top of page

True Citizenship


   Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that while reading this section, some of the points made may come across quite harsh, however, the following statements are meant to be considered in the spirit of careful thought and analysis, not prejudice. They are not meant to persecute others or their ethnic heritage/religious beliefs but rather provide possible clarity on the subject matter. If you are a sensitive person or are easily offended, please do not read this page.

Issue

   Even though violating the terms of citizenship may be a concern for any nation, the following are a few that have occurred in America that may or may not apply for other countries.
Hispanics

   The Hispanic population may have violated the terms of citizenship regarding their responsibility to respect the laws of the country.

   One possible concern is their promotion of the Spanish language. Even though English was not legally established as the official language in America until recently, it was always considered to be as such for the nation. By encouraging Spanish in various ways (e.g., product labeling, voting ballots, ATMs, television broadcasts, etc.), it shows that the Hispanic population was disrespectful towards the other nationalities, which is contrary to America's principle that all people should be treated equally.

   A more serious matter, however, is their voting record in that they consistently voted against candidates who opposed Hispanic-related issues. For example, if a federal judge or governor ran on the premise of having more secure borders from illegal immigrants, the Hispanic population overwhelmingly voted against that candidate. Their intent to disrupt legal matters in this manner is actually a form of obstruction of justice since it was meant to prevent government officials from performing their duties effectively.

   Another possible violation is the Hispanic population's support of outsourcing jobs to Latin America through certain trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA). Showing favor towards another country at the detriment of America is contrary to the terms of citizenship that requires to uphold the country in the highest regard, and not have allegiance towards others.

   The most serious offense, however, is the Hispanic population's support for aiding and abetting illegal border crossings. Harboring and providing sanctuary for those who enter the country illegally was conducted with the full knowledge that such behavior was in violation of federal law. Behaving in this manner violates the terms of citizenship that requires all citizens to uphold the laws of the country at all times, and not violate them.

   So, the problem is not only with those who enter the country illegally, but rather the more serious concern is that the entire Hispanic population supported and aided/abetted those who broke the law. Such behavior continued for decades without reconsideration of the error of their ways.

   If a certain ethic population repeatedly violated the terms of citizenship over an extended period of time, should they be held responsible collectively as a whole and have their citizenships rescinded? In a pure democracy, voters will need to decide how to handle if a group of people failed to uphold the terms of citizenship in the country.
Blacks

   The Black population in America has violated the terms of citizenship on numerous occasions.

   One possible violation is in regards to their repeated acts of racism. Normally, racism by itself is not grounds for dismissal since it's just an opinion, however, racism to the degree that the Black population has committed over the years has been excessive in nature and contrary to being an American citizen.

   For example, certain organizations that reflect their racist behavior are the Miss Black America pageant, NAACP, Black Lives Matter, BET channel, Jet magazine, Black History Month, black colleges, black Jesus Christ, etc., all represent that the Black population has an underlying racism issue. Such widespread racism to this degree is problematic and when it becomes commonplace in society, it also affects other situations as well (e.g., black people serving jury duty often results in biased outcomes).

   Racism is clearly prevalent with their voting record of consistently deciding in favor of black candidates. In Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, more than 96% of black people voted for Obama even though the candidate's policies offered little for that community. Even the chair of the Republican National Committee (who was black) mentioned that he was stuck between voting for a member of his own party, or the opposition party's black candidate.

   Consensus among black people during that time (among others) was that they had willingly, and quite blatantly, voted based on race. Skin color should never be a consideration when deciding who to vote for in this country. The Justice Department should have condemned such outspoken and abhorrent racism by threatening to file charges against the Black community for discriminating against other candidates.

   Bribery, a similar crime in which one's vote is coerced in some manner, carries a prison penalty of up to thirty years for federal cases. When considering the number of infractions that black voters have committed over the years, they should have faced decades of imprisonment for repeatedly having their vote coerced in this manner. ​Either that or make bribery legal in America to avoid the double standard.

   However, instead of condemnation such racist conduct was deemed acceptable and even considered to be normal within the Black community. Such widespread and systematic racism by the Black population has been an embarrassing and disgraceful part of America's history.

   Racism of this magnitude also endangers public safety. For example, their dehumanization of law enforcement shows their general disrespect for upholding the laws in this country. It seems that whenever a police officer apprehends a black suspect who is resisting arrest, the Black population automatically decides in favor of the unruly suspect instead of law enforcement. It doesn't matter what the offense is, or whether the officer is justified in defending him/herself from harm, the Black population consistently decides in favor of the black suspect regardless of the situation.

   To support those who resist arrest rather than law enforcement violates the terms of citizenship that requires all individuals to uphold the law. The issue of excessive force by law enforcement, whether justified or not, is a secondary matter.

   What is important is that the citizens of the country are required to support law enforcement at all times. This was not demonstrated by the Black population with their violent protests and riots throughout the country. Their willful destruction of property with the intent to do harm should have been condemned as domestic terrorism by the Justice Department, not tolerated by the officials.

   The Black population's contention with the courts that dismissed charges, or didn't file charges against law enforcement, further demonstrated that they failed to show support for the rule of law. Threatening to "burn down the city" if the court didn't rule in favor of the black suspect was clearly unlawful. This behavior was repeated across the country and supported by others in the Black community without apology or remorse.

   If that wasn't bad enough, the Defund the Police movement further worsened the situation since it endangered public safety nationwide. By acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the nation (by decreasing police presence or slowing their reaction to crimes), placed public safety at risk and was contrary to upholding the terms of citizenship.

   Overall, the Black population's racism and unruly behavior repeatedly violated the terms of citizenship in this country. To be a citizen is to uphold and respect the laws of the nation. To those who do not act accordingly, even if it means ruling against an entire ethnic population for their repeated offenses, such conduct is in violation of the terms of citizenship and justifies their dismissal.

   This is in addition to the fact that the original Africans and their descendants of today should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. In other words, if President James Monroe (1817-1825) was successful in his effort to deport slaves back to Africa with the American Colonization Society, the question of their citizenship wouldn't even be an issue today. Even President Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) mentioned that he preferred to free the slaves and deport them back to Africa as part of a colonization effort, but didn't do so because he was worried about their health and well-being. Not because the African descendants deserved or were justified in becoming American citizens.

   When their illegitimacy is combined with their immoral behavior that poses a risk to public safety (e.g., favoring criminal conduct that resists arrest, opposing court's decisions, nationwide rioting, racist/coerced voting, aggressiveness towards law enforcement, domestic terrorism behavior, Defund the Police movement, etc.), such conduct violates the terms of citizenship and warrants their exile. A pure democracy vote will determine their fate.
Muslims

   The Muslim population may have unknowingly violated the terms of citizenship in America. The issue of concern is that the Islamic doctrine may be in contrast to the country's laws and customs.

   For example, the Islamic custom for females to cover themselves so that males would not be tempted by them is contrary to being a citizen in this country. A fundamental principle in America is that all people, both male and female, should be treated equally and fairly at all times. Behaving otherwise is in direct contrast to the country's principles and values.

   If a particular religious doctrine is opposed to this ideal then people of that religion should not become citizens since they will be unable to fulfill the terms of citizenship. The freedom of religion mandate has lower precedence compared to the higher obligations and requirements of the primary principle in America, in that, all people are considered equal.

   If a religious doctrine like Islam prevents a person from fulfilling the terms of citizenship then they should not become a citizen and their dismissal is justified.
Jews

   The Jewish population may have violated the terms of citizenship in America unknowingly.

   The issue of concern is that their religious doctrine requires protecting Israel at all costs, including sacrificing their lives if necessary. Viewing another country in higher regard is in direct contrast to fulfilling the terms of citizenship to not have allegiance elsewhere. If a religious doctrine is in contrast to fulfilling the terms of citizenship then such are grounds for dismissal.
Anti-Americans

   Burning the flag is common practice in anti-American demonstrations, but this activity is of particular concern because the situation is not actually about the freedom of speech argument.

   Citizenship requires that one must hold the country, and symbols thereof, in the highest regard of respect. So much so in fact that one is required to defend the country with their life if necessary. However, if a person stomps, spits, burns, or defaces the flag in some manner while saying that America is not their country, how may they fulfill these terms of citizenship? Such are grounds for dismissal.
Summary

   Some may say that to exile an entire ethnic group of people would be a harsh corrective action, but not addressing the issue of violating the terms of citizenship would be an even greater problem for the country.

   What is important in all of this is to be honest and truthful. If a particular group of people has repeatedly violated the terms of citizenship in the country, should they really continue to be citizens?

   On a broader scale at the international level, the United Nations should evaluate if dual (or multi) citizenships should continue since having allegiance towards another country may cause similar problems as mentioned above.

   In America's situation, allowing allegiance to another country has caused: (1) the Hispanic population to support moving jobs to Mexico at the detriment of America's welfare, (2) the Jewish population's support of using America's military to attack Iraq, Iran, and others for the benefit of Israel that unnecessarily endangered American lives, and (3) at a lower level of importance, allowing foreign immigrants to become citizens even though their only interest is to benefit themselves financially (e.g., became a citizen only to stay longer than a work visa permits in order to make more money before returning to their native countries where their true allegiance lies).

   Allowing "fake" citizens to continue is problematic for any nation since such people don't behave normally as a true citizen would for the country. The international community can solve some of these problems by denying dual or multi-citizenships and require people to choose with the penalty of being permanently denied citizenship in the other country that they denounce (to prevent manipulation of visas/citizenships).
bottom of page