On Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin from Maryland drew attention for his questionable grasp of American history. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, he referred to the revolutionary figure Thomas Paine as an “undocumented immigrant.” This statement sparked immediate backlash from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who pointed out the absurdity of Raskin’s claim. “My understanding was Mr. Paine was born in the U.K., came to America, then a British colony, in 1774,” Jordan replied, highlighting the inaccuracies in Raskin’s comparison.
Raskin’s clarification, stating he was not calling Paine an illegal immigrant but an undocumented one, only added fuel to the fire. He suggested similar terms applied to Thomas Jefferson, adding a layer of confusion to his initial argument. Jordan’s comeback was sharp: “How was he an illegal immigrant? He was born in the UK and came to America, then a British colony.” This entire exchange underscores the tendency of some to twist historical facts to fit contemporary narratives.
Raskin’s remarks occurred during a session on the Constitution and Limited Government, a fitting setting for such ridiculousness. With Jordan continually pressing the issue, it became clear that Raskin’s understanding was far from accurate. The irony in Raskin’s choice to add Jefferson into his argument is noteworthy. Jefferson, a figure often criticized by some leftists due to his slaveholding past, is seldom treated with the nuance he deserves. By labeling Jefferson’s family as “undocumented immigrants,” Raskin misrepresented history and contradicted the Democrats’ usual stance on Jefferson.
In his writings, Jefferson alluded to his ancestry in a way that lacked transparency—he knew little about how his family came to Virginia. Raskin’s confident misstatement about the Founding Fathers highlights the broader issue of how history is taught and understood today, particularly regarding foundational American principles. To invoke these figures without fully understanding their context reflects a troubling trend in how history is often revised by modern political agendas.
Raskin’s mention of Paine, known for his pivotal role during the Revolutionary War with works like “Common Sense,” raises further questions. Although Paine’s contributions to the cause of independence are significant, his later works, notably “The Age of Reason,” cast a shadow over his legacy. This publication was a direct assault on Christianity, suggesting that a clear-eyed assessment of Paine requires a balance of appreciation and criticism.
Most importantly, Raskin’s reliance on the term “undocumented immigrant” emphasizes a critical misunderstanding. The crux of the argument is not merely about the presence or absence of documents but the legal frameworks that govern immigration. When Raskin states, “Most of our ancestors did not arrive here with documents,” he skirts the actual legal implications of immigration status. The fact is, illegal immigrants violate established laws, which the Constitution empowers representatives to enforce and regulate.
By downplaying the significance of documentation, Raskin and others extend a misleading narrative that seeks to recast illegal immigration as merely a bureaucratic issue. This not only dances around the fact that unlawful entry constitutes breaking the law but seeks to romanticize a decidedly illegal act. The deliberate avoidance of the term “illegal” in favor of “undocumented” serves primarily to obscure the real implications of immigration policy.
Ultimately, Raskin’s careless invocation of Paine reveals a persistent issue within certain segments of political discourse: a failure to grasp the common sense underpinning American heritage. The term “common sense” itself, once championed by Paine, appears lost among the very groups that now invoke his name. The Democrats’ mishandling of foundational history underscores a broader disconnection from the principles that built the nation, leaving observers to wonder where common ground might exist in such conversations.
"*" indicates required fields
