No Citizenship for Babies born in US to illegals
Next on Arizona's agenda? No citizenship for babies born in US to illegal immigrants
By Michelle Price
PHOENIX (AP) -- 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.
Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.
"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."
Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.
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.
"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.
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."
John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.
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.
A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.
"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."
Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.
Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.
Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."
---
Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.
Categories:Immigration
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1354
8 Comments
| Leave a comment
GrizzledOleMan | June 17, 2010 10:45 AM | Reply
"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'd like to know where you think that this is the toughest law against illegal immigration when all it does is follow exactly what the federal law says and does. IF the government would enforce it's own law, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in right now. DUH!!
Mike | June 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Reply
Mrs. Viveros says her children "deserve to be citizens." The word 'deserve' is subjective. We are a nation of laws and not of men. This is good because laws are objective and men can be subjective when they make decisions. Men making subjective decisions about who 'deserves' something and who does not is a very dangerous thing. We do this enough already and we need to stop.
seattlesuckers | June 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Reply
As always the LAW professers says that the interpretation of the law is wrong, but one only need look at the time and place for passage of the law to see it's intent... Mrs Viveros says" In SPANISH ... That she has been here for 10 years, She obviuosly came here for the specific goal of having a baby and hooking in to the endless benifits of being an illeagal with an anchor baby... Some of these benifits are not even extended to the citizens of the USA which in itself is un-constitutional.. When do we fix that Mr Law professor ??? It is a shame that she says she or her children "DESERVE" any thing she doesn't even have enough respect for the country to learn the language and I got $100.00 bill says she has a Mexican flag in every room of her house and a same said bumper sticker on every car or window ... GO HOME and take your flag with you.. This is AMERICA. Just try and take that attitude to Mexico and become a citizen...I say it is time to fix it and adopt some real effective change.
NC-BeagleLover | June 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Reply
Okay folks, re-read the end of this article carefully. *He has been in the country for 20 years, making him 14 at the time of entry. She has been here for 10 years, making her 17. Both are ILLEGAL they say. Obviously his family or parents entered illegally as well - hence a 14 yr old kid doesn't often make the trip without some relative included. At 17 she might be another story. Their own statements show how this Illegal Entry is perpetuated. Yet after a combined total of 30 YEARS in the USA neither one of them has bothered to become LEGAL citizens! What's wrong with this picture? And they want their kids to have rights? (yes they were born here but..) They are breaking the law themselves, but worry about "rights" of their kids? NAH! Don't think so! Teaching your kids to break the law by their own example, great job as deadbeat parents. They make the case for the "Anchor Babies" in their own words - and as you see they DO live in Arizona! Any wonder why the US Citizens of that state want some relief? How many states are suffering this same debacle?
I support state sovereignty and state rights. If AZ can pass the law, do it! Fed's beware, this union of 50 states will unravel if the Feds don't do their job as the Founding Fathers intended. I am also glad to see your article pointed out the rarity of this law worldwide - most countries DO require at least 1 parent to be a legal citizen. Try pulling this crap in Mexico, see what their law is! Wake Up Congress! Revolution is brewing across America, can't you smell it in the air?
Mort_f | June 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Reply
Yes, the Deal Bill went nowhere. Thank Pelosi and Hoyer for that. A pox on both their heads.
That the 14th Amendment did not countenance Illegal Aliens is obvious, at the time of its adoption there was no such animal as an Illegal Alien. And while there may have been children born of foreign ambassadors, those parents were obviously ' not under US jurisdiction', and therefore would not be considered US citizens.
FlaJim | June 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Reply
Many countries do not grant citizenship to some kid born there just because its parent(s) had been lucky enough to sneak across the border in time for delivery.
This would be another disincentive for illegal aliens. We've already read numerous reports of them moving out of AZ by the thousands, most back to Mexico.
The 14th Amendment applied only to those who'd been imported here and their descendents, not to those who illegally entered in the future.
marcyr | June 17, 2010 4:36 PM | Reply
In Elk v Wilkins 1884 the Supreme Court said parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the US and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. Obviously, immigrants must follow our laws, but that is not the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th. There are further legal cases which are on point.
But let's go back to those who wrote and voted for the 14th Amendment:
Sen. Lyman Trumbull in 1866 declared: "The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means".
Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes 1866 defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as "not owing allegiance to any other." "[E]every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
In 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio said the following in a speech before the House of Representatives:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (NOTE plural parents)
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
The writers of the 14th had no intention of giving citizenship to just any alien who could illegally crash the border, who had no allegiance to the US.
Hal | June 17, 2010 6:02 PM | Reply
Perhaps we are the only country in the world granting citizenship based on location of birth rather than on the citizenship of the parents.
While it might be difficult to implement, foreign parents should be required to obtain a birth certificate from their home consulate to validate their child's birth (and, perhaps, have the home country pay for hospital expenses, as well, if the parents cannot).
I know I am tired of paying hospital expenses for illegal immigrant births.
Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2010/06/next-on-arizonas-agenda-no-citizenship-for-babies-born-in-us-to-illegal-immigrants.php#ixzz0rAgPco2X
forward to a friend
VOTE OUT MC CAIN (RINO)
No comments:
Post a Comment