My first post will address the US Constitution, specifically the preamble.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If a convention of the states should ever occur a simple one word change might provide a new and profound meaning that I believe would fortify the spirit and intent of the objectives cited within the preamble.
Delete the word People and change the word to Citizen.
Why do this?
The Democrats (Progressive Left) have abused the constitution for their own selfish ends for decades. Their motivations being to remain in power in perpetuity. In order to firewall the nation against illegal immigration a first step must be taken constitutionally to define "citizenship" as a compulsory requirement above all. By being defined as a citizen you must be born on American soil or be naturalized through the INS. Illegals coming to America for the purposes of taking advantage of anchor baby status would be rejected automatically.
3
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.You said, "By being defined as a citizen you must be born on American soil or be naturalized through the INS"
The 14th amendment says: "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."
What else are you looking for?
CautiousDreamer
Level 5
Mar 26, 2019
0
Continuity. Your observation regarding the 14th Amendment is correct in every way. My point is that the term "People" does not comport with the 14th. And thanks for pointing that out. Ergo a change is needed to correct this discontinuity. As I read the responses to my recommendation I see a lot of differing perspectives. That is good to have. My belief that a one word change to the preamble would characterize who can receive benefits (e.g., SS, VA, Medicare, Medicaid etc.). To receive any benefit you must be a citizen. Our current immigration policies make no such distinction. That is the principal reason we are being overrun by illegals. No nation state can survive this type of abuse and still be called a nation. The Republicans and Democrats are immersed in a sea of cognitive dissonance and they will drown us if we don't get a handle on it. Trump needs to close the border indefinitely. .
@Marsbonfire
"My belief that a one word change to the preamble would characterize who can receive benefits."
I don't think so. The preamble explains who established the Constitution and why, not what the Constitution does.
I think, if you wanted to restrict what the government could do, you would need a more specific amendment.
If you want an amendment restricting the government's interactions with non-citizens, I would like to point out some "benefits" non-citizens have. Which (if any) of these would you restrict at the constitutional level?
- Free speech for everyone, including non-citizens. (Some of our posters here are not from the US)
- A non-citizen may form a contract with a citizen (for example, a contract to import or export goods to or from America, or a foreign musician making a contract to license their music in the US.) These contracts are recognized by the government, and the non-citizen may sue to have them enforced.
- Equal protection of the laws for everyone, including non-citizens (this is included in the 14th amendment.).
- "Admittance to the US" is a benefit guaranteed to US citizens. As part of naturalization law, the US has established amnesty and temporary programs to allow people to reside in the US after disasters or persecution in their homeland. In addition, people can get permanent resident status. Finally, people can enter as tourists or for business on visas. Regardless of what you think about current law, should congress be constitutionally restricted from writing laws on any of these topics?
- Perhaps by benefits you mean wealth transfer benefits, in which case the amendment would have to define these carefully.
I think what I like most, and its hard for those of us outside the us to keep in mind, is that the US is not a country, But in fact a Union of states. True power should lie with the state, and the union should have limited power.
They were the EU long before the EU.
The_Q
Level 7
Mar 26, 2019
3
I would consider long and hard the legal definitions of the terms . It would be very easy to end up in a dictatorship , just by changing a word or two .
Georgesblogforum
Level 7
Mar 26, 2019
0
You have a very good idea. Hope someday it can be ammended to state 'citizen'. 
GrandmaSandy
Level 4
Mar 26, 2019
0
I see where you're coming from, but doing that would negate the gov't obligation to protect the people & take away our only protection from the state. It would change everything.
TommyB
Level 7
Mar 26, 2019
0
I'm not sure I follow. Please try explain if will.
Imo we would lose the republic. No more Bill of Rights. Maybe a bill of privilages, but we see how that goes.
I think President Trump has been doing a pretty good job in regards to the illegal immigration issue.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Mar 26, 2019
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.