I posted this question to a tea party Facebook group and had an interesting conversation with one of the many socialists who are trying to pass as conservatives. Here’s the question, and the conversation.

ΜΕ ⇒ Does anyone know what the immigration policy the founding fathers implemented? Should their policies and thinking on the subject influence us as conservatives?

SOCIALIST ⇒ Our borders were to be secured. I believe that is clear!

ΜΕ ⇒ That is the opposite of the truth. There were no limitations on immigration. The borders were open until the 1920s. The Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to regulate immigration–only naturalization.

SOCIALIST ⇒ To secure our border was always a priority. To say otherwise is just plan idiotic.

ΜΕ ⇒ Secure from invaders, yes. But the founders gave us open borders.

SOCIALIST ⇒ isn’t 25 million a threat? At what point does a group become an occupational force that then needs to be handled like a security issue, a national threat?

ΜΕ ⇒ So you don’t care about the legacy of the founding fathers. The only threat to the American way of life is conservatives who advocate for socialism and big government–like you.

SOCIALIST ⇒ Wow, you’re an argumentative ass. …you also know nothing. ….I think you’re a lying troll trying to confuse people into believing that conservatives did the immoral deeds and sins that the progressives and Democrats are responsible for…..

ΜΕ ⇒ You’ve been duped. The founding fathers gave us open borders, and socialists and Marxists want central control of the labor markets. Democrats have been the ones who want to limit immigration. Conservatives like Reagan and the founding fathers advocate small government and free immigration. Show me the limitations the founding fathers placed on immigration. Otherwise, just admit you don’t care what they thought.

SOCIALIST ⇒ officiating the truth is a tactic of the left. …you are an evil person! [Editor’s note: I have no idea what this means.]

ΜΕ ⇒ I  know it doesn’t feel good to be shown that you’re advocating for Marxist policies. But show me where the founding fathers limited immigration. In fact, one of the reasons given for their secession in the Declaration was that the king was trying to prevent immigration, and they wanted free immigration.

SOCIALIST ⇒ Lynette, he is a member of the tea party. ….but only to troll. …he is a bad person.

ΜΕ ⇒ Being in the tea party would indicate that I have an affinity for America’s founding principles. I realize what they gave us is the opposite of what conservatives believe today.

SOCIALIST ⇒ Unjust taxes is a strong belief by many independents /Liberians…..taxation without representation. Non professional politicians. [Editor’s note: It’s officially gone off the rails for our socialist friend.]

ΜΕ ⇒ Do you reject the immigration/border policies of the founding fathers?

SOCIALIST ⇒ take your medication and go back inside to your therapy group, they miss you!

I’ve had this same conversations several times, but I thought this one was relatively short, so appropriate to post here. I think this meme is a very accurate portrayal of how these conversations go.

In reference to yesterday’s video, Bojidar Marinov had this to say about whether it’s polite for immigrants to this country to only speak English in public.

Until 1920, the US had large areas where English was a minority language. In 1875, more than half the newspapers in St. Louis MO were printed in German or other languages. Central and North Texas had more German speakers than English speakers until the 1930s. I have friends of Norwegian and Swedish descent who grew up listening to sermons in Scandinavian languages in their churches in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and that was back in the 1960s. The majority of the Dutch Reformed theologians in America in the 20th century grew up with Dutch being the main language spoken in their communities.

Guess who started the campaign to unify all under the same language.

The socialists. The campaign started in the late 1800s, and behind it were Fabian socialists who were concerned that a diverse population could be much harder to control. One of the concepts behind the government schools was to make all the kids uniform under the same language, Once the kids were separated from the language of the parents, they would be an easy prey for socialists to indoctrinate.

Well, they succeeded.

I had a short conversation with a conservative who thinks the constitution allows the federal government to regulate immigration. Of course, the constitution has nothing to do with how the government actually operates, but conservatives are supposed to care, right? In reality, they don’t care about the constitution anymore than liberals.

Here’s the conversation, which was later deleted by the “conservative”.

He blew a lot of steam, but never provided any documentation. I was about to provide documentation when he deleted the post, so here is what I found.

This is all the constitution says about federal power on this topic, found in section 8:

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

There is nothing else about immigration or border control anywhere in it. This jives with what we saw in American history, with no government limits on immigration until the 1920s.

But what is the definition of naturalization? Of course, the right to murder babies and for two dudes to get married has been “found” in the constitution, but that isn’t the type of law that conservatives are interested in practicing, right?

Here’s the legal definition of naturalization:

The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103.

The constitution gives the federal government the right to control who becomes a citizen and how. That is fine with me. I don’t think that everyone who comes here to work for a few years or the rest of their lives has to become a citizen.