Yes, the Jeffersonian founders would have opposed most of the actions of the feds today. If the feds didn't do all that unconstitutional rubbish, then an open border would not be the disaster it is given present federal over-reach.

Hi k; I don't know much or care to, about Malkin--though it's obvious from both her writings and what she chooses to write about that she's not a thinker.

As to the Founder's thoughts on immigration and the Individual Right of freedom to travel, today's conservatives are arguing from emotionalism, encouraged by nationalism and state-ism, and resulting in attempts to alter history. The Founders, not including the Federalists such as Hamilton, fully knew and appreciated all Individual Rights. They didn't so much think from the stand-point of exclusion, as much as they thought from the stand-point of developing and maintaining a country that would attract men of certain attributes and would be unattractive to men without those attributes.

But at the same time, they never could have imagined this country as socialist and democracy based as it has become with concepts of civil and human rights over-riding and replacing Individual Rights, nor did they ever desire the nationalism and imperialism that conservatives preach today. However they were convinced that 'citizenship' rights were properly exclusionary, being reserved to those, that after a substantial time and assimilation to the ideas of the country, as well as demonstrated self sufficiency and desire could and would want to apply for that full citizenship. Those that couldn't or wouldn't satisfy those expectations would fail, leave, or contract or indenture themselves into some form of servitude.

Cool heads and common sense usually supply the solutions to tough problems. If you consider the nation as your home, a few simple rules apply.
Don't invite or allow criminals to enter.
Don't allow persons who show hatred for you or yours in any way to enter.
Don't allow anyone who cannot show the ability to support themselves to enter.
If you want to help the impoverished or disabled, raise the money yourself.
You can ask for help but you cannot demand it.
Well, that would be a start.

4) Because, by definition, a faithful Muslim is commanded by his Qur'an (every Arabic character of which is regarded as the direct, unassailable word of Allah) and the Hadith (the word of the Prophet) to convert or subjugate and tax or murder every non-believer. Further, they are commanded to do these things until a world caliphate is established. They are also invited to use deception among non-believers so as to infiltrate and subdue them. The ability of any "Muslim" to peacefully coexist with any non-Muslim is directly related to that Muslim's willingness to bend or break the text of his own holy books, rendering him guilty of apostasy and inviting a sentence of death. Even family members are invited to rat out their own who even question the word of Allah, and following the execution of such member, the family is considered stronger for it. So long as this is the case - until Islam accepts a reformation - its very existence on this earth is antithetical to peaceful coexistence with any "non-believer."

Back in the founders' era, there was no welfare state. You could not come to the US, and be a moocher. Under that more Objectivist system in that era, a free immigration system would be entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, America has been re-founded ... by the Roosevelts, Wilson, etc.

Also, back in the original founders' era, Muslim immigration was non-existent. I have had hundreds of Muslim students, some of whom will be lifelong friends. I respect them as individuals, and have no problem with their immigration here, provided that they do not choose to enforce their belief system on me. Thus far, in Florida, they haven't. When I lived in Michigan, not far from Dearborn, they did.

I respectfully recommend that everyone reads the words of Calvin Coolidge regarding immigration, as summarized by the Madison Project:

http://madisonproject.com/2013/05/cal...

A key quote from Coolidge follows.

“Restricted immigration is not an offensive, but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American. - See more at: http://madisonproject.com/2013/05/cal...

In summary, Coolidge, acting as the representative of a duly elected government, helped pass legislation that acted in the self-interest of both those people already here and those who were considering coming.

Not all who cross our borders against the law are peaceful Mexican agricultural workers. One of the world's most dangerous gangs, MS-13, from Honduras, has established a presence in most large American cities. They terrorize our native Hispanic communities and conduct gun battles with the Crips and Bloods over drug turf. Because many of these gangsters start as young teens, many arrive as unaccompanied "children", and are allowed to stay. If you see a 14 year old with several tears tattooed on his cheek, that's telling you this "child" has already murdered three people. Expecting these invaders to become model, hardworking citizens is a delusion.

The reason the Founders weren't too concerned with immigration was because they realized how big this country could grow, and that it needed a growing population to make that growth productive. Newcomers were welcome then. If they could have looked into the future and seen the problems of unfettered immigration/invasion, I have no doubt they would have placed firm restraints on the immigration process.

Having open borders to a welfare state is a recipe for bankruptcy. Welcoming immigrants do not wish to assimilate into the prevailing culture creates factional strife. Harboring enemies that wish to do us harm is inviting the Trojan horse to overturn our society.

We struggle with these issues more today than ever because we have changed our society. Past immigrants were not all that different from those of today but the agar in the petri dish is much different. Immigrants had no support system that allowed them to exist outside of the established norms. They found a job, any job that supported them. They realized that better jobs, better pay and a better life could only be obtained by learning the language, getting more education, developing desired skills, obeying the law and blending in with the majority. As long as they resisted doing so they were branded as foreigners, called names and excluded from desirable activities. It may have been tough on a generation or two but they succeeded. The harsh reality melded them into one people and many that were foreigners yesterday are the most intolerant today.

Our Constitution, as written by the founders is very wise in allowing for interpretation and experimentation. Perhaps we need to be more critical of the experimental results and willing to reset to the default positions when something that worked so well is bogging down and threatening to go blue screen.

In regards to the questions posed above:
1. I disagree with the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to any who are merely born on US soil. I don't believe the original author of the Fourteenth Amendment nor those who ratified it at the time subscribed to such an interpretation with the exception of the blacks - and that because they had no nationality of origin other than the US. As such, I don't believe Malkin should have been granted citizenship status until she had been legally naturalized.
2. I see nothing in either the first Ten Amendments, the Constitution itself nor specifically the Commerce Clause which touch on immigration other than to delegate Immigration policy to Congress. If you would care to elaborate on how you arrive at your inferred immigration readings from any such, I would appreciate the perspective.
3. I don't care what religion they are from. They need to come here legally. I'm not going to universally accept Catholics any more than I am going to universally ban Muslims. What I want to know is if you intend on coming here to live by the laws and ideals of the United States or your home country. That to me will determine whether you may apply to become a citizen or remain a visitor. That Catholics are certainly going to be more amenable to living by the Constitution than Muslims may certainly factor in, however.
4. Sorry, but I can't help you here. I would say that there is tremendous confusion about Islam and it's acceptability not only in the US, but in the World in general and our current President has done little but attempt to persuade everyone to ignore the true fundamentals of Islam.
5. Not going to speak for anyone else, but if this is a reference to #2, you're going to have to demonstrate to me where in the Constitution or which of our Founders were specifically in favor of unqualified, unrestricted immigration as you seem to claim.

Personally, I don't support anyone who thinks they have a "right" to emigrate the United States - no matter where they come from and for what reason they wish to come here. I echo the words of both Madison and Washington who called for immigration policy that betters our country and encourages those who come to assimilate to the standards of this nation: principally individual liberty and personal responsibility. Those who attempt to come here but wish to live by their own values especially when those values conflict with the values of Americans should be turned away.

on "Conservatives...ignoring..."...simple...they are pragmatists with no reasoned, principled, or concretely logical values...the blow with the wind in every direction...

The Founding Fathers did not have to deal with immigrants who repaid their host country’s hospitality by crashing airplanes into buildings, killing thousands of people. Michelle Malkin’s article is a breath of fresh air.

As I understand it the rights outlined in our Constitution are reserved for citizens of the United States, not anyone else.

"why is it that the Conservatives are hugely vocal about the Constitution until it contradicts their desires."
It's NOT just conservatives. Everyone is tempted to ignore the Constitution when it contradicts their desires. It exists to stand up to desires of the mob.

I think the issue of immigration will go away on its own because it's so easy to send value across borders. Human beings and physical parts get inspected and slowed down by custom, creating a hassle for developers, but the plans (CAD drawings, software, firmware) sail easily across borders. All the value is in the plans. People created the nation state because geographic barriers slowed the movement of people and materials, and people on opposite sides of those barriers had different values and interests. The conditions that created borders have disappeared from earth, and I see them mostly as a vestige of a time long gone.

if we want to say the flag means everything. ok. what about Lady Liberty? if we do not support what the statue of Liberty represents. BLOW IT UP. it is not the US do it-that's what many of you advocate. get rid of the symbol.