Arizona Senate approves 'birther' bill

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Arizona Senate approves 'birther' bill
PHOENIX - The Arizona Senate has approved a revised bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens eligible to run for the office.

The bill approved Wednesday gives candidates additional ways to prove they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

It was prompted by the ongoing claim by some that there is no proof President Barack Obama was born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to be president.

Democrats argued the bill exceeds the state's authority and say state officials are not fully qualified to determine the validity of a candidate's documents.

Republicans argue the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the right to determine how federal elections are conducted.

The bill now goes to the House for a final vote.
Earlier this year, ABC15.com asked two state senators to share their opinions on a now defeated "birthright" bill that would have stopped babies born to non-citizen parents from becoming U.S. citizens.
State Senator Ron Gould (R) of District 3 said hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing U.S. border to give birth, using their children as “anchors” to help pull themselves into permanent residency. Gould said we needed to remove the incentive for illegal aliens to cross our borders to have children, simply so they could receive financial benefits in the form of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.
State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D) of District 15 said our government codified its long-standing practice of granting citizenship to all born on our soil when the Fourteenth Amendment passed. Sinema said this bill violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and it violates the spirit of our founding fathers’ vision of what makes America the great nation that it is.
So, is the birthright citizenship bill good or bad for Arizona?
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/...irther%27-bill

Is birthright citizenship bill good or bad for Arizona?
PHOENIX - The nation faces tough questions in tough times, and there are people on both sides of every issue.
Arizona is no different. But who’s saying what about the issues important to Arizonans?

Each Sunday, ABC15.com debuts an Arizona issue - along with two opposing sides on the topic.

Don’t worry, you always have the opportunity to make comments at the bottom of the page. Yeah, your opinion matters, too.

This week we're tackling the debate on whether or not the birthright citizenship bill is good or bad for Arizona.
State Senator Ron Gould (R) of District 3 says the fourteenth amendment is being severely misapplied today. Gould says hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing U.S. border to give birth, using their children as “anchors” to help pull themselves into permanent residency. Gould says we need to remove the incentive for illegal aliens to cross our borders to have children, simply so they can receive financial benefits in the form of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.
State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D) of District 15 says our government codified its long-standing practice of granting citizenship to all born on our soil when the Fourteenth Amendment passed. Sinema says this bill violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and it violates the spirit of our founding fathers’ vision of what makes America the great nation that it is. She says Senate President Russell Pearce and his friends want to get Arizona involved in another losing lawsuit, challenging the U.S. Constitution about U.S. citizen children.
So, is the birthright citizenship bill good or bad for Arizona?
Bear arms. Peacefully assemble. A fair trial.
The U.S. Constitution upholds fundamental rights all Americans can enjoy. It protects those rights and holds far-reaching government accountable. One of the promises made by our forefathers was a promise for the future – the promise that all people born in the United States are American citizens. Simple enough, and perhaps something most Americans don’t worry about when they are working to put food on the table or making tough decisions now that they can’t afford health care or college tuition for their kids. But Republicans, who control all of state government, have decided to focus on yet another waste of taxpayers’ time and money by undermining this great American promise.
Senate President Russell Pearce and his friends want to get Arizona involved in another losing lawsuit, challenging the U.S. Constitution about U.S. citizen children. It’s just another personal political battle he has waged at the expense of Arizona taxpayers instead of working to create jobs and balance the budget. That’s why, now more than ever, we need to hold government accountable to We the People.
Arizonans believe in a government that is on their side, one that is honest and effective. But Republicans, who control all of state government, introduced the birthright citizenship bill this week, completely wasting taxpayers’ time and money. The bill challenges the Fourteenth Amendment and would no longer grant citizenship to all children born here in our country. In fact, this bill would also deny citizenship to American children born to American military families serving our country overseas. That’s not the America that we know, and it’s not the America that we love.
This is unconstitutional. Our founding fathers envisioned a country that provided safe harbor, security, and protection under the law to all its citizens. When the Fourteenth Amendment passed, our government codified its long-standing practice of granting citizenship to all born on our soil. This bill violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and it violates the spirit of our founding fathers’ vision of what makes America the great nation that it is.
Moreover, this bill will only lead to another lengthy and expensive losing court battle that will completely waste our tax dollars. This bill does nothing to solve Arizona’s real immigration problems. Republicans should try standing up for real immigration reform instead of another political battle that solves nothing and costs money, As a Democrat, I support:
• Tough immigration laws that arrest and deport human smugglers, drug traffickers and crack down on corporations that hire illegal immigrants.
• Fighting to give our hard-pressed local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to keep our families safe.
• Pushing for the federal government to finally step up and secure the border.
By pushing an unconstitutional bill that is guaranteed to fail, Republicans are not on Arizonans’ side. It’s just the latest example of their wrong priorities, and unfortunately for Arizona, we’ll see more to come. It’s time we all hold them accountable for their irresponsible actions.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 in order to grant citizenship to and protect the civil rights of recently freed slaves following the Civil War. Since its passing, the idea of birthright citizenship has always carried with it the stipulation that the definition of “citizen” include “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
Today, the fourteenth amendment is being severely misapplied. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing U.S. border to give birth, using their children as “anchors” to help pull themselves into permanent residency. They get access to jobs while simultaneously costing American taxpayers $113 billion per year (nearly $1,117 per individual taxpayer).
It is clear these illegal aliens have an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, namely the country they left. As specified by Rep. John Bingham, one of the proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has always been the allegiance of the parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship—not geographical location. Natural born citizens are those who are born in this country to parents who are citizens themselves.
We need clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue. We can’t have nameless bureaucrats in Washington making these important decisions. The high court has never weighed in.
I have received numerous questions from my constituents about the “Anchor baby” issue and I feel this legislation has the support of our citizens. We need to remove the incentive for illegal aliens to cross our borders to have children, simply so they can receive financial benefits in the form of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. Our nation’s immigration laws must first and foremost protect and serve the interests of its citizens and not those who are here unlawfully.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_...ad-for-arizona

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Arizona Plows Controversial Ground With Birther Bill
The state of Arizona has moved onto contentious political territory once again with the legislative passage of a bill requiring President Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state's ballot.
Opponents say Arizona's bill, approved late this week, gives the state another black eye after lawmakers approved a controversial immigration enforcement law last year.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who has until the end of business Thursday to act on the proposal, declined to say whether she would sign the measure, which would make Arizona the first state to enact such a requirement.
"That bill is an interesting piece of legislation. I certainly have not given it a whole lot of thought with everything that's been on my plate," said Brewer, a social conservative who has vetoed four bills and signed more than 100 others since the legislative session began in January.
If she does sign, a court could possibly have to decide whether the president's birth certificate is enough to prove he can legally run for re-election.
Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state, but so-called "birthers" have demanded more proof.
Opponents also point to other actions they believe have affected the state's reputation, including the consideration of legislation asserting state rights.
"Arizona is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. We've cut school funding. And they pass a bill questioning Obama's citizenship? For real?" Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said Friday.
Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the bill's author, said the president's birth record wouldn't satisfy the requirements of his proposal and that Obama would have to provide other records, such as baptismal certificates and hospital records. But Seel said the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and instead was meant to maintain the integrity of elections.
"Mr. Obama drew the question out, but it's not about him," Seel said, noting his bill would also require statewide candidates to complete an affidavit showing they meet the qualifications for those offices, which include U.S. citizenship.
The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
But the term "natural-born citizen" is open to interpretation -- and many bloggers, politicians and others have weighed in.
No one knows for sure what the term means, said Gabriel J. Chin, a University of Arizona law professor who is an expert in citizenship and immigration law. "Natural-born citizen" was modeled after a phrase used in British law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never defined it, he said.
Birthers have maintained since the last presidential election that Obama is ineligible to hold the nation's highest elected office because, they argue, he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. Obama's mother was an American citizen.
Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificate has been made public. Even though the courts have rebuffed lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, the issue hasn't gone away.
Whether Arizona's measure would be found constitutional is an open question, legal scholars say.
Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University's law school, said he doesn't think the bill on its face conflicts with federal law. But he said a court might find its application unconstitutional. "I think the state of Arizona, like any other state, is entitled to formulate rules to ensure that candidates whose name appear on the ballot are in fact qualified," Tokaji said.
The U.S. Constitution sets the qualifications for presidential candidates, and the Arizona proposal requires proof of those qualifications. However, opponents question whether Arizona's bill adds additional requirements.
The measure says political parties and presidential candidates must hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also requires them to provide the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates don't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.
If it can't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates are eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would be able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements have been met. The names of candidates can be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state doesn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.
The bill doesn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.
But Richard Hasen, a University of California, Irvine professor who specializes in election law, said the candidate in such a case could go to federal court to seek an order preventing enforcement of the law on the grounds it would be an unconstitutional qualification for the office.
Hasen believes there's a good chance the law would get struck down, likely on the grounds that it adds an impermissible requirement for presidential candidates. "It depends on how a court would read the bill," he said.
Seel predicted the proposal would stand up in court because it relies on standards that the Department of Defense uses in making sure military applicants are U.S. citizens.
He said one fan of the measure is real estate tycoon and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who last month appeared on ABC's "The View" and called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Seel said he discussed the bill with Trump last week, and "he liked it."
Seel added that the measure was not intended as a snipe at the federal government.
"I wouldn't say that, but I am proud of my Republican colleagues (who voted for the bill)," he said. "It was a good day for the Constitution."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1JiiRZRWM