Posted on 12/04/2007 11:29:33 AM PST by yorkie
Arizona voters may be asked to decide whether to prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to children of non-U.S. citizens and require hospitals to check the citizenship of parents of newborns.
Those are key provisions of a proposed initiative filed Friday for possible inclusion on the November 2008 ballot, and a leading legislative critic of illegal immigration says he plans similar but separate legislation to take the issue to voters.
Della Montgomery, the woman who filed the proposed initiative with the Secretary of State's Office, did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but the proposed “Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act” appears to be aimed at illegal immigration. “They are awarding the full privileges of United States citizenship of all persons born in the state without regard for the clear and equal requirements of federal law that a person born in the United States, shall citizenship be bestowed, shall not be subject to any foreign power and owe direct and immediate allegiance to the United States,” the proposed initiative's declaration of purpose states.
Some critics of illegal immigration contend that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment has been misapplied and was never intended to automatically grant citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants.
The constitutional provision was enacted after the Civil War and was meant to apply to former slaves, said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. “It has nothing to do with aliens.”
Supporters of the proposed initiative would need to submit signatures of at least 153,365 voters by July 3 to qualify the measure for the ballot, while legislative approval alone would be enough to put a referendum being drafted by Pearce on the ballot.
While generally banning issuance of birth certificates to non-citizens, the measure would permit one to be issued to a child whose mother is a foreign citizen and whose father is a U.S. citizen if the father formally acknowledges parentage and agrees in writing to financially support the child until adulthood.
The initiative also would require that hospitals submit “certified documentation of the parents' United States legal status” to local registrars with birth certificates for newborns.
Actually, it's not clear at all. The amendment does not assume that "born or naturalized" implies "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The question, of course, is what does "subject to the jurisdiction of," mean?
Bump
It's actually quite cleverly written, since the Supreme Court has ruled that a US birth certificate is the standard of evidence for establishing US citizenship.
By denying birth certificates, this is an end run around the court's established evidentiary standard.
What it has always meant: that US law applies to you while you are on US soil.
Unlike Native Americans prior to 1924, for example, who were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe or nation on their reservation, since the reservation was - in a technical legal sense - not US soil for personal jurisdiction purposes.
And unlike diplomatic personnel recognized by the US and their immediate family members.
It is one piece of evidence, but not the only one. For example, under the Nationality Act, any child appearing to be under 5 years of age who is found in the United States without any identification is presumed to be a citizen until proven otherwise.
Citizenship is a federal issue. It is outside the jurisdiction of the States. The State of Arizona should not be trying to alter citizenship requirements.
You are absolutely right, and there are other limit cases as well, involving lost records, etc.
There will be many, many lawsuits if this law passes accusing hospitals of malfeasance, poor record keeping, etc.
And hospitals will have to keep some sort of record for insurance purposes. No lawyer would ever advise a hospital to allow the birth of a child on its premises without keeping extensive internal records.
And those records will be subpoenaed one day and used to support a citizenship claim.
Really? So they can commit any crime they want and avoid arrest, indictment or incarceration? They are entitled to drive without licenses? Operate machinery without permits? They cannot be pulled over for moving violations?
In reality, illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction and they are arrested by US law enforcement, indicted by US grand juries, convicted by US courts and incarcerated in US prisons.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
What do you think this means?....... just interested in your opinion
Excellent point. The same kind of contorted reasoning used by immigration activists with the 14A is being used by gun control activists with the 2A.
Claymores; think claymores.....
Sounds like someone residing in the US who can be arrested for breaking a law.
Can the state close the borders rather than Fed?
The 14th, if interpreted tightly according to intent,
really only applies to the freed slaves, ensuring them the protection that other citizens have.
“Incorporation” is a judicial fallacy that an imperialist supreme court made up to expand its and the federal gov’t’s power.
How are the children of illegal immigrants, those who aren’t supposed to be here,
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.