Earlier this month, Think Progress reported that Julie Erfle, the widow of a police officer who was killed by an undocumented immigrant and whose name has often been invoked by supporters of Arizona’s new immigration law, accused the bill’s supporters of “using her husband’s name to benefit politically and financially.” Today, Erfle appeared on MSNBC with a new message: she wants politicians to tell her why their reelection campaigns are more important than pushing through immigration reform before the midterm elections:

BREWER: So, Julie, when you hear people like the person who really spear-headed this legislation [SB-1070], Russell Pearce, using your husbands name to sell the idea of this bill — what do you think you’re husband Nick would’ve thought of it.

ERFLE: I don’t think he would’ve been in favor of it. [...] And that’s why I’ve spoke out against it. But I’m not so much speaking out against SB-1070 as I am speaking for comprehensive immigration reform. We need immigration reform. We should’ve had immigration reform before my husband’s death. And now there is no better time. I keep hearing — well there’s a midterm coming up. It’s just too controversial. It’s too political. To that I say — “tell that to me.” I would like to hear from politicians, I would like them to sit down with me and say why this is too political, why their reelection is more important than doing something on immigration reform. Or perhaps they could have that conversation with my children. I would really like to hear why it is more important to be reelected than it is to solve this problem.

Watch it:

Erfle also added that her “biggest issue” with SB-1070 in particular, is that it allows Arizona citizens to sue police officers if they believe they are not going after undocumented immigrants. Today, a group of city policy chiefs from Tucson, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Houston who oppose SB-1070 met with Attorney General Eric Holder to voice similar concerns. At a follow-up press conference, John Harris, police chief for Sahuarita, Arizona, stated “You have one side saying that we’re going to be racial profiling. You have another side in a portion of the law that allows people that don’t think we’re doing enough to sue us.” Harris concluded, “It makes it really difficult for us to police our communities.” Police chiefs across the country have been calling for comprehensive immigration reform for well over a year.

Around the same time Erfle appeared on MSNBC, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was griping on the Senate floor about how Congress can’t act on immigration reform until President Obama sends another few thousand National Guard troops to the border. While McCain’s colleague, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) maintains that Obama is holding border security hostage to immigration reform, others have suggested that McCain and his Republican cronies are holding immigration reform hostage to the tough reelection campaign he is facing.

Last week, Wonk Room reported that the Arizona lawmaker, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), who introduced the state’s new immigration law, SB-1070, is already planning his next legislative effort: “target the [immigrant] mother” by going after the “anchor baby racket.” “Anchor babies” is a derogatory and “politically charged” term used to refer to the U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents. Pearce wants to essentially overturn the 14th amendment by no longer granting citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Today, Pearce appeared on MSNBC defending his upcoming legislation:

It’s an unconstitutional declaration of citizenship to those born here to those who are here illegally. It’s absolutely outrageous. It’s in violation of the 14th Amendment. Do you know the Congress had to act three times to recognize the citizenship of the indians? There’s no doubt where they were born at. [...] Because there was a concern over their jurisdiction and allegiance because they are part of an indian nation. It’s the same thing. I mean, common sense here. Just a little common sense would help.

Watch it:

The 14th amendment clearly states that “[a]ll 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.” Pearce is right that Native Americans were once denied citizenship under the 14th amendment — but the claim doesn’t provide much support for his circular argument. Up until about a century ago, Native American tribes were viewed as being largely outside the “jurisdiction” of the U.S. government — which simply means not subject to its complete control. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 overturned the provision and granted full U.S. citizenship to the nation’s Native Americans. Since children of foreign diplomats are largely exempt from U.S. laws, they still do not receive U.S. citizenship if they are born in the country. However, no one can argue that immigrants — regardless of their status — are subject to the U.S. legal system. The Center for American progress writes “if the United States lacks ‘jurisdiction’ over the children of immigrants then it would also mean the U.S. government is powerless to deport those individuals or to punish them for crimes committed within the United States.” Such a suggestion is just as ridiculous as Pearce’s own reasoning, which basically suggests that the language of the constitution is unconstitutional on its face.

Pearce also erroneously claimed today that the U.S. is the “only country” to grant citizenship to those born within its borders. However, “birthright citizenship,” as it is called, is rooted in English common law. Nations that observe birthright citizenship include Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. The Center for American Progress examined the effect that stringent citizenship requirements have had on Germany — which does not grant citizenship at birth. The report attributes the income and educational disparities between the German-born children of immigrants and native Germans, in part, to the country’s citizenship laws. The report also found that countries like Germany are still bearing “consequences of that epic mistake today.”

The concept of birthright citizenship has also been upheld by U.S. courts. In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of their parents’ nationality.