Just what is the Tea Party Position on Immigration?

And is Darwin going to tell us what that position is or should be?

None and No.

And one of the reasons for those answers is the simple fact that far too many “Tea Party Patriots” simply do not differ significantly from the majority of the voting Democrats in this country.

I hope that statement does not offend anyone (yet). 

Actually I am not concerned whether or not I offend anyone by stating my truth and that is where the so called “Tea Party” falls short and why it is waning in effectiveness as a national force.

My 85 year old father whom I love dearly is a Korean War and Vietnam War Veteran. He is (vaguely) aware of the fact that I am heavily involved in the Tea Party movement and is on the snail-mail list of every conservative publication in the free world and beyond.

Father has reached the point where he feels overwhelmed by the constant bombardment of “critical issues” that “must be supported within seven days by a minimum contribution of $$$$”. So he simply repackages all the “critical” information - mostly unopened - and sends it to me.

And about once a week he will call to ask me why I personally and the Tea Party in general has not yet impeached Mr. O’Bummer.

Father does not understand that the “Tea Party” is not a “party” in the traditional political sense but is one of many voices of We The People; quite often a veritable “Tower of Babel” situation.

I have been involved in the Tea Party movement since late ’09 or early 2010. In the Las Vegas Valley there are several “Tea Party” organizations and perhaps as many as a dozen other “conservative” oriented political organizations.  And although all are framed around the very best of intentions, so it is said that the road to Hell paved with good intentions.

Sadly some of these organizations spend more time in competition with each other than they do in any other activity; except perhaps for the regularly scheduled pity parties.

The Tea Party movement attracts people of conservative mind sets from across the political spectrum; from the fringe that stands to the right of Attila The Hun to those on the far distant side fondly referred to as “RINO’s” - those Democrats in Republican seats. And sadly, far too many groups stand on an irreconcilable principle of “My Way or the High Way”.

And even more sadly, far too many who are associated with the Tea Party tend to act like voting Democrats in that they follow whomever thinks they are a leader  at the moment without comment and without the courage to make a public comment out of fear of being criticized by their fellow “patriots”.

I would suggest a quote from Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet:

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

So what does all this have to do with “immigration”? 


And that is why I initially said that I am not concerned whether or not I have offended anyone with what I have to say.

I would suggest that when you decide to seriously consider the issue of immigration that you first do so, quietly, in a two sided conversation between you and God or you and whom ever you are closest to in this life.

I know where I stand on the issue of immigration.

The specter of deporting approximately twelve million illegal immigrants will not seriously be considered by anyone until the Democrats no longer find them useful. The very thought raises visions of Hitler shipping the Jews off to “work camps” and for many of these “illegal immigrants” the result will be the same: Death. 

And for others, those who have tasted the sweet nectar of Liberty and individual freedom, death would be a blessing for they will be condemned to live in a perpetual hell of  imprisonment of the soul.

So many of the so called “illegal immigrants” did not participate in the decision to come to this country illegally. 

I have a good friend who is one of those.

He walked across the border when he was but a child. He has never sought and he is too damned proud to ever ask for public assistance. And he currently owns two - soon to be three - houses here in Las Vegas. And oh...yes - he is now an American Citizen married to a medical professional working at a local hospital. He also drives a better truck than I can afford. He is living The American Dream.

History is full of interesting lessons for those willing to learn. When our Republic was established, it consisted of individual states which at the time were equivalent to separate nations (sort of like California is today) who just happened to exist on the same land mass.

During the early 1800’s in this country, there were tens of thousands of “illegal immigrants” - many - but not all - of whom were African Americans.

One of the most notable “illegal immigrants” of that era was Frederick Douglass.

He “walked across the border” (figuratively speaking) out of Maryland - then a slave state - and eventually landed in New York - then a “Free State”.

Then, as now, “immigration” belonged to the individual states whereas “naturalization” belonged to the Federal Government - or so I have been told.

So here is my bottom line:

  • Seal the borders - All of them.
  • Forget about deporting twelve million people; it is not going to happen.
  • Children born in this country are as “American” as are my own children and much more so than some children I have met. Leave them alone. And if they have attended our school system for at least five years without running afoul of the law, call them “Citizen”.
  • Any person who managed to come to this country under his or her own power and has not been a party to a violent crime - to include any banned drug related crime - should be given a documented path to citizenship as was the case with most of our ancestors - some of my ancestors were already here when all those foreigners (illegal immigrants) arrived on our shores.
  • I will support any candidate who reflects my position on this critical issue.

And as I am often fond of doing, I will quote one of my favorite Republicans:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - August 1963.

And that my friends is “The Tea Party Position on Immigration” - at least the position of this Tea Party of One.

Views: 87

Tags: #Immigration, #Red, Flowing, Ink


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Dennis L. Kolb Sr. on March 20, 2013 at 6:35pm

Mr. Darwin Rockantanski; I agree  with most of wha you've said but would like to offer some of my Historical Background research has truned up, and what the framers of The Constitution knew and had when deciding who would be, or who could become a Natural-Born Citizen;

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew:

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence.  In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizensVattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213:  Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization.  In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law.  And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see?  The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”.  But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787.  John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the C...  [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states: “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”


Mr. Rockantanski, I was recently researching and found what is posted. According to The Framer's Intent on Who Qualifies as A Naturalized Born Citizen, and Obama does not meet the Qualifications to be President of The United States!

Comment by Lucas Quiroga on March 20, 2013 at 10:55am

No comments???

Tea Party Nation is a social network

Abundant Life Planner


Essential Oils

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service