Replies

Siegfried, with fairness given to the candidate, me, I think you should know where I stand on illegal immigration, just so we are clear:

Secure Borders – I am in favor of securing our borders. The ease with which immigrants can slip across our borders is an international joke and our economic system certainly cannot handle the overload. But our system cannot handle another overgrown, inefficient bureaucratic department either. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year around the world via our military budget, and this creates a plethora of problems. Subsidizing other countries’ social programs by providing a military for them is not right for American taxpayers to endure, and since we have this budget established already, I would like to see our troops at home defending our own borders rather than those of other nations.

Amnesty – I am completely opposed to amnesty.

Language Barriers – The diversity of Americans is what makes us the great “melting-pot” of the world and has allowed culture to flourish amongst us. But it is important that we have a common bond when it comes to politics and the public at large, and agreeing to use the English Language as our official language is paramount to the stability of our governmental operations.

Enforce Our Laws – Our existing laws needs to be clarified; there exists too much ambiguity. More importantly we have to deal with illegal immigrants properly when they are found, and, ultimately, the officials that refuse to deal with them in the manners prescribed by law. As recently as August, 2010, the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to deport any “non-violent” illegal immigrants. This policy by ICE means de facto amnesty, which is unacceptable. Those responsible for this direction, no matter what level, should be removed from office and replaced with officials whose interests lie with the American people. Finally, we have to clean-up our process for dealing with immigrants remaining here beyond their visa limits.

States’ Rights and the Constitution – When the federal government fails to enforce its laws I fully support the rights of states to legislate their own laws to fill the void. The cost of illegal immigration is immense on taxpayers, but it is significantly more costly at a state than federal level and states should be allowed to protect themselves. However, I would never support any legislation, federal or otherwise, that supersedes our due process of law, particularly the 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

Economics – The cost of securing our borders and properly acquiring, detaining, deporting illegal immigrants will be very expensive if we want the process to be anywhere near effective. As stated earlier, I do support using already appropriated funds via our military to assist with the process, but we also have to be realistic. We’ve always been the land of opportunity for those who want to work and the land of freedom for those who are oppressed, and nobody wants that to change. But in order for the U.S. to ultimately be successful at controlling illegal immigration, it is imperative that we also attack the source of the problem: social services that encourage immigrants to join our ranks looking for government handouts. Americans are the most generous people in the world and have always been willing to help out when people find themselves in a tight spot by giving to charities and churches…it is our welfare system that must be fixed. By way of the government’s central banking monopoly, they have systematically provided great wealth to the Big-Banksters and have slowly eroded the American dream for the rest of us. Central banking also allows politicians to act as if they are benevolent by providing various social services at taxpayer expense. And as time goes on, what little money we have continues to decline in value while great sums of money continue to be created for the corporate conglomerates that lobby for special favors. When central banking is eliminated…and it must be in order to fix a whole slew of other problems in this country…illegal immigration will become a non-issue as people will only join our ranks with the intent of surviving on their own rather than relying on free services.

No he doesn’t support open borders. He supports the right of states like Arizona to enforce immigration policy.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=124363

Mike Labno is the real deal. Check out his facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/labno4senate#!

This isn’t just about defeating Kirk. We have in Labno a Tea Party candidate that can win against the 3 liberals running if he gets some support from the so called “kick the establishment’s butt conservatives”.

Celebrating in Nov with Kirk winning is like have a Tea Party celebration cake with a turd on top. We can do better.

Labno is a not a radical, he is not a libertarian nut or anarchist nor is he a pacifist.

He is a construction foreman, an auto-mechanic, Volunteer, Chicago Guardian Angels,Member/Volunteer Saint Mary of Gostyn Church, Voluntary Member World Security Bureau which helps victims of domestic abuse.

Mike is the Real Deal. Even though I don’t agree with him 100% there is nothing that stands out as something that would disqualify him. He is a actually a breath of fresh air compared to the staleness that has dominated the Republican party prior to this year.

I’ve heard all the arguments about stopping Alexi. They are empty. We don’t have to take the non choice given to us.
The man who receives 100% rating from NARAL and supports abortion up till the last trimester with no restrictions.
The man who gets an F on the 2nd amendment and received the endorsement of Anti-gun groups over the Democrat.
The man who voted for the fiscally liberal Tarp, Cap and Trade, Obama’s additional $192B. He is a mixed bag on fiscal policy and holds some positions that aren’t so bad but there can be no doubt he is liberal in the worst kind of way that is why he isn’t debating. He didn’t debate once in the primary race and now he wants a rubberstamp from conservatives to move up to the Senate. Even Mike Castle in many ways wasn’t as liberal as Mark Kirk.