Foreigners

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
83,863
Reaction score
110,896
Points
3,635
Guess who wrote this?

"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...... 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; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader..."

linky
 
Either Jefferson or Hamilton.
Hamilton, who was not a native, born American like the rest of the Founding fathers., was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. That's why he could never be President. In a way, he was talking about himself, as he was a bastard from a foreign nation.
 
Hamilton, who was not a native, born American like the rest of the Founding fathers., was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. That's why he could never be President. In a way, he was talking about himself, as he was a bastard from a foreign nation.
There were a few others not born in America.
 
Guess who wrote this?

"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.

It's gotta be Joe Biden.
 
Albert Gallatin was Swiss born and a Treasury Secretary.


Who?

That is the question you would get from most people. He wasn't even around for the Revolutionary war. He emigrated to the US in the 1780s. Very hard to call him a Founding Father.
 
Last edited:
Guess who wrote this?

"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...... 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; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader..."

linky

People in the future...rather The survivors :p.... are gonna ask what the f*** was wrong with us...
 

Guess who wrote this?

"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...... 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; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader..."

linky
It appears from the last census, that we have increased about one third in ten years;4 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.

Is that the case now?
 
Really? Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. Name another famous one that served in the government. Can you name one off the top of your head?
I believe Morris was foreign-born, and he was a Founding Father. I’d have to Google the others. If you’re interested, I’ll do it.
 
Did not hold federal office, except one term as an elected Senator by the state legislature. Could not be President or VP. I'll give you that one. Apparently my AI search did not list him.

He was one that signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation and Constitution. I guess he more than meets the requirement.
 
Did not hold federal office, except one term as an elected Senator by the state legislature. Could not be President or VP. I'll give you that one. Apparently my AI search did not list him.

He was one that signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation and Constitution. I guess he more than meets the requirement.
There are a few others, too. One was born in Scotland, I believe.
 
15th post
Guess who wrote this?

"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...... 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; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader..."

linky
Immigration has never been an issue before like it currently is.

And birth rates have a LOT to do with it. We need a growing population and not growing solely due to Immigration.

We need to get back to an economy that has a single income family as the norm and not the exception. Which means kicking corporate world out of DC. Incarceration of congresspeople that insider trade or take bribes.(campaign contributions)

Do the same thing with judges.

Overturning Ford v stockholders.

It's not complicated. But it will be painful for the ruling elites.
 
Back
Top Bottom