Steve Farrell
Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2004

Story Continues Below

  President Thomas Jefferson, a descendent of immigrants, presiding over a nation of immigrants, thought so.

In his first annual message, dated Dec. 9, 1801, he asked of those who thought to impose an extremely arduous and unreasonable course to citizenship (a 14-year residency requirement) a few probing questions:

“Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our father arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be require to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embracing his life and fortunes permanently with us?” (1)

Good questions, every one. Jefferson was saying that being tough on the constitutional standards for political office is one thing, but raising the bar equally high or higher for mere citizenship is quite another.

If the advocates of today’s liberal immigration policies and the far more radical proposals for open borders are looking for proof from the Founders that they are right, here it is.

But maybe not. If it is fidelity to the Founders they REALLY want, then they had better read on.

President Jefferson also suggested that America balance her open-arm policy “with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation being involved in war.”

“[N]o endeavor,” he said, “should be spared to detect and suppress” this sort of immigrant. (2)

So much for blind liberality. Not every immigrant is a friend of America. Jefferson was no fool, and we shouldn’t be either. We ARE at war. And there are plenty today who fraudulently usurp the flag, who indeed wrap it around them with fiery zeal, when in fact their every design is to trample on her and us.

There were other concerns, as well.

In his “Notes on Virginia,” Jefferson reflects, “It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. 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 reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies [and yes, today, Third World socialism]. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants.”

He then warns prophetically:

“They will bring with them the principle 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. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” (3)

There is theory, and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that to every liberal law there were some reasonable limits.

We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want freedom-seekers, but not those who equate license with liberty. We want to offer incentives, but not “extraordinary encouragements” to the slothful. (4) We want to welcome immigrants with open arms, but not surrender our political traditions to a new majority of the uneducated and uninitiated.

What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of our immigration policy today that with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come, from countries that hate us, to a feast of free food, free health care, free education, free Social Security benefits, free and instant voter registration cards (remember election 2000?) and free amnesty for those who choose to defy our laws – and all this in a time of war and mounting national debt?

It is hard to imagine Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, extraordinarily revolutionary, and extraordinarily dangerous. I’m sure Jefferson would have proposed something better – a policy both liberal in its extension of the blessings of liberty to those who desire it, and conservative in its economic and political common sense.

And I feel confident, were he asked about whether or not we need to rework and reform our current immigration policies, as our president suggests we need to do, he would agree. In the interest of national security, in the interest of political solidarity, he would say we need to make them tougher, tighter and tidier.

Reform, after all, should make things better, not worse. Let’s hope President Bush agrees.

Contact Steve

NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, press agent for Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International), and the author of the highly praised, inspirational novel “Dark Rose” (available at amazon.com).

For you West Coast night owls, every Monday you can catch Steve on Mark Edwards’ “Wake up America!” talk radio show on 50,000-Watt KDWN, 720 AM, 10 p.m. to midnight; or on the worldwide internet at AmericanVoiceRadio.com

Footnotes

1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pp. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121.

Editor's note: