Arizona lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

Journalstar.com ^ | 6-16-2010 | Michelle Price

[stan_sipple]

Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "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." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.

"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."

Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

[wolfcreek]

Hateful, Racist, xenophobic, bigoted, unkind, just damn mean..................................Just do it!

[NewCenturions]

"There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."

AMEN!!

[Americanwolfsbrother]

I love Russell Pierce and was proud to work with him on SB1070 but I don’t think this is going to fly. As much as I would like us to stop the anchor baby scam we are going to have to either A) get the supreme court to issue a ruling reinterpreting the 14th amendment or B) abolish or revamp the 14th. Just my 2 cents.AWB

[SJSAMPLE]

Sure. But how is SCOTUS going to reinterpret the 14th Amendment without a test case? They don’t just read the papers and decide to get involved.

Pass the law, and run it through SCOTUS. Hopefully, we can mitigate the years of challenges and fast-track this.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

Excellent. Zero will have no claim to ANY kind of citizenship if SCOTUS realises that the 14th amendment wasn’t supposed to apply to anchor babies. Have we ever deported a sitting president before?

[Lmo56]

Napolitano was on Fox this morning and said that this was already settled - anyone born in the US regardless of parentage is a citizen ...

This is very mis-leading ...

As far as I know, SCOTUS has never made a detemination in a case where the parents are illegally within the country ...

Does anyone know of a cite ???

[bcsco]

This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

One Slice at a Time on Amnesty?

Illegal Immigrants are Career Criminals

Closure of Refuge Lands Adjacent to Border Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (AZ)

U.S./Mexico Border, from someone who has "Been there..."

7,200 pounds of marijuana seized from Tucson home

14 arrested during Denver immigration rally

Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico

Caption this 1070SB protest in Arizona (bizarro liberal world - up is down, black is white, etc)

U.S.-Mexican border security continues to deteriorate, officials say

Seven letters make a big difference (Minutemen opposed only to illegal immigration)

Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

Drug smugglers try to cover tracks by carpeting shoe soles

Immigration: What Would Reagan Do?

BREAKING!! RON GOCHEZ IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES - Election date is 6/26/2010

Brewer's Yeast

Chambers packed as Sacramento City Council discusses possible Arizona sanctions

Violence prompts strong warning at Ariz. monument

Sacramento council votes to enact economic sanctions against Arizona

Protesters call foul (at Red Sox/AZ game)

Female Genital Cutting: Affecting Young Girls in America

Huge Number of Disaster Drills Held Throughout America-Number of drills cause for concern?

Obama Gives Part of Arizona to Mexico

Another Stupid Democrat Reason Not To Secure The Border

Leaders from El Paso, Juarez meet over shooting

Mexican official: 15 gunmen die in clash with army

It Begins… Obama Gives Major Swath of Arizona Back to Mexico (Fox video- not a joke)

New Mexico candidate suggests securing border with landmines

Sacramento Council Votes To Enact Economic Sanctions Against Arizona

Notice Something About This Sign?

[umgud]

AZ keeps doin crap like this, they’re liable to deprive themselves of all the benefits the illegals bring. Next thing you know, all these illegals will take their business elsewhere.

[Lmo56]

Excellent. Zero will have no claim to ANY kind of citizenship if SCOTUS realises that the 14th amendment wasn’t supposed to apply to anchor babies. Have we ever deported a sitting president before?

He would not be deported - his mother was a US citizen. So, he is at least a citizen - just maybe not natural born.

SCOTUS would have to take a case where the mother was a US citizen and the father was a citizen of another country [and that country claims him as natural born]. Would Obama be natural born, or just a citizen ???

If SCOTUS took such a case [and ruled against Obama], then what would happen ??? He would be precluded from running in 2012, obviously - but would he be removed as a sitting President ??? Who knows ???

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Except, of course, for his mother being a US citizen...

[imfleck]

Arizona doesn’t have the right to deny U.S. citizenship. I can understand denying birth certificates, at least that’s what I think they’re considering, but denying citizenship? Nope, SCOTUS won’t allow it to happen.

[Mr. Bird]

I think it’s essential to be philosophically consistent and intellectually honest when discussing this. Was there any such thing as “illegal” immigration in the late 19th century? Even so, the language of the 14th amendment is pretty damned clear. Any SCOTUS ruling carving out an exception for children of illegals would be an outrageous trampling of the separation of powers.

[Little Ray]

Yes.
We didn’t have quotas then, but if you were sick with certain diseases or otherwise an undesirable, you went right back.

[Lmo56]

I think it’s essential to be philosophically consistent and intellectually honest when discussing this. Was there any such thing as “illegal” immigration in the late 19th century? Even so, the language of the 14th amendment is pretty damned clear. Any SCOTUS ruling carving out an exception for children of illegals would be an outrageous trampling of the separation of powers.

Traditionally, at English Common Law [upon which our law is based], any alien who entered the country with the sovreign's permission owed the sovreign allegiance as long as he was in the realm. Likewise, the sovreign owed the alien protection - so long as the alien was in the country. THEIR CHILDREN BORN IN ENGLAND WERE ENGLISH SUBJECTS ...

HOWEVER, an alien who entered the country undetected and without permission was an INVADER - and NOT due ANY protection of the sovreign - AND THEIR CHILDREN BORN IN ENGLAND WERE NOT ENGLISH SUBJECTS ...

Aliens who enter the United States should be treated accordingly - and so should their children ...

[Mr. Bird]

Aliens who enter the United States should be treated accordingly - and so should their children ...

I do not necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but the constitution clearly does. To read 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 any other way is dishonest. Reminds of the Left claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people.

[stan_sipple]

yes, look up a scotus decision from the late 1800’s us v wong kim ark, United States v. Wong Kim Ark - How cited169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 - Supreme Court, 1898 - Google Scholar
scotus held that a chinese person born of chinese nationals was automatically a citizen, even though a federal statute back then said otherwise for chinese citizens. Ironic a dissenter was Justice Harlan who said the US set up a different rule for birthright citizenship when we adopted the constitution from the traditional british rule, foreign sources anyone? Also Harlan dissented in Plessy v Ferguson, (separate but equal segregation was ok to majority). Maybe we cannot turn back the clock on birthright citizen either.

[Lmo56]

I do not necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but the constitution clearly does. To read 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 any other way is dishonest. Reminds of the Left claiming the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people.

You miss the point - the operative phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Is a child whose parents ARE NOT LEGALLY PERMITTED in the US "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ???

SCOTUS has never rendered a decision on this where a fact in the case is that the parents are illegal aliens. It needs to be decided. The framers of the 14th Amendment OBVIOUSLY assumed legal presence in the US.

For if you assume that it applies to anyone born iin the US, then you get into a sticky situation. Lets assume that the United States and Mexico declare war on each other. The parents are found and deported. The son [being a United States citizen] is drafted. The father is drafted by the Mexican army. They meet on the battlefield, in the presence of their officers. If they do not fight against each other, they are shot by each side for treason ...

[MrB]

One thing you have to remember about leftists and leftist activist judges -

it doesn’t matter the intent of the law or of those who passed/ratified it was.

It only matters what, in their enlightened opinion, would be best in the interest of Cosmic Justice.

Your argument is the true one, but not one that any leftist would give any weight.

[Lmo56]

yes, look up a scotus decision from the late 1800’s us v wong kim ark ...

You miss the point - I HAVE read Ark [EXTENSIVELY] ...

Ark was a citizen under the 14th Amendment - AND his parents were in the US LEGALLY. The Chinese Exclusion Act was unconstitutional because it was in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

ARK DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER ARK WOULD BE A CITIZEN IF HIS PARENTS WERE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGLLY ...