Original Intent Analysis of 10 Point Immigration Plan

Trumps 10 Point plan Aligns with Founders Original Intent

I was asked to put this summary from my radio program that I did back on September 10, 2016 into an actual paper that had more then the reference pointing us to the Founders perspective on immigration. I have always looked at immigration from the personal perspective and then the way that it was intended to function.

Just a short personal perspective: My grandparents on both side of my family came to the US through the scrutiny of Ellis Island. As Wikipedia notes, “Ellis Island, in Upper New York Bay, was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation’s busiest immigrant inspection station for over sixty years from 1892 until 1954.” The story goes that my great-grandfather on my dad’s side was a coal miner in the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania. Although the family on my dad’s side in the last 100 years is Roman Catholic, my searchers, so far indicate that my great-grandfather and his sister were Polish/Lithuanian Jews who most likely changed to Catholicism because Jews were not really welcomed via Ellis Island during the late 1800’s migration of people to the US. On my mother’s side my grandfather came from the German side of Poland and her mother from the Russian side. I remember the stories of the Cossacks riding into her town and one even placing his long-spear head at her chest while she prayed for God’s mercy on her.

Why is this important as I look at (now) President Trumps immigration plan as stated during the campaign?

Simply because I can speak to it from my ancestry which is immigrant based and that our family history can, if need be, talk about ethnic discrimination. Yes, discrimination against Jews, Catholics and Poles. But the real point here is that they came through an “Extreme Vetting” process at Ellis Island. I’ll let you go investigate the history of Ellis Island where families were separated because one person may have had a cold or another, not know the English language ended up with the last name of the person in front of them in line because, well, it happened that way.

So yes, we are a nation of immigrants, so am I, and my ancestry wanted to be 100% American (period). They wanted to be citizens that would integrate into society and be fully functional members with the intent of giving their posterity great opportunity because America was “Great” and they wanted to contribute – NOT take!

So let me dig in to this and develop the position, as I call it, of Foundational National Integrity.

The Convention:

The debate over immigration in the Constitutional convention was interesting and sometimes contentious. The essence of the debate heated up the worse when it came to determining who could become a Senator. Interesting in that most would have thought that the Presidency would have been the hotter topic. No, that was easily settled. I think I’ll let you hang on that one for a while.

The issues of emigrants was a critical conversation regarding not only voting but also influencing governance in general. Gee, exactly the same conversation yet the assumptions during the Constitutional convention were light-years away from what we hear from the progressives in Congress and in society in general.

Let me see if I can capture a few of the Key Assumptions and concerns during the debates of ’87 from Madison’s Notes:

  • …strike out the word “resident” and insert “inhabitant,” as less liable to misconstruction. Madison clarified with: “both were vague, but the latter least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business. Great disputes had been raised in Virginia concerning the meaning of residence as a qualification of Representatives which were determined more according to the affection or dislike to the man in question, than to any fixt interpretation of the word.”
  • People rarely chuse a nonresident-It is improper as in the 1st. branch, the people at large, not the States, are represented.
  • Argued between Three to Seven years before allowed to become a citizen of a state as well the US in general: An emigrant from N. England to S. C. or Georgia would know little of its affairs and could not be supposed to acquire a thorough knowledge in less time.
  • Not only for immigrants but for those moving from one state to another.
  • Debate focus on Senator citizenship such that: urging the danger of admitting strangers into our public Councils.
  • …peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its door to those who have foreign attachments.
  • Madison argued for short time frames regarding a Senator because: …the National Legislature is to have the right of regulating naturalization, and can by virtue thereof fix different periods of residence as conditions of enjoying different privileges of Citizenship: because it will put it out of the power of the Nat1 Legislature even by special acts of naturalization to confer the full rank of Citizens on meritorious strangers & because it will discourage the most desireable class of people from emigrating to the U. S.
  • …men who love liberty and wish to partake its blessings, will be ready to transfer their fortunes hither.
  • Bad assumption by Madison: “He was not apprehensive that any dangerous number of strangers would be appointed by the State Legislatures, if they were left at liberty to do so: nor that foreign powers would made use of strangers as instruments for their purposes. Their bribes would be expended on men whose circumstances would rather stifle than excite jealousy & watchfulness in the public.”
  • Must reject all foreign attachments for Citizenship let alone hold National Government office. To this point Mr. Butler said: “He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.”
  • Friendly toward American ideals for immigrants: In every other Country in Europe all the people are our friends. To this point Franklin noted: “When foreigners after looking about for some other Country in which they can obtain more happiness, give a preference to ours it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence & affection.”
  • Principles Of the Revolution should be followed regarding emigration.
  • The principle of “inviting meritorious foreigners” was a high element of discussion especially for holding office.
  • Summed up in the statements by Mr. Governor MORRIS. “The lesson we are taught is that we should be governed as much by our reason, and as little by our feelings as possible. What is the language of Reason on this subject? That we should not be polite at the expence of prudence.”… “He ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there could be no room for complaint.”
    • Regarding ‘globalists’ Mr. Governor MORRIS said: “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal biass in favor of that of England. It has been said that The Legislatures will not chuse foreigners, at least improper ones. There was no knowing what Legislatures would do. Some appointments made by them, proved that every thing ought to be apprehended from the cabals practised on such occasions. He mentioned the case of a foreigner who left this State in disgrace, and worked himself into an appointment from another to Congress.”
  • Regarding the Senate in particular and the nation in general: “It is more necessary to guard the Senate in this case than the other House. Bribery & cabal can be more easily practised in the choice of the Senate which is to be made by the Legislatures composed of a few men, than of the House of Represents. who will be chosen by the people.”

General summary is that the members of the Convention were very concerned about emigration regarding the classical definition: leave one’s own country in order to settle permanently in another. Leave one’s own country in order to settle permanently in another. They included the understanding of the concept to immigrate as well which: is to enter a country, intending to remain there. The fundamentals that will be covered were fully argued during the convention and each participant debated with these assumptions in mind.   I will leave this for the moment with a quote from Joseph Story and his Commentary on the Constitution: “§ 1098. The propriety of confiding the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization to the national government seems not to have occasioned any doubt or controversy in the convention. For aught that appears on the journals, it was conceded without objection.”

Fundamental Concepts:

These concepts establish the thought process of those that had leadership in their state, were in attendance in the Continental Congress or at the Convention of ’87 or wrote commentary on the positions and intent of the Framers of the Constitution. The Founders and many of the citizens in the Colonies studied, read or were familiar with Emer de Vattel and his 1758 work titled in English “The Law of Nations.” Ben Franklin had three copies in the original French. Yes, Ben could read, write and speak French. George Washington had a copy and an interesting story of an over due library report.

Getting to the point, The Law of Nations was one of the primary and fundamental resources used by the Framers of the Constitution when it came to International Law and national sovereignty. Vattel wrote in the very beginning, Preliminaries, of the treatise:

“Nations or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

Such a society has her affairs and her interests;
she deliberates and takes resolutions in common;
thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an
understanding and a will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights. “

Not withstanding the moral degradation of society, the improvising of Biblical Reformation society into the ‘social gospel’ and ‘social justice’ via Fabianism, Marxism, Humanism and Darwinism; nations according to the old order do have a right to sovereignty which the Founders understood by these words of Vattel:

“Nations being free and independent of each other,
in the same manner as men are naturally free and
independent, the second general law of their
society is, that each nation should be left in the
peaceable enjoyment of that liberty which she
inherits from nature. The natural society of nations
cannot subsist, unless the natural rights of each be duly respected. No nation is willing to renounce her liberty: she will rather break oò all commerce with those states that should attempt to infringe upon it. “

And in the Chapter on Sovereignty:

“The laws of natural society are of such importance
to the safety of all states, that, if the custom once
prevailed of trampling them under foot, no nation
could öatter herself with the hope of preserving
her national existence, and enjoying domestic
tranquillity, however attentive to pursue every
measure dictated by the most consummate prudence, justice, and moderation.* Now all men and all states have a perfect right to those things that are necessary for their preservation, since that right corresponds to an indispensable obligation. All nations have therefore a right to resort to forcible means for the purpose of repressing any one particular nation who openly violates the laws of the society which nature has established between them, or who directly attacks the welfare and safety of that society.

A nation or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.

From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the sovereign.”

“…The law of nations is the law of sovereigns: free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.”

My thoughts and opinions at this juncture is: that if our elected could pull up their pants and read just “The Law of Nations” alone and then abide by this Foundational preface of governance instead of the “ism” that 100% of the demoncrats subscribe to, we would not be dealing with the great number of issues around borders and immigration (period).

OK, NOW on to additional commentary and documentation.

  1. Right to Our Own Borders – Sam Adams Speech about the Declaration of Independence, Aug. 1, 1776: “Thus by the beneficence of Providence, we shall behold our empire arising, founded on justice and the voluntary consent of the people, and giving full scope to the exercise of those faculties and rights which most ennoble our species. Besides the advantages of liberty and the most equal constitution, heaven has given us a country with every variety of climate and soil, pouring forth in abundance whatever is necessary for the support, comfort, and strength of a nation. Within our own borders we possess all the means of sustenance, defence, and commerce; at the same time, these advantages are so distributed among the different States of this continent, as if nature had in view to proclaim to us – Be united among yourselves, and you will want nothing from the rest of the world.”
  2. Donald S. Lutz, Colonial Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History – 1998, http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/694: 16 & 17 – “Even with this restricted discussion two things become apparent. First, calling John Locke a “contract theorist” would have been considered a misnomer by colonial Americans. He was more properly a “compact theorist,” and in fact we find that his Second Treatise always uses the word “compact” and not “contract.” Second, the relationship between a covenant and a compact was a direct one. Both were based on the consent of those taking part. Both created a new community. Both implied a relationship that was stronger, deeper, and more comprehensive than that established by a contract. A compact, however, required simply the consent of those taking part, while a covenant required sanction by the highest relevant authority as well. In this regard, compact is the more modern of the two concepts, while covenant was the more natural term to use in a religious or a medieval context where the authority hierarchy was well defined and had a clear apex. A compact could be turned into a covenant merely by calling upon God to witness the agreement, which also turned consenting to the agreement into an oath. If a people found themselves in a situation where a mutual agreement had to be drawn up but it was not possible to obtain the royal seal in order to give the document legal status, the easiest solution for a religious people was to call upon God as a witness to bind those signing until the king’s legal sanction could be obtained. If, for some reason, a people reached a mutual agreement that was covenant-like but chose to call upon neither God nor the king, they must, for some reason, have considered themselves completely competent to establish the document’s legality. This last instance would be one in which legality was viewed as resting on the authority of the people, indicating an understanding of popular sovereignty. A compact was just such an agreement, one resting only on the consent of those participating. For this reason, Blackstone could say, “A compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us.4 The fact that most of the early colonists were a religious people—a religious people primarily from Protestant religions who were experienced in forming their own communities and familiar with the covenant form for doing so—becomes an important part of the background to American constitutionalism. That these people were often thrown by circumstances into situations where they had to practice this skill of community building through covenants and that the charters under which they sailed often required that they provide for self-government, or at the very least permitted such activities, must be viewed as another historical circumstance of considerable importance for American constitutionalism.

Consent becomes the instrument for establishing authority in the community and for expressing the sovereignty of God. God transmits his sovereignty to the people through the broader covenant, and they in turn convey his sovereignty to the rulers on the basis of the specific covenant creating the civil community. The people’s consent is the instrument for linking God with those holding temporal authority, whose authority then is viewed as sanctioned by God. Because this temporal authority comes through the people, however, the rulers are beholden to God through the people and thus are immediately responsible to them. This, the original basis of popular sovereignty, had been independently developed by both Protestant and Catholic thinkers during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”

  1. Argument classifying the Citizen and Interstate rights

Federalist #42: “The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared “that the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce,” etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in one part of the article, free citizens in another, and people in another; or what was meant by superadding to “all privileges and immunities of free citizens,” “all the privileges of trade and commerce,” cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term “inhabitants” to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.

…” The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction.

  1. Subjects vs Citizens – I heard Andy Wilkow speak to what I was thinking about as I put this program together. I have to reference what the founders considered as they discussed the Sovereignty of a nation and the classification of persons. Citizens understand the reality of their sovereignty, or they should if educated as the Founders intended. Subjects only know the tyrannical hardships of despots or their manipulative kindness, which keeps them as subjects. In regard to the individual Citizen at the foundation: “Having created numerous republics—that is, governments modeled and directed by their chosen representatives—they had yet to establish democratic republics based on “the consent of the governed”—republics in which the people exercised both political and legal sovereignty through fundamental laws that they had helped directly to create.” Citizens fully understand constitutional republicanism and popular sovereignty. It is impossible for a subject or those that came from countries where they have been subjects to comprehend our ideals of Citizenship.
  1. Establishing National Sovereignty: James Wilson stipulated – “Wilson also advocated for federalism and the related concept of dual sovereignty. Since the people were the foundation of all government, they could construct as many levels of authority as they wished. Thus, the people could not only establish a national government of enumerated powers but simultaneously lend their support to state governments vested with the traditional police powers of health, safety, morals, and welfare. Ironically, both John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln in the years leading up to the Civil War found in Wilson’s ideas arguments to support either the limited or the perpetual nature of the Union.”
  1. Foreign Influence: Federalist Papers full of discussions question the potential of foreign corruption and influence. Controlling who comes into the country is critical to managing corruption, influence and safety.
  1. Madison in Federalist #40: “In every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:

  1. Security against foreign danger;
  2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; “
  1. Hamilton, Federalist #24: Not having internal protection by either the citizen militia or standing army leads to: “All that kind of policy by which nations anticipate distant danger and meet the gathering storm must be abstained from, as contrary to the genuine maxims of a free government. We must expose our property and liberty to the mercy of foreign invaders and invite them by our weakness to seize the naked and defenseless prey, because we are afraid that rulers, created by our choice, dependent on our will, might endanger that liberty by an abuse of the means necessary to its preservation. :

Purpose of Government

  1. Hamilton Federalist #23: “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries. “
  2. Hamilton Federalist #28: “The great extent of the country is a further security. We have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power. “
  1. Memoir of Theophilus Parsons, chief justice of the Supreme judicial court of Massachusetts – 1797 to 1882

“pg 124 MEMOIR OF of which they now boast, (not meaning to include the VicePresidency,) the people will rest assured that their sovereignty will be preserved, their honor protected, and their rights secured. I am, with great respect and esteem, yours, &c., THEOPHILUS PARSONS.“

“126 MEMOIR OF Among his papers are some loose sheets, apparently forming part of an unfinished essay, or something of the kind, on the subject of aliens. There are many references to statutory provisions and to the principles of the common law, and various suggestions about them. But the beginning and the end are lost, and of what remains much is mere note or reference, unintelligible to any one but the writer; and I do not print it. For many reasons I wish it had been more perfect, or that I could, from this or other authority, state with clearness and certainty his views in regard to aliens. I know very well what I believe them to have been; but I am not so sure of the grounds of my belief. I strive to recall his words, or those of his friends, but I cannot. But while my recollections on this subject are very dim, I have little or no doubt of their general accuracy. I should say, then, that he was disposed to open to immigrants an entrance into this country without any reservation whatever, except against crime. It was his firm belief, that Providence was constructing here a refuge for the oppressed of every nation; and when they fled from suffering, or from rational fears of misgovernment, or to improve their condition by the facilities which our wide lands and unfettered industry offered them, he would meet them at our shores with sincere and earnest welcome, and would make all necessary provision for their entire security and their prosperity. But that this country might continue to be a refuge for those who were oppressed or threatened in other lands, it must be preserved from the mischiefs which have made the institutions and government of those other lands oppressive and destructive. It must be protected against the peril of importing with those who had fled from other countries the very evils and abuses from which they fled, or the illusions and corruptions which would lead inevitably to the same results. If in other countries guarded and legal liberty is impossible, it must be because the subjects of those countries

Page 127

CHIEF JUSTICE PARSONS. 127      are incapable of comprehending and preserving it; and let those subjects bring to this country the same unfitness and incapacity, and let them possess political power here, and the same impossibility of preserving constitutional liberty will exist here. If this country is to remain better than other countries, – better, that is, in all the advantages which our institutions permit or confer, – these institutions must be guarded equally from violent and from insidious assault. For the sake, not of ourselves merely, but of those very immigrants, they must be prevented from any interference with, or any influence over, our political institutions, until they have outgrown the ways of thinking or feeling or acting which belonged to the home they left. If they come here without the wish to become American in character as well as in nationality, assuredly they should not ask, or if they asked they should not be permitted, to possess the right of interference with the formation or the administration of our laws. And if they did wish to become American, and were rational and honest, their wish would be to become American not merely in their rights, but in their correlative duties, and in their fitness and capacity for the discharge of those duties. In few words, my father’s principle would be, that no foreigner should become a citizen of this country until all reasonable provisions and precautions were complied with, to promote his becoming so in heart and in intellect. He anticipated a rapid and extensive increase in the prosperity of this country, and a proportional increase in the attractions it holds out to those who hang loose upon the fringes of society elsewhere, and are easily shaken off. I am mistaken if he did not foretell, frequently and emphatically, that marvellous flood of immigration which fills our country with all the races, and all the habits, and nearly all the errors and abuses, which prevail anywhere in the world. And he hoped that this flood, with all its feculence and turbulence, might nevertheless enrich, and not overwhelm, our country, provided

Page 128

128 MEMOIR OF       only the proper distinction was made. For he would have the coming immigrant welcomed to a full share in all our prosperity, but to no share whatever in the franchises which would affect the laws or institutions by which that prosperity was protected, until time, the great teacher, had taught him the true difference between all that he had left, and all that he had found. For it is too much to ask of any human beings, that they should comprehend at once things so totally novel as everything here must be to a European. And it is too much to ask of any human institutions, that, while young and yielding, and undefended by the protecting power of antiquity, they should successfully resist the unremitting blows of prejudice, passion, and ignorance; and therefore adequate provision must be made that those blows should not reach them.

The Meat of the Discussion

I will attest that: There is nothing in the plan laid out by the then Candidate Trump nor is there anything changed by Now President Trump that is contrary to this quick historical perspective of Founder and Framer Intent (period).

Now where the rub comes in is from the 70 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plus the full Senate demoncrats and the Senate repudican dupes that are captivated by the ‘isms.’ Since this is a math problem: In addition there are the NGO’s and other groups that have zero intent on ascending to Founders Intent. Their full belief system is Globalism. As a reminder, here is what Mr. Governor Morris said in the debate on August 9th, “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other.” In our present time it is not totally those that cannot shake off their attachments to their own Country but the ideologies of radical islam, sharia and (summing it into one word for the ‘isms’) Marxism.

Simply put – We have a right to be a sovereign nation and defend our borders as well as only let in those that can fully assimilate by rejecting their ideologies that are contrary to Original Founders Intent.

There is a lot of bureaucratic swamp to be drained and groups to be relieved of funding while executing the greater challenge of re-educating our nation on Original Founders Intent and history.

If you want to hear the Podcast of the program that stimulated this document you can go to the Archive for the September 10, 2016 program.

Wall Street Journal Summary:

Trumps 10 Points:

Number One: We will build a wall along the southern border.

On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border. We will use the best technology, including above-and below-ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels, and keep out the criminal cartels, and Mexico will pay for the wall.

Number Two: End ‘catch-and-release.’

Anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.

According to federal data, there are at least 2 million criminal aliens now inside the country. We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement.

Beyond the 2 million, there are a vast number of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled or evaded justice. But their days on the run will soon be over. They go out, and they go out fast. …

We are going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers. Within ICE, I am going to create a new special Deportation Task Force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice. …. We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, and put more of them on the border, instead of behind desks. We will expand the number of Border Patrol Stations.

Number Four: Block funding for Sanctuary Cities.

We will end the Sanctuary Cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.

Number Five: Cancel unconstitutional executive orders and enforce all immigration laws.

We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants. … In a Trump administration, all immigration laws will be enforced.

Number Six: We are going to suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur.

According to data provided to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign-born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. The number is likely higher, but the Administration refuses to provide this information to Congress.

As soon as I enter office, I am going to ask the Department of State, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of these cases in order to develop a list of regions and countries from which immigration must be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

Countries from which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya.

For the price of resettling 1 refugee in the United States, 12 could be resettled in a safe zone in their home region.

Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.

Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they have been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals. Due to a Supreme Court decision, if these violent offenders cannot be sent home, our law enforcement officers have to release them into U.S. communities. …. Those released include individuals convicted of killings, sexual assault and some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, who went on to reoffend at a very high rate.

Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.

For years, Congress has required a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system, but it has never been completed.

In my administration, we will ensure that this system is in place at all land, air, and sea ports. …Last year alone, nearly a half a million individuals overstayed their temporary visas. Removing visa overstays will be a top priority of my Administration. If people around the world believe they can just come on a temporary visa and never leave – the Obama-Clinton policy – then we have a completely open border. We must send the message that visa expiration dates will be strongly enforced.

Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.

We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country. …Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for removal.

Number 10: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers.

…The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:

– To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms

– To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs – remember, it’s America First.

– To choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency

– And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Original Intent Analysis of 10 Point Immigration Plan

  1. Pingback: 9-10-16 10 Point Immigration Plan Aligns with Original Intent | Sam Adams the 'Puritan Patriot' Returns

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s