Assimilation and the Founding Fathers
As we head into Independence Day weekend, my column today reflects on the other “A” word missing from the immigration debate: Assimilation.
***
Assimilation and the Founding Fathers
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a “nation of immigrants” defined not by blood or birth, but by “fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.
Obama blames “politics” for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose “reform” (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or “racism” (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).
Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?
Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be “RAAAAACIST”?
Further, as I’ve noted many times over the years when debating both Democrats and Republicans who fall back on empty phrases to justify putting the amnesty cart before the enforcement horse, we are not a “nation of immigrants.” This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Yes, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a “nation of immigrants.” (And the politically correct president certainly wouldn’t argue that Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves “immigrated” here in any common sense of the word, would he?)
Even if we were a “nation of immigrants,” it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:
George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated 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.”
In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
Alexander Hamilton 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. 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.” “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.”
As pro-amnesty extremists moan that “we didn’t cross the borders, the borders crossed us” and illegal alien marchers haul foreign flags above Old Glory, President Obama pretends that the “common national sentiment” our Founding Fathers embraced still binds us all together. Many of us still have faith in a strong, sovereign America — the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants for whom such distinctions still matter. But it’s no thanks to the assimilation saboteurs who put “one world” over “one nation under God.”
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Rick Perry and the Macaca Media
October 3, 2011 10:08 AM by Michelle Malkin
91 Comments
Categories: Immigration
JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like ThisPundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentDaily Caller
» Documents likely contradict Warren’s claim of not knowing Harvard promoted her as minority
On June 24th, 2010, I made the following comments:
Chris Muir is thinking the same way… on June 27th, he posted
President Jefferson used the word “Assimilation” it was necessary if our “Great Experiment” was going to work.
On July 3rd, 2010 at 1:56 am, 11B said:
That Act was the only statute that ever discussed “natural born citizen”, and under that Act, Barack Hussein Obama II would NOT have been considered a “natural born citizen”.
Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father.
The Founders would have considered Barack Hussein Obama II a “natural born subject” of the British Crown. Even in 1961, Obama was considered a British subject at birth… The Obama campaign quoted FactCheck.org on their “Fight the Smears” web site, admitting that Obama’s “citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948″.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, does not define “natural born citizen”, and six years later, in 1874, the Supreme Court case of MINOR v. HAPPERSETT stated “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” In 1874, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. So again, the Supreme Court itself said that “The Constitution [including the 14th Amendment] does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
The 14th Amendment says
If Obama’s father had been a U.S. citizen, he would have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and no other country.
But since his father was a British subject, his own web site admits that he was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain!
Even earlier than that act, see this historical document from the year before:
Every word of your article is so very true Michelle. It is common sense, but of course liberals are 100% immune to common sense. In MHO people that call for blanket amnesty are acting in a treasonous manner. They do it for purely political reasons. For so called repubs who favor amnesty, they want cheap labor for business. However more insidous is the desire of libs for amnesty, as they seek to create a one party system by sheer # of votes.
As Pat Buchanan has often stated, a Country in which ethno-nationalism is a valued trait, cannot survive. E Pluribis Unum.
Secure our borders, deport all illegal aliens, and their families, and let them get in line like the rest of the peoople who seek to come to this Country. End the insane interprataion of the Constitution that babies born here are automatically US citizens. Declare an immediate 10 year moratorium on any immigration. And tell third world banana republics like Mexico to stay out of our business in terms of immigration policy.
I see Michael Nutter of Philadelphia wants to block arrest records from ICE. He said it was because illegals wouldn’t report crimes out of fear of deportation. Convenient excuse but it’s obvious he doesn’t want to lose the strong Hispanic voting block. Again, as with most politicians, it is “me first, party second, country third”.
Can’t find the thread and this is off topic. I guess sorta off topic.
I have made the point that all these imagined scenarios, Glen Beck famous for, are built on a false assumption that the money, our economic engine, will be a constant and funds will be in place to pay for all these schemes. An assumption that is not true. The economic engine is not a given and is not a constant. The money is not going to be there to afford anything. We won’t have any of these imaginary schemes the right has been putting together. We will have one reality, collapse and chaos.
Here we go…even the New York Times while telling a different story seems to be pointing out the truth of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38072919/ns/business-the_new_york_times/
In the president’s remarks on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, he said:
The next day he said this:
But I always thought we got our DNA at birth. Silly me.
Good catch, Papa Louie!
Combine that with what Obama said in 2008:
Now combine Obama’s words from 2008 with those from 2010, replace McCain with Obama, and here’s what you get:
!
That’s one of the reasons why I believe that life begins at conception… because that is when your unique DNA was established. A developing baby is not “the mother’s body”, it is its own body, growing inside the mother.
That may seem off-topic, but considering that the Declaration of Independence says that Life itself is an unalienable right, and
Abortion is destructive of the unalienable right to Life. Our government is not protecting Life, it has become destructive of it.
It is the Right of the People to alter our government so that it once again protects Life.
Let’s see. If a third world invasion happens to a first world country doesn’t that make it a second world country? Sorry but that’s where we’re headed. Faith?
…The American Faith is our faith in each other. Nowhere else in the world is such a noble belief written so clearly, or shared with such pride and joy. We express that faith through respect for each others’ rights, choosing liberty above even the most benevolent domination. We honor it by respecting our laws, including the just laws governing our generous policy of immigration. Its grace is denied to those who lack such respect… from thieves to lawless bureaucrats, corporate criminals to greedy politicians…
The above is part of Dr. Zero’s well written Happy Birthday to America and response to Obama’s call for illegal alien amnesty. The rest of the article is Here.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!! HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY TO ALL OF YOU PATRIOTS ON MICHELLE MALKIN’S BLOG. YOU ARE ALL VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE. GO OUT AND CELEBRATE THIS GREAT COUNTRY TOMORROW AND KNOW THAT GOD IS ON OUR SIDE.
Indeed, but the embryo is not yet a spirit/soul, such as we are, that has the right to life like we have under natural law.
‘We’ have the right to life, but that ‘we’ are souls, not just meat.
We know the embryo does not have a soul just after conception because identical twins don’t have the same soul. The soul ‘enters’ later, arguably much later.
And just where are you getting this amazing information? Your “logic” escapes me! Who is this “we” that knows so much? First of all, when you start your argument with the words “we know”, I am immediately alerted to the fact that you know nothing. It is the same as a progressive always saying “everyone agrees”. While it is true that twins don’t split and become separate people until about two weeks, that proves nothing, only that we don’t know everything. God knows what He is doing and that includes when a twin possesses a soul. Who are you to judge exactly when that is? Oh, and have you ever heard of “soul mate”? Please expand on that strange hypothesis that sounds like you just pulled it out of your arse.
I am illogical? I am not the one claiming a single, undifferentiated cell possesses a soul and the same rights and human importance as an infant. Who is pulling their argument out of their arse?
You are claiming something even you do not really believe in your heart, since you would save one infant over one hundred fertilized eggs. You are the one arguing like a leftist. You are both oblivious to obvious common sense.
As to the “God could be doing anything” kind of argument …..
Actually, I’m not “claiming” anything. I am saying that we DON’T KNOW. So, when you say, “we know”, you are assuming something that isn’t true. Also, you are assuming what I “really believe in my heart”. Please stop doing that. I prefer to err on the side of LIFE, no matter when it begins. Only then, can I make the claim that I value life. For some reason, you want to put a time-frame on it. Why would you do that?
You are claiming the right to impose your opinion as to the presence of the soul on pregnant women who don’t have your opinion.
And you do not value ‘life’ in a general sense, just for its own sake. You’ll pull the plug on a brain dead person.
What you value is the soul.
There is no rational reason to believe there is a soul in a fertilized egg. Twins prove the DNA argument is bogus. People only believe that silliness because they have been instructed to believe it.
Um…yes. Yes, I am. It is called The First Amendment. And, an opinion is exactly what it is. So what is the problem? Am I threatening to cut someone’s head off if they don’t share my beliefs? Chill, my friend…chill!!
By the way, whether or not an embroyo has a soul is beside the point. Life is life…and it begins at conception. If there is a soul, and the child is aborted, the soul will be fine. But it is still murder of a human being.
Oh, and you assumed that I would pull the plug on a brain-dead person. Another assumption. As a matter of fact, I would. But a brain-dead person is not an embroyo with life ahead of it. That is a very bad comparison for the sake of this argument.
Gotta go…the neighborhood bash awaits! HAPPY FOURTH!! And God bless our freedom to speak our minds and argue!
Pretty much. The only difference is the degree of punishment.
Have a great day celebrating, HS!
The real reason, coming from California, is that they weren’t Hispanic illegals.