Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: iHeartRadio | RSS | More
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?