Political speech is the most scrutinized speech in the world. There used to be a monologue George Carlin did “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”. Now there are a multitude of words that apparently conservatives can’t say anywhere, at any time. However, the word most in the public arena of late is “immigration” or as a lot of left wing, racial demagogues call it “The “I” word”. In fact it is one of those “dog whistle” words America has been told by MSNBC (and their 38 viewers) is a signal to the underground, closet racists they are certain reside in the conservative movement.
But the word no-one, Republican, Democrat or liberals dare to use in our current “discussion” on amnesty, undocumented peoples, illegal aliens (In law, an alien is a person in a country who is not a citizen of that country…the law dictionary is apparently racist) is the new “N-Word”…Naturalization. What? You’ve not heard a single politician or pundit use this word while telling Americans there are jobs Americans won’t do so we need to just start printing fiat citizenship papers? Why do I bring this to your attention? Because we are slowly losing American history and principles and the only way to save it is to bring it back in the face of lawmakers and citizens alike.
Most people would say that I am playing semantics and that immigration is the modern equivalent of naturalization. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “naturalize” as this: To confer on an alien the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen; to adopt foreigners into a nation or state, and place them in the condition of natural born subjects. From that same dictionary the word “emigrate” (the more common usage at the time) is defined as; To quit one country, state or region and settle in another. In essence my reading of the early debates of the Constitution’s mandate that “The Congress shall have Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….”(ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4) clearly guides future generations into the idea that to sustain a strong and prosperous future for our American Republic we must have an iron clad purpose and standard for admitting foreigners into the privileges of citizenship. No two quotes sum up these principles any better than James Madison and Benjamin Harrison and yet these statements were made nearly 100 years apart!
President Benjamin Harrison said this in his inaugural address in 1889:
Our naturalization laws should be so amended as to make the inquiry into the character and good disposition of persons applying for citizenship more careful and searching. Our existing laws have been in their administration an unimpressive and often an unintelligible form. We accept the man as a citizen without any knowledge of his fitness, and he assumes the duties of citizenship without any knowledge as to what they are. The privileges of American citizenship are so great and its duties so grave that we may well insist upon a good knowledge of every person applying for citizenship and a good knowledge by him of our institutions. We should not cease to be hospitable to immigration, but we should cease to be careless as to the character of it. There are men of all races, even the best, whose coming is necessarily a burden upon our public revenues or a threat to social order. These should be identified and excluded.
And yet, in the FIRST congress as they debated the true measure of a foreigners fidelity to this great American Experiment, James Madison after hearing hours of debate on this “rule of naturalization” said this February 3, 1790; “We’re not here to merely 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.”
The easy way to summarize the difference between what the Founding Fathers wanted as the standard and what today’s Permanent Political Class (PPC) wants is this; Naturalization is a heart/mind/allegiance change and Immigration is a simple change of address (hence the flying of foreign flags in neighborhoods across our country). The Founders wanted high character, moral, potential citizens and the PPC desires bought and paid for “voting subjects” (pre-programmed voters perpetually dependent). The Heritage Foundation has an excellent piece on the “Rule of Naturalization”.
Finally, I know we conservatives are often accused of living in the past and I contend that we respect an embrace the past as a means of preventing future disasters. With that in mind, how do conservatives shed the mostly media generated narrative that conservatives aren’t connecting with minorities, especially Hispanics/Latinos? First we must communicate to elected officials and voters that our primary focus is on strengthening America by supporting only those who respect our “Rule of Law” and our Country enough to use the current legal process available to people of all nationalities. This establishes the first character test! As a side bar, I have speculated that a beloved idiom among us conservatives (The Rule of Law) could be an inadvertent disconnect from those who come from oppressive nations. Why? We understand this term to encapsulate our most closely held belief that “governments are instituted among men” for the SOLE purpose of protecting our God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution. However, this concept is directly inverse in most South/Central American countries! That’s right, “the LAW” most of the time is the OPPRESSORS! So it is understandable to me that when we use phraseology that WE are comfortable with among ourselves it may be signaling to first and second generation LEGAL immigrants that we are perhaps supporting oppressive government thugs. While we should never be willing to compromise on supporting the Rule of Law perhaps we should make sure we are educating people what that term means to us and what it might mean to them.
Conservatives do not fear people of other colors or nationalities. We fear the allegiances to foreign ideas that drive oppressive governments that WILL be imported and overtake the world’s most unique experiment in self-government. The pandering must end. The government enticements to the lowest of characters around the globe to come and be “subjects” of a government that has transformed our nation into a quasi-socialist, utopian experiment must be defeated. We will do this through educating people in the real history of our Constitution and demanding a high standard for entrance to our beloved country. ALL of good character, who desire to leave behind the oppressiveness of a dictatorship and central planning masterminds, who yearn to be free and to discover the best in themselves are welcome here…LEGALLY. I’ll let Thomas Jefferson close:
Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, 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. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children…Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? 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.
Begin asking politicians who desire any form of amnesty what current piece of law, (that is NOT being followed anyway) regarding naturalization, is too difficult to obey? Lastly, ask them if enough of us begin robbing banks consistently will we be given amnesty because there are “just too many of us”?