http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/knau/local-knau-943646.mp3
Phoenix, AZ – The proposal being unveiled in Washington would have each state
-- and not the federal government -- define citizenship. More to
the point, citizenship would be available only to those born in
the state who had at least one parent who already is a citizen or
a permanent legal resident. And the law would be backed by an
compact where participating states agree to differentiate between
birth certificates issued to those who are determined under the
new standard to be citizens and those who are not. Arizona state
Sen. Russell Pearce said the idea is to reclaim the original
intent behind the 14th Amendment. He said that measure, enacted
after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to blacks, was never
meant to give those rights to children born to people who entered
this country illegally.
(It's against the law to enter, against the law to remain. Yet we
create one of the greatest inducements to break the laws, and
that's a declaration of citizenship, where you're entitled to all
the benefits that are reserved for citizens of the United
States.)
Pearce said he envisions the Arizona Department of Health
Services being required to issue two different types of birth
certificates. One would spell out the newborn is a citizen, the
other would say that the certificate shows only birth, not
citizenship. It would be up to the parents to produce proof of
citizenship or permanent residency to get one of the first kind
of birth certificates. No proof means a birth certificate that
does not confer citizenship on the child. Pearce said his
legislation would not deny rights to anyone.
(You don't have a right to it. It's like telling me I'm denying
you transportation because you can't steal my car. You don't have
a right to my car. I'm not denying you transportation. It's not
your car.)
But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court,
as far back as 1898, concluded in a case called U.S. versus Wong
Kim Ark that citizenship cannot be denied to those born in this
country, no matter what the immigration status of their parents.
She said Pearce is simply misreading the amendment and
misconstruing states' rights.
(States can decide who is a resident of their state. Right? So
states have the power to determine, for instance, how long a
person has to reside in the state before they're eligible to
register to vote in that state.)
She said citizenship is determined at the national level. Pearce
acknowledged that's the way it has been. But he said that's only
because the sovereign states have ignored their rights. Today's
introduction of draft legislation will formally kick off the
debate over what have been called by some anchor babies because
these children of illegal immigrants, by virtue of their own
citizenship, then get rights to sponsor others for citizenship.
But while Pearce is expecting the measure to pass in Arizona, he
realizes that, given prior court rulings, this is just the
beginning of the battle.
(What we're looking for is a Supreme Court fight. Because we'll
reverse the Kim Wong decision which was a terrible decision, a
split court decision.)
He said if the high court sees it his way, that, in turn, may
push Congress to use its powers under the 14th amendment to
clarify what it means -- and spell out that citizenship is not
based on geography at birth. For Arizona Public Radio this is
Howard Fischer.