Ongoing Attacks on Birthright Citizenship
— by Tom Jawetz and Sanam Malik at Center for American Progress
The topic of birthright citizenship has resurfaced in the broader immigration debate. Immigration opponents are proposing legislation intended to undo this bedrock principle of American society written into the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: If you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. Although the popular rhetoric surrounding efforts to end birthright citizenship mainly focuses on the U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants, many legislative proposals to rollback this constitutional right would actually deny citizenship to children born to lawfully present immigrants—including nearly all foreign students, temporary workers, and even some lawful permanent residents.
Removing or changing this crucial part of the Constitution would inevitably create a large class of less-than-citizens and stateless persons and require the creation of new burdensome regulations and oversight that would affect the lives of every new parent in the United States. At the end of the day, such efforts undermine the intentions of the 14th Amendment, the nation’s history, and the core values of inclusion and integration.
Read more and download the full issue brief here.
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter
— by Rich Dunn, NVRDC 2nd Vice Chairperson
“After the voters of Nevada passed a law designating that marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman, Nevada’s Democrat (sic) attorney general has co-opted with the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and decided that ‘we can’t win after the Ninth Circuit changed the rules’ (by deciding in another case that any law that deals with homosexual people requires heightened scrutiny with regard to possible discrimination).”
-Teri A. Cotham of Gardnerville in a letter published in the Feb. 18th Nevada Appeal
Teri doesn’t seem to have heard about United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court case which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, thereby granting federal benefits to same sex couples who are married under state law. That’s the case upon which the Utah and Virginia same-sex marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional, and upon which Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban will no doubt be overturned, regardless of whether the State of Nevada chooses to defend it. And it’s worth noting that the Windsor case came from the Southern District of New York in the 2nd Circuit, not the 9th Circuit.
Teri also doesn’t appear to understand what role the 9th Circuit played in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case she appears to be citing. That was a 50-page ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative on the 2008 ballot, was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The 9th Circuit issued a stay to give Prop 8 proponents an opportunity to appeal, then passed that appeal on to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Prop 8 don’t have standing to defend the resulting law. On that basis, the court directed the 9th Circuit to lift its stay and vacate its concurrence, allowing Judge Walker’s ruling to stand. And that is how Prop 8 was overturned.
Lastly, Teri seems unaware that the concept of subjecting certain kinds of legal challenges to “heightened scrutiny” is based on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. When a law has the potential to infringe upon a civil right, the government is called upon to defend it. If it’s found to be too broad in scope, fails to accomplish its stated purpose, or unreasonably infringes upon constitutionally protected rights, it will be struck down in any circuit, not just the 9th Circuit.