These Last Days News - March 2, 2026
We encourage everyone to share this web page with others, especially bishops and clergy.

The USCCB And Clinic Challenge Executive Order On Citizenship...

MORE TIME
"I have asked the cardinals and bishops in My Church to spend more time in prayer and meditation and sacrifice of the senses to obtain the graces necessary for more conversions to My Church, My House upon earth." - Jesus, May 23, 1979

POLITICS
"All high priests of My Son's House will live in the spirit and not be concerned with the politics and worldly living. You will make your choice: you will stand with My Son, or you will be of the world." - Our Lady of the Roses, June 18, 1972

The above Messages from Our Lady were given to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, New York. Read more

LepantoIn.org reported on February 27, 2026:

By Michael Hichborn

It was announced yesterday that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc (CLINIC) filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s Executive Order 14160 – Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.  The executive order was written simply to define the extent to which citizenship may be conferred or denied upon those born to mothers who are not citizens of the United States.  To this purpose, it states:

It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

There is nothing unreasonable or immoral about this at all, but the USCCB and CLINIC decided to moralize it to such a degree that they have established an imaginary intrinsic right to such citizenship rooted in a bizarre notion of “human dignity.”

The USCCB and CLINIC – rather than hire a Catholic with a proper understanding of authentic Catholic teaching – hired Matt Martens, a Virginia-based Baptist whose understanding of Catholic teaching is sketchy at best, to write the brief.  In his opening summary, Martens argues that:

“Birthright citizenship aligns with the Church’s teaching that humans were created as social beings and that political authority is morally bound to affirm and protect the inherent dignity of every human person in the community. In turn, birthright citizenship reflects the Catholic principle of subsidiarity by recognizing persons as members of the community from birth, thereby enabling their participation in civic life and ensuring that state power serves the human person as a social being.”

Nowhere in the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or any other aspect of the Magisterium is there any such claim regarding “birthright citizenship.”  In fact, out of 195 recognized countries in the world, roughly 30 of them confer citizenship upon children by virtue of having been born in that country, and nearly all of them are countries in the Americas.  None of the Catholic countries in Europe – including Italy and the Vatican – have any such notion of “birthright” citizenship, as they confer citizenship upon children born to parents who are citizens.

Be that as it may, the logic of this opening statement doesn’t even follow.  According to the USCCB and CLINIC (via Martens), birthright citizenship “reflects the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.”  Either these individuals have no idea what the word “subsidiarity” means, or they haven’t a clue what “birthright citizenship” means because there is no connection between the two.  Subsidiarity simply means that all matters of governing authority should be handled at the lowest level possible – individual, family, Church, community, and on up.  How citizenship is determined by the federal government has nothing to do with subsidiarity, nor does it have anything to do with human dignity.

The summary of the brief then claims:

“Amici’s opposition to the Executive Order is motivated by their firmly held belief that each person is endowed by God with an inherent dignity that confers certain “universal, inviolable, and inalienable” rights … 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.”

The only way this statement makes any sense is if automatic citizenship granted to those born in a particular country is a universal right rooted in the intrinsic dignity and nature of humanity.  But this is simply not the case.  As I mentioned, there is no universal declaration anywhere in the Magisterium that anyone has a right to citizenship in ANY country.

Martens’ argumentation throughout the amici curiae conflates several matters.  What he suggests is that human dignity is the same as human equality, and that because citizenship is a matter of dignity and equality, birthright citizenship is an inherent right to children born in this country.  This is how he makes the argument:

“Birthright citizenship accords with the Church’s teachings concerning the State’s obligation to uphold and protect human dignity because it treats birth within a community as a sufficient and objective basis for political belonging.
…
By recognizing children as members of a particular political community, birthright citizenship acknowledges the intrinsic value of every human person. In this way, it embodies the Church’s teaching that public authorities must, to be morally legitimate, affirm and protect human dignity.”

Just because the idea of birthright citizenship is in accordance with Church teaching on human dignity, it does not then follow that it is therefore an inherent right.  How do we know?  Because citizenship by blood is also an idea in accordance with Church teaching, and while the two ideas are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to permit one and not the other.  Therefore, the argument for birthright citizenship as an inherent right simply because it aligns with the Church’s teachings on human dignity is false.

The next argument is that birthright citizenship is consistent with the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity.  In this section, the USCCB and CLINIC argue that subsidiarity obliges the highest authority to safeguard and affirm the dignity of those at the lowest levels, and that because birthright citizenship is rooted in human dignity, the highest authorities have an obligation to affirm and support birthright citizenship.  As bizarre and as strange as this sounds, that’s precisely what the argument says:

“Church teaching demands that social structures be ordered such that human persons and families are not treated as passive objects of governance. Subsidiarity thus safeguards human dignity by ensuring that authority remains oriented toward the person as a social being, rather than subordinating the person to the state.

Implicit in the notion of subsidiarity is social participation rooted in human dignity. Every member of a civil community, “either as an individual or in association with others, whether directly or through representation, contributes to the cultural, economic, political and social life of the civil community to which he belongs.”

Birthright citizenship is consonant with this view. By recognizing citizenship at the place of someone’s birth, the state justly acknowledges that a child is already embedded in a community—family, neighborhood, parish, and school—and empowers the child to participate in that community.”

Again, the argument conflates several matters and even engages in circular reasoning.  For one thing, just because a child is born in the United States, this does not mean said child is a “member of a civil community” in the US.  If this was the case, then the children of vacationers, business travelers, and tourists in the US from another country would automatically be considered members of a US civil community.  And if THAT were the case, then the logical conclusion of this argument would be that all such individuals should be considered citizens of the United States.  But the argument establishes a forward-looking view without considering the immediate circumstances.  It suggests that babies born in the US – by virtue of their having been born here – are part of integrated families, parishes and schools in the US because that is where they will be when they get older.

The arguments only become more illogical from here.  In fact, in the next section – which declares the executive order “immoral” – the USCCB and CLINIC boldly proclaim that ending birthright citizenship “denies the innate dignity and freedom of the person.”  They say:

“Because every person is created in the image and likeness of God, the Church rejects the notion that some people are considered “others” and do not possess intrinsic God-given human dignity.”

Refusing to automatically confer citizenship on someone by virtue of their having been born here has nothing to do with their “intrinsic God-given human dignity”!  No one from a foreign country is OWED citizenship.  It is a privilege conferred upon those who complete the proper steps to it by proper integration with the country.  And if the USCCB and CLINIC were paying any attention to the Church’s teachings, they would know that St. Thomas Aquinas answered this very issue nearly a thousand years ago.  Question 105 of the First Part of the Second Part of his Summa addresses the fittingness of the Old Law with regard to non-citizens.  Aquinas argued:

“If foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob’s brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship”

In other words – a nation has a right to determine who becomes a citizen and who does not, and even to restrict the conference of citizenship through multiple generations so as to ensure proper integration into the culture.  As this is the case, every other argument supplied by this ridiculous amicus curiae falls flat on its face.  Its conflated arguments, circular reasoning, leaps of logic, and false premises are so nearly impossible to follow that it is hard to argue against without tracking down indefinite rabbit holes just to properly define terms and to establish simple syllogisms.  But once the basic arguments are seen and boiled down to their barest elements, the nonsensical nature of this document is plain for all to see.

The USCCB and CLINIC should be embarrassed for having put this forward, and Matt Martens should be laughed out of every courtroom from this point on for having written something so patently ridiculous.

Be sure to email this page to all your friends.

"The judgment of your God is not akin to the judgment of man. The Eternal Father will only judge by the heart. Your rank, your accumulation of worldly goods does not set you up before another. Many have sold their souls within the holy House of God. Better that you strip yourself and remove all worldly interests now while you have the time to make amends to your God, for many mitres will fall into hell." - St. Thomas Aquinas, August 21, 1972

The Virgin Mary's Bayside Prophecy Books are Now Available in E-book Version. Click Here Now!

When you pray the Holy Rosary, you have Our Lady's hand in yours. When you pray the Holy Rosary, you have the power of God in your hands. Start now!  Click here...

Our Lady of the Roses Awesome Bayside Prophecies... https://www.tldm.org/Bayside/ These prophecies came from Jesus, Mary, and the saints to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, NY, from 1968 to 1995.

Directives from Heaven... https://www.tldm.org/directives/directives.htm

D36 - Bishops (Part 1) PDF
D37 - Bishops (Part 2) PDF
D38 - Priests (Part 1) PDF
D39 - Priests (Part 2) PDF
D40 - Infiltrators PDF

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Quotations are permissible as long as this web site is acknowledged with a hyperlink to: http://www.tldm.org
Copyright © These Last Days Ministries, Inc. 1996 - 2025   All rights reserved.
P.O. Box 40                   616-698-6448
Lowell, MI 49331-0040
Revised: March 02, 2026