The senior policy advisor to President Donald Trump made it clear on Monday that the United States has the absolute power to deny any person the accommodation of entering the sovereign country.
“This is an authority that has been used repeatedly in the past,” Stephen Miller said. “One of the more recent examples is President Obama suspended the Iraqi refugee program for six full months after two Iraqi refugees were implicated in an al Qaeda plot in Bowling Green, KY. There’s been hundreds and hundreds of foreign nationals and foreign-born naturalized citizens who have been implicated in terrorism in the United States since 9/11. This is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of keeping the public safe. And the reality is in a world with 7 billion people, the United States has an absolute sovereign right to determine who can and cannot enter into the United States.”
STEPHEN MILLER: In a world with 7 billion people, the U.S. has an absolute sovereign right to determine who can and cannot enter the country pic.twitter.com/aXNf1Y6IDa— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) January 30, 2017
President Thomas Jefferson once wrote in his book “Notes on the State of Virginia,” that immigration can, at times, be detrimental to a young nation:
The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.
Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it  their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event; are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.
Our nation is indeed, very much a young nation still structuring it's perfect Union. To throw millions of people from another region of the world into our system has often proved deadly for all those forcefully involved.