FOUNDING FATHERS ON IMMIGRATION
Hello and welcome again to Founding Fathers Quote’s Friday! This is a little meme that was put together years ago – and now when I look back at some of my earlier articles dating from 2007 it openly stuns me! Credit due where credit is due of course, and in this particular case this meme was originally designed and put together by Hercules Mulligan, who at the time maintained one of the most perfect and well-versed blogs around.
That is when a lot of rubbish began about something I know very little about referred to as “The Illuminati” which Hercules Mulligan was actively (spare time) writing about. Yet when someone takes one’s writing and viciously attacks it, I believe as much as Mulligan did that it was time for proof to hit the pudding.
He calmly informed me that he was going to finish his book and knowing that I have published books, made the request to be left alone. Hey c’mon already! With even an outside chance of gaining the publishing rights I assured him I would leave him alone and wished him the best of luck in all his endeavors.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…” Samuel Adams in letter to James Warren 1779.
In Samuel Adams’ letter to James Warren during 1779 there is nothing more important than what he is actually saying. He states that a general dissolution (breaking down of one’s known ways) of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the entire military of the common enemy.
Further he espouses, “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue then [they] will be ready to surrender their rights, liberties, and their actual ways of living to the first external or internal invader.”
Next up…Alexander Hamilton, who after being at odds with something Thomas Jefferson was going on with, namely precisely what our president Barack Obama has to some measure already done, and now after the GOP launched their Republican Principles most of us feel much the same as Mr. Hamilton did.
During his campaign run against Aaron Burr, Jefferson simply switched in everything be believed in with regards to immigration policy during that time. Ostensibly, what Jefferson had done was started talking about, writing about, and stumping all around about was the simple notion of dropping all requirements of a previous assimilation responsibilities. During that time just before 1800 Jefferson began arguing about the requirements of naturalization.
Jefferson believed that a fourteen year residency requirement was too long, and demanded immediate naturalization (meaning citizenship then…) This is IMPORTANT: During his First Annual Message to Congress, Jefferson argued that the longer waiting period from 5 years originally to 14 years caused the “unhappy fugitives” distress. Furthermore, Jefferson believed that for the bona fide reason of embarking his life to America should be sufficient for citizenship. The important part mentioned earlier was that through counting, Jefferson and his followers believed that too strong were the votes of recent immigrants.
Hamilton was Jefferson’s longtime enigma. Being the Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, Hamilton did not believe that should be given as cheaply as Jefferson was proposing in 1801.
In two different newspaper editorials Hamilton summed it up this way;
In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other. (Published in “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1801—1802)
It seems rather inconsequential, but after President Thomas Jefferson’s first term the assimilation and residency period for new emigrants was again put forth to 5 years were it has been ever since. It is furthermore important to state that Mr. Jefferson a true founding father in addition to Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and James Warren did not elect to pull out an Executive Order to see to it that his way or the highway was achieved.
A Republican blueprint for immigration reform offers legalization for some of the nation’s 11 million people who are in the country illegally, but no special pathway to citizenship, except in the cases of children brought to the country illegally by their parents, according to a draft of the plan obtained by the The Contemplative Thinker, with the assistance of the San Jose Mercury Sun as well as the Los Angeles Times.
The much-anticipated blueprint, discussed Thursday during a Republican retreat at a Chesapeake Bay resort here, would offer legal status to immigrants as long as they admitted to wrongdoing, paid fines and taxes, submitted to a criminal background check and demonstrated a mastery of English and civics.
All of this and so much more after these steps and after measures were taken to secure borders, according to the plan. Now for those who do not already know this particular point of securing borders has been around and promised, moreover, been paid for a number of times by US taxpayers.
Yet again as we know this particular point has been played down by former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, after her walk around with border personnel whilst enjoying lavish State dinners, lunching about, and of course, room service at whomever’s command. The irony of the story is that several members of Customs and Enforcement officials (who have a law suit against Madam Secretary now) and many folks appearing in plain clothes were actually inspectors with the US Border Patrol.
President Obama avoided “secure borders” during his SOTU address and touched on immigration reform during his 49th minute. This has been the greatest haggling point up to where we are now. Good gracious god almighty, why are these unqualified people discussing “pathways to citizenship” when at first reckoning the border security issue made law during President Reagan’s amnesty for 3.5 million illegal immigrants. Therefore, we once again were promised that these amnestied illegal’s would be taking English lessons, getting ALL of the proper forms for driver’s licenses, social security numbers/cards, not committing crimes, and serving in the military, whist assimilating into the American way.
Immigrants brought to the country as children — so-called dreamers — would be allowed to apply for legal residence and citizenship, the document says. It also calls for a system that tracks when travelers exit the country and would require employers to verify the immigration status of new hires with a federal database. Sound familiar?
Well it should! Why? Because we have been assured of this type of entry – exit tracking system for especially those 60 percent of foreign students attending college now; however, have made no attempt to re-certify the student-visa and is reported as lost, stolen, or missing.
The one-page list says there should be a zero-tolerance policy for immigration law violators after reform is enacted and it calls for stripping the power of a president to use discretion when it comes to deciding whom to deport.
Now hopefully…the Republicans seemed to have thought out portions of their blueprint for immigration reform. Or so it seems with first call showing some teeth to Democrats as well as President Obama and who will succeed him in the future.
Concerning the masses, as Karl Marx would postulate or it is concerning the natural rights of man, as Thomas Paine would no doubt have espoused, and somewhere, somehow in-between these mediums the gauntlet of social sciences is labelled up the entirety of public policy. Furthermore, in the attempt to understand America and her political heritage one would be well disposed to study these sciences.
Yet we at The Contemplative Thinker are completely dismayed insofar as to be a true believer in the grand scheme of things or especially understand how our Constitution was put together as well as how the Founders thought, moreover, how they came about their decisions with the rule of law. All one need do is to look at The Federalist Papers – a series of essay’s as to why America should adapt the Constitution – and as a personal courtesy one should also visit or revisit the tyrannical effects Americans were enduring just prior to the American Revolution would assist one in knowing why we were framed a constitutional democracy.
Subsequently, it is overwhelming important for one to understand the notion of “The Administrative State/Branch” of government or even the mere mention of someone taking Executive posture in this nation of the people and because Congress is in a different stance on any number of political issues that one declares “I’ve got a pen…and…I’ve got a phone…” for production of executive orders. Inasmuch as everything our baffled clown has done already, if or when he begins to even think that tyranny or self-rule is the way, then we guess, he will become none other than a lame duck president.
Shaping public policy is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of numerous individuals and interest groups competing and collaborating to influence policymakers to act in a particular way.
These individuals and groups use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue. Often, the need for public policy develops over time. In the past, there might have been no way to prevent the problem from occurring, but with current technologies a solution may appear. Public Policy is easier to establish when it affects smaller groups of people.
As an academic discipline, public policy brings in elements of many social science fields and concepts, including economics, sociology, political economy, program evaluation, policy analysis, and public management, all as applied to problems of governmental administration, management, and operations.
At the same time, the study of public policy is distinct from political science or economics, in its focus on the application of theory to practice. While the majority of public policy degrees are master’s and doctoral degrees, several universities also offer undergraduate education in public policy.
Public comment is a specific term of art used by various government agencies in the United States, a constitutional democratic republic, in several circumstances. Generally these circumstances are open public meetings of government bodies which set aside time for oral public comments, or comments, usually upon documents. Such documents may either be reports such as Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR’s) or new regulations. There is typically a notice which is posted on the web and mailed to more or less ad hoc lists of interested parties known to the government agencies. If there is to be a change of regulations, there will be a formal notice of proposed rule-making.
The basis for public comment is found in general political theory of constitutional democracy as originated during and after the French Enlightenment, particularly by Rousseau. This basis was elaborated in the American Revolution, and various thinkers such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Thomas Paine are associated with the rejection of tyrannical, closed government decision making in favor of open government.
The tradition of the New England Town Hall is believed being rooted in this early American movement, and the distillation of formal public comment in official proceedings is a direct application of this format in the workings of public administration itself. Therefore, we ask the question: If greater than say 60 to 70 percent of a nation’s population does not like the immigration reform policy set out by the Senate, why the Hades hasn’t considered the American public is well-beyond us.
Principles of America’s Founders must be restored…
Understanding our political heritage is a vital part of building a stronger America for the next generation. The principles of America’s Founders must be restored to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats did not like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem is not the people in the government; it is that those people do not have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we have allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
For additional in-depth reading on the importance of understanding America’s political government, please click here.
“Put simply, this must be at the top of our to-do list,” Pritzker said Thursday at an event for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council that was attended by consuls general from Mexico, France and the United Arab Emirates as well as local city leader Jan Perry.
We are not at all certain that with the negligence poured over the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by the Congress of our Nation that there would be anyone who does not understand the need for immigration reform. This is not a mystery to anyone, by any means.
The mere notion of having somewhere between 12 to 25 million illegal immigrants living in the Nation as quasi-citizens has let everyone know just how bad the USA needs to reform the immigration laws and policies.
We would like to make mention of just a few matters that the Founders of this Nation (USA), made implicit with their own mouths. Furthermore, the main reason that the Founders were able to come to an all out agreement is that what they did have was a Nation, including Senators, House Representatives, the President, and most of all something that was never forgotten back then that seems to be on the “if-come” basis now. Here we are specifically mentioning the public of the United States.
Public opinion as well as public policy were the two necessary factors behind getting anything done. One thing the Founders took into consideration before every vote, every decision made was how their decision going to affect their constituencies.
However first in the need for immigration reform is consistency and uniformity. The notions we are alluding to is of course true assimilation and the need for there to be legislation pending against what is now termed as “Sanctuary Cities.” Assimilation does not mean overly inviting. Nothing alerted and frightened the Founders more than having large scale numbers of immigrants all going to live in the same place.
In fact, Benjamin Franklin had his hands full when large scale immigration of German people started settling in Pennsylvania. What concerned Franklin the most was that approximately one third of the state acquired people from Germany. So after, shop, tavern, and other merchant signs began to fill the towns overlook.
Benjamin Franklin worried most about our common language, English. In fact so enduring were these new immigrants in founding new reading groups, language acquirement skills, and everything redone with English that Franklin was embarrassed. Sure Benjamin was a writer but more industrially, he was a publisher and printer.
When we mention the notion of English language – has anyone cared to reason why our Founders did not frame the U.S. Constitution to at least mention making the language the official one to be used in America. This fact gets brought up by every advocacy proponent or special interest group we can think of to the point.
The Founders did not think – nor did they have too – that English would ever be challenged as not being the official language of the new Nation. Everyone or almost everyone whilst back in their “home” countries was learning English to be ready – for the opportunity – of having a leg up on their competition.
As for those individuals the American Way did not mean, “I want to give my family a better life…or I want my children to have the things that we did not have…” No! The American Way to those immigrants meant standing with and aligning to the American way of life. Yes they knew by helping to make America the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the world, that they had claim to the stake. As America got better then conditional remedies manufactured by all people mostly new immigrants then they knew that they shared in the opportunity for the American Dream.
Late at night – on New Year’s Eve – the Supreme Court dealt a blow to ObamaCare. Or so the Obama Administration felt; not that the ruling was in anyway unlawful, the Supreme Court of the United States finally allowed for — and we mean this — religious liberty not to be screwed over in our Nation.
I can still remember last winter chatting with a “smarter than anything whip” in his junior year during his undergraduate degree coursework at some manner less Ivy League university. First off if someone doesn’t even understand that mandatory abortion pill Mandate does not affect a person’s religious liberties, well than, trust me it is no good trying to move ahead from that point.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily stopped enforcement of the ObamaCare abortion-pill Mandate, protecting a Christian employer against a grave violation of its religious freedom.
Despite this ruling, the Obama Administration is vowing to fight on. It’s not backing down from its commitment to force even Christian Americans to provide abortion pills. Understanding of course that not all people are even aware of what religious freedom means. I our sphere of influence we admittedly have far more acquaintances, friends, relatives, and work associates that received some sort of religious acculturation from birth to at least their mid-twenties, or until the decision to go to local services was completely their choice.
We understand that not everyone is spiritually bound, or for that matter experience a Christian spirituality. What we are alluding to is in the notion that people can lose their connection to a religious life. However not everyone has a) a religious life, or b) is losing their connection to their’s. It is important to note that it is not the people that matter here in a very small regard, but the Nation’s laws, the Founding, and standard operating procedures that may not be sold out for ObamaCare or any other whimsical idea.
But we’re not backing down either.
We’ve won seven injunctions against the abortion-pill Mandate, and soon we’ll be filing a crucial amicus brief at the Supreme Court.
Now is exactly the right time to join us. Join our brief. Join our committee to protect life and liberty from ObamaCare.
Sign the ACLJ Amicus Brief Against the Abortion-Pill Mandate.
“Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts used a Facebook post to acknowledge what friends and co-workers have long known: She is gay.
Excuse me please, but what is this doing on the Front Page of my morning computer? It is very much as if I am supposed to care. Now there in starts even a bigger and often times more bitter go around.
Personally I could care less about a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or which bathroom they would care to use. As a matter of pure unadulterated fact these entire issues are making me rather ill.
More often than not I try and read or gain information on the case that made some people uncomfortable at first, yet in the long term believing that those involved with the boycott came to their senses about their individual liberties. But most importantly it was not about what was contained within the magazines but it was very much about control.
Now and please stay with me here, how is it that one person during an interview mentions his personal feelings about gays and some sort of racial remark, to get the largest special rights organization – GLAAD – among many, many other advocates to the LGBT cause start screaming with hatred how this man has abused their right – somehow.
Ambrosino, a gay writer from Baltimore, was conscientious to point out that when it was first founded in 1985, GLAAD did good work for the gay and lesbian community by holding the media to inclusive standards and aiding in the normalization of gays in our society.
Whenever I hear that someone is anti-this or that, I immediately think of the old quip about MADD – are there any mothers for drunk driving? – And ask myself if anyone is really in favor of the particular thing being protested. Think about that.
Founded in 1985 in the wake of the AIDS crisis, GLAAD was formed to protest skewed coverage of LGBT issues and “to put pressure on media organizations to end homophobic reporting.” The original name was an acronym for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,” and although the organization has recently rebranded itself by deciding that the letters G-L-A-A-D aren’t actually going to stand for anything anymore, their reputation for protesting defamatory speech is well known both within and without the LGBT community.
When a media figure gets suspended for making an offensive statement, the tricky thing often is figuring out which part of it he or she got suspended for.
Star and duck-call mogul Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, for instance, was indefinitely suspended by A&E Wednesday after an interview with GQ Magazine in which he called homosexuality sinful — like, in his words, drunkenness, bestiality, promiscuity, and terrorism — and in specifically anatomical terms saying why he thought being gay was “illogical.” Where is the anger?
But which was the actionable part? Was he suspended for believing that being gay is a sin? For saying it aloud, or for saying it in those unghastly terms?
In TV, writers talk about getting notes from the network to “make the subtext text.” That is, rather than be subtle, or hint at the meaning of a scene or dialogue without saying it in so many words, you need to make it clear so that nobody in your audience misses it. Robertson got in trouble, for once in TV history, for making the subtext text — for being explicit about the conservative Christianity that, when it was subtext, was a selling point for him and for his show.
But for at least part of the huge Duck Dynasty audience, the Robertson’s’ faith is part of the appeal: the fact that they are public, devout Christians with a public platform, even if their faith was mostly background to the zany family antics. They might not be preaching, but if you cared enough you knew: they were keeping it real. And then there was the part of the show’s vibe that was less religious than cultural, but was still connected: that the show was about nostalgia, for the authentic ways, old days, and down-home values.
For tomorrow we will lead with how this particular action of GLAAD influencing A&E to the point that the decision made to put Robertson on “Hiatus” from the show was devised actually prior to GQ actually released the first copy of the interview.
Will we uphold the Constitution’s republican framework of limited government and continue to prove that men and women are capable of governing themselves and running their own lives? Or will we embrace the “Progressive faith” in the rule of benevolent experts—unelected, unaccountable, and largely unknown—and entrust them with the care to issue regulations governing every aspect of our lives?
One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
Does anyone find it odd that the very elemental debate used by the Federalists is, has been, and will continue to be the most insignificant Amendment of all? Ask yourselves this question, “What does the Tenth Amendment protect me from?”
Yep folks some stuff never changes! We have a President who admits to being Constitutional negligent. Furthermore our beloved leader does all sorts of measures to get his way without due process or Congressional approval.
Today, by contrast, liberals invoke the Founders to justify any and all of their pet policies, no matter how far they stray from the Founders’ constitutionalism.
[I]t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
It is unfortunate that many become vile and truthfully ugly when they age. Call it what you like, but where I am we call it senility, meaning, mentally less acute in later life shown by forgetfulness, confusion, and mentally less acute later in one’s lifespan.
We believe that President Thomas Jefferson in his old age got senile. We further believe that it was not only older age that began to change his mind on many issues. We discussed earlier during his first tenure in office Jefferson’s rather pacifistic attitude with immigration had become exactly the opposite in which he alone tried to change immigration laws that allowed for mass intensive immigration.
Just a few years after his second term Jefferson again refers to immigrants as such,
And that Americans should shun immigrants “as we do persons infected with disease” (quote from Land of Promise, by Michael Lind).
Speaking only on my behalf here, there are some things that the Founders of our Nation would have tolerated, or maybe just pretended too. Then again there are some Framers and Founders alike who would not even allow their names be mentioned in the same breath, or printed on the same line.
Now I will say it…I firmly believe that those individuals of the founding era would not let their integrity, morals, or ethical standards ever fall to go around as Madam Pelosi does while literally shooting her mouth off about a relationship between a citizen and whether or not they were Un-American for even discussing a matter. One of the larger problems we have in our Nation right now is that the left has everyone for some politically correct excuse trying out just about everything.
When originally a society looks upon homosexuality as a guarded or taboo subject and then through years of abusing just about everyone and subsequently lowering the bar of acceptable standards and then people begin to live with and for the hedonistic behaviors done that is what is referred to as a shift in societal norms.
However with all of my support behind the following narrative, wonderfully written by Hans A. von Spakovsky, whilst being published in the National Review Online it is our hope that the “Time has Come Today.”
A federal judge in Texas has issued a searing indictment of the Obama administration’s immigration policy. He accuses the government of “completing the criminal mission” of human traffickers “who are violating the border security of the United States” and assisting a “criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals.” The judge calls the administration’s behavior “dangerous and unconscionable” and says, “DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is clearly not. Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws.”
On December 13, federal district court Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, issued his order in U.S. v. Nava-Martinez. It described in shocking detail the malfeasance of the government. Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez, an admitted human trafficker and resident alien, pleaded guilty to attempting to smuggle a ten-year-old El Salvadoran girl into the U.S. This was Nava-Martinez’s second felony offense; she was convicted of food-stamp fraud in 2011. She was caught at the Brownsville & Matamoros Bridge checkpoint in Texas, after being hired by “persons unknown” to smuggle the girl into the U.S. The girl’s mother, Patricia Elizabeth Salmeron Santos, is an illegal alien living in Virginia. She had solicited the unknown smugglers to get her daughter from El Salvador to the U.S. for the price of $8,500.
As Judge Hanen pointed out, the human-trafficking conspiracy instigated by Salmeron Santos was interrupted when Nava-Martinez was arrested, but the “goal of the conspiracy was successfully completed thanks to the actions of the United States.” Hanen expressed grave concern over the “apparent policy of [DHS] of completing the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the United States.”
After the child was taken into custody, DHS agents learned that the mother had “instigated this illegal conduct.” Yet DHS delivered the child to the mother and took no enforcement action: “It did not arrest her. It did not prosecute her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings for her.” As the judge said, “instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the Government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it,” conduct for which any “private citizen would, and should, be prosecute.”
What especially angered the judge was that this was the fourth case of this nature that he “had in as many weeks.” In each case, the parents were in this country illegally, had initiated, and funded the illegal activity. And in each instance, DHS completed the crime by delivering the child to the parents and refusing to take any action against them.
Could it be any worse? Oh I empathized with the judge and other officials in this case beyond what I would knowingly place in writing. The latest unconscious act that we all see happening is in the matter of DHS employees instructing the wayward immigrants on asylum and a direct result of it – the refugee.
The illegal immigrant has no conscience with regard to the laws of my Nation. Our own President and Congress and given them assistance in the form of cash, food, meals, hotel expenses, even transportation expenses. Let’s not forget that they are being lectured on what asylum is and how to get around under that umbrella.
As far as we are concerned we know who we will nominate for the year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom, while we wish Judge Andrew S. Hanen and his family a wonderful holiday season.
We would like to make mention of just how staunch the Founders were in matters of immigration, especially having control over the entire issue. We have a small story to share with you. Most of this story involved primarily Thomas Jefferson and his longtime opponent Alexander Hamilton. Please feel free to comment on how relative this story is to the USA today, feel free to use names, situations, even actual events. We will…promise.
The need for good and reasonable immigration at this country’s founding was so important to those who lived here that Thomas Jefferson actually accused the British king of meddling in the affairs of men trying to fill a sparsely populated land that Jefferson included the complaint in the Declaration of Independence.
“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.”
Jefferson in most of his years given over to public service, did not favor unlimited immigration any more than Washington or any other of the Founders. In Query 8 of his book, Notes on Virginia, he questioned “the present desire of America…. To produce rapid population by as great an importation of foreigners as possible.” In doing so he gave one of the fullest explanations of the principles shared by the founding generation guiding their thoughts on immigration.
Thomas Jefferson’s point of departure was his concern for liberty:
“Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar that those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason.”
What Jefferson is referring to in this case is the “Natural right and natural reason” referring to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” of the Declaration of Independence. These laws, discovered by reason, teach us “truths” that are “self evident;” that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
In an earlier submission we had noted that the “pursuit of happiness” as written by Jefferson, edited by Franklin, and served upon the British king was a loaded clause at minimum. As more and more scholars read the works behind the actual wording they have come upon a wondrous notion; that is, “the pursuit of happiness” was originally penned as creativity or creativeness. Jefferson actually meant for all people to enjoy being creative, enjoying the arts, and encouraged those to paint, sculpt, or whatever brought them happiness.
On with the story…. Somewhere in the narrow victory of the election between Jefferson-Burr of 1800, Jefferson began to change his mind about immigration after his election to the presidency. It is alleged and quite clearly so that Burr received many votes from immigrants who were entitled either permanent residency or otherwise.
In fact, during his First Annual Message to Congress, Jefferson proposed immediate naturalization of foreigners instead of the then fourteen year residency requirement. He argued that this long period of assimilation and residency only discouraged desirable immigration; moreover, that it was viewed as refusing hospitality to the “unhappy fugitives from distress.”
All of this should sound very, very familiar insofar as how many issues have been at stake by those who strongly oppose amnesty and/or any deviation of it. Everything from economic prowess, doing the dirty work Americans will not do, even the skills they need to excel in the high-paid, highly-rewarding fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM program) has been used to justify amnesty to over one million individuals. Are you ready for 15 million more?
Jefferson’s opponent, Alexander Hamilton, criticized this proposal in two newspaper editorials. Based on a book about his recent experience in Europe, Hamilton in 1791 Report on Manufactures, which was written when he was the Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington. Hamilton did not think that citizenship should be given as cheaply as Jefferson (or Obama, the Senate, et al) recommended in 1801.
His strategic planning on how to prevent Jefferson’s citizenship program was a brilliantly conceived construction of using Jefferson’s own publications against him. From Notes on Virginia he quoted at length on the dangers of too rapid an admixture of foreigners into America. In sum, Hamilton wrote:
“In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character;”
In spite of Jefferson’s call for immediate naturalization, Congress, dominated by Jefferson’s own party sided with Hamilton (and the earlier Jefferson) against President Jefferson. Congress did however reduce the residency requirement from fourteen years back to five years where it was originally. Still much more…later.