I have been asked who I would vote for in 2004. I have no idea. I don't know who is running yet. I may even support Bush and the Republican party again if Bush reverses his immigration and amnesty policies. Who knows!
This is a "single issue" issue with me because I feel that our existing immigration policy (or lack thereof) is the greatest single threat to the sovereignty and secutity of the United States since the cold war.
I would feel more comfortable facing off against Russia or China than being invaded from within by illegal aliens that this administration refuses to stop.
We have laws on the books and the Constitution of the United States to protect us and to limit and regulate immigration. Bush is sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States and yet he doesn't.
I will not support anyone that knowingly allows the invasion of America.
I also am a single-issue voter.
I know, I know you will automatically call these people criminals although the vast majority of them have busted their ass trying to make a better life and have led generally good lives.
Probably a lot better than people born in the US.
Our borders have become a national disgrace, and now, a complete national security nightmare.
Your right to vote is your currency in the Political Economy. If your support is never in doubt, what is the incentive of politicians to listen to you? Do you continue to patronize restaurants with good food and bad service? Or do you let your wallet do the talking?
This is where we disagree, Saber. The illegal immigration issue has turned these threads into an ugly free-for-all rife with emotional displays of xenophobia, paranoia and fear. President Bush hasn't done a thing to give amnesty to illegal aliens, yet is being savagely attacked and vilified while the Democrats who enabled and encouraged illegal aliens to overrun parts of the country are given a pass.
My understanding is that the new section 245(i) provisions would simply allow certain aliens additional time to file to extend their visas contingent upon having a sponsor and paying a fine for not having filed on time. These provisions had already been part of the immigration law, but expired in 1998. The recent House bill would reinstate section 245(i) for a brief period. Reinstatement of an expired extension to file papers hardly qualifies as amnesty or even mini-amnesty. But judging from the vitriol directed at Bush, one would think he committed treason or betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Whatever the merits or faults of this legislation, unconstitutionality is not one of them.
I don't see a problem with Congress allowing 200,000 or even 300,000 Mexicans who live and work here additional time to file immigration papers. But even if I did have a problem with that, I would not turn against a leader I admire and respect because I disagree with him on one issue. To switch allegiance to a party whose record on that issue is far worse - never mind all the other issues on which the enemy party is wrong or malicious - is irrational, to say the least.
No sir, there is something called loyalty and it works both ways. I don't expect my candidate to agree with me on every single issue and I don't consider it a betrayal when that happens. I try to make a rational decision, choosing the candidate whose views more closely reflect my own. Sometimes the choice is clear-cut (Reagan vs. Mondale); sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. In the last election, for me the choice was clear-cut.
If I ever feel I've been betrayed, I will vote for NO ONE, but I would never vote for the socialists who have done so much to destroy our country.