PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT
Bipartisan Efforts to Recall State Senator Russell Pearce Announced
For Immediate Release
Halina Reed: 602-339-1053
Joe Penalosa: 480-280-5373
WHEN: Friday, 28 January 2011, 12:00 pm (NOON)
WHO: Arizonan’s for Better Government
WHAT: Recall State Senator Russell Pearce Movement
WHERE: Arizona State Capitol Museum, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix, AZ
Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a national leader on the issue of birthright stated that, “The law is clear, the history is clear, the 14th Amendment is clear; natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Pearce is supporting the bill being introduced in Arizona legislation to abolish the so called birth right citizenship or “jus soli” granted to all persons born in the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent decisions, and the codification of birth right citizenship contained within the Immigration & Nationality Act.
Arizona will once again be placed in the national and international spotlight guaranteeing that it remains the epicenter of divisiveness and litigation. Arizona’s birthright citizenship bill is sponsored by two non-attorney legislators whom lack any experience and knowledge with respect to the Immigration & Nationality Act, Code of Federal Regulations, federal case law, and precedent decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. They have never represented anyone before the Department of Homeland Security or a U.S. Immigration Court, and their legal analysis is legally incorrect, and intellectually dishonest to all Arizonans and Americans. §301(a) of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) and (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)) entitled “Nationals And Citizens of United States At Birth” reads as follows: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. “ The U.S. Congress codified birth right citizenship within federal immigration law approximately 58 years ago. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land and not a “simple policy.”
It is an accepted principal of law that the federal government is the sole authority with respect to naturalization and citizenship. For example, on June 27, 1952, President Truman signed the INA which conferred, retroactively U.S. citizenship on all Puerto Ricans born between April 11, 1899 and January 12, 1941. The INA also provided that all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941 are native born U.S. citizens. Persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands on or after February 25, 1927 are native born citizens of the U.S. Persons born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924 are native born citizens of the U.S. even though Alaska did not enter the union until January 3, 1959. All persons born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1890 are native born citizens of the U.S. even though Hawaii did not enter the union until August 21, 1959. Further evidence that Congress retains the constitutional authority with respect to naturalization and citizenship is demonstrated by the passage of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
The federal courts, over the years, have rendered precedent decisions supporting birthright citizenship. Rep. Kavanagh and the proponents of his bill argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to aliens, and thus their children are not U.S. citizens at birth. In Pyler v. Doe (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction of a state.” Several years ago, the Supreme Court also addressed a birthright citizenship issue in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). The Supreme Court held that Yaser Hamdi, an alleged Taliban fighter, was a U.S. citizen based upon his birth in the state of Louisiana although his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary employment visas. These decision serve to completely render Rep. Kavanagh’s 14th Amendment argument –“subject to the jurisdiction of” moot.
Should the Arizona bill become an Arizona law, this new law will certainly invite a federal court challenge. What will be the outcome of this litigation? The State of Arizona will once again have to expend our scarce tax dollars, or resort to fundraising to hire another private law firm that is friendly to the sponsors of the new law. The challengers of the new law will immediately file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the statute, and also request a temporary injunction. The U.S. District Court will more than likely grant the challenger’s motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment, based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court precedent decisions, and the codification of birthright citizenship as outlined in the INA.
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce recently was sworn in his respective positions by an Arizona Supreme Court Justice. He took an oath of office wherein he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and to protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic. It appears that Pearce has chosen to ignore his respective oath of office to uphold the Constitution. To the contrary, his support of this bill serves as a domestic attack on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent decisions, and the codification of birthright citizenship as contained within the INA.
About Arizonans For Better Government
We find Russell Pearce’s overt disdain for the United States Constitution to be indicative of his inability to govern as prescribed by his job description and the oath he took to regain his seat in the State Senate.