"Arizona Senate Defeats Controversial Birthright Measures"

@gladys46 (1205)
United States
March 18, 2011 3:29pm CST
CNN's political producer Alexander Mooney reports today, 3/18/11: A series of hot-botton immigration bills in AZ that in part proposed stripping citizenship rights of children of illegal immigrants went down in defeat on Thursday, averting for now a legal showdown that would likely have reached the Supreme Court. A divided state Senate voted against a string of proposals that aimed to deny citizenship rights to children of illegal immigrants born in the US, prevent illegal immigrants from acquiring drivers' licenses and require schools and hospitals to check the legal status of students and patients before offering services. Specific portions of the measures -- including a ban on citizenship and access to schools for children of illegal immigrants - appear to expressly conflict with previous Supreme Court rulings and were drafted in hopes the high court would reconsider its decades-old holdings in that area of law. The Court categorically ruled more than a hundred years ago that birth within the US triggered citizenship even if the parents were in the country illegally. Thirty years ago, the Court also struck down a TX law that sought to deny public education to children of illegal immigrants. Some of the most controversial measures were drafted by state Senate President Russell Pearce, a former sheriff who has long aimed to crack down on illegal immigration in his state and is mulling a congressional bid. The future of the measures remain unclear, but it's possible similar proposals could be presented to voters as referendums in the next election. AZ Gov. Jan Brewer, a noted illegal immigration opponent herself, stopped short of expressing full fledged support for the measures while they were being considered. ........ Even if these measures re-appear on AZ's election ballot and are indeed supported by the electorate of AZ, what comprehensive address to illegal immigration would have been evidenced since a strong challenge at the Supreme Court merely awaits?
4 responses
@GoAskAlice (5811)
19 Mar 11
I am going to allow this to stand, but it sits right on the edge of a violation as it does not offer much in the way of original content. In the future though, please only paste a small portion of an article, provide a source link to the rest and include more of your own content.
@mysdianait (66009)
• Italy
19 Mar 11
Before you reach 500 you cannot copy/paste but you CAN type it out one letter at a time in the same way that you did with the topic here.
@artistry (4152)
• United States
21 Mar 11
.... Hi mysdianait, doesn't that go against what Alice just stated??
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Alice, do the rules here now allow me the privilege of providing a source link yet? In the past, I did attempt to link a source and was denied ... the prompt stated something about having gained 500 points! Thank you for a response.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
18 Mar 11
We all knew this one wasn't going to fly. It would take a Constitutional amendment and ratification to actually take effect. The Supreme Court would have likely ruled against it based on Constitutional grounds. They wouldn't have been wrong either. They are going to have to do a lot better than send it through the legal system.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
18 Mar 11
"We" did? So, will a ballot initiative solve the AZ illegal immigration problem, is this legitimate, comprehensive illegal immigration resolve ... attack the children of illegal immigrants?
• United States
18 Mar 11
Legislation goes through Congress all the time. Not all of it passes. That's the way the system works. He tried, he failed. Frankly, the possibility of this bill passing was probably slim to nil. Lots of other bills go through that get voted down. Not sure how this one is different from the thousands of other failed bills. It would have been vastly different if it had passed. Like I stated earlier, if that particular Senator wanted a new Constitutional amendment he needs to try much harder than a bill in the Senate. Again, legislation like this would need a Constitutional amendment. This is because there is a specific clause in the Constitution about this particular issue.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
19 Mar 11
So, you're saying that this "state" senator is merely wasting the taxpayer's time and money by knowingly bringing forth legislative bills that could never pass constitutional muster?
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
19 Mar 11
This becomes one more reason some people will use to push for a Constitutional Convention. The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to the children of former slaves. It was never meant to cover people who were in this country illegally and gave birth while they were in the US. It may be easier to call the Convention with the different concerns that people have with the way the Politicians are trying to use the Constitution to make social change.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
19 Mar 11
The constitution already makes the rules for citizenship clear. Even if this had passed, it would have quickly been challenged and deemed unconstitutional. The constitution couldn't be more clear. Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"