During Tuesday night's vice presidential debate, Democratic running mate Tim Kaine reenforced Hillary Clinton's argument that it is against Jeffersonian and American values to reject Islamic immigrants and that they also have an inherent right to become Americans.

Wrong.

No where in the constitution does it say that people who are not Americans have a right to become Americans, or have a right to even enter the borders of United States. Congress has the ultimate authority to set laws on immigration. Just how Congress can enact Obamacare, welfare, gun bans, and social security, Congress has full discretion over immigration.

During the debate, Kaine said “Discriminating” against Islamic believer “is completely antithetical to the Jeffersonian values."

Wrong.

According to a recent poll regarding a temporary ban on Islamic immigration, 50 percent of Americans voted in favor of the plan.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on immigration in the "Notes on the State of Virginia," and not in the open-minded 'Jeffersonian value' ways that Kaine cites. In fact, Jefferson's ideas sound more like Trump's ideas on immigration.

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.

Don't like Jefferson and his ideas? Okay, then argue with our first president, George Washington.

My opinion, with respect to emigration, is, that except of useful mechanics, and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement : while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.

At at the end of the day, Jeffersonian values remain the same. His society uproots privilege, degrades government, empowers the individual, and diffuses establishments throughout civilization. That means you Tim Kaine. You represent a government gone mad and you've made your living off the backs of the American people, taxing them to pay your salary. From your high and mighty throne, do not ever tarnish the name of Thomas Jefferson by using him as a disposable tool to force your big government agenda.