USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuizBowlNerd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

The very first sentence of the 14th Amendment says: “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.”

Illegal immigrants and “birth tourism” or “pregnancy tourism” mothers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and do not reside in a State.

Again, you have RICH people from places like China and Russia spending TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to come to United States, staying in luxury hotels to have their children in the US, get them citizenship, and them go back home.

This is an abuse.

NBC News says that some of these travel agencies even offer luxury packages to stay in a Trump hotel!!!

Again, this is NOT what the intent of the 14th Amendment was.

NOW: I’m not against immigrants who are here legally, rent or own a home, etc and have children, should be allowed to have children who are citizens. But people who are simply visiting the US or here illegally should not be allowed to give birth to automatic citizens. However, I would be OK with an expedited process for those kids to become US citizens when adults, after legally immigrating here as adults.

God Bless
 
Odilon said:
Even if a baby gets citizenship by being born here, where is it written that the illegal parents are allowed to stay? Are they getting de facto citizenship too?
Click to expand...
No. They get deported and the child is thrown into foster care. The Obama Administration had a policy of only deporting one parent so the child wouldn’t go into foster care. The Trump Administration did away with that. Very Christian and family friendly.
 
phil19034 said:
Again, this is NOT what the intent of the 14th Amendment was.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. The easiest way to rule over a group of people is to just deny them citizenship, like was done to African Americans in 1857. Can’t you imagine a future president just sliding the scale a little more to denying citizenship to all immigrants, to Puerto Ricans, to non-English speakers, to people with the wrong color skin… Basically, there is a reason it is written into the Constitution, the nature of citizenship is too important to leave up to the whim of an individual.
 
The 14th Amendment was written to apply only to the newly freed slaves and their children who were born here. Foreign nationals like Ambassadors and other visitors were not to be included ACCORDING TO THE SENATOR WHO WROTE THE AMENDMENT. Now, why is that so hard for you to accept? Good grief, our Constitution is not a suicide pact where foreigners get to decide who comes here or who and who is not a citizen.
 
Odilon said:
Now, why is that so hard for you to accept?
Click to expand...
Because that isn’t what the Constitution, Supreme Court, and Congress say? All three agree that any child born in the US is a citizen, unless that child is the child of an invading army or a diplomat. Why is that so hard for you to accept? I thought conservatives were supposed to respect the Constitution as it was written, not change it like “activist” judges.

Do you frequently ask 2nd Amendment supporters why it is so hard for them to accept why gun ownership must be restricted to a “well regulated militia?” Somehow I don’t think so.
 
Well, I’m Puerto Rican so that cant happen because the citizens already have citizenship. But IF Puerto Rico did vote to become an independent nation, you would not have every single Puerto Rican still living in Puerto Rico having American Citizens. The US Citizens would have to either move to the mainland or give up their citzenship. We could not have a situation where almost every single person born in a foreign nation has children who are US Citzens.
 
1ke said:
40.png
phil19034:
Illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Supreme Court ruling was NOT about illegal immigrants. I will side with the Supreme Court, and I totally disagree with Trump using an executive order.

And “birth tourism” is an abuse of what our laws intended.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
Because that isn’t what the Constitution, Supreme Court, and Congress say? All three agree that any child born in the US is a citizen, unless that child is the child of an invading army or a diplomat
Click to expand...
Well, the US Constitution doesn’t say that. The Supreme Court has never heard a case that is specific to illegal immigrants.

I think the real motivations for Trump to make Executive Order is to force a Supreme Court ruling AND to attempt to scare that caravan.

I think it’s also to force debate on this subject - something the Democrats (including Harry Reid) agreed with not that long ago.

Harry Reid once said “any nation would be crazy to automatically grant citizenship to the children of people to cross the boarder illegally.” But we have been doing that for 30 years based on the one Supreme Court ruling that was NOT based on illegal immigrants.
 
No, the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue and the Congress has not weighed in on this either - no one has done nothing about it. As for the Constitution, it is not saying this either. I am going by what is written and what the Senator who wrote the Amendment said about it. No citizenship was being given out carte blanche prior to sometime in the 60’s or 70’s. As best can be determined this started happening then and was instituted by some bureaucratic agency which just started issuing passports. If ambassador’s children were not being given citizenship, than why would anyone else’s be given it? This makes absolutely no sense at all.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the term “the people” means us as individuals, not the collective, just as it means us as individuals in the other Bill of Rights amendments.
 
Last edited:
They do not. Nor does the baby being born here prevent them from being deported c
 
And deported they should be. The child can return when he/she reaches the age of majority. What does the “they do not” phrase refer to?
 
Last edited:
The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship
Click to expand...
I think they mean “the USCCB opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship”.

I don’t think the Catholic Church has a position on this. In Ireland we repealed birthright citizenship and the Church said little about it.

It’s not a matter of faith or morals. It’s a legal matter and as Catholics we are free to respectfully disagree with the USCCB’s view on the matter.
 
Yes as has been the case since the 14th Amendment was enacted. This is a 150 year old constitutional policy.
 
The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon the freed slaves post-Civil-War. We all learned about Dred Scott decision, right? (Hint: A slave who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not entitled to his freedom as a consequence of his residency; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional.)

It was ratified in 1868 so that rulings like Dred Scott didn’t happen.

Then in 1898, you get something like U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was a citizen, even if his parents (Chinese immigrants) weren’t. So you need to look at the Wong case to figure out the parallels and the differences between Wong’s situation vs the situation of illegal immigrants.

By the time you get to 1924, you get the The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. That provided “That all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States”. So they used the Act to give Native Americans citizenship, not the 14th Amendment.

There’s a rewording of the same provision in present-day law as section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

So, that’s where you get the argument that birthright citizenship is not enshrined in a Constitutional Amendment (which is not able to be modified by Executive Order), but is rather an administrative thing (which can be modified by Executive Order).

So then it works its way through the court system, you have your rulings this way, you have your appeals, you have your additional rulings, you have your additional appeals, and it ends up with the Supreme Court, and they pin down how it’s supposed to be interpreted, and everyone has the ability for a discussion.
 
Actually, right now, my biggest concern is counting the typos in the USCCB’s article… I’m up to four right now… 🙂
 
blackforest said:
Not exactly. Bishops still bear magisterial authority.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t specify one correct way to deal with immigration. Catholics are free to disagree in this area. As I already said, in my country birthright citizenship was abolished. I think it’s a ridiculous notion. It’s untenable at best anyway.
 
No. We have to listen to what OUR OWN bishop says and consider his words. We do not have to listen to the USCCB - unless we don’t know what our bishop says.

However, regardless, in prudential matters, we are allowed to disagree with HOW to implement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top