Analytic Paper: Original Intent Assignment 1
Modern Interpretation of Original Intent: Constitutional Shifts in Foreign Policy Connie
Patrick
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Modern interpretation of Original Intent 2
Abstract
The intention of this paper is to explore the interception of the framers' original
intention and modern misinterpretation of the Constitution as it relates to foreign policy. Using
modern issues such as the Hyundai-South Korea case, we will explore how failed foreign policy
has also led to failed economic stability in the United States for generations. The pattern of
failed foreign policy has existed originally due to a failed constitution known as the Articles of
Confederation. Because of the Articles, policy was divided, states practiced sovereignty, and
there were limited federal powers. The Constitution was introduced to expand federal powers
and stabilize the government so that power was equally distributed between the judicial,
legislative, and executive branches.
Keywords: Constitution, Foreign Policy, Original Intent, Immigration Policy, Trade
Modern Interpretation of Original Intent: Constitutional Shifts in Foreign Policy
The intention of the Constitution or the “original intent” was to create a centralized form
of governance and limit states’ authority. This would ultimately be the deciding factor in
preventing unilateral decisions that presented America as unequipped and unprepared to be
categorized as a sovereign country. One of the policy areas that was affected the most by
unilateral policy was foreign affairs. America’s position in the Global arena had been impacted
due to the Revolutionary War, which led to accruing a 75 million war debt (U.S. Department of
the Treasury, 2025). When describing the current state of their foreign affairs prior to the
creation of the Constitution, Hamilton stated, “We may indeed with propriety be said to have
reached almost the last stage of national humiliation” (McClellan, p. 19, 2000). This “national
humiliation” had occurred as a result of “the imbecility of our government,” which repelled
foreign interests (p. 20). The imbecility that Hamilton refers to here is based on the inability of
the government to make unified decisions, especially as it relates to foreign and domestic trade.
Yet, as time transpired, treaties were created, amendments were passed, and policies were
altered to present America as a strong contributor to the global economy. Though the modern
state of government is falling back into “imbecility” as the national deficit is rising, and
unconstitutional policies are contributing to the decline and erosion of the republic. The
Modern interpretation of Original Intent 3
intention of this research paper is to expand on the question: How has the U.S deviated from
the Framers' Original Intent of the Constitution, and how has this deviation contributed to
foreign policy failures as demonstrated in the South Korea- Hyundai labor force issue?
The Framers' Vision for Foreign and Economic Policy
The framers realized that their failure in foreign policy would have great economic
repercussions such as economic instability that resulted in uprisings, acknowledging that “a
separation between foreign and domestic realms would be both artificial and perilous”
(LaFeber, 1987, p.696). The Articles of Confederation failed because the States practiced
sovereignty and wanted to act independently. “The inability of individual states to cooperate in
foreign policy produced continual crises in the 1780s” (p.696). And without a centralized
government, their foreign trade policy failed, resulting in a fractured economy and domestic
conflict. LaFeber (1987) stated that “the inability to control overseas trade, which could bring
badly needed specie into the country, and to protect the western settlements had produced
explosive internal unrest.” (p. 697). Such internal unrest manifested itself in uprisings such as
Shay’s Rebellion. The framers' intent was to create a central government that would prevent
such internal unrest and strengthen the weak economic policy as a result of failed foreign
policy. In establishing a strong central government that also needed to be stable enough to
withstand European powers, the framers needed to create a delicate balance between liberty
and power, a strong federal government that could also protect individual liberties. Madison
had an awareness of he connection between domestic and foreign policy and recognized that
these links needed to be “dealt with” (LaFeber 1987).
The Constitutional Framework of Immigration
To understand the current state of immigration policy, we must go back in time. During
the colonial period, those who immigrated came either voluntarily or involuntarily. “European
governments also encouraged immigration to their colonies, and colonial governments offered
quick naturalization, land grants, and debt relief” (Baxter & Nowrasteh, 2021). Parliament
passed the Plantation Act of 1740 to limit colonial naturalization (p. 2). As a result, parliament
agreed to only grant non-catholic settlers, specifically after seven years of residency, after taking
a religious test pledging allegiance to Christianity.” Fast forwarding to after the Constitution was
created, Article I, Section 8 established naturalization and made immigrants eligible to hold
federal offices (p. 3). A prominent figure and delegate to the Annapolis Convention of 1786,
Tucker, asserted that “that foreign-born people should not be kept out of the councils of power
entirely, nor deprived of federal employment for the same reasons, because such efforts would
be ultimately unsuccessful, breed resentment, and be undesirable in a country as open to
foreign ideas and peoples as the United States.” Citizenship during that time was tricky due to
10% of the members of the House and Senate were born in another country (p.5). Ultimately
“democratic-repulicans argued that noncitizans possessed all rights under the Constitution
because it often used words “people” rather than “citizens.” During this time, Congressman also
asserted that deportations through the executive decrees were a violation of the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments (p.6). The original intent of immigration policy was to create a uniform policy to
establish naturalization for those who were becoming prominent members of the federal
government.
Immigration Policy Shifting from its “Original Intent
If you closely observe the current status of immigration law, it is obvious that the
framers' intent to create a uniform rule for naturalization has shifted to fragmented policies that
foster disunity.” Overall, the U.S. immigration system remains fragmented as of early 2021” (p.
24) Modern Immigration procedures are composed of overlapping policies imposed by federal
agencies and executive orders that often conflict with foreign trade and economic stability. For
instance, South Korea sought to invest 350 billion into the American economy by building
factories with the potential of creating thousands of jobs for the American people.
Unfortunately current immigration policy led to the detention of South Korean citizens at a
Modern interpretation of Original Intent 4
Hyundai factory in Georgia. Over 300 workers were detained, creating a reluctance for the
South Korean government to continue its investment in America’s economy. This tension
highlights how failed foreign policy can have a negative impact on economic stability. This goes
against the framers' original intent to align domestic and foreign policy. If the U.S. credibility as
a trade partner is defective, then this exponentially jeopardizes the economy's function at its
optimal capacity.
Immigration Policy Affecting Global Economics
Historically, we have witnessed the impact of failed foreign relations resulting in
economic instability. Foreign relations play a pivotal role in shaping global economics, and
foreign investments are critical to supporting the economy. Restrictive immigration policies,
illustrated by the Trump Administration, have discouraged other countries, such as South Korea,
a prominent ally, from participating in investing in U.S. markets. Skilled labor has always been
prioritized. “Following the expansion of legal immigration after 1968, Congress passed the
Immigration Act of 1990 to liberalize the immigration of skilled workers and increased the
number of green cards issued annually to 675,000” (p. 18). America is currently experiencing
labor shortages, and as of August 2025, the unemployment rate is at 4.3% (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2025). The intent of the Hyundai factories was to produce jobs for Americans, and this
opportunity is at risk due to the contradictions in U.S foreign trade agreements and immigration
policy. Such actions remind me of Hamilton’s statement when discussing the current status of
governance under the Articles of Confederation: “We may indeed with propriety be said to have
reached almost the last stage of national humiliation.” (McCllelan, 2000) As America’s
immigration policy clearly contradicts our stance on U.S foreign trade, and in this case, we are
on the verge of humiliation, as there are no uniform actions on foreign policy. It is paramount
that we acknowledge “the imbecility of our government” as it weakens our position in the
Global Economy. America’s incompetencies not only strain diplomatic relations but also weaken
the nation’s ability to compete in global markets. The outcome of the Trump Administration’s
current foreign policy contrasts greatly with the framers’ intent to balance foreign and domestic
policy in a way that prompted economic stability. Constitutional Principles Vs Modern
Immigration Policy
According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to
“establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, meaning that granting citizenship is granted by the
federal government.
“However, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove
noncitizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.
Hence, in the early immigration cases, the Supreme Court faced the problem of
identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power
over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent
sovereign power” (Weissbrodt & Danielson, 2004).
The inherent sovereign power practiced by the executive branch and federal agencies, such as
ICE and DHS, practices a form of widened discretion that the courts usually refer to as “plenary
power.” However, this “plenary power” does not give federal agents the privilege to override
constitutional protections and oversight. Recently, there have been practices of Executive
overreach as the president has consented to deporting immigrants with no chance for due
process. Eliminating immigrants' right to due process obstructs their Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights, as all persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S are entitled to the rights
outlined in the Constitution (Congress.gov, n.d.). There have been several court cases that
reinforce the Constitution's placement in deciding the fate or citizenship of immigrants, such as
the (1) Supreme Court Case: Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), (2) Supreme Court case: Schneiderman v.
United States (1943), and (3) Supreme Court Case: Maslenjak v. United States (2017). All of the
cases mentioned share a common theme, affirming the Fourteenth Amendment and limiting
government overreach as it relates to immigration law. Each case builds on the doctrine that
citizenship is a constitutional right given by the federal government with strong provisions.
Modern interpretation of Original Intent 5
These provisions are created to withstand the practice of overreach and not deviate from the
Framers' original intent, which was to balance individual rights with the authority of the federal
government.
Conclusion
After exploring the original intent of the framers as it relates to foreign affairs, it's
obvious that they did not want to destabilize their participation in the global economy but
wanted to create a policy that strengthened their government. To strengthen the government,
the founders were aware of how critical it was to maintain a stable economy, and in doing so,
they also needed to maintain foreign trade relations. Fast forward 238 years, and America’s
foreign relations have been diluted with something as minute as ineffective immigration policy
that has contributed to the current instability of the economy. I do not believe the Framers
intended for the federal government to undermine individual rights that would ultimately
distance us from prominent allies. As the Framers’ intention was the complete opposite, they
wanted to increase federal powers so that they could be taken seriously by foreigners. The
unilateral decisionmaking that took place due to state sovereignty weakened the government
and its ability to participate in global trade. Today, it is the federal government that is showing
weakness as immigration policy is undermining trade relations. This has created uncertainty for
foreign investors such as the South Koreans who sought to invest billions of dollars into the U.S
economy. The federal government has prioritized restrictive immigration policy over economic
growth in the name of national security. And although defending ourselves from our enemies is
important, strengthening the relationships we have with our allies is equally important, and
ineffective foreign policy can not do both.
References Afroyim
v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Baxter, A. M., & Nowrasteh, A. (2021). A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy from the
Colonial Period to the Present Day. Cato Institute.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep33757
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). The employment situation — August 2025. U.S. Department
Of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf bls.gov
Congress.gov. (n.d.). Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.8.7.2: Aliens in the United States. In The
Constitution Annotated. Retrieved September 14, 2025, from
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
LaFeber, W. (1987). The Constitution and United States Foreign Policy: An Interpretation. The
Journal of American History, 74(3), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.2307/1902149
McClellan, J. (2000). Liberty, order, and justice: An introduction to the constitutional
principles of American government (3rd ed.). Liberty Fund.
Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 2017).
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943).
Modern interpretation of Original Intent 6
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2025). America’s Finance Guide: National debt.
FiscalData. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americasfinance-guide/national-debt/
Weissbrodt, D., & Danielson, L. (2004). Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal
power to regulate immigration and naturalization. Human Rights Library, University of
Minnesota. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.htm
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
