The equal protection clause has been interpreted by the courts to include all persons within the borders of the US.
Chaput isn't a proponent of equality. He has a warped view of compassion in which he wants the government to force us to help everyone regardless of if it is reasonable or practical."
Archbishop Chaput has as much right to advocate for his beliefs and those of the nearly 70 million US Catholics as anyone else with a differing. In his book Render unto Caesar Chaput has said that;
"A democracy depends on the active involvement of all its citizens, not just lobbyists, experts, think tanks and the mass media. For Catholics, politics -- the pursuit of justice and the common good in the public square -- is part of the history of salvation. No one is a minor actor in that drama. Each person is important.".
Archbishop Chaput further states;
" in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square -- peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.".
Constitutional protections against abuses by the government must be universally applied.
However, privledges that the law can restrict can have different restrictions for different groups of people.
For example, states can prohibit the consumption of alcohol by those under 21. Immigrants can't become president.
You seem to think the equal protection clause can be used to strike down any law you don't like because the criteria for breaking it treats a person different than others.
Aliens do not have an inalienable right to come to the United States.
Archbishop Chaput has as much right to advocate for his beliefs and those of the nearly 70 million US Catholics as anyone else with a differing.
Of course he has that right, but that doesn't make him correct, nor does it in any way contradict my comment. I however doubt that those 70 million US Catholics speak with one voice on this subject. I would even go so far as to say it is questionable if he speaks for the majority. There is no real way to know, because it is not in the nature of the Church to poll it's members. The Church leads, and expect its members to follow, though the church leadership itself is often split on such contentious subjects.
in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners.
A point of his I strongly agree with. He and I just disagree on what is moral in this circumstance. In my opinion he is tolerating lawlessness and unfairness in the name of "compassion". There are many people who diligently work to enter this country legally. There are many people who have worked hard to attain desirable skills despite hardships. Not only do illegal aliens make a mocery of their efforts and our laws, the quotas of people allowed to legally immigrate are being kept lower because of the amount of illegal immigration.
He ignores the reality, that our country cannot just open our borders to anyone who might want to come here without restriction. We must have sound immigration policy, and we can't have that when our own government ignores our laws as often as not. That is not fair. It is not moral. It is not sustainable.