Birthright Citizenship and Catholic Social Teaching

In this episode you’ll hear about the issue of birthright citizenship and whether Catholic Social Teaching has anything to say about it.

Here are references and notes:

1. Executive Order that would end birthright citizenship for certain immigrants
2. FAQ about the Executive Order from the Legal Defense Fund, an entity that is opposed to the Executive Order
3. Article about Senate hearing on birthright citizenship held March 12, 2026
4. Full transcript of Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 1, 2026
5. Takeaways from Supreme Court arguments, CNN article April 1, 2026
6. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Brief Submitted to Supreme Court
7. Selected Catholic commentaries critical of USCCB brief by Kelsey Reinhardt, Philip Lawler, and Jacob Neu
8. US Bishops Brief Gets Mixed Reviews, article from National Catholic Register March 6, 2026, with links to both critical and supportive views
9. Projection: Repealing Birthright Citizenship Would Significantly Increase the Size of the U.S. Unauthorized Population
10. German research showing birthright citizenship impact on education and youth crime
11. Catholic Social Teaching: Call to family, community and participation
12. Podcast website with full transcripts for this episode and all other episodes

Transcript

Welcome to “Headline News and Catholic Social Teaching,” where we take a brief look at stories in the news, not from a left or right political perspective, but through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.  I’m your host, Tom Mulhern, and my hope, as always, is that this podcast will help us grow in our love of God and love of our neighbors.

In this episode you’ll hear about the issue of birthright citizenship and whether Catholic Social Teaching has anything to say about it.  As we’ll see, the answer to that question is somewhat complicated.

So, here’s a recap of the news story.  One of many Executive Orders issued by President Trump back in January 2025 aimed at ending birthright citizenship for certain immigrants.  Specifically, it would deny citizenship to any child born in the United States after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents do not have US citizenship or permanent immigration status.

This is contrary to current US law, which uses the legal principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, to extend citizenship to anyone born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.  The only significant exception are children born to foreign diplomats temporarily residing in the United States.  Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the US constitution in 1868 when the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to repudiate the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, which had ruled that slaves and former slaves were not US citizens.  

The 14th Amendment states that “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.”  The Executive Order focuses on that phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that persons born of parents who are not US citizens or permanent residents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now, that phrase has been challenged in court before, and the courts have previously determined that anyone born in the United States – regardless of their parents’ citizenship status – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and entitled to birthright citizenship.  

Since President Trump issued the executive order, federal judges in multiple district courts have issued preliminary injunctions against it, which have prevented the order from being implemented until these legal cases are resolved.

This case has already made its way to the US Supreme Court, where on April 1, 2026, justices heard oral arguments from both sides in a case that is labeled Trump v. Barbara.  There are links in the notes.  A written decision from the Court is expected in June or July.

Now, a number of entities submitted “friends of the court” briefs to the Supreme Court in connection with this case, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The US Bishops joined with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network in submitting a 29 page brief in support of preserving birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.

While the Bishops’ brief makes reference to some of the legal arguments for retaining birthright citizenship, most of the brief focuses on Catholic teaching and morality.  Here’s a quote from the summary of the brief: “The intended and unintended effects of the Executive Order are immoral and contrary to the Catholic Church’s fundamental beliefs and teachings regarding the life and dignity of human persons, the treatment of vulnerable people— particularly migrants and children—and family unity.”  

So, that’s the argument that the brief attempts to make, using a number of references to Sacred Scripture, papal encyclicals, and other sources.  There’s a link to the brief in the notes.

Seems straightforward, right?  Well, not exactly, say a number of Catholic commentators, who quickly responded with several criticisms of the brief submitted by the Bishops Conference.  I’m not going to review all the criticisms, but I do want to summarize some of the more substantive points raised by Catholic commentators who are critical of the Bishops’ brief.  I’ll also include links in the notes to some of these articles.

One criticism is that there is nothing in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that says birthright citizenship is a natural right, as the Bishops’ seem to argue.  And that is correct, you won’t find birthright citizenship described as a natural right in the Bible or any papal encyclicals.

A closely-related criticism is that the Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Church, has not taken a position on birthright citizenship.  And that is also correct, there is no reference to birthright citizenship in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  

Furthermore, commentators note that birthright citizenship is not the law in many countries in Europe and around the world, even though it tends to be the rule in the United States and much of the Western Hemisphere, and again, that is an accurate statement.  

As a result of these kinds of critiques of the Bishops’ brief, some Catholic commentators conclude that there is not really a moral issue involved in the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court, that it is ultimately just a political question, and that Church teaching doesn’t have anything to offer. 

What are we to make of this?  Well, I think the brief from the conference of Bishops to some extent left itself open to criticism by the way it was written.  It could have been improved and it could have provided greater clarity on the points raised by the critics.

But, whatever the shortcomings of the brief’s presentation, it seems to me that the criticisms made by these Catholic commentators’ are missing the point of the Bishops’ brief.  And that point is that bad things are going to happen to vulnerable people if the Executive Order is implemented and birthright citizenship is no longer provided to immigrants in the United States.

Excluding people born here from US citizenship will create a permanent and growing group of people who have lived here all their lives, have never been to another country, and who in some cases may be rendered stateless, which is when a person is not granted citizenship by any nation.  There is no guarantee that the affected children would be granted citizenship by their biological parents’ countries of origin, for a variety of legal and political reasons.  In some cases that will be possible, in other cases it will not be possible.  

And, either way, most of these children will grow up in the United States, for all the reasons that brought their parents or grandparents here: fleeing from war, escaping persecution, trying to support their families, and more, with the added factor that, for these children, the US is the only home they will have ever known.

The Migration Policy Institute and the Penn State Population Research Institute published a report in 2025 showing that repealing birthright citizenship would significantly increase the size of the unauthorized population in the United States – now and for generations to come.  These projections show an increase of 2.7 million unauthorized persons in 20 years and an increase of 5.4 million persons in 50 years – all of them denied the basic rights of citizenship, things like getting a Social Security number, getting a passport, registering to vote, being eligible for certain jobs.  There’s a link to this report in the notes.

Now let that sink in for a moment.  The Executive Order on birthright citizenship is part of a larger effort by the Trump Administration to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States.  But, this study estimates that it will have the opposite effect, increasing the number of unauthorized persons and creating a permanent and growing underclass, as these children grow up and have children, and then grandchildren, on through the years. 

Another way to look at the negative impacts of taking away birthright citizenship – on this group and on American society – are to consider some of the positive impacts of birthright citizenship on immigrants.  And Germany provides a very instructive social experiment in this regard.  

Like many European countries, Germany did not have birthright citizenship.  Then, in the year 2000, Germany instituted a form of birthright citizenship for immigrants who meet certain criteria, but not all immigrants.  That has been in place for 25 years now, which means that researchers can compare immigrants who received birthright citizenship to immigrants who didn’t.  This research shows that, among other benefits, birthright citizenship improves academic achievement and it increases social integration into German society.  

It also shows that birthright citizenship significantly reduces crime.  Immigrant youth with birthright citizenship were recorded as criminal suspects around 70 per cent less frequently in their later teenage years than comparable youths without German citizenship. 

OK, getting back to the Bishops’ brief, we cannot overlook the fact that the birthright citizenship question is not taking place in a vacuum, it is part of a much wider effort that is working to restrict and eliminate pathways to legal immigration in the United States, while at the same time addressing unauthorized immigration in one way only: through detention and mass deportation.

The Catholic Church in the United States, with support from the Vatican and based on Catholic Social Teaching, has taken clear stands against this unwelcoming immigrant agenda, as I summarized in previous episodes  on Refugee Admissions and Immigration Enforcement.  The same applies to birthright citizenship.

Despite its flaws in presentation, what the Bishops brief is saying, to the Supreme Court and to us, is that, in the United States, at this moment in our history, the positive consequences of preserving birthright citizenship are supported by Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching, while the negative consequences of eliminating birthright citizenship are not.

The Bishops’ brief provides a number of references from Scripture and Catholic Teaching that support this contention.  I’ll also provide a link to a general overview of one of the key principles of Catholic Social Teaching that seems particularly relevant here, that is, the call to family, community and participation.  Food for thought, and inspiration for prayer.

Well, that’s all for this episode of “Headline News and Catholic Social Teaching.”  If you found it worthwhile, I invite you to share it with others.  If you’d like to make a comment or send me a message or a question, there’s a link in the notes that will enable you to send a text or voicemail message.

And I do hope that, in some small way, this episode might help us live our lives guided by the Holy Spirit through the teachings of the Church.  

Thank you for listening.