During a recent Congressional subcommittee hearing, a surprising assertion was made regarding the nation’s founders. Congressman Jamie Raskin characterized figures like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson as “undocumented immigrants,” sparking a brief but pointed exchange with another committee member.
Raskin began by invoking the name of Tom Paine, highlighting his arrival in 1774, two years before the American Revolution. He emphasized Paine’s authorship of *Common Sense*, the influential pamphlet that fueled the revolutionary spirit, and Paine’s vision of America as a haven for those fleeing persecution.
He then turned to Thomas Jefferson, arguing that Jefferson’s own lineage included generations who arrived without formal documentation. Raskin underscored Jefferson’s belief in the vital role of education in preserving liberty, quoting Jefferson’s assertion that ignorance and freedom could not coexist.
The discussion was interrupted by Congressman Jim Jordan, who questioned the characterization of Paine as an “illegal immigrant.” Jordan pointed out that Paine was born in the UK and arrived in America while it was still a British colony, challenging the application of that term.
Raskin quickly clarified his statement, correcting the phrasing to “undocumented immigrant.” He maintained that the majority of ancestors arriving in America historically did not possess official documentation, framing it as a common experience.
The exchange occurred during a session of the Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government, adding another layer of complexity to the debate. It brought to the forefront questions about historical context and the evolving definitions of immigration.
This incident follows previous, more forceful statements made by Raskin. Last year, he publicly vowed that those he perceived as enabling “fascism” in America would face consequences should Democrats regain power.
Raskin stated at the time that a return to power would not be met with leniency towards those he believed had facilitated authoritarianism within the country, signaling a potentially confrontational approach to governance.
His earlier declaration suggested a willingness to pursue repercussions against political opponents, raising concerns about potential overreach and the implications for political discourse.
