Proposals to deny citizenship to illegal immigrants’ children in the works
Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and a group of Republican lawmakers on Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
A national coalition called State Legislators for Legal Immigration is coordinating the effort. Lawmakers from 15 states including Arizona held news conferences Tuesday to support proposing state legislation in their respective states.
Kansas lawyer Kris Kobach, who helped Pearce craft Senate Bill 1070, is working with Pearce and Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, to draft a bill that all the states could propose. Pearce said a draft is written and will be ready when the Arizona session starts in January but would not say exactly how they will propose denying citizenship to the babies.
Previous attempts in Arizona have focused on tinkering with state-issued birth certificates.
Pearce said the legislation would not be retroactive. When the media asked Pearce how the state would prove citizenship in a delivery room, he said delayed birth certificates could be given to allow parents time to gather proof of citizenship. Pearce did not answer when the media asked if both parents would be required to be citizens or just one.
States have oversight over birth certificates and, to an extent, over who can receive state services, but citizenship is a federal issue.
Creating different birth certificates, or giving different people different levels of access to state services based on information on birth certificates, would open the state to federal lawsuits. The lawsuits could argue that the state is pre-empting federal authority and violating federal laws that say all citizens are due equal protection.
Kavanagh, Pearce and the other lawmakers say that’s exactly what they want: to force these lawsuits so the issue could appear before the Supreme Court, which could possibly reinterpret its earlier decision on the 14th Amendment.
History
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868and states 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.”
The amendment’s primary intent was to guarantee citizenship to African-Americans, particularly former slaves. But the question of whether the authors also intended to allow the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens has been a matter of debate since its inception.
The dispute focuses on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the fact that additional Congressional acts were later passed to grant citizenship to Native Americans born on reservations.
Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Others counter that the words merely were meant to exclude U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats or of occupying enemy armies.
In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S.-born son of an immigrant Chinese couple did become a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment despite the fact that at the time his parents were ineligible for citizenship.
That ruling has been interpreted to apply to all babies born in the U.S. and is what opponents of birthright citizenship want the Supreme Court to reconsider.
“We’ve allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment,” Pearce said. “We’ve allowed it to rob the legacy of African Americans, and we’ve allowed it to be misapplied.”
Pearce said illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because, for example, they are not subject to any military draft or required to serve on a jury.
Kavanagh called the current interpretation a “nonsensical policy of awarding citizenship … on the irrational criteria of your GPS location.”
He said that when the 14th Amendment was written, the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording meant individuals who owed their sole allegiance to the United States.
“That’s why it didn’t bestow citizenship to Native Americans,” he said. “They were sovereign to their own tribe.”
Possible proposals
Some advocates have proposed repealing or changing the 14th Amendment, but both Kavanagh and Pearce have said they find that unnecessary. They want the Supreme Court to reconsider its interpretation. To make that happen, Kavanagh said he and Pearce are focusing on making a change in state law or procedure to spur lawsuits that would end up before the high court.
Previous efforts in Arizona to change the way the state handles birth certificates have failed.
In 2007, an initiative called the Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act that would have required hospitals to check the citizenship of the parents of newborns failed to make the ballot.
In 2008, former state Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, proposed asking voters to change the way the state issues birth certificates. Birth certificates would have still been given to children of illegal immigrants, but the certificates would have stated “that the child was born to parents who were not in this country legally and that the child is not eligible for benefits that require United States citizenship.”
Pearce, a state representative at the time, was one of the sponsors.
The bill was never given a committee hearing.
Kavanagh and Pearce have said they don’t yet know if the new legislation would be similar to what Johnson proposed. Kavanagh has also said he does not know yet who would be charged with confirming a parent’s legal status should he and Pearce take that approach.
On Tuesday morning, Gov. Jan Brewer declined to say whether she would support their effort.
“I have not heard all the debate,” she said. “We’ll look forward to listening to it and seeing it vetted in the legislative process and make some determinations at that time.”
When asked if she had concerns about another lawsuit so soon on the heels of the SB 1070 lawsuit now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, she said she’s always concerned about lawsuits.
“No one wants to be in court,” she said. “No one wants to be fighting with the federal government.” But she said it’s up to the Legislature to determine what is good for the people of Arizona and propose legislation that reflects that.
“Then when it comes to the Governor’s Office, we’ll determine if it’s good legislation or not good legislation,” she said.
Argument
Opponents of the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the 14th Amendment say it has spurred citizens of other nations to come to the United States to give birth. Those children then have access to social services and can provide a more direct route for their parents to become citizens. Having an immediate relative who is a citizen can speed up the lengthy process.
According to a study released in August by the Pew Hispanic Center, about 340,000 children were born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants in 2008. Most were born to parents who had lived in the U.S. for more than a year.
Pew researchers could not say how many of those children were born in Arizona but did say that about 4 percent of the nation’s illegal immigrants are in Arizona. If 4 percent of the 340,000 children in the U.S. born to illegal immigrants are also in Arizona, that would equate to about 13,600 children born in Arizona in 2008. Kavanagh has said his primary concern is not parents using their children to become citizens but the amount of money the children cost taxpayers because, as citizens, they have access to social services such as health care and welfare.
There are a number of Arizona taxpayer-funded services that non-citizens are eligible for, such as public school. But only legal residents can get food stamps, cash assistance under the needy-families program, a driver’s license and in-state college tuition.
Several small groups of protestors showed up to Pearce’s news conference Tuesday, including one who waved an opposition flier in his face before being escorted several feet away by legislative staff and a police officer.
Lydia Guzman, president of the civil-rights coalition Somos America, said she was outraged by the new legislative effort.
“I believe the authors of the Constitution are rolling over in their graves right now,” she said. “What I see here is picking and choosing what part of the Constitution a person likes. That is un-American.”
She said lawsuits will be filed if the bill becomes law.
Carlos Garcia with Puente predicted the bill will make Arizona the circus it became following the passage of SB 1070.
October 19, 2010: The Arizona Republic
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
The new proposals that Arizona is attempting to pass of choosing whether child born in Arizona is a citizen or not, is wrong. They’re using the wrong system then to determine what makes child a citizen. They should really use what they’re implying…the system that a child should have blonde hair and blue eyes. It doesn’t make sense. Instead of being racist biggets maybe they should remember Nazi Germany. They always say history repeats itself, looks like Arizona is leading the way.
Say Lolita and Benito – and I would assume that these are not your real names – it brings up an interesting question. When Lolita says, “equal protection of every citizen” – the key word here is ‘CITIZEN‘.
You see, ILLEGAL INVADERS, ALIENS, UN-DOCUMENTED WORKERS, or whatever you wish to call them – who have entered Estados Unidos ILLEGALLY – are exactly that – ILLEGAL – they are NOT citizens. Doesn’t matter what country they have come from – but I’ve noticed that Pierre, Yaroslv or Chin-lin haven’t left any posts here. It seems that only folks with names like ‘Lolita’ or ‘Benito’ or ‘Juan’ or ‘Carmelita’ seem to take offense to commentary, regarding one’s legal or ILLEGAL status – and their so-called “rights.”
End of discussion.
Hey Hippybiker! Or should i say Hippybitch, watch what you say and if you dont have a good argument then dont say anything. I agree on what Benito says. This would be violating the federal laws over the equal protection of every citizen. If Mr. Benito and you would have a debat over this, Mr. Benito would have won because you do not know how to have a real educated argument. All you know to say are cuss words because you have nothing else to say. So keep your stupid comments you yourself.
Hey Benito! Maybe this country should pattern it’s border protection principles on those of Mexico. Yeah, that’s right. Anybody who enters our southern border should be robbed, beaten, or perhaps killed. If it’s good enough for Mexico, it’s good enough for America.
In all reality sir, you are at best an idiotic moron, or, just a simple race baiter. hb AARP 3% er!
“Prop. 200”, “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″
0 = Arizona
3 = USA/ Our Constitution/ We the People of the United States
We are a country that is ruled by the Constitution (with all Amendments), and the Declaration of Independence, not by the majority of the day. When the uneducated do not know the principles in these documents, therein lays the problem in losing, so no one should be surprised when the dullards lose in court after being smartly challenged.
Last month of October 2010, our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote or the 2004, “Prop. 200”. In the month of July 2010, our U.S. Federal courts have found the so called State of Arizona hate filled legislation namely “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″ Un-constitution (So much for the intellect of Jan Brewer, “Did you read the bills you signed?”). But we all know that they will go crying to the Supreme Court of the United States, please, please, please go. We will fight you in Arizona, any other state, and yes in Washington DC. We will not tire, we will not be silent and we will persevere, I promise you.
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs and hate on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of these laws, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO! You were all wrong then and you are wrong now!
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by people of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all people are created equal, and that the rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis people of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some people comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
This is a rediculous idea that can threaten the civil rights of all americans, not just African-Americans. These bigots claim to love the American Constitution but want to change it when it doesn’t match up with what they want. Sorry boys, this Amendment is there for the protection of the citizenship of all. including you.
For the past 15 years or so I have been against automatic citizenship for anyone. Citizenship is a privilege not a right (my opinion) and should be earned not handed out like Kleenex. The issue relating to the huge number of NEW citizens drain on the economy is not new. This has been successfully hidden from the public by liberal representatives and by the media. When we attempt to make changes like SB 1070, we are immediately smacked down by these liberals for tampering with Federal policies. There attempt to create additional liberal voters through these policies is counter to the intent of the original immigration laws. Automatic citizenship is similar to being called a car because you were born in a garage or being called an OBGYN because a doctor was in attendance at the birth.
Earning citizenship would be a more proper approach to this problem. When you are born you are afforded all of the rights of the constitution except the title of ‘citizen’ and the right to ‘vote’. To earn these rights the individual must provide some service to this Country; military service, social service, or services in the public interest. Only after a successful term in one of these positions would one earn the rights of a Citizen.
Personally I see this as a States right to control entry from a foreign country. Crossing the border to US territory should not guarantee anything except medical assistance at personal cost for the birth and any emergency needs. But again, these costs should fall on the individuals not society at large. Once these unfortunate children are added to the citizen rolls, they become our responsibility of the state to support for life. Yes, a few become productive and support themselves; unfortunately the remainder are our to support for life.