Update: GOP to target women and babies

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Pay attention Howie. Your stenographic reporting on our de facto governor, Sen. Russell Pearce, and our lame-duck governor, Jan Brewer, is becoming embarrassing. Proposal to change 14th Amendment draws fire and support. The Arizona Capitol Times and the Arizona Republic demonstrate the proper way to report on the "anchor baby" bill by disclosing who is actually behind this travesty.

The Arizona Capitol Times reports State lawmakers target automatic birthright citizenship:

A group of state lawmakers say their plan for challenging automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. would not lead to deportations of the youngsters.

The state legislators say their ambition is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizenship to such children.

The lawmakers want states to adopt a bill that would bestow state citizenship on people who meet the state’s definition of a U.S. citizen and are state residents. They also want states to agree to a compact that defines who is eligible for U.S. citizenship.

The lawmakers say Congress must approve the compact but it does not require the president’s signature.

Read the model legislation unveiled Wednesday, Jan. 5.

Remarks by Michael Hethmon, a supporter of the birthright legislation and attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, at the Press Conference where the draft model legislation was made public:

Good Morning,

I want to thank Rep. Metcalfe, Senator Pearce and Rep. Terrill for asking me to participate in the State Legislators for Legal Immigration working group on 14th Amendment citizenship, whose activities are being reported to you today. As an advocate on legal aspects of immigration for the Federation for American Immigration Reform [FAIR] and the organized immigration reform movement in general, I would like to share why this collaboration has been among the most challenging and intellectually rewarding in my career.

[Blah, Blah, Blah]

The Arizona Republic reports Arizona's birthright citizenship bill in D.C. spotlight:

A high-profile attempt by a handful of states to reform U.S. birthright citizenship may inflame the national discussion about immigration reform, but legal experts say it is a long shot to actually unravel the longstanding constitutional tenet that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens.

Any state legislation also would do little, if anything, in the short term to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

But legislators from Arizona and four other states unveiled legislation Wednesday that they hope will force federal courts to consider whether the 14th Amendment truly grants citizenship to U.S.-born babies of illegal immigrants.

Such a legal review is not guaranteed. But keeping the issue of illegal immigration in the headlines is part of a calculated strategy for foes of comprehensive immigration reform, said Louis DeSipio, a political-science professor at the University of California-Irvine.

"It is a way of continuing to focus public anger on immigration, to the degree that SB 1070 was partially designed to speak to constituents in Arizona who were upset about immigration and wanted to see policy change," he said, referring to Arizona's controversial immigration-enforcement law. "This is the next step, which is to create a national foundation for opposition to immigration and to controlling the rights of immigrants."

* * *

The draft model bill, released at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, would define who is and isn't a citizen of a particular state. It also says state citizenship doesn't carry with it any special rights, benefits, privileges or immunities under law. Babies born to illegal immigrants in states that pass the legislation would not be stripped of any rights or benefits they now receive, the lawmakers said.

Instead, the bill, if passed, is designed to draw a legal challenge.

"The bottom line: What we want is our day in court," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who attended the news conference with state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.

However, a legal battle over the proposed state law would not necessarily even lead to the high court considering the underlying question about whether birthright citizenship applies to children of illegal immigrants, said Paul Bender, professor of law and dean emeritus at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

"I don't know what they think they're doing," said Bender, who served as principal deputy U.S. solicitor general under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. "I guess they want to create a controversy, hoping for what? That the Supreme Court will change its mind or Congress will do something? I don't know, but it's pretty clearly unconstitutional."

* * *

Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped draft SB 1070, said the birthright-citizenship bill does not attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment or usurp the federal government's power to make immigration law.

Instead, he said, it revives the concept of state citizenship and asserts a state's authority to define the terms of that citizenship. Supporters say as many as 20 states could introduce the measure.

"It's a very calculated first step," he said.

[Note: This report fails to disclose that Kris Kobach was an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). And neither report discloses that FAIR has been identified as an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.]

In addition to unveiling a draft bill, the legislators proposed a separate plan that encourages states to enter compacts with one another to change their birth-certificate systems to note on records whether someone was born to U.S. citizen parents or not.

* * *

Garrett Epps, an expert on the 14th Amendment and a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said the state legislators either don't understand the amendment or are purposely misstating its intent.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, 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."

Those who favor reform say illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S, so their children can't qualify for birthright citizenship. But Epps said illegal immigrants clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and state governments because they can be sued, arrested, charged and incarcerated for violating federal and state laws, he said.

"The historical record on this is very clear," Epps said. "The proponents of citizenship-stripping basically misstate the record, quote parts of the original debate and then leave out all the parts that don't support their position. . . . This is about politics, not law."

Some recommended reading from Garrett Epps:

Graham: It's an Election Year, Let's Dismantle the Constitution – Garrett Epps – The Atlantic

Phony 'Originalism' and the Assault on Birthright Citizenship – Garrett Epps – The Atlantic

Garrett Epps is a former reporter for The Washington Post, a novelist and legal scholar.  He teaches courses in constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore. He knows a great deal more about the 14th Amendment than any of the pseudo-intellectuals in the Arizona Legislature carrying water for anti-immigrant hate groups.

So here's a suggestion for the media covering this travesty. Stop stenographically reporting the talking points from the cynical bastards in the Arizona Legislature provided to them by anti-immigrant hate groups, and start talking to actual legal experts in constitutional law — you know, factual reporting. As Professor Epps warns:

A clear text, like the Citizenship Clause, can slowly be covered over by barnacles of quibble and questionable historical assertion, until legislators and even judges are convinced that it can't mean what it says. This stealth technique of legal change illustrates a saying of that wise old psychologist, Samuel Johnson: "Reason by degrees submits to absurdity, as the eye is in time accommodated to darkness.''

In short, they show contempt for the very document American office holders are sworn to uphold.