USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

[PetraG]

The point I’m trying to make is-- the USCCB is perfectly happy to say, “Y’all are being harsh, limiting citizens’ ability to migrate across national borders!” but at the same time, I’m curious how easy or how lenient they are in allowing the clergy who are in obedience to them to migrate (physically and spiritually) into obedience under a brother bishop.

The faithful are perfectly free to immigrate anywhere in the world they want to go. It is their right, and when they take up residence in their new parish and diocese they have the right to receive the sacraments there. The bishops do have the duty to see to the particular needs of immigrants; this is the subject of the Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana.

Incardinated priests, in contrast, have made a promise to be subject to the authority of a certain episcopal chair or to the superior of a certain religious order. They cannot just leave the position they vowed to stay in on their own judgment, but must have permission.

 

[midori]

I don’t see any comparison. You are describing an employer-employee situation. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

Sure. But it’s actually a whole lot like serfdom, rather than an employer-employee relationship.

If I work for the City of Houston, I need to live within the City of Houston boundaries. But if I decide to go work for the City of Albany, NY, I can give my notice and go move to Albany, NY for no other reason than “I want to get paid more” or “I want to live in a place with seasons” or “I want to fish” or “I want to go camping in the Catskills”.

But if I’m a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Houston-Galveston, I don’t get those options. I’m tied to the geography of the archdiocese. They can move me around as much as I want within that territory-- maybe I can settle for fishing off the Gulf Coast or in the bayous-- but ultimately, I’m bound to the territory, and things like, “I hear they pay better over there” or “It’s not 120* and 95% humidity in Albany” or “I want to live in a place with scenery” aren’t good enough reasons to allow me to move and become a priest for the Diocese of Albany whenever the whim strikes.

So it’s interesting, that the Bishops themselves embrace a model that’s very, very close to the serfdom model of the Middle Ages and the Ancient World-- you give up a lot of your freedoms that are being discussed here (freedom of travel, freedom to find employment wherever) and exchange them for obedience and being bound to a limited territory-- but they’re siding with the globalists on political issues.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

but not everyone is granted the same privileges.

What you said is correct, but there is a huge misunderstanding out there (maybe not you–I don’t know) that somehow non-citizen residents (legal or illegal) do not have the same legal rights. They do. The Supreme Court has said so.

Same rights yes. Same privileges no.

The problem is that too many Americans today do not know the differences between a right and a privilege.

But at the same time, what drives me crazy is when we hear about immigrants (who have not even entered America yet) attempting to sue the federal govt for violating their constitutional rights. People who are not residents or citizens of the United States do not have constitutional rights. Visitors do, but when a non-US citizen who has NEVER set foot on American soil tries to sue the govt for violating their constitutional rights - when they still have never entered our country - that gets my blood boiling.

 

[graciew]

that gets my blood boiling.

And it is understandable.

 

[LilyM]

Well, your theoretical Texan would need to serve out the notice in their Texan job, find work and/or accommodation in New York, pack or sell their belongings, find a removslist etc etc. And if they can not do one or more of these might not be able to move at all. It’s not always possible let alone easy.

Remember priests and religious voluntarily take vows of obedience. They choose, after careful discernment over a period of years, to place themselves in a position where their Bishop or Superior decides where they live. It’s like being in the military, they also aren’t free to go wherever they like.

And the answer is - if you aren’t prepared to go where you are sent and needed, then priesthood/military life isn’t for you.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But at the same time, what drives me crazy is when we hear about immigrants (who have not even entered America yet) attempting to sue the federal govt for violating their constitutional rights.

That’s a new one on me. Please enlighten me with a source!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So it’s interesting, that the Bishops themselves embrace a model that’s very, very close to the serfdom model of the Middle Ages and the Ancient World-- you give up a lot of your freedoms that are being discussed here (freedom of travel, freedom to find employment wherever) and exchange them for obedience and being bound to a limited territory-- but they’re siding with the globalists on political issues.

It sounds to me more like the NFL or MLB or the NBA. But without the big salaries!

 

[midori]

It sounds to me more like the NFL or MLB or the NBA. But without the big salaries!

Sure thing! Except NFL contracts are generally about 4-6 years in length, and the average NFL career is 3.5 seasons. Whereas priests generally spend their lifetimes serving one diocese, and stay with the same diocese until they die, unless you happen to encounter an international priest (of which there are many!).

We ought to do trading cards with priests’ stats on them…!

 

[otrrl]

Amendment XIV​

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.

The amendment is ironic, because it suggests that someone is a “person” before they are born. I wonder how the SCOTUS overlooked this in 1973.

I was born in the US and I think POTUS was, too. Would overturning 14A mean that Trump was ineligible to be president? He better be careful, because he may just get exactly what he wants.

This would mean that ALL children born in the US would not be citizens, not just those of visitors or illegal immigrants, wouldn’t it? This is a sticky wicket.

 

[Arkansan]

My point is that people have been settling in Santa Fe from its founding to the present. The settlers there in 1610 were not from the English colonies, but from Spain and Mexico. New Orleans, likewise, was settled by the French and the Spanish but also had English-speaking settlers and even Italian-speaking ones and so on. Is that city culturally handicapped? By no means!! It is like no other place on earth. (The largest mass-lynching in US history, by the way, the killing by an angry mob of 11 prisoners not convicted of any crime, was not against African-Americans but against Italian-Americans in New Orleans. You can look it up…)

Maybe you could be more specific about what cultural losses you are afraid of? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of an insecure border and I have sympathy for the idea that birth citizenship ought to be given to children born of parents who are here with permission, but I really don’t see that a vague idea of cultural preservation is a just reason to impede immigration.

You implied that the annexation of the Southwest involved some sort of cultural osmosis on the part of the US. My point was that that simply is not true, post-war American settlers greatly outnumbered the Mexicans already living there.

I’ll let the Angelic Doctor speak on the issue of cultural preservation:

“But intercourse with foreigners, according to Aristotle’s Politics [V, 3: 1303a 27; VII, 6: 1327a 13-15], is particularly harmful to civic customs. For it is inevitable that strangers, brought up under other laws and customs, will in many cases act as the citizens are not wont to act and thus, since the citizens are drawn by their example to act likewise, their own civic life is upset.” - De Regno

 

[AdamP88]

Not true according to the Roman Catholic bishops. The Roman Catholic Bishops USCCB statement says: “The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship”.

As far as I know, Bishops “Conferences” don’t actually have any authority officially in the Church. I’m open to correction on that but my understanding is that the individual bishops are the authority in their own diocese and don’t necessarily have to agree with positions taken by their brother bishops.

In any case, the Church simply doesn’t have a position on it. Even if the USCCB says this is THE position, I don’t believe there is any magisterial document or previous teaching that states what Catholics have to believe in this area. It’s simply not within the remit of the Church to have a position on this.

There is nothing in Church teaching that leads me to believe that opposition of birthright citizenship is uncatholic.

Sure bishops can say that we should “welcome the stranger” or “feed the hungry” but they can’t tell us to support a certain political position that is not directly connected to church teaching.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You doubt that criminal gangs control the border? Then why do so many have to pay thousands to those gangs to be smuggled into the US? Why do thousands of migrants organize into “caravans” in an attempt to avoid paying the gangs? Perhaps you believe that northern Mexico is a peaceful paradise. If so, why don’t the migrants settle there?

 

[TheLittleLady]

I don’t want to get into your resume vs my resume, so, let us say that perhaps your and my experiences with people in this situation have transpired at different times and different places.

We can both agree that it is a far different thing than what is portrayed in various commercial “newsertaniment” outlets.

 

[TheLittleLady]

@DHc8_Type said:
It increases human trafficking as people are willing to pay all they have to be smuggled across the border.

Reply

That’s not the definition of human trafficking.

While not a definition, these smugglers are many times human traffickers. The smugglers often do not drop the undocumented persons at the border, but, they provide transportation to Anytown USA.

Once in Anytown, these undocumented persons are handed over to business owners. These businesses may be as innocent looking as your local all-you-can-eat-Chinese-buffet or as nefarious as sex clubs.

Let’s say the person ends up with a restaurant owner.

They are assigned a “bed” in a squalid dormitory and they are informed of the $$ they owe to the smuggler. They will work in the restaurant until they have paid off the smugglers. Should they run away, the smugglers will go after their family members.

As they are undocumented, they are paid a very low wage, let’s say $1 per hour. Out of that wage comes their room and board (charged for all of the food they eat) and a payment to the smuggler, at the end of he week they actually owe more money than the week before. The person works more and more hours, goes without food, in an attempt to actually gain their freedom (remember, they know they cannot go to the police because they are undocumented. If the police turn them over to ICE, they are deported, they still owe the smugglers and they or their family will be killed when they get home).

So, yeah, smuggling is a big part of human trafficking.

And these businesses? They are in your town or the town up the road.

 

[redbaron162]

Personally I am for a changing of the citizenship structure completely where the privilege of a vote is earned, not a birthright. This of course doesn’t mean that those who live in a country don’t have rights but I don’t think people who have taken no responsibility for their country should necessarily have a say and how it is run. This of course would require a major constitutional and I sincerely doubt it would ever happen in today’s world.

 

[Usagi]

If we can classify them as illegal immigrants and deport them for it, or arrest and jail them for other crimes, then they are by definition subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So are tourists, and everyone within our borders except foreign diplomats or visiting officials (who have a clear exception carved out).

Your “not really residing in any state” argument might have slightly more traction.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I’d also like to read the court filings. @phil19034 please give the plaintiff name and the city state so I can look it up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That description of what might happen is as convoluted as Harold Hill’s “We’ve Trouble.” And it does not affect the question of the morality of birthright citizenship, which is all I was defending.

 

[TheLittleLady]

What DOES happen. There was an inference that smuggling was not human trafficking.

Those who are trafficked and held as indentured slaves here in the US do conceive and have children.

This trafficking and modern slavery is absolutely tied to birthright citizenship.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Still not a causal relationship.