The writings of James Madison, comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed. |
 |
|
 |
FEBRUARY 3. NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS
|
 | The writings of James Madison, |  |
FEBRUARY 3. NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS[132]
When we are considering the advantages that may result
an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider
the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is
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. And what is proposed by the amendment is,
that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity,
and declare their intention to reside in the United States.
Under sueh terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens
might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the
country from which they came, and evade the laws intended
to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens
and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all
the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization
excluded a single person of good fame that really
meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other
hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege,
but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength
of the United States.
It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make
our law to admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by
step; but there is no doubt we may, and ought to require
residence as an essential.[133]
The bill became a law March 26, 1790, and provided for admission
to citizenship of free white aliens of good moral character after residence
in the United States of two years,—1 Stat., 103.
TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
Your favor of Jany. 9, inclosing one of Sept. last did not get to hand
till a few days ago.[134]
The idea which the latter evolves is a great one;
and suggests many interesting reflections to Legislators; particularly
when contracting and providing for public debts. Whether it can
be received in the extent to which your reasonings carry it, is a question
which I ought to turn more in my thoughts than I have yet been able
to do, before I should be justified in making up a full opinion on it.
My first thoughts lead me to view the doctrine as not in all respects
compatible with the course of human affairs. I will endeavour to
sketch the grounds of my skepticism. "As the Earth belongs to the
living, not to the dead, a living generation can bind itself only; in
every Society the will of the majority binds the whole; according to
the laws of mortality, a majority of those ripe for the exercise of their
will do not live beyond the term of 19 years; to this term then is
limited the validity of every act of the Society, nor can any act be
continued beyond this term without an express declaration of the
public will." This I understand to be the outline of the argument.
The Acts of a political society may be divided into three classes:
the fundamental constitution of the Government.
laws involving some stipulation, which renders them irrevocable
at the will of the Legislature.laws involving no such irrevocable quality.
1.
2.
3.
However applicable in theory the doctrine may be to a Constitution,
it seems liable in practice to some weighty objections.Would not a Government ceasing of necessity at the end of a given
term, unless prolonged by some Constitutional Act, previous to its
expiration, be too subject to the casualty and consequences of an
interregnum?Would not a Government so often revised become too mutable &
novel to retain that share of prejudice in its favor which is a salutary
aid to the most rational Government?Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions
that might not otherwise come into existence; and agitate the public
mind more frequently and more violently than might be expedient?In the second class of acts involving stipulations, must not exceptions
at least to the doctrine, be admitted?If the earth be the gift of nature to the living, their title can extend
to the earth in its natural state only. The improvements made by the
dead form a debt against the living, who take the benefit of them.
This debt cannot be otherwise discharged than by a proportionate
obedience to the will of the Authors of the improvements.But a case less liable to be controverted may perhaps be stated.
Debts may be incurred with a direct view to the interests of the unborn
as well as of the living. Such are debts for repelling a Conquest, the
evils of which descend through many generations. Debts may even
be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity: Such perhaps is
the debt incurred by the U. States. In these instances the debts
might not be dischargeable within the term of 19 years.There seems, then, to be some foundation in the nature of things;
in the relation which one generation bears to another, for the descent
of obligations from one to another. Equity may require it. Mutual
good may be promoted by it. And all that seems indispensable in
stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that
the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the
former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on nations by their predecessors
would bear a liquidation even on this principle.Objections to the doctrine, as applied to the third class of Acts
must be merely practical. But in that view alone they appear to be
material.
1.
2.
3.
Unless such temporary laws should be kept in force by acts regularly
anticipating their expiration, all the rights depending on positive laws,
that is most of the rights of property would become absolutely defunct,
and the most violent struggles ensue between the parties interested in
reviving & those interested in reforming the antecedent state of
property. Nor does it seem improbable that such an event might be
suffered to take place. The checks & difficulties opposed to the passage
of laws which render the power of repeal inferior to an opportunity
to reject, as a security against oppression, would here render the latter
an insecure provision against anarchy. Add to this that the very
possibility of an event so hazardous to the rights of property could
not but depreciate its value; that the approach of the crisis wd. increase
the effect; that the frequent return of periods superseding all the
obligations dependent on antecedent laws & usages, must by weakening
the sense of them, co-operate with motives to licenciousness
already too powerful; and that the general uncertainty & vicissitudes
of such a state of things would, on one side, discourage every useful
effort of steady industry pursued under the sanction of existing laws,
and on the other, give an immediate advantage to the more sagacious
over the less sagacious part of the Society.
I can find so relief from such embarrassments but in the received
doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Governments
& laws, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an
express revocation. It seems more practicable to remedy by wellconstituted
Governments the pestilent operation of this doctrine, in
the unlimited sense in which it is at present recd., than it is to find a
remedy for the evils necessarily springing from an unlimited admission
of the contrary doctrine.
Is it not doubtful whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea
of an implied or tacit assent, without subverting the very foundation
of Civil Society?
On what principle is it that the voice of the majority binds the
minority? It does not result I conceive from a law of nature but
from compact founded on utility. A greater proportion might be required
by the fundamental Constitution of Society, if under any praticular
circumstances it were judged eligible. Prior therefore to the
establishment of this principle, unanimity was necessary; and rigid
Theory, accordingly presupposes the assent of every individual to the
rule, which subjects the minority to the will of the majority. If this
assent cannot be given tacitly, or be not implied where no positive
evidence forbids, no person born in Society, could on attaining ripe
age, be bound by any acts of the majority, and either a unanimous
renewal of every law would be necessary, as often as a new member
should be added to the Society, or the express consent of every new
member be obtained to the rule by which the majority decides for the
whole.
If these observations be not misapplied, it follows that a limitation
of the validity of all Acts to the computed life of the generation
establishing them, is in some cases not required by theory, and in
others not consistent with practice. They are not meant however to
impeach either the utility of the principle as applied to the cases you
have particularly in view, or the general importance of it in the eye
of the Philosophical Legislator. On the contrary it would give me
singular pleasure to see it first announced to the world in a law of the
U. States, and always kept in view as a salutary restraint on living
generations from unjust & unnecessary burdens on their successors.
This is a pleasure however which I have no hope of enjoying. The
spirit of Philosophical legislation has not prevailed at all in some parts
of America and is by no means the fashion of this part, or of the
present Representative Body. The evils suffered or feared weakness
in Government and licenciousness in the people, have turned the
attention more towards the means of strengthening the powers of the
former, than of narrowing their extent in the minds of the latter.
Besides this it is so much easier to descry the little difficulties immediately
incident to every great plan, than to comprehend its general
& remote benefits, that further light must be added to the Councils
of our Country before many truths which are seen through the medium
of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary politician.
—Mad. MSS.
| The writings of James Madison, | |