Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Jean

Thread: Malkin: Immigration and Our Founding Fathers' Values

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    63,757

    Malkin: Immigration and Our Founding Fathers' Values

    Michelle Malkin | Dec 11, 2015

    President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is "offensive and contrary to American values." No-limits liberals have attacked common-sense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling or immigration slowdowns as "un-American."

    America's Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

    Our founders, as I've reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

    In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: "It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?"

    No, not because "diversity" is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, "Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of."

    Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."

    George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."

    Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends 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."

    Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another."

    He predicted, correctly, that "The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

    The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." He asserted, "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

    On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions "as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded."

    This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders' intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: "It is well settled that applicants don't have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. ... As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the Public Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest."

    Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn't value its own citizens and sovereignty first won't endure as a country for long.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/miche...alues-n2092274
    Newmexican and Judy like this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    52,028
    Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn't value its own citizens and sovereignty first won't endure as a country for long.
    Come on, Michelle, it's worse than that. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government has no power to admit even 1 immigrant, let alone millions per year, under the US Constitution. The federal government only has authority after the year 1808 to prohibit it.

    Do some real homework, Michelle, and start with the US Constitution document itself, Article 1, Section 9. Then with your other research, you can prove without any doubt WHY our intelligent Founders did not give the federal government authority over immigration and clearly rested the power to admit immigrants with the States, balanced by the check of federal prohibition after 1808.

    I'll even post it it for you, Michelle, so you can read it direct:

    US Constitution, Article 1

    Section 9.

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

    We are not a "Nation of Immigrants". We are not a "welcoming nation". We are not a diverse nation or a multi-cultural nation. We are a nation of united states and citizens of, by and for the people of the United States for the sole benefit of ourselves and our posterity. That is the constitutional republic formed by the US Constitution, a document established and ordained by the people of the United States to serve ourselves and our posterity.

    Preamble, US Constitution

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Last edited by Judy; 12-11-2015 at 04:35 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. How old were the Founding Fathers?
    By Newmexican in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2013, 08:26 AM
  2. Nancy Pelosi vs. the Founding Fathers
    By patbrunz in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2010, 10:32 PM
  3. Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 05:11 PM
  4. Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics
    By zeezil in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 01:40 AM
  5. Quotes from our founding fathers! Our wise fathers! Read!
    By the_patriot in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 02:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •