PIERCE'S IMMIGRATION LAW E-NEWSLETTER is free. It is published by the Law Offices of Curtis Pierce, Certified Specialist, Immigration & Nationality Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. 523 W. 6th St., Ste. 348, Los Angeles, CA 90014. (213) 327-0044. Email: curtis.pierce@cpvisa.com
The debate over Arizon's controversial new immigration law continues. News broke Friday June 17, 2010, that the Department of Justice will indeed sue the state of Arizona over its new immigration law, after Attorney General Eric Holder began contemplating such a case at the behest of President Obama.
Obama has voiced concerns that SB1070 will lead to racial profiling, though he has not denounced the bill outright as many have. He asked Holder to review it amid a national backlash against the bill, felt among liberals and immigration advocacy groups, and the president cast the DoJ's investigation as part of his response to the bill, during a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who denounced SB1070 in no uncertain terms at the White House. Obama's point, it seemed, was that his hands are tied without the votes in Congress to pass comprehensive reform just now, but that asking DoJ to investigate was part of a tempered, studious pushback--that the government would review the new law, and if it saw grounds for a challenge, it would take the opportunity to do so.
Hillary Clinton told an Ecuadorian TV station on June 8 that DoJ will sue Arizona and that Obama himself doesn't agree with the law.
"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy," Clinton said.
It's worth pointing out that Arizona's law continues to enjoy broad public support--a fact that gets lost amid the loud criticism and cries of racial discrimination that have been raised since Gov. Jan Brewer signed it in April.
After the initial round of polling showed majority support for the bill both in Arizona and in the rest of the U.S., the latest polling still corroborates. Today, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that Americans support Arizona's law 58% to 41%. Quinnipiac found 51%-31% support for the new law among national respondents in late May. Also in May, CBS found that 52% of national respondents think Arizona's law is "about right," while 28% said it goes "too far" and 17% said it doesn't go far enough. Democrats, even, supported it on the whole: 46% answered "about right," while 40% said "too far" and 10% said "not far enough."
Poll respondents also disapprove of Obama's handling of immigration as an issue. The ABC/Post poll found that 39% approve of Obama on immigration and 51% disapprove. It's unclear whether people disapprove of Obama because they don't like his stance on immigration, because he's not doing enough about it, or for some other reason entirely.
While opinions on immigration are complex, it's reasonable to wonder if the administration's decision to sue Arizona will turn out to be an unpopular move. People support SB1070 by wide margins; it stands to reason that, even amid political pressure to do something in response to the new law, the Obama administration will end up taking heat for their attempt to counter it in court.
The new law is slated to take effect July 29, giving DoJ just over a month to block its implementation, if that's the goal.
Chris Good
The Atlantic.com
Birthright Citizenship: Understanding Its Origins
Birthright citizenship in the United Statesrefers to a person's acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life.
Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
"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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
In the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents' chances of attaining legal residency themselves.Some media correspondents and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode have controversially dubbed this the "anchor baby" situation, and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.
Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare U.S.-born children of foreign nationals not to be subject to the "jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent were a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. For example, Representative Nathan Deal (a Republican from Georgia) introduced the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" (H.R. 1940)[ in the 110th Congress and the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R. 1868) in the 111th Congress. Neither these nor any similar bills, however, have ever been approved by Congress.
Some legislators, unsure whether such acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment. Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment; however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.
Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona would seek to deny U.S. citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status. Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.
New York Woman's Plea to President Obama Leads to Immigration Arrest
A woman who wrote President Barack Obama, asking for help resolving her husband's immigration problem got a response she didn't expect: Federal agents turned up at her New York City home and took her husband to jail.
Officials tell The New York Times that Caroline Jamieson's letter to the president was mistakenly forwarded to an immigration fugitive unit. After the newspaper inquired about the case, the man, Herve Fonkou Takoulo, was released.
Takoulo is an engineer from Cameroon. He came to the U.S. legally, but was ordered to leave when a judge rejected his application for political asylum. Now he has a second green card application pending based on his 2005 marriage to Jamieson.
Still, the deportation order remains in effect.
June 19, 2010
Associated Press
Books on Immigration:
The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality
by Ayelet Shachar
Harvard University Press, 2009
The vast majority of the global population acquires citizenship purely by accidental circumstances of birth. There is little doubt that securing membership status in a given state bequeaths to some a world filled with opportunity and condemns others to a life with little hope. Gaining privileges by such arbitrary criteria as one’s birthplace is discredited in virtually all fields of public life, yet birthright entitlements still dominate our laws when it comes to allotting membership in a state.
In The Birthright Lottery, Ayelet Shachar argues that birthright citizenship in an affluent society can be thought of as a form of property inheritance: that is, a valuable entitlement transmitted by law to a restricted group of recipients under conditions that perpetuate the transfer of this prerogative to their heirs. She deploys this fresh perspective to establish that nations need to expand their membership boundaries beyond outdated notions of blood-and-soil in sculpting the body politic. Located at the intersection of law, economics, and political philosophy, The Birthright Lottery further advocates redistributional obligations on those benefiting from the inheritance of membership, with the aim of ameliorating its most glaring opportunity inequalities.
PROCESSING TIMES & CASE STATUS
· To view processing times and your case status, click one of the links below to connect to the correct U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services information page.
It is published by the Law Offices of Curtis Pierce, 213-327-0044.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this newsletter is analysis and commentary of a general nature. Nothing in this newsletter applies to a specific case nor does it constitute legal advice.
Schedule appointment: For legal advice on your case, please schedule an appointment with Curtis Pierce, Certified Specialist, Immigration & Nationality Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
“The only title in our democracy superior to that of President (is) the title of citizen”.
Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. (In the case Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922), Justice Brandeis wrote that deportation can deprive an individual of "life, or of all that makes life worth living.")
In the words of President Kennedy,
the United States is a "nation of immigrants."
TEL (213) 327-0044 FAX (213) 327-0066
