Arizona seeks to repeal 14th amendment
by Hugh Holub on Sep. 12, 2010, under border issues, politicsThere is this apparently radical idea in the United States that certain laws, like the US Constitution, applies to everyone in the country and that states cannot ignore those national laws. That’s one of the issues that sparked the Civil War. The “states rights” people lost. But they haven’t given up their battle.
The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was an outcome of the Civil War, which made it clear federal laws and standards indeed did apply to states. One of those Civil War era national mandates was that anyone born in the United States was a citizen.
[Other elements of the 14th Amendment make federal Constitutional rights such as the First and Second amendments apply to states, as well as the 5th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure and the taking of property without due process of law...stuff most people would think is a good idea.]
Now we have State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070 (which is being challenged as a usurpation of federal law by a state) pushing for a new state law that will deny babies born of an illegal parent US citizenship rights.
Obviously if the state passes Pearce’s proposed law, the feds will make quick work of this effort by getting a federal judge to remind Arizona it is still part of the United States.
But what the heck…Pearce and his buddies Joe Arpaio and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are making political hay thumbing their noses as the federal government, while trying to recreate the Confederate States of America.
Read this story from the Arizona Republic:
14th Amendment faces challenge from immigration hardliners
by Alia Beard Rau on Sep. 12, 2010, under Arizona Republic News
For years, Arizona lawmakers have targeted illegal immigrants. In their next session, legislators will focus on the children of illegal immigrants.
Two prominent lawmakers want to change the way those children are granted citizenship.
The pair plan to introduce legislation that targets the children, possibly by adding notation on their state birth certificates that would identify them as children of illegal immigrants.
Such legislation, the lawmakers hope, could trigger a review of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which now grants citizenship to anyone born inside the U.S.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, sponsored Senate Bill 1070, the controversial immigration law that passed this spring.
The details of their new effort have not been made final, but the two say the coming legislative session is the right time to focus on citizenship and further slow the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States.
“We’ll keep working until aliens quit coming into our country and taking advantage of taxpayers,” Pearce said.
They plan to propose the legislation in January. Kavanagh said whatever the change, it would not be retroactive.
“The intent will be to trigger a review of the issue by the federal courts,” he said.
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.
History
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 and 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.”
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 settled the matter by ruling 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 stands today and is what opponents of birthright citizenship want the Supreme Court to reconsider.
The opponents of the Supreme Court’s interpretation 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 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.
“A parent does get a slight edge in getting citizenship later, and this is a reward for bad behavior,” Kavanagh said. “But I think the economic issue is the more compelling reason to stop the activity.”
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.
Jack Chin, a University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law professor whose specialties include immigration law, said states do have some authority to determine what information is included in a birth certificate.
“But do they have the authority to say no birth certificates for Black people or people born on Tuesday?” he said. “The answer to that is no. They can’t create a system of tiered citizenship.”
He said that would likely result in legal challenges.
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 couldn’t say whether the new legislation would be similar to what Johnson proposed. He also did not know yet who would be charged with confirming a parent’s legal status should he and Pearce take that approach.
He said he hasn’t polled the state Legislature to find out how much support their new effort will have.
But the timing may be right.
In the most recent session, immigration and gun-rights bills that foundered in years past became law thanks to a Legislature dominated by conservative Republicans and a new Republican governor.
November elections aren’t expected to change the Legislature much. Voters in the August primary predominantly chose current lawmakers – many of whom backed SB 1070 – over outside challengers.
Gov. Jan Brewer faces Democrat Attorney General Terry Goddard in the Nov. 2 governor’s race. Polls indicate that she is enjoying a double-digit lead. Experts say much of the credit for that lead goes to her support of SB 1070 and border enforcement.
Kavanagh said Arizona can no longer wait around for the federal government on immigration issues.
“We waited for Congress to secure the border, and that never happened,” Kavanagh said. “We think Congress needs a little shove.”
Opposition
Opponents of changing the way a state issues birth certificates say such a change would require every parent of a child born in that state to prove his or her own legal status in some way before the child could receive the benefits of citizenship.
Margaret Stock, an Alaska immigration attorney, said parents would have to apply to some sort of federal agency or court to prove that child’s citizenship, “which can sometimes take more than a year, is very expensive and is fraught with error.”
Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Immigration Policy Center, said changing the birthright citizenship laws will not solve the problem of illegal immigration.
“It actually increases the number of illegal immigrants because children would be born in the U.S. with no legal status,” she said.
Carlos Galindo-Elvira, vice president of philanthropic and community relations at the non-profit community organization Valle del Sol, said he didn’t know how many children of illegal immigrants could be affected but said it would be “devastating.”
“We’re talking about the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our society,” he said. “What if the infant is in need of health care? This will be a health issue.”
Bill Ong Hing, a University of San Francisco School of Law professor, also said the effort could backfire.
“The children born here are every bit the U.S. citizens you would want. They quickly become Americanized. They learn English. They work hard,” he said. “How foolish it would be to threaten those youth with different standards. They are our future.”
_____________________________
More articles and commentaries about the border
_____________________________
Citizen bloggers are not paid for doing their blogs.
If you like the View From Baja Arizona you can make a contribution to support this blog.
It is a secure Pay Pal transaction.
Thank you !!! DONATE BY CLICKING HERE
September 12th, 2010 on 6:02 am
What we really need is a constitutional amendment that prohibits those with visible calluses on their knuckles from holding public office.
September 12th, 2010 on 12:19 pm
You just used that similiar comment on the Sheriff Joe piece in another blog. At least be novel when you call people names.
September 12th, 2010 on 3:43 pm
Some things bear repeating, fraser. If you look closely at him when he makes a public appearance, you really can see the calluses.
September 12th, 2010 on 4:00 pm
Probably because he worked for a living. Unlike you.
September 13th, 2010 on 7:52 am
Name-caller.
September 13th, 2010 on 12:41 am
Pearce has more than knuckle calluses. Cerebral ones show also. He has experienced some losses of family members that I believe he attributes to undocumented workers, meaning we are watching the drama of personal projection of prolonged grief on to the political scene. Russell is in need of Psychiatric help before he goes forth with his singular evangelism of reform.
September 12th, 2010 on 6:09 am
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.
- Yes, they’ll pass a law purposely intended to provoke the Obama administration to file suit against it. Brewer will sign the bill with a flourish. Then they’ll all scream bloody murder when the administration does file a lawsuit against it, crying about how Obama continues to attack poor little old Arizona.
Vote Brewer and her motley crew out.
September 12th, 2010 on 6:31 am
wow, the extremist and radicals have taken over this state. This shows that the Republicans are made up of the same extreme people. This November we need to start voting out these extremist and take back our state. We have reached the point where there is no voices allowed from the citizens of the states. Lawmakers and leaders think they own our voices, we must resist and push back NOW.
September 12th, 2010 on 12:21 pm
We are “pushing back now”, from mexican illegals from dropping babies here to become citizens.
September 12th, 2010 on 7:25 am
Why oh why is the Federal Government picking on Arizona ?
( I actually heard one of our morons, I think Brewer, saying that)
September 12th, 2010 on 10:36 am
I have notice an absense in the last few days of our conservative brethen. A change in their strategy should be forthcoming. We should take advantage of this brief respite and direct our efforts towards the Nov 2nd State ballot. Let us borrow a Republican strategy and direct our efforts at the head of the State ballot, Governor Brewer. We maynot be able to overcome the vote gap between Governor Brewer and Terry Goddard but the more votes we siphon off at the top of the States GOP ticket the better chances are for our remaining democratic candidates. Good Fortune and G-d Speed.
September 12th, 2010 on 12:23 pm
We are not your “brethen”. We want to protect this country. Dont insult us by callng us your brethen. We have little in commen.
September 12th, 2010 on 12:30 pm
Sorry about the typo. I will love saying it again. We have little in common!
September 12th, 2010 on 2:03 pm
OK – reactionary dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, as in headed for extinction because of inability to adapt.
Feel better?
September 12th, 2010 on 2:34 pm
So we “adapt” by letting in millions of illegal mexicans? How is that adapting?
September 12th, 2010 on 3:41 pm
…by letting in millions of illegal mexicans?
Hate to break it to you, fraser, but they’re already here and more, many more, are on their way. You’ll be the last old white guy left in So. AZ in a few years. You should be studying your Spanish. Pretty soon, you won’t be able to order the “early bird buffet” at the Golden Corral without someone saying to you, “This is Arizona. We speak Spanish here”. Everywhere you go, a brown person wearing a brown beret will want to see your papers. They’ll probably have to hold you for a while; maybe a strip search will be required.
All your unspoken fears are coming true.
September 13th, 2010 on 1:41 am
Perfect defination of an “open borders” person.
September 13th, 2010 on 6:25 am
“Defination?”
The perfect definition of one who is functionally illiterate in “English only.” Pendejo!
September 13th, 2010 on 8:55 am
And you never mis-spelled a word on a blog site. You must be perfect! Wow and you even got to use a Spanish insult word too! I am impressed. Maybe you can write more tha one sentence next time.
September 13th, 2010 on 7:55 am
Up against the wall, gringo viejo! I would miss you, fraser, were you to leave and grace other environs with your wisdom.
September 13th, 2010 on 8:59 am
Wow, you too. You get to use a Spanish insult word too. You must feel good too. Now you can insult in two languages. Can you actually write in this blogsite without insulting someone. Guess that makes you more powerful.
September 13th, 2010 on 10:11 am
I don’t know, fraser. When in Latin America, I always self-identify as a “gringo”. I’m not sure it’s an insult. “Viejo” just means “old” in English.
September 12th, 2010 on 3:58 pm
You wont want to live here either. It will be filthy, corrupt and incompetant.
September 13th, 2010 on 1:03 am
You would do well Sir, to read the history of Tucson, Arizona. A city that was once populated with an educated class of Mexican people with culture, class and and a love of family.
Your weird and grossly unfounded comment that it will be “filthy, corrupt and incompetent” was the characterization of Tucson, Arizona in its early years with the “influence of the uncouth, un-married, illiterate, hooligans from the East.“ That is a quote you can find at the Arizona Historical Society.
As for Architecture…. well, what can you say…. Tucson is a Taco Bell town.
And who might you think built all the General’s homes in Sierra Vista? Yes, it was the home builders who financed your true brethren Senator John McCain, and Jim Kolbe for their 27 years of nada. Why? Hate to break the news so late in the game, but all that Mexican labor, that WE hired by the way, was serving a higher purpose. Union busting.
Mission accomplished and here comes Immigration Reform. How coincidental?
As Doc Holiday so aptly stated, “My hypocrisy has no bounds.”
September 13th, 2010 on 1:46 am
The quote was from J. Ross Browne. I know the history of Tucson.
And who do you think built the homes in Tucson before the greedy deevelopers brought in the illegals? Guess we will just have to do that again. (Whenever we actually build more homes here)
September 13th, 2010 on 6:57 am
Right on Mike. We live in what was part of the original Presidio of Tubac. Several of our buildings are on the 1767 map of the place. J Ross hung out in the Poston House next door. John Wayne used to hang out in one of our houses.This was part of the Spanish colony, then the Mexican state of Sonora and then the border moved and suddenly all the folks here were part of the United States. As the descendeants of those original residents say “we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us”. There was a complete top to bottom Hispanic society in the region…and then through various schemes the Hispanic community had their lands and water rights stolen and they were turned into second class citizens…and now even that status is being challenged.
The Tohono O’odham have an interesting view of the Anglos…”you are like a strom that came on us and we’re waiting for it to pass”. Here is a culture based on community and collboration that has been forced to adopt the Anglo view of competitiveness and win-lose. Actually I think they have it right and our culture lacks a basic sense of hunamity. The Hispanic culture celebrates family. People really take care of each other to a much greater degree than the newcomer Anglos.I sense the fear and donization of Hispanics that is going on now really reflects the subsconscious insecurity Anglos have. They remind us there is a different way to see things. So run them out of here is the reaction of folks like Fraser. Too bad for Fraser….he can’t see the pictures of the kids of undocumented immigrants sitting on the mantels here…pictures of Marines and Army and Navy and Air Force soldiers who will fight and die for this country because we are the land of opportunity if you work hard for your kids.
A core problem is not “Mexicans”…it is the Mexican government that has failed its people…and the immigrants are not bringing their failed government north. They are walking away from that failure and joining our glorious experiment in empowering the human spirit. And they contribute enormously to our society as a result. The characterizations being made by Fraser and others is totally without foundation when you live with and experience what is really going on.
September 13th, 2010 on 8:52 am
Dont forget the noble Spanish/Mexicans fought the Apaches who had lived here for a few hundred years before. Thats why your Presidio was here. The Pima Revolt in 1754 showed the the Tohono o’Odaham hated the Spanish and tried to force them out. I dont remember anyone inviting the Spanish to the New World, do you? And they did it in such a lovely, peaceful way.
I have nothing against the hispanic population who are citizens and have contributed to our way of life, thats America. My son serves with many hispanics.
I just dont feel like laying down and kissing the ass of 11 million illegals. And their liberal-socialist guilt ridden Anglo opem borders friends.
September 12th, 2010 on 3:59 pm
Just like the cesspool they created and left to the south
September 13th, 2010 on 9:27 am
Ok folks…a word from my side…I enjoy you all debating these issues that are raised. But this isn’t a school playground and I ask you all to not call each other names and disparage each other’s motives. Each of us belives strongly in our particular points of view…which doesn’t make the other person who we disagree with a bad person….maybe misguided and uninformed…but not a tiny public hair. (I learned my Spanish at Tucson High School).
September 13th, 2010 on 10:07 am
Hugh, I say this in all sincerity and with your best interests at heart: you are one of the very few people I have ever seen a picture of who looks good in a cowboy hat. Get another picture taken with the hat once your good friend Andrew pays his $10.
September 13th, 2010 on 11:45 am
Already have….I figure…every day I change the picture when someone gives me $10….more than I make writing this blog….and can buy a new hat eventually.
From each according to his ability…to each according to his need….and I need a new hat.
September 16th, 2010 on 1:16 am
well for those inert that try to push the defend less on the way here I a note
there is a UN resolution about this issue about birth right in it states that any baby regardless of their parents origins are citizens of that country example in Argentina any baby born there regardless of their parents origins are citizen that also includes the uk Japan even china this was made to safeguard the defend the children for example there are countries that even allow more than one citizenship why cause it work better for them and cause it allow health programs to save those children’s lives and also provide school for them
September 19th, 2010 on 9:22 am
Mr. Holub’s underlying premise in his attempt to argue that the 14th Ammendment grants citizenship to everyone born in the US is falacious. Have your read the 14th? Have you studied it’s history? It was and still is an ammendment necessitated by the Civil War. It’s purpose was to grant citizenship to blacks born in the US who had been subjected to slavery. It has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal aliens….despite activist-judges efforts to rewrite the document (and history). See this article http://bit.ly/brMB35