Marriage

Marriage, as traditionally defined is a legal and spiritual union of a man and wife as the foundation of a family. Some believe that Marriage is simply a religious institution, however Marriage is more than a religious institution, it is also a societal institution. Furthermore, Marriage is the foundation of a family, and family is the foundation of a civilization. To practice and promote marriage as defined above, is to promote the growth, advancement, and propagation of a civilization.

There are many misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions as to what Marriage is and what it means. Over the last couple of decades, persons and groups prompted by political ideologies and attempts at social engineering have tried to blur and redefine the nature, law, and purpose of Marriage. Below is, by law and tradition what Marriage is and has meant in Western civilization.

Every human society practices Marriage in one form or another existing as a public legal act. It is a universal human idea sanctioned by society, as stated before, to promote the growth, advancement, and propagation of a civilization.

By Law, Marriage is a special civil contract between a Man and a Woman.

The participants in the contract must be willing and able to enter into the contract. If the marriage is entered into by one or more unwilling parties; or parties who were not able to (due to age, disability, law, etc.) enter into contract, the Marriage is rendered null and void, as if it had not occurred in the first place.

The Marriage contract must be enacted before witnesses presided over by a Judge, Justice, Administrator of a Religious Faith (Minister, Rabbi, etc.), or other sanctioned entity.

A marriage contract is then sealed by consummation. Any marriage that has not been consummated may be annulled, treating it as if it had not occurred.

A marriage that has been consummated may only be dissolved by the death of the spouse, or by divorce.

Divorce may (until the birth of the “No Fault” Divorce) only be granted for reasons of wanton cruelty and/or neglect, adultery, or abandonment (as detailed by law).

By law, upon Marriage, the Man and Woman become one person, as the legal existence of the woman is suspended for the period of Marriage; being consolidated into that of the Husband, under whose protection and influence she performs everything. This condition of marriage is called “Coverture” and the wife is a “feme-covert” [married woman].

Under the rules of coverture, the following applies:
1.Because a Man cannot contract with himself, a Man and Wife may not contract with one another, and aside from the contract of marriage, any covenants made between them while single become void upon their marriage. A will and any inheritance is in force, because it does not take affect until the death of the spouse, which ends the marriage.
2.A Man is required to assume the debts of his wife and maintain her as he would himself; providing her all necessaries (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). All debts transfer to the Wife if the Husband precedes her in death.
3.A Wife may not enter into contracts, or seek redress in the courts (aside from petition for divorce) without the Husband's consent, thereby having it done in his name; unless the husband is debilitated and unable to act for his wife or give his consent. Any contracts a Wife has made prior to her marriage may be voided by her Husband when he becomes aware of their existence.
4.A Wife cannot be sued without making the Husband a defendant.
5.The Husband and Wife face criminal charges separately when the penalty is more than a fine, but they may not be witness in evidence for or against the other. If a Wife commits a crime acting solely under the direction, guidance, and/or command of her Husband, it is the Husband that shall face the criminal charges.
6.The Husband has the right to give his Wife moderate correction in the same manner as he is allowed to correct his children.

The Rights and Obligations of Marriage:
1.The marriage creates affinal ties to the spouses family.
2.Each spouse has control over their partner's sexual services.
3.The Wife has control over her Husband's affairs if he is incapacitated.
4.Each spouse is allowed access to the other during periods of incarceration or infirmary.
5.Each spouse is legal guardian of their children.
6.Each spouse has a joint property fund and right to inheritance.

The above may seem “shocking” to some of you... but again, it is because the reality of what Marriage is and what it means has been blurred, distorted, and changed by political ideologies and attempts at social engineering.

Before “No-Fault” divorce, Political Correctness, and Social Engineering, it was not uncommon for a lot of thought and consideration to take place prior to making a commitment to Marriage. Marriage was a life-long commitment that has/had far reaching legal and social ramifications... not, as many today seem to believe, as a means to get new blenders, tax relief, and insurance benefits.

References include:

William Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England (the sourcebook behind the American legal system).

Encyclopedia Britannica

Canon Law of Marriage of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the force of law and practice of Marriage in the West before the reformation of the Sixteenth Century.

See also: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%20Marriage%20For.pdf

The Right of Secession

Lately there has been a lot of talk about secession. Even the Governor of Texas spoke of it, setting off a firestorm of controversy... particularly among the Status Quo that erroneously believes that the States do not have the right to secede.

Too many people mistakenly believe that “the 'Civil War' settled that matter”, when in reality, all the 'Civil War' did was prove that a tyrannical government with enough guns and manpower can oppress the rights of not only the people, but the States as well.

Some of you may be thinking... “what are you talking about? Secession is treason! It's ILLEGAL!” If you are thinking that, you are absolutely wrong, as I shall demonstrate.

In 1776 the Colonies seceded from British rule with the Declaration of Independence. In that document, the “secessionists” made clear their right to do so.

From the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

These secessionists then formed a new government... a confederation of independent States.

Note: The term State at this time, and in the mind of the Founder's was interchangeable with “Country”. The definition of a State as a Country still holds true to this day.

From The Articles of Confederation:
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

ARTICLE II Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

ARTICLE III The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Those who do NOT believe in the right of secession often speak of the phrase in ARTICLE XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which state:

“...the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...” and the title of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States of...”

However, this is because the detractors do not understand the meaning of a “perpetual contract”. A “perpetual contract” means that the contract has no end date and that the terms of that contract will continue in force until one or both sides breaks that contract and/or desire to end it. The meaning of the term “perpetual union” is that the States were to be held together in a union until such time as the contract is broken, or the States in question desired to break away from that union.

The principal players in the formation of the united States agrees with this... as the quotes below shall show.

James Madison:
“the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.” – While introducing the Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson:
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” – First inaugural address

Thomas Jefferson:
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'.” – in response to New England Federalist desiring to secede

Alexander Hamilton:
“[As to joining the union] the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.” – Federalist 32

Though the new Constitution for the united States did not specifically speak on the matter of secession, it did specifically give the people and the State the right to do as they please while specifically limiting the power of the Federal Government.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, says so plainly:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – Federalist 45

This theme is spelled out clearly in the Bill of Rights:
Ninth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No State would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that they were to be bound as a slave to the central government. To illustrate my point, and to further show the right of Secession... each and every State Constitution has wording in it similar to that which is found below.

Texas Constitution of 1845:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore, no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after that consent be withdrawn.

It is with these words that the Republic of Texas joined the united States, and in 1861 they utilized their right and seceded, joining the Confederacy. After the end of the War for Southern Independence, when Texas was forcibly returned, at the end of a bayonet, back into the union, similar words remained in its new Constitution... the one that Texas adheres to today.

Texas Constitution of 1876 (current Texas Constitution):
Article 1, Section 2:
“All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

Furthermore, Texas stated in no uncertain terms that it is a Sovereign State, stating in the Constitution...

Texas Constitution of 1876 (current Texas Constitution):
Article 1, Section 1:
“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States. ”

So, if Texas does decide to secede, it is not illegal, treasonous, or “crazy”... it is our God-Given Right!

Thomas Jefferson summed it up best:
“Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God.” – motto on Thomas Jefferson's personal seal

Thoughts on Tiller the Baby Killer

Feminists, Liberals, and Marxists (but I repeat myself) are still railing against Pro-Lifers as being "violent radicals" due to the "murder" of Dr. Tiller the Killer of 60,000 babies... The sad irony is that since Roe v Wade passed, a total of 5 abortion doctors have been killed; meanwhile, almost 50,000,000 babies have been murdered in the womb.

This makes Feminists the greatest mass murderers in all the history of all the world.

Feminists retort... well, abortion is legal. So what... Genocide was legal in NAZI Germany, but that doesn't make it right.

The Common Law Grand Jury

The people of Georgia have done something VERY interesting. They convened a citizen's Grand Jury under the Common Law. This Grand Jury has indicted Obama for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, which... if (and I stress "IF") they can get any prosecutor in Georgia to pay attention to the law, President Obama will have to face his day in court.

For those of you who do not know, Grand Juries have come a long way from what they originally were...

Grand Juries are supposed to be chosen by lot, much like regular jurors. The only difference is that Grand Jurors are not sifted based on biases. The jurors are chosen and seated.

A typical Grand Jury has 23 members to serve every 3000 populace (a town of 6000 people would have 2 Grand Juries). A Grand Jury is supposed to hear the evidence a prosecutor has, and then judge whether or not he has a case for indictment. A mere majority vote of the Grand Jury grants indictment. There typically is no judge in the proceedings.

Grand Juries are allowed to deliberate, ask questions and hear additional witnesses if they desire, however, they are not there to try the case... simply to judge whether or not there IS a case to be tried. If a Grand Jury votes against indictment, the Prosecutor should NOT be allowed to try again with the same case and a different Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury typically sits for a week (5 business days) and hears several cases; however, it is not uncommon to have a Grand Jury sit for Months, meeting once or twice a week during those months. The proceedings are typically secret.

Example:
You get a jury summons. You show up at court, and they say they are seating a Grand Jury. Aside from being excused for medical/personal reasons, you should be placed without question.

Let's say that the Grand Jury you are on is being seated for 6 months, meeting every Monday and Wednesday during that time. You might hear 4 cases 1 week, 1 case the next week, 6 cases the next week, and 1 case that consumes 2 weeks, and so on. After your 6 months is over, the Grand Jury is dismissed, and another one is seated.

Grand Juries seem inclined to side with a prosecutor as far as indictment goes... however, Grand Juries (when properly applied) can exclude the prosecutor from an inquisition and can subpoena witnesses and issue indictments themselves if necessary. This typically happens when a Grand Jury feels that the prosecutor is corrupt, or part of a corrupt system.

According to the Common Law (upheld by the Supreme Court) a Grand Jury acts as a protector of the citizen against "arbitrary and oppressive government action" and that Grand Juries may "deliberate in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry" (US vs Calandra, 414 US 338 (1974)).

A Grand Jury is independent and is “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (Branzburg vs Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972)). It has been ruled that “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (US vs Sells Engineering, 463 US 418 (1983)).

Grand Juries are a right protected under the 5th amendment to the Constitution, however, most people today believe that a Prosecutor or Court has to assign a Grand Jury, but the reality is, under the Common Law the community may assign a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury has considerable power.

Under Common Law, Grand Juries can be have between 12 and 23 members, with an indictment allowed upon a majority vote, with no less than 12 jurors voting to indict (in other words, a GJ of 12 would have to be unanimous, but a GJ of 13 to 23 would only need 12). They are not governed by the Prosecutor or Court, and (as stated above) may even by-pass or exclude the Prosecutor, Judge, etc. and issue its own subpoenas, indictments, etc. Especially if the GJ has reason to believe the system or persons involved are corrupt or misapplying the law. Grand Juries also have the power to investigate public officials without interference from the government. Historically it has always been their JOB to pin government corruption to the mat.

In US vs Williams, 504 US 36 at 48 (1992) the Supreme Court decided:
"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). '"

...and...

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]"

Historically, and under the Common Law, Grand Juries have the right to be assembled by the community, to investigate and independently determine a case should not proceed to trial, or hand out indictments; and to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers or otherwise circumvent the law.

Many will try to dismiss this indictment as "frivolous", or that it has no legal merit... but anyone who still has an understanding of Natural Law, the Common Law, and the the beliefs and aims of the Founding Fathers to which this entire system of government was founded, knows better.

Human Livestock

There is a section of a film that is fairly well done, and it spoke many truths... however it also had some things in it that I thought took away from the message; was antagonistic to faith; and had some other “problems”. There was too much good in the film to discard it, and too many “issues” for me to embrace it fully.

I thought long and hard about it, and would revisit it from time to time; and then I realized that I needed to get this information out. I had several choices, I could simply send the link to the film and add “disclaimers”; I could write my own take on the subject; or I could edit the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film.

After careful consideration, I decided that there were too many things that were phrased too well in the film to allow it to go to waste. So what I have decided to do is to take the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film, edit it, and add some of my own words to smooth out the editing and strengthen some of the concepts. I am also going to give the link to the original film so that anyone who is so inclined can watch it (it is worth watching).

True News 13: Statism is Dead – Part 3 – The Matrix
The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

It is just over 16 minutes long. (the edited transcript below is very reduced, taking maybe two typed pages)

I give full credit to Stefan Molyneux (the filmmaker), and I want to thank him for much (but not all) of what the film has to say. With that in mind, I now present the edited (and "revised") version of the transcript.

Human Livestock:
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

We, the people, end up as slaves to the Government that was put in place to serve us. We act as nothing more than livestock upon a State-run farm. To the State we are nothing more than cattle.

Just as owning cows is advantageous because they provide surplus milk, meat, and other goods, having “slaves” upon Human “farms” is looked upon by the elite as being advantageous. However, simply caging an animal and “milking” it for all it is worth can have great disadvantages.

For example, when cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom."

Similarly, it is advantageous to grant additional liberties to the human livestock… not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

Without enthusiasm depression and despair begins to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is the need for propaganda, “medication”, superstition, wars, the creation of "enemies", the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, the promotion of hedonism, paranoia, and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle - since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so much more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.

The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and other parts of Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The illusion of freedom, enabling willful slavery can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

Through the children, the “livestock” learns to love the farmer, and embraces the farm… all the while chanting that they are free.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.

Violence and Race: A Lecture to the Politically Correct

I am directing this post squarely in the face of all of the Marxists, Liberals, Race-Baiters, Politically Correct, and the Misguided; to be used by the intelligent of any race, creed, or color that chooses to do so.

It is my hope that the era of "White Guilt", "Liberal Guilt", and "Black Victimhood" will END sometime in the near future.

Note: All statistics taken from the US Census Bureau and the Department of Justice.

As of 2005 in the "White/Black" paradigm there was a total of:

72% of population = White, 12.9% of population = Black
Total population in US in 2005 = 295,160,302

212,515,418 = White
38,075,679 = Black
44,569,205 = Other

Victims of Violent Crime:
3,201,320 reported victims who were White. (1.5% of White population)
507,210 reported victims who were Black. (1.3% of Black population)

Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

In those cases of violence, if you take out the "attempts" and leave only the completed crime there was a total of:

916,130 victims who were White (.04% of White population)
192,040 victims who were Black (.05% of Black population)

...again, Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

Of those victims of a completed violent crime:

Black committing the crime against White: 18% [+ 11.5% (Other Race)]
White committing the crime against Black: 4.7%

Here is the first disparity... it seems Blacks are 3.8 times more likely to be the perpetrator against someone of another race than Whites are.

White committing the crime against White: 66%
Black committing the crime against Black: 78.9%

Here it shows that there is a higher predatory rate with Blacks among their own race.

Of the Black victims of violent crime:
100% of rapes were Black vs Black
100% of robberies with injuries were Black vs Black
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 80 percentile Black vs Black

This shows that when there is a Black victim of a violent crime, there is an overwhelmingly high chance the perpetrator was also Black.

Of the White victims of violent crime:
53.2% were raped by non-whites (33.6% of total attackers were Black)
54.5% were robbed by non-whites (36.3% of total attackers were Black)
57.8% were injured during theft by a Black attacker
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 50 to 70 percentile committed by Non-White (Blacks being at least half that total)

This shows that when there is a White victim of violent crime, there is a majority chance the perpetrator is Non-White... with the odds in favor of the perpetrator being Black.

Murder:
Of all the murders in the US, 50.9% of the victims are White, 46.9% of the victims are Black
Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than Whites
94% of the Black victims of murder were killed by Blacks.

These statistics show a high propensity of violent crime being perpetrated by Blacks, with Blacks being the most likely to cross racial lines.

"What is the point of all this?" you may be asking... the answer is simple.

The next time you hear someone whining about how a majority of the prison population is "non-white"; or how the racist Whites go around committing "Hate Crimes", etc. just pull out these stats and tell them:

1. The reason why 35.4% of the prison population is comprised of Black males is because there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Black males.

2. White's are almost 4 times more likely to be the victim of a Black criminal than the other way around, even though White's outnumber Blacks 6 to 1.

3. If you truly want to do something for the "so-called" Black Community, you can start by stop enabling their victimization; tell them to pull the Government IV out of their arm; stop listening to the race-baiting prostitutes that try to herd them; and to understand that educating yourself, speaking clearly and intelligently, wearing clothes that fit, and not acting like an animal are NOT signs of being "too White"... they are signs you are a Human Being. Act like one.

If anyone thinks that these statements of fact are racist, then by all means think so... as for the Intelligent, they know better.

The Founding Father's View on Immigration

I can safely say they were not advocates of "Open Borders".

Overall, the Founding Fathers believed that we should be selective about who we allow in our Country; citizenship should not come easy; the immigrant should assimilate; and that land ownership should be reserved to citizens or those immigrants that have established a legal, reasonable length of residency in the Country. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers believed that immigrants who wish to be citizens should leave their ties to their former Country's form of government behind and learn, understand, and cherish America's unique form of government.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists were mostly in agreement on the subject, with minor debates occurring over a few issues, such as land ownership (some wanting immigrants to have NO ownership rights), length of residency required, preferential treatment given to scholars and skilled tradesmen, and so on.

Here are some of their own words on the matter:

From Federalist #2:
"...Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..." -- John Jay

From a letter from George Washington to John Adams:
[Immigrants should be slowly integrated into the United States so that] "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." -- George Washington

From a 1790 speech to Congress:
"welcome every person of good fame who really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States." -- James Madison

From "Notes on Virginia":
"Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." [Instead we must gradually acclimate newcomers] "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 philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs." -- Alexander Hamilton

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner." -- Roger Sherman - Connecticut

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of." -- James Madison - Virginia

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I would let the term of residence be long enough to accomplish two objects, before I would consent to admit a foreigner to have any thing to do with the politics of this country. First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government." -- Michael Stone - Maryland

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I think, before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." -- James Jackson - Georgia