Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce's target is the 14th Amendment, but it is unclear how the state lawmaker can or will influence a federal statue.
"This is a battle of epic proportions," Pearce said Tuesday during a news conference at the Arizona Capitol. "We've allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment."
Pearce declined to say how the legislation will differ from similar measures that have been introduced in each two-year congressional session since 2005. None of them made it out of committee.
He and another Arizona lawmaker did argue that wording in the amendment that guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.
The efforts by Pearce and the other lawmakers come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Changing the Constitution is difficult.
It requires approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress, an impossibility now because Democrats have the majority in both houses and most oppose such a measure. Even if Republicans gain power in November and legislation is passed, an amendment would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
"If the British ambassador and his wife have a child in the U.S., that child is not a citizen because he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We cannot put him in jail, we cannot even give him a parking ticket," Bender said.
The 14th Amendment "could have easily have said you're a citizen if you owe your allegiance, but our Constitution doesn't say that," he said. "It says if you're born here, and you're not a diplomat's child, then you become a citizen, and that's the way its been for 100 years."
Carlos Galindo-Elvira, vice president of Valle del Sol, a Phoenix group that provides social services to community members and advocates for immigrants, said Pearce's interpretation of the amendment is an effort to "legitimize bullying babies."
He also questioned why lawmakers would focus on this issue rather than the country's economic woes and high unemployment rate. "All it does is split the country," he said.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.
Pearce was the main sponsor of a tough new Arizona law that would require police enforcing other laws to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the U.S. illegally. It was to go into effect this summer, but a judge put on hold key provisions pending the resolution of a legal challenge.
Pearce also was the chief sponsor of a 2007 state law targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
WILMINGTON, Del. -Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."
The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons.
Coons is a county executive nominated by the Democrats for the seat held for years by Vice President Joe Biden. O'Donnell, with strong tea party support, burst into the national spotlight by winning the Republican primary over a longtime GOP congressman.
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism — O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" — but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.
He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.
"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.
Both candidates suggested that the exchange showed the other didn't understand the Constitution.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."
The relationship of government and religion continues to be debated in American law. Many argue that the First Amendment's reference to religion involves the establishment of any particular religion, an important concern to the American colonists, not a ban on all involvement between religion and government.
O'Donnell's comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, created a stir in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise."
During the debate, O'Donnell argued that Coons' views on teaching of theories other evolution showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Coons said evolution was science, creationism a religious doctrine.
@@@@@@@@@@@
Bombing Earth-bound Asteroids a Viable Option, Experts Say
The asteroid Itokawa, as seen by the Hayabusa spacecraft in 2005.
In the movies, a bomb is usually the most effective way of stopping an asteroid from wiping out life on Earth. But real scientists have had their doubts about bombing the potentially hazardous objects. (See asteroid and comet pictures.)
Now, however, some researchers are finding evidence that an explosion might not, as feared, make a bad situation worse by sending a huge cloud of harmful debris raining down on the planet.
And other scientists are suggesting that, despite previous assumptions, we wouldn't need an impossibly powerful bomb to destroy a threatening asteroid.
Considering the damage a large asteroid strike could do to humanity, bombing any so-called near-Earth objects, or NEOs, headed our way might be a viable last resort "if we have the international political will," said Robert Weaver of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. •
