" for more info.
forkedlift1 posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
Avsolar, beautiful (and funny) post. I can think of a few I'd like to recommend for being first in line in order to comply with that retroactive law.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:40 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
Avsolar: No problem. Part of my heritage is American Indian, and goes back that far. How about yours and forkedlift's?
forkedlift1 posted at 12:11 pm on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
Snipes,
How right you are that the Headline should have read "Survey: Most Americans don't approve of U.S. Constitution."
It's too bad that one can't just click on a link provided by a reader as was the case with EVT's former website. Consequently I couldn't access the link you provided that apparently had the actual question(s) asked for this particular "poll."
I did finally find many, many paragraphs of "analysis" by Rasmussen about the results of this particular "poll" -- still without providing the actual question or questions posed to 500 "likely voters" on June 29.
It's loaded with percentages that Rasmussen provides for readers, includes such terms as "the president's party," and says that there was no difference between men's and women's responses to THE QUESTION. But it doesn't provide what the actual question was.
Through all of Rasmussen's gobbledy-gook analysis and his stated reference to the question, the best I could ascertain is that the question must have been, "Do you agree (or disagree) that children born to illegal immigrants should not automatically become citizens?
If nothing else, Rasmussen is certainly a proponent of the Dumbing Down of America.
forkedlift1 posted at 8:59 pm on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
On the subject of a Rasmussen poll's authenticity, I went back and found this comment by somebody on another article. That time it was the garbage from "pollster" Rasmussen "70% support Arizona's SB 1070" -- as good as gold to the jobless redneck bigot in need of a scapegoat to blame for his woes.
"As to 70% that's nebulous too, hardly accurate, but even so as Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time." So 70% is basically just rather incompetent propaganda. Also I may be part of the 70%. I answered a survey that asked if I favored foreign citizens committing crimes in the U.S. and said "no." Most of the 70% is average people answering hyperbole."