Calling President Trump's executive order abolishing the unconstitutional custom of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States “immoral” and an affront to “God-given human dignity,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops weighed in on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court argument on that issue scheduled for April 1.
One of President Trump's first acts was to sign the Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship. That set off a brushfire of litigation as the non-governmental organizations raking in billions of dollars in federal grants from trafficking in illegal immigrants and the politicians who need their votes and the money doled out to support them banded together to stop a commonsense reform. The issue reached SCOTUS in June, and on June 27, SCOTUS allowed the order to go into effect in states that have not challenged the rule in court.
By way of background, birthright citizenship is the notion that anyone born in the U.S., except when the parents belong to a very small class of diplomats and government officials (see Federal Judge Rules That the Alabama 'ISIS Bride' Is Not An American Citizen – RedState and Jihadi Wife Who Claimed to be American Gets a Reality Check – RedState), is automatically an American citizen. This claim is not supported by the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment and is a subject of abuse.
BACKGROUND:
Stopping Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban May Not Be the Slam Dunk the Left Thinks – RedState
Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? Supreme Court Says It Will Decide – RedState
A Chinese Billionaire Has Over 100 American Citizen Children, How Is This Even Legal? – RedState
The easiest test is the case of American Indians. They were not citizens of the United States until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. However, Indian men on reservations were required to register for the draft under the Selective Service Act, and they were drafted.
Birthright citizenship is an outlier among ways of obtaining citizenship worldwide. Only 33, or possibly 35, countries confer unconditional birthright citizenship. Those countries have one thing in common. They relied on immigration at their founding.
I appreciate the effort, but unrestricted birthright citizenship is a minority position outside the Americas, & the Church hasn't really ever demanded anything more than that nobody be rendered stateless.
— Scott Smith (@hf_222222) February 27, 2026
So the overreach here is probably unhelpful. https://t.co/H3AZftfzI8 pic.twitter.com/lCTsRblgrQ
No European nation recognizes birthright citizenship unless at least one parent is a citizen of that nation. Where that comes into play is if a male with Korean, or Greek, or Italian (cases I know of) parentage, even though they are living in the U.S., enters those nations, they are subject to being drafted; see this embassy warning, for example. If you stare hard at the map, you'll see that Vatican City does not recognize birthright citizenship. Were birthright citizenship an issue of morality or human dignity, surely you'd expect to find it as the international norm.
The arguments raised in the USCCB amicus brief aren't legal, and they aren't Catholic doctrine.
"At its core, this case is not solely a question about citizenship status or the 14th Amendment. It is a question of whether the law will affirm or deny the
— Kelsey Reichmann (@KelseyReichmann) February 26, 2026
equal worth of those born within our common
community—whether the law will protect the human
dignity of all God’s children"
Other Christian theologians have taken a softer approach. Thursday, a tweet by a guy named John Piper (I have no idea who he is when he's up and has these trousers on or why I should give a fat rat's patootie about his opinion) set off a vicious debate on X.
“You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:34
— John Piper (@JohnPiper) February 25, 2026
Christians know the miserable bondage we were all in.
We all know what he was trying to say, but lacked the courage to do so. Or at least many people who know who he is expressed dismay over what they thought he was trying to say. If you speak English, you also know that a "sojourner" is someone passing through. They are not illegal aliens who have decided to take up permanent residence. It is the difference between a guest and a home invader.
The USCCB argument, oddly enough, was written by a guy who called Joe Biden pro-life because, apparently, there are no real pro-life lawyers out there, and it is arrant nonsense.
Amazing: The same lawyer who filed an amicus brief for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops arguing that ending birthright citizenship is “immoral”…
— William Wolfe 🇺🇸 (@WilliamWolfe) February 27, 2026
Also once argued that voting for Biden was the “pro-life” vote. pic.twitter.com/CgDISXKdHx
Refusing to grant citizenship to one of a hundred kids a Chinese billionaire spawned via surrogates does not deprive anyone of dignity, "God-given," "human," or any other type you wish to dream up. They would retain Constitutional rights until deportation, and, contrary to much commentary, they would not be "stateless." They would be citizens of the same country as their parents, a method of achieving citizenship that is universally recognized.
The thrust of the brief contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
It is difficult to see this amicus brief as anything more than the legal and religious version of Dialing-for-Dollars. The USCCB and its affiliated Catholic Charities received about $120 million per year for refugee and immigrant services during the Biden regime. Catholic groups, in general, received over $200 million per year. Catholic Relief Services, which operates overseas and has been alleged to have been part of a pipeline funneling illegals into the U.S., received $521 million from the federal government in 2023 alone.
The USCCB is staking out a position on this issue that is opposed by at least half of all Catholics and the majority of weekly Mass worshippers. The arguments are fatuous and intellectually bankrupt. The civil authority has the right to regulate immigration. You can disagree with the law, but that is a matter of judgment and should not be framed as though it has some theological basis. Though I will say, at least they are consistent. They also oppose turning illegals back at the border, because that, too, provides a revenue stream.
RedState is your leading source for news and views on administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you appreciate our reporting and commentary, please consider becoming a member and supporting our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member