by Staff Reporter | Feb 11, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Attorney General Kris Mayes joined a secret compact with 21 other attorneys general to resist President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship.
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project obtained the secretive agreement, dated a little over a week after Trump won reelection.
Per the agreement, the 22 attorneys general agreed to engage in collaborative legal and communicative efforts to resist Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives, including those deemed confidential and/or privileged.
Per the agreement, all shared information would be used for the development of processes such as pre-suit investigations, litigation strategies, complaints, dispositive motions, merits briefs, and amicus briefs. The agreement prohibited third parties from accessing any of this shared information. The agreement extended its definition of shared information to include all documents, materials, information, and communications exchanged between the attorneys generals’ offices prior to the agreement.
The agreement did allow for public records access to the shared information, but required the attorneys general to give five days’ notice, minimum, to the other attorneys general about the request before it was due.
“The Parties have agreed that they have a common interest in developing potential litigation to challenge executive action related to ending or curtailing birthright citizenship,” stated the agreement.
The other attorneys general to enter the secretive agreement oversaw California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, as well as Washington, D.C.
The city and county of San Francisco, California also joined the agreement last month.
Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship during his first day in office. The order extends to children born of illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. It prohibits the federal government from issuing or accepting citizenship documents from persons born under those circumstances after its effective date, which is scheduled to take place later this month.
“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” read the order.
The order flies in the face of longstanding court precedent on the matter.
That precedent led three federal judges in separate cases to block Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The first two occurred in Washington and Maryland, with the third occurring on Monday in New Hampshire.
Mayes joined Arizona to the case blocked in the Washington district court earlier this month. Based on the timeline of the secretive agreement and the filing of their lawsuit, it appears the case emerged directly from that agreement.
“The court’s decision to block this illegal executive order nationwide protects the basic right to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment,” said Mayes. “I will keep fighting to protect the Constitutional rights of all Arizonans from the Trump administration’s illegal actions.”
Several of those states signed onto the secretive agreement — Washington, Oregon, and Illinois — were partnered on the lawsuit with Mayes.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 31, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
The Left has done a great job of influencing the issue of birthright citizenship. Most Americans oppose granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants, but they also believe that we’re stuck with this policy.
They’re told repeatedly that the practice is enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, that it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the jurisprudence around it is settled law, and that challenging the matter now is unconstitutional and disloyal.
None of that happens to be true, but in the meantime, we’re saddled with a logically incoherent immigration system. Yes, immigrants are central to America’s story. But immigration law must be dedicated to the common good, not the benefit of those willing to flout our laws.
Immigrants should be vetted to ensure that they are likely to assimilate and be of value to their adopted country. Instead, we incentivize illegal immigrant mothers to cross the border before birth so their offspring can be entitled to lifelong citizenship.
So, did the writers of the 14th amendment botch the job, subjecting their descendants to such a dysfunctional system? No. In language more commonly understood at the time, they plainly stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein in they reside.”
The 14th amendment was written in 1868 to clarify that the newly emancipated slaves were granted all the privileges and rights of citizenship. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the authors had the slightest intent to grant citizenship to all born on American soil, much less those with parents living here illegally. The jurisdiction language was added specifically to prevent such an interpretation.
Advocates of constitutional originalism should also note that the author, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained it was meant to describe “a full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
He clearly is not describing an illegal alien. Senator Lyman Trumbull, an influential supporter of the amendment, also emphasized “jurisdiction meant not giving allegiance to anyone else.”
The legal scholar Lino Graglia points out that, as the authors would have understood it, those who are born to parents legally in the US “are subject to the jurisdiction there of and so would have constitutional claim to birthright citizenship.” Just as plain is the fact the 14th Amendment, as written, would not apply to those born to illegal aliens, soldiers posted in a foreign country, or foreign diplomats.
Birthright advocates claim that the 1897 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark clinches their claim that children of illegal immigrants born here are entitled to the full citizenship. Wong had traveled back to China with his parents and was unjustifiably denied reentry until the decision was overturned by the Court. They ruled that to bar Wong would be “to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of [European] parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
That makes sense, since Wong had the necessary documentation and his parents had been on American soil legally at the time of his birth, there being no laws defining them otherwise at the time. This is exactly the reason why this much ballyhooed ruling does not apply to the practice of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. In fact, the Supreme Court has never opined on the question.
The clear intent of the amendment, the language, and the historical record are all in accord. Yet the 14th Amendment has been completely untethered from its original meaning and impact. The Left and the Democratic Party have taken something meant to right a wrong and manipulated it to the advantage of those entering the country illegally.
There are at least 5 million children in America who have received citizenship inappropriately, or about one in eight U.S. births. That works well for those who relentlessly seek ways to produce millions of future Democrats.
The rest of us should continue to respect our Constitution and our history. The incredible privilege of citizenship should go only to those who merit it.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 23, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Attorney General Kris Mayes signed onto a lawsuit with other Democratic attorneys general against President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Mayes called the order “unconstitutional” in a press release published Tuesday.
“No executive order can supersede the United States Constitution and over 150 years of settled law,” said Mayes. “While President Trump may want to take this nation back to a time before all American citizens were treated equally under the law – we will not allow him to do so.”
Mayes defended the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship — which inspired popularity of the pejorative “anchor baby” — as an accurate reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mayes cited the 1898 Supreme Court landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
In its ruling, the court declared that the defendant, Wong Kim Ark, had obtained citizenship through his birth on U.S. soil to parents who were legally residing in the U.S. but not citizens, and that those subject to U.S. jurisdiction apply to all domiciled within the country. The ruling remains precedent.
“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization,” ruled the court.
Mayes’ lawsuit against the Trump administration estimated there were about 255,000 children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers and about 153,000 children born to illegal immigrant parents in 2022. In Arizona that year, the lawsuit reported those numbers to be around 6,000 children born to illegal immigrant mothers and around 3,400 children born to illegal immigrant parents. Based on those latest totals, the lawsuit estimated that there are over 12,000 children born to illegal immigrants every month throughout the nation.
Additionally, Mayes’ lawsuit argued that the end to birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrant parents would harm Arizona and other states because they would lose federal funding.
Joining Arizona in this lawsuit against the Trump administration in the Washington Western District Court are Washington, Illinois, and Oregon.
The lawsuit is a separate one from another joint lawsuit filed earlier this week in the Massachusetts District Court by 18 states, along with Washington, D.C. and both the city and county of San Francisco: New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
In his executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” Trump asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment never interpreted the extension of citizenship universally to all born within the U.S., highlighting the provision excluding those “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Those that lack subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, the order says, include any individual whose mother was unlawfully present in the country and whose father wasn’t a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth, or; any individual whose mother’s presence in the country at the time of their birth was lawful but temporary, and whose father wasn’t a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. For the latter case, “lawful but temporary” means those eligible to reside in the country under the Visa Waiver Program or those visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa.
The executive order is not retroactive. The order only applies to those born 30 days after the order’s issuance: February 19, 2025.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
