Of all the actions taken by President Trump since being sworn in, his ban on the immigration of persons from certain countries until they can be further investigated to ensure they pose no threat to America has drawn the most ire from many people I know. I do not wish to take sides on this issue; I only want to present the facts as I have uncovered them. Unfortunately, much of what I have discovered is going to upset and offend a great many people; but, as the old saying goes, “Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.”
First of all, let’s discuss whether what President Trump did is legal or not. Two judges, one in Washington and one in Hawaii have put a halt to Trumps ban in their States; declaring it to be unconstitutional. Yet in 8 USC, §1182, subsection 212(f), we find, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
So it would seem that, at least according to the law as it is written, that President Trump is well within his authority to enact such a ban on entry into the U.S. of individuals from countries he deems pose a possible threat to the U.S. The next question should then be, is he the only president to utilize section 212(f) of the U.S. Code?
On January 23, 2017, right after Trump took office, the Congressional Research Service issued a report which found that, since Reagan, every single president has used section 212(f) to bar the entry of certain classes, or categories of immigrants into the U.S.; some numerous times. Reagan did if 5 times, George H.W. Bush only did it once. Then we find that Bill Clinton did it 12 times. Bush Jr, even in the midst of the whole war on terror thing, only did it 6 times. Then we get to the grand prize winner, Barack Obama, who did it a whopping 19 times.
So what is it with people? Do they hate Trump so much that he does something that other presidents have done multiple times, yet since it is Trump doing it they lose their minds and do all that is within their power to prevent him from being able to implement his travel bans?
The fact is that, for at least the last 24 years, the authority to do what President Trump did has been part of the United States Code, Section 1182. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like the fact that this particular president utilized that authority, as has every single president that preceded him; that is irrelevant; the authority was there for him to use, and he used it.
So I would appreciate it if, at least in regards to this particular subject, you anti-Trump folks tone down your emotionally biased rhetoric and accept the fact that it was well within his authority as president for Donald Trump to do what he did and block the entry into the U.S. of individuals from certain countries.
Since I’ve probably already upset a few people, and since we’re already on the subject of immigration, I may as well see if I can’t upset a few other people as well.
Did you know that the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the authority to enact laws regarding immigration into the United States? All authority, whether specifically mentioned or implied, flows from the third power listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That’s it; out of those 7 words has come every law regarding who can and cannot enter the U.S.; the process for becoming a citizen, and all the other sundry immigration and naturalization laws….those seven simple words, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Now my interpretation of those words may be, as my friend Rhett Arnold told me, skewed, but this is how I see it. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to enact immigration laws at all; it only gives Congress the authority to enact laws which govern the becoming of a citizen of these States united.
At the time the Constitution was being written each State had their own laws as to how long one must wait after immigrating to the U.S. before they were allowed to become a citizen of that State. Oh, and that’s another thing, those living in the States at the time did not consider themselves citizens of the United States; rather they considered themselves citizens of the State wherein they resided; and that’s where their loyalties lie as well.
Getting back to the point though, some States might make a person wait ten years before they were allowed to become citizens, while others might only make them wait five years. So when they wrote the Constitution they inserted that phrase, “…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” They didn’t give the government the power to regulate who could enter the country; they only sought to make the process of becoming a citizen uniform throughout all the States. The authority to decide who could, and could not enter this country was one of those powers that remained with the States; as those immigrating to the country would settle in a State and therefore it would be part of the authority of each State to decide who they allowed into their State.
But at the same time, it could be construed, or implied that the authority to grant Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization also applied to who could enter the U.S. You see, once an immigrant entered the U.S. and chose a particular State to reside in, what would stop that immigrant from packing up their belongings and moving to another State later on? What if Tennessee had banned the immigration of Chinese into their State, but Kentucky hadn’t? What if a Chinese immigrant settled in Kentucky, then later decided to move to Tennessee? How would compare to what Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” So it could be implied that the power given Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization also gave them the authority to establish an uniform Rule of Immigration.
But then again, the way I interpret these things may be somewhat skewed in comparison to how others interpret them.
The fact is that, throughout our nation’s history, Congress has enacted immigration law; often setting bans on who could and could not enter the U.S., often setting quotas as to how many from certain countries could enter the U.S. during any given period of time. Also, since it was commonly accepted that this was one of the powers given government, and since the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land, that any immigration laws passed by Congress would apply directly to the States themselves.
The very first immigration law passed by Congress was the Naturalization Act of 1790. This law set a two year limit on how long people must wait before they became eligible to become citizens. I also, however, restricted immigration to ‘free white persons of good moral character.’
There is something now that I need to bring up that is going to offend some, and cause others to question my logic. Back during the early years of our nation’s history those who immigrated here did not do so with a mindset of taking advantage of the many social service programs which had been enacted to help those in need. That is because, quite simply, there were no such programs back in the early years of our nation’s existence; those were things that came later on…much later on.
Those who immigrated to America came here to partake of the liberty and opportunity which existed in this country. Those who came here back then sought to enter into society and become Americans through and through; they sought to severe their ties with their nation of birth. That belief continued for many years, up through the massive influx of immigrants who passed through the Ellis Island facility in New York City. Those who immigrated to America back then took pride in becoming Americans. They did not come here with any resentment towards the country that welcomed them, or maintaining any allegiance to their country of birth.
I’ll return to that subject in a bit, but I want to continue discussing the various laws Congress has passed regarding immigration and naturalization. The next law to be passed was in 1795 and increased the period of residency before being allowed to apply for citizenship to five years. In 1798 Congress passed another law; this time upping the waiting period to 14 years.
Up to this time immigration, and particularly naturalization, was restricted to whites. Yet many from other countries, such as the black slaves, had been brought into the U.S. and lived among the whites. Then there were the Chinese who had come over to work…often on the work crews constructing our massive railway system or to go West during the Gold Rush. Although these people lived within the U.S., citizenship was beyond their reach. Then something happened…the Civil War.
After the Confederacy lost, (a fact I still mourn), one of the conditions imposed upon the South was that before their representatives were allowed to return to Congress they must vote to ratify the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to the slaves who had just been emancipated because of the 13th Amendment. This was blackmail, pure and simple, and it brings into question the legality of an amendment which was forced upon States that may have otherwise voted not to ratify it. Yet it is commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment was duly ratified and therefore part and parcel of the Constitution. But for what purpose was it written?
The 14th Amendment was written because the newly freed slaves had no status within our society. Although they were technically free men and women, they still had no rights as did the whites they lived amongst. The 14th Amendment was written to grant them the same rights as the citizens who already existed within the United States.
It was never intended that the 14th Amendment apply towards those who already held citizenship within a particular State; a fact which is supported by numerous statements and court rulings. For instance, in Van Valkenburg v. Brown, the Court held, “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”
Black’s Dictionary of Law (6th Edition) defines the 14th Amendment as follows, “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states…”
Every white person born within the United States was considered a citizen from birth; the 14th Amendment only applied to those who held no status prior to its ratification, and those born to them.
Today, to a twisting of the intent of the 14th Amendment by those 9 black robed tyrants known as the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment has been taken to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil; including those born to parents who are in this country illegally. As citizens they are entitled to all the rights and privileges of any U.S. citizen and can apply for benefits, petition relatives and are commonly known as anchor babies.
This was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, it is a perversion of its intent by those who legislate from the bench; the Supreme Court! This fact is affirmed by a statement made by Senator Jacob Howard way back in 1866, “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural laws and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States…” (My emphasis)
In the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, the court held that the phrase subject to the jurisdiction was interpreted to EXCLUDE ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States‘ (My emphasis) What the court basically said is that the citizenship of the parent determined the citizenship of the child as it pertains to how the 14th Amendment applies to them. In other words, for a child to be granted birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the parents must also be citizens of the United States. Therefore, since those in this country illegally are technically still citizens of their native land, any child born to them is ALSO a citizen of that native land, not of the United States.
Even though the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to those who had been freed from slavery by the 13th Amendment, Congress still imposed restrictions upon others who sought entry into the U.S. or citizenship once here. For instance, all those Chinese who had came here were still prohibited from becoming citizens. In fact, in 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, specifically targeting people from a specific country in regards to their immigrating to the U.S.
In 1921 Congress passed an Emergency Quota Act; establishing quotas based upon the number of citizens from other countries living in the U.S. which were taken from the 1910 Census. Then in 1965 the quota system was all but abolished; with Senator Edward Kennedy promising, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” (My emphasis)
Immigration into the United States is not a right which belongs to all the peoples of the world; it is a privilege America extends to those who, by their actions, prove themselves worthy of it. Entering this country illegally is not how one proves themselves worthy of citizenship; no matter the intent of those who do so.
Throughout our history many within government have made statements regarding the fact that those who sought entrance into the U.S. should be worthy of the privilege, or that once here they should assimilate into America and abide by its laws. I’m just going to throw a few of them out there to support this position, then I will continue.
George Washington once said, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” (My emphasis)
In a scathing warning against multiculturalism, Washington also said this in a letter to John Adams, “The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
In a letter to Hugh White, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.” (My emphasis)
Yet Jefferson also warned of allowing immigrants from other countries with differing beliefs and customs from coming to this country, “Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” (Source: Notes on Virginia, 1782)
James Madison felt that immigration should be extended only to, “…foreigners of merit & republican principles…”
In a 1790 debate on naturalization in the House of Representatives, Madison stated, “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?”
Madison answered his own question by saying, “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.” So Madison was not in favor of just allowing anyone to freely become a citizen, only those who would, as he said, add strength or wealth to the communities.
In 1802 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “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.”
In a rare moment of agreeing with Thomas Jefferson on an issue, Hamilton also declared, “The opinion advanced [by Jefferson,] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” (Source: Examinations of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801)
Theodore Roosevelt was probably one of the most outspoken presidents when it came to immigration. In a 1915 address to the Knights of Columbus Roosevelt stated, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. …The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”
Two years later Roosevelt would write Children of the Crucible, wherein he said, “From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it.”
How politically incorrect of him!
Then in his first message to Congress, President Calvin Coolidge declared, “American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.” (1923)
How well do you think comments like the ones I just provided you with would go over in today’s multicultural, politically correct society? Seeing as how any discussion of actually enforcing existing immigration laws is met with virulent protests, I imagine comments such as these would not go over too well at all. In fact, I’m betting that simply because I have shown light upon them that I will find myself victim of the PC police and called all manner of names.
You may call me prejudiced and racist because I say those things, but you would be wrong in your assessment of me if you do. I am not racist, I am an American. My loyalty to my country knows no skin color; either you are loyal to the principles America was founded upon or you are not; it makes no difference to me the country of your birth, or your heritage as long as you support this country and what it stands for.
To once again quote Roosevelt, “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” (My emphasis)
To those of you who take offense at the things I have said, I have a question to ask; where does your loyalty lie? To what country do you owe your allegiance and support? It certainly does not appear that your loyalty is to America when you believe in not requiring those who come to this country do so through legal means; or that when here they obey our laws and abide by our customs and beliefs; while not attempting to force theirs down our throats.
You call yourselves Americans, with some going so far to call yourselves patriots. George William Curtis once said, “A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.”
So call me what you will; I know what I am, and I know what you are too. I am a patriot in the truest sense of the word, and you, and your idiotic multicultural, politically correct beliefs are a threat to everything I stand for.
So go ahead, threaten me, turn me in, I can handle it for I have the facts and the truth on my side. What do you have other than your feel good about yourself emotions to support your position? I’ll wait patiently while you come up with an answer to that.