It took me 30 seconds to determine that Texas State Rep. Molly White was absolutely correct in her request that Muslims, and I may add any group not born in the US, pledge their Allegiance the the US and to Texas (PERIOD)!
The flack that Rep. White is getting is from those that either have no Allegiance to the US Constitution or the Texas State Constitution or they are ignorant of the Oath of Citizenship or worse, they are subversives working to undermine the that which our Founders demanded of any person emigrating to this Country.
There has been a lot written on ‘naturalizing foreigners’ from our Founders perspective so I’ll keep it short and simple with this:
Alexander Hamilton, a contributor to the Federalist Papers and who I often criticize got this one correct when he wrote concerning naturalization of immigrants:
“Part of what makes a community a community is its expectation of cultural continuity over time. That continuity is achieved by the acculturation of new members, whether they enter at birth or at later ages. The same is true, if to a more limited extent, of the “imagined community” that is a nation. Acculturation of the native-born is taken for granted; assimilation of immigrants is less assured. Immigration is typically tolerated, and sometimes welcomed, by the recipient population provided that the numbers of entrants and their pace of assimilation do not seriously challenge existing perceptions of national identity. Present-day immigration in some European countries many see as posing a challenge in this sense, prefiguring, in one appraisal, a cultural transformation amounting to a third demographic transition. Even in the United States, which often calls itself a nation of immigrants (I have to mention here that Hamilton was an immigrant), a comparatively liberal entry policy encounters populist resistance. “Naturalization” — acquisition of formal citizenship, and hence suffrage (meaning voting) — is a further step along, conditioned on a prescribed period of residence and some minimal knowledge of the Constitution.
“These issues are perennial ones, dating back, in the United States, to the earliest years of the republic. Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, written in 1781/82, cautioned against “great importations of foreigners” — carrying with them, he feared, their monarchist views. For population growth he preferred reliance on the country’s then very high rate of natural increase.”
Tim Woods in Human Events writes, “Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
This takes me to the fact that most don’t understand what the Oath of Citizenship says!
Here it is:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
With this all that want to be US Citizens all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:
1. Support the Constitution;
2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.
So what’s the beef here? Well anyone who has any perspective of Sharia knows that it is a theocratic form of government that demands absolute allegiance. So the trouble here is, that if anyone, Muslim, Mexican or anyone, wants to be a US Citizen they must go through the process and swear allegiance to the Constitution and the US renouncing all other attachments to other governments.
I fully support Rep. White wanting to know if she was dealing with a foreigner or a citizen since each should be treated differently since one is a foreign visitor and the other is a constituent.
Here is an example of a “Lesser Magistrate” doing the correct action.