Oklahoma Senator submits bill that violates the 14th Amendment

[Nik]

Here we go again. Senator Shortey submitted SB898 which proposes that children of illegal immigrants not be granted Oklahoma citizenship. If this passes, its only going to more taxpayer dollars when it inevitably gets challenged and defeated.

"Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey, who wrote the bills, said he disagrees with the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that babies born in the U.S. automatically become American citizens."

http://www.kgou.org/index.php?news-management&action=view_news&news_id=2267

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebApplication2/WebForm1.aspx

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:
""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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States


This has already been approved by the Judiciary Committee: http://www.oksenate.gov/news/press_releases/press_releases_2011/pr20110215e.html

[Conan71]

Here we go again. Senator Shortey submitted SB898 which proposes that children of illegal immigrants not be granted Oklahoma citizenship. If this passes, its only going to more taxpayer dollars when it inevitably gets challenged and defeated.

"Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey, who wrote the bills, said he disagrees with the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that babies born in the U.S. automatically become American citizens."

http://www.kgou.org/index.php?news-management&action=view_news&news_id=2267

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebApplication2/WebForm1.aspx

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:
""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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

*Triple facepalm*

Sounds like Sen. Shortey hasn't brushed up on his Constitutional reading.  This is not the "current interpretation".  This is how millions of people became U.S. citizens over the years. 

However, if it does pass, challenges don't really cost taxpayers any extra.  It's attorneys and judges already on government payroll who shepherd challenged legislation through the system.

[cynical]

Conan, that's not quite correct.  It is true that the case is an open-and-shut slam dunk.  But the legislature indulging in this kind of nonsense should not assume that being shot down in federal court is cost-free.  In a Section 1984 civil rights action (deprivation of a constitutional right under color of state law), attorneys fees are typically awarded to the plaintiff if he/she prevails.  The government may play a role in the case as an amicus curae, but the constitution requires someone adversely affected by the bill to be plaintiff (the "case or controversy" clause in Article III). An individual will step forward as a standard bearer. There will be plenty of candidates available.

Also, the time spent by the AG defending this idiocy could better be spent representing the state in cases in which the state or the public official being sued has a colorable defense to the action. Time is money in government as well as in the public sector.  But not in the Oklahoma legislature, it seems.

Fortunately, I doubt that even Scott Pruitt would bother to put up much of a defense. They'd just let it be found unconstitutional and leave it on the books for when Oklahoma secedes and becomes its own third-world country.

*Triple facepalm*

Sounds like Sen. Shortey hasn't brushed up on his Constitutional reading.  This is not the "current interpretation".  This is how millions of people became U.S. citizens over the years. 

However, if it does pass, challenges don't really cost taxpayers any extra.  It's attorneys and judges already on government payroll who shepherd challenged legislation through the system.

[ZYX]

How could you possibly interpret the 14th ammendment ANY other way?

[Ed W]

As I understand it, the argument is that while the 14th Amendment grants US citizenship, these folks are arguing that it doesn't grant citizenship in a particular state.  A reasonable person would assume that a supposed 'state citizenship' is a subset of national citizenship, but the folks who propose these ideas may not be entirely rational let alone reasonable.  At best, they're pandering to the xenophobes among us, a fairly large group here in Oklahoma.

I though all this was settled when we dropped the Articles of Confederation and adopted the US Constitution, and finalized the supremacy of the Constitution over the several states during the late unpleasantness of 1861-1865.  For those of you who are not history buffs, the Confederate States of American was awarded second place.

[Red Arrow]

For those of you who are not history buffs, the Confederate States of American was awarded second place.

But the Union (USA) came in next to last.  

Edit: Add (USA) in an attempt to preclude smart a$$ remarks comments about me being anti-union.

[guido911]

Oklahoma is not the only state doing this.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/states-seek-to-deny-795912.html

Our constitution specifically discusses certain rights which are unique to Oklahoma citizens. I would like to have the time to do some research (real legal research not opinions on the web) on whether the feds can force a state to give children born to illegals rights under its own constitution. I am sure there are substantive/procedural due process and equal protection issues that are implicated.

[Oil Capital]

How could you possibly interpret the 14th ammendment ANY other way?

Not difficult at all if you read all of the words to have meaning.  The issue is: "what is the meaning of the phrase ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'"?  The current interpretation, by granting citizenship to anyone born in this country, pretty much ignores those words. The argument is that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must have meaning.  There is legislative history suggesting that the words were in fact intended to exclude persons born in the U.S. but who are children of citizens of another country (and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of that other country).

[Conan71]

Symbolic legislation is a complete waste of time, there's far more pressing issues facing our state and nation right now than to keep pulling partisan shenanigans.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What legislative history is that?  Besides the ignorance being indulged in by Oklahoma and Georgia.  

The is more than ample judicial history - as well as the amendment itself - that trumps ANY "legislative history" except for that "legislative history" that actually ratified the amendment in the first place.  You know, that 2/3 majority of state legislative history required to ratify any amendment.

This is just another birther BS type moment for Oklahoma.

And Conan, I am sure you cringe when I say it, but I couldn't agree more!

[guido911]

What legislative history is that?  Besides the ignorance being indulged in by Oklahoma and Georgia.  

The is more than ample judicial history - as well as the amendment itself - that trumps ANY "legislative history" except for that "legislative history" that actually ratified the amendment in the first place.  You know, that 2/3 majority of state legislative history required to ratify any amendment.

This is just another birther BS type moment for Oklahoma.

Please direct me to legal authority/legislative history that supports the notion that smuggling pregnant illegal alien women into this country to deliver their babies on U.S. soil was what Congress and our country was thinking when the 14th Amendment was passed.

[cynical]

I cringe every time I read this argument.  It is complete nonsense.

Every single illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" without exception.  "Jurisdiction" is legal power, and illegal aliens are clearly subject to that power. Otherwise, the government would lack the legal power to prosecute them for crimes they commit or to detain them and deport them when caught. The only aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while within U.S. territory are those covered by diplomatic immunity.  The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language was intended to do what it does - exclude children of diplomats posted to the United States from birthright citizenship.  The 14th Amendment means what it says, nothing more and nothing less. The language is so clear and straightforward there is no room for interpretation. 

Not difficult at all if you read all of the words to have meaning.  The issue is: "what is the meaning of the phrase ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'"?  The current interpretation, by granting citizenship to anyone born in this country, pretty much ignores those words. The argument is that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must have meaning.  There is legislative history suggesting that the words were in fact intended to exclude persons born in the U.S. but who are children of citizens of another country (and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of that other country).

[cynical]

Ed, if the argument is as you say, the proponents are ignoring the express language of Section 1. Applying the rule to state citizenship requires no implication at all.  It is expressly provided for.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, see my response to someone else's post in this thread.  I left the remaining language for y'all to ponder.  But in answer to Guido's clever argument, the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment were intelligent people who were easily capable of creating a narrowly focused protection for former slaves. That they chose the broader words they used cannot be disregarded by arguing that they were only trying to deal with former slaves.

As I understand it, the argument is that while the 14th Amendment grants US citizenship, these folks are arguing that it doesn't grant citizenship in a particular state.  A reasonable person would assume that a supposed 'state citizenship' is a subset of national citizenship, but the folks who propose these ideas may not be entirely rational let alone reasonable.  At best, they're pandering to the xenophobes among us, a fairly large group here in Oklahoma.

I though all this was settled when we dropped the Articles of Confederation and adopted the US Constitution, and finalized the supremacy of the Constitution over the several states during the late unpleasantness of 1861-1865.  For those of you who are not history buffs, the Confederate States of American was awarded second place.

[nathanm]

Not difficult at all if you read all of the words to have meaning.  The issue is: "what is the meaning of the phrase ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'"?  The current interpretation, by granting citizenship to anyone born in this country, pretty much ignores those words. The argument is that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must have meaning.  There is legislative history suggesting that the words were in fact intended to exclude persons born in the U.S. but who are children of citizens of another country (and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of that other country).

Try Black's Law Dictionary. I'm not sure which nutter started the trend of attempting to redefine "jurisdiction," but this 1984 newspeak smile has got to go.

[custosnox]

Please direct me to legal authority/legislative history that supports the notion that smuggling pregnant illegal alien women into this country to deliver their babies on U.S. soil was what Congress and our country was thinking when the 14th Amendment was passed.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the idea behind the 14th Amendment being passed was so that ANYONE born in the United States was a citizen, regardless of how they got here, rather through immigration or slavery.  Of course, I'm sure that it would never have been dreamed of at the time that a person wishing to be an American citizen would have been denied that because too many had been accepted as such that year from that particular country.