Multiple States: Overturn Birthright Citizenship

Adelante · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:58 am

Copied from PJ: OP dated Oct 20, 2010 - also see individual state legislative threads

Quote:

Tes wrote:

Quote:

Pearce legislation takes aim at 14th Amendment

Lawmakers from at least 14 states held news conferences Tuesday to announce a coordinated effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
***
The [14th] [A]mendment's primary intent was to guarantee citizenship to African-Americans, particularly former slaves. But whether the authors also intended to allow children of illegal immigrants to become citizens has been a matter of debate since its inception.

In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled 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 has been interpreted to grant citizenship to all babies born in the U.S. Opponents of birthright citizenship want the Supreme Court to clarify that interpretation.
***
[State Senator Russell Pearce] said illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because, for example, they wouldn't be required to participate in any military draft or serve on a jury.

bogus info wrote:

Quote:

Redefining Birthright Citizenship, One State at a Time
GOP State Reps Seek to Deny Citizenship to Children of Illegal Immigrants
By Elise Foley 10/20/10 7:43 AM

In the best-case scenario, Texas state Rep. Leo Berman hopes his state will be sued. The representative for Texas’ 6th District, along with more than a dozen other Republican state legislators across the country, plans to introduce a bill in the next session calling for his state to discontinue automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Instead of a birth certificate, children born to parents illegally in the country would be issued a document they could take to the consulate of their parents’ legal country — and would not be granted the right to stay in the United States.

The measure is, of course, a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. According to Berman, that’s precisely the point.

“If that bill passes, we will be sued immediately. That’s the purpose of the bill,” he said. “The ACLU, La Raza, the Justice Department — someone will sue us for the bill.”

The next step in his desired outcome is a legal victory. “That lawsuit will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where some judge is going to read the background and say there are no Supreme Court rulings affirming the 14th Amendment’s current interpretation,” he said.

bogus info wrote:

Quote:

Posted 09/10/10 at 11:35am
New Report: 14th Amendment Repeal Would Leave Millions More Undocumented
File this one under "more good reasons not to repeal the 14th amendment."

Yesterday, the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute released a report entitled, “The Demographic Impact of Repealing Birthright Citizenship,” which found that the controversial idea birthed by some GOP senators -- that of repealing the 14th amendment-- would, over the next ten years, actually exacerbate the illegal immigration crisis by increasing the undocumented population by about 5 million people. According to the report:

Quote:

"Under a constitutional repeal of the birthright citizenship language of the 14th Amendment or the proposed Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, these U.S.-born descendents of unauthorized immigrants would be denied legal status in the United States, even though in all likelihood they would be thoroughly American in other respects… In short, the repeal of the 14th Amendment or enactment of the Birthright Citizenship Act would lead to the establishment of a permanent class of unauthorized persons."

Early in August, some members of the GOP decided that they would rather re-write the Constitution for political purposes than do the hard -- but necessary -- work of fixing America’s broken immigration system. Started by former reform champion Senator Lindsay Graham, the idea quickly caught fire within the Republican party, as top GOP leaders called for hearings on the 14th amendment. Unfortunately for certain elements of the GOP, busy raising the spectre of surging "birth tourism," the idea turned out to lack evidence -- "birth tourism" was not quite reality-based:

Quote:

…immigration experts say it's extraordinarily rare for immigrants to come to the U.S. just so they can have babies and get citizenship.

more here: http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/ent ... endment_w/

emphasis original

ZekeB · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:12 pm

So 14 states are all we need to ammend the Constitution? I guess that's okay as long as they are the certain select 14 states, yes/no?

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:33 pm

Of couse, Zeke. They believe it because that's precisely covered by paragraph five of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Quote:

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It says so in the ultra sekrit subsection of the lost debates.

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

Quote:

A birthright, and a mess of pottage
Deny citizenship to American-born babies?
January 16, 2011|By Steve Chapman
excerpts

Quote:

Earlier this month, a group of officials calling themselves State Legislators for Legal Immigration unveiled proposed legislation to deny state citizenship to children borne by illegal immigrants — and, for that matter, many foreigners residing here with the full blessing of our laws.
It says that to be a citizen of a given state, someone must be born here and have at least one parent who "owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." By a strict reading, it would exclude the children of many naturalized citizens who retain citizenship in their native lands (as allowed in Canada, Britain and Israel, among others). It would also bar those born to foreigners here on student visas — or even permanent resident aliens.
The group claims to support "legal immigration." But this measure would punish the legal along with the illegal. A child could be born here, have two U.S. citizen parents and still be deprived of state citizenship.
The bill is most likely a grand exercise in irrelevance, since the Constitution leaves little room for legislating on this matter. The 14th Amendment says anyone born in this country (except to foreign diplomats) is a citizen of the United States and the state where they live. The feds can't prevent it, and neither can the states.
To deny birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants, the opponents would have to do one of two things: persuade the Supreme Court to discard its longstanding interpretation or amend the Constitution. Neither is likely.

Quote:

But Americans in an expectant mode would suddenly face a new, universal obligation. If being born here is no longer proof of citizenship, then all new parents will have the burden of demonstrating that their babies are actually Americans.
Right now, it's simple: A birth certificate showing you were born in this country settles it. (Well, unless you're Barack Obama.) But once that rule is gone, all parents — not just those who look or sound "foreign" — would have to prove their citizenship.
Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney in Anchorage, Alaska, says that is not always as easy as it sounds. She often gets clients who assume they are citizens only to learn they are not, and she often gets clients who believe they are not citizens but actually are.
"It usually takes an expert immigration lawyer an hour to get through everything to find out," she told me. So intricately complex are the laws, she says, that "there are only a few hundred lawyers in the country who have the expertise to do it." For them, the repeal of birthright citizenship would be a full-employment act.

Quote:

Ultimately, she predicts, we would need a national citizen's registry, a national ID card and a host of federal employees to administer them. In the end, a lot more people would be subject to the unpredictable judgments of a distant bureaucracy.
Less comprehensible laws, administered by a larger and more powerful government? Consider it your birthright.

complete article here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... mmigration

emphasis mine

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

Quote:

Birthright citizenship fight begins in Arizona
Bills would strip citizenship from illegal migrants' babies
by Alia Beard Rau - Jan. 28, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
excerpts

Quote:

Arizona is returning to the international spotlight with Thursday's introduction of legislation that would strip illegal immigrants' U.S.-born children of their citizenship and create a two-tiered, birth-certificate process.

The intent is to attract a legal challenge that could eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court reconsidering whether the 14th Amendment truly grants citizenship to such children.

Quote:

Rep. Albert Hale, D-Window Rock, a Navajo, said that under these bills, he would be considered an "anchor baby" because Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924.

"My mother, born in 1919, was not a citizen," he said. "Am I to be deported? And if I am, where are you going to deport me to?"

He warned that passing these bills would create a crisis of children "who are stateless and without a country."

"This will create a class of people who are not welcome in the country where they are born," he said. "This is not the Arizona I know. This is not the Arizona I want."

more here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... light.html

emphasis mine

Recall Russell Pearce already begun – signatures already being collected
January 29, 2011 by admin

Great article below. We are already filling up our signatures with legitimate voters, and folks from all over the State are emailing me with regard to how they can help. We are using our own resources, and we have not received any funding. People are helping us out of the kindness of their hearts, and because they believe Pearce is destroying our state.
Read on>>>

Quote:

Birthright-law foes want Pearce tossed from office
By Luige del Puerto – luige.delpuerto@azcapitoltimes.com
Published: January 28, 2011 at 10:51 am

Critics of the birthright legislation, which aims to challenge the interpretation that children of undocumented aliens are American citizens, upped the ante this week by starting an effort to remove from office the state’s most ardent foe of illegal immigration.

A group called Arizonans for Better Government filed on Jan. 27 a recall petition against Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who handily won his re-election bid in November.

Even if the group succeeds in getting the signatures necessary to initiate the recall, the chance of unseating Pearce is minuscule. The Republican from Mesa has won all his elections since 2001, when he first came to the Legislature as a state representative.

more here: http://somosrepublicans.com/tag/recall- ... collected/

According to the article, the recall activists must gather 7,756 signatures from registered in Pearce’s district. They have until May 27 to get the signatures.

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:17 am

Great op-ed by Leonard Pitts in the Miami Herald

Quote:

Temper tantrums won’t solve immigration issue ...

For all that, the most striking thing about the Arizona proposals — and CNN reports that 40 other states are weighing similar measures — is not their overreach but their shrill incoherence. It is worth noting that this is the 25th anniversary of an actual immigration amnesty signed into law by none other than President Ronald Reagan.

That this icon of conservatism would, like Bush, find himself so strikingly out of step with his followers today testifies eloquently to how strident, nonsensical and unpragmatic this debate has become. Rather than offer workable solutions, lawmakers are busy outlawing ethnic studies classes, requiring Latinos to carry papers like Jews in prewar Germany, decrying anchor babies and other boogeymen, competing to prove who can be toughest on dirt poor Mexicans, rousing the rabble in their xenophobic righteousness.

This is not statesmanship. It is not serious policymaking. It is not even adult.

It is a temper tantrum, the incoherent bawling of those who see fundamental demographic change coming and like it not one bit. They scream in the face of an incoming wave. But the wave comes just the same.

And the sad thing is, none of this angst and anguish was ever necessary. We could have fixed illegal immigration long ago.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5235

From one of the comments

Quote:

Morglay [Moderator] 02/08/2011 06:31 PM
Apparently this Author has not read the key sections of the Fourteenth Amendment.

From The Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This says that the Congress can actually codify what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means. The Amendment Author in his support of Section 1 clearly stated that this Amendment was not intended to give Citizenship to everyone. Since the Amendment took effect, U.S. Court Stare Decisis has established an "owe allegiance too" test for bestowing birthright Citizenship. Since Congress has remained silent on how Illegal Immigration fits into the "owe allegiance too" test the assumption is that the children of Illegal Immigrants are automatically Citizens. But the text of the decision in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe refers to the ability of Congress to step forward and actually do something about problems of interpretation.

Per the Supreme Court Of The United States decision in the case Katzenbach v. Morgan: “Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.” In fact a clarification of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could be done quite simply with an Act of Congress. And contrary to the claims of this author, no harm would be done to the due process protections of the rest of the Amendment.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/08/2 ... z1DZ0tzGn7

Comments/debunks?

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

What if Congress wanted to "clarify" the amendment by saying that all black folks are not citizens?

That is exactly what Dred Scott was about. Slaves weren't voluntary members of our society, so they weren't citizens. The theory of citizenship that denies the children of illegal aliens is of the same strain of thought - a consensual vs. ascriptive citizenship.

Also, the importation of slaves was made illegal in 1803. So, the first illegal immigrants? Slaves!

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:31 am

Suranis wrote:

From one of the comments

Quote:

Morglay [Moderator] 02/08/2011 06:31 PM
Apparently this Author has not read the key sections of the Fourteenth Amendment.

From The Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This says that the Congress can actually codify what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means....blablabla

Comments/debunks?

Last I looked, "enforce" was not synonymous with "codify."

Kinda the opposite, actually.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:10 am

gentrfam wrote:

What if Congress wanted to "clarify" the amendment by saying that all black folks are not citizens?

That is exactly what Dred Scott was about. Slaves weren't voluntary members of our society, so they weren't citizens. The theory of citizenship that denies the children of illegal aliens is of the same strain of thought - a consensual vs. ascriptive citizenship.

Also, the importation of slaves was made illegal in 1803. So, the first illegal immigrants? Slaves!

oh gentrfam, I never would have understood it like that. Thank you.

I also wanted to post the links to Addy's entries over the past two days dealing with this topic.

Arizona Meanies Don’t Have Votes On Birthright Citizen Bills

Quote:

Anti-immigration legislators in various states are pushing a “Compact” (in Arizona, SB 1308), which completely distorts Section 1 to fit the purpose:

As used in this compact, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country. For the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the united states, or a person without nationality in any foreign country.

Anyone sane knows right off this is unconstitutional, indeed un-American, and disgracefully dishonest.

State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a group started by Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe (R-Butler), is pushing this “Compact,” and lists 40 “Participating States.” Apparently, all it takes for a state to be so defined is a single lawmaker in the state to join up. Metcalfe himself is the only legislator listed for Pennsylvania. In New York State, for another example, Brewster Senator Greg Ball is the sole participant, but it’s enough to make New York a “Participating State.” God forbid.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16220

I'd like to again point out that Metcalf is from Butler PA. That's not too far north of here. Butler County must have had some draw for John de Nugent to move there a few years ago.

Sane Republican Stood Up In AZ

Quote:

[Lemmons] notes the testimony of John Eastman of the right wing Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, there to support SB 1308 and SB 1309, went poorly, thank goodness. Lemons gives more detail about the bipartisan take-down of this disgraceful, anti-American legislative attempt.

First was the dual opposition to the bills that came from Democratic state Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Republican state Senator Adam Driggs. Both did stellar work in reducing Gould’s star witness, conservanut “legal scholar” John Eastman to mincemeat. …

But Eastman failed on several fronts, and both Driggs and Sinema peppered Eastman with questions about the bills that he couldn’t answer: like the status of children born to women with U-Visas (i.e., immigrant women who have been victims of crimes), and how those with dual citizenship would be affected by the new laws.

By the end of Eastman’s testimony, other Republicans had jumped into the fray, one asking if it was guaranteed that the U.S. Supreme Court would grant certiorari. Eastman was forced to admit there were no such guarantees. In fact, it’s more likely that the court would simply indicate that the states have no say in such matters.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16295

Addy's Front Door:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/

ballantine · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm **Posts:** 372

verbalobe wrote:

Last I looked, "enforce" was not synonymous with "codify."

Kinda the opposite, actually.

Yeah, the court has drawn a line between legislation enforcing rights as defined by the court and changing the substantive meaning of the rights. For example:

"Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial," South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 326. The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]." City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 US 507 (1997)

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

The ohforgoodnesssake blog post links to the OC Weekly blog post. I highly recommend that article. It does a great summary of the 14th Amendment debates and links to Garrett Epps taking down Eastman's "phony originalism."

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:01 pm

gentrfam wrote:

The ohforgoodnesssake blog post links to the OC Weekly blog post. I highly recommend that article. It does a great summary of the 14th Amendment debates and links to Garrett Epps taking down Eastman's "phony originalism."

I think gentrfam means Stephen Lemons post at The Phoenix New Times.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastar ... post_7.php

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

mimi wrote:

gentrfam wrote:

The ohforgoodnesssake blog post links to the OC Weekly blog post. I highly recommend that article. It does a great summary of the 14th Amendment debates and links to Garrett Epps taking down Eastman's "phony originalism."

I think gentrfam means Stephen Lemons post at The Phoenix New Times.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastar ... post_7.php

Yep, my bad!

Adelante · **Posted:** Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:37 am

I don't think this was posted before. I am copying it over from Bogus in another thread:

Quote:

February 09, 2011 08:00 AM
Birthright-citizenship bill stalls: Arizonans may be hesitating to invite another firestorm
Excerpts

However, I will just about guarantee that the testimony that convinced this committee full of Republicans to think twice before committing the state's taxpayers to this misadventure came from the business community:

The proposals also drew opposition from the business community.
Kevin Sandler, president of Exhibit One, said he worried about the message adopting such a law would send.

Sandler said his firm, which provides audiovisual equipment to courts across the nation, had to lay off six employees after some out-of-state firms boycotted Arizona businesses after lawmakers adopted SB 1070 last year. That measure gives police more power to detain illegal immigrants.

"We've created a toxic environment," he told lawmakers. "Businesses don't want to move here."
He said companies looking to relocate pay attention to the political climate in a state.
"What we've really done is create a not-open-for-business environment here."

And Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told legislators they should leave the question of citizenship where it belongs: in Congress.

Complete article here: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... l-stalls-a

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23523

Senate Panel OK's Anti-Immigration Bills
By Don Bishop @ February 16, 2011 2:27 AM KRMG Local News

Quote:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A Senate committee has approved bills denying Oklahoma citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants and one dubbed ``Arizona-plus'' that would allow police to confiscate property, like homes and vehicles, belonging to those in the country illegally.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved both bills on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote, with Democrats opposing the measures.

Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey, who wrote the bills, said he disagrees with the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that babies born in the U.S. automatically become American citizens. The Oklahoma City Republican says his bill on asset forfeiture and seizure would give law enforcement an incentive to capture and jail illegal immigrants.

http://krmg.com/localnews/2011/02/senat ... grati.html

June bug · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:13 pm

Tunisia's looking better and better. :cry:

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6626

Quote:

bills denying Oklahoma citizenship

I think this is "Citizenship Theater". States don't grant citizenship. Are we citizens of the states in which we live, or are we citizens of the United States? I don't think I've ever considered myself a citizen of a state in which I lived, but a resident nor do I ever remember having any piece of paper that called me a citizen of a state.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:39 pm

kimba wrote:

Quote:

bills denying Oklahoma citizenship

I think this is "Citizenship Theater". States don't grant citizenship. Are we citizens of the states in which we live, or are we citizens of the United States? I don't think I've ever considered myself a citizen of a state in which I lived, but a resident nor do I ever remember having any piece of paper that called me a citizen of a state.

According to the 14th amendment, both.

ballantine · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm **Posts:** 372

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

kimba wrote:

Quote:

bills denying Oklahoma citizenship

I think this is "Citizenship Theater". States don't grant citizenship. Are we citizens of the states in which we live, or are we citizens of the United States? I don't think I've ever considered myself a citizen of a state in which I lived, but a resident nor do I ever remember having any piece of paper that called me a citizen of a state.

According to the 14th amendment, both.

Sterngard is right, the 14th Amendment changed and settled the law in this respect. It says if you are a US citizen, your are a citizen of the state in which you reside. However, it is actually an interesting historical topic. Prior to the Amendment, states did grant state citizenship. Most states adopted the common law and defined state citizenship accordingly. Some states had statutes defining state citizenship. Virginia said that all persons born within the territory of Virginia was citizens of Virginia. Apuzzo, of course, refuses to acknowledge that this means all people born in Virginia are citizens as he feels free to change the tense, add a few words and punctuate at his pleasure until it somehow endorses his Vattel's defintition. Seriously, an actual point of real dispute prior to the 14th Amendment was whether American citizens were simply the citizens of the states or if American citizenship was something separate as set forth in the Constitution. For example, compate the majority and dissent in Dred Scott:

" It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States ." Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 405 (1857)

"Among the powers unquestionably possessed by the several States was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens….It embraced…what native-born persons should be citizens of the United States. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, __ (1857)(Curtis, J., dissenting)

Several members of the 14th Amendment Congress oppossed the Civil Rights Act solely because they thought it was inconsistant with the notion that it was the states who had the ability to define native citizenship. This included Senator Reverdy Johnson, the winning lawyer in Dred Scott, who curiously argued the position of the dissent on this point in the debates on the Amendment. Hard to make this stuff up. Here is Johnson, who not only won the case, but is credited with convincing the court and providing Taney with his argument. He goes on to be a leading figure in preventing Maryland from seceding and is one of the most prominent senators in enacting the 14th Amendment and does so by endorsing the position of the dissent that disagreed with him in Dred Scott. It was Johnson who was the most prominent voice in asserting that Congress could not over-rule Dred Scott by statute, but needed to amend the Constitution and he had no issue with adopting such an Amendment. In his words:

"I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States." Sen. Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2893 (1866)

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6626

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

According to the 14th amendment, both.

Thanks. So the 14th amendment of the US Constitution says "Section 1. 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." Wouldn't a law passed by any state saying certain people born in the State are not citizens of the state be unconstitutional? Wouldn't the proper way to overturn birthright citizenship be to propose and pass another amendment to the US Constitution that amends the 14th amendment? Do state reps propose these bills just to make sucky points with certain constituents even though they know they'll go no where?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:56 pm

kimba wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

According to the 14th amendment, both.

Thanks. So the 14th amendment of the US Constitution says "Section 1. 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." Wouldn't a law passed by any state saying certain people born in the State are not citizens of the state be unconstitutional? Wouldn't the proper way to overturn birthright citizenship be to propose and pass another amendment to the US Constitution that amends the 14th amendment? Do state reps propose these bills just to make sucky points with certain constituents even though they know they'll go no where?

Yes.

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

Quote:

State Lawmakers Outline Plans to End Birthright Citizenship, Drawing Outcry
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 5, 2011
excerpt
They acknowledged that the state bills were not likely to have a practical effect anytime soon, since they will quickly be challenged as unconstitutional. But the legislators — from Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina — said they chose the first day of a new Republican-controlled House of Representatives to start an effort that they hope will end with a Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, and spur legislative action in Washington.

complete article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/us/06immig.html

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:15 pm

kimba wrote:

Wouldn't a law passed by any state saying certain people born in the State are not citizens of the state be unconstitutional?

Yes. And more troubling is the provision allowing the state to "confiscate property, like homes and vehicles, belonging to those in the country illegally." Let the import of that sink in ... Oklahoma proposes to seize property belonging to persons whose status in the United States (legal vs. illegal) is determined by Federal law. On the one hand, Oklahoma wants to define state citizenship on its own terms, but on the other hand the state is quite willing to piggyback on the Federal definition of citizenship when it comes to depriving persons of their property. How does that comport with the second clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The same proposed legislation did not make it to a floor vote last year.

If you will recall, another anti-immigrant measure, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (H.B. 1804), is under legal challenge and the state has been preliminarily enjoined from enforcing its provisions. Chamber of Commerce v. Henry, No. 08-109 (W.D. Okla. filed Feb. 1, 2008), aff'd sub nom., Chamber of Commerce of the USA v Edmondson, Nos. 08-6127 and 08-6128 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 2010).

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

The GOP cracks me up. They claim to be fiscally responsible yet pass legislation that costs big bucks in legal fees; yet they are also trying to pass "loser pays" tort reform to discourage frivolous lawsuits. :lol:

Unconstitutional and Costly
The High Price of Local Immigration Enforcement
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... ostly.html

Perry's "Loser Pays" "Tort Reform"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Multiple States: Overturn Birthright Citizenship

Who is online