The Question Prolife People Should Be Asking…

The Question Prolife People Should Be Asking… August 20, 2015

is not “Would you lie to protect Jews when the Nazi jackboots are at the door?” but “Would you lie to protect Latino kids born and bred on US soil all their lives from GOP jackboots coming to exile them to a foreign country for the crime of being born?” It’s a much more live possibility and something that no seriously prolife person should countenance for one second. Being born is what we are supposed to be all about, isn’t it?

Sure, it’s easy to laugh at clowns like this:

But this clown is taken with growing seriousness by a growing number of people who *love* that he wants to repeal the 14th Amendment as (I kid you not) “unconstitutional“. (Only the Second Amendment is inspired and inerrant Scripture. The 14th is Apocrypha.)

Indeed, a large portion of the GOP field are tripping over each other to endorse the cruelty of exiling kids for being born brown on American soil. And out there, well past the limits of sanity, some putative members of the Right now not only want to obliterate the constitutional order established after the Civil War, they also want to (again, I am not making this up) reinstitute slavery.

And it’s all fueled and supported by a Frankenstein base of anti-Catholic kooks and bigots who supplement their naked racism with some good old fashioned fear and loathing of us Romanists. Why on earth would a Catholic make common cause with that?

This insane and evil changeling that has somehow taken the place of a once-noble political tradition cannot commit suicide fast enough. And no Catholic should touch it with a bargepole. It is our enemy, not our ally.

"Have you heard the latest? Many scientists are convinced that the theory of evolution as ..."

Since folks found Eons to be ..."
"Dear Pater, relax! Ben doesn't seem to believe that being gay is a religious thing ..."

A reader puzzles over criticism of ..."
"Many things are sinful. Your obsession seems singular."

A reader puzzles over criticism of ..."
"I am intelligent enough to say all when I mean all. If I don't say ..."

A reader puzzles over criticism of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph

    Wow… reading the comment thread to that Gov. Abbott incident. All I can say is, Catholics shouldn’t be looking to Protestants for allies. It appears they’re more fundamentalist now than they were 30 years ago. We’re on our own. This makes me sad.

    • Dave G.

      Strange, after ten years of being Catholic, I didn’t think Catholics were looking to Protestants for allies. Certainly not on the blogosphere.

      • Joseph

        I’ve been a Catholic for 10 years as well. I always thought that, especially on the blogosphere, Catholics were looking to change the false perception that Protestants have of the Church and join with them to fight for the common good. It appears that all started going to crap about 3-5 years ago and a new Jack Chickism has arisen. It’s like they’ve abandon all reason and regressed back to their Suthin’ Babtist stage of development.

  • Andy

    “The Donald” strikes again – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3204288/Donald-Trump-claims-UFC-champion-Ronda-Rousey-likes-despite-fact-recently-slammed-GOP-candidate-said-wouldn-t-vote-him.html – read the whole article and don’t be mislead by the title.
    This man is walking example of hubris, idiocy and a role model for the worship of mammon. And conservatives can support him? Damn!
    It would seem that the Catholic Church is as Joseph below says is on its own and that we need to recognize this and prepare.

    • Ken

      If the Pope doesn’t follow his advice I bet Trump will rip him on Twitter. It will be awesome!

  • Ken

    Donald Trump is the first internet troll to run for office. He’s aware that if something is in the constitution than it’s constitutional? So we’re going to change the laws and retroactively deport people that were citizens? Who does this include people that have lived here for 10, 20 years? How exactly does this work?
    I’m convinced that his supporters know and don’t care that he has no chance of being President they just enjoy him saying infantile things. Congrats, we’ve just elected Clinton or Sanders President. You think Obama acts like a Socialist? He’s a lightweight compared to these two.

    • SteveP

      Yeah – a troll: if a woman, unrelated to you, gives birth in your house, that child now has a right to stay in your house, with its mother and father, and you have no recourse to enforce who may or may not cross the boundaries of what you call your home.
      .
      Please give me your address that I may see such charity in action.

      • Ken

        You’re right. Let’s forget the Constitution and round up all of these people. How exactly is this going to work? He’s not saying this is a practice going forward he’s saying that somehow we’re going to investigate people that are currently living here that we’re born by undocumented Aliens and throw them out of the country. How would this possibly happen? We’re going to launch the biggest investigation in the history of the country and try to figure out who and wasn’t born in this fashion? What about the people that were born by people that weren’t citizens but are now citizens? Do we throw them out as well? Is this all going to be done by some sort of court system? How long would it take? What government agency would perform this? How much would it cost? Yeah, the government is so great in undertaking large projects that nothing could possibly go wrong in trying to figure this out. If there are 11 million undocumented Aliens how many kids have they born? How far back do you go?
        He’s a little short of specifics. You understand that the President is responsible for upholding the Constitution? He basically said he doesn’t care about that because “lawyers” told him it would be okay. It’s completely and utterly absurd.
        I can’t believe I actually responded. Can I have the last 5 minutes of my life back?

        • Andy

          Actually it is in the oath of office for all federal officials to uphold the constitution – doesn’t look like any one is doing that – or has done that for many years. I would guess it goes back I don’t know – I guess it pre-dates FDR.
          I think that instead of the Common Core what is needed is an actual civics course for all students and instead of MSNBC, FOX News, CNN … a remedial civics for all adults
          so that we know and understand the constitution.
          By the way your response was excellent.

          • Ken

            Thanks.

        • SteveP

          Surely the NSA programs you have been funding have the information. Kinda like you know who ought to be in your living room and who ought not.

          Still waiting for that address . . .

          • Ken

            If there was a constitutional amendment that said I would have to abide by having people live in my house after giving birth I would have to do so. You see, I live in the US and I have to follow it’s laws. If I don’t like them I have to leave or have them changed. It’s really not complicated. Unfortunately, you and Trump don’t seem to have any concept on how the law actually operates. You, I really don’t care about but having Trump run for office and not understand the basic mechanics of the constitution is kind of a problem.
            Perhaps Obama should decide what part of the constitution he doesn’t like and use force to take away things that bothers him about it. He really doesn’t like the Second Amendment. Perhaps he should have law enforcement retroactively remove the guns from all citizens. How would that go over?

            • SteveP

              Yeah, I didn’t think you practiced what you preach – “Action, that’s for the other guy. I’m the thinker” is your motto.
              .
              Think better.

      • ivan_the_mad

        Allrighty then, Judith Jarvis Thompon.

    • Joseph

      There is a Bernie Sanders fabricated *grassroots* movement (similar to the Obama one… meaning it’s heavy on the propaganda… meaning its source is from the enemy) that is a bit concerning. Though I agree with him on some things, I know him by his stripes. It’s the same thing here in Ireland. Sinn Fein has some good ideas and intentions that I’m actually not opposed to, but I know if they get elected, the tri-colour will have a hammer and sickle added to it. It’s a sticky situation. Then you have Hilary. Holy crap, no. Then you have Bush – cafeteria Catholic GOP head; Rubio – anti-Catholic GOP head; Cruz – anti-Catholic GOP head… basically, American Catholics, foreign targets for state-sanctioned slaughter, and unborn babies are screwed. Trump isn’t going to win anything. He’s just there for entertainment and to prove that the predictions in Idiocracy have come true for America.

      • Ken

        The problem is that all the Republican party was trying to rise above this has now decided to go to the gutter with him and are actually agreeing with this lunacy. It’s giving away the election by allowing themselves to look like utter fools. This part of the GOP base that is supporting Trump and others like him is killing the party and allowing the US to fall into super crazy Liberal waters that will have ramifications for decades.

        • Joseph

          Methinks that’s what the media wants us to think. Similar to their coverage of their sacred cow: Planned Parenthood.

          • Ken

            The media isn’t creating Trump or him calling people “dummies,” or demeaning women or coming up with the imaginary wall or his poll numbers. If the GOP wants to win they have to capture the Hispanic vote or at least get a sizable amount of votes. Saying they are going to amend the constitution or just ignore it isn’t going to happen. They’re promoting polices that aren’t going to happen and while doing so alienating a very necessary voting block. I’m really sick of them making stupid decisions and blaming the media.

            • masterhibb

              I’m unsure the veracity of the claim, but I’ve heard that legal Hispanic immigrants dislike illegal immigration more than the average natural-born American. If that’s actually true in the main, maybe taking a harder line on illegal immigration isn’t exactly the disaster you paint in terms of garnering support from the only part of the Hispanic vote that should actually be voting.

              • Ken

                Here is a poll by the Wall Street Journal. It’s from Aug 3rd but still

                The poll of 250 Hispanic adults found that 75% had a negative view of Mr. Trump, the real-estate mogul who announced his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination mid-June. Some 13% said they had a positive view of Mr. Trump.

                That’s not good. It’s a fast growing block of voters that the GOP needs.

                • masterhibb

                  So…roughly the same approval (positive view) percentage as Hispanics who identify as Republican. Interestingly, his overall approval rating (stats I found were preferred candidate, not “positive view”, so it’s not quite the same metric) seems to be just about as in-line with overall percentage of the population that identifies as Republican (if not slightly lower).

                  I find your statistic to be less than conclusive.

                  • Ken

                    George W won 40% of the Hispanic voters and won and Romney got 27% and lost. They have to win or at least get a better showing out of this group or they are going to lose again. No one has won the White House in the last 25 years without 40% of the Hispanic vote. I don’t think the GOP should just throw their hands up in the air and concede defeat over this group. In order to win this election and future elections they have to get this block to vote for them. It’s the fastest rising population and they are becoming politically active.
                    In the past a GOP candidate could win with just the white conservative voters but that’s not the case anymore. Now young people, women and minorities are voting and if the GOP doesn’t capture those groups they won’t win. Romney proved that.

                    • chezami

                      Oh, Trump and the Frankenstein base of the GOP have galvanized the Latino vote alright.

                    • Ken

                      I’m sure it’s the media’s fault. They really aren’t chasing policies that will upset them. Let’s see, building a wall that Mexico will pay for, calling them rapists, pursuing laws to stop and detain them without reason, planning to renounce their citizenship and deport them, standing with guns on the border. I’m sure I’m leaving out a much longer list. Actually, it’s surprising they only have a 75% disapproval rating.

  • Jim

    So have you changed positions on the decieving to investigate abortion question? If so, isn’t this entire post a big old red herring from this ethical issue?

    You are presuming Catholics who are conservative and vote for the GOP are anti-immigration/racist/anti-immigrants. I think this is a false presumption, the anti-immigrant/nativist wing of the GOP is composed of poorer WASP’s and Calvinist Scotch-Irish in the midwest and south, and goes back to the Know-Nothings prior to Civil War (at least). These people aren’t Catholics. I am not going to vote for a nativist president. I don’t think that precludes me from voting for someone who will increase border security and clarify the legal pathway to US citizenship. For me this leads me to favor Rubio or Bush, who each have immigration reform plans which seem to align with Catholic teaching on this issue.

    Your false presumption of nativism and racism among people who may disagree with you on the Abortion ethics question also turns to an ad hominem attack on fellow Catholics, rather than engaging with the actual ethical question at hand: “Was Center for Medical Progress morally justified in lying to Planned Parenthood to discover and publicize the brutal killings and sale of pre-born infants?” Why don’t you actually address that question, instead of distracting and presuming bad faith from those who might disagree with you.

    • chezami

      Sigh. No. I haven’t changed my position. I’m pointing out that while conservatives are bravely imagining themselves defying Nazis in an action movie, the party they support is actually proposing sending jackboots to round up and exile people for the crime of being born–all while boasting their “prolife” credentials.

      • Ken

        They’re also all about the family and the Constitution. This would rip apart families and use the Constitution as toilet paper. Sure, let’s elect a guy who thinks that he can pick and choose parts of the constitution and use force to uphold the parts he dislikes. What could possibly go wrong?

        • ManyMoreSpices

          How would it “rip apart families” to deport an entire family?

          I’m not saying that ending birthright citizenship is correct or that deportation is the answer, but the complaint is that illegal alien parents are de facto legalized by having a child here, because you can’t deport the child. Making the child deportable along with his or her parents doesn’t break a family up.

          • Ken

            You’re right I was going too fast and wasn’t thinking that part out. Thanks for the correction.

      • Jim

        Look, Mark. I don’t want to fight with you about this. I have been shocked by these videos, as someone who was relatively active in pro-life activism (i.e. praying at abortion clinics, and donating to crisis pregnancy centers). I just think that smearing the entire GOP as the party of ‘let’s exile immigrants’ is fair, and I think it detracts from the issue at hand of ethics of Center for Medical Progress’s actions. I personally am not sure what I think about the ethics of their acts. At Notre Dame, Charlie Rice taught us that there are situations where one can justifiably lie, viz: when the person to whom one is speaking is not entitled to the truth.

        My understanding, at least, is that this is still a live issue of ethics in Catholicism.

        I loath the fact that the GOP has a strong nativist strain at present, and am not going to support a nativist candidate for president. I think that there are several candidates (with good chances of getting elected) that aren’t in that group.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          At Notre Dame, Charlie Rice taught us that there are situations where one can justifiably lie, viz: when the person to whom one is speaking is not entitled to the truth.

          Here’s the problem with that: it’s easy to argue that very few people are ever actually “entitled to the truth.” A co-worker asks you what you did over the weekend. Is she “entitled” to that information? No, of course not. You can decline to tell her about your barbecue or yard sale or Netflix binge.

          But do you think you can lie to her?

          • Jim K

            No, of course not. The problem with your argument as I see it, however, is that you are arguing against the existence of a moral precept of natural law based on the inability of many people to follow that precept due to a poorly formed conscience. The fact that many Catholics use the ‘medical’ contraception exception doesn’t mean that there isn’t such an exception (look in Humanae Vitae if you disagree.) The most difficult problem with the precepts of the natural law however is how to apply them. Often the magisterium gives us clear guidance but not always.

            • ManyMoreSpices

              His examples were… the press asking an attorney a question about his client and the attorney saying he didn’t know the answer.

              I’m a lawyer, and if answering a question requires me to reveal any information that I may not disclose, I will not answer the question. I don’t lie about the extent of my knowledge. Lying is unnecessary (saying “no comment” accomplishes the same thing), and a lie may turn out to be more revealing/harmful than I intended, if the lie suggests something about our conversations. Suppose I’m asked if my client – accused of polluting – dumped toxic waste into a river. If I say “I don’t know,” you can infer that my client hasn’t talked to me about whether he did it. You could further infer that my client doesn’t take waterway pollution seriously if he doesn’t even bothered to talk to his attorney about it.

              Whether lying is always immoral is a question that I’ve spent some time working through. And what has struck me about all the hypotheticals is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to construct one where telling a lie is literally the only option to bring about a good end. The classic example reaches back seventy years and assumes that Nazis were going door-to-door and taking “no” for an answer without conducting a search. Did that ever happen? Does any police force operate this way? Don’t you have something more recent that might actually happen? The less far-fetched the example, the more clear it is that you have options available to you other than lying.

              The problem with your argument as I see it, however, is that you are arguing against the existence of a moral precept of natural law based on the inability of many people to follow that precept due to a poorly formed conscience.

              I would say that the fundamental problem is that you haven’t developed the idea of what it means for someone to be “not entitled to the truth.” And if I can lie to someone who is not entitled to the truth, doesn’t that mean I can lie any time that I could also decline to answer?

        • Sue Korlan

          You were probably at ND a long time ago. The first version of the Catechism gave the definition of acceptable lying that Charlie Rice gave. It was corrected in the second edition.

          • Jim K

            Nope, Charlie rice was still teaching that in 2011, when I had him. I’m a 2013 grad. He pointed out that it was not stated in catechism. His examples were the Nazi at the door as well as the press asking an attorney a question about his client and the attorney saying he didn’t know the answer. I wish he was still alive so I could ask him whether he thinks it applies here.

            Go Irish, btw!!

        • chezami

          sigh. I don’t smear the entire GOP. To quote their leader “Some of them, I assume, are good persons.” I point out that the leader and a large chunk of the field–pandering to a significant and growing portion of their Frankenstein base–enthusiastically support an obvious immoral idea and that those who perpetually cast themselves as the hero in a WWII action movie fantasy should return to reality and realize that it is the party *they* support that is actually proposing evil policies that could place them in situations they fantasize about. In short, this is not a question about the morality of lying. It’s the question, “Are you paying attention to the insane asylum the GOP has become?”

      • Jim

        Also when it comes to defending the 14th amendment, please remember that this is the source from which the liberal judiciary has derived (i.e. spun from whole-cloth) the majority of the excesses of government power for the past 100 years (including: abortion, overruling DOMA, gay marriage, and uncountable expansions of federal power over the states). I don’t think we should get rid of birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment due process clause and the federal guaranty of republican government, have done a lot more harm to our country than good.

      • SteveP

        Ahh . . . then this is a “hit piece”. I understand now.

  • ManyMoreSpices

    Given how much Mark despises the GOP, it’s odd to see him despise even more strongly the guy who’s in best position to tear it asunder.

    • chezami

      Some people will never get it through their head that what I want is for Catholics to get better and stop living by the GOP (or Dem) party line.

      • ManyMoreSpices

        There’s no one more threatening to the GOP party line than Trump. There’s no one who’s doing more to disrupt the same old GOP system – which isn’t serving the Church well – than Trump. And there’s no one who’s doing more to show that following the GOP party line is inconsistent with the Faith.

        No Catholic should vote for Trump for anything above dog catcher, and possibly not even that. I won’t. But seriously, you’re not recognizing that you’re getting what you want here. If you want the GOP, and in particular the Catholics who tend to align with it, to do some soul-searching, this is how it’s happening.

        • Alma Peregrina

          Destroy the GOP by destroying America (and possibly the rest of the World)? Why would Mark want such a faustian bargain?

          • ManyMoreSpices

            America will not be destroyed by Trump. He’s not going to win.

            The GOP, however, may be drastically re-aligned, which is something we should all hope for.

            • Alma Peregrina

              If Trump makes Hillary win, then America will still be destroyed.

              • ManyMoreSpices

                I wouldn’t go that far – Hillary would be pretty bad – but I did laugh. Thanks.

                • Ken

                  When Trump runs against Hillary in polls she crushes him. If he actually gets nominated she will beat him by a wide margin. Trump is a big problem and the GOP, who wants to make sure we don’t get a Hillary or Sanders in office, have to take this seriously and get him out of the race. He’s killing the GOP.

                  • chezami

                    The GOP Frankenstein base is killing the GOP. And its suicide cannot come fast enough.

                    • Ken

                      You better watch it or Trump is going to Twitter you! “That Shea guy is coming after me. Total loser!”

                    • Joseph

                      Mark, I’m Catholic. Not Republican or Democrat… they both pretty much hate me for what I believe and both would like to see my religion disappear forever. However, don’t you think that if you’re willing to accept that the mainstream media is pretty good at deceiving the public on something like the Planned Parenthood scandal that they could also be very good at deceiving the public that a large portion of Republican voters support Trump? Don’t you think it’s possible? Do you seriously believe that such a large portion of Republican voters are that stupid? If you do, then I think you’ve been duped by the same media that you know is duping the other pop culture sheep that Planned Parenthood is *all good*.
                      .
                      You’ve gotta realise that Trump is of their making and is their dream come true. He’s perfect in every way for them.

                    • chezami

                      I think that rather than conspiracy theories about media plots to make self-identified Republicans be gaga for Trump, the Party of Personal Responsibility should, for once, try taking some responsibility for the base of dolts who are gaga or Trump and ask how it manage to miseducate this mob into the horrifying thing it is today.

                    • Joseph

                      Ok, so it’s merely a conspiracy theory, totally implausible? So, in like form the media isn’t trying to cover for Planned Parenthood. Got it. I personally don’t think that such a significant portion of Republican voters are stupid enough to fall behind Trump. Not buying it (and, like sheeply Democrat voters, I believe that the vast majority of Republican voters are not very logical). Just like I’m not buying that Planned Parenthood is an angelic service offering mammograms and is completely kosher with the law… that anyone believing what they are seeing in those videos is just a nutjob fundamentalist.
                      .
                      I’m just saying, you kind of promoting one media conspiracy (that is really happening) but not giving room for another (which is not exactly foreign to them… re: 2007/2008 Obama Messianic syndrome).

              • SteveP

                Well said. The citizens of the USA are debating the question “whose Executive Orders will be less wrong” all the while pretending they really have a say.

              • Joseph

                I think you’re beginning to understand what the tail end of democracy looks like. It inevitably becomes a lose-lose situation. If Hilary, Trump, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, etc., etc. wins, then American will still be destroyed. The differences between them may be the timescale in which the destruction is complete.

          • chezami

            What are you talking about?

            • Alma Peregrina

              I was addressing ManyMoreSpices’ claim that you should be rooting for Trump, since Trump would end the GOP. I said that it was probably not true, because the cost of having Trump win would not be worth it.

              Sorry if I wasn’t clear or if I misunderstood.

        • Ken

          The problem is that the other candidates are starting to stoop to his level. Would you agree that there is a part of the GOP, I hate to call people racists, but they’re at least hostile to immigrants, and minorities? It’s not fair to lump the whole party into this part of the base but the GOP can’t seem to separate itself from it. I think they wanted to in this election but Trump ran it off the rails.
          It’s like professional Hockey. They have hard core fans that love the fighting and will watch every game, buy all their gear and go to every public appearance they can find. The problem is this is a small base of the fans. The NHL won’t stop the fighting because they don’t want to lose this base of fans but it’s stopping them from appealing to the mainstream sports fan that wants to see a better flowing game. The GOP seems to want to at least partially appeal and not lose the people that Trump appeals to but in the end it’s stopping them from having a larger following and to actually win national elections.

          • ManyMoreSpices

            The problem is that the other candidates are starting to stoop to his level. Would you agree that there is a part of the GOP, I hate to call people racists, but they’re at least hostile to immigrants, and minorities?

            Sure. And I’m comfortable saying that there are some racists in the mix.

            I’m not so sure, however, that having other candidates get tugged by Trump’s gravity is necessarily bad.

            Take immigration: there’s a lot not to like about what Trump has been saying, but opposition to absolute birthright citizenship is hardly a fringe position. And it’s clear that countries have a right to police their borders and know who is entering – a right that the United States has functionally surrendered. Neither party is getting serious about securing the southern border, despite large majorities believing that illegal immigration must be curbed. The GOP isn’t listening, though, because they’re busy listening to Chamber of Commerce types who want slave labor.

            So no, I’m not going to panic when the GOP field gets closer to representing the actual views of the majority of the country.

        • chezami

          The Frankenstein base–who are the ones who need to learn–are learning nothing from this. Trumpery is becoming the Party line and more of the field is joining in the zeal to commit the grave sin of deporting American citizens for the crime of being born brown on US soil. I do *not* wish the GOP to embrace this folly so that it can be destroyed (at least, not to the degree that they get their way). But if they are hellbent on embracing it, I do sincerely hope that the elements in the party that are pushing this are completely destroyed as a political force in the GOP.

          • SteveP

            Mark: you cannot deport an America citizen, not that “citizen” means much these days. You can deport people who are not following the legal immigration process. Stop the hysterics. It’s not becoming on you.

            • Ken

              Okay, then what happens to a child that is born a US Citizen but their parents are illegal? Are you going to let them stay or take the whole family? Trump wants to deport the whole family citizen or not.

              • SteveP

                What do you care what the law is; like it or not you will follow it.

                • Ken

                  So you’re just a troll. Got it.

                  • SteveP

                    Dude, those are your words: “You see, I live in the US and I have to follow it’s laws. If I don’t like them I have to leave or have them changed. It’s really not complicated.”
                    .
                    The law is: the child is a citizen, the parents’ status is separate. If they are illegal or legally denied entry subsequent to a legal emigration application they get deported. That’s not complicated now is it?
                    .
                    I’ll say again: think better: the current law makes it possible to legally separate child from parents. The proposal is to have the child’s status subsumed by the parent’s status.

                    • Ken

                      Dude, you can’t deport a US Citizen. There isn’t a way to do that you have to amend the constitution. You have to deport the parents without the kids which no one, not even Trump wants to do. You understand the context of the post? The absurdity of Trump’s stance? He saying to ignore the constitution and throw out U.S. Citizens without changing the constitution. It can’t be done in any legal framework.

                    • SteveP

                      I will quote your words back to you, emphasizing what you wrote: “You see, I live in the US and I have to follow it’s laws. If I don’t like them I have to leave or have them changed. It’s really not complicated.”
                      .
                      Now I will repeat what I said: “The proposal is to have the child’s status subsumed by the parent’s status.”
                      .
                      It’s your job to think better; come to grips with the reality that to change a law is to change a law.

                    • Ken

                      You mean amend the constitution. You change the law by passing new laws but changing a basic part of the Bill of Rights has to be done by amending it. Like I said before the post isn’t about people amending the Constitution it’s about Trump saying the 14 th Amendment isn’t constitutional because his lawyers told him so. Based on that he is advocating deporting citizens. I personally find that to be nuts and his constant stream of crazy is ruining any chance of the GOP winning the presidency. That’s all there is to it.

                    • Joseph

                      SteveP, did Ken say that in the context of some other law? I’m lacking context here.

            • chezami

              The whole point of the assault on the 14th amendment is to decitizenize brownskins born on our soil and kick them out.

              • SteveP

                Nah, you’re just in a mood today.

          • ManyMoreSpices

            The chance that any American citizens will be deported is zero. Z-E-R-O. If birthright citizenship ends, current citizens will be grandfathered in.

  • masterhibb

    The article is dishonest, judging from the actual quotes. He’s not arguing that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional, he is arguing a different interpretation of it–namely that the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the amendment only applies to those whose parents are already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I.e., not to the children of illegal immigrants, and possibly also those on visa–I honestly can’t tell from the information given.

    You know, just like the Supreme Court does when it finds a right to abortion or gay “marriage” in the constitution. The same as it would take to implement “sane gun control” laws. Are those in favor of more gun control arguing that the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional?

    Let’s look at this a bit more charitably, though: if you lived as close to the Southern border as you do to the Northern border, I’d wager you’d have a far different perspective on illegal immigration. You’d probably know a lot more people who have been far more negatively affected by illegal immigration. You’d probably see some of the worse sides of the culture being imported if you lived in a town that was 60% Hispanic rather than 60% White.

    So try putting yourselves in the shoes of someone like that. Someone who may have lost their job or had to take far lower wages because there was a constant supply of illegal immigrants undercutting him. Someone who has seen the crime rate in his neighborhood steadily increase, or the grades in their school district steadily decrease. Someone who been newly exposed to the horrific violence of the Mexican drug cartels now operating on American soil. Someone who has lived in the same place for 50 years, but can no longer speak with his neighbors (or his coworkers) because none of them speak English. There are people who hate illegal immigration–if not mass immigration in general–not because they are racist, but because it has had a direct and striking negative impact on their lives. And I will not begrudge them this hatred any more than the hatred of the 2nd amendment by family members of the victims of a school shooting.

    It doesn’t make the hatred correct, and it doesn’t mean they don’t need to reconcile that feeling with Catholic teaching, but look at the political history of the last 15-20 years; These are people who have an issue that is greatly affecting their lives. Democrats don’t care. Republicans don’t care. Pundits and the media call them racist. State and Local governments flagrantly disobey the existing immigration laws. These citizens’ representatives have not been representing their interests for decades. Now someone is actually talking about being tough on immigration–their issue. You think maybe that would be enough to get their support, even if they don’t like the guy? You think maybe some of them hope that by showing support for an extremist on their side of this issue, it might get some more respectable candidates at least thinking about it, if not making movements in their direction? You think maybe they’re just happy to see someone talking about solving the problems they see, instead of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound and forgetting about it for the next 4 years?

    This isn’t just about racism, Mark. We have very real problems with immigration in this country, and they ain’t all with how we treat immigrants.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      He’s not arguing that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional, he is arguing a different interpretation of it–namely that the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the amendment only applies to those whose parents are already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

      As someone who doesn’t favor unrestricted birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment is a tough call for me. It certainly wasn’t intended to extend to people in the country illegally, but the concept of an “illegal alien” didn’t really exist than as it does today. The situation we’re in just wasn’t contemplated. But as someone who takes the plain text of the Constitution seriously, I have to admit that the case for birthright citizenship is pretty strong.

      And “subject to the jurisdiction” isn’t really helpful. People who aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction include those who have immunity, like ambassadors. Anyone else in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of American law, including those who are here illegally. They can be punished for crimes committed here.

      Let’s look at this a bit more charitably, though: if you lived as close to the Southern border as you do to the Northern border, I’d wager you’d have a far different perspective on illegal immigration.

      I’ve encountered very few people who could be harmed by illegal immigration who speak kindly of it. If your job – like that of a lawyer, teacher, college professor, or English-language Catholic polemicist – cannot be done by someone who swam across the Rio Grande yesterday, you have nothing to fear from illegal immigration. If you’re not fortunate enough to be in that line of work, though… your perspective’s likely to be a little different.

      • Ken

        Perhaps we should focus attention towards giving the people who could and are losing jobs to immigrants from Mexico a better chance to be successful. We’re doing all of this so we can save some people’s super low end job of mowing a lawn or washing dishes? The problem is the middle class that is losing out to workers from India and China who have superior IT skills and will work for cheaper rates. They have excellent engineering and math high schools and colleges.

        • masterhibb

          You’re basically saying “lets let the Mexicans have these crappy jobs, because the Americans can and should be doing better.” Hate to say it, but that sounds just as racist as any of Trump’s comments.

          Every population is going to have unskilled and low-skilled laborers. Should we force all the American landscapers to go to college and take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt, so that they can come out on the other side and…do what, exactly? We still need lawns mowed, but now that’s just for the Mexicans we brought into our workforce. Did this process magically create new jobs? Where are these new, more success-prepared Americans going to work? Are we going to send them down to Mexico to work in the auto factories we offshored?

          • Ken

            The reality is that the lawn mowing to the US is a low end job but to Mexicans, where the dollar goes a lot further, actually makes a difference in their lives. They come over here, share an apartment, do some work, that they don’t have access to in Mexico, make some money and send it home or actually leave. I’m not demeaning what they do they seem more than happy to do it. I live in a major metropolitan area and they do really low end work. I don’t really see lines of American workers wanting to, or to be honest, really wanting those jobs. When I go up to Buffalo to visit I do see a lot of American workers doing those jobs so I do understand that it does hurt people in other parts of the country.
            My point is, and I don’t want to be insensitive, is that we’re talking about rounding people up, building walls ( Mexico isn’t going to pay for it) and rewriting the Constitution to save some very low end jobs I just don’t see that the investment would be worth what we, or the individual worker, would get out of it. It seems better to spend that on our educational system so we can have better educated and skilled work force. My job is recruiting IT talent and there are tons of jobs that need US Citizens that go unfilled. The ones that are able to be filled by H-1’s and Green Cards go to people from India and China. We really don’t see that many Citizens even applying to the jobs. There is work out there for a better trained Citizen. I see if everyday.

            • masterhibb

              So we just hang every American incapable of IT work out to dry? I’ve known plenty of good, honest people, with their own skill sets (and some with their own college degrees), who simply can not get their heads around Algebra. These people are not a good fit for IT.

              I’m not a recruiter, but I don’t see your experience holding as true outside of IT work. What I do see is fewer and fewer kitchens and construction sites where English is spoken, fewer opportunities for small businesses to succeed, and more production of actual goods being sent overseas.

              • Ken

                My point is the opposite. We should be helping the low end American worker so they’re not stuck in those jobs. I know that not everyone can work in IT but there are very successful companies that take workers that are out of work and repurpose them in other industries. It’s done in IT and it can work. The concept that we would deport all these people so Americans can do these low end jobs would allow them to work but it wouldn’t really enhance their lives as much as having more valuable skills and education.

                • masterhibb

                  It sounds nice enough, but how would this work in practice? Where does the money for this additional education come from? What other industries are we shooting for? And what does the unskilled American worker do for work while he is learning the skills necessary to get these better jobs?

                  But I have to disagree with your last sentence; even if you don’t think there are any other reasons to deport illegal immigrants than the reduction in unskilled labor opportunities for Americans, I think you are discounting the immense benefits to a person’s dignity, self-worth, and habit-forming of having even an unskilled job over subsisting on handouts.

                  Not to mention, a man used to be able to make a fair living at an unskilled job in this country. America has the duty to protect her citizens first. Let’s hold off on handing out all of our unskilled labor to non-Americans until there’s more demand for that labor than Americans to fill it–at a living wage. Right now we’ve created an artificial demand for these jobs by importing a new class of serfs so that the more of the upper-middle-class can afford to have a nanny instead of caring for their own children, and more of the middle class can afford to pay someone else to mow their lawn instead of taking an hour each week out of their busy schedule to keep their own home.

                  • Ken

                    It’s at least as practical as building an imaginary wall that Mexico will pay for and deporting millions of people. You’re right the middle class is living off of these people. I really don’t mean to demean any work that anyone performs American or Mexican worker.

                    • Joseph

                      I get your point. But it is the Calvinism in American culture that attaches *success* to material wealth/successful careers/etc. Most of my cousins are doctors/nurses/lawyers/engineers/etc. I went into IT and have had a rather successful career myself doing financially better than many of my cousins. However, some of my cousins had *no interest* in going to college. They are looked at by my mostly Protestant family as those who *need our prayers* and are in the *bless their hearts* category. In other words, rejects, black sheep; simply because they weren’t *built* for higher education. Their opinions on political or any important topics for that matter are treated with the “oh, isn’t that cute… he can talk” response then quickly ignored for the more educated opinions of their financial superiors sitting at the table. It’s an unfair characterisation. I think we need to get out of this mindset that everybody needs to try and attain that special career and come to the understanding that there isn’t anything retarded about blue collar/sweat of your brow work. I also find it insulting (as a person who spent most of his life growing up in El Paso) when people say that *Americans* should let the *Mexicans* have the jobs that are too lowly for them. Americans should be the bosses and the Mexicans should be the perpetual janitors. Most of my friends were Mexican, their parents first generation Americans. They are better people than most Americans, they don’t deserve to be looked at like dogs at the table getting fed scraps. That pisses me off.

                    • masterhibb

                      That’s a very good point. Forgive me for failing to mention the fact that not only are the unskilled Americans harmed by the ersatz caste system Ken is endorsing, but the more skilled Mexicans who are completely overlooked and written off (no less in my own argument) because they are seen as deserving no better. They’re not real citizens, after all, they’re just escaping from a worse life, and should be grateful for the scraps from our table!

                      I’ve heard it said, and I have no difficulty believing, that the people hurt worst by illegal immigration are legal immigrants.

                    • Ken

                      Thanks for bringing that to my attention I wasn’t trying to demean them or anyone who works a blue collar type of job.

      • Guest

        SCOTUS addressed the question in 1898 (US v Wong Kim Ark), and while the opinion doesn’t directly address illegal immigrants it presents what seems to me to be a high wall to climb for those who would claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply there. The Court ruled that Wong, who was “born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” was a citizen of the United States since birth. The most natural reading of that, to my untrained eye, is that it applies to the children immigrants who have found a non-transient place to live here, whether legally or not, and are here for the purpose of conducting their business. A travelling salesman, probably not – but a migrant farmhand, probably so.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          Yeah, Wong does say that – and to that extent, suggests that the Constitution permits something between absolute birthright citizenship and nothing – but I’d advise caution when it comes to any Supreme Court decision from around the Reconstruction period, and really up through the beginning of the New Deal. If other big cases are any indication, the precedential value of something like Wong is likely to be minimal.

      • masterhibb

        “As someone who doesn’t favor unrestricted birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment is a tough call for me. It certainly wasn’t intended to extend to people in the country illegally, but the concept of an “illegal alien” didn’t really exist than as it does today. The situation we’re in just wasn’t contemplated. But as someone who takes the plain text of the Constitution seriously, I have to admit that the case for birthright citizenship is pretty strong.”

        That’s exactly it, isn’t it? What Trump’s actually saying isn’t as wacky as those articles would have us believe. There’s a lot here that reasonable men can disagree on, and there’s a lot of debate that should be happening among and about all the candidates in this election. Instead we’d rather put words like “the constitution is unconstitutional” in his mouth, or paint broadly with the “naked racism” brush. Anything at all to avoid talking about immigration in anything but the most positive platitudes.

    • Igotfreshmilk

      It seems to me that the whole point of having birthright citizenship in the Constitution is exactly for those who would not otherwise have it. No one needs to put into the Constitution that children born in America of citizen parents are citizens. That would go without saying.

      • ManyMoreSpices

        You’re right. And at the time of the amendment, the big issue was the citizenship of slaves, free blacks, and their decendents. The 14th Amendment put that question to rest.

        The question of whether children born of women physically in the United States but there without authorization was not on anyone’s radar, because the concept of an “illegal alien” was foreign to the drafters. The United States didn’t have “immigration law” per se at that time. There were naturalization laws, but in the 1860s and 1870s, there was no INS, no border patrol to speak of. There was customs at ports but that was about it.

    • Joseph

      To anyone who has already done the research or who has had personal experience: I thought that you could not claim American citizenship if you were born on US soil by two non-naturalised citizens! I know a few friends from India on H1B visas that were here with their families, had children in the US, but those children didn’t not have full citizenship status. Can someone correct me if I’m wrong?
      .
      If I’m right about that (it’s been a long time), then what exact *changes* are being proposed here? I don’t understand.
      .
      P.S. This is not a defense for Captain Hairpiece. I don’t support him.

      • masterhibb

        I’m neither a lawyer nor an advocate, so everything I know is hearsay and anecdotal. May as well defer to Wikipedia, as it jives with my experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status

        I’m pretty sure that whatever Wikipedia says about the law granting immunity from deportation after 10 years, it serves as a relatively effective de facto method of preventing deportation, since I would guess many (if not most) municipalities are reluctant to break up families by deporting the parents and consigning the children to CPS. But again, I’ve no statistics to back this up–for all I know there are other incentives for them to do just that.

        That said, if you’re right about the status of your Indian friends, it’s a pretty disgusting example of how much worse we treat immigrants who play by the rules.

  • ivan_the_mad
  • Na

    you have completely lost it …I thought one of the primary points of Pope Francis’ ministry is that we must make common cause with everyone…even if the immediate fruits and proximate good are counter-intuitive and hidden.

    the worst i can say is that you are a merely a product of the age…you haven’t presented any argument against conservativism that doesn’t merely parrot the most hatefilled atheistic talking points…you don’t believe in all things and hope in all things and trust in all things…your only goal is to discourage all though and create another generation of mindless bigots…like your buddy …colbert.

    Catholics are taught the acts are evil not general classifications of people. If you are such a hero, why don’t you write a post on Mexicos immigration policy which makes the US policy look like Disney world. And no…I don’t support Trump,repealing the 14th amendment or the holiness of the 2nd. But more than that, I don’t support illiberal hatefilled bigtory that is unable or willing to engage people, reality or reason.

    • SteveP

      I don’t know why or if Mark is having a bad day/week. While I’m sure the pure Catholics will accuse insincerity on my part, I suggest Mark and his family be added to your intercessions during Evening Prayer and again at Mass on the morrow.

    • chezami

      That is some epic projecting you are doing there.

  • Joseph

    You know what’s amazing to me. There are those who will correctly point out that the media will lie about or hide information to protect their interests. This conspiracy can be evidently seen in how the media has not covered the Planned Parenthood scandal, and when they do it’s always in favour of Planned Parenthood *depite* the overwhelming evidence that paints them in a terrible light.
    .
    The same people will pretend as if the media is being totally honest about Trump and his support in the polls. No conspiracy here. It’s not like they would possibly be trying to deflect the public eye from Hilary’s hipster underground *real* threat Bernie Sanders. It’s not like the media wouldn’t want to keep Sanders hidden under a bushel or anything so that the majority of Democrat voters don’t even know who he is or what he’s about before the primaries. It’s not like they wouldn’t dare trot Trump out as *who the Right really wants* to dissuade Independents from even thinking about joining forces with kooky right-wingers in the presidential election.
    .
    Trump won’t win and he probably doesn’t even have the support the popular media is claiming he does. He will lose the primary to one of a handful of anti-Catholic GOP poster boys… BUT, the Independents will constantly be reminded that Trump ran in the Primaries *on the Republican ticket* to scare them into believing that they would be socially ostracised for daring to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee will be. At the same time, all the focus on Trump gives them a faux *reason* not to cover Bernie, thereby solidifying Hilary as the only choice. But, the conspiracy theory only works when it’s something like abortion, right?

    • Joseph

      correction: …to scare them into believing that they would be socially ostracised for daring to vote for whoever the Republican nominee will be.

    • prairiebunny

      “He will lose the primary to one of a handful of anti Catholic GOP poster boys.” Six of the sixteen candidates on the GOP side are Catholics. If any of the remaining ten has a reputation of being anti Catholic it is news to me.So who are these anti Catholic bigots?

      • Joseph

        Those *Catholics* sure are loyal to the Pope and the Church’s teachings, eh? Yeah, Pelosi is Catholic too.

        • prairiebunny

          So it’s the GOP Catholics that are the anti Catholic bigots, not the non catholics? I’m not following your logic.

    • Ken

      He had to move his rally tonight to a 50,000 seat stadium. Those aren’t holograms created by the media those are real people. Unless the GOP wants Sanders or Clinton in office he has to go. He’s alienating voters that they need to win like Hispanics and Women. I’m afraid it’s too late.
      At some point the GOP needs to stop using the excuse of the media. Every time they make a stupid decision they blame the media. Enough already. If the media has so much influence and power what’s the point? If they’re able to create polls, hide people etc we should just give up and go home?

  • Re_Actor