Joyce's No Restraint Podcast EP. 350 Reclaiming the Founding Father's vision of America Part 2

This is the Joyce Kaufman podcast, honest, straight and unapologelic, with your host, Joyce Kaufman. Welcome to this edition of the No Restraint Podcast. I'm your host, Joyce Kaufman, and this is actually a second part. to a previous podcast, one where the Federation of American Immigration Reform had put forth a very, very accurate description of how we need to be reclaiming the founder's vision of citizenship and immigration. It was in this milieu that Thomas Jefferson, in his notes on the state of Virginia, offered a balanced but cautionary view on immigration. He acknowledged the desire for rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible to accelerate growth, but questioned whether it was founded in good policy. He warned that immigrants from monarchical Europe would bring with them the principles of the government they leave, bibed in their early youth, which could potentially warp the republic into a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. Jefferson advocated relying more on natural population increase for stability and selective encouragement of useful artificers. Rather than indiscriminate influxes, he emphasized the need for laws to ensure assimilation and to protect the pure republicanism of the new nation. Alexander Hamilton, for his part, reinforced the importance of clear and fair citizenship rules amid the confusion. In a 1784 letter, addressing the treatment of loyalists and inhabitants remaining in British-controlled areas, he argued that such individuals did not automatically forfeit their allegiance to the United States. He emphasized that misconduct must be proven individually rather than presumed territorially. Collective punishment of large groups as aliens or traitors, he warned, would be an act of bare-faced tyranny. that undermine the principles of the Revolution and the Union. He called instead for a fair, evidence-based approach to determine who retained citizenship rights. This highlighted the practical difficulties of leaving such fundamental questions to fragmented state policies. The perils of fragmented authority under the Articles of Confederation led luminaries from all 13 states to gather in Philadelphia in May of 1787 to debate revisions to the articles. The delegates quickly concluded that a far stronger framework was needed, with the power to regulate citizenship emerging as a core element of that vision.

The resulting Constitution's grant of supreme federal authority over naturalization represented a rejection of the state-by-state chaos that had threatened the union's survival. The Constitutional Convention records reveal broad consensus on the concept of citizenship as a tool for securing American sovereignty. On August 13th of 1787, delegates debated qualifications for the House of Representatives with Elbridge Jerry, urging long residency requirements and warning that foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us and insinuated into our councils in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Hamilton pushed back on this notion, noting the advantages of encouraging foreigners was obvious and admitted, and proposing to require only citizenship and inhabitants, while giving the legislature discretion to set a rule of naturalization. James Madison seconded Hamilton's motion, acknowledging the dangers of foreign meddling, but arguing that America should invite foreigners of merit and Republican principles. Pierce Butler was a strenuously against admitting foreigners into our public councils, while George Mason feared that British-attached immigrants could sway commercial regulations. Governor Morris and others likewise supported residency and citizenship restrictions on holding public office. The debate underscored the framers' intent to balance attraction of useful immigrants with safeguards against foreign influence. That consensus was reflected in the Convention's Committee of Detail Report from August 6th of 1787, which proposed the clause granting Congress power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. the delegates accepted the provision with little recorded debate, viewing it as straightforward and an essential remedy for the inconsistencies that had plagued the Articles of Confederation. By placing naturalization firmly in federal hands alongside other core powers, the framers ensured that the new republic could selectively attract immigrants while guarding the nation's character, cohesion, and security. The naturalization clause appeared as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, in the final version of the Constitution that the delegates signed on September 17th of 1787.

In the ratification debates that followed, this power was widely defended as essential. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 32, underscored the necessity of exclusive federal power over naturalization as a core fix for the Confederation's defects. He pointed to the clause declaring that Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States and explained that this must necessary. be exclusive, because if each state had power to describe a distinct rule, there could not be a uniform rule. Hamilton used the example to illustrate that certain powers could not be shared without defeating the very purpose of uniformity. He argued that this would prevent the chaotic scenario where one state's lenient naturalization rules would effectively bind the entire union and undermine national sovereignty. James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 42, provided one of the clearest critiques of the article's handling of citizenship and immigration. He described the dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization as a long-remarked fault in our system that laid a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. He noted that in one state, residents for a short time confirms all the rights of citizenship. In another, qualifications of greater importance are required. This created absurd scenarios where an alien could elude his incapacity in a stricter state by first reciting in a lenient one, or where obnoxious aliens barred in one state could gain rights by moving to another. Madison warned that without correction, serious embarrassments or even consequences of too serious a nature would result. He praised the proposed solution of an authorizing a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States to prevent the Confederation's defects. During the state ratification conventions, supporters also strongly endorsed the naturalization clause as a vital improvement over the articles. In Virginia, James Madison hailed it as a remedying the embarrassments caused by inconsistent state rules. In New York, Alexander Hamilton assured delegates that the power would enable the nation to select the most useful citizens while guarding against undesirable or disloyal. fluxes. In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, speakers emphasized that a uniform rule of naturalization would prevent foreign powers from exploiting divided American citizenship policies, ensuring the Republic could maintain a cohesive national identity and speak with one voice. Once the Constitution was ratified and the new federal government was formed, Congress promptly exercised its authority over naturalization, translating the framers' vision into concrete policy. On January 8th of 1790, President Washington urged Congress in his first annual address to set citizenship rules, stating that various considerations

also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization. The House responded by appointing a committee to draft the bill, which the full House debated beginning in February of 1790. The debates in the House revealed the framers' deliberate balance between encouraging, useful immigration and safeguarding the republic's character. Thomas Tudor Tucker Carlson moved to strike a one-year residency requirement, arguing it was American policy to enable foreigners to hold lands quickly upon taking an oath. Thomas Hartley countered that some security for fidelity and allegiance was required beyond the bare oath. An actual residence of such a length of time as would give a man an opportunity of esteeming the government from knowing its intrinsic value was essentially necessary to assure us of a man's becoming a good citizen. James Madison emphasized attracting the worthy part of mankind who would increase the wealth and strength of the community. declaring, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States. As the debate progressed, James Jackson warned against the common class of vagrants and paupers and other outcasts of Europe, preferring natural increase or careful probation. Theodore Sedgwick cautioned that immigrants from monarchies might import prejudices of education and required some kind of probation to enable them to feel and be sensible of the blessing of Republican government. Michael Jennifer Stone argued for sufficient residency to let immigrants know the circumstances of our government and acquire a taste for this kind of government. After extensive discussion, the bill was recommitted and ultimately passed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 required two years' residence, good character, and an oath, a clear embodiment of the selective assimilation-focused approach the founders intended. This represented a decisive transition from the colonial model to a national system defined by Congress. Despite this legislation, concerns quickly emerge. that the two-year residency requirement was too lenient, allowing unassimilated foreigners, particularly amid the radicalism of the French Revolution, to gain voting rights, land ownership, and influence without demonstrating sufficient attachment to the Republic. Federalist worries about Jacobin agents, election interference by foreign merchants and shimp owners, and divided loyalties intensified as European wars brought waves of immigrants. By late 1794, Congress recognized the need to revisit the law, leading to a renewed debate in December of 1794 and again in January of 1795, on extending probationary periods and protecting the purity of American institutions. Samuel Dexter opened the debate on December 22nd by expressing the disapprobation of the facility by which, under the existing law,

aliens may acquire citizenship and move to strike the two-year term, leaving a blank to be filled after more mature consideration. He also proposed amendments targeting mercantile foreigners. Amid the cruel and dreadful European wars and the fierce and unrelenting passions shaking old governments, members saw the need for longer probation to prevent poisonous communications from Europe and ensure immigrants imbibed Republican principles. before gaining full rights. John Page approved the design because he thought nothing more desirable than to see good order, public virtue, and true morality, constituting the character of citizens of the United States. Williams Vans Murray declared he was quite indifferent, if not 50, emigrants came, and feared contamination from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption. After debate... The bill was passed. The Naturalization Act of 1795 extended the term of probation to five years and required a declaration of intent, stronger oaths, and character requirements. The 1795 Act was not the end of early federal action. In 1798, amid tensions with France and fears of foreign subversion, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which extended residency to 14 years and empowered the president to deport dangerous aliens. These measures reflected the founder's willingness to tighten naturalization for national security. In 1802, however, Congress under President Jefferson repealed the restrictive 1798 provisions. The Naturalization Act of 1802 restored the five-year residency standard. with a declaration of intent while continuing to require good moral character and an oath of allegiance. This restoration demonstrated the early republic's commitment to a balanced probationary system. The framework established in the 1790s, uniform federal control, selective admission, and assimilation through character and loyalty remain the nation's baseline for naturalization for generations. The historical record confirms that the founders built a system of citizenship and immigration that was selective, assimilation-focused, and firmly rooted under federal control. They required years of residency. proof of good moral character, renunciation of foreign allegiances, and oaths of loyalty to the Constitution. They used the power of naturalization to attract the worthy part of mankind, who would strengthen the Republic while guarding against foreign influence, disloyalty, and the erosion of Republican virtue. From the earliest days of colonial autonomy to Congress's legislation in the 1790s, every step in the founding story reflected the that a sovereign people must control who joins their political community or risk losing the ability to sustain liberty.

Today's system stands against that founding blueprint. Decades of lax enforcement, judicial endorsement of sanctuary policies, and political incentives have turned citizenship into a commodity rather than a bond of allegiance. Record levels of illegal entries and asylum claims have overwhelmed broader and border resources, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection encounters exceeding $2.4 million in fiscal year 2020. 23 alone. Birth tourism exploits a modern misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to confer automatic citizenship on children of non-citizens. Chain migration and family-based preferences allow millions to enter without regard to skills, assimilation potential, or contribution. Sanctuary jurisdictions openly defy federal immigration enforcement, shielding criminal aliens, and straining local budgets, schools, and hospitals. But public cost of illegal immigration now tops $150 billion annually at the federal level alone, while communities face increased crime, fentanyl deaths, and eroded national identity. This is precisely the outcome the framers feared, a government that cannot secure its borders, a population divided by national loyalties, and institutions overwhelmed by unassimilated influxes, where the founders insisted on probationary periods and character tests to ensure newcomers embraced Republican principles, modern practice often grants benefits and political influence before assimilation occurs. where they vested exclusive federal power in Congress to maintain uniformity and protect sovereignty, today's reality features state defiance, activist courts, rewriting statutes, and executive policies that effectively nullify the law. Encouragingly, the current Trump administration has already begun the hard work of correcting course. Between 2025 and the present, the federal government has driven southwest border encounters to record lows and conducted aggressive immigration enforcement in the interior. Meanwhile, executive actions limiting birthright citizenship for children of unlawful visitors, terminating abusive parole programs, and applying pressure on sanctuary. jurisdictions have reasserted federal supremacy on immigration. These decisive steps prove that reclaiming the founder's selective framework is not theoretical. Building on this momentum, the roadmap for restoring the founder's vision includes one, strengthening enforcement with physical border barriers, increased interior removers, and cooperation with state and local authorities. Two, reaffirming federal supremacy over immigration policy by ending sanctuary-style defiance from state and local governments, including by pursuing full enforcement of existing statutes and withholding funds from non-compliant jurisdictions. Three, shifting to a merit-based system of immigration that prioritizes skills, self-sufficiency,

and assimilation potential over extended family chain migration. Four, ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors by codifying the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. Citizenship is earned through full allegiance to the United States. And five, promoting patriotic assimilation through civic education, English requirements, and cultural expectations that newcomers adopt American values. Pursuing this path does not mean closing America to the world. It means returning to the wise balance the founders struck, welcoming those who will strengthen the Republic while protecting the sovereign right of the American people to define their identity. Despite this clear roadmap and the progress made during the current Trump administration, significant hurdles remain in reclaiming the founder's vision for America. This is especially true on the issue of birthright citizenship, where a modern misreading of the 14th Amendment has led to the conclusion that a person's mere physical birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to confer citizenship, regardless of the parent's legal status or allegiance to the United States. After decades of drifting toward this modern interpretation, President Trump, upon returning to the White House in January of 2025, issued Executive Order 14160, protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. The Executive Order restored the framers understanding that citizenship requires complete political jurisdiction. Example, full and direct allegiance to the United States. coupled with permanent domicile. Immediately after its issuance, immigration advocacy groups challenged the executive order in multiple federal district courts. Those courts promptly issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, blocking enforcement of the order, and those rulings were largely upheld on appeal. This set the stage for a landmark constitutional confrontation when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the lower court rulings. On June 30th of 2026, the eve of... This notes release by Federation of American Immigration Reform, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbarra. In a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief John Roberts and joined by Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, along with a partial concurrence from Brett Kavanaugh, the court struck down Executive Order 14160. The majority held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawful

and urge lawmakers to advance legislation that imposes limits on birthright citizenship consistent with Brett Kavanaugh's analysis. Such legislation offers an immediate opportunity to safeguard American citizenship and should also incorporate complementary restrictions to curtail birth tourism and improper entry. Until then, aggressive enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act stands as the last line of defense. This includes rigorous B visa screening to detect intent to commit birth tourism, criminal investigations, and civil penalties against maternity hotels and fraud networks. Deportation of facilitators, enhanced consular vetting, and full use of existing statutory authorities to stem the tide of controlled migration. Recognizing this imperative, the U.S. Department of Justice has moved swiftly in response, issuing a memorandum directing federal prosecutors to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of fraudulent birth tourism schemes. This immediate action illustrates that, even after the Supreme Court's ruling, the Trump administration remains committed to safeguarding American citizenship and national identity. On this 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the choice before the American people could not be clearer. The Supreme Court's decision has thrown into sharp relief the stakes of that choice. Despite the encouraging progress already achieved by the Trump administration, the hard work of reclaiming the founder's vision for America has only begun. We must recommit with renewed urgency to the first principles that built the greatest experiment in self-government. the world is ever known, or else we will continue down the path that risks its dissolution. Thank you for listening. Please pass it along to a friend. A new one will be coming soon. May God bless you. May God bless Israel. And may God bless the USA. This has been the Joyce Kaufman podcast. Available everywhere you get your podcasts.