Posted on 09/04/2011 10:54:37 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Personally in my opinion, each State has the right to decide how to handle illegal immigration and allocation of the law and State rights to such illegal aliens in the event that the Federal government refuses to follow the constitutional and legal obligations under the law. Having said that, I still feel that, the Federal government should complete the fence as was agreed upon and that each State certainly does not have the right to refuse the fence nor should they be in the business of taking on the debt to built it themselves.
Having said that, my opinion, and of which I would hope fellow citizens of my State would share (too many do not, but I guess that is democracy and representative government), is my personal opinion that illegal immigration is a threat to our very principles of constitutional sovereignty. No accordance should be given to it, no allowance, no favor. Period.
Illegal immigration is not my primary, single issue of importance. I am not a single issue voter. During this time, the issue of most importance to me individually is the economy of our nation. I have four issue of which are important to me during this election cycle, and of which will continue to be of importance to me until a resolution to my concern puts these issues to rest:
(1) Jobs, the debt of our nation, the falling value of the US dollar, the stability and growth of the stock market and the GDP, the decline of domestic industrial production and exportation of industrial and military technology, in other words the economy and the current state of economic decline …
(2) The war on terrorism, the threat from modern politicized Islamic fascism, and the strength of our military readiness in face of …
(3) Illegal immigration, which is a serious violation of our constitutional sovereignty, the sanctity of our democratic vote, and without hesitation I am not speaking of Russians, or Chinese, or those from India or Europe or others who have not had the blanket luck of being directly adjacent to the borders of the United States, nor am I speaking to political or social refuges whether they come from far or just over the border, but rather I qualify that I am specifically and without any racial motive speaking to the invasion of large numbers of uneducated Mexican class who are not interested in assimilation but have many other personal or even ulterior motives of which we can no longer consent to in the name of helping the poor, nor tolerate the crimes, nor allow the security threat to remain in the face of drug cartels who would also assist Islamic terrorists …
(4) Crime – which in notable part is also linked to issue number 3 and 1 ...
All of these issues are of vital importance to me. I am not a single issue voter and frankly I do not want to hear statements that try to claim so. Having a stance on these issues is larger than any of that. If a candidate does not speak in terms of these issues, but holds an opinion so directly counter to my vital concerns and voices it in such a manner, I simply cannot support such a candidate.
The other day, it came to my attention that candidate Perry, whom until then I was very enthusiastic about, does not, and has publically stated he will not, support the border fence. I have researched and found that what was being told to me in this regard is, in fact. That he does not support the fence, that he supports in-state tuition and other rip-offs to legal citizens, that he did not stand with Arizona.
Now that the truth has been verified, I cannot support Rick Perry. I have noticed that Mitt Romney is publically taking a counter position, and pointing out we must stop providing incentives that promote illegal immigration, that as governor he vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition, and he has now publically called for the building of the border fence as a priority. No doubt, others may say that Romney is simply making such public statements in the face of Perry’s surge in the polls among conservatives after the Perry announcement for candidacy. There could be truth in that, but it doesn’t change the fact that Perry, even as recent as this week, made statements in relation to the illegal immigration question that simply eradicates any chance of a personal consideration on my part to vote for his candidacy. Period.
I don’t care what Perry supporters say, I think we are now going to see the typical and historic pattern that occurs during the Primary contest which is, you see a candidate who is in part unknown emerge during the Primary, who may even initially surge in the polls and in support by the Party members, but as we learn more about the candidate we simply realize that perhaps another choice would be more wise.
I believe this is exactly what is going to happen here. I believe the surge in support for Perry, due to this Achilles’ heel in regards to his stand on illegal immigration, will notably wane his support to the benefit of other candidates.
I also understand that Michele Bachmann has made similar public statements to those of Romney, that she has a firm stand regarding illegal immigration which I support and thank her for, and of course I have already had a liking for her candidacy and this only reinforces it.
My personal opinion is, understandably, not of importance and simply posting such an opinion can seem pompous. I am only using my personal opinion in this regard to example what is no doubt likely about to happen, the gut on it, which is -
- that the Rick Perry candidacy is going to fail, unless he dramatically changes his stance on this. And even if doing so to members of the Republican Party who are really making the difference, and that is specifically the conservatives, even a dramatic turn around on this issue may not be enough.
Politics is a tough game. Actually, it is not a game. And it can be very dirty. That is how it is. One candidate will attempt to defeat another through exposure of the other candidate. Exposure can come in terms of personal attacks. But this is not a personal attack, not by any of the other candidates who would benefit through a decline in support for Perry. Truthfully exposing opinions and where a candidate stands on an issue, even if done as part of defeating another candidate, is expected, and is how politics works. It is not fun. Not for anyone. It is how it is, and it is serious business.
People, obviously, can support who they want but I'm starting to get the horrible feeling that we are so separated on the right that we will have the “pleasure” of another four years of Obama, and it scares the hell out of me!We're not all that separated. We're still early in the nominating process and there are a lot of partisan feelings about several different very good conservative candidates. The question of who is actually qualified to run for President under the Republican banner is what's being argued right now, and it's right and proper that there are strong feelings among the followers of the various contenders.
Perry has already won over a rather large segment of the primary voters, even this early, and that points to a decidedly un-divided consensus being formed over the next 6-9 months of the campaign (hopefully sooner, rather than later).
So don't let the current divisions get you down. Especially don't let the anger of a minority of posters here in FR get you down.
We're going to be a lot more united when the time comes than you think.
Sure, there will always be idiots who say things like "I'd rather have Obama than Perry". But they are not the majority of Republican voters. They are not the majority of conservative voters. They are not even conservatives at all. Don't worry about them.
Good post.
In all the hoopla of a fairly well laid out Perry campaign, it’s apparent to some that Perry is not the perfect Conservative. He is a career politician who skillfully manages to take both sides of a number of issues. As is the case with most career politicians, the best way to determine what are the core beliefs of the candidate is to look at their record and who their top advisors and supporters are.
On illegal immigration, Perry’s extensive record and results as Governor of Texas have seen an explosion of illegal immigration. Like a number of establishment Republicans, I do believe Perry sees illegal immigration as something which should be used, both for labor and as a means of appealing to an increasingly large block of voters.
Further evidence of Perry’s beliefs can be interpretted from who is team is, such as Dave Carney, a person who has been called “the most important person in Perry’s presidential quest”.
http://teamgingrich.blogspot.com/2011/05/dave-carney-of-new-hampshire-to-be.html
WHO is YOUR candidate??? Please answer.
Truthfully exposing where candidates are ... IS IMPORTANT.
You have the nicest pictures of Rick Perry.
If only a single, long-term conservative position
was associated with each of them,
then using the term RINO with him
would have been like oil and water.
I agree with you. Primary season is the time to work for getting the best candidate we can.
But when the primary is over, it will be time to stop bitching and unite behind the winner.
NOT if the candidate is a RINO.
In that case, conservatives will write in the
name of the next POTUS.
If the primary winner is reasonably conservative, I will vote for him.
All these folks coming out so hard about Perry are being disingenuous about their attacks and they use what they think will resonate among conservatives. I think they want a Ron Paul - tin foil and all - or some other candidate that they know folks will think of as insane. If they had a viable candidate, they could speak the name on FR. Until the start telling us who they back, I think the obvious hit Perry pieces should be relegated to the trash bin...
Yours is a fantastic post that covers the subject completely. Thank you for putting in the effort!
Go to the video clip in this article
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2011/09/ap-apparently-misleads-readers-on.html
Let’s pretend it is November, 2012 and you are voting. One choice is BHO and the other is Rick Perry. Will you vote for BHO? Well you might because you could be a democrat serial poster. Will you sit home and revel in intellectual and ideological purity? Again, you might because a lot of folks did that in 2008 and look what it got us. Option three is you vote for whoever is the Republican candidate. I’ve lived through all ten years of Perry in Texas. No, he ain’t perfect and yes, he has made some mistakes. Bulletin: no one is perfect and making no mistakes in ten years is impossible while governing the equivalent of a small nation.
We could do far worse than Perry but not much better.
Perfect, apparently.
Yes, since IMO he is a moderate so I say the sheeple vote him in. He should have plenty of appeal to the "independents" Right? The Republicans want a RINO then let them have him. As for me, I've voted for my last RINO.
Re: "Perry's cracked down on human trafficking (HB 1372, 4008 & SB 11 of '07), he's increased border security (Rangers on the border; HB1 of '07), enacted tougher employer sanctions (HB 1196 of '07), gone after document fraud (HB 126 of '07) and signed Voter ID."
Were those Rick Perry's bills or did he just sign them?
Interesting post. As the ebb and flow of reaction to your essay suggests, there is some debate on exactly what Perry’s position is on the border fence and illegal immigration generally. A part of the discussion here and in similar threads relates to whether the fence will work. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that a fence alone will adequately impede the flow of illegals, but the question remains whether the fence is a necessary element in a border enforcement strategy. Some say that the “boots on the ground” approach, which seems to be what Perry supports as the key, is enough to do the job alone and the fence is just a waste of money or boondoggle.
I would like to suggest that the fence is a vitally necessary component of any border enforcement strategy. In this connection, I think it is illogical to argue that it is worthless from a practical point of view. Those who take this position say that it will just increase ladder and wire cutter sales, that the sophisticated smuggling gangs and drug cartels will tunnel under the fence, etc. This is illogical for a simple reason: whatever we do to make it harder to get across the border is worth doing. If they have to go to the trouble of buying ladders and wire cutters or dig tunnels, that immediately deters a certain number of people who don’t want to take the time or trouble or incur the expense. Even those who are still willing to take the extra measures will be easier to interdict because the fence slows them down, making it easier to detect them and dispatch appropriate personnel. If the fences are used with motion and other types of sensors, detection capability is greatly enhanced.
But beyond the practical considerations, I believe there is an important factor that goes unmentioned: Our national sovereignty. Erecting the fence is necessary to signal to the world that America is a sovereign nation that will no longer tolerate audacious disregard for her borders, will no longer stand for a preposterous gaping hole in her security and will no longer subject her citizens to the economic onslaught of illegal immigration. Some will say that this is petty symbolism. I suggest that it is no more petty symbolism than the American flag, the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial. It is no more or less symbolic than sending our soldiers to guard our borders. It is far more than a mere symbol when our political class has allowed the outrage of open borders to exist de facto for the last 25 years and more. In this regard, symbols have vital meaning, not only as a message to the world, but as a message to the good people of America, including her legal immigrants, that the old status quo is no more and that we are still a sovereign nation where government is still of, for and by the people.
Respectfully, I think the argument at this stage is about ideological purity. While we are still in the process of selecting a nominee, we should be making every effort to get the most conservative electable candidate we can. Perry does have the edge right now in terms of electability, but is he the most conservative electable candidate? I think that is, at best, an open question.
As far as who a conservative should vote for in the general election: ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!!!! G-d help us.
The main problem is the WELFARE State
If there wasn’t free benefits and jobs that Americans won’t take ( due to the Welfare State) they wouldn’t COME
No, you do not understand that the kind of border fence we want is all about the Israeli styled SECURITY. The entire purpose of any type of fence is not for political reasons... it is for BORDER SECURITY... i.e. a secure border.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.