USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuizBowlNerd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

QuizBowlNerd

Guest
I remembered reading this a year or two ago and in light of today’s news, I decided to revisit it. I would welcome any thoughts as to what bearing this should have on the position American Catholics take on the issue.
 
This isn’t true. They would get citizenship from the parents for the countries they are citizens of.
  • Depends on the other country’s rules regarding children born abroad…
Citizenship should only pass from a citizen parent to child. I.e. one parent should have to be a citizen for the child to be a citizen of the US.
  • I disagree with this myself, but even if it were objectively true, changing it would require a constitutional amendment.
 
The open borders policy means that our border is controlled by the Mexican criminal gangs. Supporting this is very gravely immoral.
 
I’m not really understanding birthright citizenship.

Will a child born to parents who are here illegally be granted citizenship?
 
PaulfromIowa said:
The open borders policy means that our border is controlled by the Mexican criminal gangs. Supporting this is very gravely immoral.
Click to expand...
Granting citizenship to children born here does not empower Mexican criminal gangs, and therefore is not immoral at all.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer said:
Why exactly should people whose parents aren’t citizens be granted citizenship? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the historical context of Section 1 of the 14th amendment? It made perfect sense in 1868.

It can be argued that it should be changed. But that requires a constitutional amendment. The USCCB argues it should not be changed. It’s not a doctrinal position, we should give weight to what the bishops have to say, but it’s not binding.
 
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?
 
No, not really. Section 5 of that same Amendment leaves the statutory decision up to the Congress. This can be fixed by a law, no new amendment is needed. Section 5: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”.
 
I am opposed to birthright citizenship, as the idea that you can illegally sneak into this country and then have any children you happen to give birth to here automatically be citizens seems absurd to me. However, I don’t see how this policy can be changed without a constitutional amendment. The 14th Amendment is worded pretty clearly: “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.”
 
I disagree it was its “only” purpose. Dred Scott overturned long-standing English common law principles and the 14th restored them, certainly for slaves but for immigrants as well.
 
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? This makes no sense at all. In fact, the writer of this Amendment spoke on the Senate floor and clearly said that this would not be the case. The Amendment was for the freed slaves and their children who were born here, not everyone.
 
Well, yes a counter Amendment would be the best way to go, but barring that a change in the law by the Congress for a start and then after some leftist organization files suit a hearing before the Supreme Court to decide this issue.
 
Last edited:
The USCCB should stay out of this.

The issue here is that there are some nations (China and Russia for example) where companies offer “Birth Tourism” travel packages for pregnant mothers.

Pregnant mothers in these nations fly to the United States just to give birth. They stay in hotels until they go into labor, have their children become US citizens, and then they all fly back to their nation.

There are even some that offer luxury packages that cost as much as $75,000. NBC News said that some of these travel companies have even picked Trump hotels (most likely today as a “middle finger” to Trump).

The 14th Amendment did not intend this.

Section 1 of the Amendment says the following (notice the bold/italicized):
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Again, this is NOT what the 14th Amendment intended.

Plus, the idea that kids will lack citizenship is ridiculous. Most countries today offer citizenship to children of their citizens. Some (like Italy) even offer citizenship to grandchildren of citizens. So there is no reason why we cannot stop the abuse of “pregnant tourism” and people illegally crossing the boarder just to have kids on American soil.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top