Arizona birthright measures stymied
"It's going to come back," said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, who opposes the package. "Nothing's dead until sine die."
The Legislature adjourns when it is sine die, which means its work is done.
The identical House versions of the package have not yet been assigned to a committee for a hearing. The proposed legislation does two things:
- House Bill 2561 and Senate Bill 1309 would define children as citizens of Arizona and the U.S. if at least one of their parents was either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent U.S. resident and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
- House Bill 2562 and Senate Bill 1308 would seek permission from Congress to set up a system so states can create separate birth certificates for children who meet the new definition of a citizen and those who do not.
The committee hearing was crammed with children, news media, lobbyists, "tea party" members and immigrant-rights advocates.
For two hours, the audience got a lesson in constitutional history and a debate over U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The bill's sponsors want to push the high court to reconsider how the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop the United States from granting citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
The 14th Amendment 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."
Chapman University School of Law professor John Eastman said court rulings have not clearly established what the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant when they applied it to individuals "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. He said the bills were written to prompt the Supreme Court to do just that.
"Suppose a tourist from Great Britain was here visiting on a temporary tourist visa. He is subject to our jurisdiction in that he has to follow our laws while here, but he is not subject to the jurisdiction in broader sense that he could be drafted into our army or that he is allowed to vote while here," Eastman said. "There are two different meanings of subject to jurisdiction. This bill is simply trying to define what 'subject to the jurisdiction' means."
Professor Andy Hessick of Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law argued the other side.
Both attorneys were hit with question after question, primarily from Sinema and Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, who also are attorneys.
Sinema said the wording would inadvertently deny citizenship to children born overseas to parents serving in the U.S. military as well as any children born to parents who hold duel citizenship.
Driggs questioned the motivation of the bills.
"I am a conservative Republican, and I am a little confused, because I take very seriously the oath . . . to uphold the Constitution," he said. "I will not take any challenges to the U.S. Constitution lightly."
Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, a retired attorney, said Monday's debate was proof that the issue needs to be resolved.
"We have two guys arguing diametrically opposed arguments, which makes it clear to me that it isn't clear-cut," he said.
About a dozen people spoke against the bills, including children, advocacy groups and business leaders. Nobody spoke in support of the bills.
"I am here for my community, my family, my friends," 11-year-old Katherine Figueroa said. "We are the future. You should vote no so our dreams can come true."
Heidi Portugal,12, stood outside the Capitol with a sign that said, "I want to be a police officer." She came in to speak at the hearing.
"I may not be perfect, but instead of focusing on a discriminating law, you should focus more on the economy, providing jobs or focus on the future, which is mostly the children."
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce opposed the bills.
"Every time Arizona goes it alone, there are unintended consequences," said Michelle Boltonof the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.
Jennifer Allen, executive director of the Border Action Network, said the bills would marginalize part of the community.
"We are better than a debate about how to create what would become a permanent underclass in the state of Arizona, better than creating a nation of children that have no citizenship," she said. "Frustration with the federal government's failure to fix the nation's immigration system should not be used to undermine the Constitution, nor should it be used to further shame our state and turn it into a state known to be hostile and hateful."