Arizona legislators finally gave the state’s immigrant community something to celebrate last night when the state Senate rejected five anti-immigrant bills, including a pair that would have denied citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants. Arizona was expected to lead a multi-state effort to roll back birthright citizenship, but now some other state will have to lead the charge.

“It’s time for us to take a timeout,” said Republican Sen. John McComish, the AP reported. “It’s something that the people don’t want us to be focusing on.”

Yesterday, Arizona Senate Republicans split over SB 1308 and 1309, the two birthright citizenship bills that attempted to create a new two-tiered state citizenship. Those born to undocumented immigrants would have received one kind of birth certificate and those born to at least one permanent resident or naturalized citizen would have gotten their own birth certificates. The second bill would have attempted to create a state compact declaring cooperation on the issue, which other states would have had to sign onto and then would have required congressional approval.

Right-wing advocates of the birthright citizenship bills were explicit about their intention to pass the bills in order to trigger a Supreme Court review of the 14th Amendment. Immigrant rights groups have argued both bills violate long-held interpretations of the Constitution

“The 14th Amendment was never intended to be applied to illegal aliens,” Senate President Russell Pearce told the Washington Times. “[The sponsors] specifically said it didn’t apply to foreigners or aliens. That amendment belongs to the African Americans of this country. It’s their amendment.”

“If we get the correct court decision … we will not be dispensing citizenship like a door prize,” Arizona state Rep. Kavanagh told Colorlines when he filed the House version of the bill. “Especially not for those whose parents snuck into this country illegally through the back door.”

The other bills that were shot down on Thursday were SB 1405, which sought to require hospital workers to ask for someone’s papers before they delivered non-emergency health care, and SB 1407, which would have required schools gather immigration data on their students. SB 1611, an omnibus bill, would bar undocumented youth from attending public schools and would forbid undocumented immigrant families from accessing public benefits of any kind. People would have had to show their papers before they could buy or register a car and would be barred from enrolling in a community college.

“These are major wins for the fight for a better Arizona,” said Jennifer Allen, executive director of the border human rights organization Border Action Network. 

Business vs. Pearce

Last night’s vote was a strong rebuke to Pearce, who was the most visible Arizona legislator calling for birthright citizenship rollbacks. Pearce has staked his political career on anti-immigrant enforcement measures, and was one of the architects of SB 1070, which was the harshest anti-immigration measure of its kind when it became law last April. SB 1070 required law enforcement officers to detain and investigate the immigration status of anyone they had “reasonable suspicion” to believe was undocumented while they were enforcing other laws. It is currently being challenged by the federal government.

In the run-up to last night’s Senate vote, the birthright citizenship bills were repeatedly held back in committee and shuffled around the back channels of the legislature as the Republican-controlled Senate struggled to find enough votes for their anti-immigrant attacks. Immigrant rights advocates said that even SB 1611, the omnibus immigration bill that combined several legislators’ immigration-related proposals, was a sign of desperation.

Legislators were clearly listening to the protests of the business community. This week the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, together with 60 CEOs from Arizona-based businesses, delivered a letter to Pearce urging him to reconsider his anti-immigrant attacks.

The list of signers included W. Douglas Parker, chairman and CEO of U.S. Airways; Philip Francis, chairman of PetSmart; and Linda Hunt, president and CEO of CEO, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Stephen Rizley, senior vice president of Cox Communications.

Also on the list? Robert Delgado, president and CEO of Hensley Beverage Company. That would be the Hensley Beverage Company founded by Cindy McCain’s family. Hensley was one of the targets of the boycott that immigrant rights organizations called for in the wake of SB 1070. An economic impact analysis released by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress last year found that boycotts cost the state $140 million in lost convention business alone.

“It is an undeniable fact that each of our companies and our employees were impacted by the boycotts and the coincident negative image,” wrote the business executives.

“These bills are a waste of our time, our money and our resources,” said Border Action Network’s Allen. “It’s time for our legislators to focus on making Arizona strong, and to implement the real solutions for our state and our children’s futures: health care, jobs, education and public safety.”

Read the business leaders’ letter in full below.

Dear President Pearce,

Thank you for your willingness to serve Arizona as a Member of the Arizona State Senate. We, like you, are concerned about the challenges facing our State, particularly the need to address our structural deficit and insure an economic environment that attracts and retains high quality jobs.

While we recognize the desire for states like Arizona to fill the leadership vacuum left by federal inaction on immigration, we strongly believe it is unwise for the Legislature to pass any additional immigration legislation, including any measures leaving the determination of citizenship to the state.

We agree with you that our borders must be protected first, and now. We also believe that market-driven immigration policies can and should be developed by the federal government that will sustain America’s status as a magnet for the world’s most talented and hard-working people and preserve our ability to compete in the global economy.

If the Legislature believes it is worthwhile to debate the question of citizenship, we believe that debate is best held in the U.S. Congress. Already, Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky have introduced legislation aimed at amending the 14th Amendment to deny ‘birthright citizenship’ to those born to individuals living in the U.S. illegally. Iowa Rep. Steve King has introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House.

Arizona’s lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration. But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur. Last year, boycotts were called against our state’s business community, adversely impacting our already-struggling economy and costing us jobs. Arizona-based businesses saw contracts cancelled or were turned away from bidding. “Sales outside of the state declined. Even a business which merely had ‘Arizona’ in its name felt the effects of the boycotts, compelling them to launch an educational campaign about their company’s roots in Brooklyn. It is an undeniable fact that each of our companies and our employees were impacted by the boycotts and the coincident negative image.

Tourism, one of our state’s largest industries and employment centers, also suffered from negative perceptions after the passage of SB 1070. The fact Gov. Brewer directed $250,000 to repairing Arizona’s reputation strongly suggests these efforts – whether fair or unfair – are harmful to our image.

Let us be clear: Our dissension with legislative action on the state level does not translate to our being ‘pro-illegal immigration.’ To the contrary, we believe Congress must address border security, identity theft, sound and implementable employment verification systems and policies and the creation of a meaningful guest worker program. Therefore, we urge the Legislature to redirect its energy by joining us in pressing the federal government for meaningful immigration reform. Together, we can get results.

Respectfully:

1. Drew Brown, managing director, DMB Associates Inc.
2. Philip Francis, executive chairman, PetSmart Inc.
3. Ronald Butler, Arizona managing partner, Ernst & Young
4. W. Douglas Parker, chairman, president, CEO, US Airways Group
5. Ronald Brown, president, Atrium Holding Co.
6. Richard Dozer, chairman, GenSpring Family Offices
7. Stephen Rizley. senior VP, GM, Cox Communications
8. Daniel Connor, president, CEO, Blood Systems
9. John Graham, president, Sunbelt Holdings
10. Peter Fine, president, CEO, Banner Health
11. Craig Phelps, provost, A.T. Still University
12. Jeff Whiteman, president, CEO, Empire Southwest
13. Thomas Sadvary, president, CEO, Scottsdale Healthcare
14. William Coats, CEO, Leona Group
15. Herman Chanen, chairman, CEO, Chanen Corp.
16. Lee Hanley, chairman, CEO, Vestar Development Co.
17. William Schubert, chairman, Kitchell Corp.
18. Jon Pettibone, managing partner, Quarles & Brady
19. Paul Dykstra, chairman, president, CEO, Viad Corp.
20. David Bruno, vice chairman, managing director, DHR International
21. Marty Laurel, vice president, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
22. James Gentile, president, CEO, Research Corp for Science Adv.
23. Roger Vogel, chairman, president, CEO, Vante Medical Technologies
24. Michael Duran, vice president, chief development officer, TMC Healthcare/TMC Fund
25. F. Michael Geddes, chairman, president, Geddes and Co.
26. Bruce Beach, CEO, BeachFleischman PC and chairman, SALC
27. J. Doug Pruitt, chairman, CEO, Sundt Construction
28. Brian Johnson, managing director, Lowes Ventana Canyon
29. Peter Likins, president emeritus, University of Arizona
30. Robert Delgado, president, CEO, Hensley Beverage Co.
31. Michael Kennedy, president, Gallagher & Kennedy
32. Bruce Dusenberry, president, Horizon Moving Systems
33. Robert Underwood, CEO, Underwood Brothers Inc.
34. Shelly Esque, VP, legal/corporate affairs, Intel Corp.
35. Denise Resnik, president, Denise Resnik & Associates
36. Vince Roig, chairman, CEO, Helios Foundation
37. Constance Perez, CEO, Adreima
38. Susan Williams, president, HR Choice
39. Kevin Sandler, president, CEO, ExhibitOne Corp.
40. Debbie Johnson, president, CEO, Arizona Hotel & Lodging Associaton
41. Jim Click Jr., president, Jim Click Automotive Team
42. David Cohen, executive VP, BeachFleishman PC
43. Donald Pitt, president, Campus Research Corp.
44. Alan Klein, chairman, Southern Arizona Lodging & Resort Association
45. Michael Kasser, president, Holualoa Cos.
46. Linda Hunt, area president, CHW Arizona, and president, CEO, St. Joseph’s Hospital
47. John Zidich, CEO, publisher, Arizona Republic
48. Howard Fleischmann, owner, Community Tire & Auto Repair
49. Nancy Stone, president, ILX Resorts
50. Janice Cox, retired CEO, Carondelet Foundation
51. Don Budinger, chairman, Rodel Foundations
52. David Anderson, president, Off Madison Avenue
53. Steven Wheeler, chairman, Greater Phoenix Chamber
54. Bill Calloway, plant manager, Nestle-Purina
55. J.R. Murray, chairman, Flagstaff Forty
56. Kenneth Lamneck
57. Frances Merryman
58. Reginald Ballantyne III, senior corporate officer, Vanguard Health Systems
59. Gerrit van Huisstede, regional president, Wells Fargo Bank
60. Earl Petznick Jr., president and CEO, Northside Hay Co.

Monday marked an important short-term victory over Arizona’s efforts to pass birthright citizenship bills in the state legislature. The effort stalled in the Senate yesterday, reports the Arizona Daily Star.

After more than three hours of testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, yanked the two measures. Gould said he lacked the backing of four other members of the Republican-controlled panel, which he chairs.

Gould said he will keep trying to secure votes. And Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said, if necessary, he will reassign the proposal to a more friendly committee.

It’s still unclear what will happen with similar bills that were introduced to the House several weeks ago. That effort’s being led by state Rep. John Kavanagh, who made it clear that the bills are intended to trigger a Supreme Court review of the 14th Amendment.

Julianne Hing recently spoke to Kavanagh and reported:

One of the House bills seeks to amend the state constitution to create a new category of Arizona state citizenship. Kavanagh’s bill says that in order to be granted state citizenship, a child born in the U.S. would need to have at least one parent who is a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen. The bill’s language is tricky. It interprets the 14th amendment to mean that only the children of “at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country” are eligible for state citizenship.

That effort to reinterpret the 14th Amendment didn’t work so well in the House. The bills’ failure came after nearly an hour of testimony by Chapman University law professor John Eastman, who argued that there was no constitutional basis for giving citizenship to all children born in the United States, despite the legal status of their parents. Even some Senate Republians were unmoved.

“I am a conservative Republican, and I am a little confused, because I take very seriously the oath . . . to uphold the Constitution,” Senate Republican Adam Driggs told The Arizona Republic. “I will not take any challenges to the U.S. Constitution lightly.”

Over at AlterNet, activists and writers Adrienne Maree Brown and Dani McClain discuss the 14th amendment and the role of corporations in U.S. democracy. They ask, “Corporations ain’t people, so why do they have the power of citizens?” It’s a discussion that was sparked in part by the January 21 anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns. But it expanded more broadly from email discussions around ongoing attacks on the 14th amendment that go back long before the Court’s controversial ruling. Yet what makes this conversation different from most? It’s honest and hopeful talk. And invokes the wisdom of famed black science fiction writer Octavia Butler:

McClain: …What would Octavia Butler say about the way corporate power is growing? What solutions would she write into a novel in which people who had for generations gained citizenship by virtue of their humanity and place of birth are slowly edged out of citizenship because they lack access to money?

Brown: Oh, she foresaw this. In the Parables she knew this was coming and warned us, in her way. Her solution was to rethink our purpose as human beings, and change how we live  - even if that means leaving what we perceive as safety. Part of why we held the Octavia Butler Symposium at the Allied Media Conference last year was to explore how we connect ideas like hers to how we are living and organizing in the world. I feel like she did a powerful job, for instance, of challenging the idea that our future lies in the struggle to act as a nation, when our destiny might actually be something much more global, or universal. In her stories, our way to evolve is to leave behind the right-wing politics and struggles of earth and go to space.

Of course, the conversation is much more than that, and includes powerful insights on the state of national organizing, mainstream media, the Tea Party, and net neutrality. So if science fiction and constitutional law are your sorta thing, read more.

On Thursday Sens. David Vitter and Rand Paul announced a bill to amend the Constitution and redefine the very notions of American citizenship. Their bill would end the constitutional right to citizenship that is automatically conferred upon every child born in the U.S.

“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” Vitter said in a joint statement with Paul. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”

The birthright citizenship bills have been widely condemned by immigrant and civil rights groups. “The right of citizenship at birth has long been the law of the land and for good reason,” said Deborah Vagins, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel. “The 14th Amendment was intended to heal a great wound inflicted on our country after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott, denying citizenship to African-Americans and their descendants. Any proposed subversion of such constitutionally protected rights should be soundly rejected.”

Vagins called birthright citizenship one of the Constitution’s “most essential tools to ensure equality and fairness under the law…regardless of who their parents are or whether Congress approves of them.”

“Our nation’s extraordinarily accomplished early history is marred by a pattern of legally-sanctioned exclusion and racism,” Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said in a statement. “The ratification of the 14th Amendment–and its Citizenship Clause in particular–permanently altered this extraordinarily regrettable pattern.”

“This week’s introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment to return this nation to its pre-Civil War infamy will earn a permanent place in the annals of shameful senatorial conduct.”

Vitter and Paul do not see citizenship as a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, even though that is how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted and upheld in the courts for nearly 150 years, beginning with the landmark Supreme Court case U.S. v. Wong Ark Kim in 1898, in which the Court ruled that the U.S.-born son of a Chinese-born couple was indeed a U.S. citizen. Still, Vitter and Paul said that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship in either “language or intent.”

Vitter and Paul are itching for another Supreme Court review on the matter. Their bill is part of a coordinated effort to revisit the topic and force a change. State legislators who’ve introduced similar bills have been very direct about stating their intentions. Yesterday, Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh and State Sen. Ron Gould introduced their own bills attacking birthright citizenship.

In order to amend the Constitution both houses of Congress will have to pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority, after which three-fourths of the states will have to ratify the amendment. It’s a laborious process.

Legal proceedings aside, discussions about American citizenship are at their heart debates about who belongs in this country and who does not. It’s a debate, and an entirely racialized one at that (See: Vitter’s campaign ads from last November) that hinges on fear and racial hatred.

“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” Paul said.

True to its word, Arizona dropped its long-promised anti-immigration bills attacking birthright citizenship. Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh filed two bills today in the Arizona House, and State Sen. Ron Gould was also expected to file his own.

“Those two companion bills have one purpose,” Kavanagh told Colorlines. “We want to trigger a Supreme Court review of the phrase ‘subject to jurisdiction thereof’ which is contained in the 14th Amendment.”

Kavanagh said he believed that statements from the 14th Amendment’s authors and initial Supreme Court decisions reveal that the amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. 

“We believe the current interpretation is wrong,” he said.

One of the House bills seeks to amend the state constitution to create a new category of Arizona state citizenship. Kavanagh’s bill says that in order to be granted state citizenship, a child born in the U.S. would need to have at least one parent who is a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen. The bill’s language is tricky. It interprets the 14th amendment to mean that only the children of “at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country” are eligible for state citizenship.

Immigration rights advocates and legal scholars who oppose the bill insist that this is unconstitutional. 

“These bills seem to try to manufacture a novel definition of state citizenship which really contravenes the understanding and well-established principle of citizenship that the 14th amendment brought and codified almost 150 years ago,” Vivek Malhotra, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said on a press call last week, before the bills were delivered.

The ACLU and a host of other civil and immigrant rights organizations joined together earlier this year to form a coalition called Americans for Constitutional Citizenship to protect the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

“These legislators want to pass state laws that would create two tiers of citizens–a modern-day caste system–with potentially millions of natural-born Americans being treated as somehow less than entitled to the equal protection of the laws that our nation has struggled so hard to guarantee,” Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a member of the ACC, said on the day of the coalition’s launch.

Those who oppose the birthright citizenship bills point to the 14th Amendment which says, “All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” There is no mention about the immigration status of a child’s parents. The sentence ends abruptly. They argue that very next line of the U.S. Constitution precludes Kavanagh and Gould’s efforts: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.”

Kavanagh welcomes the opposing arguments. ”I’m glad they think that,” he said. “Let us go to court and we’ll have the U.S. Supreme Court eventually decide because that’s the way we settle disputes in this country.”

The second bill seeks to initiate a state compact that would need other states’ commitment and eventually Congressional approval. If Congress authorizes the compact it would, in effect become federal law. It’s a convenient avenue to try to attack the Constitution without having to go through the laborious process of actually amending it.

Under the bill, member states would join together in their new interpretations of state citizenship.

While legal scholars are confident that that the bills are unconstitutional, these bills undoubtedly affect the political climate in Arizona, which is still reeling from the anti-immigration bill SB 1070 which was just signed into law last year. Parts of SB 1070 were enjoined and that fight is winding its way through the courts right now, but portions of the law are still in effect. “This divisive legislation is appalling and shameful,” said Jennifer Allen, executive director of the Tucson human rights group Border Action Network. “Our legislature already dragged our state’s name through the mud with SB1070 and by driving our economy and services into the ground. They need to stop with these divisive, counter-productive and uncivil attacks on Arizonans and our nation as a whole.”

“We’re not going to sit by and allow these attacks to go on,” said Salvador Reza, an immigrant rights activist and organizer who was on his way to the Arizona State Capitol to protest the new bills this morning. “We will organize, and we will do whatever we need to to fight these attacks.”

“The hate and the animosity that they have created and that is spreading throughout the rest of the country, it’s out of control.”

Kavanagh could offer no immediate details about when the bill will move to committee or hearing. He and other Arizona legislators like Russell Pearce have faced criticism for pushing ahead with immigration bills when the state is mired in difficult budget conversations and facing an unprecedented deficit. He said he would wait until the budget was settled before bringing his bills to the floor. “The budget is very important,” Kavanagh said. “But we can do more than one thing at once.”

“If we get the correct court decision…we will not be dispensing citizenship like a door prize,” Kavanagh said. “Especially not for those whose parents snuck into this country illegally through the back door.”