Arizona legislators at it again?

[Alferd_Packer]

The Arizona legislators that authored SB1070 have another proposed law they want to introduce. One that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is getting the old team back together for his next state immigration-law effort. Kansas attorney and Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach this week confirmed that he is working with Pearce to write a bill that would develop a state law to change the way children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are granted citizenship. Kobach helped Pearce write Senate Bill 1070.
Pearce has said he will propose the bill when the legislative session starts in January. Kobach would not say what that bill might look like.
"We aren't announcing anything yet, as the drafting is not complete," Kobach said via e-mail.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...ell-pearce-immigration-law.html#ixzz13gOgoQMW


I wonder if he has ever heard of the 14th amendment.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder if he has ever heard of the 14th amendment.

Your speculation seems a bit premature, considering that the contents of this bill aren't public. From your quote, "he is working with Pearce to write a bill that would develop a state law to change the way children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are granted citizenship." Sounds like the bill will change some technicalities of the process, but if this description is right, then it's not going to keep them from becoming citizens. Until the bill is actually made public, there's no reason to conclude that it will violate the 14th amendment.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Sounds like the bill will change some technicalities of the process, but if this description is right, then it's not going to keep them from becoming citizens. Until the bill is actually made public, there's no reason to conclude that it will violate the 14th amendment.

how about Article I, Section 8?

The Congress shall have Power To . . .

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

 

[Ziggurat]

how about Article I, Section 8?

How about it? Again, until the details of the bill are made public, there's no way to make a determination that the bill will be unconstitutional.

Yes, the federal government establishes citizenship laws. But those laws interact with the states, because the states are responsible for birth records, not the federal government. Now, one could easily imagine that efforts to modify this process from the state end could be unconstitutional, but they don't need to be. If this bill actually gets written and made public (there's still a chance it won't even make it that far), then you'll have plenty of time to examine it and criticize it, but you're jumping the gun right now.

 

[daredelvis]

Your speculation seems a bit premature, considering that the contents of this bill aren't public. From your quote, "he is working with Pearce to write a bill that would develop a state law to change the way children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are granted citizenship." Sounds like the bill will change some technicalities of the process, but if this description is right, then it's not going to keep them from becoming citizens. Until the bill is actually made public, there's no reason to conclude that it will violate the 14th amendment.

The moron who wrote the bill, Pearce, has been on the cable news shows spouting his ignorance enough to draw the conclusions AP did. He's a Birther.

Daredelvis

 

[Neally]

From this: http://www.personalliberty.com/news/anti-immigration-lawmaker-seeks-support-in-a-battle-of-epic-proportions-800135724/ it sounds more like rallying support to change the 14th amendment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your speculation seems a bit premature, considering that the contents of this bill aren't public. From your quote, "he is working with Pearce to write a bill that would develop a state law to change the way children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are granted citizenship." Sounds like the bill will change some technicalities of the process, but if this description is right, then it's not going to keep them from becoming citizens. Until the bill is actually made public, there's no reason to conclude that it will violate the 14th amendment.

From the rhetoric I've heard, I think the bill's intention is exactly to prevent the children of illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.

Your interpretation of the description doesn't wash anyway. They don't "become" citizens--the 14th Amendments says that they "are" citizens, so there's no way this bill could just jigger a process. There is no such process.

From the 14th Amendment:

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 children of illegals born in the U.S. are citizens the same way I am. I am not a naturalized citizen, and neither are they.

Lest there be any question of whether or not the 14th Amendment was intended only to supplement state laws rather than to occupy this topic, immediately after the above excerpt, the text of the 14th Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

how about Article I, Section 8?

The naturalization authority doesn't apply to people born in the U.S. They simply are citizens, not naturalized--just citizens.

So it sounds like this proposed law will run smack into the 14th Amendment.

That's the only possible outcome of a state law that seeks to change how people born in the U.S. are granted citizenship.

And the Supremacy Clause makes this conflict a simple matter to decide.

 

[Ziggurat]

The moron who wrote the bill, Pearce, has been on the cable news shows spouting his ignorance enough to draw the conclusions AP did.

Then a link to such evidence is in order. But the conclusion does not follow from the evidence that was actually provided.

He's a Birther.

You do know that that's actually a separate issue, don't you?

 

[daredelvis]

Then a link to such evidence is in order. But the conclusion does not follow from the evidence that was actually provided.

It would take some pretty amazing twists of logic to support the premise that the bill as described would be constitutional. Evidence for that argument seems lacking here.

You do know that that's actually a separate issue, don't you?

It speaks to the "again" in the OP. Pearce is the same moron that introduced AZ's birther bill. Clearly, the birther bill is another example of this particular AZ's legislator being "at it again".

Daredelvis

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm waiting for someone who is otherwise a strict constructionist to argue that the intent of the 14th Amendment wasn't to apply to children of illegal aliens.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It would take some pretty amazing twists of logic to support the premise that the bill as described would be constitutional. Evidence for that argument seems lacking here.

I will go so far as to say it's not possible. (I won't try to quibble over burden of proof. I'll accept that burden.)

The spin Zig wants to put it on it--that this is a bill that will affect the process by which children of illegals are naturalized--doesn't wash because they aren't naturalized and there is no process of them becoming citizens. According to the 14th Amendment, they simply are citizens.

And the states have no authority to pass or enforce any laws that would in anyway abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. So there's really nothing they can do to legally distinguish citizens born of illegal aliens from other citizens.

 

[Ziggurat]

The spin Zig wants to put it on it--that this is a bill that will affect the process by which children of illegals are naturalized--doesn't wash

That's not the "spin" I want to put on it. I don't KNOW what the bill will affect. That is my point: without the text of the bill, none of us do.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would take some pretty amazing twists of logic to support the premise that the bill as described would be constitutional.

And you're sure that the description is accurate... how?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Iregardless of the text used, if the concept of the law is to deny rights due to a citizen just because of the immigration status of their parents, then the law would be in violation of the constitution.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not the "spin" I want to put on it. I don't KNOW what the bill will affect. That is my point: without the text of the bill, none of us do.

You think it might be a bill about highway maintenance?

If it is, as announced, a bill regarding the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants, it is unconstitutional.

You offered a suggested reading of it (that I called a "spin") based on the news story. You said:

From your quote, "he is working with Pearce to write a bill that would develop a state law to change the way children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are granted citizenship." Sounds like the bill will change some technicalities of the process, but if this description is right, then it's not going to keep them from becoming citizens.

I pointed out the flaw in this reading. There is no possible change in the technicalities of the process, because there is no process. They simply are citizens, exactly the same way I am a U.S. citizen.

And I'll say it again, if Arizona passes a law that tries in any way to distinguish citizens who are children of illegals from other citizens, that law is unconstitutional.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

http://verdenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=38858

Pearce expalins what he wants to do.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And you're sure that the description is accurate... how?

The 14th Amendment clearly states that the states cannot pass laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens.

What Alferd said is spot on--any state law that attempts to single out these citizens based on the immigration status of their parents is unconstitutional.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://verdenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=38858

Pearce expalins what he wants to do.

An excerpt from this article (my bolding and my bracketed comment):

He said courts which have ruled in the past that citizenship can be a matter of the geography of birth have gotten it wrong. [It's the text of the 14th Amendment, not something that was somehow created in the courts.] More to the point, Pearce said he believes a new lawsuit challenging an Arizona law on citizenship will have a different result.

"With this Supreme Court, we'll win that battle,' he said, saying that's why those who want citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants want to kill the legislation before it ever gets on the books. "They know I have a 5-4 states' rights court.'

Pearce said he also is weighing whether to require proof of legal presence in this country before a child can be enrolled in public schools at state expense. That, too, is a direct challenge to a different Supreme Court ruling which makes such a requirement illegal.

He said lawmakers in 13 states also unveiled their own plans on Tuesday to pursue legislation.

"You can't have laws that say you can't enter, you can't remain here in violation of federal law, but then provide inducements for you to break those laws,' Pearce said. Providing automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to people who are not citizens, he said, is one such inducement.

So it's clear that what he's after is unconstitutional. It would require an amendment that basically revokes or re-words the 14th Amendment to get what he wants.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

He is trying to write a law that will be challenged as unconstituional so that he can take it up to SCOTUS in the hopes that SCOTUS will reverse United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and all the other cases based on that ruling.