Support This Website! Shop Here!

Monday, June 25, 2018

Ending the Immigration "Crisis"

Most people don't think about it, but immigration is distinct from naturalization. This fact alone changes the whole debate. Remember, the United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

However, while naturalization, the ability to vote and hold elected office, was tightly restricted for the first century of United States' history, immigration to this country was completely unrestricted. Indeed, the Founding Fathers explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence that one of the reasons they had rebelled against the King was due to his attempt to restrict immigrants from coming to the colonies:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither
Absolutely anyone could move into the United States, start a new life, a new business, pay taxes, participate in military service, raise a family, die and be buried without ever becoming a citizen. But, only naturalized citizens could vote and hold political office. So, the United States had an "open-borders" policy for the first century of its existence. Anyone could immigrate into the US and start a new life, but only those who went through the naturalization process, only those who became citizens, could vote or hold elective office.

This set of policies, in which open immigration was permitted, but naturalization was tightly controlled, persisted until the 1870's and 1880's. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 and Descent of Man in 1871. For the next several decades, growing support for Darwinian eugenics eventually drove the US government to close the borders and adopt immigration laws. These new immigration laws were intended to end the open immigration policy which the Founding Fathers had permitted, in favor of preventing "racial taint" from immigrants who entered from undesirable countries.

Note well: the "racial taint" argument was made by the Progessivism movement, with eugenicist luminaries such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson leading the race-baiting charge against immigrants. While Christianity had used government policy to end slavery, Progressivists used government policy to impose Darwinian eugenics.

Now, every Christian church opposed Darwinian eugenics, and the Progressivists knew it, which is why John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White went to the trouble of inventing and promulgating the preposterous myth of the War Between Science And Religion. The invention of this "war" was necessary in order to push forward the Progressivist eugenics agenda. They were successful. Not only does the general public accept this nonsensical history, Darwinian eugenics has been government policy every since. In fact, every president since, and including, Theodore Roosevelt - with the sole exceptions of GW Bush and Ronald Reagan - has supported eugenics.

So, by 1882, America had passed its first immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act. A series of additional immigration acts soon followed, as the United States tried desperately to show that whites were superior to all other races. When the policies were first imposed, "white" was defined rather differently. "White" and "Protestant" were considered essentially identical. Thus, immigrants from Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, were considered "black" for purposes of immigration and segregation laws. Irish immigrants, being Catholic, were held to be human trash. By the early 1900s, both immigration and segregation laws were considered good Progressive policy, endorsed especially by Democrats and by Woodrow Wilson, who complemented the new immigration laws by introducing segregation at the federal level for the first time.

Even a passing acquaintance with US history demonstrates how our immigration laws built on Progressivism and Darwinian eugenics. It is one of the great ironies of history that so many modern "conservatives" are pushing the self-same Progressivist ideology that their Christian Republican forbears fought over a century ago. If we are really interested in following the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, we would return to the "open borders" policy our Founding Fathers designed and intended for the country. From the perspective of the men who wrote the US Constitution, immigration was never a problem. Naturalization was the primary concern.

The Founders knew what we refuse to recognize. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, actually make better-behaved citizens than America's current voting citizens do. Wherever illegal immigrants congregate in high numbers, crime rates fall.
To shed light on this contention, Governing conducted an analysis using recently released metro area population estimates from the Pew Research Center for “unauthorized immigrants” -- people who crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas. The analysis not only found no link with violent crime, but indicated concentrations of unauthorized immigrants were associated with marginally lower violent crime rates. A statistically significant negative correlation was also shown for property crimes. For every 1 percentage-point increase in the unauthorized immigrant share of a metro area’s population, average property crime rates dropped by 94 incidents per 100,000 residents.... 
It's these same places that tend to record relatively low crime rates. The 20 metro areas where unauthorized immigrants were most prevalent in the Governing analysis recorded, on average, property crime rates 10 percent lower and violent crime rates 8 percent lower than those of all other regions reviewed. El Paso and San Diego, both adjoining the Mexican border, post some of the lowest violent crime rates of any big American cities year after year, for example
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration is based on faulty eugenics theory.  Thus, conservatives should be fighting to implement the Founding Fathers' original vision: open borders for immigrants, but naturalization - the ability to vote and hold office - tightly restricted. In that way, we get the best of both worlds. We get the immigrants who were vibrant enough and motivated enough to come to this country, we reap the benefit of their entrepreneurial spirit, while giving them as much time as they need to decide whether or not they want to become full citizens of our republic. What could be better than that?

Note:
Some people argue that the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to be anti-immigration law, but this is false. No one, no lawyer, no historian, considers the Alien and Sedition Act an anti-immigrant law. Those laws provided for powers to DEPORT foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote (voting and holding office are subjects concerning naturalization, not immigration), but even the Alien and Sedition Acts said absolutely ZERO about immigration.

And even those laws were never actually used to deport any foreigner. Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Timothy Lyon, a Republican congressman from Vermont, who became the first person tried under the new law in October 1798. Lyon won reelection while sitting in jail, and would later defeat a Federalist attempt to kick him out of the House.

And, to add insult to injury, the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring those specific federal laws invalid within their states. Who wrote those resolutions? Why, James Madison (author of the Constitution) and Thomas Jefferson. Both men explicitly called the Alien and Sedition Acts "unconstitutional."

Summary:
So, the Declaration of Independence demonstrates the colonies rebelled against the King in part because the King would not allow open borders: "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither"

The Constitution provides rules naturalization (the right to vote and hold office) but never even mentions the word "immigration." That makes immigration control an unenumerated power, and the proper responsibility of the states, not the federal government (10th Amendment). In fact, states used to run their own naturalization boards until nearly the 20th century.

There were never any federal laws restricting immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That, and all subsequent immigration law, was put in place by Progressive Darwininan eugenicists. In fact, not only was there no law against, it was quite the contrary. Under Lincoln, there was a Federal Bureau to ENCOURAGE Immigration.

Some people point to the Alien and Sedition Acts as "immigration control" laws, but those laws made zero attempt to control immigration. That law DID allow for deportation of citizens from countries with whom we were at war but:

  1. no one was ever actually deported under that law, 
  2. the law expired at the end of four years and 
  3. both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (author of the Constitution) explicitly called those laws unconstitutional AND both men helped Kentucky and Virginia write and pass state resolutions nullifying the federal laws as unconstitutional.

America was founded as open borders country.
The federal government did not attempt to restrict immigration until 1882.

2 comments:

cwby said...

This article fails to take into account culture.

Culture is extremely important and should be protected.

Let's take a current example like the immigration crisis in Europe. They come from an Islamic culture that is intent on converting the current culture to theirs. It happens all of the time and in many countries.

Remember that almost immediately after WWII, Europe started bringing in cheap labor from the Middle East and North Africa. They allowed them to stay and grow. They had 4x or 5x more children per couple than the Europeans so they grew fast. Soon they commanded modest benefits. Then it was more and more and more. Now they are in a situation where that small immigrant community is much larger and now a threat. Many of the refugees are there for the freebees and they get it!!

In countries like Germany and Sweden, there is no change in he violent crimes because they are reported differently to hide the fact that immigrant men, most of them Muslim, are engaged in rape and assault on the native women. Yet, the statistics do not change.

Could it happen in the US? It had and it was from the start. The cultures of the North and South were different and caused a lot of the havoc leading up to the Civil War. Take a look at Thomas Sowell's Black Liberals White Rednecks

Bottom line:
The US has to be careful who it lets into the country.
Poor and illiterate people have a hard time adding enough value to earn a good wage. Thus they become a burden to the State. Before the 1930's, people had to sponsor you and vouch for your ability to work and not become part of the criminal element or a burden on society.
We have seen it in Europe and I have seen it here in the US

I grew up in El Paso poor and have seen the abuses.
My Mom still lives there and sees the difference in culture. Many in the neighborhood are there for the free stuff. Let's not pretend that they are saintly and above committing fraud. They are not.
Believe it or not, many feel that the government owes them all of the stuff that they are getting because it is free and they want what they feel they are owed. Entitlement attitudes from illegals.
Turn them in and the State looks the other way.
There is an agenda to show illegals in a good light but those who know the neighborhoods and American citizens in those border areas know the truth.

Unknown said...

I disagree with you on this one, Steve, having spent most of my life as a criminal. I am certain, absolutely, that MS-13 and other Latino narcos are purely evil and cannot be saved. They have their own saint, bro! I mean that's nuts. I love this blog. I have, long-ago, surrendered my faith, it was the first to go. It is interesting as we are of similar age and whatnot that you have surrendered your country and I have surrendered my religion. Still, your arguments mostly, almost infallibly are correct and in line with my way of thinking. I have always sought "proof" though, as you so eloquently did with your rebuttal of that loser-priest from Notre Dame's pro-atom-bomb stance. There is no proof that God exists or that the scriptures were even translated correctly or that "God" has any contemporary meaning. People have moved beyond faith and THANK GOD for that! I believe that you are wasting your time with all the scripture stuff, your calling should change as you are a brilliant writer. I never comment on anything but I have found your writings to be truly inspirational in many cases. I wish you all the best but I hope that you won't waste too much more of your precious time on this earth, with the mind that you possess, arguing over trivial discourse and how it should be viewed through the lens of religion. God died a long, long time ago. When we die, we go into the ground and we rot and that is it. If you can't find happiness without religion and if it is religion that gives purpose to your life then your life has no purpose. I am sure that organized anything becomes evil in time and that only through anarchy that freedom exists. I have lived long enough to witness this and I think you should just leave the good book to the sheep and get on with your life, your purpose which cannot be found in the archaic religion to which we once belonged. We are talking about a religion that has been a sanctuary for pedophiles and that is one abomination that cannot be tolerated here on earth. Prior to that, it was the cause of so many millions of deaths as to totally make the number of abortions committed worldwide nothing but a tear in a bucket. How can someone as educated and brilliant as you believe in something that is so stupid? I mean, it's hocus pocus, man. I know it's your stock and trade but you should be doing something else. Find a new career. Fight the battles you can win with logic and facts as you did with your counter to the atom bomb non-sense. Leave "God" to the stupid and the weak.