How the Founder’s Immigration Vision is Misunderstood

An article meant to disparage Trump‘s first term from a few years ago put forward an idea of the founding father’s vision that was so historically incomplete that it became clear a counterarticle was needed. They write that “Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson viewed the United States as a place for refugees.” This statement is true, yet it leaves out a key reality about the founders beliefs. Every founding father believed that a prerequisite to citizenship was some sort of virtue and ability to assimilate. This was such a great concern that Benjamin Franklin even had deep worries about the abilities of Germans to assimilate and worried that they would germanize the country. In contrast to the founding fathers full view of the requirements of citizenship, leftists, neocons, and libertarians all have a view of immigration that permits anyone who is not a violent criminal being given citizenship as expediently as possible. That debate on immigration requires that the disagreement over the values and benefits of citizenship be resolved.

Jefferson described America as a safe haven for the virtuous and some of the other founders would have said that this statement was far too permissive. Virtue was only one category among many needed to determine whether someone was aligned enough with the nation and citizenry that they could become an effective citizen. Coming from European nations that had shared ancestral history and identity, they had no examples of cosmopolitan nations as we conceive of them today. Their idea of coexistence was limited to what would be seen as laughably minor differences today. For their time they were radically progressive, and allowed more freedom to immigrate than almost any other country. However, there was a limit to how large of cultural differences they thought could fruitfully coexist in one nation. They understood that even while being free to live life as they saw fit, some shared vision of the nation’s future had to exist. The founders did have deep sympathy for the oppressed around the world, but they knew that a lack of character was always one generation away from tyranny. The less palatable beliefs of the founders revolved around the idea of cultural alignment. Franklin’s beliefs on the Germans are just one example of how they sought to limit immigration on far more limited axes than would be done today. We will never know how they would’ve responded to the specific immigration conditions that we have today, but when we can be certain that it wouldn’t be the toothless rejection of any objective morality that is used to justify immigration today.

Up until Trump’s presidency, the platforms behind both parties were in favor of relatively unrestricted legal immigration. Guilt tactics had let people feel that they were morally inferior for questioning whether any group of people from any country in the world might have too much difficulty. This logic necessarily stripped bare any concept of shared American values. It is extremely difficult in a free nation to dictate the internal character of one’s people, having a shared background makes it much easier for citizens to understand one another. An ideological alignment test or other forms of mental control would be horrific, but that would almost be understandable than the unrealistic and historically aggressive stance pushed by the immigration lobby. If America seeks to be a nation where radical freedom is allowed, there must be some rigorous way of ensuring that people will be ready for that freedom. Even if there are not more restrictive immigration requirements, the process of becoming a citizen should be made more rigorous as a result of the incredible financial benefits that are rewarded for being a US citizen. People in Third World countries would almost all strictly be better off if they became US citizens, and because of the inability of the US to provide for all of them at one time, we should make the process process of efficiency and slow discernment rather than having a dogma of letting everyone in. 

The limitations of government provision are the greatest barrier to the Founder’s vision of safety for refugees. The welfare state must go. A nation that is open and welcoming to all can only work if it has institutional structures that reward hard work and reduces government dependency. The right would not be against immigration if there were not excessive financial benefits associated with being a citizen. The founders would not have wanted even virtuous citizens to be given so much government created benefit, let alone those who immigrated just to receive benefits.