Daily Archives: July 5, 2021

As a holiday, Independence Day, like many aspects of Americas folklore, represents an expression of ideas that have yet to come to pass. Posting a rendition of Frederick Douglass speech What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July has become as much an Independence Day tradition for Black people as the family cookout. The words of another great elder ring true on this day.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett once wrote that extending the right to vote, without limitation, to Black people was critical to ending lynching and the dehumanization of Black life. Wells-Barnett understood that the act of voting alone would not make lynchings disappear, but without the right Black people could continue to be treated as subhuman and undeserving of process.

Its been 245 years since the founders declared independence for themselves, and the fight for freedom and liberation from tyranny continues.

The clearest example is the systematic attack on voting rights and interference in the electoral process at all levels of government. Even as Independence Day was being recognized as a national holiday in 1870, there was a national fight to ratify the 15th Amendment, granting Black men the right to vote.

Wells-Barnett further pointed to the collective political power of Black people, organizing to further their communal interest through the electoral process, as another component of protecting Black life. That fear of organized Black political power, particularly in coalition with other people of color, is evident in the refusal to permit even a discussion on the Senate floor of the For the People Act.

Eight years after the Shelby v. Holder case widely seen as gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the recent Supreme Court decision upholding restrictive Arizona laws further limits the applicability of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act in protecting voting from excessive state intrusions. Written by Justice Samuel Alito, the decision goes beyond simply affirming the Arizona law but reinterprets Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a way that could be interpreted as an invitation to conservative controlled states to restrict access to the ballot further.

By arguing that disparate impact doesnt mean a system is inherently unequal, Alito disregards the clear intentions of laws enacted post, Shelby. Professor Scott Lemieux recently wrote Brnovich v. Democratic National Committees outcome, makingShelby feel like a bait and switch. Lemieux explained that Chief Justice Roberts pointed to Section 2 as a remaining course of action for those challenging restrictive state laws. But the Alito decision undermines the use of Section 2, particularly as Republican legislatures leverage a lie instigated by the former president to deny access to the ballot.

Despite conservative disdain for so-called activist judges, the Alito decision clearly operates to give conservative interests an advantage. The decision also makes it even more necessary for Congressional action.

Shortly before the latest Supreme Court attack on voting rights, the Brennan Center issued a working report calling The For the People Act a critical step toward achieving an inclusive democracy, long-promised, but not yet delivered. The article further argued that one of the major issues standing in the way of an inclusive democracy were rules that maintained the old structure of political power.

Right now, entrenched interests struggling against changing demography are making their final, grasping efforts to maintain an exclusionary system. Unfortunately, our laws and institutions are not currently sufficient to prevent this anti-democratic wave and to guarantee a fair and truly representative democracy, read the report.

Rules like the filibuster and fake adherence to notions of decorum keep the nation locked in a state of limitation. Lawmakers spend more time protecting their power and influence instead of making decisions in the best interests of all who reside within this countrys borders.

While the founders and their countrymen fought against taxation without representation, todays people are taxed and often not properly represented. Current elected officials focus on restricting foundational rights for the many instead of passing laws such as Medicaid expansion and properly funding public education systems.

Beyond that, Black people in this country continue to fight against a system intent on compromising for the sake of maintaining a white supremacy status quo. Having elected officials praise the virtues of America and claim freedom and liberty as the countrys foundation while working to subvert the rights of others is not new.

Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote about the equality of all men endowed with inalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while submitting hundreds of people to a life of bondage. Fighting for freedom and independence didnt end with the proclamation put forth in 1776.

The fight for full access to the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continues. Voting rights advocates and democracy reformers continue a fight hundreds of years in the making.

SEE ALSO:

Voting Rights Tour Raises Awareness Across The South On Its Way To D.C.

Black Voters Matter Kicks Off Freedom Ride For Voting Rights On Juneteenth

Continued here:

On Independence Day The Fight Against Tyranny And Oppression Continues 245 Years Later - NewsOne

American Indians and Alaska Natives are entitled to federally funded health care under treaties negotiated between tribal nations and the U.S. government.

"Our treaties say that we have a right to health care provided by the federal government," said Abigail Echo-Hawk, an enrolled member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and the executive Vice President of Seattle Indian Health Board. "This is meant to be quality health care provided to enrolled members of federally recognized tribes to health care free of charge in that we already paid for it with the land that the United States is on."

But according to a 2018 report from the independent and bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. government has not adequately funded these programs, leaving many indigenous communities without the ability to provide quality care.

"If we don't get the resources that we need, it's always going to be a struggle for us to begin to address the underlying health conditions that were built as a result of the colonial oppression and suppression of both our health and our economic prosperity within Indian country," Echo-Hawk said. "Until we see full funding of the Indian Health Service, we're always going to be struggling to do more than just provide the immediate needs of our people."

In an emailed statement sent to CNBC, the Indian Health Service said it had received "historic investments" of more than $9 billion since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic "to address long-standing health inequities experienced by American Indians and Alaska Natives by ensuring a comprehensive public health response to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic."

Watch the video above to learn how federally funded health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives works, and why many activists and experts would like to see the system reformed.

Read the original post:

How federally guaranteed health care for Native Americans works in the U.S. - CNBC

By Kadida Kenner

As a descendant of enslaved people in America, I felt compelled to pay homage to 19th century orator, abolitionist, and womens suffrage supporter, Frederick Douglass on the 169th anniversary of his address to a mostly white, anti-slavery activists audience.

Douglass What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? is an important piece of Americana delivered on July 5,1852 in Rochester, New York.

Douglass masterpiece reminds us that as our nation celebrates its independence and political freedom from tyranny, it is on this July 4, 2021 that the descendants of formerly enslaved people in America recognize that the freedoms our nation celebrates are in constant peril.

Im penning this op-Ed to bring attention to the current and urgent need to secure and defend democracy during these turbulent times.

On July 1, 2021, the majority conservative justices of the United States Supreme Court handed down their ruling dismantling most of the provisions in the Voting Rights Act, making it easier for state legislatures to disproportionately disenfranchise and suppress the votes of the descendants of enslaved people in America.

I want readers to understand that the struggle to maintain our Constitutional rights, including our voting rights, are at stake even in the 21st century, especially for Black people. This is the new Jim Crow and we demand the passage of the For the People Act.

July 4th was initially celebrated during a time when not every person in America was free from oppression and chains.

Wolf vetoes Republican voting bill; GOP pivots to constitutional referendums

When it was first observed, Black people in America were not even considered a whole person, but three-fifths of a person, with no Constitutional rights or citizenship.

Not until the last enslaved person was notified of their freedom from bondage, on Juneteenth (June 19, 1865), the same year the 13th Amendment was passed and ratified by Congress were all people truly free. Hypocritically, our nation celebrated its freedom and independence of its people for nearly a century before my ancestors were released from chattel slavery and considered free people.

And while now physically free from bondage, our civil and voting rights are at risk in this country.

According to research conducted by the Brennan Center, At least 61 bills with restrictive provisions in 18 states are moving through legislatures: 31 have passed at least one chamber, while another 30 have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing, an amendment, or a committee vote). Overall, legislators have introduced at least 389 bills with restrictive provisions in 48 states.

To make this more clear, following the 2020 election, 48 states have either drafted or passed some form of restrictive voter suppression bills disguised as election reform or election integrity, including the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In reality, these bills are designed to create unjust barriers to the voting rights of Black, brown, marginalized, disabled people, and consequently most voters.

Incited to act on behalf of Donald Trumps Big Lie, ultra-conservative right-wing extremists in legislatures across the country are sowing the seeds of distrust in our voting systems and processes.

[Your forefathers] went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive they felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. Frederick Douglass

All Americans should take heed. Restrictive voter suppression bills will also affect you.

The voting rights of formerly enslaved people in America are currently under attack. I demand access to the ballot without any undue hindrance to the right to vote.

To protect voting rights in Pa., for us all, the Senate needs to pass the For the People Act | Opinion

Now is the time to speak up and speak out for our freedoms. We must demand the passage of H.1/S.1 (For The People Act) and secure and protect our voting rights in this Nation for generations to come. As a descendant of enslaved people denied basic human dignity, I urge everyone to register to vote, and then also cast your ballots in every single election.

I encourage every American to spend this 4th of July checking in with your friends and family to ensure we are all exercising our franchise in honor of our ancestors who heroically fought and died for that right.

In the words of Georgias former gubernatorial candidate, and voting rights trailblazer, Stacey Abrams, Silence is not only dangerous, it is corrosive.

As a descendant of formerly enslaved people, I am the culmination of our ancestors wildest hopes and dreams. The hardships our ancestors endured is ingrained in my DNA, and although, today, I am physically free, I dont feel free while restricted by voter suppression laws.

Jim Crow is alive and well in the 21st century but more suave as it takes the form of James Crow, Esquire.

So I ask again, what to the descendants of enslaved people is the Fourth of July? I say it is a day to recognize that our freedoms are fragile and not fully realized, and we must continue to advocate for the continued advancement of all people.

Freedom isnt free.

Kadida Kenner is the executive director of the New Pennsylvania Project, a voting rights and registration organization. Most of her enslaved ancestors were born and enslaved on plantations in South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi. She writes from Harrisburg.

Excerpt from:

What to the descendants of enslaved people is the Fourth of July? | Opinion - Pennsylvania Capital-Star

When John Adams returned to Massachusetts after the First Continental Congress, he discovered growing public opposition to the work of that Congress. Beginning in December 1774, a British Loyalist published political essays in Boston newspapers, under the name Massachusettensis, arguing that the Colonies were part of the British Empire and thus subject to rule by Parliament.

Adams responded with his own series of articles, written under the name Novanglus (Latin for New England). Adams wrote that the provincial legislatures should have ultimate authority over the Colonies, and that Great Britain was not truly an empire, but more in the nature of a republic; a government of laws, and not of men.

Two months later, on April 19, 1775, shots were fired in Lexington and Concord. Support for British rule began to evaporate, and on Tuesday, July 2, 1776, the members of the Second Continental Congress voted to approve the Lee Resolution, which formed the basis for what we now call our Declaration of Independence.

Adams predicted that July 2 would be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. Adams was almost correct. The parades and barbeques are all held two days later.

Fast forward 245 years. On June 30, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced its decision in the matter of Commonwealth v. William Henry Cosby, Jr. In its 79-page opinion, the Court discussed the facts of the case, in great detail. On January 24, 2005, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor issued a press release that Cosby was under investigation for sexual assault.

After that investigation, D.A. Castor concluded that a successful prosecution was unlikely, and that the alleged victim would be better served by a civil suit against Cosby, seeking money damages. D.A. Castor advised Cosbys lawyer that Cosby would not be criminally prosecuted, and therefor he could be forced to testify in a civil suit filed by the victim. Cosbys lawyer agreed.

Shortly thereafter, D.A. Castor issued a second press release, stating that Cosby would not be prosecuted criminally, but that a civil action, with a much lower standard for proof, could follow. By making that decision, D.A. Castor deliberately decided to strip Cosby of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, so that he could be forced to testify in a subsequent civil case.

A few weeks after the second press release, the alleged victim sued Cosby. In the course of the civil litigation, Cosby was required to sit for four depositions. Since the threat of criminal prosecution had been lifted, Cosby never asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Over the course of those four depositions, Cosby provided incriminating testimony. Eventually, the civil litigation settled for $3.38 million.

Nearly 10 years after D.A. Castors press release that Cosby would not be charged, new Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele undertook a criminal prosecution of Cosby. Cosbys deposition testimony, which he gave in reliance upon the statement that he would not be prosecuted, was used against him.

Although his defense attorneys repeatedly sought to have the prosecution dismissed, based upon the decision of former D.A. Castor, both the trial court and the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that any agreement with former D.A. Castor was not binding on current D.A. Steele, and not enforceable by Cosby.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court held that D.A. Castor made a deliberate decision to strip Cosby of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, in order to put him in the position that he could be forced to give testimony. In fact, he was forced to do so in four depositions, and gave incriminating testimony. Based in part upon that testimony, Cosby agreed to settle the case, by paying money damages of $3.38 million.

Over the course of its detailed opinion, the Supreme Court pointed out that Cosby and his lawyers were deliberately told that no criminal prosecution would take place, in order to force Cosby to cooperate in the victims civil prosecution.

For that reason, his criminal prosecution after the fact was a fundamental violation of his right to due process of law. In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took 79 pages to say A deal is a deal.

Over the next few months, politicians, newspaper editors, pundits, and bartenders will weigh-in on this decision of the Supreme Court.

Many will argue that Cosby escaped justice, and that a serial abuser was set free. Perhaps that is true.

Far more important, however, is the fact that our laws do not sanction government oppression. Our laws do not permit one elected official to punish us merely because we complied with the decisions of another.

Now, 245 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence, we still have a government of laws, not of men.

William P. Carlucci is a local attorney and past president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post:

John Adams, Bill Cosby, and our nation of laws, not men - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Thomas R. Oldt| Special to The Ledger

When we consider our countrys treasured independence, achieved through war, death and sacrifice, our thoughts this Independence Day turn to the freedoms individuals seek in becoming United States citizens economic opportunity, social justice, domestic tranquility and the pursuit of happiness. In short, those blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity the Constitutions preamble so eloquently envisions.

Most of us included in that posterity gained our citizenship through the happy accident of birth that is, our personal civic fortune is derived from nothing more than good luck. Our parents or grandparents, great-great grandparents or ancestors from many generations ago made the journey to this country and thus assured their progeny of citizenship, requiring nothing of their offspring but a heartbeat in order to share in those blessings.

Excepting native Americans, we are all either immigrants or descended from immigrants unwillingly in the case of enslaved Africans, out of dire circumstances for others, a leap of faith for most of the rest. But whatever the path, Americas strengths have always been elevated by the energy, initiative and creativity of those who came to our shores from afar.

Today, with birthrates among the native-born insufficient to sustain population growth, thus eventually aging the country out of financial support for its social welfare programs hello, Social Security it is more important than ever that we continue to welcome immigrants so that America may constantly renew itself.

We cant do that if we close our shores. We will deprive ourselves not just of growth but talent, ideas, youth, idealism, and the strong work ethic that is almost a universal trait among those who arrive with little in the way of material resources but much in the way of hope and ambition.

Such describes the family of Tonmiel Rodriguez, who emigrated from Cuba when he was seven. Now 39, Rodriguez is a University of Florida and Stetson Law School graduate whose Bartow law firm is primarily devoted to criminal defense work.

Q. Why did your family decide to leave Cuba?

A. My family on both sides were ministers of evangelical churches, very involved in church leadership roles, especially on my dads side. The revolution was very anti-religion and they viewed us as a threat. And so my dad was very much persecuted he and other people in the church. He was sent to work camps, was arrested and harassed continuously by the communist government for things that would seem totally ridiculous to us wanting to observe the sabbath, or preaching, or just congregating. It was difficult for a person to exercise their religion freely and still is, though it has eased up somewhat from the aggressive anti-religion of the young revolution.

Its long been clear that the governments political oppression extended to many other aspects of Cuban life.

I grew up with those stories and to a certain extent experienced it. I remember as a child being at the dinner table and if you wanted to say something that was even mildly critical of the government you had to speak in very hushed tones. You felt like Castro could hear what you were saying or a neighbor would hear and you would potentially get in trouble. So you grew up with a fear of the government, a fear of your neighbor because they had and still do, I believe designated neighborhood communist party people so that if anyone was talking anti-revolutionary ideas it would be reported. You grew up with caution, fearful to speak your mind. That fear, the lack of the ability to express yourself, to do and think what you wanted, was always present.

More: 'Honor the service of those sons and daughters' who sacrificed

More: 'Pets are there for you': Veterinarian Mitsie Vargas talks about the deep bonds with pets

More: Gram Parsons, Derry Down and preserving a link to Winter Haven's past

Q. Given the governments stance and your own familys circumstances, how were they able to leave?

A. My dad didnt have much of a formal education, but when he was younger he was able to find a good music teacher. He developed the ability to play violin and direct courses and he had a gift for that. The church here in the United States would visit from time to time and wanted my father to come over to help with their music program. There was some sort of special status Cubans had at the time and so we ended up arriving here and being able to stay permanently.

Q. Did you or your parents speak English when you arrived here?

A. No. No English.

Q. How did you become an American citizen?

A. Our status when we got here was permanent residents. My parents became citizens before I did. Like them, I went through the process I applied, filled out the application and passed the examination, which for me was very easy. There were a lot of civics-type questions, and at the time I was in my twenties and had my bachelors in political science.

Q. If a citizenship-type exam were required before even native-born Americans were able to vote, what percentage of this country do you think would be eligible to cast a ballot?

A. Id say less than 15%. Those are pretty basic questions, but if youre not exposed to that history, that kind of education, you may not pass.

Q. Why did you decide to become a lawyer? Did it have anything to do with your upbringing?

A.It had a lot to do with it. Rights and the law were always something that intrigued me. You cant overstate the appreciation that I had and have being here in the United States, even though I was young, but especially as I grew older and understood American history, the founding fathers and democracy. I was a history buff when I was very young. There wasnt a lot to do in the little town I grew up in near Miami, but there was a public library. So after school I would go there and just read history books. Even at that stage I began to appreciate American history. It was very emotional for me, appreciating the rights of citizenship I saw in the United States, and so there was always this attraction to the law. Thats one thing. The other was I grew up seeing my dad with books of biblical analysis. He would be reading and studying and preaching and analyzing things, so it was just very natural, based on that upbringing, to read and try to understand history.

Q. How would you compare the rule of law in Cuba to the rule of law in the United States?

A.There is no comparison. In Cuba there are laws and there is a constitution and years later I actually read it. It says a lot of beautiful things rights they give citizensthough in the United States we have a different idea. We dont believe the government gives you liberties, that we have God-given rights. Regardless, they have some version of it but the reality is that its a one-party system. The law is what the communist party says it is and it is applied in a way they want it applied. So for the most part trials are show trials the idea of a jury trial is very foreign. The idea that a judge might come to conclusions different from the party line doesnt exist over there.

Q. The communist party permeates the entire system, so words in the constitution really have no practical meaning.

A. No. Can you imagine here in the United States having one party able to dictate to the courts what a rule should be?

Q. Do you fear that could happen here?

A.Its always a possibility. Were only human, and its the adherence to those constitutional principles that can save us from that. To the extent we adhere to the founding fathers ideas of liberty and the rule of law, we will be fine.

Q. When we dont even agree on basic facts, how is it possible to adhere to those standards?

A. At the end of the day there has to be a consensus around basic principles. Once that consensus breaks down, then society as we have known it could very well crumble because in a democratic society its that consensus around very basic ideas that keeps things going as far as our institutions and rights and liberties are concerned.

Q. A disturbing percentage of voters do not believe the current president is serving legitimately. What does that say about our consensus around basic principles and the state of our democracy?

A.It says we are a divided country in terms of who we trust and the sources of information we consume as citizens. Does the media have responsibility to provide accurate information? Yes. Would that help alleviate a lot of political problems we have today? Yes. But the history of the media is rooted in opinion and punditry. Having read history, I dont know thats ever going to change. It wasnt that much different in the 1700s, in revolutionary times. There were many different pamphlets and newspapers, each with their own ideas, very slanted views.So in some ways things havent changed very much from back in the day.

Q. As much as America is a geographic location, its also an idea. What is that idea to you, and has it changed during your lifetime here?

A. I still see the United States as the land of liberty that concept is still there. Theres been an attempt to tarnish it somewhat. But its still very much a reality. People want to come here because as an immigrant with zero money, zero background, no means whatsoever you can work hard, apply yourself, create wealth and make something of yourself. Thats still very much a reality here, even today.

Q. Does July 4th have a special significance to you, apart from the obvious?

A. When I think of July 4th, I think of the founding fathers, who they were as individuals especially John Adams, a lawyer who had everything to lose except his very strong principles. One of the stories thats always impacted me is as a young lawyer, Adams decided to represent the British soldiers who were responsible for the Boston Massacre, one of the most dangerous moves he could have made for his career. No one wanted to do it.The respected, experienced lawyers didnt want to touch it. He took the case and the jury found them not guilty. He believed deeply in the American Revolution, yet he defended the British soldiers. The founders put it all on the line. They could have been executed, but they had this belief in liberty. Its very popular to point out their faults, but at the end of the day they were men living in their time and they were excellent, given the circumstances in which they lived.

Q. What do you think are our greatest challenges as Americans and what are our greatest strengths as a country?

A.The greatest challenge is to protect those core principles that have defined the United States since the founding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue your calling. Our biggest strengths are that we have a constitution, the rule of law. You can go to court with your complaint and have a fair shake, have a judge or a jury hear your case and trust that their decision is not based on bias, financial interest or political interest. Look at other countries that have great material resources Brazil, Mexico, many others but dont have the same rule of law. That makes all the difference for commerce and that, in turn, influences the standard of living of the individual, which influences everything else.

Thomas R. Oldt can be reached at tom@troldt.com.

See the original post here:

'I still see the United States as the land of liberty' - The Ledger

The Declaration of Independence.

Millions of people around the world know the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence announcing that "all men are created equal" and that they have the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But relatively few know that, among the grievances the Declaration enumerates as justification for renouncing allegiance to King George III is the following:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.

This complaint against the King was aimed at a series of royal orders issued in 1772 and 1773, which forbade the colonies from naturalizing aliens, banned the passage of any laws facilitating that purpose, including laws promoting migration, and overrode a North Carolina law exempting immigrants from Europe from taxation for a period of four years.

It's tempting dismiss this as just a disagreement over policy. But it actually goes further than that, since it is one of the items on the list of "repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

The King's efforts to restrict immigration to Britain's American colonies were not just a flawed policy, the Declaration claims, but a step towards the "establishment of an absolute Tyranny."

Nor was it merely a tyranny over the colonial governments' supposed right to determine immigration policy for themselves. It was also a tyrannical action towards the would-be immigrants.

Many of the leaders of the American Revolution saw the new nation as a refuge for the oppressed of the world. In his famous General Orders to the Continental Army, issued on the occasion of the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, George Washington stated that one of the reasons the United States was founded was to create "an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions." He expressed similar views on other occasions, including writing to a group of newly arrived Irish immigrants that "[t]he bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions."

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, similarly wrote, in 1781, that "It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom." Other leading Founders expressed similar sentiments, including James Madison and James Wilson, among others.

The idea of accepting immigrants without regard to their national origin and religion was an extension of the more general principle that the United States was founded on the basis of universal liberal principles, not ties of ancestry, culture, or faith. This is what the Declaration refers to in the famous passage avowing that all men are created equal and have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There can be no such liberty and equality if where people are allowed to live is limited by their parentage and place of birth. Just as the leaders of the Revolution rejected more traditional hereditary aristocracy, their principles were also at odds with what we might today call the hereditary aristocracy of citizenship, under which only those born to the right parents or in the right place have a right to live in the United States, while all others can be excluded for virtually any reason the government might come up with.

The Founders established a Constitution under which, Madison and most others argued, the federal government had no general power to exclude immigrants. When the Federalist Party pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, giving the president broad power to deport immigrants he deemed "dangerous," Jefferson and Madison denounced the law as both unjust and unconstitutional. They and their allies mobilized such strong resistance to the Alien Friends Act that the federal government never actually managed to deport anyone under it.

When Jefferson became president in 1800, he allowed the Act to expire, and federal immigration policy remained almost completely free of restrictions until the enactment of racially motivated exclusionary laws targeting Chinese immigrants in the 1870s and 1880s. The successful resistance to the Alien Acts was a triumph for liberty and equality that deserves to be far better known than it currently is.

None of this proves that America's founding generation was free of prejudices against immigrants. The Federalist Party, as noted, sought to use the Alien Friends Act to deport many immigrants, fearing that they might spread French revolutionary ideas to the United States andperhaps even worse from the Federalist point of view support the rival Democratic-Republican Party.

Despite his defense of open immigration on many occasions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in his 1782 Notes on Virginia, that America had reason to fear immigrants from "absolute monarchies," because "[t]hey will bring with them the principles 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." As with many later Americans who feared that immigrants would spread harmful political political values, Jefferson did not give sufficient weight to the reality that people fleeing oppressive regimes usually do so precisely because they abhor those governments, not because they want to recreate them elsewhere.

But even in that same passage, Jefferson rejected the idea of barring immigrants from oppressive governments, instead recognizing that "[i]f they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship." He merely "doubt[ed] the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." Later, of course, Jefferson took a more favorable view of the political impact of immigrantsperhaps, in part, because many of them supported him and his party!

As on many other issues, particularly slavery, the Founders didn't always live up to their own principles when it comes to immigration. The Federalist advocates of the Alien Acts obviously did not. Nor did Congress when it enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790, and limited eligibility for citizenship to those immigrants who were "free white person[s]." Black immigrants were not made eligible for citizenship until 1870. Explicit racial restrictions on naturalization were not fully ended until 1952.

Restrictions on naturalization did not amount to restrictions on immigration itself. Black immigrants came to the United States in substantial numbers even when many of them were ineligible for citizenship, beginning with numerous refugees from Haiti in the 1790s. Still, black immigrants in this era suffered severe discrimination, as did native-born free African-Americans (to say nothing of the millions of slaves).

But despite these unjust limitations, the principles of the Declaration of Independence did lead to the establishment of a nation that, for the first century of its history, had very few limitations on immigration, and thus became a refuge for millions of people fleeing poverty and tyranny.

Washington's vision of a refuge for "the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions" was never fully achieved. But the early United States did realize it to a astonishingly impressive degree. In some important ways, the early republic was actually more enlightened on these matters than we are today. Our immigration policies bar the vast majority of those seeking refuge from oppression, and even include such perversions as barring escaped slaves on the grounds that the forced labor they performed for terrorist organizations qualifies as "material support for terrorism" rendering them ineligible or asylum.

Jefferson and Washington were not far from the only ones who saw a connection between openness to immigration and America's founding principles of liberty and equality. The great African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass made much the same point in an 1869 speech, in which he compared immigration restrictions to racial discrimination, and argued that America must be a "composite nation" open to to people of all races and cultures who wished to settle there.

Abraham Lincoln, who was a strong supporter of open immigration, also saw the connection between immigrant rights and the Declaration of Independence:

When [immigrants] look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"; and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.

The America of Founding era and of Lincoln's day didn't fully live up these high ideals. The same remains true even today, in some respects even more so. But, at its best, the nation has indeed been a refuge for the oppressed, and they have been major contributors to its growth and success. Immigrants and natives alike have much to gain from a more consistent adherence to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

On immigration, as elsewhere, we would do well to heed Lincoln's admonition that the Declaration "set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."

View original post here:

Immigration and the Principles of the Declaration of Independence - Reason