Post by TomLine on Mar 30, 2017 7:52:46 GMT -5
FOUNDING FATHERS AND IMMIGRATION
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
There is a debate about immigration these days. But, why should there be? The Constitution says nothing about immigration. There are those that ignore the Constitution, and that the United States of America grew and prospered because of immigration. What I am providing here are articles and videos on this subject.
The Founding Fathers and the Immigration “Melting Pot”
By Bruce Kauffmann
Link: historylessons.net/the-founding-fathers-and-the-immigration-melting-pot-2
Text: Ellis Island officially opened this week (Jan. 1) in 1892, and would subsequently process more than 20 million immigrants from around the world, all seeking a better life in America. The goal was, and still is, to create a “melting pot,” in which immigrants successfully assimilate and become representative of our national identity, while also proudly retaining key aspects of their ethnic past. We are all Americans, but in this country those of us whose ancestors came from Italy, Russia, Ireland, Yugoslavia, Mexico, Australia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt — among many others — are free to honor the many traditions and customs unique to our ancestral homelands.
As our Founding Fathers intended. They expected — they looked forward to — millions of immigrants coming to America to partake in this new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all citizens are created equal. Indeed, to the Founders, immigration was a mutually beneficial process. For the first time in their lives, immigrants would benefit from an open society in which they were encouraged to participate in the nation’s political and civic life, while also enjoying the fruits of their labor and a standard of living never imagined.
In return, ethnic groups coming to America would, through their unique customs and traditions, contribute to the ever-evolving American character, changing it and shaping it in ways that benefitted everyone. A “melting pot” includes many flavors and ingredients. So too with America’s character, which delights in its Irish music, German beer, Italian architecture, French literature, Latin American cooking, African art, and a wide variety of other cultural, scientific, historical and educational contributions.
But the Founders also insisted that immigrants assimilate in ways that resulted in them having “American” opinions and beliefs, including — make that especially — a loyalty to their new country that supersedes any loyalty to their old one. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The safety of the republic depends on the energy of a common sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemptions of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; on love of country …”
Still, the Founders knew that this assimilation required guidance. Immigrants would need to undergo an education process in which they first learn America’s common English language, thereby allowing them to also learn America’s history, and its fundamental political and legal principles and institutions. Only that way would immigrants assume their primary national identity — American citizen.
And American patriot. This is why immigrants study American history, including the Constitution and Bill of Rights, memorize important dates, take a test of citizenship and learn the Pledge of Allegiance, which they recite upon becoming a citizen — and throughout their lives as a reminder of where their greatest loyalty belongs.
What the founding fathers would think of today's immigration debate
by Steven Pincus
Link: theweek.com/articles/651733/what-founding-fathers-think-todays-immigration-debate
by Steven Pincus
Link: theweek.com/articles/651733/what-founding-fathers-think-todays-immigration-debate
Text: In 1776, American Patriots faced problems of crushing sovereign debt, vituperative debates about immigration, and questions about the role of foreign trade. They responded by founding a government committed to open borders and free trade. The Declaration of Independence, the country's charter document, outlined the new republic's fundamental economic principles, ones that Americans would be wise to remember, because they are now under threat.
Americans have long held their country's founding document sacred. John Quincy Adams, America's sixth president, asserted on 4 July 1821 that "never, never for a moment have the great principles, consecrated by the Declaration of this day, been renounced or abandoned." In 1861, Abraham Lincoln announced that: "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence." Even this year's Republican Platform committee agrees that the Declaration "sets forth the fundamental precepts of American Government." The Declaration committed that government to reversing the oppressive policies advanced by the British monarch George III and his government. In particular, they called for the free movement of peoples and goods.
In Britain, the ministers who came to power in the 1760s and '70s overwhelmingly believed, as do many European and North American politicians, that the only option in the face of sovereign debt is to pursue austerity measures. Like many politicians today, they were also happy to shift the tax burden onto those who had the least political capacity to object. In the 18th century, this meant taxing the under-represented manufacturing districts of England and, above all, taxing the unrepresented North Americans. Today, this often means regressive taxation: taking less from those with more.
Patriots on both sides of the Atlantic who opposed the British governments of the 1760s and '70s did not deny that heavy national debts could be oppressive, but they insisted that the dynamic interplay of producers and consumers was the key to generating economic growth. Unlike their ministerial opponents, they believed that the best way to pay down that debt was for the government to stimulate the economy. They pointed out that the colonies represented the most dynamic sector of Britain's imperial economy. The more the colonies grew in population and wealth, the more British manufactured goods they would consume. Since these goods were indirectly taxed, the more the Americans bought, the more they helped to lower the government's debt. Consumption in the colonies was thus "the source of immense revenues to the parent state," as the founding father Alexander Hamilton put it in 1774.
When Americans declared independence in 1776, they set forth to pursue new, independent economic policies of free trade and free immigration. The Committee of Five, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, who drew up the Declaration of Independence, condemned George III for "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world". The British government had long erected tariff and non-tariff barriers to American trade with the French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and South America. By doing so, they deprived Americans both of a vital outlet for their products and of access to hard currency. This was why Franklin had, in 1775, called for Britain to "give us the same Privileges of Trade as Scotland received at the Union [of 1707], and allow us a free Commerce with all the rest of the World." This was why Jefferson called on the British imperial government not "to exclude us from going to other markets." Freedom of commerce, admittedly one that was accompanied by state support for the development of new industries, is foundational to the United States.
The founders' commitment to free trade stands in stark contrast with Donald Trump's recent declaration for American "economic independence." Trump insists that his economic program echoes the wishes of the founding fathers, who "understood trade." In fact, Trump's economic principles are the reverse of those advocated by the authors of the Declaration. Like the British government of the 1760s, against which the Patriots defined themselves, Trump focuses narrowly on America's role as a "dominant producer." He is right to say that the founders encouraged manufacturing. But they did so by simultaneously supporting government subsidies for new American manufacturers and advocating free trade agreements, such as the Model Treaty adopted by Congress in 1776 that sought to establish bilateral free trade. This was a far cry from Trump's call for new "tariffs."
The Declaration also condemned George III for his restrictions on immigration. Well-designed states, patriots believed, should promote immigration. This was why they denounced George III for endeavoring to "prevent the population of these states." George III, the American Patriots pointed out, had reversed generations of imperial policy by "refusing to pass" laws "to encourage … migrations hither." Patriots, by contrast, welcomed new immigrants. They knew that British support for the immigration of Germans, Italians, Scottish Highlanders, Jews, and the Irish had done a great deal to stimulate the development of British America in the 18th century. State-subsidized immigrants populated the new colony of Georgia in the 1730s. Immigrants brought with them new skills to enhance production, and they immediately proved to be good consumers. "The new settlers to America," Franklin maintained, created "a growing demand for our merchandise, to the greater employment of our manufacturers."
Nothing could be further from the animating spirit of America's charter document than closing the country's borders. Restrictions on immigration more closely resemble British imperial policies that spurred American revolt and independence.
The Declaration of Independence was much more than a proclamation of separation from the Mother Country. It provided the blueprint, the "fundamental precepts," for a new government. Americans broke away from the British Empire in the 1770s, in part, because they rejected restrictions on trade and immigration.
This article was originally published by Aeon, a digital magazine for ideas and culture. Follow them on Twitter at @aeonmag.
It seems to me that once the dust had settled, at the founding of America, there was no Federal involvement with immigration. But they did have a Rule of Naturalization. See this article...
Immigration vs Naturalization
Link: tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/28/immigration-vs-naturalization/
Text: Over the last couple days, I’ve received a number of emails about Arizona’s new immigration law – and thought it was worthy of some constitutional consideration.
To start – we must keep adherence to the 10th Amendment as a top priority. This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. These are often called the enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” – or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about giving foreign-born residents of the United States the “privileges of native” born residents.
The most important thing to consider at this point are the words “immigration” and “naturalization” themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in any 18th Century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two separate meanings.
And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it’s imperative that we understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.
For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was “The act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects”, while emigrate had a common meaning of “to move from one place to another.”
Such a delegated power over “naturalization” then, does not specifically address the power over immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.
But, I’m sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I’m all ears! Otherwise, such power is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments or not – as they see fit.
If this analysis is correct, then Arizona’s new immigration law would be acceptable under the federal constitution. It would then need to be scrutinized for compliance under the Arizona State Constitution (which I have heard almost no mention of in this debate).
At the same time, if my state of California (or any other state for that matter) were to then pass a law allowing more immigration than what Arizona or D.C. or anyone else has allowed, this would also be acceptable under the Constitution – and then would need to be scrutinized for compliance under the State Constitution of that state.
Such “marketplace competition” between states would certainly allow us to see which policy worked best, not only for the economy, but for the amount of freedom vs restriction that people want in their lives. That’s the system that was set up by the founders and ratifiers under the Constitution. It’s called federalism.
The key, of course, would be to remove any federal funding of social programs for people who weren't “naturalized” under the rules of the federal government. (discussions on the constitutionality of those programs aside for the time being) States, however, could enact their own social programs should they choose – or none at all.
There is one other extremely important point in all this – just because something is “constitutional” does not mean it’s good policy.
Yes, some have tried to mix immigration with naturalization. Some tried to mix immigration with invasion. They obviously do not know our history very well.
Our economy was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves. We have a Constitutional Amendment that ended slavery, but there is no Constitutional Amendment that ends immigration. Therefore, immigration should be no different today than what it was at our founding. Whatever immigration laws there are or have been are all unconstitutional. Congress has no Constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Therefore, based on the 10th Amendment, immigration is a power reserved to the States or the People.
Immigration is yet another issue where the Federal Government stole power from the States.
To make America great again, States' powers and rights must be restored.
