“When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of … I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.”

Within an overall context, I would tend to agree. Couching the entirety of the sentiment in a monetary collective is a very disconcerting and misdirectional effort as concerns rights, life, liberty and law. The immigration rules and applications thereof in the U.S. are extremely flawed. I had a friend that met and married an American girl in Europe. They moved near to the woman's family. She had a mental break-down after having 5 children and accused her husband of some really weird stuff (I know for a fact he didn't do such). He was very industrious / hard working, a good provider to his family, his kids loved him, talented, he was an asset to the community, employed several people and seemed to follow his religion. Immigration, solely on the word of his wife, separated him from his family and deported him. THEN, compare that with the immigrants Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin brought in (antithetical to: holding life sacred, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature and of nature's God, religions other than their own, etc.)

I like "Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of …"  And that's the way it was for a century.  People did not emigrate to the US for the social safety net — there was none!  They came for freedom, for the opportunity to settle on land that they could own outright — no where in Europe was that the case except for the titled aristocracy.

Today, the attempt is to swell the catalogue of socialist-leaning voters, with no obligation to American law or a culture of independence.  We've come a long way, baby...