Click to subscribe to CA4Bush2004 –
A Yahoo Group for California Supporters of
President Bush and Vice President Cheney
Posted on 10/22/2003 1:34:31 PM PDT by My2Cents
A Californians for President Bush-2004 Group site has been created on Yahoo. California Freepers are encouraged to join to share news, views and information among California supporters of President Bush's re-election.
We hope between now and election day 2004 that this group will be a resource of information for volunteers to make contact with local efforts to register Republicans, participate in campaign activities, and get out the vote of Bush voters in the 2004 election.
Through this Group, we provide important information on the key issues in the 2004 election -- information people can use -- from the improving economy, to national security, to the War on Terror, to education reform, to faith-based initiatives, to winning the peace in Iraq and the Middle East.
We also hope this becomes Group becomes an active meeting place for Bush-Cheney supporters in California to share ideas, highlight activities in our own locales, and generally to run circles around the opposition.
The site is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca4bush2004/
Like many Californians I am bothered by Bush's apparent stance on illegal immigration and it's effects on California.
Does your group have a position on immigration regulation and if you are at odds with Bush's apparent policies will your group raise that issue with the Bush campaign?
The Group exists as a gathering of Californians supporting Pres. Bush for re-election. I suppose it would be naive to think that everyone on the Group agrees with every policy of the Bush Administration. As I've posted in various responses to threads on FR, I doubt I've ever voted for a candidate I agreed with 100%.
For me, personally, I'm concerned about illegal immigration, and I wish the Administration were doing more. I think it's a two-edged sword, however, to the state. While I agree that all illegal immigration should be cut-off, and the Administration should be aggressively addressing why this is necessary, I also believe that a sudden cut-off would be a huge blow to the state's agricultural industry. Personally, I support some sort of guest worker program which would document people coming into California from Mexico looking for work.
However, I must say that immigration is not one of my top concerns. Of importance to me are winning the war on terror (and building the peace in Iraq and the Middle East); reforming the judiciary with sound, conservative appointments to the courts; enhancing prosperity by strengthening the economy, mainly through revisions of the US tax laws; bringing faith back into the mainstream of American society (the most important cultural issue, IMO); and renewing the American spirit through reminding and re-educating citizens of the founding principles and values that are unique and vital to America.
Again, I would guess that anyone who joined the Bush-2004 group on Yahoo would likely not agree with the President 100% of the time. I would certainly encourage a diversity of opinions among the Group's membership. This group represents grassroots opinions. I'm sure the national campaign is interested in addressing questions or issues that come up for discussion in the groups.
No disagreement but all politics are local. Locally, the consequences of illegal immigration are at the heart of all of California's fiscal problems.
I am not a single issue voter but I find it really difficult to support a candidate, even a conservative with a decent record, if I perceive him to be contributing to the largest single problem facing my state, my county, my city and my neighborhood.
That does not mean I won't cast a pragmatic vote for him if the election were today but to actively support him today in my own state would be embarrasing.
Hopefully, with time, Bush will publically outline his policies with regard to immigaration regulation and once better defined, I may be able to publically support his candidacy.
Which candidate will you be actively supporting?
In which election?
All politics is local, true, but the top issues I mentioned in my earlier post are all national in scope. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of illegal immigration. It needs to be addressed. I wish Bush would address it in a realistic way. But faced with the other issues we're facing, I can't say it's a make-or-break issue for me.
The 2004 Presidential Election.
I don't know at this time. When the election draws closer and the candidates are known, I will then decide.
As a general rule I support the most conservative candidate (on balance) but this year there are two issues directly affecting my state and a candidate's stance on these issues will probably have a great impact on my choice. The first issue is federal oversight of regional energy management (FERC) and natural resources, principally regional water issues. The second issue is immigration regulation.
If, in my opinion, a more conservative candidate than Bush presents himself on the California, Republican, presidential primary next spring I will lean toward that candidate. A repeat of the recent recall election.
Your opnion is shared by many. I've always recognized the position but attributed it to a lack of knowledge to the depth of the problem in California. Here are some things to ponder.
In March of this year every other child born in California was classifed as "Hispanic". That's 50% of all new births that were recorded. Based on a rather stable demographic of 15% from 1900 until WWII is can be justifiably assumed that approximately 85% of these children are a direct result of illegal immigration into the US since 1950. According to California government statistics, appromximately 38% of all California, public school pupils were "Hispanic" in the 2001-2002 school year. That indicates that approximately 1/3 of the public school population in California was directly attributable to illegal immigration. That equates to a budget cost of approximately $14B this school year for K-post secondary public education.
The legal system is running at about 25%, that's about $2B and the saftey nets at roughly 35%-40% principally through children's linkage. That's another $11B. That's approximately 1/3 of the budget directed toward the consequences of illegal immigration in the last 50 years.
Three trends are troubling. While immigratnts have moved freely across California's boarders since statehood, the advent of "corporate farming", after WWII, began causing am imbalance in what had been a seasonal cycle of migration and repatriation of male workers.
Beginning in about the 1970's these immigrants began finding stable, year round employment in the services industries. Today California agriculture employs only about 10% of these immigrants. With stable employment in the services industry came the justification for these traditionally male workers to bring their families along.
Birth rates among these immigrants are about 2 1/2 greater than the prevailing US average. As US birth rates have declined these elevated rates among recent, Mexican immigrants have continued for at least 3 generations. Today California is experienceing an explosion in "Hispanic" births comparative to the native popultion and the trend is obvious in the school poulation statistics.
Last but not least, these poorly educated, less skilled newcommers take more in services than they pay in taxes. The more educated each succesive generation becomes, statistically, the more of a drain they represent because they seek employment in the public sector.
Think about it.:)
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.
