USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

[PetraG]

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

This does not take into account the reality of the internet. There is no way to preserve culture in amber.
To be blunt, the rest of the world is far more upset about what we, the United States, is doing to their culture and have far more to be concerned about than we do.

If anything, the immigrants coming in are bringing values more in keeping with our former way of life than the cultural “trend-setters” we are growing at home. They may, paradoxically, do more to preserve our culture than upset it.

 

[PetraG]

Personally I am for a changing of the citizenship structure completely where the privilege of a vote is earned…

And who, pray tell, will be the gate-keeper for that? No, you’re right, that is not going to happen. The opportunities for abuse are too well-known.

 

[Arkansan]

I don’t see what your point is. I support nationalism for all.

And yes, the internet does have deleterious effects on culture.

There is no actual evidence that mass migration is harming the cultural left in America.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t see what your point is. I support nationalism for all.

And yes, the internet does have deleterious effects on culture.

OK, so the Church is fine with maintaining a distinct national identity. In our diocese, we have parishes that have Masses in English and Masses in Spanish. We have a Southeast Asian ethnic vicariate. The last time we had huge migrations into the US, there were Irish parishes, Italian parishes, Polish parishes…you name it. Catholics had their own separate cultural churches, and this was fine.

What we don’t have as a Church is the idea that some of our brothers and sisters in Christ aren’t welcome to immigrate into our particular country because they might contaminate our culture. The Catholic faith IS our culture, and welcoming all as Christ is to be our primary cultural identity. We have no culture that supercedes the culture that produces saints, and saints are jealous of nothing whatsoever except the opportunity to win souls for Christ. All else is dross, an obstacle what is really important.

Do not forget the story of the rich young man. When the Lord looks on us with love, we are asked to give up our possessions in order to progress as saints. There isn’t anything wrong with possessions, per se, but there is when they become any kind of a barrier to being open to giving everything to God and neighbor. That is why Our Lord said, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 19:23

And yes, the internet does have deleterious effects on culture.

There is no actual evidence that mass migration is harming the cultural left in America

I have no idea what you even mean by that, but if Christ has a left hand and a right hand then the two are meant to work as one. You cannot have the right hand saying to the left, “you are not wanted” or the left foot saying to the right, “the body does not need you.” That is the way it is in politics, but it cannot be that way with us, the Church.

 

[Arkansan]

The Catholic faith IS our culture

Really? So what language do Catholics speak? How do they customarily greet each other? How much noise do they consider acceptable in public places?

I know that spouting these sorts of platitudes seems clever. It’s not though.

I have no idea what you even mean by that, but if Christ has a left hand and a right hand then the two are meant to work as one. You cannot have the right hand saying to the left, “you are not wanted” or the left foot saying to the right, “the body does not need you.” That is the way it is in politics, but it cannot be that way with us, the Church.

There’s a word for when one part of the body tries to “immigrate” into another.

 

[phil19034]

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.

Right… but I don’t think “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant what it means today.

I think “subject” meant like how the British are “subject” to the Queen.

But since we Americans don’t like to be called “subjects” that use of the word has fallen out of use in American English.

But I might be wrong, but that’s how I’m reading it, because from my point of view, we have to read the documents using the mind of the author and people who were alive at the time it was written.

 

[billsherman]

I’ll just repeat an observation here: There is nothing less Christ-like than allowing your personal political loyalties to justify ignoring dozens of clear scripture passages about loving and welcoming immigrants. God did not place any exceptions to that command in the Bible, your political party does. In the end, God really is made in our image I guess.

The Bible commands loving and welcoming immigrants far, far, far, far more than it does abortion or murder FYI.

 

[AlNg]

In any case, the Church simply doesn’t have a position on it.

So the USCCB is lying when they state: “The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship” and we should not believe them, but we should believe you?

 

[midori]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[phil19034]

In Elk v. Wilkins , 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court (the same court case that ruled that the 14th Amendment did not automatically grant citizenship to Native Americans living on reservations), stated: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”

There is also questions regarding whether U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided in 1898 because Court’s majority relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic, when looking for legal precedent. Many scholars argued that the Court should have used the Roman Republic and not the British Crown when looking for their legal precedent for this case, since the United States is a republic, modeled after the Roman Republic, not the British Monarchy.

Finally, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that supposedly grants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants only does so based on a footnote entered into the majority opinion by Justice William Brennan. This was something that was never argued, and the footnote was simply added by Brennan.

Based on above: Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives) wrote in 2003 that Congress may pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.” (He actually demanded that Congress writes a law.)

MY POINT - “anchor babies” have NEVER been directly challenged in the Supreme Court. So I’m in favor of anything that forces a decision (if Congress doesn’t have the will to fix the situation).

Also, let’s remember: the law is specific in terms of clarifying that children of diplomats born in the United States are NOT citizens. So lets’ look at the 19th century when this was written. (1) there were NOT a lot of visitors to the United States. (2) There were no airplanes and ocean travel back them was dangerous and not a good place for a pregnant woman. (3) Very few married couples would travel from other nations to visit the United States, only to return home after a period of time. Therefore, the need to specify other children who were born in the US was not necessary. AGAIN - MY POINT: The author of the 14th Amendment did not know that today, we would have the ability to travel to the United States from anywhere in the world in under 24 hours and that millions of alien visitors would enter & leave the United States each year. Nor did they understand that such technology would exist that would allow pregnant women to make the trip to the US, nor did they know that the technology would exist to allow the “birth tourism” industry to come into existence.

God Bless

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Catholics in a Catholic forum opposing the immigration of more Catholics, claiming they will change the “culture” of the country? And, frankly, that ship has sailed–probably back in the mid-70s. But is that necessarily bad? Gloria Estefan? Tacos? Salsa dancing?

El Salvador has a population of about 6.2 million. About 1.2 million people born in El Salvador live in the US; there are another 1 million or so children of those immigrants living in the US.

Let me just remind everyone of who some of these children of El Salvador immigrants are.

Rosie Casals–If you’re too young to remember, she was in the finals of two US Open tennis tournament in the early 70s. She won something like 9 titles in doubles and another 5 or so in mixed doubles. Her parents were both immigrants from El Salvador.

JR Martinez–the name may not ring a bell, but he won his season of Dancing with the Stars. He also acts, mostly in soap operas. In 2003 he was in the army in Iraq and suffered burns over 34% of his body, including his face. Parents from El Salvador.

Christy Turlington–super model of the late 80s/early 90s. Spokesperson for Calvin Klein and Maybelline. In 2010 she started a foundation to make pregnancy and childbirth safer around the world. He mother was an immigrant from El Salvador.

John Sununu–this is for you Republicans. He was Republican gov. of NH and a major figure in the Reagan era conservative movement. Guess where his mother is from? El Salvador.

Francisco Rubio–he’s one of the latest class of astronauts. Former Blackhawk pilot with 800 combat hours in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As a cherry on top, he’s also a medical doctor. Parents from El Salvador.

There are others, but that’s a short list.

For those of you worried about all this, it might be soothing to read Walter Goffart’s article, “Rome’s Final Conquest: The Barbarians.” A similar situation…Rome accepted immigrants, gave them citizenship, and, in the end turned them into good Romans.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

AGAIN - MY POINT: The author of the 14th Amendment did not know that today, we would have the ability to travel to the United States from anywhere in the world in under 24 hours and that millions of alien visitors would enter & leave the United States each year. Nor did they understand that such technology would exist that would allow pregnant women to make the trip to the US, nor did they know that the technology would exist to allow the “birth tourism” industry to come into existence.

I agree! But this is also my point I made a bit earlier: on the one hand, conservatives are “strict constructionalists’” or, as Alito would say, “originalists.” They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted the way a reasonable man (not woman, of course…) of 1789 would have interpreted it. OK, great. That’s a point of view. But on the other hand, when it comes to specific issues (counting “persons” rather than “citizens” in the census, or in this case whether the 14th amendment should be taken literally as written, or whether circumstances have changed over 150 years, conservatives hold a diametrically opposite point of view. Inconsistent? Absolutely. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[PetraG]

Really? So what language do Catholics speak? How do they customarily greet each other? How much noise do they consider acceptable in public places?

I know that spouting these sorts of platitudes seems clever. It’s not though.

The language of the Universal Church is Latin, but since Pentecost we have spoken all languages.
We customarily greet each other with “Peace be with you.”

I have no idea what on earth you even mean by the noise question. I couldn’t answer that in a way that is acceptable in all US restaurants (and neither could you).

More to the point, the rules of conduct for most people immigrating into this country are stricter than what children in the US typically learn. You could send your child outside our country into any other country for a year, and the chances are low that they wouldn’t pick up better manners than they’d pick up in a middle school in the US in the same time frame. We have no reason to be terrified of picking up bad manners from immigrants, LOL!!! If you say, “well, I don’t send my child to public school,” then there is also little chance that your children will be learning anything from immigrants, either, then, is there?

There’s a word for when one part of the body tries to “immigrate” into another.

Which is what?

Please do not tell me that you are going to equate the duty to extend hospitality to some requirement to get cancer. Please don’t. That is a repugnant way to think of other members of the Universal Church, so please tell me you had some other metaphor in mind. Forgive me, but that is the only one I can think of; don’t leave these things to chance.

 

[PetraG]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gee, that looks like essentially the entire Western hemisphere has birthright citizenship without restrictions.
(It is really too bad the President of the United States has no way to have someone fact-check for him before he makes pronouncements based on what he says he thinks he heard someone told him.)

 

[midori]

Gee, that looks like essentially the entire Western hemisphere has birthright citizenship without restrictions.
(It is really too bad the President of the United States has no way to have someone fact-check for him before he makes pronouncements based on what he says he thinks he heard someone told him.)

Well, how many countries are in the world?

There are 12 in South America, and 23 in North America (which includes Central America). Europe has 50 countries. Asia has 48 (?) countries. Africa has 54 countries. Oceania has 14 countries.

Ultimately, there are 195 countries in the world. Or maybe it’s 201. Who knows. Something like 200, give or take 5.

35 countries have the principle of jus soli, which is birthright citizenship.

So that’s, what, 18% of all countries?

That 35 countries is also including a lot of little island nations, like Trinidad & Tobago, Fiji, Tuvalu, the Grenadines, Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, and Antigua & Barbuda. If you limited it to "countries with a population of more than 250,000 people, you’d knock out Fiji, the Grenadines, Grenada, Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts & Nevis, and Tuvalu, and bring the number down closer to 12%.

There’s a lot of landmass covered by The New World— but that’s not a whole lot of governments to be able to say “everybody does it”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Your post is all well and good, however, that does not answer my question. You made the claim:

“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.”

Can you give me the case where anyone has done this? It is okay to say “well, I was wrong”.

 

[AdamP88]

Well quote me one magisterial document that supports this.

 

[Godfollower]

I would also be interested in reading such a case.

 

[midori]

Can you give me the case where anyone has done this? It is okay to say “well, I was wrong”.

Are we not talking about the news article that said–

Migrants traveling to US sue Trump, government; claim violation of constitutional rights​

A dozen migrants traveling by foot from Honduras to the U.S. to seek asylum filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others, claiming a violation of their due process under the Fifth Amendment.

etc, etc, etc.

Or the news article from CNBC

Migrants in caravan sue Trump and his administration, alleging ‘abuse’ of ‘constitutional rights’​

• Honduran migrants traveling in a caravan to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are suing President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other key figures, arguing the administration’s stance is “shockingly unconstitutional.”
• The class-action civil suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., claims Trump “continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States.”
• The suit asks the federal court to declare a number of Trump’s recent policy proposals to be in violation of the supreme law of the land “to end this case and controversy.”

From The Week (who are they?)–

Six Honduran migrants in the caravan slowly making its way through Mexico have filed a class-action lawsuit against President Trump’s stated plans for their reception at the U.S. border.

The suit alleges Trump “continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States.” It argues his intent to refuseasylum to those who enter the U.S. illegally violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as current law allows asylum applications regardless of entry point.

 

[midori]

Or from The Hill–

Central American migrants who are part of the caravan traveling toward the U.S.-Mexico border have filed a class action lawsuit against President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other members of the administration.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, six Honduran migrants and their children argue that Trump cannot legally stop them from seeking asylum in the United States.

The migrants allege that Trump and his administration are violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from denying anyone life, liberty or property without due process of law.

etc, etc, etc.

This is like stuff that started on Thursday. Yeah, it’s old news with dust on top, but it’s not so old that it stops being current events.