Episode 447 - Immigration Confusion with Springfield, Ohio An Example

Subscribe: RSS

See the link for the video of ‘Immigration Confusion with Springfield, Ohio An Example’ at Rumble or YouTube

From a Foundational First Principles perspective we are living out Immigration Confusion with Springfield, Ohio as one example. You must be patient and get through the confusion described at the onset of this program before I take you into the First Principles of Constitutional intent regarding naturalization, immigration and Citizenship. It may shock you to know that the Founders believed in open immigration. They did not expect mass migration as a form of immigration. I will clearly clarify what was expected of all new persons coming to these United States in search of Citizenship.

As always, I will make some comments on the recorded program that are not written. I have a hard time stay on script.

A Historical Diversion

John Adams wrote in Novanglus, Thoughts on Government, Defence of the Constitution, emphasis is my addition:

“The patricians were alarmed; but Cassius had numbers on his side, and was so confident of success, that he betrayed too soon his ambitious design, by offering the freedom of the city to aliens, who, at his invitation, crowded from all parts to vote in the assemblies of the Roman people. This convinced all parties that his views were, by the means of aliens and indigent citizens, to usurp the government. All parties combined against him, and he was condemned for treason. The tribunes had no sooner destroyed Cassius, than they adopted his project, and insisted on the law for the nomination of three commissioners.”

The same strategies used within the Uni-party, oligarchs and corporatists of our present systems.

From Samuel Adam: TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS. JANUARY 16, 1795.

Elections are the immediate acts of the people’s sovereignty, in which no foreigners should be allowed to intermeddle. Upon free and unbiassed elections, the purity of the government, and consequently the safety and welfare of the citizens, may I not say altogether depend.

Again, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS. JANUARY 27, 1797.

That elections may not be contaminated by strangers, or unqualified persons, may it not be necessary that every man may be known, as far as possible, when he presents himself to give his vote; this may be more especially important in our seaports and other populous towns, in which many foreigners of all sorts frequently reside. I would be far from dictating to you, but I would submit to your judgment whether, considering the liberality of this country to foreigners, and the frequency of their naturalizations, it may not be eligible that such foreigners should be required when they offer their votes to the Selectmen of the towns, to produce authentic certificates from the Courts, by which they were endowed with so high a privilege, as a test of their citizenship.

This is meant for local, state and national elections. Voter Identity is necessary and simply, No foreigners can vote.

Continuing

The difference between the perspective on immigration from our foundation and the present is in that: at the founding there were not any public services or tax payer buckets of money for aliens coming to the United States. In other words, No hand outs and No bureaucracies manipulating the system. Also, the issue of allegiance was crucial.

I will be delving into those First Principles of the Constitutional structure for immigration/Naturalization as developed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship). In Addition to the University of Chicago Press ‘the Founders Constitution,’ I will be directing your attention to a great article from Hillsdale College on this topic (see the References). The subheading in that article on Assimilation is well done and documented.

As one can ascertain, what is going on in our present time is a complete confusion of Constitutional intent vs. political rhetoric and the unlearned truth for those desiring to keep the United States as they believe it should be.

But what if the confusion is in the lack of knowledge of original intent and then the ideological globalist and corporatist perversion of Constitutional intent?

Springfield, Ohio as One Example

The immigration confusions that are occurring are not specific to Springfield, Ohio. This month of September program and commentary is NOT about any particular ethnic group or nationality. This program is about a concerted effort by ideologues to alter the social and political structure of local communities, States and the Nation for their own economic, social and oligarchical benefits.

This small city in Ohio is an example of what is going on throughout every State in the Union. The confusion is exacerbated by the deception of RINO’s like Governor Mike DeWine not helping the citizenry to understand first principles of Constitutionalism in this regard. Then also, naturally, the leftist governors in other states function only on an ideological and tyrannical basis. Notice that this time I did not insult pigs by saying DeSwine. At least pigs have a useful purpose in the food chain. Ok, enough of that. Governor DeWine misleads people with a quarter truth by claiming that the Haitians in Springfield are legal. The legality of the issue at hand is how the Federal government is forcing open immigration / migration with a full intent to financially burden local resources and possibly supplant the existing citizenry through manipulating immigration law and programs.

There may be some individuals and families of these and other aliens that have arrived legally more than five years ago but as noted in this article, Gov. DeWine and Media Claim Springfield’s Haitian Migration Is ‘Legal’, there is a lot of play-on-words and false sympathies protracted with the misuses of immigration policies of the Biden Administration.

DeWine claims that the Haitians are migrants and are legal. Are they truly migrants and legal based on first principles? We shall see shortly.

Statements by politicians and bureaucrats, without rational argument and fact lead to the great contention being exhibited. The issue at hand is not the Haitian people per say, except the criminal element of course. The issue is an improper representation of the programs that the Biden Administration is using to flood already financially and services strapped communities.

The Department of Homeland Security is maximizing the use of the Immigration Parole Program to flood illegals into States and Cities. In the case of Springfield, the majority of Haitians are under the Immigration Parole Program (IPP) and ‘Temporary Protected Status’ (TPS), which are the mechanism by which many of these people are being trafficked for modern slavery into communities everywhere in the U. S. DeWine admits that the Haitians in Springfield are there to boost the economy. See the above article.

Those that have a good understanding of these programs for illegals know that IPP and TPS give false status to those who do not belong in U. S. as designed in rational immigration law but are here most evidently by various government funded entities manipulating the system for their entry and often abuse.

The great question that needs to be answered in all instances is: Who is financially benefiting from these humans who have been transported to the likes of a Springfield, Ohio?

Various investigative citizen journalist have been finding that PPP’s (Private Public Partnerships) and individuals who own housing, transportation and large companies are making a lot of money at the expense of their fellow citizens, tax money going to those in the programs.

Line In The Sand

I am totally supporting the movie being release on October 10, The Line In The Sand by James O’Keefe. Read a promo article andSee the trailer here.

Just remember that the political elite like DeWine, oligarchs and corporatist will always find ways to manipulate the system and narrative. So too do organization that are pro-migrant. They like to manipulate the ‘narrative’ such that shenanigans look as if everything is under control and legal. Is it?

More importantly, follow the money on this new form of slavery and replacement philosophy for national dominance.

Additionally, this video is interesting to watch: Tensions Rise at Springfield Ohio Townhall (September 24 2024)

Several Quick Points on IPP and TPS

Before I move to foundational first principles, I wanted to give you some quick points about IPP and TPS and Haitians in particular.

The key here is that politicians and bureaucracies, for a century, have not followed Constitutional intent. Corporatist greatly influence how policies would be perverted such that we now have an invasion of illegals as a national crisis.

The following are directly from a liberal web site called Boundless.

IPP – Immigration Parole Program

Immigration parole is granted to certain non-citizens, allowing them to temporarily live and, in some cases, work in the United States without fear of deportation. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is able to grant parole status for urgent humanitarian reasons or reasons pertaining to public interest.

The law does not strictly define these terms, leaving it up to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — and its three sub-agencies — to determine their meaning. It’s important to note that, similar to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, immigration parole is not an immigration status nor does it mean that a person has been officially admitted into the United States.

I contend that the following two types of IPP are being used for the Haitians and many others that are being trafficked into the U. S.

Significant Public Benefit Parole

This type of parole is generally implemented when a non-citizen, who is otherwise unable to enter the United States, is needed as a witness in court proceedings — usually involving international drug trafficking or issues pertaining to national security.

In rare cases, public benefit parole might be extended to a non-citizen seeking experimental medical treatment. In this case, it might be argued that the public would benefit from the knowledge gained during the administration of treatment.

Urgent Humanitarian Parole (see https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian_parole )

This type of parole is issued based on humanitarian grounds, such as an urgent medical or family emergency, or extenuating circumstances in an applicant’s home country. Boundless put together a detailed guide on the humanitarian parole process, where you can learn more about the eligibility requirements and application process.

I further contend that these are being misused to fill job with a labor force that supplants the citizens of any town, city, region or state. So as to have minions that vote to maintain power-mongers and make those providing services, such as housing and transportation, wealthy at the expense of those enslaved in these programs.

TPS History

Included in the Immigration Act of 1990 is the power for the Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice, to grant temporary protected status — a non-permanent status that allows its grantees to work and live in the United States – to individuals from countries where returning is not a safe option. This status can be granted if the country is affected by armed conflict, unprecedented natural disaster, or other extraordinary, temporary conditions.

Until 2003, immigration was administered by the Department of Justice. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and three immigration agencies: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Eventually the power to grant TPS shifted by statute from the Attorney General to the newer position of Secretary of Homeland Security.

How is TPS Determined?

Whether or not a country is given a TPS designation is at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS is required to consult with other federal agencies, like the Departments of State, Defense, or Justice in creating the designation for a country, or even a part of a country.

And there is more on this page titled:

Temporary Protected Status, Explained

Understanding temporary legal status for immigrants in the U.S.

The most interesting contentions that US Citizens should have about this program is that it opens the doors to all of out resources with not one iota of those being given the status under TPS, requiring them to have allegiance to the United States as intended from a Constitutional First Principles perspective.

Additionally this is suppose to be a temporary status. Those with TPS should be working toward returning to their country of origin. Instead, they are bilking billions of dollars from US tax payers. They are negatively impacting every human resource reserved for citizens. And worse they are being taken advantage of by greedy politicians, business owners and public service organizations.

Lastly regarding the use of TPS by the Department of Homeland Security’s leadership, They very well are most likely violating the use of TPS when considering just this from ‘Requirements for being granted TPS.’

Be a national, or a habitually stateless resident, of a country with TPS

Be continuously physically present in the United States since a country’s TPS designation;

Have continuously resided in the United States since a date specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security; and

Pose no threat to the U.S. for nefarious, criminal or national security-related reasons, determined by the relevant U.S. agency. An applicant’s criminal and immigration history play an important factor in determining eligibility. Incidents and behavior in the person’s country of origin before arriving to the United States are also evaluated.

First Principles Should Overcome Immigration Confusion

I am taking you back to my most favorite work, the Founders Constitution from University of Chicago Press. We will jump right to Article 1, Section 8, clause 4 (Citizenship) and all the references at this link.

Key Points

First principle is Allegiance

>Back to 1765

William Blackstone’s Commentaries: 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.

It is clear and obvious that in these United States we have very few Natural born citizens who have true ‘perpetual’ allegiance to their State or Naiton.

A dilemma seen in the global citizen:

…for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.

Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully.

Of this first principle, allegiance, we must teach it again in every format of education.

Second Principle – inclusiveness of citizenship.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:App. 184–85, 254–59; 2:App. 90–103

This is a long read and goes into the complexities of citizenship under the Articles of Confederation. One reason for Clause 4 in the federal constitution is:

The federal court, consisting of judges Wilson and Blair, of the supreme court, and judge Peters, district judge in Pennsylvania, at a circuit court held for the district of Pennsylvania, in April, 1792; decided, “that the states, individually, still enjoy a concurrent jurisdiction upon the subject of naturalization: but that their individual authority cannot be exercised so as to contravene the rule established by the authority of the union: the true reason for investing congress with the power of naturalization (said the court,) was to guard against too narrow, instead of too liberal a mode of conferring the right of citizenship. Thus the individual states cannot exclude those citizens, who have been adopted by the United States; but they can adopt citizens upon easier terms, than those which congress may deem it expedient to impose.”

and a contrarian perspective was immediately at hand. No different than in our present time:

But this decision seems to have been afterwards doubted by judge Iredel, 2 Dallas, 373. And the act of 5 cong. c. 71. declares, that “no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by that act.” And by a subsequent act, passed 7 cong. chapter 28, it is also declared, that any alien, being a free white person, may become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the conditions therein mentioned, “and not otherwise.” These legislative expositions of the constitution do not accord with the judicial opinion above-mentioned. A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration…

There is much to be studied in what St. George Tucker writes regarding Clause 4 but let me leave you with this regarding leaving ones country. The challenge here is ‘where is a persons alligience?

If a doubt exists upon what principle it is founded? perhaps it will be answered, upon the power granted to congress by the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. I have given an answer to this, in a preceding tract. Perhaps; upon the faith of our treaties with France, England, and other European nations. But those treaties only stipulate for the conduct of the citizens of the United States, so long as they remain such; not, for their conduct after they shall have abandoned that character in the manner which the laws of the respective states permit.

If a person violates the treaties, and remains a citizen, the treaties stipulate that he shall be punished, or be abandoned by the U. States, as a pirate, and robber. But, if before he attaches himself to any other nation, he renounces his character of an American citizen, I cannot see that he is any longer amenable to the United States for his conduct; nor can they be considered as any longer responsible for a conduct which in ninety nine cases out of an hundred, they can by no possibility control, or punish; the parties having forever bidden adieu to their territory and jurisdiction.

…

An alien in America, antecedent to the revolution, was entitled to all the rights and privileges of an alien in England, and many more; to all that an alien in England could claim, because, as has been remarked elsewhere, the common law of England and every statute of that country made for the benefit of the subject, before our ancestors migrated to this country, were, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation, and for their benefit, brought over hither by them; and wherever they are not repealed, altered, or amended by the constitutional provisions, or legislative declaration, of the respective states, every beneficial statute and rule of the common law still remains in force. An alien in America was also entitled to many more rights than an alien in England. 1st, By the very act of migrating to, and settling in, America, he became ipso facto a denizen, under the express stipulations of the colonial charters, (all of which, it is believed, contained similar clauses) whereby it was stipulated for the better encouragement of all who would engage in the settlement of the colonies, that they, and every of them that should thereafter be inhabiting the same, should, and might, have all the privileges of free denizens, or persons native of England. 2d, By the same act of migrating he had a right to be naturalized under the sanction of a pre-existing law, made not only for the benefit, but for the encouragement, of all in a similar situation with himself. The operation of these laws was immediate, not remote; he became a denizen, as of right, instantly; he became naturalized upon payment of the legal fees for his letters of naturalization, and taking the usual oaths.

By the adoption of the constitution of the United States, the rights of aliens to become citizens was by no means intended to be taken away. . . . on the contrary, it is expressly provided, that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, throughout the United States.

A short conclusion is that the larger perspective on citizenship, natural and alien is all related to commerce and property with commerce being the major driver. So too is commerce one of the major drivers for ‘migration’ instead of managed immigration.

A contrary position to Federal oversight of naturalization.

The Anti-federalist Agrippa in No. 9 writes:

We come now to the second and last article of complaint against the present confederation, which is, that Congress has not the sole power to regulate the intercourse between us and foreigners. Such a power extends not only to war and peace, but to trade and naturalization. This last article ought never to be given them; for though most of the states may be willing for certain reasons to receive foreigners as citizens, yet reasons of equal weight may induce other states, differently circumstanced, to keep their blood pure. Pennsylvania has chosen to receive all that would come there. Let any indifferent person judge whether that state in point of morals, education, energy is equal to any of the eastern states; the small state of Rhode-Island only excepted. Pennsylvania in the course of a century has acquired her present extent and population at the expense of religion and good morals. The eastern states have, by keeping separate from the foreign mixtures, acquired, their present greatness in the course of a century and an half, and have preserved their religion and morals. They have also preserved that manly virtue which is equally fitted for rendering them respectable in war, and industrious in peace.

Aliens and Naturalization

1^st Legislation 1790

It is more prudent, in the constraint of time for the program, that I give you the link to the ‘House of Representatives, Rule of Naturalization’ debate and resolve.

In short summary,

Rules needed to be in place for immigration of aliens to become a citizen and own property. During the debate, I found this comment by Mr. Madison most interesting in relationship to our present situation:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. 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? 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. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential.

I highly recommend that this full debate be read. What insights about how human nature is viewed and the common argument that you necessarily cannot keep the bad out since it would possibly keep out the good.

Debate on House of Representatives, Naturalization Bill 22, 26 , 29–31 Dec. 17941, 8 Jan. 1795

Another long debate to determine the mechanisms and desires for aliens entering the country to become citizens. There never was any intent on mass amnesty. There was always a mechanism for properly becoming a citizen.

To this I refer to a portion of Mr. Page’s comments as what should be a high priority is the assimilation proceedings of those wanting citizenship.

Mr. Page said, that he approved the design of the mover, because he thought nothing more desirable than to see good order, public virtue, and true morality, constituting the character of citizens of the United States; for, without morality, and indeed a general sense of religion, a Republican Government cannot flourish, nay, cannot long exist; since without these, disorders will arise, which the strong arm of powerful Government can alone correct or retrieve. But he should vote against the amendment, because he thought, as his colleague [Mr. Madison] did, that it would be attended with embarassments to the admission to the rights of citizenship, which good men ought not to have thrown into their way; and which, too, for his part, he thought might prove insurmountable obstacles to such. Yet they would be no impediment to the views of bad men, or such as he wished to exclude from citizenship, for the best man in the United States might not procure the certificate required by the amendment, if he moved from State to State, staying no where long enough to enable two persons to swear that they had known him to be of such a character as we require, and to have supported it during the length of time which the amendment prescribes. Yet bad men, associating chiefly with men like themselves, regardless of oaths, might procure the requisite certificate. He disliked the amendment on account of its requiring an oath at all. He trusted that a Constitution much admired, and with such wholesome laws, will be an inducement to many good men to become citizens, and that, should bad men come amongst us, they will be discountenanced by the more virtuous class of citizens, and if necessary be punished by the laws. He hoped that good schools would soon be spread all over the States, and hence that good sense and virtue will be so generally diffused amongst us, that emigrants will be unable to corrupt our manners. Even at present, he relied so much on the virtue and discernment of his fellow citizens, the power of the law, and the energy of Government, as to apprehend no danger from emigration into the United States. Mr. P. said, that he knew instances of difficulties which some worthy men had met with in their endeavors to procure such certificates as the amendment proposed. He mentioned one clergyman in Virginia. Even Dr. Griffith, after being nominated Bishop of that State, found it difficult to procure from the Convention the certificate required by the English bishops; because, though hundreds of other persons knew his worthy character, a sufficient number of the members of the Convention had not known it, during the term specified in the certificate required.

There is so much more to go through in the document at the ‘Founder’s Constitution’ regarding this topic. I would encourage you to digest William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84–101 1829 (2d ed.) on this topic. He does a great analysis which make complete sense of the issue.

Final Point…For Now

The Immigration Confusion with Springfield, Ohio as an example is again a result of the lack of knowledge concerning the Constitution and its intent. The issue is not immigration but mass migration. There never was any foundational intent to subsidies people coming to this land. Being a burden on the natural born citizens and the naturalized citizens is against every principle of making these United States a prosperous nation of citizens who have allegiance to the success of all.

Assimilation is not what is happening with the mass migration being foisted upon communities. George Washington in a 15 November, 1794 letter to John Adams he wrote:

My opinion with respect to emigration is, that except of useful mechanic’s—and some particular descriptions of men—or professions—there is no need of extra encouragement: while 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 & 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, manners and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

>Regarding assimilation, the 1795 naturalization law stated that: In addition to an oath of allegiance, a naturalized citizen must declare in court that “he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject.” This absolute renunciation had to be preceded by a declaration in a court of competent jurisdiction, at least three years previous to becoming of citizen, making the same renunciation. The requirement of absolute renunciation of all other loyalties was retained in the 1798 and 1802 naturalization laws.

Additionally, John Quincy Adams wrote:

But there is one principle which pervades all the institutions of this country, and which must always operate as an obstacle to the granting of favors to new comers. This is a land, not of privileges, but of equal rights. Privileges are granted by European sovereigns to particular classes of individuals, for purposes of general policy; but the general impression here is that privileges granted to one denomination of people, can very seldom be discriminated from erosions of the rights of others. Emigrants from Germany, therefore, or from elsewhere, coming here, are not to expect favors from the governments. They are to expect, if they choose to become citizens, equal rights with those of the natives of the country. They are to expect, if affluent, to possess the means of making their property productive, with moderation, and with safety; – if indigent, but industrious, honest and frugal, the means of obtaining easy and comfortable subsistence for themselves and their families. They come to a life of independence, but to a life of labor – and, if they cannot accommodate themselves to the character, moral, political, and physical, of this country, with all its compensating balances of good and evil, the Atlantic is always open to them, to return to the land of their nativity and their fathers.

Here is an interesting article 2007 by Michelle Malkin that you should read:

The forgotten ‘A’ word: Assimilation. The is even more pertinent for our presentt.

It is more than obvious that the Uni-party, oligarchs and corporatists want a replacement of the citizenry for economic and political power self-benefits. This mass migration issue, is Immigration Confusion to ensure those who are engrossed in it, make the most money they can off the lives of those being trafficked.