I said NOT here on a resident visa.phil19034:
People on a resident visa are here legally. So what of their children?
I fail to see how birthright citizenship teaches children to despoil their fellow citizens. It is one way to accommodate the needs of those who were born here through no fault or merit of their own. It is not the only one, but it is not an immoral or unjust one, either. Those with the office of teaching faith in morals to the Body of Christ have spoken on that; it is not up for dispute.
Exactly! So why would you imply that only Democrats welcome immigrants? That is not fair.
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…)
This goes for ANY resident of the US–including illegal immigrants. No one has a special status under the law simply because they are a citizen (other than obvious things like voting, holding certain gov. jobs, etc.)
No one said it was a position of “the universal church.” And no, you don’t have to support it simply because the USCCB support it. The USCCB is not being misleading, they’re simply stating their opinion.
I don’t see any comparison. You are describing an employer-employee situation. It has nothing to do with citizenship.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.
That isn’t how it works. The parents of US citizens are not given a choice whether or not to take their kids with them. The parents are arrested and placed in detention (prison) awaiting removal, which can take a couple of months depending on where they are from. In the meantime the children are taken from their custody and immediately placed into foster care. The children are sent randomly in the nation and typically never see their parents again.
Statehood is more likely - but not anytime soon.
You misunderstood me. Everyone is subject to our laws, but not everyone is granted the same privileges.phil19034:
This goes for ANY resident of the US–including illegal immigrants. No one has a special status under the law simply because they are a citizen (other than obvious things like voting, holding certain gov. jobs, etc.)
But the episcopal conferences do not unless the Apostolic See has granted otherwise in a particular case (as the USCCB statutes say, “Decisions of the Conference are normally devoid of juridical binding force.”). Otherwise, each bishop has to essentially make the USCCB decisions his own. This particular document does not reference a single bishop or the Apostolic See, only one attorney (I’m sure some bishops have made it their own or expressed the same judgment, and that should be given the appropriate respect by those subject to them).
Not true according to the Roman Catholic bishops. The Roman Catholic Bishops USCCB statement says: “The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship”.
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.