Birthright Citizenship bills have an expansive definition of ‘anchor baby’.

27 Jan 2011 10:17 pm
Posted by: Donna

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about an unnoticed detail of the proposed language of the Birthright Citizenship bill and how Sen. Ron Gould seemed to be under the misapprehension that children born in the U.S. to immigrants with legal work visas were not automatically granted citizenship. Gould was, of course, wrong.

And now here’s Rep. John Kavanagh admitting that the bill casts a wider net than just the babies of illegal immigrants. Per Reuters:

The aim is “to trigger … a Supreme Court review of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the 14th amendment,” said Rep. John Kavanagh, one on the backers of the legislation.

It ultimately seeks “to deny citizenship to any child born of parents who are not citizens of the United States, be they illegal aliens, or foreigners on business or for tourist purposes,” he added.

Not quite, Rep. Kavanagh.

Here’s the House version of the bill filed earlier today:

ARIZONA CITIZENSHIP (Arizona citizenship?)
6 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7 1-701. Arizona citizenship
8 A. A PERSON IS A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IF:
9 1. THE PERSON IS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE
10 JURISDICTION THEREOF, AND
11 2. THE PERSON IS LAWFULLY DOMICILED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
12 B. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
13 THE UNITED STATES HAS THE MEANING THAT IT BEARS IN SECTION 1 OF THE
14 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, NAMELY THAT THE
15 PERSON IS A CHILD OF AT LEAST ONE PARENT WHO OWES NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY
16 FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY, OR A CHILD WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY IN ANY
17 FOREIGN COUNTRY. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO OWES NO
18 ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN OR NATIONAL,
19 OR AN IMMIGRANT ACCORDED THE PRIVILEGE OF RESIDING PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED
20 STATES, OR A PERSON WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY IN ANY FOREIGN
21 COUNTRY.
22 C. IN ADDITION TO THE CRITERIA OF CITIZENSHIP DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTIONS
23 A AND B, A PERSON IS A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IF:
24 1. THE PERSON IS NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES.
25 2. THE PERSON IS LAWFULLY DOMICILED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
26 D. CITIZENSHIP OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE
27 HOLDER THEREOF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITY OR BENEFIT UNDER LAW.

As I noted in my previous post, the word “permanently” excludes children born to people on any kind of temporary visa, not merely people traveling on vacation or business. Former State Rep. David Lujan posted to Facebook earlier that the language would also appear to exclude children born out of the U.S. to American parents. That’s the word “and” I highlighted. You’d have to be born in the U.S. to qualify for Arizona citizenship (?), period, if this bill passes. Even if Mom and Dad are serving their country in the military overseas.

That little oversight will be cleared up quickly, I’m sure.

Arizona Republican legislators are joining with their cohorts in several other states under the banner of State Legislators for Legal Immigration. This group is ostensibly so committed to legal immigration that they make repeated references to the “invasion of illegal aliens” and “foreign invaders” on their website. Yep. All about the legal immigration are the State Legislators for Legal Immigration.

Oddly enough, I couldn’t find anything that actually encouraged legal immigration on the site. You’ll be shocked to learn there’s nothing about employer sanctions there either.

I know. Stunning.

At any rate, if the intention of Arizona Republican legislators was to write a pointless and divisive bill that only targets the babies of undocumented immigrants then why not, you know, write a bill that does just that? What do they have against the babies of, oh say, foreign temporary guest workers? What part of “legal” don’t they understand?

3 Comments

  1. Comment by Appleblossom on January 27, 2011 11:30 pm

    I read part D and laughed after I stopped being mad.

    I mean really-stripping citizens of Arizona of their rights? Really?! *laughs again*

  2. Comment by John Lawton on January 30, 2011 6:29 am

    Why should the children of “foreign temporary guest workers” be American citizens? The 14th Amendment certainly doesn’t guarantee citizenship to such babies.

  3. Comment by Audrie Sweda on February 11, 2011 7:38 am

    I always was concerned in this topic and still am, thankyou for putting up.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.