Tom Hoefling: “If they want to be part of the American family, they must first obtain our consent in the matter.”

ddfd

Tom Hoefling is the America’s Party candidate for president. Hoefling previously sought the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination earlier this year, but did not succeed in his endeavor. According to Wikipedia, Hoefling is on the ballot in Arkansas, California (under the American Independent Party label) and Florida, for total access to 90 electoral votes. 

Hoefling published the following on his campaign website yesterday:

From the desk of Tom Hoefling

An important email message I received from a supporter, followed by my full response:

Mr. Hoefling,

I voted for you in 2012. Needless to say, I feel even more disenfranchised by the current top two candidates of this election. I have researched Gary Johnson as I feel he was a good governor when I lived in New Mexico. However, I take issue with some of the libertarian platform.

My concern and question on your beliefs are in the areas of the immigration issue. I do agree that we need to secure our borders. However, I also firmly believe as a Christian that we have an imperative as believers and as a nation to act in compassion to help those in the world who need it; and I believe that imperative DOES NOT end at our borders. Also, I believe that there are significant numbers of immigrants currently in the U.S. who, while here illegally, are honest, hard-working people who are simply trying to feed and care for their families. To not care for the less fortunate is un-Christian, in my opinion. Can you tell me two things: How would your administration secure our borders yet remain compassionate, and how would your administration handle otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.?

Thank You,

John XXXXX

My reply:

Hello, John.

Sorry it took me a couple of days to reply, but it’s getting crazy busy here, and ever since I first read your question I knew that it deserved a thoughtful, full response.

Americans have generally treated immigrants, legal or illegal, very well. I’ve seen this with my own eyes. The Christian ethic, the fellow feeling for others spoken of by men like John Locke, is not yet completely dead in our country, contrary to what some people think.

And in the legal sense, our Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically protects all persons, which includes non-citizens, legal or not, in their lives, their liberty, and their property.

But the Fourteenth Amendment also makes the necessary distinction between the required protection by the states of the God-given rights of all  persons and the privileges and immunities of citizens.

Let me put it this way: All citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens.

If we do not maintain this distinction of citizenship, we are basically no longer a sovereign nation.

Open borders and unlimited immigration would be like you opening your home without limit to all house guests, or even to all burglars, in effect saying that anyone who wants to can be a part of your family, that they can live with you, and fully access and enjoy all of your resources.

Does God require such largesse of you? I don’t believe that He does.

Let’s not forget that it was God Himself who separated and created the nations. And God requires of us that we take care of those of our own household. If my memory serves, the scripture says that those who do not care for their own are “worse than an unbeliever.”

The fact is, if your compassion knows no limits, your resources will not last very long at all, and the whole crowd will once again be out on the street. Only then it will be you and your household out on the street with them. And then you will no longer be of much use or assistance to anyone who is in need.

Another necessary distinction that I would make is the difference between the private citizen and the president. The individual should have compassion on other people, even if they are not here legally. In fact, the scripture requires that of us, and condemns societies (like Sodom) who mistreat “the stranger.”

But the president has sworn before God to put his personal feelings aside, and to enforce all constitutional laws, in the interest of the whole body of the people, not just the interests of any one person or group of people.

Our Constitution absolutely requires our federal government – a government administered by the president, who is the chief executive, the chief magistrate, the commander-in-chief – to secure the states against invasion.

So, as the person charged with doing that, I would use whatever force was available to me to carry out that charge.

The same Constitution grants exclusive authority to Congress to set our naturalization laws. So, my sworn duty would be to carry out those laws.

In summation, we should in no way mistreat anyone, no matter how they got here. But those who are here illegally must go home to their own countries. If they want to come here and be part of the American family, they must first obtain our consent in the matter.

Thank you very much for your support previously, and I hope that my words and actions will merit that support in the days ahead.

Respectfully,

Tom Hoefling

(Via American Third Party Report)

6 thoughts on “Tom Hoefling: “If they want to be part of the American family, they must first obtain our consent in the matter.”

  1. Thomas Knapp

    Hoefling is interestingly perceptive on the constitutional issues. He correctly notes that Congress is permitted to regulate naturalization. He leaves out that it is prohibited (both explicitly in Article I, Section 9 and implicitly in the 10th Amendment) from regulating immigration, but he clearly recognizes that fact since he invokes the false equivalence of “invasion” to put a veneer of constitutionality on immigration controls.

    Of course, if I follow Hoefling’s logic, it is clear to me that me allowing him to just spread his religious beliefs around willy nilly is the equivalent of inviting to hold prayer meetings in my living room and invite the whole county to them. So I guess Mr. Hoefling is just going to have to stand in line, fill out some paperwork and get my consent before he wants to proselytize. Sauce for the goose and all that.

  2. George Dance

    Typo alert:
    “Hoefling previously sought the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination earlier this year, but did succeed in his endeavor.”

  3. George Dance

    “Open borders and unlimited immigration would be like you opening your home without limit to all house guests”

    And by analogy, government-controlled immigration is like having a nosy neighbour trying to tell you whom you can and can’t have as house guests (or even whether you can have any).

  4. dL

    “Open borders and unlimited immigration would be like you opening your home without limit to all house guests, or even to all burglars, in effect saying that anyone who wants to can be a part of your family, that they can live with you, and fully access and enjoy all of your resources.”

    “Enforcing closed borders would be like opening your home without limit to burglars donning uniforms, in effect saying that anyone with a uniform can invade your privacy, your property and your resources and do so completely uninvited and without impunity.”

    FIFH

  5. J.R.Myers

    He will not be on the CA AIP ballot, Donald Trump will be. It wil be a fusion ballot. The CA AIP will receive five electors in exchange. Two of the former AIP POTUS candidates will be named electors as a consolation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *