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:
Quote from: Nik on February 16, 2011, 09:25:23 am
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.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 09:31:23 am
*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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page