Citizenship: what it means

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Citizenship carries with it certain “privileges and immunities” (per the Constitution of the United States). It also carries with it certain burdens and duties.

Fourteen points about citizenship

  1. The Constitution addresses the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

    The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States

    Citizenship is the grant of a personal status to the citizen and it creates a bond of loyalty between the citizen and the State, and endows him or her with nationality.

  2. Naturalized citizens may be required to take a pledge of loyalty. For example:

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

  1. Citizenship carries with it both rights and responsibilities. Citizens should work toward the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens.
  2. Citizenship as thus defined will not be conspicuous in a population whose children were not imbued with a strong sense of national character. This obviously applies to illegal Muslim and Hispanic immigrants in America who maintain their past sympathies or attachments.
  3. Japan does not give citizenship to a child born of Japanese parents if the child was raised abroad by his own parents, as might happen if the parents were in the diplomatic corps.
  4. Under Jordan’s Nationality law of February 4, 1954, a person became a Jordanian national if, “not being Jewish, he possessed Palestine nationality before May 14, 1948 and, at the date of publication of this law, was ordinarily resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” This is less a manifestation of racism than of national pride and political prudence.
  5. Making Muslims citizens of a Jewish state is more foolish than making Jews citizens of any Muslim state, considering only the disparity in their respective populations in the Middle East. Just as only Jews are qualified to make the laws of a Jewish state – think of the knowledge and reverence required to preserve the Jewish tradition, its religious precepts and practices, its methods of education, the memory of its great teachers and leaders – so only Muslims are qualified to make the laws of any Muslim state.
  6. A large majority of Muslim citizens of Israel identify with Israel’s enemies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. In fact, many of these Muslim citizens have aided and/or committed terrorist attacks against Israel.
  7. The Balfour Declaration, the St. Remo Convention, the Anglo-American Accord, the UN Resolution affirming the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel’s own Declaration of Independence, designate Israel as a Jewish state, and not as a multicultural state. The latter designation simply reflects the disloyal preference of post-Zionists in Israel, as well as of certain members of Israel’s Supreme Court, as may be seen in various rulings of the Court’s former and most influential Chief Justice, Aharon Barak.
  8. That it is not simple for a devout Muslim to identify with Israel as a Jewish state is obvious. It is also obvious that Muslims in America are not thrilled to pledge allegiance to secular America. But that is the condition of enjoying the rights and opportunities that come with Israeli or American citizenship.
  9. Citizenship for an immigrant with traditional moral values can be problematic in certain democracies.
  10. The reason is this. There are two kinds of Democracy, contemporary, normless democracy, and classical normative democracy. Freedom and Equality are their basic principles. However, in a Normless democracy, freedom and equality lack ethical and rational constraints. The situation is otherwise in a normative democracy, where freedom and equality are rooted in the Bible’s conception of man’s creation in the Image of God.
  11. Neither Israel nor America can be classified rightly as a Normative Democracy, not only because their Supreme Courts have legalized pornography, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. The political leaders of these two democracies have amplified their normless propensities by consorting with and appeasing Muslim despots dedicated to their country’s destruction.
  12. Therefore, given the absence of substantive normative principles and the pervasive moral equivalency in present-day America and Israel, and further, given the fact that this immoral posture goes on and on in both countries without discernible public protest or outrage; and further, since both countries have thereby betrayed their Judeo-Christian foundations – citizenship in both countries has become a travesty.

As a consequence, one may well wonder whether they are worthy of citizens sacrificing life and limb against their Islamic enemies, whose disloyal acts and pronounced dedication to the demise of both Israel and America, render these Muslims unworthy of respect and even tolerance.

Naturalized citizenship

The Naturalization Act of 1790 set the criteria for naturalization to two years of residency, proof of good moral character, and an oath to support the Constitution.

It also mandated that one must “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty.”

Does the latter prerequisite place in question whether a devout Muslim immigrant is eligible for citizenship in the United States?

8 Responses to Citizenship: what it means

  1. tex_rich says:

    This is also going to present serious problems for Catholic individuals – who follow The Pope – trying to get citizenship in the United States. I suspect they will be deemed ineligible in the near future.

  2. tex_rich says:

    No problem, Terry. As the author points out, one must “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty.” Given a Catholic individual’s allegiance to The Pope, who is the potentate of a foreign state, foreign Catholics could likely be precluded from US citizenship in the near future. The recent instance of Christian terrorism on US soil may expedite this change as well.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Popes have not asserted sovereignty over nation-states for centuries. When was the last time any Pope laid an interdict (which is to say, called a “strike” of the Catholic clergy) on any nation-state?

  3. tex_rich says:

    Terry, The Pope actually rules a sovereign city-state called Vatican City. If Eidelberg is correct, Catholic immigrants will likely be refused US citizenship in the near future.

  4. […] Citizenship: what it means […]

  5. […] Citizenship: what it means […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.