In the musical Hamilton, there is a scene during the number “The Battle of Yorktown” where Lafayette and Hamilton meet and say the line “Immigrants – we get the job done.” Hamilton and Lafayette then high five each other. This, I understand, elicits wild applause each time it is performed. It is one of a few nods to contemporary politics in the musical, and probably the most overt of them.
Hamilton’s status as an immigrant is one of the character attributes which drew Lin-Manuel Miranda to Hamilton, and this staus is often alluded to throughout the musical. One of the subtexts of the musical is that America was shaped in large measure by this immigrant son of a Scotsman and a whore.
The immigration debate is not just a contemporary matter. From the earliest moments of the republic we have debated immigration policy. One of the earliest points of contention was just how long we ought to wait before granting citizenship status to newly arrived immigrants. In his first message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson suggested eliminating the 14-year waiting period for naturaliation – not reducing, but eliminating it.
A writer using the pen name Lucius Crassus responded to Jefferson’s message in print. First he noted how Jefferson contradicted his own harsher sentiments expressed years earlier in the Notes on Virginia. The writer then observed that Jefferson would not have been elected had only native-born citizens voted in the election of 1800, and this might have motivated Jefferson’s change of heart. It’s a charge that reverberates down to today, as Republicans have suggested that when it comes to to immigration policy, Democrats are in large part motivated by a desire to expand voter rolls in their favor.
The writer proceeded to harshly rebuke both Jefferson’s plan and his tone.
The pathetic and plaintive exclamations by which the sentiment is enforced might be liable to much criticism, if we are to consider it in any other light than as a flourish of rhetoric. It might be asked in return, Does the right to asylum or hospitality carry with it the right to suffrage and sovereignty? And what, indeed, was the courteous reception which was given to our forefathers by the savages of the wilderness? When did these humane and philanthropic savages exercise the policy of incorporating strangers among themselves on their first arrival in the country? When did they admit them into their huts, to make part of their families? and when did they distinguish them by making them their sachems? Our histories and traditions have been more than apocryphal, if any thing like this kind and gentle treatment was really lavished by the much-belied savages upon our thankless forefathers. But the remark obtrudes itself. Had it all been true, prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.
But we may venture to ask, What does the President really mean by insinuating that we treat aliens coming to this country with inhospitality? Do we not permit them quietly to land on our shores? Do we not protect them, equally with our own citizens, in their persons and reputation, in the acquisition and enjoyment of property? Are not our courts of justice open for them to seek redress of injuries? and are they not permitted peaceably to return to their own country whenever they please, and to carry with them all their effects? What, then, means this worse than idle declamation?
The impolicy of admitting foreigners to an immediate and unreserved participation in the right of suffrage, or in the sovereignty of a republic, is as much a received axiom as any thing in the science of politics, and is verified by the experience of all ages. Among other instances, it is known that hardly any thing contributed more to the downfall of Rome than her precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large. And how terribly was Syracuse scourged by perpetual seditions, when, after the overthrow of the tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of citizenship? Not only does ancient, but modern, and even domestic, story furnish evidence of what may be expected from the dispositions of foreigners when they get too early a footing in a country. Who wields the sceptre of France, and has erected a despotism on the ruins of her former government? A foreigner. Who rules the councils of our own ill-fated, unhappy country? and who stimulates persecution on the heads of its citizens for daring to maintain an opinion, and for daring to exercise the rights of suffrage? A foreigner! Where, then, is the virtuous pride that once distinguished Americans? where the indignant spirit, which, in defence of principle, hazarded a revolution to attain that independence now insidiously attacked?
So who was this harsh critic of Jefferson’s immigration plan?
His name is Alexander Hamilton.
And he wasn’t done. In the next letter Hamilton, writing as Crassus, argued for a much more restrictive immigration policy, stating that too much immigration would disrupt the cultural homogeneity of the republic.
The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.
Hamilton went on to note that a more lax immigration policy made sense in the early life of the republic when the population was much less. But the situation had changed.
It appears from the last census that we have increased about one third in ten years; after allowing for what we have gained from abroad, it will be quite apparent that the natural progress of our own population is sufficiently rapid for strength, security, and settlement.
But Hamilton was not a total immigration restrictionist.
By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself goes far towards a denial of that privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances, and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required.
So Hamilton proposed a middle ground approach, proposing instead a five-years wait. That has indeed been the standard through our history. But Hamilton made it quite clear that he wanted no part of Jefferson’s immediate naturalization plan. T
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.
In summary, Hamilton 1) rejected the idea of indiscriminately allowing immigrants to be naturalized, 2) thought that immigration should generally be curtailed, 3) worried that massive immigration could negatively impact the culture of the republic, and 4) thought Jefferson’s plan was a thinly veiled attempt to win voters to his political party. Is this Alexander Hamilton or Mark Krikorian we’re talking about?
It’s often perilous to assume how an historical figure would approach contemporary issues, but it’s difficult to imagine Hamilton would be in agreement with much if any of Miranda’s stances on immigration. It is especially difficult to fathom Hamilton countencing unrestrained immigration or favoring anything resembling an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Considering his constitutional and judicial philosophy (also discussed in great detail in later Lucius Crassus letters), he would have been incensed at judicial attempts to forestall legitimate legislative attempts to address illegal immigration.
But I understand. “Immigrants, we get the job done so long as we observe all the proper legal requirements for entry and for naturalization and get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments, and learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government” doesn’t have quite the same ring.
The Cranky Conservative 