Virgil Goode Interviews and Immigration Views

Since Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s speeches on immigration reform, Virgil Goode, presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, has weighed in on this controversial issue.

Former Congressman Virgil Goode told reporters this morning in Roanoke he plans to put a stop to granting citizenship to all immigrants.

And he says President Obama‘s recent decision to allow illegal people citizenship should be reversed.

“It’s the wrong course for the United States. We need to be focusing on our economy here at home and the impact to the taxpayers is enormous,” Goode said.

Read the rest at WDBJ7: Former congressman urges reversal of president’s immigration ruling

The Roanoke Times also reported on Virgil Goode’s press conference.

Goode said Romney “essentially gave no response” when it comes to the issue. Goode also criticized President Barack Obama’s new immigration policy, which would allow some younger illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

“Unlike Romney if I was elected president I would immediately rescind the direction of President Obama,” Goode said.

Read the rest at The Roanoke Times: Goode calls for stronger immigration stance from Romney

Virgil was also interviewed by BTW21 News. The video is below.

 

Finally, Virgil was interviewed on Star News. The video is below.

 

Virgil Goode is a former Congressman from Virginia representing the 5th district. He is one of the only members of congress who has served as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. He is running as the Constitution Party’s nominee for President.

22 thoughts on “Virgil Goode Interviews and Immigration Views

  1. Trent Hill

    Austin–the headline doesn’t need to include a +. Just put “Virgil Goode Interviews and Immigration Views”

  2. R. D. Holland

    Goode is really starting to surge here in Virginia and North Carolina as I talk to people “on the street.” I think he will garner much more than the 5% an early May poll had him tagged for in “the Old Dominion.” And if he does get on the ballot in nearby North Carolina, that will make this interesting indeed. Also, with the latest flap over immigration, that brings the press right into one of Mr. Goode’s talking points, as he is (for one thing) strongly opposed to children born to illegal aliens being granted automatic citizenship — which is a position hard to argue.

  3. kevin

    The story is not accurate. I believe he is trying to get them to correct it. His view is not a ban on immigrants but a very limited program until the economy recovers. A ban on immigration would be unconstitutional I feel certain. Typical reporters taking things out of context and making it sound bad. He wants to ban illegal immigration.

  4. wolfefan

    Hi RD @ #5 –

    I think framers of the constitution would be willing to argue the position. Birthright citizenship was the default at common law, and they all knew that.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    RDH@5,

    “he is (for one thing) strongly opposed to children born to illegal aliens being granted automatic citizenship — which is a position hard to argue.”

    I certainly wouldn’t want to try argue for it, seeing as how the Constitution

    1) explicitly prohibits the federal government from regulating immigration; and

    2) explicitly confers citizenship on anyone and everyone born in the US.

    Odd that the “Constitution Party” would nominate someone who so openly disdains the document.

  6. paulie

    Wolfefan,

    You misunderstood.

    It’s hard to argue against birthright citizenship.

    Even the people arguing against it know in their hearts it is the right thing.

    🙂

  7. Steven Berson

    @1 – As an advocate for peak oil preparation and “new urbanism” I strongly agree with Virgil that “more trains = less traffic.” As an advocate for a more voluntary society with smaller more limited government I just don’t want to force others to pay to build them if they choose not to do this with their own money.

    On immigration and marriage equality Virgil is just plain ol’ wrong to me though.

  8. wolfefan

    Hi paulie – I may well have misunderstood – it wouldn’t be the first time!

  9. JD

    It is important to note that Mr. Goode is not opposed to legal immigration at all. He is advocating enhanced border security and a very temporary reduction in all immigration until the economy becomes more stable. Companies that need expert contract labor would still get it. It would be a temporary reduction on people who are relatively unskilled. I spoke with him about this because my fiance is an immigrant from Japan. She is a lawful US permanent resident and works with highly skilled Japanese contract workers. I was concerned about her status and the status of the people she works with. Without foreign contractors she has no job, which is bad enough, but she is my whole world so I cant lose her. So I called Mr. Goode, he explained the policy, and I promised my vote. I encourage everyone that believes in borders and American business to do the same.

  10. Gene Berkman

    Wolfefan @ 12 – Paulie was making a joke. It is obvious that R.D.H. @ 5 is saying it would be hard to argue in opposition to Mr Goode’s position.

    I think it is dangerous to tamper with birthright citizenship as spelled out in the 14th Amendment. I think it is dangerous to tamper with the 14th or any of the other Reconstruction amendments.

    While I support a liberal immigration policy, it is likely that Congress and the Courts have relied on the power of Congress to make uniform naturalization laws as the authority for federal policy on immigration.

    The specific ban Mr Knapp refers to is actually a ban on interfering with the slave trade. I don’t think a libertarian should rely on that section of the Constitution, although the neo-confederates at LRC might be more understanding of Mr Knapp’s confusion.

  11. RedPhillips

    Tom@8,

    The Constitution does NOT mandate birthright citizenship. This is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that was added by the SCOTUS years later. The 14th Amendment was intended to allow former slaves and the children of slaves to be citizens. If every child born of transients or people here illegally is a citizen, then what was the purpose of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Now some argue that everyone is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are in which is true, which is what makes that take on the phrase meaningless. That would be like saying everyone who breathes air or was born of a female mother. If it means everybody then what was the point of adding the language?

  12. RedPhillips

    wf@7,

    “Birthright citizenship was the default at common law, and they all knew that.”

    It’s not nearly that simple. The matter of “citizenship” is complicated and is further complicated by issues of time, as I have discovered in my superficial attempts to understand what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen.” First of all, citizenship is a relatively modern concept. Historically the people who inhabited the colonies were “subjects” of the King. But this was a time before mass travel and all the apparatuses of state that we have today that make citizenship relevant. It may be true that in general a person was presumed to be a “citizen” of the place he was born, but this was also a time when a person might not travel more than 100 miles from the place of his birth in his lifetime. Broadly speaking you had a citizenry that stayed put. But there was recognition that a child whose parent or parents still remained a citizen of another jurisdiction might not be a citizen automatically. Vattel’s Law of Nations is pretty much the best we have on the subject.

  13. RedPhillips

    Kevin@6,

    “A ban on immigration would be unconstitutional I feel certain.”

    If regulation of the numbers of immigrants is allowed, something that everyone but Tom Knapp agrees on, then how would a ban be unconstitutional? The Constitution says nothing that would make zero immigrants unconstitutional but 100,000 acceptable.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    RP@15,

    The point of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was to exclude the children of ambassadors and diplomats. Just like an embassy, the womb of a diplomat or diplomat’s spouse is always part of that diplomat’s country, not of the US.

    That was indeed a modification from the prior English common law, which said if you were born on British soil you were British, period, end of story, and it’s a modification I shouldn’t have omitted.

    You’re correct that the intent of the 14th was to provide for the citizenship of former slaves — by specifically writing into the Supreme Law of the Land something that had been understood as law since before the drafting of the Constitution.

    @17:

    “If regulation of the numbers of immigrants is allowed, something that everyone but Tom Knapp and a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and a majority of the legislatures of the 13 states which ratified the document produced by that convention, and a majority of every US Congress from then through the late 1870s agrees on.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  15. Steven Berson

    “enhanced border security” = wasting tax payers money in futile gestures of display with no result except to grow government in size, cost and intrusion into citizens lives.

    @ RedPhillips – I know you’re one of those who likes to throw around the utter bs that the 14th Amendment was “illegally enacted” – however ENACTED it was – and it states unequivocally and unambiguously in its very first sentence:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

  16. Dave Francis

    The Obama Justice Department led by the notorious U.S. Attorney General Eric holder has been harassing the legal residents of Arizona, as some plaything? The Obama’s administration is playing with the lives of innocent citizens, being slaughtered on the highways of America, the criminals who have spilled into this sovereign nation, transporting their drugs across the border. Daily headlines in the rural press tell of murders, home invasion and assaults on women and children by illegal aliens. How many more citizens are going to live in fear of their lives throughout the border region? Which cattleman is going to be murdered on his land, have their home ransacked, fences cut or their property covered with narco-terrorist trails leaving piles of human trash.

    Who will be the next U.S. border Patrol agent to die, through slip shod programs such as ‘fast and furious’ an unraveling mystery as yet to be revealed? Just look at the statistics of crimes on ‘THE DARK SIDE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION’ website? But the mainstream Liberal press either denies this is happening or refuses to print the truth. Of course the Ultra Socialist editors in the mainstream media always corrupt the evidence, stating that Americans commit the same offenses. Obviously Americans do, but does that mean we should tolerate the heinous criminals from other nations and third world countries who shouldn’t be here in the first place. Both political parties in their own wretched way, have brought this epidemic on this land.

    However, they refuse to recognize, that if the border was really secured or they could track the over stays, who use international flights as foreigners posing as tourists. All this mayhem brought about by years of what I think was intentional unconcern and ignorance by decades of previous governments. Seeing the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t go exactly the Justice Department way, they are acting like a spoiled child by cutting of the 287(g) enforcement law for the Grand Canyon state. In light of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, the Obama Administration has suspended the 287(g) program in Arizona and enforcements. Holder using their ultimate power to intimidate the desert state that is trying to survive the onslaught of illegal aliens. A Justice Department should be there to help protect the people, but instead they are using any manner of issues to undermine the Arizona state sovereignty.

    The 287(g) program is an official partnership between local law enforcement agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to aid in enforcing federal immigration laws at the local level. Federal officials said the program is no longer needed in Arizona now that the Court has upheld the section of the state’s immigration-enforcement law requiring all police to check immigration status. What is next for the Obama regime and his Czar goons, to rescind the ‘Secure Communities’ so local police cannot fingerprint suspicious people who may be illegal aliens.

    A COVERT AMNESTY HAS BEEN PASSED BECA– USE PRESIDENT OBAMA, HAS NOT ONLY DISMISSED LAWS PASSED BY THE CONGRESS, BUT NOW IS STATED THAT IT WILL NOT ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS, SPECIFICALLY ON THE ONGOING INTIMIDATION OF ARIZONA. IN OTHER WORDS THIS PRESIDENT HAS METHODICALLY TORE UP THE EDICTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ALLOWING FOREIGN NATIONALS TO STAY BY EXECUTIVE FIAT. THIS MAN DOESN’T SEEM TO CARE THAT THIS COUNTRY IS BEING OVERWHELMED BY THE POVERTY FROM SOUTH OF THE BORDER, BUT ALSO A MAGNET TO MILLIONS OF PREGNANT WOMEN WHO ONCE ARRIVE HERE CAN STEAL THE WELFARE OF AMERICAN FAMILIES. ONCE SMUGGLED THROUGH THE BORDER 400.000 ILLEGAL ALIEN MOTHERS ANNUALLY CAN REAP THE REWARDS OF CRIMINALLY ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. WHAT SHOULD BE GOING TO OUR OWN CITIZENS, BEING BLED FROM STATE TREASURIES TO PAY FOR THE WELFARE THROUGH COURT UNFUNDED MANDATES.

    We are looking at a President that has added trillions of dollars to the 16 trillion deficits. With Hillary Clinton going overseas and giving $2 billion of taxpayers’ money to some obscure organization in these administrations push for green energy. Not satisfied with this, the Democrats are selling Americas rights of the oceans; with ‘The Treaty of the Sea’.

    We should not be looking from either the Obama Government or the Mitt Romney potential administration, but the TEA PARTY. IT is the Time of the PEOPLE’S PARTY. It is the time for the TEA PARTY, which is complimented by man/women; African, White, Hispanic, Asian and other Americans of different nationalities. The TEA PARTY is a wealth of different religions, faiths, gay and ordinary people of every walk of life. Remember a large Majority who votes for President Obama for a second term could be non citizens or American citizens who spend their days watching TV, selling drugs, collecting public assistance and living off the rest of us as parasites. The exception is the sick and true disabled human beings, so think of their dilemma who taxpayers should be assisting, instead of foreigners. If you are frustrated with feeding the rest of the world, unable to get a decent job then join the TEA PARTY. The controversial immigration debate and the problems it has brought; it is a theft of your taxes.

    Obama’s new the rules and regulations have been forced on American with its so called ‘Political Correctness’ along with its growing taint of Socialism philosophies impregnating our young in the schools and universities. President Obama has placed obstacles to halt the extraction of valuable energy resources in our time of urgent need. This administration has squashed efforts to extract oil, natural gas and coal; that we could lower the costs from transportation, but sell residual amounts to friendly foreign countries. The progressive’s zealots in the environmentalist world have stopped the laying of oil pipelines from Canada to Texas, and in Utah the Prairie dog has more dominion over townsfolk people through the absolute fanatical ‘Endangered Species’ law. I wonder how long it will be before the Obama Administration taxes us even more, because we actually have a pulse.

    Two of the most controversial issue, that we must be imposed at once, so no more foreign invaders are encouraged to break the immigration ‘Rule of Law’. ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ (E-VERIFY) must be passed and advanced, so illegal aliens can no longer steal jobs from the millions of Americans unemployed. The ‘BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ACT (H.R.140) must be compulsory so un born babies smuggled into America, so that parents cannot take benefit from welfare, once the child become an immediate citizen. Half a million pregnant women enter the United States looking for handouts annually, for their children.

    This is the time when every American who believes in the ‘Rule of Law’ and steps forward to let their Senator or Congress person knows how you will vote. Tell the politician’s aide (screener) and that you want them to sponsor E-Verify and the Birthright Citizenship bills. Citizen voters should phone Congress at the central Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Insist YOUR CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN TO fulfill their obligation to the oath of office and stop pandering to the businesses that use cheap labor or the pro-illegal alien lawmakers that you are only voting for those who favor the TEA PARTY ideology. Use the power of your VOTE to demand they sponsor these to policies or we are destined to become like Europe, overwhelmed by the poverty of other nations.

  17. RedPhillips

    Tom, could you please point me to the minutes of the debate where it is confirmed that those enacting the 14th Amendment meant only to exclude the children of ambassadors and diplomats?

    If this was so obvious to everyone then why did it take a Supreme Court (mis)decision IN 1898 to make it the “law of the land?”

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Red,

    It didn’t take until 1898. The same Congress that sent the 14th Amendment to the states in 1866 also passed Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes, which used the language “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

    The only people in the United States who are subject to a foreign power are ambassadors and diplomats — their embassies are considered their country’s soil and they receive diplomatic immunity from US laws. Everyone else on US soil is subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *