Thread: Issue Clash: Immigration

After checking out the interactive debate on PBS, I'm very disappointed in some of Chris Simcox's responses.

The debate can be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/now/debates/immigration.html

My concerns are bolded (Simcox Answers):

Q: What stance should the U.S. government take regarding the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S?

A: It is against the law to enter the U.S. without authorization. Anyone discovered to be in the U.S. illegally, who has committed a crime, has stolen someone's identity, or has obtained false documents should be deported and never allowed to reenter the U.S. for any reason. The major problem we have is what to do with the children who were brought into the U.S. illegally. If they have been here since they were a child, they should be allowed to be put on a fast track to gain citizenship. Immediately declaring that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship will cut off the magnet that attracts people to take advantage of our charity.

Q: President Obama says longtime undocumented immigrants should have a path to citizenship in the U.S. Do you agree?

A: On a case-by-case basis I would agree that if someone is found to be living in the U.S. illegally, has been gainfully employed, has paid their taxes and has not committed a crime, I feel that we certainly can make an exception. But this will be the last time, and I would only accept that after our borders are secured and illegal immigration is no longer an out of control problem.

Q: Should undocumented immigrants with children born in the U.S. be allowed to stay here?

A: First we must immediately end automatic birthright citizenship, and then proceed on a case-by-case basis. If the child is under the age of 18, then their parents should be allowed to stay in the U.S. to seek citizenship unless they commit a crime. However, if citizenship is not processed before the child turns 18, then the parents must then self-deport.

IMO, Simcox is getting too soft in some areas. He definitely doesn't speak for me on every illegal alien issue. There should be no amnesty, no exceptions! Chris Simcox supports amnesty to various degrees.

Four strategies must be used to get illegals and their anchors out of our country, attrition including no education and no medical care unless they pay for it themselves, fine employers that hire them, enforce our existing laws, and deportation.

attrition including no education and no medical care unless they pay for it themselves, fine employers that hire them, enforce our existing laws, and deportation.

I'd like to add a 5th point: End birthright citizenship. Put and end to anchor babies and take away the "divided family" whining that comes up each time a parent is deproted. By the way why is it no one says that if you don't want to break up the family take your puppies with you. That's one tax paid trip I'd def. pay for.

So do folks here agree or disagree with Chris Simcox on the issues I identified?

Should the children of illegals be put on the fast track to citizenship?

Should make an exception (amnesty) for illegals that have been gainfully employed, paid their taxes, and not committed a crime? Personally, I'm of the opinion that all illegals have committed a crime!

Should we allow illegals with children under 18 years of age the right to U.S. citizenship?

Do you think Chris Simcox is selling us, and his minutemen, out or do the rest of his followers feel as he does on the issues I listed above? Why is he choosing now to sing a different tune? Last year he didn't support the Dream Act, sounds like he does now.

I disagree with Chris Simcox. Why he is making these statements I don't know.
In CA he also said he supports legalizing some drugs so it makes you wonder.
He says end birthright citizenship but give citizenship to illegals brought here as minors? Those two positions totally conflict with each other.

SB 170 ~ the American DREAM Act

The bill should be renamed the NIGHTMARE Act ~ Tom Tancredo

[quote]The Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, an adamant opponent of illegal immigration, isn’t against the American DREAM Act in principal, according to president Chris Simcox. Simcox said if the bill focuses only on the child, and doesn’t have any extra provisions like allowing the student’s family a pathway to citizenship as well, then, depending on the bill’s language, he isn’t necessarily against it.

[u]“They need to be brought out of the shadows. They need to be documented and swear an oath to become a citizen,â€

Originally Posted by MW

Should we allow illegals with children under 18 years of age the right to U.S. citizenship?

If we do, then we have to give the parents citizenship as well.

A: First we must immediately end automatic birthright citizenship, and then proceed on a case-by-case basis. If the child is under the age of 18, then their parents should be allowed to stay in the U.S. to seek citizenship unless they commit a crime. However, if citizenship is not processed before the child turns 18, then the parents must then self-deport.

How about deporting minor children along with their illegal invader parents and then allowing the children the opportunity upon reaching the age of 18 to petition to come to the US legally.

Of course, being an anchor baby would give them no special considerations and they would not be allowed to bring in their parents (aunts uncles, nephews, etc) via chain migration.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

A: First we must immediately end automatic birthright citizenship, and then proceed on a case-by-case basis. If the child is under the age of 18, then their parents should be allowed to stay in the U.S. to seek citizenship unless they commit a crime. However, if citizenship is not processed before the child turns 18, then the parents must then self-deport.

I missed this before, it really makes me think Simcox is out of it. "the parents must then self-deport"?? Oh sure like that will happen.

Yet Simcox agreed with others that society cannot afford the kind of social friction that immigration debates create. "We're all victims of government failure -- in Arizona and in Washington, D.C.," he said. "We need a compromise. And I'm willing to lead that compromise."

http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/articl ... 65783e3a50