USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

[Arkansan]

In general, there is an inverse correlation between any given person’s support for mass immigration, and the probability that he or she will be personally affected by it.

This is the meaning of virtue-signalling. To impose “charitable” burdens on others as a substitute for exercising charity oneself.

 

[PetraG]

You misunderstand. I’m not saying that earthly well-being is more important than the eternal. I’m saying that concern with the earthly well-being of our families and countrymen is perfectly right and good.

It is only perfectly right and good if it extends as much to the least ones as to ourselves.
You know the story of the Good Samaritan–the Jews would have nothing to do with Samaritans–and how the scholar of the law wished to justify himself and asked, “Who is my neighbor?”
Our Lord told him the story of the priest and the Levite and the Samaritan and of course asked at the end:
Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

That’s what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our Lord never invented some idea of “piety” that superceded that. There is no such “piety” in his depiction of the Last Judgment. We can’t wiggle out of this by saying, “Oh, you know, I would be willing to share the lot of these more immigrants and the place they live, but you know, I need to preserve a single language country, because…”

Because why?? Where on earth did you get the idea that we just can’t live in peace if we have more than one language spoken here? I’m surrounded by people in the grocery store speaking Spanish, speaking Russian, speaking all sorts of languages. How is their culture some kind of an invasion? If anything, having a lot of immigrants only increases the grocery selection, the interesting things going on, the variety of people one meets. There is no excuse to keep them out of this country in order to preserve my culture. I’m not forgetting any family recipes because I can find the ingredients for theirs at the store, too.

We are a Universal Church, not a provincial one. The Gospel extends to all nations and God’s concern extends to all peoples. Our concern must do the same. Maybe that would be better accomplished by helping them bring peace back to their countries, certainly the various nations need to have secure borders so that each can keep its own jurisdiction, but we don’t have room to have a “every nation for itself and the Devil take the hindmost” attitude.

 

[Arkansan]

It is only perfectly right and good if it extends as much to the least ones as to ourselves.

Such as working class Americans who just want a future for their children.

You know the story of the Good Samaritan–the Jews would have nothing to do with Samaritans–and how the scholar of the law wished to justify himself and asked, “Who is my neighbor?”
Our Lord told him the story of the priest and the Levite and the Samaritan and of course asked at the end:
Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

The interesting thing about the Good Samaritan is that he helped the robbery victim our of his own resources. He didn’t go back to Samaria and declare that his country had to destroy itself because of the man’s misfortune.

Perhaps we should allow anyone who wants to to come here, but require them to settle in the neighborhoods of wealthy Democratic donors.

Our Lord never invented some idea of “piety” that superceded that.

"I answer that, Man becomes a debtor to other men in various ways, according to their various excellence and the various benefits received from them. on both counts God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. On the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country.

The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinsfolk are those who descend from the same parents, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12). The worship given to our country includes homage to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our country. Therefore piety extends chiefly to these." - Summa Theologica II-II.101.1

How is their culture some kind of an invasion?

In order to be real, a culture must have a space of some sort within which it is unquestioned. We can’t have that if there are a non-trivial number of foreigners around.

 

[graciew]

Aside from anything political or what is at debate,it is quite simple.
It indicates the physical/geographical place were you were born. Nothing too complicated and accepted in the Americas at least among other places. Immediately after birth,the baby is given his/ her ID with his/ her name,date and place of birth and an ID number,and his/her birth certificate. And then there is one more little citizen among us.
Here where I live,he/she will have some of his/her basics covered by our insurance or other means for about 6 months. Which helps a lot.

 

[billsherman]

I realize that Americans can decide that they want to act as much in naked self-interest as humanly possible.
It cannot be that way for Christians. A Christian who wants to operate that way may as well just give up religion. I don’t know what the point to it could possibly be.

The truly amusing thing of this whole debate to me is that I am willing to bet a lot of money that all of those openly and proudly rejecting the Church’s teaching on immigration are all too quick to call pro-choice Catholics “Cafeteria Catholics.”

Also, yeah, every single caveat that modifies the command to accept, care for, and love immigrants has been added by man, not God. All of them.

I realize that Americans can decide that they want to act as much in naked self-interest as humanly possible.
It cannot be that way for Christians. A Christian who wants to operate that way may as well just give up religion. I don’t know what the point to it could possibly be.

Yup.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Trump: “We’re the only county…” (either an outright lie or total ignorance–take your pick)

Fact: There are about 35 countries that say anyone born in that country is a citizen. There are another 10-15 that require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident if someone born in that country claims citizenship.

Basically it comes down to common law vs. Roman law, with a lot of complications in Europe because of shifting borders and changing citizenship as bits of land were passed around among several countries.

Now here’s the fascinating part: I just love it when conservatives tie themselves in knots contradicting themselves. So on the one hand, conservatives believe in strict constructionism–the Constitution means what it says, nothing more, nothing less. And here we have a case where not only does the 14th amendment say quite clearly that anyone born in the US who is subject to US jurisdiction (that would rule out diplomats, for example), is a citizen. So which is it guys? Strict constructionism when it suits your whim, or strict constructionism all the time? See any hypocrisy there? (I believe in being loyal to my wife…except when I’m not loyal. No problem, right?)

As for the people saying “That’s not what the 14th amendment means…” that’s very fascinating, and I’m sure you have a law degree in constitutional law. However, that’s not what the Supreme Court has ruled over and over–you’re born here, you’re a citizen. End of story.

As for the other people citing section 5 where it talks about enforcement, once again you are playing fast and loose. Enforcement means enforcement. It doesn’t mean you can just cancel the amendment.

I’m not worried at all about this one since it’s going nowhere. It’s another case of Trump yelling “Squirrel!!!” and we all start looking for the squirrel. We need to ignore him.

 

[PetraG]

Such as working class Americans who just want a future for their children.

Eternal life is the most important future. Teaching our children to reject immigrants puts that in peril.
By the way–what country has had no future for its children because it rejected strangers? I can easily think of some that went overboard about rejection, and that ruined a lot of futures.

The interesting thing about the Good Samaritan is that he helped the robbery victim our of his own resources. He didn’t go back to Samaria and declare that his country had to destroy itself because of the man’s misfortune.

Perhaps we should allow anyone who wants to to come here, but require them to settle in the neighborhoods of wealthy Democratic donors.

You imply the Republicans are the ones in the story who would cross to the other side of the road. That isn’t fair. As for the culture in which the story was told, the Jewish culture demanded the care of strangers–of foreigners. You can find it in the law and the prophets very easily.

In order to be real, a culture must have a space of some sort within which it is unquestioned. We can’t have that if there are a non-trivial number of foreigners around.

The problem is that American culture is built on continual additions brought by immigrants. If we lose that, will we still be ourselves? After all, what would we be without the addition of territories and people that used to belong to Mexico? What would our culture be without Texas, without New Mexico and Arizona and California?

Our culture is a culture that has never been isolated, never been without the contributions of 1st generation immigrants and their children. And do you know what is really remarkable? There are also cultural artifacts here from other countries that are as if they have been in a time capsule–recipes passed down generation to generation here that can still be found done in nearly the same way as they were several generations ago, while those same recipes were lost back in the country of their origin, because of course back home the way things are done are allowed to change because they aren’t afraid of “losing” their culture!!

No, the United States needs to have control of her borders, both we and our neighbors need to be able to track people who do not want to be tracked. That is a matter of security, of course it is. That doesn’t imply that we ought to try to keep ourselves culturally–what would it be? Sanitary? That isn’t how culture works.

 

[AlNg]

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.

Oh, I thought that “The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship”. Do you say the Catholic Church is wrong in this ethical issue?

 

[dixieagle]

The children of foreign Ambassadors who are born here are not given citizenship, so why would the babies of illegal aliens or people here on vacation be given it?

The foreign ambassadors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of (the United States)”, as mentioned in the amendment. Think diplomatic immunity.

 

[dixieagle]

Illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

This is simply wrong. If so, it would mean that immigrants are immune to our laws when in the country.

 

[Arkansan]

Eternal life is the most important future. Teaching our children to reject immigrants puts that in peril.

Teaching children to despoil their fellow citizens as a way of feeling good about themselves also puts their salvation in peril.

You imply the Republicans are the ones in the story who would cross to the other side of the road. That isn’t fair.

On average, conservatives donate more to charity, out of their own pocket, than liberals.

The problem is that American culture is built on continual additions brought by immigrants. If we lose that, will we still be ourselves? After all, what would we be without the addition of territories and people that used to belong to Mexico? What would our culture be without Texas, without New Mexico and Arizona and California

First of all, I don’t believe in magic dirt. A country’s culture doesn’t change by the acquisition of new land (as in the case of the states you mention) but by the acquisition of people. Most of the people living in those places (or most of the people living in them 50 years ago at any rate) were the descendants of American settlers, not the descendants of Mexicans.

Second of all, the fact that a future Meximerica would develop its won culture doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t preserve the one we actually have right now.

 

[Odilon]

“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien;

An alien who entered the country illegally is not to be protected. We can be Christian in our dealings with them, but they ought to be deported. The Christian reaction and the governments action are two separate issues. Charity comes from the individual who gives freely, the government requiring anyone to give is not charity but a forceful taking of someone’s money.

 

[Odilon]

And neither is the individual who has arrived here without permission, their loyalty is to the nation from which they came.

 

[F_Marturana]

Now, any immigrant who is living here legally SHOULD be allowed to have citizen children. But I don’t think illegal immigrants or people not here on a resident visa should be allowed to automatically have their children become citizens.

People on a resident visa are here legally. So what of their children?

 

[AdamP88]

Oh, I thought that “The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship”. Do you say the Catholic Church is wrong in this ethical issue?

The Church doesn’t have a position on it. Same as they don’t have a position on what kind of tax system a country should have. Catholics are free to oppose birthright citizenship and have some other position on how to deal with immigration.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

An alien who entered the country illegally is not to be protected.

Not sure what you mean by that. But ANYONE – legal resident or not – has equal protection under the law, and all residents have equal rights before the law. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. It’s not an open question.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Church doesn’t have a position on it.

Didn’t you read the USCCB statement in the link in the initial post? It was quite clear.

 

[AdamP88]

Didn’t you read the USCCB statement in the link in the initial post? It was quite clear.

I did. And it may be their belief that the Church should hold this position. But it is not actually a position of the Universal Church and as a political issue we are not required to hold a universal view on it.

It’s misleading of them to suggest otherwise.

 

[Benadam]

It seems the Bishops premise is that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be deported. They assume that they must be able to thrive in a community in which they entered without authorization.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

This is simply wrong. If so, it would mean that immigrants are immune to our laws when in the country.

No, that’s not what it means. It’s older language.

Similarly to how the British people are subject to the Queen, well Americans are subject to the Constitution.

LEGAL immigrates are 100% subject to our jurisdiction, which means not only do our criminal laws apply to them, but they are afforded certain rights and privileges granted to status under the law.