Like Trump, ‘Hamilton was an immigration hawk,’ Rush Limbaugh says

If a actors in a strike broadway low-pitched Hamilton knew anything about a genuine Alexander Hamilton, they competence not like him so much, pronounced regressive radio horde Rush Limbaugh.

At a finish of a Nov. 18 Hamilton performance, expel members made an appeal to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was in assemblage and had been booed by some in a audience. Speaking for a cast, Brandon Victor Dixon (who portrays Aaron Burr) pronounced they hoped a uncover desirous Pence to work on interest of all Americans and defend a country’s common values.

But a genuine Alexander Hamilton, as opposite to a impression in a musical, competence not be a purpose indication for Pence a expel members would like, Limbaugh pronounced on his show Nov. 21. The ten-dollar initial father and initial secretary of a Treasury believed in kingdom and aristocracy, and he even hold tough views on immigration that were identical to Trump’s.

“Do we know that Alexander Hamilton was an immigration hawk?” Limbaugh said. “I consternation if a people in this expel have any thought who they are lionizing and celebrating. This guy’s Donald Trump.”

Hamilton himself has an newcomer story. He came to a American colonies from a British West Indies as a poor, teenage orphan. So we wondered if Limbaugh’s avowal was correct.

We’re not throwing divided a shot to fact-check this claim.  

We asked historians and consulted some of Hamilton’s created work, and we found that over his life, Hamilton showed support for both augmenting and tying immigration. Experts pronounced Limbaugh’s description of Hamilton as an “immigration hawk” lacks nuance.

“In short, Hamilton wasn’t utterly anti-immigrant. But he wasn’t always pro-immigrant either,” pronounced Joanne Freeman, a Yale University story highbrow who has edited a volume of Hamilton’s writings.


Prior to a United States’ Quasi-War with France in a late 1790s — that we’ll speak about shortly — Hamilton and other members of a Federalist Party were rather dovish on immigration, pronounced Stephen Knott, a highbrow during a Naval War College and author of Alexander Hamilton and a Persistence of Myth.

“So his position is maybe some-more formidable than Limbaugh suggests,” Knott said.

Hamilton spasmodic argued for policies that would inspire immigration. In his 1791 Report on Manufactures, for example, he pronounced production would advantage a United States in partial since it would entice immigrants, expanding a race and labor force.

“Here is viewed an critical resource, not usually for fluctuating a population, and with it a useful and prolific work of a country, yet further for a charge of manufactures,” he wrote of immigrants.

Hamilton also argued opposite requiring people to be native-born or to have lived in America a certain series of years in sequence to be authorised to offer in Congress, according to a historian Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton (which desirous a musical). Hamilton pronounced this would attract foreigners of “moderate fortunes” to a United States, where they would be of a same standing as a country’s beginning citizens. (Hamilton mislaid this quarrel — a Constitution has a residency duration requirement for immigrants who wish to find congressional office.)

Pro-limiting immigration

But when a United States intent in naval fight with France during a finish of a French Revolution, Hamilton and others were endangered that French people in America competence try to criticise a United States supervision from within, Knott said.

In response, Hamilton upheld a Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, that increasing a length of time it took to turn a citizen and gave a boss a management to incarcerate or expatriate foreigners viewed as “dangerous to a assent and reserve of a United States.”

Hamilton’s support for these laws was qualified, however. He disturbed that a acts were receptive to abuse, and he warned other Federalists not to take any actions that could lead to authoritarian rule, Knott said.  

Hamilton also fretted about a domestic and informative impact immigrants would have on a United States, Freeman said. Hamilton spoke out opposite then-President Thomas Jefferson’s offer to concede for a thespian liquid of new citizens, observant that Jefferson competence not have won a 1800 choosing if usually American-born adults had voted.

“To acknowledge foreigners indiscriminately to a rights of citizens, a impulse they put feet in a country, as endorsed in a message, would be zero reduction than to acknowledge a Grecian equine into a bulwark of a autocracy and sovereignty,” Hamilton wrote in 1801 — noting, though, that he did not wish to hindrance immigration completely.

Freeman pronounced it’s formidable to review a judgment of immigration currently to what it meant in early America since during a time, a vast apportionment of a race had come from Great Britain and had usually been in America for a few decades.

While job Limbaugh’s explain an “overreaction” to a approach Hamilton is portrayed in Hamilton, Freeman pronounced a low-pitched implies that a chronological figure was some-more undoubtedly pro-immigrant than he indeed was.

Our ruling

Limbaugh said, “Alexander Hamilton was an immigration hawk.”

Limbaugh has a indicate that Hamilton did have some doubt about immigrants. For several years, Hamilton adored tying a upsurge of immigrants into a United States in sequence to safety American enlightenment and politics, and he offering competent support for a Alien and Sedition Acts.

But progressing in his domestic career, he upheld policies that would inspire immigration to a United States.

Limbaugh’s explain is partially accurate yet leaves out critical sum We rate it Half True.

Categories Immigration