Arizona Sen. John McComish On Why He Opposes Birthright Citizenship Bills and Their Possible Outcome; Arizona Has "Greater Issues To Deal With"

A couple of weeks ago, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee held a lengthy hearing on two bills that would address the issue of the 14th Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) and birthright citizenship.  Eventually, sponsor Sen. Ron Gould (R-LD3) pulled the bills from the committee once he realized that at least two of the Republicans were going to vote them down.  He brought them over to the more friendly Appropriations Committee, where they were approved yesterday, pushing them toward the Floor.

The question of what happened in the Judiciary Committee is still relevant, as it may give some insight into the future of these bills.  Arizona's Politics sat down and spoke with Sen. John McComish (R-LD20) last week about his role in the proceedings.  McComish is one of the five GOP Senators on the 8-person committee; Sen. Adam Driggs (R-LD11) - an immigration attorney - had made it clear through his questioning of the proponents' witness that he was disinclined to vote for the bills.

At some point in the long hearing, Gould asked McComish where he stood.  “I never hid what my conclusion was," said McComish. "The sponsor asked me towards the end of discussion, and I told him. At that point, he decided to hold the bill(s).”

When asked why he decided to oppose the bills, McComish rattled off a few factors: 

“There are multiple reasons. It is the settled constitutional law of the land. Adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court…. I have read the debate on the floor (of the U.S. Congress) in the 1860’s, and it is very clear that the intention was any newborn I the U.S. is a citizen....  ‘Under the jurisdiction’ means just that… subject to our laws.”

McComish noted that he looked up the Latin, while another Senator looked it up in a 19th century dictionary, both looking for the intent that those who passed the 14th Amendment might have meant. 

McComish realizes that even though it has been settled constitutional law for a long time, birthright citizenship may not be the best policy for the United States in this day and age. Nevertheless, “if it is time, let somebody else do it. Arizona has had its time in the drum; we don’t need to be in the lead on this. We have greater issues to deal with, such as the economy and the deficit.”

Finally, McComish predicted that the bills would be moved forward by the Appropriations Committee.  But, as far as the eventual outcome, he predicts that “it will be very close. There is one scenario where it could be 15-15.”



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.

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.