USCCB on Birthright Citizenship

[kainosktisis]

It may be unChristian, but so is coming onto US soil illegally - & putting their child in a position where this could happen (To me it’s basically abandonment) isn’t much better…That should be a criminal offense.

I’m all for legal immigration. My parents are legal immigrants who became US citizens. They endured the hostility of the prejudice of the times back in the 1950s+.

I understand when people come illegally because they’re trying to escape war (I’ve had relatives who’d done that during the Sandinista Revolution), extreme poverty, violence, persecution of all sorts, etc. But I gotta be honest: it makes me mad when I see people doing this & acting like they deserve/demand things…Really?

My poor grandfather endured long separations from his family - like years, working til he had money to send the family up to the US! I wanna laugh whenever I hear people spouting this nonsense! My mom recounted a story to me about how when her father finally rejoined the family, her youngest sister started to scream that there was a strange man in her room (She didn’t even know nor recognize her own father)! He worked on the Panama Canal! Then I see some online thumbing their noses up at the immigrants who’d endured these things, boasting about grants & scholarships for illegals, demanding rights, how they’re illegals living high on the hog after an education in the US…Nice…None of that was offered to my grandparents or parents…It smells to high heaven to me…

Ok…Getting off my soapbox here…

 

[Odilon]

Obviously these days are not like the one’s when your Grandfather came here. There were no government give away’s back then and if the newly arrived immigrant did not work, they did not eat. We have it too easy the politicians have made our country a magnet with all the freebees. I don’t understand this because we only have so much money and when all the illegals get here that means less for the native born citizen. One particular political party, the Democrats, now care more about the foreigner than they do their own fellow citizens.

 

[PetraG]

The USCCB does explain their position in more detail.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...n-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples.cfm
The Church’s position rests on these three principles:
First Principle: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.
At the end of World War II, with the fall of the Nazi empire and the subsequent creation of the Soviet “Iron Curtain,” Europe faced an unprecedented migration of millions of people seeking safety, food, and freedom. At that time, Pope Pius XII wrote Exsul Familia (The Emigre Family) , placing the Church squarely on the side of those seeking a better life by fleeing their homes…
The native does not have superior rights over the immigrant. Before God all are equal; the earth was given by God to all. When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move.
Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.
…Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.
For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation’s immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.
The second principle of Catholic social teaching may seem to negate the first principle. However, principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three. And all Catholic social teaching must be understood in light of the absolute equality of all people and the commitment to the common good.
A country’s regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail.

 

[PetraG]

There probably isn’t a reason that the US could not change its policy so that a child born here had the rights of a permanent resident–that is, so that it is clear a child born here is always welcome here and there would be no chance a child born here could ever become a “person without a nation” or could be expelled from his or her country of birth. Nevertheless, it isn’t a violation of justice per se to take care of the needs of children born here, who might have no evidence of the citizenship status of their parents at the time of their birth but only evidence of the land of their birth, without granting them full citizenship if they had a claim to citizenship in any other nation. I don’t see any reason this would violate justice or mercy; the Church does not hold that all nations must morally have birthright citizenship.
If the Christ Child were born on our soil under any circumstances under the sun, could he be deported because he is somehow a stranger? No, we cannot have that.

 

[Thom18]

They have been since the passage of the 14th amendment.

This has only been the case for about the past half century.

 

[JulianN]

Or since Wong Kim Ark in 1897.

 

[Arkansan]

Birthright citizenship should be repealed because it is an absurd policy.

My thoughts on reading that article are that most of the USCCB’s policy offices should be disbanded.

It would also be helpful if items posted to their website could be timestamped, so that we could readily know which particular political events the authors were choosing to meddle in.

 

[PetraG]

My thoughts on reading that article are that most of the USCCB’s policy offices should be disbanded.

What they write is in keeping with Exsul Familia Nazarenthana

Exsul Familia Nazarethana - Papal Encyclicals

INTRODUCTION The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all … Continue reading →

www.papalencyclicals.net

We take a risky road if we presume that Providence allowed the Christ Child to be a fleeing immigrant by accident. He was no resident of Bethlehem, either, but the child of strangers, held to be of no account. What is the message for us from St. Luke about the conditions that met Our Lord and his Holy Mother just prior to His birth? Why are those included in that Gospel?

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me” is quite clear. We know that those who fail that dictum have reason to tremble at the prospect of that Final Judgment we all must face. The clergy have a responsibility to remind us of what we have been told Justice demands of us, lest we forget the standard we are to be held to.

 

[Arkansan]

He was no resident of Bethlehem, either, but the child of strangers, held to be of no account.

Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral homeland. That’s why he had to go there for the census. Because nationality in those days was determined by ancestry not nativity.

Jesus was not a migrant but a refugee. He set a good example for refugees by going back to where He came from once the danger passed. He certainly never claimed to be an Egyptian.

 

[Arkansan]

Exsul Familia Nazarenthana

Does not say that people have a right to citizenship in whatever country they happen to be born in.

 

[Arkansan]

This is a Japanese person apparently:

 

[PetraG]

Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral homeland. That’s why he had to go there for the census. Because nationality in those days was determined by ancestry not nativity.

Jesus was not a migrant but a refugee. He set a good example for refugees by going back to where He came from once the danger passed. He certainly never claimed to be an Egyptian.

“Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…I was…a stranger and you gave me no welcome.” When they protested that they’d never failed to welcome anyone who resembled him, Our Lord said this would be the answer those making such a protest would receive:
“Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.”

There is no straw-splitting in that Gospel about anything you are talking about.

Again, you are right in saying that there isn’t a moral requirement that every nation offer birthright citizenship! I never said there was. The Church doesn’t say there is. I am saying, however, and the Church is saying that those who get to a country first do not have a right to preserve their own pursuit of a high standard of living at the expense of other people who need to migrate to live. Most of us in this country are the descendants of just such immigrants. We need to be mindful of how lucky we are that those who vehemently opposed the migration of our own ancestors did not carry the day!

 

[PetraG]

Jared Taylor is a very interesting choice of the child born in Japan of American parents.
May I ask why you chose him as an example?

 

[Arkansan]

He’s the first example I thought of. And a good demonstration of how far removed the American mainstream is from the world norm, since he was not only born in Japan but lived there the first 16 years of his life, but probably would not be able to get back in (on a permanent basis anyway).

 

[Odilon]

A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail.

No, not so. The American governments only concern is that of it’s own citizens. There is no constitutional mandate to help out any other nation’s citizens, to take money from it’s own taxpayers and give it to others, or allow them into our country - none whatsoever! We as a nation simply cannot afford to be the catch-all nation for the poor of the world. Any help to other people must come from individual charitable giving.

 

[JerryZ]

Any one interested on this topic and wants to make a more informed opinion check “Jus sanguinis” check how many countries actually apply it today.

 

[PetraG]

The vast majority of people who want to come here are motivated by a desire to improve their own standard of living. There’s no reason why we should sacrifice our own standard of living (and that of our children and countrymen) just to better theirs.

Well, there is the Golden Rule. There is the 2nd Great Commandment.
Honestly, who in their right mind would not sacrifice an earthly “standard of living” over a very plain description of the conditions by which they will be judged either worthy of eternal life or more fit instead of eternal damnation? It isn’t as if the refugees are so thick that they’ll literally be taking food out of our mouths.

Again, there is no reason to say that birthright citizenship is a moral imperative. It is a lot dicier to harden our hearts towards immigrants because we don’t want to “lower” ourselves to a standard of living that is still leagues more comfortable and secure than the Lord of the Universe lived.

 

[Odilon]

This is not for the government to do, this is for the individual Christian to do via his own free will in the form of charitable giving. My ancestors came here legally, they did not bang on the door of the nation along with thousands of others demanding to be let in.

 

[PetraG]

No, not so. The American governments only concern is that of it’s own citizens.

That is politics, not the Gospel. For crying out loud, the Law and the Prophets were clear, too:
“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 22:21
“…you shall have one statute for both the resident alien and the native.” Numbers 9:14 and 15:15-16
“For the Lord your God…loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 10:18-19
“The Lord watches over the strangers…” Psalm 146:9
The aliens shall be to you as citizens, and shall also be allotted an inheritance. Ezekiel 47:21-22
“…show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels…” Hebrews 13:1-2

Jews remember they have been transients and a nation of people with no land–I do not mean all, but that this is the message of Passover. Christians? Sometimes yes, but sometimes, not so much…how is it that we cannot remember that we ourselves were illegal for centuries before Constantine converted?

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.

 

[Arkansan]

Well, there is the Golden Rule.

There is piety. Which commands us to love our own people and our own children more than others.

There is the 2nd Great Commandment.

Which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. So if you (the general you) want to live in a place with low crime and a single language and culture, you should desire the same thing for your fellow Americans.

Honestly, who in their right mind would not sacrifice an earthly “standard of living” over a very plain description of the conditions by which they will be judged either worthy of eternal life or more fit instead of eternal damnation?

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.