Oh, these Alien and Sedition Laws, enacted way back in 1798, perhaps we should see in them a mirror of today's ways, and today's laws, and today's treatment of immigrants.
The old adage, you know, says learn from history, or face repeating it. Look at our nation, then, and wonder if we are not repeating 1798.
These were not good laws, you know. Read the first two paragraphs of an online article at ushistory.org and see if it is kindly towards them:
"No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War?
"No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
To our credit, we quickly overturned three of these laws. Back then, there were enough of our founding fathers who could see they were not good laws. Three of the four quickly expired or were repealed.
Yes, learn of these Alien and Sedition Acts. Learn at the peril of seeing their reflections in our current laws. Would we cite them as precursors to our current immigration laws? I would. But, would we hail them as showing the founding fathers believed in the same austere approach to immigration that we are pursuing today? Some would, but I wouldn't, I would tell you the founding fathers ultimately rejected them. Not everyone thinks the same, and that would be as true of them back then as it is of us today. But, generally, the founding fathers rejected these laws.
Learn, if you must, that Thomas Jefferson held them to be unconstitutional, and pardoned those convicted of them, and ordered the release of those who had been convicted of violating them.
Thomas Jefferson, then, the first American practitioner of amnesty? Today, amnesty is a dirty word, but Jefferson appears to have been the inventor of its practice here in America. Amnesty: Ronald Reagan may have been its most famous American practitioner, but Thomas Jefferson was the first.
There were four laws. I read that Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional. If we can trace some of the things common in today's immigration laws, we would be wise to reflect on Jefferson's thinking that these laws were all unconstitutional. We live in a day when many believe the Constitutional is behind our strict immigration laws, but learn of the things in these laws, considering all the while that Jefferson deemed them laws that were unconstitutional.
Yes, consider these laws, and watch closely for those things that correspond to our beliefs today -- and wonder.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 required immigrants to give five years notice if they intended to become citizens, and it required them to live here 14 years before they were actually granted that citizenship. The act was repealed in 1802. If you take away the provisions of this act, immigrants could become citizens immediately upon moving to the United States. We must wonder, then, whether Jefferson felt depriving them of immediate citizenship was unconstitutional.
There were no laws at the time restricting them from coming. The borders were open. People could come into America and live here at will. This law established but restrictions on how long they must wait once here before being granted the full rights of citizenship. If Jefferson considered this law unconstitutional, what was it he saw as unconstitutional? Could it be that the immigrants were not granted all the rights and privileges of others? Yes, if you take one group of people and deprive them of rights given to others, I can see how that could be considered unconstitutional -- how it is unconstitutional.
Oh, and this is certainly of great interest: The Naturalization Act of 1798 was seen as an effort to prevent immigrants from coming and voting for those of the Democratic-Republican Party, as immigrants tended to be partial to that party. Even so, today, there is a fear immigrants will vote on the side of the Democrats, so Republicans seek to carve them out.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 authorized the president to deport any resident "alien" considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" And, so it is today, we seek to prevent terrorists and gang members and others from coming because we are concerned for the safety of the United States. I wonder whether Jefferson saw this as unconstitutional. For I am told he thought the Alien Enemies Act was unconstitutional, and that is the heart of Alien and Enemies Act.
One thought: There may have been fear-mongering then, even as there is now, and many might have been branded as dangerous to America when they actually were not. I can see how Jefferson would think that would run against the Constitution.
The third law, the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to apprehend and deport those of foreign origin if their home countries were at war with the United States. This law has been modified, but remains in effect today. We think of the Japanese internment camps of World War II, wherein no less than about 110,00 people were rounded up and incarcerated in concentration camps simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Constitutional? This law was not repealed, but, the same, I did read that Jefferson thought all four laws were unconstitutional. Was this one an exception, despite my reading that Jefferson thought them all unconstitutional?
And -- as we consider the mirror of these laws in our immigration laws today -- let us come more recent than World War II. What of when President Trump listed nations from which immigrants would be banned?
This law, the Alien Enemies Act, was crafted by the same people who gave us the other three Alien and Sedition Laws, and it is made of the same fabric. It extends into our day as a relic of those same laws. Yes, it remains in effect, but we would do well to consider its repeal.
Now, we have one more of these four laws to discuss. The Sedition Act made it a crime to print "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government. We cannot help but think of how President Trump has called for restrictions on what is said about him.
History repeats itself. We are living now, as they did back then, when immigrants were painted as criminals, and when things in the press were seen in need of being repressed. Back then, the authority to suppress what was seen as dangerous immigration was left by these Alien and Sedition Acts to the president. Interestingly, today it also is the president leading the charge against immigration, and against a free press.
If we were to brush the sands of time from off our mirror, would we not see that 2019 is but a reflection of 1798?
(Note: Some portions rewritten 3/2/19)
No comments:
Post a Comment