Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[Erich]

If they have a child that has been born in the US, that child is an American citzen (per the 14th Ammendment) that cannot be deported.

2.) Rework the 14th amendment to include the necessity of two parents who are citizens. I find that this was originally instituted for Post Civil War America and since all African Americans are granted citizenship, this amendment is unnecessary for that part only.

I did a quick scan of the first 120 or so posts on this thread, nothing in-depth. I didn’t read every post. That said, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The part in bold was not amended by any subsequent Amendment. During discussion of whether to pass the 14th Amendment, there was great debate over granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment meant,
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment…Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
The Citizens Act of 1924 (codified in 8USCS 1401) lists two separate categories of people born in the United States as citizens (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Children born to illegals are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power. The law is already on the books… it should be enforced.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

from the article

They warned it could classify as felons not only dangerous criminals, but also undocumented immigrants who came to the United States at “a very young age” and have “no familiarity” with any other country

i dont understand this. What undocumented immigrants come to the US at a very young age & have no familiarity w/ any other contry? makes no sense…

Sure it does. People bring their families, including their young children. When they grow up, the only thing they know is the United States and the culture of the place where they live (sorry, but the United States doesn’t have just one culture, it’s got many…people here in Los Angeles live and think waaaaaay differently that people in Texas or Florida).

Now, I know that the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the law, but is it really just to take someone who was brought here by their parents when they were two or three and lived their lives here, speaks English (and Spanish), and has an education from here and just throw them into another country that is completely foreign to that person?

 

[TMC]

Really? On what evidence? Mexicans have been coming over the border for many decades. We’ve had THREE presidents and more than that many congresses who’ve basically looked the other way for what…forty years?

OTOH the violence, the massive influx of drugs, the strain on law enforcement in recent months has brought Arizona to this point. Hopefully it’s a wake up call for the sleepers in Washington DC.

At any rate please provide one SPECK of evidence that this is about discriminating against poor people rather than a response to violence and drugs.

Lisa A

On two bases. First, that every politician or private citizen I have heard defend the law has said that AZ needs the law to keep the Mexicans off their welfare rolls, to keep them from getting medical care and other social services in AZ, and to keep them from applying for and taking low-paying jobs. Second, there are already very strong laws for deporting criminal immigrants. This law says nothing about violence or drugs, its simply about getting the poor immigrants out of AZ.

Just go back and read this thread and the other thread on this topic, the points made in favor of the bill make my point for me.

 

[TMC]

I did a quick scan of the first 120 or so posts on this thread, nothing in-depth. I didn’t read every post. That said, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The part in bold was not amended by any subsequent Amendment. During discussion of whether to pass the 14th Amendment, there was great debate over granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment meant,
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment…Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
The Citizens Act of 1924 (codified in 8USCS 1401) lists two separate categories of people born in the United States as citizens (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Children born to illegals are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power. The law is already on the books… it should be enforced.

The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.

 

[Malkin71]

I am glad to read that the Catholic bishops oppose the legislation.

The emphasis is placed far too much on the undocumented worker and not on the companies who hire them (and sometimes turn them in to keep the workers afraid and conrtrollable).

It is an open license to harass anyone. No person who is simply walking down the street and doing nothing illegal should EVER have to prove who he is, where he lives, and whether he is a citizen.

It is not a open license to Harass anyone! What if the officer is hispanic? There are Border Patrol Agents who are Hispanic! Are they harassing when they are duing their duty? Are they harrasing when they are getting shot at by drug lords?

 

[Malkin71]

The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.

The problem here is the abuse of the 14th Admendment! Illegals are milking and draining the U.S… They are putting a bad name on the good immigrints who dor the proper process.

 

[mlund]

The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants,

There is no need to modify the 14th Amendment as it does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Rather the federal legislature needs to merely pass a law.

i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover

That’s a filthy lie. They still have rights to due process and whatnot. They do not have the rights and privileges of citizenship.

, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.

You should not receive citizenship-by-birth unless one of your parents is a citizen - nationalized or otherwise. (Or if one of your parents’ fell into one of the historical non-citizen reserved classes from the 1800s - slaves, natives, etc)

Doing otherwise only rewards lawless behavior over law-abiding behavior - encouraging more law-breaking. No child should ever be used as an “anchor baby.”

• Marty Lund

 

[TMC]

The problem here is the abuse of the 14th Admendment! Illegals are milking and draining the U.S… They are putting a bad name on the good immigrints who dor the proper process.

The 14th Amendment is incapable of being abused. We either believe that everyone has certain inalienable rights, or we do not. How does being an immigrant, whether a “good” one or “bad” one change that?

 

[mlund]

The 14th Amendment is incapable of being abused. We either believe that everyone has certain inalienable rights, or we do not. How does being an immigrant, whether a “good” one or “bad” one change that?

Perhaps it would help to read the 14th Amendment again.

The clause in question has nothing to do with universal, inalienable rights given by God. It pertains to who qualifies as a citizen of this particular nation-state. The subsequent clauses make it very clear that “citizen,” is not interchangeable with “any person.”

U.S. citizenship is not an inalienable right that all human beings are entitled to by virtue of drawing breath.

And furthermore the 14th Amendment is routinely abused by lawyers. The premise of “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” is the basis for numerous faulty assertions that Same-Sex “marriage” must be made legal, for just one egregious example.

• Marty Lund

 

[LoveJesus]

The problem here is the abuse of the 14th Admendment! Illegals are milking and draining the U.S… They are putting a bad name on the good immigrints who dor the proper process.

The problem is that the “proper process” is full of red tape and a good number of people fall through the cracks. There are people in this country who had temporary visas when they came to this country and applied for green cards in the 1980s, but the wait was so long that their visas expired. People who had pending applications from before 2001 were not allowed to leave the country. And so they’re stuck as “illegal immigrants”, even though the government knows who they are and where they live. There are people still waiting for over ten years for their green card. My parents came here and applied for their green cards in the early 80s and they’ve just got their green cards in 2002. A lot of people here don’t seem to understand how slow and messed up the process is. And the wait will be a lot longer if you’re not from a “good” (a.k.a. western European) country.

I am glad the bishops spoke about this. Around here it seems that when people like what the bishops say, then everyone should listen…but if they don’t like it, then “they need to keep quiet and stay out of it”. This is a moral issue and they have every right to address it.

 

[distracted]

Sure it does. People bring their families, including their young children. When they grow up, the only thing they know is the United States and the culture of the place where they live (sorry, but the United States doesn’t have just one culture, it’s got many…people here in Los Angeles live and think waaaaaay differently that people in Texas or Florida).

Now, I know that the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the law, but is it really just to take someone who was brought here by their parents when they were two or three and lived their lives here, speaks English (and Spanish), and has an education from here and just throw them into another country that is completely foreign to that person?

well… maybe the parents should have thought of that when they first crossed the border illegally… this is part of what it means to be a resposnbile parent…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Around here, anyway, most illegals I know work at regular jobs in factories. But I’m sure there are a lot of them I don’t see very often. Construction subcontracting is almost all done by illegals anymore. The primary contractor makes his deal with a Hispanic guy; say a framing or sheetrock sub, who can speak English. Maybe he’s illegal too, maybe not. The crew typically can’t speak a word of English. The contractor doesn’t pay withholding, Medicare or anything else. He pays the workers in cash. Nobody pays taxes.

Not far from here is a town where workers line up for day jobs. The people who usually hire them are not factory people or farmers. They’re usually those same Hispanic guys who contract with primary contractors.

 

[mlund]

The problem is that the “proper process” is full of red tape and a good number of people fall through the cracks. There are people in this country who had temporary visas when they came to this country and applied for green cards in the 1980s, but the wait was so long that their visas expired.

A.) No one is entitled to a green card. Anyone’s temporary VISA can be allowed to lapse or be revoked.

B.) If you don’t like the legal process you are free to pursue means of lawful address. You can go before a judge. You can petition for dispensation. You can advocate for legal reform. That’s how an orderly and democratic society resolves its issues.

You can not just decide you are above the law.

People who had pending applications from before 2001 were not allowed to leave the country.

I’d like to hear the details about this one. Please elaborate. Does this have to do with the post-9/11 security concerns since the 9/11 ringleader himself was a VISA overstay?

There are people still waiting for over ten years for their green card. My parents came here and applied for their green cards in the early 80s and they’ve just got their green cards in 2002. A lot of people here don’t seem to understand how slow and messed up the process is. And the wait will be a lot longer if you’re not from a “good” (a.k.a. western European) country.

Again, please elaborate. The devil is in the details. I suppose immigrating from a nation that is terrible about disclosing vital information like vaccination records, marital records, and criminal records would be quite arduous. On top of that, government bureaucrats are (as a general population) listless and ineffectual creatures. I’m always a fan of rattling their cages with some turn-over and higher demands for efficiency and accuracy in their work! On the other hand, being forced to wait overly long because people are simply prejudiced against your national origin is quite illegal, so I reject any overtones of racism that might come with this assertion.

I am glad the bishops spoke about this. Around here it seems that when people like what the bishops say, then everyone should listen…but if they don’t like it, then “they need to keep quiet and stay out of it”. This is a moral issue and they have every right to address it.

Everyone should listen to the bishops whenever they say something in an official capacity. Everyone should also use their faculty of Reason and their knowledge of the CCC to judge fairly when the bishop is speaking to Dogma and Doctrine, and when the bishop is speaking Prudential Judgments about issues resting on conclusions of worldly matters beyond his expertise.

“Always treat all immigrants with human dignity” ← qualified moral teaching

“This law will make Arizona a Nazi-like police state” ← blowing smoke

• Marty Lund

 

[Erich]

The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship on children of foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers.

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

 

[TMC]

Perhaps it would help to read the 14th Amendment again.

The clause in question has nothing to do with universal, inalienable rights given by God. It pertains to who qualifies as a citizen of this particular nation-state. The subsequent clauses make it very clear that “citizen,” is not interchangeable with “any person.”

U.S. citizenship is not an inalienable right that all human beings are entitled to by virtue of drawing breath.

And furthermore the 14th Amendment is routinely abused by lawyers. The premise of “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” is the basis for numerous faulty assertions that Same-Sex “marriage” must be made legal, for just one egregious example.

• Marty Lund

No, the 14th Amendment extends basic rights to everyone, “any person.” Citizens can not be deprived of the special “privlileges and immunities” that come with citizenship - like voting - but EVERYONE gets basic civil rights

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whether granted by God or otherwise, this clause clearly extends universal civil rights – equal treatment under the laws – to everyone, “any person,” citizens, non-citizens, everyone. That is what was intended when it was passed, and that is how it has been interpreted. We are not arguing about whether it should cover something controversial - like same sex marriage. The issue I raised is that some say we should not extend basic rights - 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights - to non-citizens.

The citizenship question is a seperate one. But clearly as written children born in the US to non-citizens are citizens. If that were not true, I am sure there are lots of “regular Americans” that would not be citizens today.

 

[distracted]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship on children of foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers.

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

What part of Illegal do people not understand?

 

[TMC]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship on children of foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers.

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

It is true that the author of the Amendment did not intend this effect. I don’t know if the many people that voted for the Amendment intended it or not - I have read that many people assumed it meant exactly what it says. I do know that if the rule were that the children of “foreigners” remained “foreigners” then something close to a majority of Americans today would not be citizens.

 

[mlund]

Whether granted by God or otherwise, this clause clearly extends universal civil rights – equal treatment under the laws – to everyone, “any person,” citizens, non-citizens, everyone. That is what was intended when it was passed, and that is how it has been interpreted. We are not arguing about whether it should cover something controversial - like same sex marriage. The issue I raised is that some say we should not extend basic rights - 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights - to non-citizens.

No, you claimed:

“The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.”

The italicized portion is your own insertion. I rejected that assertion as false and addressed the issue of citizenship in specific.

I challenge you to cite a single source that quotes AZ Sen. Russell Pearce as saying he wants to deny illegal immigrants basic civil rights without due process of the law.

Also, we can’t have a serious discussion about the Constitution if we’re going to omit the vital legal text “without due process of law.” Illegal aliens are criminals. Under the due process of law they will be detained and arrested, having many of their rights and liberties abridged by the criminal justice system - but all under due process of the law.

The citizenship question is a seperate one. But clearly as written children born in the US to non-citizens are citizens. If that were not true, I am sure there are lots of “regular Americans” that would not be citizens today.

No, that is not the law as written, or as intended. The sources have already been cited in this thread. Rather, that is the practice of the law by the legislature. A constitutional amendment is not required to extend the grounds on which to grant citizenship, nor is it required to restrict it to its original parameters. Only simple legislative action is required.

And yes, there are certainly “regular Americans” that are citizens today that should not have received citizenship. What’s done there is done. Revoking citizenship isn’t something I want to see the government get entangled with. Denying further spurious claims of citizenship, however, is something I’d approve heartily.

I want to see an end to the practice of using innocent children as “anchor babies.” Children are not to be used as a means to the end of achieving permanent legal residence as a result of criminal trespassing.

I don’t know if the many people that voted for the Amendment intended it or not - I have read that many people assumed it meant exactly what it says.

It does mean exactly what it says. Foreign nationals who enter the U.S. illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the United States as it pertains to the context of the 14th Amendment. They enjoy their rights as an “Englishman” or “Mexican” as it pertains to treaties between those nations and as it pertains to international law.

Likewise foreign diplomats and soldiers in the United States are not subject to such jurisdiction and their children do not automatically receive citizenship.

If you want to know what the people voting for the amendment believed it means we could refer to the debate records on the amendment. Likewise when we have a question about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as to what the Framers meant it is often best to refer to the Federalist Papers rather than to prattle on about some “Living Document” nonsense and try to duck the Amendment Process by reinterpretation based on modern language.

I do know that if the rule were that the children of “foreigners” remained “foreigners” then something close to a majority of Americans today would not be citizens.

No. They would be naturalized citizens just like their parents if born before their parents received citizenship, and native-born citizens if born afterward.

• Marty Lund

 

[TMC]

No, you claimed:

“The AZ legislator that authored this law has said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover, and to change the law so that being born in the US no longer grants confers citizenship unless both of your parents are citizens. Yes, really.”

The italicized portion is your own insertion. I rejected that assertion as false and addressed the issue of citizenship in specific.

I challenge you to cite a single source that quotes AZ Sen. Russell Pearce as saying he wants to deny illegal immigrants basic civil rights without due process of the law.

Also, we can’t have a serious discussion about the Constitution if we’re going to omit the vital legal text “without due process of law.” Illegal aliens are criminals. Under the due process of law they will be detained and arrested, having many of their rights and liberties abridged by the criminal justice system - but all under due process of the law.

No, that is not the law as written, or as intended. The sources have already been cited in this thread. Rather, that is the practice of the law by the legislature. A constitutional amendment is not required to extend the grounds on which to grant citizenship, nor is it required to restrict it to its original parameters. Only simple legislative action is required.

And yes, there are certainly “regular Americans” that are citizens today that should not have received citizenship. What’s done there is done. Revoking citizenship isn’t something I want to see the government get entangled with. Denying further spurious claims of citizenship, however, is something I’d approve heartily.

I want to see an end to the practice of using innocent children as “anchor babies.” Children are not to be used as a means to the end of achieving permanent legal residence as a result of criminal trespassing.

It does mean exactly what it says. Foreign nationals who enter the U.S. illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the United States as it pertains to the context of the 14th Amendments. They enjoy their rights as an “Englishman” or “Mexican” as it pertains to treaties between those nations and as it pertains to international law.

Likewise foreign diplomats and soldiers in the United States are not subject to such jurisdiction and their children do not automatically receive citizenship.

If you want to know what the people voting for the amendment believed it means we could refer to the debate records on the amendment. Likewise when we have a question about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as to what the Framers meant it is often best to refer to the Federalist Papers rather than to prattle on about some “Living Document” nonsense and try to duck the Amendment Process by reinterpretation based on modern language.

No. They would be naturalized citizens just like their parents.

• Marty Lund

Here is what Pearce said about immigrants and rights:

About the recent protests here in Arizona on immigration policy, Pearce said, “They’re illegal and they have no right to be marching down our streets. They have no constitutional rights. They don’t have First-, Fourth-, Sixth amendment rights. They’re here illegally and they chose to be here illegally.”

This was in the Arizona Capitol Time, but now its in the subscription section so all I have is a blog link:
arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/arizona_state_r.html

He is also on the record as saying the 14th Amendment does not make the children of immigrants citizens, of course he is wrong about that, as you are.

 

[rrgoodwin]

I have recently returned from attending The Religious Education Congress in Anaheim, California. There I listened in horror to a paid and invited speaker by the name of Jim Wallis. The man is a Marxist, pro abortion, pro genocide and pro illegal immigrants. I then read how Cardinal Mahoney praised the new healthcare bill which provides my tax money for abortions and favors euthanasia. Now Catholic bishops, Cardinal Mahoney in the lead are against the Arizona legislation that is the enforcement of what the federal government is supposed to be doing and has not.

I am tired of our bishops in the name of social justice(another Marxist term) refer to laws as Nazi and/or concentration camp mentality. It seems to me that Mexico has even more stringent illegal immigration laws and has the audacity to criticize us when we enforce our borders. I am tired of a foreign country censoring these United States when the crimes they commit against their illegals are horrific. I believe it is time for the laity to call to order our bishops and the unwarranted statements they make in regards to the actions taken by such states like Arizona, a state who has been overwhelmed by illegals.

My grandfather and grandmother were immigrants from Mexico. My mother is first generation American. My grandfather was proud to be an American as he knew that his children would have a much better life here than in Mexico. He was adamant that all of his family speak English and know about this great country of ours. That is not true of far too many illegals today.