Only a fool would suggest that there are not valid arguments on both sides but the USCCB has framed this in moral terms and that it evidence of the incoherence of their brief. Birthright citizenship has flown from the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, “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.” While it was meant to grant citizenship to freed slaves, it has been applied universally ever since -- other than the exceptions to the birthright-citizenship policy such as children born to foreign diplomat or born to members of an invading army. But whether it was meant to be applied as universally as it has been, that is a debate.
The bishops insist that “children do nothing wrong by being born in the United States” but that does not necessarily lead to the claim that “depriving an innocent child of his citizenship based upon his parents’ immigration status would be an especially outrageous punishment.” Roman Catholic moral teaching has always allowed states the authority to set their own standards for citizenship. According to their logic here, everyone has an inherent right to citizenship. “Birthright citizenship,” say the bishops, “accords with the Church’s teachings concerning the State’s obligation to uphold and protect human dignity because it treats birth within a community as a sufficient and objective basis for political belonging.” If this is the case, then what about other countries? That is why this is either odd or incoherent.
We can argue the wisdom on both sides of this issue but to claim the moral high ground in favor of birthright citizenship is a bridge too far even for Roman Catholic bishops.
1 comment:
Birthright citizenship became a problem because of chronic abuses.As usual, when politicians and lawyers write an amendment, bill or law, they leave the testy and unforeseen issues of interpretation to the next generation of politicians and lawyers to fix. It is a way to enable the lawmakers of the future to have job security. Also, there is no moral right that the Vatican or any religious entity can use to justify situations where a pregnant woman in the last trimester can fly into the United States, have her baby, return to China or elsewhere, than claim double citizenship. In the future, the newly naturalized American citizen can return and apply to bring the whole family along. An illegal alien without citizenship status also abuses the system. True, the child is helpless in the whole matter. If we were empowered to change the law, we could stipulate that abuses are not permissible, and the law would make some sense. But the second part is more contentious. What do we do about those already here? What about the children, now grown, and somewhat assimilated, unable to even speak the language of their country of origin? Deporting them outright seems just wrong. Well, the truth is that our government, regardless of political parties in power, blew the immigration issue, and by our own ineptness, failed to properly enforce our own existing laws. The best thing would be to let the people already here stay, except criminal elements, but strictly enforce the laws and amend it where necessary for the future. As the border is closed and fairly secure now under the Trump administration, however, we can expect the Left and the Democrats to arbitrarily unravel whatever gains were made should they win in 2028. They will dismantle executive orders out of spite, create more slower bureaucratic red tape, reduce border protection funding, and open the gates to illegal aliens again. Not my own words or an empty prediction, but their own extreme open border agenda remains. Also, the Vatican should have no say in the political solutions needed for a well regulated US border and immigration policy. Obviously, they do not want illegals to enter Vatican City, otherwise they would not have walled it in long ago. Soli Deo Gloria
Post a Comment