# Think Tank > History >  Thomas Woods: The Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics

## John Taylor

The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration.  And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers -- even if only out of curiosity -- considered, pursued or even raised.

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.  If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad.  But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

*What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society.  They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.*
_“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked.  “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”_

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt.  He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians.  Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited?  Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength.  The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “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.”  He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; 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.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”  He continued: “*The policy or advantage of its 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.”*
Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character.  King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.

And the list goes on.

~Thomas Woods. Article Here. 

The problem here is not that the question -- “Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?” -- is usually answered incorrectly or badly.  The problem is that it is never raised in the first place.  (That’s why it’s the very first entry in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Founding Fathers were not infallible, of course, and they were sometimes wrong.  But on a matter as critical as this one, shouldn’t we at least be aware of what they thought?

----------


## peacepotpaul

were our founding fathers perfect?

I challenge somebody here to say there's something our fathers were WRONG ABOUT.

----------


## John Taylor

> were our founding fathers perfect?
> 
> I challenge somebody here to say there's something our fathers were WRONG ABOUT.


Slavery. 

But the focus of the framers here was to preseve LIBERTY in the United States, not to maintain an evil institution like Slavery.

----------


## stu2002

Yeah and that was back when the USA had plenty of empty spaces along the east coast

----------


## 07041826

> were our founding fathers perfect?
> 
> I challenge somebody here to say there's something our fathers were WRONG ABOUT.




Hamilton liked national debt and supported a system like the Federal Reserve and John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. The founders were smart human beings, not gods.

----------


## Vessol

Technically we're all illegal immigrants. So what right do we have to this land we stole from the natives.

I say all those of European, African and Asian decent should be deported.

----------


## John Taylor

> Technically we're all illegal immigrants. So what right do we have to this land we stole from the natives.
> 
> I say all those of European, African and Asian decent should be deported.


Well, your inner statist comes out. 

And technically, we all are not illegal immigrants, because there were no "natives", there were people who came to this continent sometime previously who had no concept of private property rights, and who wandered about as itinerant vagrants. I don't malaign my own ancestors, but that is the truth. 

No one on here has to the best of my knowledge come out against "Mexicans", and if they did, I'd be the first to smack them down. The objection is to people coming here who will support an increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government.

----------


## Vessol

> No one on here has to the best of my knowledge come out against "Mexicans", and if they did, I'd be the first to smack them down. The objection is to people coming here who will support an increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government.


LOL IRONY. Seriously. You hope to stop the increase of government..by increasing the government. What kind of logic is that?

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Hamilton liked national debt and supported a system like the Federal Reserve and John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. The founders were smart human beings, not gods.


ok, now we have 2 response, I ask :

By what standards do you use, to say they were wrong about slavery and federal reserve, but are right about immigration?

----------


## Pennsylvania

> What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.


Quite ironically, neither Jefferson nor the rest of the "founding fathers" came from free societies either, and as expected, they brought ideas and principles of the government they left behind.

----------


## RedStripe

> Slavery. 
> 
> But the focus of the framers here was to preseve LIBERTY in the United States, not to maintain an evil institution like Slavery.


You say that as if you believe that there is some universally-understood an agreed-upon definition of "LIBERTY".

----------


## John Taylor

> LOL IRONY. Seriously. You hope to stop the increase of government..by increasing the government. What kind of logic is that?


Increasing the government? Are you kidding me? We're eliminating 1/12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here. Under your system, letting in a hundred million new dirt-poor pro-social demoncrats, private property rights will be finished here within 50 years.

----------


## Vessol

> Increasing the government? Are you kidding me? We're eliminating 12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here. Under your system, letting in a hundred million new dirt-poor pro-social demoncrats, private property rights will be finished here within 50 years.


Do you honestly believe that this isn't going to expand the Police State?

Your faith in the State, is disturbing.

----------


## dannno

> Do you honestly believe that this isn't going to expand the Police State?
> 
> Your faith in the State, is disturbing.


He refuses to address any of these topics (including National ID which u edited out) because his view is narrowly focused on illegals.

----------


## RedStripe

> We're eliminating 1/12th of the population of the state of AZ...


I cannot conceive of any possible downside to that.

I mean just CHUCK THEM back across the border - it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!

NOTHING BAD COULD POSSIBLY COME OF THIS AMAZING NEW PLAN FROM JOHN TAYLOR!!!!

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

----------


## 07041826

> ok, now we have 2 response, I ask :
> 
> By what standards do you use, to say they were wrong about slavery and federal reserve, but are right about immigration?


I never said they were right or wrong on immigration; for the record I am not too keen on this AZ law. I say they are wrong on slavery and the fed because slavery infringes on man's natural rights and the fed taxes people without their consent.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> quite ironically, neither jefferson nor the rest of the "founding fathers" came from free societies either, and as expected, they brought ideas and principles of the government they left behind.


:d wow

----------


## peacepotpaul

> I never said they were right or wrong on immigration; for the record I am not too keen on this AZ law. I say they are wrong on slavery and the fed because slavery infringes on man's natural rights and the fed taxes people without their consent.


so I wasn't asking you.

but i'll ask you now, is immigration or anti-immigration infringing on a person's natural rights?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Technically we're all illegal immigrants. So what right do we have to this land we stole from the natives.
> 
> I say all those of European, African and Asian decent should be deported.


Speak for yourself, white man.  

Seriously, what you said is so much BS.   Europeans didn't steal this land.  For the most part, they fought for it.  American Indians themselves did not claim the land, or develop it.  Europeans did.  Now, I don't agree with breaking treaties, but that was only a small part of the whole deal.

Stop it with the guilt trip mantra that TPTB have been trying for years to hoist upon us.

----------


## John Taylor

> so I wasn't asking you.
> 
> but i'll ask you now, is immigration or anti-immigration infringing on a person's natural rights?


Neither directly, but the consequences of allowing the border to remain open with Mexico will include an increase int he speed in which private property rights and individual liberty are erroded in this country. Look at exit polling data in Texas, New Mex, California and AZ and get back to me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And technically, we all are not illegal immigrants, because there were no "natives", there were people who came to this continent sometime previously who had no concept of private property rights, and who wandered about as itinerant vagrants.


Ah, good point.

----------


## Vessol

I am dissapoint LibertyEagle. I expected you out of all people to see the expansion of the Polce State that this is..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> ok, now we have 2 response, I ask :
> 
> By what standards do you use, to say they were wrong about slavery and federal reserve, but are right about immigration?


Uh, the Founding Fathers did not establish the Federal Reserve.

----------


## RedStripe

> Europeans didn't steal this land.  For the most part, they fought for it.


Hey, I'm not stealing your car radio - I'm just "fighting you for it."

Um, does that sound as retarded to you as it does to me?




> American Indians themselves did not claim the land, or develop it.


Um, yea they did.

There were around ~57 million Native Americans living in this hemisphere when Columbus arrived.  In North America alone, they constructed somewhere around one million different mounds and earthworks all over what is presently the United States. 

Not only did they develop the land - they also claimed it.  Hence why they fought to keep it...

----------


## Vessol

> Uh, the Founding Fathers did not establish the Federal Reserve.


They extablished a Central Bank however, the First Bank of America.

----------


## John Taylor

> They extablished a Central Bank however, the FIrst Bank of America.


Some of the founders did, others opposed it. James Madison wrote a draft VETO message and urged President Washington to veto the bill. There was a split between the strict constructionists, led by John Taylor of Caroline and Thomas Jefferson, and there were the Federalists led by Hamilton and Adams.

----------


## 07041826

> so I wasn't asking you.
> 
> but i'll ask you now, is immigration or anti-immigration infringing on a person's natural rights?




 I believe that we should recognize both the right of Arizona to limit who can enter the state as well as the right of the individual to not to be harassed or to incriminate themselves. I feel this new law satisfies the needs of the state while ignoring the needs of the people.

----------


## RedStripe

> And technically, we all are not illegal immigrants, because there were no "natives", there were people who came to this continent sometime previously who had no concept of private property rights, and who wandered about as itinerant vagrants.


"See, even though they lived here, constructed complex villages, had long-distance and well established trade, raised crops, had many languages, build large earthworks requiring millions of man-hours - they weren't 'natives' so it was 'ok' for white people to come and take their land but it's still bad for mexicans to cross an imaginary line and live and work on property with the permission of the owner."

Haha, read it again: "who had no concept of private property rights"

Um, maybe it's john who isn't a native b/c he clearly doesn't understand what private property rights are.

----------


## John Taylor

> Hey, I'm not stealing your car radio - I'm just "fighting you for it."
> 
> Um, does that sound as retarded to you as it does to me?
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yea they did.
> 
> There were around ~57 million Native Americans living in this hemisphere when Columbus arrived.  In North America alone, they constructed somewhere around one million different mounds and earthworks all over what is presently the United States. 
> ...


You call creating an earth mound developing the land? No wonder you want a billion "former" communist chinese moving in!

To own private property, the holder of the property must be able to EXCLUDE others from use. The tribes living in what is now the United States were by and large unable to affect this basic undergirding tenent of private property. 

Look at KY for instance: a dozen tribes claimed it... and tried to kill each other over it, and none could hold that "dark and bloody ground". SO that means it was open for settlement, right???

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> LOL IRONY. Seriously. You hope to stop the increase of government..by increasing the government. What kind of logic is that?


Hes used it with all 1850 posts.

----------


## Vessol

> Some of the founders did, others opposed it. James Madison wrote a draft VETO message and urged President Washington to veto the bill. There was a split between the strict constructionists, led by John Taylor of Caroline and Thomas Jefferson, and there were the Federalists led by Hamilton and Adams.


Washington was a puppet of the Federalists. It's even more evident during the Whiskey Rebellion which was engineered by Hamilton in order to give more power of the Federal Government over the State militias.

----------


## John Taylor

> "See, even though they lived here, constructed complex villages, had long-distance and well established trade, raised crops, had many languages, build large earthworks requiring millions of man-hours - they weren't 'natives' so it was 'ok' for white people to come and take their land but it's still bad for mexicans to cross an imaginary line and live and work on property with the permission of the owner."
> 
> Haha, read it again: "who had no concept of private property rights"
> 
> Um, maybe it's john who isn't a native b/c he clearly doesn't understand what private property rights are.


Now you're attributing the characteristics of one unique tribe to all of the untold tribes on the continent.... not logical. 

FAIL.

----------


## Vessol

> Now you're attributing the characteristics of one unique tribe to all of the untold tribes on the continent.... not logical. 
> 
> FAIL.


A majority of the tribes actually developed and farmed the land. Only a very small minority were nomads in the northern great plains. And even that didn't come until after the introduction of the horse, before then they moved within a very small area, from camp to camp. The nomadic buffalo culture depicted in Hollywood did not arise till the introduction of horses and firearms.

----------


## John Taylor

> Washington was a puppet of the Federalists. It's even more evident during the Whiskey Rebellion which was engineered by Hamilton in order to give more power of the Federal Government over the State militias.


Yes. We'd agree on that. Hamilton was his Aide d'Camp during the war, so it's not a surprise.

----------


## John Taylor

> A majority of the tribes actually developed and farmed the land. Only a very small minority were migrants in the northern great plains.


Not true. 

The vast majority of the tribes never excercised exclusive control of the land they claimed... which was often the length of Texas and twice as tall. One can only alienate what one can excercise exclusive control over.

----------


## Vessol

> Not true. 
> 
> The vast majority of the tribes never excercised exclusive control of the land they claimed... which was often the length of Texas and twice as tall. One can only alienate what one can excercise exclusive control over.


That was over the great plains. All native americans=/=Hollywood indians, as you seem to think so. On the East coast you saw multiple native American nations whom claimed their land and fought tooth and nail to defend it. Same in the southwest and the Pacific coast tribes.

----------


## RedStripe

> Now you're attributing the characteristics of one unique tribe to all of the untold tribes on the continent.... not logical. 
> 
> FAIL.


One unique tribe? Hahahahaha

What planet are you from?

----------


## RedStripe

> You call creating an earth mound developing the land? No wonder you want a billion "former" communist chinese moving in!
> 
> To own private property, the holder of the property must be able to EXCLUDE others from use. The tribes living in what is now the United States were by and large unable to affect this basic undergirding tenent of private property. 
> 
> Look at KY for instance: a dozen tribes claimed it... and tried to kill each other over it, and none could hold that "dark and bloody ground". SO that means it was open for settlement, right???


Awesome. I finally got you to expose your "understanding" of property rights.

By your definition, the mere fact that I am able to intrude upon land that you claim means that you do not own it.  That is a laughably infantile conception of property rights.

What does it mean to violate private property rights? Obviously it can't be the trespass or forcible conversion of property, because if you are able to do so, the other guy clearly was unable to "exclude" you, and thus never owned it to begin with! 

Ahahhaha, this is so rich. Keep it coming John Taylor.

----------


## Vessol

> You call creating an earth mound developing the land? No wonder you want a billion "former" communist chinese moving in!
> 
> To own private property, the holder of the property must be able to EXCLUDE others from use. The tribes living in what is now the United States were by and large unable to affect this basic undergirding tenent of private property. 
> 
> Look at KY for instance: a dozen tribes claimed it... and tried to kill each other over it, and none could hold that "dark and bloody ground". SO that means it was open for settlement, right???


So...De Facto > De Jure?

Might of arms > Inhabitation

This is the same logic Israel currently uses.

You'd be a great African warlord.

----------


## RedStripe

> You call creating an earth mound developing the land? No wonder you want a billion "former" communist chinese moving in!


You're clearly an ignoramus when it comes to the rich diversity and history of what is perhaps the most unappreciated archeological treasures of the world.  Not only are some of the mounds older than the Egyptian pyramids, there are some which contain over 20 million baskets of earth. 

Oh, and what does this have to do with "wanting a billion former communist chinese moving it?"

Ah, that's just another one of your delusional beliefs. Never mind.

----------


## RedStripe

> The vast majority of the tribes never excercised exclusive control of the land they claimed... which was often the length of Texas and twice as tall. One can only alienate what one can excercise exclusive control over.


The vast majority of PEOPLE IN MODERN TIMES never _exercise_ exclusive control of land they claim. 

God, you have a LOT to learn about property rights, social systems, anthropology, human rights...

Here's a good start for you: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...ment-property/

----------


## Deborah K

> Quite ironically, neither Jefferson nor the rest of the "founding fathers" came from free societies either, and as expected, they brought ideas and principles of the government they left behind.


uh...Jefferson was born in Virginia.....

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Ah, good point.


there were natives, they may be less civilized, organized and legislated as we intended to be, but they were here as inhabitants. we were not the first on this land, but it was "illegal" either.

that's the standard Zionist argument though, that Jews came to Palestine where nobody was occupying it then.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> uh...Jefferson was born in Virginia.....


ouch!

but did he invent his concepts of founding our country? or were they from Anglo-Saxon, Christian & European traditions?

----------


## Deborah K

> Hey, I'm not stealing your car radio - I'm just "fighting you for it."
> 
> Um, does that sound as retarded to you as it does to me?
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yea they did.
> 
> There were around ~57 million Native Americans living in this hemisphere when Columbus arrived.  In North America alone, they constructed somewhere around one million different mounds and earthworks all over what is presently the United States. 
> ...


Native Americans are not indigenous to the Americas.  They migrated.

----------


## Pennsylvania

> uh...Jefferson was born in Virginia.....


Which gives him, in particular, even less of an excuse, imo.

A society does not have to exist on a different continent to be unfree. Jefferson was born prior to the establishment of the constitution, and was consequently a British subject, is what I mean.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Native Americans are not indigenous to the Americas.  They migrated.


much longer than we did, no less.

----------


## RedStripe

> Native Americans are not indigenous to the Americas.  They migrated.


Yea I'm pretty sure everyone except for the creationists understand that.

----------


## Vessol

> Native Americans are not indigenous to the Americas.  They migrated.


And so did European Americans. And so are the current immigrants coming to America. Your point is?

I'm only argueing that we really have no God-given right to this land, we took it ourselves by force of arms. So it's kind of funny that we complain about others trying to take it. However that's not my main issue, my main issue is the fact that this A) Won't work B) Will give future excuses to expand the police state.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Some of the founders did, others opposed it. James Madison wrote a draft VETO message and urged President Washington to veto the bill. There was a split between the strict constructionists, led by John Taylor of Caroline and Thomas Jefferson, and there were the Federalists led by Hamilton and Adams.


thanks for reminding me I get to pick and choose which founding fathers to admire and use for my biased opinions.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Yea I'm pretty sure everyone except for the creationists understand that.


hahahaha, you mean like Theocrat? yeah, interesting to hear his version.

----------


## The Patriot

The Founders had no immigration laws, they left immigration to the states. The were big naturalization skeptics though. They didn't just hand out citizenship to every person with a pulse. They restricted it to free white persons. However, they were still far more open about citizenship than other nations, they gave White Catholics full citizenship 50 years before Great Britain did and to White Jews before France or Britain did. 

Tom Woods is wrong here.

----------


## The Patriot

> Technically we're all illegal immigrants. So what right do we have to this land we stole from the natives.
> 
> I say all those of European, African and Asian decent should be deported.


When my family homesteaded in Appalachia in the 1690s, there was no one on their land. Homesteading is the most free market and libertarian way of appropriating land. For an Indian to claim they just have "all the land", is absurd.

----------


## Deborah K

> ouch!
> 
> but did he invent his concepts of founding our country? or were they from Anglo-Saxon, Christian & European traditions?


They were born out of necessity.  The necessity to be free from oppression.  An idea that was brought over in the very beginning of settlement in 1610 (?)   He and the other founders of this country were influenced by people like Baron Charles de Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone,and John Locke.  And of course the Bible.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> The Founders had no immigration laws, they left immigration to the states. The were big naturalization skeptics though. They didn't just hand out citizenship to every person with a pulse. They restricted it to free white persons. However, they were still far more open about citizenship than other nations, they gave White Catholics full citizenship 50 years before Great Britain did and to White Jews before France or Britain did. 
> 
> Tom Woods is wrong here.


got sources?

I really want to believe all this, but I want specifics so I can use them when I have to bring this up.

are you saying that they were OK with entrance to the country as long as States permitted it, but were not ready to grant citizenship priveleges to every tourist? (and back then when transportation was expensive, I can see it worked OK).

----------


## The Patriot

George Washington was not a God, nor was Madison(see whiskey Rebellion and War of 1812 and Madison's attempt to instate a draft).

----------


## Vessol

> When my family homesteaded in Appalachia in the 1690s, there was no one on their land. Homesteading is the most free market and libertarian way of appropriating land. For an Indian to claim they just have "all the land", is absurd.


I'm not really an anarchist in my views of property rights, all I was saying is that it's ironic how many think that we as a nation as a whole have some right to this land. It's the individual property owners who own their land, not the State.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> They were born out of necessity.  The necessity to be free from oppression.  An idea that was brought over in the very beginning of settlement in 1610 (?)   He and the other founders of this country were influenced by people like Baron Charles de Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone,and John Locke.  And of course the Bible.


nobody's for oppression, they just have a different idea of it than you.

Immigrants and communists would argue they're oppressed until open borders + free health care is handed to them.

----------


## Deborah K

> And so did European Americans. And so are the current immigrants coming to America. Your point is?
> 
> I'm only argueing that we really have no God-given right to this land, we took it ourselves by force of arms. So it's kind of funny that we complain about others trying to take it. However that's not my main issue, my main issue is the fact that this A) Won't work B) Will give future excuses to expand the police state.


Would you prefer open immigration?  And if so, when our numbers swell to a billion, how will you like it then?  China and India come to mind.  Our country is not equipped to take on every immigrant who wishes to live here.

----------


## Deborah K

> nobody's for oppression, they just have a different idea of it than you.
> 
> Immigrants and communists would argue they're oppressed until open borders + free health care is handed to them.


Your point is lost on me.  Not sure what you're getting at.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Would you prefer open immigration?  And if so, when our numbers swell to a billion, how will you like it then?  China and India come to mind.  Our country is not equipped to take on every immigrant who wishes to live here.


So you want less immigration, but less police state?

Can you tell me where they should meet halfway?

----------


## RedStripe

Just a reminder that the founding fathers all belong to the relatively wealthy class and saw government as a means by which to protect their privileged status in society (which included the preservation of slavery as an institution).

To quote James Madison:

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe,  when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

In a truly free market, where wealth is a product of individual ability - not government privilege - the distribution of wealth will come in the form of a bell curve which is a direct reflection of the diversity of human ability.

Government has always been an agent of the small, rich class.  It remains so today.

----------


## Vessol

> Would you prefer open immigration?  And if so, when our numbers swell to a billion, how will you like it then?  China and India come to mind.  Our country is not equipped to take on every immigrant who wishes to live here.


I don't think we'd really have that huge of immigration numbers if we got rid of our welfare state. I wouldn't even think about open immigration unless we got rid of the welfare state.

However, I do not support this law because it A) Will not solve anything B) Will give excuses to legislators to expand the police state even further with more laws in order to "combat illegal immigration".

Just like we have to create more laws that "combat terrorism" or "combat the war on drugs".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> were our founding fathers perfect?
> 
> I challenge somebody here to say there's something our fathers were WRONG ABOUT.



Lots of things.  To err is human.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Your point is lost on me.  Not sure what you're getting at.


oh, sorry.

I'm saying, history is written by victors, and of course after the fact, we say Jefferson is a hero and his ideas were born out of necessity. 

Immigrants and communists would say, if God forbid, one day our country is destroyed by socialism, that the ideas were born out of necessity (to open borders and provide health care free). 

On the other hand, many Americans believe that using the police state against immigrants is the necessity to guard against oppression.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> Lots of things.  To err is human.


specifics please. 

I'm interested in, what standards you use to say they are wrong.

----------


## peacepotpaul

> *Just a reminder that the founding fathers all belong to the relatively wealthy class and saw government as a means by which to protect their privileged status in society (which included the preservation of slavery as an institution).
> 
> Government has always been an agent of the small, rich class.  It remains so today.*


does somebody here actually not know that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just a reminder that the founding fathers all belong to the relatively wealthy class and saw government as a means by which to protect their privileged status in society (which included the preservation of slavery as an institution).
> 
> To quote James Madison:
> 
> "The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe,  when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> 
> In a truly free market, where wealth is a product of individual ability - not government privilege - the distribution of wealth will come in the form of a bell curve which is a direct reflection of the diversity of human ability.
> *
> Government has always been an agent of the small, rich class.  It remains so today.*


+a zillion

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't think we'd really have that huge of immigration numbers if we got rid of our welfare state. I wouldn't even think about open immigration unless we got rid of the welfare state.
> 
> However, I do not support this law because it A) Will not solve anything B) Will give excuses to legislators to expand the police state even further with more laws in order to "combat illegal immigration".
> 
> Just like we have to create more laws that "combat terrorism" or "combat the war on drugs".


This law gives AZ permission to itself to enforce existing immigration laws that the Federal gov't refuses to enforce.  Why would that create a police state?  To what end?  People will just leave the state.  Vote with their feet so to speak.  Welfare is not the only issue with illegal immigration and to claim it is - is to insult every illegal immigrant by assuming they come here only to get free stuff.

----------


## Vessol

> specifics please. 
> 
> I'm interested in, what standards you use to say they are wrong.


Well for one, only giving voting rights to white male Protestant land owners. Just comes to minds.

----------


## RedStripe

> does somebody here actually not know that?


You'd be surprised.

My point in bringing it up is to remind everyone that the founder's take on a particular issue is colored through a very specific set of social/economic lenses (for the most part).

----------


## The Patriot

> got sources?
> 
> I really want to believe all this, but I want specifics so I can use them when I have to bring this up.
> 
> are you saying that they were OK with entrance to the country as long as States permitted it, but were not ready to grant citizenship priveleges to every tourist? (and back then when transportation was expensive, I can see it worked OK).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Definition of Naturalization:to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...naturalization

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

----------


## The Patriot

> I'm not really an anarchist in my views of property rights, all I was saying is that it's ironic how many think that we as a nation as a whole have some right to this land. It's the individual property owners who own their land, not the State.


So than you agree that Indians or mestizos do not have a "right" to the continent, but rather the property owners have a right to the land they own?

I just found it hilarious when I got into debates with hispanics in high school, who were as light as me, and had facial hair(probably predominantly Spanish), saying that this is Indian land and the Whites stole it, and now they are going to take it back because it belongs to them.

----------


## RedStripe

A lot of European homesteading was, in my view, morally legitimate, simply because large numbers of native americans were wiped out by the spread of western diseases before settlers even reached them (which was mostly just an accident of history/human evolution). 

So a settler who builds a farm in an area that shows no signs of human use, and where no native americans are there to tell him "this is our hunting ground", etc, is not doing anything wrong imo.

That said, I think that if native americans made it known that a certain area was used for hunting, and necessarily for their way of life, settlers should have tried to avoid it (for moral and practical reasons).

Property rights are complex, and a lot of it has to do with compromise between different interested parties.  A good system of property rights is one which places a lot of weight on compromise and valuing prior use/occupancy as forming the basis for a legitimate property claim, because it is the kind of system that accounts for the practical problem of scarce land and human needs.

----------


## RedStripe

> So than you agree that Indians or mestizos do not have a "right" to the continent, but rather the property owners have a right to the land they own?
> 
> I just found it hilarious when I got into debates with hispanics at school, who were as light as me, and had facial hair(probably predominantly Spanish), saying that this is Indian land and the Whites stole it, and now they are going to take it back because it belongs to them.


Well if they are talking about land in central and south america it's a lot more accurate. In fact, a lot of the "official" land titles down there are still in the hands of a very small group of people (most descended from the spanish invaders) - much like the feudal land titles of england passed down from generation to generation after william the conquerer and the mass theft from the peasants who originally owned the land.

----------


## RyanRSheets

Immigration is a generally net benefit to any economy so long as it is not encouraged by government (handouts and a tax system that makes it cheaper to risk getting caught hiring illegal immigrants).  The cultural issue is something that arises when immigration becomes involuntary or is encouraged by the receiving government resulting in excessive immigration.

----------


## The Patriot

> Immigration is a generally net benefit to any economy so long as it is not encouraged by government (handouts and a tax system that makes it cheaper to risk getting caught hiring illegal immigrants).  The cultural issue is something that arises when immigration becomes involuntary or is encouraged by the receiving government resulting in excessive immigration.


Ideally, I am for open borders, no state, and free markets. But this nonsense from Democratic Statists that diversity is strength is patently absurd, and can be debunked with a plethora of examples. Multiple nations(races, differing ethnic groups etc etc) rarely survive in the same government. It has happened throughout the history of post colonial Africa(Rwanda, Kenya, Rhodesia, South Africa, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola), with the Kurds and Turks, Kurds and Iraqis, with the Palestinians and Israelis, and in the Balkans.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration.  And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers -- even if only out of curiosity -- considered, pursued or even raised.


That's because it is irrelevant.  They died a couple hundred years ago.

There are legitimate arguments both for and against immigration.  What the Founding Fathers would have wanted isn't one of them.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's because it is irrelevant.  They died a couple hundred years ago.
> 
> There are legitimate arguments both for and against immigration.  What the Founding Fathers would have wanted isn't one of them.


I beg to differ.  It goes to original intent.

----------


## Deborah K

> So you want less immigration, but less police state?
> 
> Can you tell me where they should meet halfway?


If I had all the answers there would be world peace.   But right now I'd settle at least for the enforcment of existing immigration laws.  We have a problem that can't be solved by opening the borders and allowing a free for all into this country.  I see that even some staunch anarchist - libertarian types acknowledge this.  But what I don't get, is that their only answer is to end welfare as if that is the only underlying problem with illegal immigration.  It is a very uninformed opinion.  

I think we can all agree that welfare is a problem - thank you FDR and all your progressive cronies.  It needs to be incrementally abolished and that will take time as there are too many Americans who have been indoctrinated into accepting an entitlement system within our government.  In the meantime, the problem of illegal immigration still exists and the border states have a right to decide for themselves what to do about it.  This law in AZ gives the state the right to enforce existing federal - law nothing more.

----------


## South Park Fan

> Increasing the government? Are you kidding me? We're eliminating 1/12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here. Under your system, letting in a hundred million new dirt-poor pro-social demoncrats, private property rights will be finished here within 50 years.


Funny how you so openly speak of "eliminating" people. Sorry to break Godwin's Law, but the language is too Freudian not to miss. Also ironic since the person I would refer to also "eliminated" people that he considered to be burdens of the social welfare system.

----------


## South Park Fan

> Ideally, I am for open borders, no state, and free markets. But this nonsense from Democratic Statists that diversity is strength is patently absurd, and can be debunked with a plethora of examples. Multiple nations(races, differing ethnic groups etc etc) rarely survive in the same government. It has happened throughout the history of post colonial Africa(Rwanda, Kenya, Rhodesia, South Africa, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola), with the Kurds and Turks, Kurds and Iraqis, with the Palestinians and Israelis, and in the Balkans.


The nations with the biggest ethnic problems also tend to have large governments, with creates a zero-sum game that encourages tribalism. If these countries liberalized [in the classical sense] their economies and government control, there would be less ethnic strife.

----------


## RedStripe

> Here's a good start for you: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...ment-property/


John Taylor, you read that article yet?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration.  And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers -- even if only out of curiosity -- considered, pursued or even raised.
> 
> Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.  If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad.  But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.
> 
> In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?
> 
> *What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society.  They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.*
> _Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? Jefferson asked.  If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here._
> 
> ...


Where do people come up with this crap?  Some obsessive drive to be different?

In the first US congress in 1789, James Madison introduced a bill that basically said if you came here and worked for 5 years, then you became a citizen.  This was passed by the House, the Senate, and signed by George Washington and represents a consensus view of the Founders.

Later before and during the War of 1812, the US welcomed immigrants including those from the British Empire.  The tyrannical empire kidnapped thousands of men who had come to America and became citizens here who wanted to live under a democratic republic.

----------


## John Taylor

> Funny how you so openly speak of "eliminating" people. Sorry to break Godwin's Law, but the language is too Freudian not to miss. Also ironic since the person I would refer to also "eliminated" people that he considered to be burdens of the social welfare system.


We're discussing removing them from the country and repatriating them to their country of origin, not in murdering them. 

Until the warfare/welfare state is dismantled, a policy of open immigration is absolute and complete suicide.

----------


## John Taylor

> John Taylor, you read that article yet?


Helped edit it.

----------


## John Taylor

> Where do people come up with this crap?  Some obsessive drive to be different?
> 
> In the first US congress in 1789, James Madison introduced a bill that basically said if you came here and worked for 5 years, then you became a citizen.  This was passed by the House, the Senate, and signed by George Washington and represents a consensus view of the Founders.
> 
> Later before and during the War of 1812, the US welcomed immigrants including those from the British Empire.  The tyrannical empire kidnapped thousands of men who had come to America and became citizens here who wanted to live under a democratic republic.


Take it up with Thomas Woods. 

We're facing a far different situation today. We have millions upon millions of new redistributionist voters moving north from their socialist homes.

----------


## j6p

Flip flop Johnny boy cant get his facts stright. He's for Banning protesters on public property, wants protesters to get state granted permit. For expanding police power, in the same of stopping brownie.

----------


## John Taylor

> Flip flop Johnny boy cant get his facts stright. He's for Banning protesters on public property, wants protesters to get state granted permit. For expanding police power, in the same of stopping brownie.


Nope, I don't support banning any protests. Protests are a time, place, and manner expression of free speech. Do I think that someone like j6p should be free to enter a private debate gathered of opposing party's candidates and members and shout them down at their own meeting? No, I tend to respect others' freedom of association and freedom of speech. 

Once again, this illegal immigration thing has to do with the redistributive effect these people will have on the United States, and on our electoral map for the future, not on whether 59% of the illegals are Mexican in their extraction.

Nice attempt at race-baiting though j6p!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Take it up with Thomas Woods. 
> 
> We're facing a far different situation today. We have millions upon millions of new redistributionist voters moving north from their socialist homes.


I'd say the media drives that attitude, not the Mexicans.

----------

