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 | Aug 25, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona’s requirement for proof of citizenship when registering to vote, in part.
In a response issued Thursday to an emergency stay application from Arizona House and Senate GOP leadership, the Supreme Court narrowly overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order against Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship for state voter registration forms.
Federal law doesn’t require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) prohibits Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship from voters registering with the federal voter registration form.
The order granted the application for stay in part and denied it in part, allowing the state to temporarily enforce its law denying voter registrations lacking proof of citizenship, even for federal elections, pending a court ruling.
“The district court’s May 2, 2024 judgment is stayed only to the extent it enjoins enforcement of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-121.01(C) (2023) pending disposition of the appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if any such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application is denied as to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-121.01(E) and 16-127(A).”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said they would grant the application in full, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would deny it in full.
Earlier this month, and less than two weeks after an initial ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed another panel within the court allowing the law to go into effect.
The Ninth Circuit said that the requirement of proof of citizenship would “upset the status quo” by altering voter registration rules too close to this year’s elections, an “injustice” for both voters and election officials.
The court also said that the proof of citizenship requirement improperly conflicted with the Elections Procedures Manual.
“All Arizonans must now navigate an arcane web of shifting and confusing rules that will without a doubt dissuade some who are otherwise eligible and willing from exercising the fundamental right to vote,” said the court.
Per the Secretary of State’s latest estimates, there are over 40,000 federal-only voters in the state.
In a partial statement, Arizona Senate Republicans said the partial order was a major victory. The caucus said they would issue an official statement at a later date.
“The order reverses the liberally-biased Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from August 1, which momentarily blocked our laws intended to safeguard against those living in our country illegally from influencing the outcome of our elections,” said the Arizona Senate Republicans. “Only US citizens should have the privilege of casting a ballot!”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jul 19, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A federal court ruled on Thursday that those registering with the state of Arizona to vote must provide proof of citizenship. Otherwise, their application will be rejected.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its brief ruling in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes. In it, the court granted a stay pending appeal for the injunction barring enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C), the provision in statute requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration applications not produced by the U.S. election assistance commission — in other words, state-issued forms.
“The district court’s May 2, 2024 judgment is therefore stayed to the extent that it bars forcement of [the statute],” wrote the court.
However, two other provisions remain blocked under this most recent ruling and the one cited from the district court.
The previous ruling declared that the National Voter Registration Act preempts registration restrictions for presidential elections and voting by mail; the LULAC Consent Decree prohibits rejections of state registration forms on the basis of lack of documentary proof of citizenship as well as residence; the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the state from implementing a checkbox asking a voter to affirm their citizenship status as well as the requirement to disclose place of birth; and the Civil Rights Act’s Different Standards, Practices, or Procedures Provision prohibits requiring county recorders to conduct citizenship checks using the USCIS SAVE system.
Senate President Warren Petersen said the ruling represented an election integrity victory.
“Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections. It sounds like common sense, but the radical left elected officials in our state continue to reject this notion, disrespecting the voices of our lawful Arizona voters,” said Warren. “We are grateful the court is upholding this provision in our law, and it’s time for Congress to take action to ensure only lawful U.S. citizens are voting in federal races.”
Lawyer Marc Elias for the activists challenging Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirements, however, argued that the ruling was a win for them since it denied key portions of the Republican motion. Elias dubbed proof of citizenship measures as “voter suppression.”
“9th Circuit (with 3 Trump appointees) denies key portions of Republican motion to stay trial court victory in Arizona voter suppression lawsuit,” said Elias.
In addition to progressive activist group Mi Familia Vota, other parties to the case include Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (appellee), Petersen (appellant), Kris Mayes (appellant), Promise Arizona and Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (appellant).
The courts are determining whether the Arizona Republican Party may enter the case as an intervenor.
The appeal for the case was scheduled for this September.
Earlier this week, election integrity groups coordinating under America First Legal issued letters to all of Arizona’s county recorders reminding them to purge the voter rolls of non-citizen voters.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Nov 3, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Biden administration announced on Monday that it would begin to factor “statelessness” in illegal immigration cases, effectively opening up another pathway to citizenship. The use of statelessness as a legal tool traces back to efforts by the United Nations (UN) to globally unify and effectively legalize all migration.
“We are updating filing instructions for all deferred action requests, including those from noncitizens who believe they are stateless, and for parole-in-place applications,” stated the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The taxpayer-funded UN has made it apparent through both their words and actions that they intend to nullify any distinction between illegal and legal immigration, or “global migration governance.” The UN holds that the denial of certain citizenship rights to noncitizens constitutes wrongful discrimination.
For example, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) advocates for noncitizens to enjoy citizenship rights and benefits such as voting, employment, public education, banking access, housing purchases, and marriage. The UN Conventions on Statelessness aims to establish rights to education, employment, and housing for noncitizens.
Last year, UNHCR was discovered to be facilitating illegal immigration by handing out funds, such as cash debit cards, to illegal immigrants headed to the U.S. The UN dubbed its aiding and abetting system of waystations throughout Mexico the “cash-based interventions,” or CBI.
At the tail end of its press release, USCIS included two links from the UN outlining its goal of ending statelessness.
The USCIS policy guidance was issued on Aug. 1, with Monday serving as the date the policy went into effect. According to the policy, claims of statelessness may be used as a means for justifying illegal immigration.
USCIS included an open-ended list of valid reasons for establishing statelessness. It defined statelessness as having no nationality with any country; the cited federal law defined “national” as meaning a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
The agency also echoed the UN’s global migration governance advocacy, noting that illegal immigrants — characterized as “stateless individuals” — can’t vote and may not be able to obtain education, employment, health care, property, or registration of life events like births, marriages, and deaths.
Listed examples of justification for establishing statelessness included: a lack of birth registration and birth certificates; birth to illegal immigrant parents; the political change and transfer of territory that may (or may not) alter the nationality status of citizens of the former state or states; administrative oversights, procedural problems, conflict of law between two countries, or destruction of official records; alteration of nationality during marriage or the dissolution of marriage between couples from different countries; targeted discrimination against minorities; laws restricting acquisition of citizenship; laws restricting the rights of women to pass on their nationality to their children; laws relating to children born out of wedlock or during transit; or loss, revocation, or relinquishment of nationality without first acquiring another.
In its Monday press release, USCIS offered instructions for those illegal immigrants considered “stateless” to obtain various types of permissions to remain in the country: deferred action, employment authorization after a grant of deferred action, parole in place, asylum, U or T nonimmigrant status, temporary protected status, or employment authorization with TPS.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first announced the factoring in of “statelessness” for illegal immigrants back in December 2021. As part of this novel approach, DHS committed to coordinating with the Department of State to mitigate the barriers to relief and benefits resulting from statelessness. It also committed to establishing a process to improve data collection efforts as well as securing work and travel opportunities for stateless illegal immigrants.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 10, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Legislature Democrats expressed that they won’t vote to restore precinct committeemen (PC) elections this year unless Republicans kill a bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, one railbird informed AZ Free News. The passage of that election integrity bill out of committee, HB2492, on Thursday appeared to be a setback for Republicans hoping to correct a mistake made last week with the passage of HB2839.
As AZ Free News reported earlier this week, HB2839 gave a political party’s local county committee the sole authority to determine who gets appointed as PC. The bill intended to alleviate candidates’ qualification deadlines for this year’s primary election under the new redistricting. However, a section that allowed PC candidates to skip signature gathering also allowed local committee members to choose the PC appointments.
Republicans need supermajority in both the House and Senate to pass the emergency measures effectively reversing HB2839 and restoring PC elections for this year, HB2840 and SB17200. PCs are responsible for helping their party by providing aid with voter registration and voter assistance during elections, as well as nominating candidates to fill county or state office vacancies.
HB2492 sponsor, State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), sent out an email call-to-action acknowledging the murmurings that Democrats would kill PC restoration following the passage of his bill.
“Rumors are swirling at the Capitol that the Senate may try to trade HB2492 in exchange for Democrats voting for the PC election repeal so it gets an emergency clause,” wrote Hoffman. “We cannot horse trade with critical election integrity legislation!”
Reportedly, legislators failed to identify HB2839’s consequences for several reasons: some admitted to not reading the bill’s language and trusted their leadership’s take on the bill, while others just misread the bill completely.
The controversial proof-of-citizenship bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee along party lines, 5-3. Those who showed up to oppose the bill shouted, “Shame!” repeatedly at the committee after they passed the bill.
In response, State Senator Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) thanked the crowd for making their approval of the bill easier.
“Thank you for showing us who you are,” said Petersen. “You’re making this easy, thank you.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
