Rewarding lawbreakers with the right to govern?

By Thomas V. Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 02, 2026

Last week the USCCB filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, objecting to President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens as “immoral”. Phil Lawler has already commented on the incoherence of the USCCB’s arguments.

Over the weekend, the well-liked Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, Texas weighed in to defend the brief against widespread criticism, while also perhaps tacitly admitting that its theological arguments are weak.

Bp. Flores wrote in a short thread on X:

It would be good to read the USCCB amicus brief in defense of birthright citizenship. For one thing it reminds us that the 14th Amendment was a deliberate reversal of the dreaded Dred Scott decision denying citizenship to slaves and their children.

See I, A: “To Dismantle The Principle Of Birthright Citizenship Would Undermine Both The Legal And Moral Foundations of American Society.”

One really can’t argue that the Church should have said something when Dred Scott was being decided, but should not say something now.

The sections on harm caused to society and the family by abandoning the principle (II,B-C) are pertinent to the issue of “what happens under our current system if the principle is abandoned”.

...The brief is not primarily a theological argument; it proposes that birthright citizenship is solidly part of US law, and a legal principle that is in deep concord with the Church’s teaching on human dignity, the primacy of the family as a prior social reality that government should respect and protect, the principle of subsidiarity, and the inherently social character of human nature underlying the whole social order.

Bp. Flores, of course, is welcome to his view on birthright citizenship, but I found this comparison unwarranted: “One really can’t argue that the Church should have said something when Dred Scott was being decided, but should not say something now.” Below is my response to the bishop, in which I argued that even if some illegal immigrants who came here out of genuine need, or whose families have been here for decades, ought to be allowed to stay to lead decent lives in America, it does not follow that it would be right to grant them citizenship:

Your Excellency, I’m not following the comparison between the two instances of birthright citizenship. In the original case, these were people who were taken into America by Americans (or proto-Americans) against their will, and whose families had already been in the US for generations, in a state of continual oppression. In the case today, these are illegal immigrants coming in against the will of Americans, whose lawbreaking would be rewarded with citizenship for their children. The origins of birthright citizenship in the Dred Scott case should perhaps suggest that the amendment was not intended for application in such a completely different (even opposite) context.

It seems to me that even if one thinks their lawbreaking was justified due to extreme circumstances, even if one advocates for clemency and allowing illegal immigrants to continue to reside here, it is unreasonable and unfair to also demand that they be immediately granted the right to govern our country. It also sets up horrible incentives.

If the objection is simply to removing citizenship from those who have already been granted it, I can understand that. But as to continuing to grant it immediately and automatically to the children of illegal immigrants—American citizenship isn’t a human right, most countries do not have birthright citizenship, and St. Thomas noted the wisdom of the ancient Hebrews in requiring that strangers reside for few generations in the land before granting them citizenship, so there would be time for proper assimilation.

There are categories of residency short of citizenship which are by no means undignified or oppressive, and which would enable someone in genuine need to live a fine life in the US without being granted what he is not immediately owed, namely a share in the government of this nation. Especially when a family’s existence in this country began with their willingness to break American laws and norms (I daresay to “undermine the legal foundations of American society”), they need a period of time to adjust their mentality.

Finally, the more lavish the benefits we bestow on illegal immigrants, the less sustainable it is to allow them to stay at all. Those who want an amnesty which Americans might actually agree to would be prudent to moderate their demands.