Was US Immigration Originally, Favorable?

[PAC-fit]

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, 2003), formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS 1933). Typically the USCIS manages all fundament immigration vetting. It is said even the older INS vetting process was complicated by external "inconsistencies in how applicants were assessed." Up to that time, immigration vetting by America's founders also had their framework they thought appropriate. Was US Immigration originally, favorable in His sight?

What did immigration more closely resemble, the Kingdom of God and His Gospel, or the kingdom of the world?

GPT - "The American Founders’ views on immigration were deeply influenced by their cultural, religious, and philosophical backgrounds, predominantly reflecting Protestant Christian values. Though immigration was not a primary focus in the earliest documents, some state constitutions and foundational texts provide insight into their perspectives.


Early Drafts and Views on Immigration:

1. Naturalization Acts:
   • The Naturalization Act of 1790 permitted "free white persons"* of "good character" to become citizens after two years, showing early apprehensions about race and character.
2. State Constitutions:
   • Certain early state constitutions included provisions emphasizing Protestant Christian principles, implying an expectation that incoming citizens adhere to similar moral and ethical standards.
   • For instance, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 speaks to the importance of virtue and religion in supporting governance, indirectly suggesting that immigrants should align with these values.
3. Federalist Papers:
   • In papers like Federalist No. 2, John Jay discusses the need for a common identity, implying that shared values—including religious beliefs—are essential for national unity.
4. Religion and Government:
   • The founders generally supported the notion that a moral society was requisite for self-governance. Documents like the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), authored by Thomas Jefferson, emphasized the importance of religious liberty but also set implicit parameters surrounding the acceptable practice of faith.
5. Views on Citizenship:
   • Founders believed citizenship should be earned and reflective of an individual's commitment to republican values. The emphasis was on adopting American customs and contributing positively to society.
6. Covenant and Community:
   • Early writings often echoed the idea of America as a "city upon a hill," suggesting a divine mission tied to community cohesion, which would require immigrants to share similar values for successful integration."

*George Washington (who inherited slaves when he was only eleven years old) declared that “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”

 

[Seeker47]

I am not sure about this: "...predominantly reflecting Protestant Christian values". Protestants were seeking freedom of worship, sure enough. But most immigration reflected pure economics and greed. The thousands of common people who immigrated did so as indentures servants, a form of short-term slavery. Other thousands were long term slaves, first Irish and then African. The death rates for these humans was staggering while the European wealthy grew even fatter. It was a situation ripe for conflict and helped form our deep desire for freedom.

 

[NightTwister]

Legal immigration has always been favorable. Illegal immigration was always unfavorable until the past few years (for some).

 

[hornetguy]

It also has been limited or stopped entirely on several occasions in the past.
The idea is for immigrants to come to the US, assimilate, become AMERICANS, regardless of what/where they came from...
There has to be some sort of limitation on it, otherwise we would be absolutely over-run with the dregs of every second/third world nation that exists.

Our poorest, least "blessed" citizens are still head and shoulders better off than most of those that want to come here..... that is WHY they want to come here.

We, as a nation, have to decide if we are going to reduce our citizens to the least common denominator of every trashy third world country, or are we going to have common sense immigration policies.... which includes intelligent management of any and all social programs.

 

[PAC-fit]

I am not sure about this: "...predominantly reflecting Protestant Christian values". Protestants were seeking freedom of worship, sure enough. But most immigration reflected pure economics and greed. The thousands of common people who immigrated did so as indentures servants, a form of short-term slavery. Other thousands were long term slaves, first Irish and then African. The death rates for these humans was staggering while the European wealthy grew even fatter. It was a situation ripe for conflict and helped form our deep desire for freedom.

If I'm not mistaken, 9 out of the original 13 state constitutions were namely ''Protestant'' with the exception of Maryland being ''Catholic''. The corporate statement had been laid without flat abandoning out spiritual kin.

 

[JaumeJ]

Unless a person is New World Indian, he or she is descended from immigrants.
This would make being deported a tragedy for me, for I would need be deported to Norway, Scotland, Wales and the Nederland.
Thank goodness I do have some Indian blood.

 

[PAC-fit]

Legal immigration has always been favorable. Illegal immigration was always unfavorable until the past few years (for some).

A lot of words have been said and written trying to dispel reports of paid protesters. Even when those who do bring evidence forward note it isn't commonly a majority of the protesters. Did you hear some of those protesters who entered the Minneapolis Baptist Church are known paid protesters? One of those arrested was NEKIMA LEVY ARMSTRONG - Newsbusters

 

[PAC-fit]

What did immigration more closely resemble, the Kingdom of God and His Gospel, or the kingdom of the world?

Can godly principles be hostile for Christians maintaining "the boundaries of their lands." (Acts 17:26) and in no way run by a king of chaos nor uncharitable expression of a loving God. The first signs of a nation turning who was founded on Christianity is in my view no better seen than in how well the protocols of vetting has remained in being inclusive and faithful. I think what that vetting has become is a filtering off some of being faithful maintenance for purely secular. I think it was a mistake to reduce both to strike a "balance" if that was what was necessary to accommodate the masses now plagued with,

"inconsistencies in how applicants were assessed."

Preceded by the prayer life they were known for, I view the founders efforts to more closely resemble the Gospel than not.

 

[Seeker47]

If I'm not mistaken, 9 out of the original 13 state constitutions were namely ''Protestant'' with the exception of Maryland being ''Catholic''. The corporate statement had been laid without flat abandoning out spiritual kin.

You are correct....I was commenting on the characteristics of the earliest immigrants. I should have been more specific.

 

[PAC-fit]

Can godly principles be hostile for Christians maintaining "the boundaries of their lands." (Acts 17:26)

Apparently, NOT thought appropriate to post that as a question seeing the admin here didn't think it appropriate to subject immigration under the scrutiny of the Bible. For "Bible Discussion" was the selection the OP was first selected to appear by me?

What did immigration more closely resemble, , His Gospel, or the kingdom of the world?

Perhaps someone could offer to enlighten me on this "Misc" placement?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Perhaps someone could offer to enlighten me on this "Misc" placement?

Maybe it was seen not so much a Bible discussion but as an immigration discussion? The only actual scripture reference I've seen mentioned is Acts 17:26: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands." You asked in relation to this: "Can godly principles be hostile for Christians maintaining 'the boundaries of their lands.' " Are you asking if godly principles and maintaining proper boundaries are in conflict with one another?

 

[PAC-fit]

Are you asking if godly principles and maintaining proper boundaries are in conflict with one another?

Wouldn't be oppose to that although, I am assuming you know quite well the title's "Favorable" begs for scriptural support.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Wouldn't be oppose to that although, I am assuming you know quite well the title's "Favorable" begs for scriptural support.

"Was US Immigration Originally, Favorable?"

I'll be honest, I didn't know what you meant by this title. I sure didn't see anything in it that asks for any kind of scriptural support, implied or otherwise. No offense, but is English your first language? I have to ask because most of what you post is incomprehensible, and I can't think of any other explanation.

 

[PAC-fit]

"Was US Immigration Originally, Favorable?"

I'll be honest, I didn't know what you meant by this title. I sure didn't see anything in it that asks for any kind of scriptural support, implied or otherwise. No offense, but is English your first language? I have to ask because most of what you post is incomprehensible, and I can't think of any other explanation.

"Most"? Is that an admission that within the content of the OP lies the definition of favorable? Let's see?

What did immigration more closely resemble, the Kingdom of God and His Gospel, or the kingdom of the world?

 

[ResidentAlien]

"Most"? Is that an admission that within the content of the OP lies the definition of favorable? Let's see? "What did immigration more closely resemble, the Kingdom of God and His Gospel, or the kingdom of the world?"

Maybe it was clear to you but it wasn't at all clear to me. If I wanted scriptural support, I would've said, "What do the scriptures say about immigration?" Then maybe you could've shared a few of your own so we know what your position is; and left out all that about early drafts and views on immigration. But that's just me.

 

[PAC-fit]

Maybe it was clear to you but it wasn't at all clear to me. If I wanted scriptural support, I would've said, "What do the scriptures say about immigration?" Then maybe you could've shared a few of your own so we know what your position is; and left out all that about early drafts and views on immigration. But that's just me.

Good idea! Should I go for broke and show the founder's bond with the Gospel as well as civil concerns from the word? Then again, think I'll just move along as it doesn't appear as a subject of much interest.

 

[PAC-fit]

think I'll just move along as it doesn't appear as a subject of much interest.

So, as we move along to address the current malaise, ,

Seeing how the American Founding fathers were unquestionably concerned at harnessing Protestantism (9 out of the original 13 state constitutions), how did U.S. immigration policy drift so far from this very direct concern?

Gemini - "While many of the original 13 state constitutions explicitly prioritized Protestantism through established churches or religious tests for office, U.S. immigration policy drifted from this concern through a series of "pluralistic bargains," unintended consequences of Protestant-led reforms, and a fundamental shift in legal frameworks from state-level religious preference to federal-level secular administration.

The Original Protestant Framework
In the late 18th century, several original states maintained laws designed to "harness" Protestantism

The Shift Toward Pluralism (19th – Early 20th Century)
The move away from a strictly Protestant immigration focus occurred in distinct phases:

• Early Unrestricted Era: During the 18th and early 19th centuries, the U.S. encouraged relatively free and open immigration, rarely questioning this policy until the late 1800s.
• Federalization of Immigration (1875): Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared immigration regulation a federal responsibility, moving it away from individual state-level religious preferences.
• The Reactionary Phase (1924): As immigration from predominantly Catholic, Jewish, and Eastern Orthodox regions increased, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed. This act was largely pushed by Protestants to preserve the nation's Protestant character by implementing national-origins quotas that favored Northern and Western Europeans.

The "Pluralistic Bargain" of the 20th Century
The most significant "drift" occurred between 1924 and 1965, driven ironically by mainline Protestant institutions.

• Liberalization Efforts: During these decades, mainline Protestant leaders shifted toward more open immigration policies, advocating for cultural pluralism and "E Pluribus Unum". They believed that while they were opening borders to cultural differences, America's core religious identity would remain largely intact.
• Unintended Consequences: These leaders entered into a "pluralistic bargain," where they supported broader religious diversity in exchange for promoting a shared "Christian nation" ethos. This unknowingly paved the way for their own decline as "cultural gatekeepers" by allowing for a cultural revolution of non-Western immigration.
• The Hart-Celler Act (1965): This legislation overturned the national-origins quota system. It was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the support of progressive Protestant figures. This law drastically increased religious diversity by opening opportunities for immigrants from Asia and Latin America.

Modern Context
By the end of the 20th century, the historic preeminence of mainline Protestantism began to wane as religious pluralism became a defining feature of American society. While current legal immigrants remain majority Christian (at roughly 74%), the share of other groups has grown; for example, the share of legal Muslim immigrants entering annually doubled between 1992 and 2012. Today, federal law is prohibited from interfering with religious exercise, and immigration policy is increasingly challenged through the lens of religious freedom for all faiths, rather than the protection of a single denomination."

"Religious diversity"? They wish to suggest the founders were not faced the immigrant's immense diversity? No rather, Christian suppression! It is religious ignorance to suggest Christ shares His entity with others! Let's just use one example from the first American President himself, George Washington. In 1779 he invited into the newly formed America those of another race and stood for generations thereafter to be the core American value:

"You do well to wish to learn, , above all—the religion of Jesus Christ."

 

[SonJudgment]

It's still favorable, if you're not just an outright demonic savage, it's pretty easy actually especially if we're speaking comparatively to other countries. Really the hardest part is just doing like some studying of what is basically middle school tier US history. But heck if you're rich and got money you can even bypass that, it's that easy and favorable. The argument isn't that it's too hard to legally immigrate and assimilate, the argument is it's too easy on this end even hardliners like Trump haven't even added really tougher restrictions, essentially he just raised the price for fast track admission with his gold card plan, and frankly at 5 million with today's money that's not really even that much of a filter. Generally though Americans don't mind immigration, immigration isn't looked at as the problem.

The problem is Satan's slaves the invaders, the invaders are not immigrants they have the satanic invader mindset and spirit. The invaders weren't invite in, they didn't come here legally nor with the intention to become one with US, they openly hate America and her sons, they openly are doing evil to them, they are openly trying to change and subjugate and sabotage America and Christianity. They ruin it for the genuine people looking to immigrate and assimilate and that genuinely love America and her sons and want to be one of US.

 

[PAC-fit]

It's still favorable, if you're not just an outright demonic savage, it's pretty easy actually especially if we're speaking comparatively to other countries.

Not opposed to speaking of it in that light one bit. On the other hand, still don't wish to alienate my eventual and subsequent (post 17) premise, is it favorable for God's children who respond to his will?

 

[SonJudgment]

Not opposed to speaking of it in that light one bit. On the other hand, still don't wish to alienate my eventual and subsequent (post 17) premise, is it favorable for God's children who respond to his will?

Your post 17 does a good summary of the way immigration evolved in America. At the end of it you strike upon the evil model of immigration, the invasion model essentially that is characterized by a mixing of religions. If they're making a "diverse" culture by bringing in the false religions and championing them then the answer is clearly a definitive NO, God does not support them. In fact not only does God not support them, but actually it is written Jesus specifically will fight against them for it. This denotes not just are they evil for doing this, but it's actually extremely severe. Not only does God not support them, but specifically Jesus is outright against them and actively fighting them with the intention to destroy them to make example out of them so that all the churches know that he is God.