8 Comments

A niggle, perhaps but there is not agreement on birthright citizenship.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Jason. This article from SCOTUS blog seems to me to cover the issue fairly persuasively!

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/a-history-of-birthright-citizenship-at-the-supreme-court/

Expand full comment

I expect SCOTUS will get another look at this. It needs to be narrowed to exclude illegals.

Expand full comment
1dEdited

“Illegal” is an adjective, not a noun, describing actions, not people. There are no “illegal” persons, and “illegals” is ugly both stylistically and morally.

I could be wrong, of course, but I expect the majority of SCOTUS justices will, in fact, do their job and confirm what the 14th Amendment actually says, and the president will not get the change he wants that way. Those who want to change what the 14th Amendment says will, I expect, have to try to do it legislatively.

Expand full comment

We all know the meaning of language. I'm fine calling them criminals. And no, the country owes them not a thing, nor their progeny. If an individual wishes to be generous with their own money, they have my blessing.

Expand full comment

You are welcome to your views, Jason! I am here today to explain Catholic Social Teaching. People who disagree with the Church, disagree with the Church.

Expand full comment

The Catholic church believes it is the government's responsibility to subsidize criminality? or that it should be legal for individuals to do so?

Expand full comment