Tags: Amnesty's | Frontal | Assault | Republic

Amnesty's Frontal Assault on Republic

Monday, 25 June 2007 12:00 AM

In 1787, in response to a question about what form of government the Constitutional Convention was giving the people, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

He was prophetic, as the republic now faces a crisis created by immigration advocates who would breach the nation's social contract by redefining U.S. citizenship.

Twenty-five years before Ben Franklin's cautionary reply, Jean-Jacques Rousseau authored Du Contrat social (1762), a classic work on the social contract between citizens and government.

In it, he warned that those wishing to enjoy the rights of citizenship without fulfilling the accompanying duties would be the undoing of the body politic.

Rousseau's warning is pertinent today, as illegal aliens wave foreign and anarchy-socialist flags in street demonstrations while demanding the rights of U.S. citizenship. For more than 200 years, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights have formed the basis of a social contract between U.S. citizens and their Republic form of government. That contract is currently under attack by advocates of amnesty, which is the hallmark of the 2007 proposed "comprehensive immigration reform."

In the U.S. social contract, a citizen gains rights in return for accepting the obligation to honor the rights of others, with law-making authority delegated to an elected government. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the foundation of the citizenship covenant — for each right there is a duty, and for each duty, a right.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees each state in the union a republic form of government with representatives elected by the citizenry — the body politic of the United States.

The Founding Fathers deliberately chose a republic and were careful to distinguish it from a democracy, in which citizens meet and conduct the business of the government in person. A Republic consists of elected representatives who assemble and administer the government. The Constitution holds citizen-voters to be paramount. To redefine citizenship is to breach the social contract.

The U.S. social contract includes the following constitutional duties of citizens: 1) Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution; 2) Obey and help enforce the laws and practices that are constitutional, federal and state; 3) Serve in the militia or armed forces when required; 4) Keep and bear arms; 5) Comply with the legal contracts one is party to; 6) Tell the truth under oath; 7) Serve on juries; and 8) Vote in all elections.

This linkage of rights and duties implicit in citizenship is offensive, however, to members of the liberal secularist left, who find fault with the republic form of government, while condoning communist and radical Islam dictatorships. Today in the United States, nihilist philosophers and academicians, to justify their existence, create obfuscating theories on the U.S. social contract.

Applying theoretical formulations, they attempt to constantly re-define government-related concepts, disciplines, and fields of study. To gain notoriety, they theorize that inalienable rights and fundamental truths and values are merely shifting sands of uncertain interpretation and perspective in nature.

For example, Dowell Myers, University of Southern California, has written a book on forging a new social contract for the future of America. He suggests that the aging "white" or "Anglo" population of the nation needs a workforce of young immigrants.

The aging "boomer" population now approaching retirement, he concludes, needs immigrant workers and the Social Security taxes they pay. Professor Myers points out that California is the nation's bellwether state, with "whites" no longer the majority population. He posits that Latino immigrants do assimilate, and that his new social contract will be an agreement between aging "whites" and young Latinos.

He fails to address those Latino workers who do not pay Social Security taxes but whose families nonetheless receive costly benefits, such as disability/survivor income, free medical care, and Medicaid.

Amnesty for some 30 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States will not only vitiate professor Myers' theory by triggering more claims than payments, it will trigger a new wave of illegal aliens drawn by this citizenship giveaway.

Another giveaway program, a "Totalization Agreement" between the United States and Mexico (awaiting President George Bush's signature), provides for illegal Mexican workers to receive "totalized" Social Security benefits after as little as 18 months of work, while U.S. citizens must work 10 years to qualify for the same benefits.

Amnesty advocates and anarchists support the full rights of citizenship for non-citizens who enter the United States without inspection––thus evading criminal background checks and health exams. The current result is an increase in the number of violent crimes and the spread of communicable diseases, among them drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis.

A 2007 Pew Hispanic Research Center report alleges that new U.S. citizens are better educated than in previous years and "speak English fluently." These findings call into question the need for federal legislation such as the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA; Public Law 107-252). This law, in part, provides "alternative language accessibility" for voters with "limited proficiency in the English language." Yet to become a citizen, an immigrant must understand, read, write, and speak English.

How then are immigrants with "limited proficiency in the English language" voting and serving on juries? Is it possible that non-citizens are benefiting from HAVA, which permits voter registration with no proof of citizenship and no photo ID, just the last four digits of an unverified Social Security number?

Identity theft by illegal aliens who fraudulently use Social Security card numbers of unsuspecting citizens has become so commonplace that the government no longer considers prosecution of these cases a priority.

English is the lingua franca of the 21st century, with an estimated one-fourth of the world's population now speaking English to some degree.

The Internet is an indicator, with some 80 percent of its sites English-oriented. Why then is the United States downplaying the requirement of proficiency in English to vote or serve on jury duty? Reports of jurors with "limited proficiency in the English language" are surfacing.

For example, jury deliberations had begun in a U.S. District Court in Tampa, Fla., in June 2007, when a Spanish-speaking juror asked to be excused because she was having "trouble" understanding and speaking English. How could this be?

Was she granted citizenship without proficiency in English, or might she be an unassimilated anchor-baby citizen?

Amnesty, by any other name, is still a violation of the U.S. social contract. Amnesty is not the will of most U.S. citizen-voters, as members of Congress well know; and only U.S. citizen-voters can stop the frontal attack being waged on the Republic.


© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
In 1787, in response to a question about what form of government the Constitutional Convention was giving the people, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it." He was prophetic, as the republic now faces a crisis created by immigration...
Monday, 25 June 2007 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved