Two Senators DO Propose Constitutional Amendment To Supercede 14th Amendment's "Birthright Citizenship"

Two United States Senators - Republicans David Vitter (LA) and Rand Paul (KY) - have announced that they have filed a resolution proposing to amend the United States Constitution to ensure that babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship.

Earlier today, Arizona's Politics discussed the current legislative efforts - at the state and the national level - to remove "birthright citizenship" from babies born in the United States.  Our conclusion was that the efforts which fail to amend the Constitution are likely to fail in the courts.

Vitter and Paul apparently reached the same conclusion.  They filed their joint resolution on Tuesday (SJR2) and, while the text is not yet available on Congress' website, the Senators' news release indicates where they are headed with it.

The Senators state that their proposed amendment "would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen."

No other co-sponsors are listed at this point.






We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

No Arizona Representatives Co-Sponsoring Bill To Change Birthright Citizenship/Anchor Babies

No members of the Arizona Congressional delegation have signed on to co-sponsor Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) bill to change U.S. law - under the Constitution and the statutes - to restrict "birthright citizenship".  As discussed in the previous post, King is attempting to work on the second clause in the sentence in the 14th Amendment by stating that babies born to two illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

King introduced H.R. 140 earlier this month, and has signed on 45 co-sponsors.  To date, not one member of Arizona's delegation has signed on to King's effort and none of them are on King's subcommittee that will schedule a hearing on it.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

READ and TWEET: Entire Relevant Portion of 14th Amendment; Anti-Birthright Citizenship Movement Weighed Down By Scalia's (and Its) Originalist Philosophy

Here is the entire, very clear text of the first two sentences of the first section of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.

It is so clear that no bolding or italics are necessary to interpret it as the U.S. Supreme Court did in 1898.  It is so concise that - with only minor Twitterifying adjustments to the language - it can be Tweeted in only two Tweets.  (Which I did - with a #14Am "hashtag" - at http://twitter.com/#!/AZs_Politics; re-Tweet them as you wish.)

Republicans in Congress (46, led by Rep. Steve King) and in a number of states (including Arizona) are attacking that plain language without attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The states' efforts are an attempt to bring the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court; however, it is hard to see how any court could leap the first hurdle that states cannot redefine the nation's citizenship laws.  The Congressional effort would be more appealing to judges and justices, tinkering with who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

However, the two factors weighing heavily against all of the legislative efforts are (1) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's popular originalist judicial philosophy for interpreting the Constitution; and (2) the principle of respecting previous Supreme Court opinions (stare decisis). 

There is little doubt that those working to redefine who is a citizen (or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) are contradicting their oft-stated belief in the Constitution, and are hoping for "judicial activists" to rule in their favor.  Instead, if they do not like what the Constitution clearly states, they should amend it.




We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.