The Declaration of Independence is often misunderstood, which I wrote about here. One of the most important, yet overlooked, sections of the document is the list of indictments against King George III. The indictments are further evidence that the Declaration was never meant to be a revolutionary statement. From the Magna Carta to the colonial constitutions, George III was indicted for violating existing laws. Jefferson listed a total of 27 indictments against the King. Throughout February, we’re going to look at one indictment a day, why it was levied, and why it is still relevant.

Indictment #7 reads as follows:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Why was the indictment levied: Great Britain had a long tradition of monitoring their realm to keep the King abreast of any potential instabilities. During the leadup to the American War for Independence, there was a significant amount of German immigration to the colonies. The American ideals of liberty appealed to the Germans, and this worried the King.

George feared the potential opposition that came with rapid economic growth (this was touched on in indictment #2). Further growth meant further independence. If the colonies became too self-sufficient, they no longer needed to depend on Great Britain for resources, commerce, defense, etc. In response, King George III placed restrictions on immigration and property ownership.

Why is this important today: The political ramifications of immigration have factored into American politics since day one. Regardless of where your opinion falls, immigration is always a political issue, not a humanitarian one. And all politics are about power. Immigration can factor into how a district gets funds, how it gets represented and how it votes.

A sanctuary city is defined as a municipality that protects illegal immigrants from deportation or prosecution by relaxing law enforcement. Federal funding may be dependent on whether the state complies with “Federal immigration law.” But is this constitutional?

No. It is not constitutional for the Federal government to be for or to be against immigration. Under the 10th Amendment, this power is reserved to the states. The Federal government does have powers over naturalization, but immigration was always intended to be a state issue. Cities are incorporations of the state and can do what they want as long as they operate within state laws. A city cannot elect to be a sanctuary city if their state does not allow it, and vice versa. When the Federal government starts sending down immigration mandates, that’s exactly what George III was indicted for.

King George III wanted to limit immigration in an attempt to weaken the power of the colonies. Political parties support immigration to gain power. Political parties oppose immigration to retain power. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican issue, or even a left/right ideological issue. All sides have flipped on this issue numerous times throughout American history. In the spirit of our Declaration of Independence, immigration is reserved to the people it affects, not a foreign King, or a distant central authority.