Welfare for immigrants is alien to our laws, history, and traditions

From Conservative Review:

Immigration is an elective policy of a sovereign nation. It should benefit America and never create a public charge. That notion is one of the most foundational principles of our country. It dates back to colonial times and has been enforced by the states since the founding and then by the federal government when it fully reclaimed immigration in the 1880s. That immigrants shouldn’t be a public charge is still the law on the books, yet it’s rarely enforced. Now that the Trump administration is seeking to enforce the law, suddenly the Left is screaming about denying immigrants their rightful citizenship.

NBC published a report predicting that any week now, Stephen Miller will convince President Trump to sign off on a policy denying citizenship to those immigrants on welfare. In other words, he will be the first president in recent years to follow the letter and spirit of immigration statutes. The media is ready with a barrage of sob stories with no regard for the harm to American citizens.

Our history, tradition, and law: Immigration should only benefit the nation

The notion of immigrants coming here and obtaining public assistance would have been foreign to our Founders, even if they could have envisioned a welfare state for those already here. In 1813, Madison said emphatically to Morris Birkbeck, “… it is not either the provision of our laws or the practice of the Government to give any encouragement to emigrants, unless it be in cases where they may bring with them some special addition to our stock of arts or articles of culture.”

As I note in Chapter 6 of my book, this is why, already in the 1600s, the northern colonies, and later on the southern colonies, adopted public charge laws denying entry to “paupers.” Even after the Constitution was already signed but still in the process of being ratified, the Continental Congress passed a law in 1788, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, urging states to pass laws “preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries.” A number of states followed suit and banished those viewed as criminals or impoverished.

During the debate over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Madison declared, “I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege [citizenship], but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.”

In the 1820s and ’30s, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (the “border states” of those days) passed laws mandating inspections of landing vessels at the ports to weed out those who would likely be a public charge. In City of New York v. Milne (1837), the Supreme Court deemed New York’s regulation of ships transporting immigrants preventing “multitudes of poor persons” from coming “without possessing the means of supporting themselves” as constitutional and not infringing upon the foreign commerce power of the federal government.

There can be no mode in which the power to regulate internal police could be more appropriately exercised. … Can anything fall more directly within the police power and internal regulation of a state than that which concerns the care and management of paupers or convicts or any other class or description of persons that may be thrown into the country and likely to endanger its safety, or become chargeabl[e] for their maintenance?

If this is how our early political figures thought of state powers to reject public charge (and certainly criminals), how much more so the power of the federal government to protect the whole of the union? Massachusetts passed a similar law, in 1837 when immigration began to increase, requiring an inspection of all aliens aboard a ship and denying the right to land to any passenger thought to be indigent unless the master of the vessel posted bond to ensure that no such “indigent passenger shall become a city, town, or state charge within 10 years.”

While the federal government was able to regulate immigration any time after 1808, pursuant to Art. I Sec. 9, it only regulated naturalization and left the laws of entry to the “border states” like New York and Massachusetts for many of the early years. However, even during that time, since most people would only emigrate en masse with support of the government, the State Department often used diplomatic tools to block public charges (see the Chinese Exclusion case).

Once Congress reclaimed the full power to regulate entry in 1882, these state public charge laws were codified into federal law almost verbatim. The laws passed in the 1880s and 1890s not only barred the entry of those who would constitute a public charge (still the law on the books), but held the owner of the vessel that transported those aliens liable for the cost of their return trip and their temporary stay on American soil. These laws were so strictly enforced that even inadmissible aliens who came during World War I (and couldn’t return to Europe) were only given temporary harbor if relatives paid for their entire stay (see Kaplan v. Tod, 1925).

Read More>>

 

Advertisements

Uncooperative Radio 05-25-18 Live!

@ 10:00pm ET topics:

We start the show with The Pledge of Allegiance.
Then, Ups and Downs for the week, this day in history, some technology news, we will visit the wonderful world of animals, again and it’s the economy stupid

Uncooperative Radio 04-06-18

Uncooperative Radio LIVE at 9pm ET!

We start the show with The Pledge of Allegiance. Brian will rant about the border wall and The National Guard. Then, The Loony Tunny Global Warming Report meets regulations suck! Fighting the Deep State and Trump is not the first president to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border we will explore. Followed by This Day in History.

 

The Society of the Cincinnati

This site is a good place to learn about our Republic. Well, the Republic we are loosing. It will give you ammo against the progs who want to transform this great Nation. Don’t forget to visit patriotspub.us, to learn about the Constitution.


The Society of the Cincinnati is an institution dedicated to promoting the memory and ideals of the American Revolution.  Founded in 1783 by the officers of the Continental Army, the society is named after Cincinnatus, a patriotic leader who refused rewards for serving the Roman republic. 
Read More 

"What Is the American?"

In light of the Supreme Court decision today about affirmative action, I must share this with you.

From ushistory.org 

MICHEL-GUILLAUME DE CRÈVECOEUR was a French settler in the American colonies in the 1770s. Coming from France he could not believe the incredible diversity in the American colonies. Living in one area, he encountered people of English, Welsh, Scots-Irish, German, French, Irish, Swedish, Native American, and African descent. “What then is the American, this new man?” He could not be sure, but he knew it to be different from anything that could be found on the European side of the Atlantic.

Now, we did not need Federal government laws to get along during the founding of this great nation and we do not need them now. And although I know that this is a victory for liberty, it should not have gone to the United States Supreme Court. Show me where, in Article Three of the Constitution, that the Supreme Court has any say in what law which a State decides to enact is allowed to do so. It doesn’t. How dare these idiots in black robes tell a State anything. The arrogance of the court system infuriates me. We need to get away from this gerbil wheel of going to the courts for everything or listening to them. They do not make law, WE THE PEOPLE DO! We decide what is good for our local community and State. We have the power, not them. Whether they make a decision that we as Constitutional Conservatives agree with or not, we need to stop going to them for decisions that effect our lives and our State. They only deal with foreign matters and that’s it!

The 14th Amendment

I am posting a link to this video that Brian reviewed.It is worth every minute to watch this video, it took me over 6 months of research to learn what is on this video, this is factually accurate please pass it on. Brian Bonner

Or go to obama ballot challenge

Isolated measles outbreak has Indiana officials on alert

FYI, just in case you live in Indiana, have relatives there, or are planning to visit there.

From Reuters.com

State Health Commissioner Dr. Gregory Larkin said his department had dispatched workers to seven nearby counties in northern Indiana to identify any additional cases of the highly contagious disease and to prevent its spread.

The workers have also been given additional doses of the measles vaccine. Individuals who have been exposed to an infected person can obtain the vaccine at no cost, according to a statement released by Larkin’s office.

The article does not go into why there have been these outbreaks. Can you say Illegal Aliens from across the globe and third world hell holes? Being an RN I know that this disease can be more serious for adults than children. Especially pregnant women and women of child bearing age. That is why we wiped it out. And I know there is a movement to not have children vaccinated and I know the pros and cons of that movement, but that will be for a different article. When I was growing up, our parents would just let us get all of these childhood diseases so we would build up our own immunity.
Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,