State lawmakers filed legislation Thursday designed to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, the first step to what they admitted will be a protracted court fight.
The four bills — two in each chamber — require at least one parent to prove either citizenship or legal residency in order for the child to be recognized as a citizen of Arizona and, by extension, the United States.
Parents who can provide the necessary documentation will get a birth certificate certifying the child as a citizen. Failure of a parent to provide that proof would result in issuance of a birth certificate stating it is not proof of citizenship.
But the real teeth in the measure is part of the package that allows states to enter into compacts with each other to recognize the two types of birth certificates and treat the person accordingly.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, chief sponsor of the House version, said if the measures become law he expects a court to issue an injunction blocking their enforcement. But Kavanagh said that’s exactly what he wants, starting “a rational procedure of having the Supreme Court finally decide what was the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.
Attorney Stephen Montoya, one of the foes of the measure, said that will be a waste of time and resources. He said the question of citizenship by virtue of birth in this country is long-settled law and Arizona will lose that legal battle.
But Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who is carrying the House version, said there never has been a clear Supreme Court decision on the scope of the amendment.
Foes of the measure went beyond arguing its legality.
Talking about the plan, Rep. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, said “bigots have always surfaced during difficult times in the history of this country.’’ She compared the deportation of illegal immigrants to the Nazi Holocaust.
“This bill is not only ill-timed but it’s racist,’’ said Rep. Bruce Wheeler, D-Tucson.
And Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, drew parallels between creating two types of birth certificates to the discriminatory practices against blacks.
“This takes us back to the time where we had separate drinking fountains, one for whites and one for blacks,’’ he said. “This goes back to the time when we had separate public swimming pools, one for whites, one for blacks.’’
From a legal perspective, the verbiage at issue is simple. The 14th Amendment says, “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.’’
What’s at issue is that question of “subject to the jurisdiction.’’
Foes of the amendment say illegal immigrants and their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
“Ask any first-year law student: Anyone who the police can apprehend in Arizona is subject to the jurisdiction of Arizona,’’ said attorney Stephen Montoya.
Kavanagh, however, said that’s not what the drafters had in mind.
“They clearly stated in discussions that you owe sole allegiance to the United States,’’ he said.
Kavanagh said that was confirmed in early rulings on the scope of the amendment. For example, he said, the high court denied citizenship to the child of a Native American couple “because the parents owed their allegiance to the sovereign tribe.’’
Gould said there is no way that the crafters of the amendment intended that citizenship be applied to those who entered the country illegally.
“You’ve got to bear in mind that when they voted on the 14th Amendment we had open immigration,’’ he said. He also argued that none of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued since then has clarified the issue.
There was an 1898 case involving Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to parents who were not U.S. citizens. In that case, the nation’s high court concluded he was, in fact, entitled to citizenship even though his parents were “subjects of the Emperor of China.’’
But the justices said that his parents had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,’’ a situation Kavanagh said is different from those who entered and remain in this country illegally.
The two pieces of legislation are designed to put that issue squarely before the court.
The first bill, HB 2561 and SB 1309, spell out that citizenship is reserved for “a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.’’
Separately, HB 2562 and SB 1308 direct the governor to enter into a compact with other states that pass similar laws with a requirement that each state “shall make a distinction in the birth certificates, certifications of live birth or other birth records issued in the party states, between a person born in the party state who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and a person who is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’
The anticipated court fight is just part of the battle, though: For the compact to take effect it needs to be ratified by Congress. But the legislation defining citizenship is not contingent on federal approval.
DrunkenMonkey posted at 1:23 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
"Supporters of the idea say guaranteed citizenship results in taxpayers paying for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Opponents say the proposal will be declared unconstitutional."
Either way, it needs to be fixed... so... fix it....
percivale posted at 1:28 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
Why the Arizona legislative looks into way of creating jobs or how to bring more corporations into Arizona ? Nooooooo they are more interested in making a name for themselfes or dividing the people because remember divided you control better . If you read history it shows that the Chinese people was dennied citizenship on the late 1800's accused of taking jobs from the Americans at a lower rate of pay . Grow up Arizona and realize that the true enemy of the state is the poor education system and the ignorance propaganda of the rigth to keept us divided.
geekette posted at 2:05 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
And how is this going to create jobs or solve the budget problems? This is just another waste of time and money, since we all know that the bill will be challenged in court and most likely lose. How about an informal rule to hear only bills that directly affect job-creation and are not lawsuits waiting to happen?
TruthSeeker posted at 5:52 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
The above-mentioned Democrats apparently didn't listen to Obama's speech asking for "civility." They are still calling their opponents "racists," "Nazis," and "bigots." Same song, different verse.[angry]
Cerulean posted at 6:40 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
There are those in Arizona who travel to Mexico to influence better relationships. The effort is made because Mexican consumers and tourist leave billions of dollars in Arizona annually, which creates jobs. On the other hand we have Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer intensifying a negative attitude toward persons from Mexico.
People from every corner of the planet come to the United States to "anchor" their lives here with children. I agree this issue is a problem that merits discussion, however I think Russell Pearce is the worst politician possible for this issue and Arizona.
rrjenn posted at 8:11 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
percivale, you have a job? Almost 10% of the rest of us don't. Kick the illegal aliens back to their country of origin, and we cut unemployment in half. How is that dividing Americans? More education you say? Good idea, go back to school and get one.
geekette, read the above paragraph. Do you have any idea how much half of the unemployed is? We're talking 400,000 Arizonians working and paying taxes instead of draining the budget on unemployment. Can't you see how many jobs that would free up for American citizens? Are you daft?
Dementedcrats will always call repubs racist and facist. Heck, compared to those social progressives, aka communists, we probably do look like facists. Heck, anyone who isn't for wealth redistribution looks like a facist to them.
Cerulean, I'll pay Mexico respect when they stop allowing drugs to pour over the border and they stop allowing their citizens to pour over that same border. Until then, they can go straight to H#LL! Pearce seems to be the best one to send them there too.
Cerulean posted at 9:48 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
rrjenn,
Oh baloney. You will never pay Mexico respect. How about the U.S. stop making it so easy for cartels to purchase guns. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, so the cartels purchase their weaponry right here in Arizona. How about the US stop buying stolen fuel from drug cartels, siphoned from Pemex gas lines. How about the U.S. stop buying the drugs!
Name one thing that Pearce he has done to secure the border? The man is a rotten Senator. Throw him out with the bad apples.
rrjenn posted at 10:14 pm on Thu, Jan 27, 2011.
They buy fully auto assault rifles from America? Gee, I want one too. Where do I buy those guns? I think you are buying into a lie. The cartels can get all the guns they could possible want from other countries more sympathetic to their needs than the US. That lie is just designed to make you want to disarm Americans just as they have done to the Mexican people.
The federal government wont let Pearce secure the border. Remember, border security is a federal prerogative, and they choose to not do their job.
No, you are right. I'll never respect a country that allows just 50 families to own over 95% of the countries wealth while the rest go hungry, and then they demand that we feed their poor.
The US buys stolen gas from cartels? You mean the federal government? Our federal government? I'm sure they wouldn't treat their good friend Mexico this way.
The US is buying the drugs? Our government? No way, they just keep drugs illegal so the price stays high.
Just who do you think allows the cartels to exist? You really think those 50 families don't profit from the sale of drugs here? You really think they couldn't stop it if it wasn't profitable for them? How bout we just decriminalize those drugs? But where's the profit in that amigo?
(The Hill) — Two Republican senators are introducing a resolution that would end the constitutional right to citizenship that comes with being born on U.S. soil.
Rand Paul (Ky.) and David Vitter (La.) are introducing a resolution this week that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is an legal citizen, legal immigrant, or member of the armed forces, according to a joint press release Thursday.
Vitter said the legislation would help reduce illegal immigration.
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” Vitter said. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
Paul said the legislation enforces the current immigration rules.
“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” Paul said. “This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen.”
Poorman posted at 7:42 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Good anything tha will help to lessen or reduce the incentives for any illegalls to come here. Not just hispanics,they just happen to be in the majority though as they are next door to our state.Wonder why we don't get a lot of Canandians,maybe we do and don't hear about it,or maybe they are a little brighter upstairs.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:41 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Finally,
A decent article addressing from both sides the real issues. Those sponsors of this bill admit that they have an uphill battle on their hands, but have reasonable arguments which they hope will prevail. However if they argue "Original Intent," they will loose. Original Intent was pretty much discarded years ago. The only true original intention of a legislature is to reach sufficient compromise to get the bill or constitutional amendment passed. Vagueness and ambiguity are what makes the legislative process like making sausage.
But where our beloved Arizona Neo-cons can get relected by playing to their base [And judging from the foregoing comments, a very strong base in deed!], it is not so difficult to understand why this issue is being raised now. Heck, it got Buzz Mills to cut and run. It ought to keep our other Neo-cons in office too.
rrjenn posted at 9:04 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Yes it will Dale, and the real intent will win also as the real intent was over slaves and had nothing to do with criminals stealing into America to have anchor babies.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:06 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Wow...someone "lifted the rock" on the Neo-con haters again. So "original intent" of Congressional legislation is a "thing of the past"...hmmmmmm. Somebody better tell that to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote..."A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excussable tha a judge's refusal to consider legislative intent".
Children born of alien parents living in the United States from the 1860's until the 1920's were not considered "American Citizens" until the Supreme Courts "reinterpration" of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in the Wong Kim Ark v. United States decision. The Supreme Court did not challenge the wording of the 14th Amendment for 60years....60years. If it was so evident that children born to illegal aliens were in fact, Citizens of America....then why did it go unchallenged for 60years ???
A Proud American Neo-con
Accuracy posted at 11:39 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
“Attorney Stephen Montoya claims that legislation filed Thursday to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. Montoya, at a protest at the Capitol against the measure, said it is settled law and the state is just wasting time and money challenging it.”
--------------------------------------------
Arizona state lawmakers file legislation and target automatic citizenship. "A protracted court fight."
The proposed legislation to deny automatic citizenship to offspring of illegal immigrants would have to do the following:
∙ Persuade the Supreme Court to discard its longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
∙ Politically change the 14th Amendment so that citizenship is not automatic for children born in this country in the future.
∙ Demand that only a judge can say that someone is an illegal. And only a judge can say that someone is a U.S. citizen.
The 14th Amendment says anyone born in the U.S.A. (except to foreign diplomats) is a citizen of the United States and the state where they live. The feds can't prevent it, and neither can the state legislation.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:50 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Accuracy,
You are "right on target!"
rrjenn,
Yes John Paul Stevens has given lip service to legislative or original intent. They are the same thing. But where descerning original intent is neigh impossible, due in part to a lack of consistency in the debate surrounding legislation, it being either conflicting or totally lacking, lip service is about as useful in intepreting law as it is in making sausage.
maktak posted at 1:55 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
Waste of time. This will not bring Arizona out of the bottom of our economic, educational, and income rankings. It will improve conditions, but only minimally compared to JOB CREATION. Do you really think that illegal immigrants are currently holding all of our good paying jobs??? Sure, we'll have lower unemployment if we get rid of them all, but we'll still be one of the worst paying states in the union. Another smokescreen, another political diversion...
rrjenn posted at 7:25 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
If enough people want it, it can be done. Many countries have change their laws to stop illegals from dropping their babies and claiming citizenship. More and more people are demanding this change, and no matter what you say or it takes, it will get done. Our numbers grow stronger everyday, and we have a lot of money.
maktak, it's our time, and it is just one part of a larger program that will create millions of jobs for Americans that want to work. 20 million nationwide. And the savings on welfare will be very substantial too.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:30 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
I wonder why NO COMMENTS were allowed in the article about the ILLEGAL ALIEN that pointed an AK-47 but was shot and killed before he got a chance to use it.
I hope morons like Rep. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix and Rep. Bruce Wheeler, D-Tucson stop trying to make this out to be about race. Catherine, the Nazi's persecuted JEWS, even GERMAN JEWS!!! Last I checked, judaism is a RELIGION, not a RACE!!!! I'll bet you don't think AZ borders Mexico either, do you?
Copy/paste (if you have the brain power to do that) this address and do some reading. Maybe next time you won't sound so MORONIC!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
rrjenn posted at 7:55 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
"It's only the beginning of January, and state legislators have already introduced more than 600 immigration measures and resolutions -- about 50 percent of the number that was introduced in all of 2010, the National Conference of State Legislatures told Fox News Latino."
"That announcements comes a few weeks after the NCLS released a report revealing that last year, states enacted a record number -- 346 -- of bills and resolutions on immigration issues. They saw 1,400 immigration bills and resolutions introduced in 2010, says Ann Morse, program director for NCLS."
"NCLS says that every state that had a regular legislative session last year considered immigration measures, a trend that seems on course to be repeated this year, when every day one or more states seems to be taking up the issue. More than a dozen states are not even in session yet, Morse says."
It just gets better and better everyday. One day, the reconquistas and open border tards will be silent and America will be for Americans who love America .again
Rich posted at 8:45 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
“subject to the jurisdiction.’’
If they are then you can deport them. If they aren't you have to find whose jurisdiction they are subject to and get them to handle it. You can't make a law covering anyone who is not subject to the jurisdiction in which the law is made. It is contradictory. Either you can deport them, arrest them, detain them, or you can't. If you can they are "subject to your jurisdiction" as you would prove by doing so.
This is a rather moronic publicity grab by people who want to obscure the fact they are totally clueless about jobs, the economy and the budget, among other things, and if you buy it as anything other than that you probably shouldn't be allowed out of a managed care facility unaccompanied.
If they were serious they would follow the proper procedure to amend the Constitution, not play to the lowest common denominator in the most poorly educated state.
EmperorSmith posted at 9:25 pm on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
The constitution speaks much much like the religious text do to believers in there faith. To disavow that would be un American even jn a federalist America.
rrjenn posted at 10:19 am on Sun, Jan 30, 2011.
BS Rich and you know it. Are you really serious in thinking we can't deport someone who isn't subject our jurisdiction? Either way we can deport them. We have deported foreign diplomats before, and they clearly are not subject to US jurisdiction. You are as retarded as the ridicules argument you make.
EmperorSmith posted at 5:14 pm on Sun, Jan 30, 2011.
Rich is not retarded. just stands by what he believes. Name calling to mud slinging and the lead throwing. I do not agree with Rich on things but there has to be a middle ground before I am reloading.
rrjenn posted at 5:34 pm on Sun, Jan 30, 2011.
Say what you like about him, but his argument is retarded. He's basically saying that we can't deport anyone unless they are subject to American jurisdiction. It is as retarded as anything I've ever seen him write. No one walking on US soil cannot be tossed off US soil
EmperorSmith posted at 1:33 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Now Witney I think is, AKA dale.
EmperorSmith posted at 4:10 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
ok, I stand with you jenn on that.