WASHINGTON — The Constitution already contains the tool. Article V allows two-thirds of the states to call a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments. Thirty-four states must apply; thirty-eight must ratify any proposal that emerges. That mechanism exists because the Founders understood that Congress would not always police itself. The present scale of illegal entry, asylum abuse, and demographic change through non-citizen populations is precisely the kind of structural failure Article V was written to address.
The Naturalization Act of 1906 required applicants to renounce prior allegiances, demonstrate attachment to the Constitution, and take an oath that placed American citizenship first. English proficiency and good moral character were conditions, not suggestions. Those rules were written into statute and administered at ports of entry. They have been diluted by executive parole programs, chain migration, and sanctuary policies that treat federal immigration law as optional. A Convention of States can restore the core principle in constitutional text: citizenship is a privilege that begins with allegiance, not a benefit that begins with presence.
Any amendment should also settle the question of public benefits. Non-citizens who entered illegally or overstayed should have no claim on federal cash assistance, housing subsidies, or medical programs funded by American taxpayers. The 1996 welfare reform law already restricted some benefits; successive administrations have expanded exceptions. Placing a clear prohibition in the Constitution removes the incentive structure that currently rewards illegal presence. States that wish to offer state-funded benefits can do so with their own money. The federal government should not be required to underwrite the costs of non-enforcement.
A further provision would bar individuals who entered the country illegally, or who maintain dual political loyalties incompatible with the Constitution, from holding federal or state office. The existing Article VI religious test clause already prohibits religious qualifications for office. An amendment can still require that officeholders be citizens who have demonstrated exclusive political allegiance to the United States and have not entered through unlawful means. The goal is not religious exclusion; it is the restoration of a single standard of citizenship that the 1906 Act once enforced.
The alternative is continued reliance on a Congress that has declined to pass durable enforcement measures and on courts that have narrowed the practical effect of existing statutes. A Convention of States forces the question into the open. The states that call it will decide whether the Constitution still means what it says about citizenship, sovereignty, and the consent of the governed. The numbers required are known. The text of Article V is clear. The only remaining variable is whether enough state legislatures will use the power the Founders left them.
— Josiah Hale, WAA1776 #WeAreAmericans
References
