In this video, Dr. Chris Magiera explains his specific stances on immigration as it pertains to the Constitution. Please see below for the transcript.
As I have traveled the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana during this campaign, the most frequently voiced concern by the people involves the subject of immigration in general, and specifically the crisis of uninvited migrants at our southern border. This invasion threatens our lives, our liberties, our properties, our national sovereignty, and our American exceptionalism.
Yes, these United States are a Union of immigrants, but our sovereignty and our constitutional, representative Republic can only be maintained with a sound immigration policy. A policy based on the Constitution.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives in the
May 5 June 2 Republican Party primary election for the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. Recently, a person contacted me with concerns about my position on the subject of immigration and naturalization. Their comment was that, while I presented much constitutional theory on the definition of the role of the federal government in immigration and naturalization, they wanted more details on specific policies and issues. OK, that is fair enough. They then arranged to send me a list of specific questions involving immigration and naturalization.
I have read these questions and formulated answers, which I shall share with you at this time. Again, for the sake of this presentation, let’s leave behind the academic discussions. But I would continue to recommend a reference that was well known to the Founders, the 1758 book “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel.
Okay, are you ready? Here we go.
Do you oppose “chain migration”? Yes.
Do you oppose the visa “lottery”? Yes.
Do you support the mandatory use of E-Verify? Yes.
Do you oppose amnesty? Yes.
Do you oppose “Birthright Citizenship”? Yes. It is there in the 14th Amendment. You just have to read it carefully. Also, according to “The Law of Nations,” a reference used by the Framers of the Constitution, citizenship follows the parents, not the “soil.”
Do you oppose unnecessary worker importation, if their presence would threaten the jobs or depress the wages of American workers? Yes. Here I must add that the situation would not be so “desperate” had 63 million potential American workers not been aborted! Also, if there is a job-skill shortage, reaching for the immigration solution is the last thing that we should be doing, not the first.
Do you support a reduction in total immigration? Yes. Before 1990, the average yearly immigration number was 325,000. Since that time it is averaging 1 million per year. Assimilation takes time, and the vast numbers complicate the situation. Take for instance my own situation. I am a 4th generation Polish-American born in South Bend, Indiana. And I am the first generation not fluent in the Polish language. I am fully assimilated. I have never been to Poland, and I do not harbor memories of all the thousands of years of European conflicts.
Do you support border security? Yes, wall and all.
Do you support completion of “US-VISIT,” a biometric database system for tracking the entry and exit of every non-citizen? Yes. This was approved in 1996, but never implemented.
Do you oppose rewards for illegal immigration? Yes, absolutely no benefits for undocumented immigrants. We must turn off the “magnet.”
Do you support local law enforcement of immigration? This question opens up the constitutional discussion again. It is complex. Care must be taken to not violate the “anti-commandeering doctrine”(see Prigg v Pennsylvania and several other cases). Immigration and naturalization authority and enforcement are federal powers, and, according to the 10th Amendment and the above SCOTUS cases, the State and local officials are not required to act as Federal enforcers, should they choose not to. The Constitution Solution would be to appropriate more Federal enforcement assets.
Do you oppose “sanctuary policies”? Should funding be reduced to state and local entities that adopt such policies? Again, the short answer is “yes,” but the constitutional theory is detailed. Allow me to comment. I am a supporter of the original intent of the Founders’ Constitution. Aside from the few, enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, there is no constitutional justification for the central government to be funding state and local law enforcement.
You can’t reduce something that is unconstitutional in the first place. Congress must be careful to follow Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. Immigration is a function of the central government (because it is the first step in naturalization, a primary power of a sovereign), and its enforcement must be constitutional. There is a Constitution Solution, and I shall work toward that end.
Well, I was asked to provide details, and you now have them. Compare and contrast with other candidates. But remember, in order to keep America great, we must keep America constitutional — never wavering from our mission.
This is why I’m asking you to stand with me on
May 5 June 2 and vote for Dr. Chris Magiera for Congress. Visit DrChrisMagiera.com to learn more.
I’m Dr. Chris Magiera, and I approve this message. Paid for by Friends of Chris Magiera, Inc. Thank you.