Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/31/2026 1:36:12 PM PST by Twotone
Is America for its citizens, or is it for its “people”?
That’s the biggest question on my mind right now.
It may sound like a semantic argument, but it isn’t. It is a foundational question, and thanks to constitutional ambiguity, decades of legislative and judicial drift, and a long refusal to enforce immigration law, it is no longer theoretical. It is immediate, destabilizing, and unavoidable because it sits at the center of nearly every current conflict over immigration.
As immigration laws are now being enforced after decades of active and passive neglect by both major political parties, the country is discovering that it never actually decided what its obligations are or to whom they are owed.
The Constitution uses the word “people” in critical places. Representation in the House is apportioned by population, not by citizenship. That decision made sense in an 18th-century agrarian republic with limited migration and no modern welfare state. It makes far less sense today, when population counts translate directly into money, power, and permanent political advantage. Congressional seats, Electoral College votes, and billions in federal funding are all driven by census counts that don’t distinguish between citizens, legal residents, or illegal aliens. The result is a structural incentive to maximize raw population, regardless of legal status.
Blue states did not stumble into their current immigration posture. While conservatives slept, they have openly welcomed, protected, and subsidized illegal aliens — because bodies count. Each additional person increases representation and funding, even if that person is not legally entitled to be in America. Disguised as humanitarian idealism, this is actually a rational exploitation of a flawed system.
The distortion is profound. States that undermine federal immigration law are rewarded with more political power, while states that attempt enforcement are penalized. This flips federalism on its head and turns the census into a partisan weapon. I refuse to believe the framers ever intended representation to be inflated by deliberate lawbreaking, yet that is precisely what the modern system incentivizes. We should all be aware of the admitted errors in the last census that unlawfully advantaged blue states while denying mandated increases in representation to red states (pure coincidence, I’m sure). President Donald Trump has tried to remedy this with executive orders and a call for a new census, but he has been met with a buzzsaw of opposition from an unholy trinity consisting of the Left, RINOs (pretending to be constitutionalists), and open-borders libertarians.
Layered on top of this is a decades-long expansion of constitutional protections for noncitizens by the judiciary. Through court rulings and administrative practice, someone who crossed the border illegally last week is increasingly treated, in many contexts, as the legal equivalent of someone whose family has lived under American law for generations.
The opposition will claim this is an assault on human rights, but it is not. It is about erasing a distinction that every functioning nation must preserve. Citizenship is not a symbolic label but a legal status with reciprocal obligations. When that status is treated as morally or legally irrelevant, citizenship — and its value — begins to dissolve. The UK and EU are in the FO phase of FAFO of immigrant importation right now.
As the old American Express commercials once noted, “Membership has its privileges” — and it should.
Citizens are members of a political community. They vote, hold office, and can be drafted, sanctioned, prosecuted, and serve on juries. They are subject to the full tax code and bear the long-term consequences of public policy. Citizens are accountable in ways noncitizens are not. Noncitizens, especially illegal aliens, do not share those obligations. Beyond some local jurisdictions, they cannot vote legally, hold office, or be drafted, and they often don’t pay the full range of taxes that sustain the systems they use, if they pay taxes at all. That is not a moral judgment; it is simply a fact of status.
Modern American governance increasingly pretends that obligations are optional while benefits are universal. We have built a system in which membership rights are extended without the responsibilities of membership, and then we act surprised when social cohesion frays and public trust collapses. This is where the citizens-versus-people distinction becomes unavoidable. A nation can be humane without being suicidal. It can respect individual rights without erasing political boundaries.
In my opinion, America cannot survive if it refuses to prioritize its own citizens, and such a refusal raises the question of whether citizenship has any value at all.
The Left prefers the word “people” because it is elastic. It avoids uncomfortable questions about loyalty, obligation, and legitimacy. It allows moral claims to float free of civic responsibility. Nations and constitutions are not global charities or suggestion boxes. If America is merely for “people,” then citizenship is ornamental, borders are ceremonial, and law enforcement is evil and cruel. Representation becomes a demographic shell game played by political bosses. The social contract turns into a one-way transfer from those who follow the rules to those who ignore them, from the makers to the takers.
If America is for its citizens, then law matters, membership matters, and enforcement is not oppression. It is maintenance.
We have spent decades avoiding this choice, burying it under euphemisms, court rulings, and bureaucratic improvisation. That avoidance has ended. The conflict now unfolding is not really about immigration policy. It is about whether the United States remains a nation of citizens or becomes a territory administered for whomever arrives and demands entry.
That question will be answered because it must be answered. If there is a silver lining to the ongoing insurrection in Minnesota (and the same insurrectionist perspectives waiting to erupt in other blue states and cities), it is that it will force us to find an answer.
The only remaining issue is whether Americans answer it themselves, deliberately and lawfully, or allow the system to collapse into deeper chaos by default.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It’s a bunch of friggin’ tribes where the freeloaders try to screw over the workers and get everything they want for free.
They are all “Citizens of The World” now, who just happen to live within the borders.
Best article I’ve read yet on the problem of illegal immigration.
Govt of the Swamp, by the Swamp, for the Swamp must perish from this earth.
Citizens established the Constitution for themselves, not citizens of other countries.
The Founders were not “ambiguous”. They were accommodating human slavery, indigenous populations and immigrants.
They are also not responsible for the rampant stupidity exemplified by all Amendments after the first 10.
To the democrats it’s a land where you steal as much as you can carry
A Territory (borders), of legal certified Citizens.
And are not duel citizens either.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It's that kind of "ambiguity" that led to a million gun control laws infringing the right.
The Constitution is either "clear" or it is "ambiguous" depending on how the Left chooses to read it.
I think of the USA as a globalist economic zone. Citizenship is a nebulous construct.
We can’t forget that the left wants nothing less than the obliteration of our nation in any meaningful sense. We can’t get caught up in specific policy fights or infighting and forget what’s really at stake here.
Notice how the current lefty talking point is to refer to illegal aliens as “our neighbors,” as if everyone in the entire world has a right to come here against our laws and the wishes of the majority of the American people and to be considered just the same actual Americans. And the American people have no right to ever remove them even if they’ve broken more than just our immigration laws.
Just think how crazed the leftists would be if it were in the other direction and Americans went to third-world countries and told the government and people there they had just as much right as the citizens there to stay forever. They’d rightfully call that “colonization” not being a “neighbor.”
“Heritage Americans” descended from colonials and newer arrivals who adopt our culture.
Versus the “Proposition Nation” crowd, who memorize a few lines, and who believe that anyone with dry feet on American soil is just as American as you are.
One of those two gives you AOC and Mandami and Rashida Tlaib and Shri Thanedar as “fellow Americans”. The other doesn’t.
It is the best, because he enunciates the core problem with the mass criminality known as illegal immigration, which is precisely that it means the end of the “nation”.
Which is why rational thought like this will be completely ignored by the so-called “judiciary” (the main culprit) and the politicians, who have both realized that they can always replace the old “citizens” with new ones: jet transports can bring them in by the millions in a short time. My ancestors had to get here in wooden boats.
We’re now on the point of the spear. Either it gets fixed immediately or the whole thing collapses. Do we want to hand over control of the nukes to whichever Mexican Cartel becomes the dominant power in the US?
That’s where we’re at.
Obama was the first president I remember to always use the term “American persons”, instead of “American citizens.”
“Citizenship is a nebulous construct.”
To me it’s a matter of who gets to vote.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
I’m not sure what can be done with that.
Amendments XV and XIX imply only citizens should be able to vote.
There’s also Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power....To establish an uniform rule for naturalization....To make rules for the government”.
There’s also Article I, Section 9: “the migration of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808”
I believe states have no power to admit invaders such as the People’s Liberation Army, ordinary Chinese, Mexicans, etc.
Aliens not admitted under federal law should not be able to vote.
Globalists view it as neither. They demand it be an "Economic System" and they view themselves above any sovereignty.
“abridge”
IMO, if a state ever had a citizenship requirement to vote, it can’t remove it because it would be abridging the privilege of citizens by reducing their influence on an election.
“Before 1926, as many as 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote in some elections, a practice that largely ceased by the 1920s. Currently, federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, with potential penalties including fines and imprisonment.”
https://legalclarity.org/how-is-citizenship-related-to-voting/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.