What did the Founding Fathers say about immigration?
And now for something completely different:
“America is a nation of immigrants”, we’re told, and open-borders advocates often harken back to the days of ye olde Founding Fathers to justify their position. (E.g. here. ) Unfortunately, their recall of those days is just a little bit fuzzy.
This link goes to a record of a debate on the subject of immigration and naturalization on the floor of the House of Representatives, from February of 1790. The world was a very different place then. But, even if we are not as concerned as they were in filling up the vast savage expanses of Ohio wilderness with ranks of stout yeomen farmers, we do still want to import labor. Yet, when offered a bill to naturalize immigrants after only one year of residence, the Congress of 1790 balked and began a fascinating debate about whether they were selling citizenship too cheaply.
I’m not saying this is some sort of slam dunk for modern border security advocates. It’s not exactly on point, and there are eloquent arguments made on both sides of the issue. But though the Founders encouraged immigration, they were clear that an immigration policy should first and foremost serve the national interest. The specifics were a contentious issue back then as well. In fact, many of the arguments made by Congressmen in 1790 sound eerily familiar to those being discussed today:
Crime—Here’s a Mr. Burke, representing South Carolina:
There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.
Burden on social services— Here’s Connecticut’s Roger Sherman:
Now, the regulation provided for in this bill, entitles all free white persons, which includes emigrants, and even those who are likely to become chargeable. [In other words, a liability--See Dub] It certainly never would be undertaken by Congress to compel the States to receive and support this class of persons; it would therefore be necessary that some clause should be added to the bill to counteract such a general proposition.
Unrest in local politics—Mr. Smith of South Carolina:
Now, if every emigrant who purchases a small lot, but for which perhaps he has not paid, becomes in a moment qualified to mingle in their parish or corporation politics, it is possible it may create great uneasiness in neighborhoods which have been long accustomed to live in peace and unity.
Election fraud— related to concerns about political unrest in general were concerns about people claiming cheap citizenship to throw elections. Here’s Georgia’s Mr. Jackson:
Shall stories be told of our citizenship, such as I have read in the Pennsylvania Magazine of the citizenship there? If my memory serves me right, the story runs, that at a contested election in Philadelphia, when parties ran very high, and no stone was left unturned, on either side, to carry the election, most of the ships in the harbor were cleared of their crews, who, ranged under the masters and owners, came before a Magistrate, took the oath of allegiance, and paid half a crown tax to the Collector, as the Constitution required, then went and voted, and decided the contest of the day. On the return of one of the vessels, whose crew had been employed in the affair of the election, they fell in with a shoal of porpoises off Cape Henlopen: “Ha!” said one of them, “what merry company have we got here! I wonder where they are going so cheerfully?” “Going,” replied one of his comrades, “why, going to Philadelphia, to be sure, to pay taxes, and vote for Assembly men!” I hope, Mr. Chairman, we have more respect for our situation as citizens, than to expose ourselves to the taunts and jeers of a deriding world, by making that situation too cheap.
On the other hand, here’s a Mr. Lawrence:
Nor do I believe, sir, there is any just ground of apprehension that people will come to this city, from Nova Scotia, or any other part of the world, in bodies of three or four thousand, to turn our elections, or interfere in our politics.
Heh. Nova Scotia.
Full Faith and Credit Issues— Roger Sherman, again,
…presumed it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner.
Reciprocity— Most of us have probably received that chain e-mail about how an American in Mexico (especially illegally) would enjoy none of the protections nor the courtesies that a Mexican would enjoy here. Why should we extend rights to someone here illegally that they wouldn’t enjoy in another country? South Carolina’s Mr. Smith wondered the same thing a long time back:
…An alien, in Great Britain, is not permitted to inherit, or hold real estate for his own use; consequently, a citizen of the United States, and a subject of Great Britain, would not be on an equal footing with respect to estates descended to them by inheritance.
Loyalty—Mr. Madison:
…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? 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. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
Assimilation— There was a reason behind the residency requirement: immigrants needed to become familiar with America. Mr. Smith, again,
…conceived a man ought to be some time in the country before he could pretend to exercise it. What could he know of the Government the moment he landed? Little or nothing: how then could he ascertain who was a proper person to legislate or judge of the laws? Certainly gentlemen would not pretend to bestow a privilege upon a man which he is incapable of using?
And here’s Mr. Stone:
I would let the term of residence be long enough to accomplish two objects, before I would consent to admit a foreigner to have any thing to do with the politics of this country. First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government.
Now: note the text of the bill being considered refers to “free” and “white” immigrants. I wish I could tell you that the various delegates in the debate clamored against this clause.
But, they didn’t.
What this does tell us, however, is that these concerns—about crime, reciprocity, loyalty, assimilation, politics—predate current immigration trends. Shoot, look at a map of America in 1790: they predate the U.S.-Mexican border. Actually, they predate Mexico. This debate was not about race: the Founders were fighting about these issues back when, sadly, only immigrants who were white were eligible for American citizenship.
I’ve gone on too long here, but there’s still much more to read and enjoy in the record of this debate. If nothing else, it’s worth a click just for the clear reasoning and stirring rhetoric of patriots like James Madison. Congress has sure come a long way, baby.
P.S. I wrote most of this last night, but now it seems unexpectedly timely as an immigration slapfight has broken out at NRO. Jeff Goldstein has links and great commentary of his own.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- JunkYardBlog
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Founding Fathers on immigration
- Conservative Echo-chamber shows signs of internal friction (UPDATED)
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Friday Free For All
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration, Open Borders Lobby
Ed Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take Berlin
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"protein wisdom
» The One note song [Darleen Click]Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesRiehl World View
» Holder Cares About CAIR
Both my wife and mother-in-law became naturalized citizens. And, for my mother-in-law, the proudest moment of her life was when she took the oath of allegiance. She always remembered that day, and she knew more of US history than I did, to my eternal shame. Citizenship is not a right – just because someone comes here from somewhere else, they do NOT have the right to be a citizen – any more than I have the right to be Chinese. I am A white male, one of the most persecuted groups in the world. None of the arguments in the debate surprise me – but the outcome has worked for the last two hundred-plus years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Some people never seem to learn, and if we don’t ;learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it.
Most members of Pelosi’s brood are woefully ignorant of history on immigration and warfare.
And they are trying to much things up in both regards.
Like the saying goes: “Education is expensive, but try Ignorance.”
Numbskulls.
Why go so far back? They cant remember the dang laws made from modern times or just ignore them.
Agreed unless you are talking about the history that is now in public schools.
Example: Separation of church and state is in the Constitution (1st ammendment) and that is how the founding fathers intended it. That flies in the face of history.
In another thread this week I made a statement concerning liberals in general inability to learn from history. The context of that statement was socialism – but it applies equally well to the issue of immigration. Of course, predictably, the “resident” libs who post here immediately saw my statement as an attack on them personally. Of course it wasn’t but the victim mentality is so hard to break.
Since I’m white and male, can I be a victim, too?
Soap – I think we need to fix your idea on how it’s taught in public schools. I think it goes something like “those white supremacists who stole the natives lands and wrote a living document…”.
Sorry cpodug,
The only thing you qualify being a victim from is food poisoning.
That would be from the BMB?
Bravo on an outstanding post –
Great research – and truly enlightening!
“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”
Pat Paulsen
Those who don’t remember history,….
The most annoying thing about the last “immigration reform” bill was that it was authored by Senator Kennedy. The one who broke it in the first place is being asked to fix it? That makes as much sense as putting the KKK in charge of the NAACP?
“There were no American Indians until Columbus came.”
-Dr. Jack Wheeler, To the Point News
See-Dubya, that might be the best, most interesting short-form blog post I’ve seen in a long time…really, really good stuff.
Interestingly, one of the bedrock principles of traditional conservatism, as articulated by Barry Goldwater, is a “reliance on the proven wisdom of the past”.
Cowboys killed Indians for John Wayne’s amusement.
Pete Stark
Oh, and feebie, I know you think I’m a smug a-hole, but just wanted to tip my hat to you on the Teddy quote…very nice.
Without trying to sound like I’m in the middle of a circle jerk, the Teddy quote can almost bring a tear to your eye. Amazing what 100 years can do. sniff.
Smug, yes. Stupid, no. And now, great taste. All the best my friend!
conservativesRus #5:
“Of course, predictably, the “resident” libs who post here immediately saw my statement as an attack on them personally. Of course it wasn’t but the victim mentality is so hard to break.”
Yep, well said.
One of their favorite tactics, that they love to use over, and over, and over again, is to set up straw men; which they can then complain about, and/or attack.
F’rinstance, from another thread:
“seeking to inject religious doctrine into public policy = bad and dangerous”
Gotta tell ya, I couldn’t find where anyone was injecting religious doctrine into the discussion.
‘Course, it might just be that adherents to a certain worldview might have problems with that fact that adherents of the opposite worldview likely have a moral basis for positions they take.
Moral basis? Shuddddderrrrr!
Morals that in turn just might just have a – gasp! – religious basis.
You know, sort of like the basis for the laws in this country that make it a crime:
to murder;
to lie (under oath); and
to steal.
Or, am I going wrong here?
Good get! I love reading things like this to find out what people thought long ago. Really the problems are the same as time moves forward. If you look back, you can see how the debates were resolved, introduce that into the modern debate, and find a way to move forward.
Of course, that takes much too much effort, and it may not actually get someone elected again (which is the only purpose for anything in government these days).
Thanks for the post. Excellent
See-Dubya:
Agreed.
Outstanding post.
It is pathetic you felt the need to make these comments. Indoctrination works all too well. Why not just call them evil racist bastards and let’s wipe them from the history books.
granite: I know it’s not allowed to be uttered aloud (specially in a public school) – but the laws of our land are in fact descended from British law which is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Yep – I’m sure the founding fathers intended to separate religion from public life. NOT
Good work, See Dubya. This nation is a nation of immgrants, legal immigrants, and also the rule of law, and finally of people with some sense of realities. At no time in our history would it have been a good idea to open our borders wide open and let anyone in.
We are in a struggle. The U.S. Senate just voted down an amendment that would have made sanctuary cities illegal. My city, Chicago, is one of those. In my state, there is a debate about allowing illegals to get driver’s license. I found a fringe left wing magazine that did a great job of laying out exactly how the other side will try and demonize us on such matters There is no doubt that the original intent of the founding fathers will be twisted into a pretzel. Unfortunately, most people won’t know the real historical record, however you have done your part in bringing it to light. Welcome to Michelle’s site and I hope to read more of your work.
“Interestingly, one of the bedrock principles of traditional conservatism, as articulated by Barry Goldwater, is a ‘reliance on the proven wisdom of the past’”.
F.A. Hayek discusses cultural evolution in his, “The Fatal Conceit:…”.
I didn’t take notes when I read it, but as far as I remember, he argues that the reason traditions are around is that they have evolved slowly, changed slowly, over generations, most likely because they (or part[s]of them) have been found to been useful, to have “worked” – although he says that “The Mechanism of Cultural Evolution is Not Darwinian” (the title of a subsection in the chapter “Between Instinct and Reason”).
My take is that he warns against simply tossing away traditions and ways of doing things that have proven themselves mainly, and in some instances substantially, successful; only to replace them with an unproven idea(s) that just happened to occur to some one (or some ones).
In other words, pay attention to the “proven wisdom of the past”.
Interesting book.
I have a friend who, while we were in Viet Nam together, told me that there had been 2 days in his life that would forever stand out … both were at age 18 .. the first was when he became an American citizen … the second was when he graduated from boot camp and was called a “Marine” for the first time … he still holds those 2 days in high regard …
feebiebabe in #11
So Teddy Roosevelt was in agreement with me on “hyphenated-Americans” … who would have known … thanks …
I see MADD is upset over “Mothers against Illegal Aliens”. Too bad MADD has been taken over by radical liberals with a political goal different than the original goal.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/10/the_mother_of_all_battles_moth.php
Federalist Number 2.
Founding Fathers: Nationalists.
Todays Congress, and Senate: America is an idea, not a place. Please spend more than you have, and the Federal Reserve will let you borrow more money, then sell T-bills to China, and Iran who hate you. Keep those borders open, and lose more jobs overseas with no fair trade. Treason!
I have always thought libs treated citizenship cheaply. Don’t they know that if you give something away there is little appreciation? Don’t they know the damage that does to society? I think ALL LIBERALS should live in dysfunctional and dangerous neighborhoods to get a taste of their own medicine. Maybe then they would get some sense.
Soliel:
Exactly.
While it is most unChristian of me to even think it: every time I hear of a dreadful decision by some boneheaded leftist judge that further soils our society and endangers us, the fleeting thought comes to my mind – it should have been the judge’s wife, or granddaughter, or niece/nephew, etc who is next molested (or whatever) by the perp that’s been let off; or, the perp that’s been released should be set up to live right next door to the judge, or to members of his family.
Can’t help it.
Then, I realize that the judge’s wife, etc. are themselves innocent, and I beg for forgiveness from you-know-who. I certainly don’t mean to ask for the sins of the father to be visited on the children. Believe me.
At about the time this debate took place, there was much anxiety in Pennsylvania that German might become the first language of that state’s southern half, or so I read.
The clueless look back to 1790 and sniff, “those hicks didn’t have much.” But our “poor” forefathers were protective of what Providence had provided and wished to preserve a future for countless generations.
The clueless ignore Providence and devalue citizenship to a “right” bestowed on any breathing scallywag that breaks into the country.
Speaking of clueless:
Rather than bravely toss daggers at men long dead, why don’t you worry about the biggest hypocrite racist in the nation – Hillary the Rod Clinton. If not for her, Obama would be the clear favorite to become our next President. But this can’t happen, of course, in her world view until we have a white female POTUS.
These old white men who criminally stole this land and enslaved and oppressed millions have nothing to do with what is going on now. how can they have known just how badly this country would fall apart if it wasn’t for those people gallantly coming here to seek their fortune and mow our lawns. For if it were not for illegals, we would surely perish from the earth, the world would melt in a worse Global Warming pandemic, and dogs and cats would live together…MASS HYSTERIA.
/sarcasm
TJ Green–
I wondered which side he thought had “indoctrinated” me? I couldn’t tell if AlturaCt was calling me a PC pansy for saying that racism is bad–or whether he thought I was whitewashing the evil Founders.
I would like to know which flank I’m taking fire from!
The more and more I read and learn of our founding fathers the more impressed I am at their ability to reason how our Constitutional Republic was formed from the hard lessons learned from the many failures of the European Monarchies of the time. It is a shame our petty squabbling elites in Congress today are a mere shadow of these well educated and articulate men. We need such men and women in public service today. It is time to through the bums out!
Our Liberal Elite on both sides of the aisle wouldn’t know what was a national interest if it bit them in the ass! Those in power only care about themselves. No one is willing to rise up beyond self-interests. 3rd Party Time!
“America is a nation of immigrants” ???
I don’t think so. The truth is we have always been a nation of native born. At no time did European immigrants out number the native born inhabitants of North America. Even by the mid 1700’s when the thirteen colonies were still under the rule of the British Crown, the majority of the colonist were native born and out numbered any immigrant population.
At no time in our nations history has the immigrant population ever been higher than 15 %. Usually our nations immigrant population was between 5 % and 10 %. During peak immigration periods, is reached 15 %.
Today with unsecured borders and a Kennedy led lunatic immigration policies, we have 15 % of our population who are either legal immigrants or are illegal aliens.
But even today we are not a nation of immigrants but a nation of native born Americans.
But if the Kennedy clan and the open borders people have their way, for the first time in our nation’s history, we just might become a nation of immigrants.
Non-enforcement of immigration laws is just as corrupt as politicians taking payoffs to ignore prostitution or gambling or drug dealing. What Ike worried about has come to pass, with the highest officials in the land being bought either by the lure of cheap labor for business cronies or cheap votes for the Democrats. Jorge Bush, the Coyote-in-Chief; Ted Kennedy; Rudy Giuliani; Dick Durbin–none of these people have anything in character over a small town sheriff on the pad, and are lower yet for compromising the sovereignty and security of our nation.