America's Founding Fathers opposed unrestricted immigration

Ed. discourages me from "retweeting" entire columns or articles by other writers. He calls me lazy and asks, if readers can find the original elsewhere, what good does it do to post it here? I agree, and normally will select a few sentences or paragraphs, add a couple of comments, and provide a link to the original piece. Sometimes, though, nothing less than the entire column or article will do. So it is with "Immigration and our Founding Fathers’ values", by Michelle Malkin. I am a regular reader of her blog.

President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is “offensive and contrary to American values.” No-limits liberals have attacked common-sense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling or immigration slowdowns as “un-American.”

America’s Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “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?”

No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “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.”

Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: “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.”

Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

He predicted, correctly, that “The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” He asserted, “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions “as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders’ intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: “It is well settled that applicants don’t have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. … As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the Public Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest.”

Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn’t value its own citizens and sovereignty first won’t endure as a country for long.

War of 1812 bicentennial celebrations: has anything been learned?

The first shots -- purely rhetorical -- in the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812 have been fired. At the historic battlefield of Queenston Heights, Ontario, yesterday, the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada (and winner of the Steve Harper Prize for Excellence in Drafting Terms of Reference) launched "1000 days of commemorations" of the first war started and lost by the USA.

Perhaps because it was not a Great American Victory [like Vietnam? Ed.], the War of 1812 is not well known in the Excited States. War was declared by President Madison on June 18th, on the advice of many political and military notables, including President Jefferson who opined that the annexation of Canada -- that being the point of the exercise -- was "merely a matter of marching".

As in Vietnam, Iraq and, now, Afghanistan, it turned out to be not so easy. The United States was not prepared to prosecute a war. Madison had assumed that the state militias would easily seize Canada and that negotiations would follow. In 1812, the US Army comprised fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized its expansion to 35,000, but the service was voluntary and unpopular. It offered poor pay, and there were few trained and experienced officers.

The militia objected to serving outside their home states, were not open to discipline, and performed poorly against British forces when outside their home states. One of the first places this lesson was learned was at Queenston, in October of 1812, when units of the New York militia refused to cross the Niagara River to join in the invasion.

All the same, enough Americans scaled Queenston Heights to overpower a small British force and capture its gun. The British, led by Major General Isaac Brock, counter-attacked. Brock, unwisely dressed in his full-dress uniform replete with gold braid, made an easy target for American sharp-shooters as he ran up the hill, and perished.

However, his 2IC, General Roger Hale Sheaffe, arrived with reinforcements -- British regulars, Canadian militia and a large number of "Indians" (as "First Nations" people were then called), whom the Americans feared greatly for their interest in scalp-collecting.

The men in red (and green and tan and assorted other colours) handed the Americans a crushing defeat, which will be re-enacted this fall. In his address yesterday, the Governor General expressed the hope that, in the spirit of friendship between the two countries, the Americans would refrain from using live ammunition. [Ed. Please check this; I didn't really listen to the speech.] Nevertheless, as they always sing in their national anthem, the Canadians will "stand on guard".

Footnote: Major General Brock became "Sir" Isaac Brock only after his death, being knighted posthumously. A very tall monument on Queenston Heights is surmounted by a statue of Brock, looking watchfully across the river -- standing on guard, no doubt. The only statue dedicated to General Sheaffe -- who actually won the battle -- is a small one...of his horse.

Another footnote: On June 15th, Canada Post issued two stamps, one showing "Sir Isaac Brock" and the other his great Indian ally, Tecumseh. The inscription on the marginal tab (above Tecumseh) says "They protected territories from American expansionism". Indeed.

Recommended reading: Two entertaining pop histories by Pierre Berton: The Invasion of Canada (covering the period 1812-13) and Flames Across the Border (1813-14). In the latter, you can read how the Americans routed the Brits from Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) and burned the village to the ground. Of course you'll also have to read about the British and Canadian burning of Buffalo. Niagara-on-the-Lake was rebuilt and is today a very pretty little town. As for Buffalo... well...