Meg Whitman's Illegal Immigration Policy
 

This is the first I've seen of any concrete statements from Meg Whitman about illegal immigration. At the link scroll to page 37.

Some bullet points;

- Complete the border fence
- Eliminate sanctuary city policies
- Deploy the national guard
- E-verify and workplace inspections
- Prohibit driver license for illegals
- Enforce the English language

more -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28473738/M...New-California

It all sounds pretty good, except the part about "enforcing" the English language. She defends proposition 227, which provides for English immersion programs. This is a public subsidized program to encourage and accomodate immigration from non-English speaking countries. It is the first responsibility of any immigrant to learn English before even considering coming here and not the responsibility of the US tax payer.

The emphasis on policing the workplace against illegals is also extremely weak and does not even examine the connection between legal and illegal immigrants, especially in the work place. The workplaces that we really need to worry about are those places owned or managed by non-citizens or who employ non-citizens anywhere in the employment process.

She also does not address the anchor-baby problem which represents the single most corrupting part of immigration outside of illegal immigration. Nobody who is not the child of parents who are both US citizens need ever imagine that they are themselves US citizens. Nobody.

What are the other options?

What are the other options for what? For governor?

If there are no candidates that you think you can support for governor, then you should not vote for any of them. If I don't think I can support any of the candidates for governor, that's what I'm going to do. I'll go to the polls this November and just vote on those other issues that might be on the ballot. I'll leave the choice for the governor unmarked or write through it or something.

That's what I did for the presidential election. There ought to be a "none of the above" option on the ballot for any election or issue. There is some debate as to whether a "none of the above" choice should be binding or not. I would settle for nonbinding, but there are some places where if either candidate or side of an issue cannot secure a certain percentage of votes away from the "none of the above" voters, then there has to be a reelection or something.

I'd especially like to see a "none of the above" option for propositions or issues. Sometimes the way the propositions are posed, you lose either way.

If I support most of what they offer, I'll vote for that candidate. You'll never have a perfect candidate - ever. I think it's foolish not to vote just because they don't have all 'i's dotted and 't's crossed.

That said, I haven't really looked into any of the candidates that closely.

I posted the thread because I hadn't seen anyone's stance on the illegal immigration issue until this pdf.

Right. Me too.

But if they just toss me crumbs and tell me that I have to choose them anyway because I can't get anything better, my answer is, "No, I don't." And it should be everyone's answer. The public should be tired of being milked by the "two party system".

So far only Poizner has had public statements in campaign ads against criminal immigration. But he is a member of the CFR so he doesn't meet the purity test.

I too will vote for the person who meets most of my standards recognizing that no one is going to meet them all. Standing on the purity principle is how we got the great and poweful ozbama as presidebt.

I remember when Jerry Brown was governor last time. He's only marinated in his liberalism since he left office last time. What I disagree with as far as Brown is concerned is his basic philosophy of liberalisim. He imposes his will as much as he can according to the way he personally believes the way things should be.

If nothing else, his position during the same sex marriage controversy was enough to convince me that he deserves NO elected office at all.

Third party's don't satisfy everyone either. Go with your best beliefs, or just declare a war on politics.

Listen to what you are saying. "Third parties" Do you really believe that? That there are only two parties and every other party is a "third party"?

There is no "two party system". There is not even a "party system". Forming a political party is a basic political freedom. It is not a part of our constitutionally created system of government. Yet there are people out there who insist that our government is a "two party system." This is a fraud at best and a lie at the worse.

The government has no business keeping track of your party affiliations. The only reason it has for doing so is for the primary election systems like we have coming up this June. It is a publicly funded election run for the benefit of the dominating parties in the fake debate that dominates public political life. Other parties participate in order to dignify the facade.

Stepping away from the Republicans and the Democrats and even stepping away from any political party is not a war on politics, it is a war for politics. It is a war to bring back politics and public contention based on reality and what is really going on.

ugh

I hear what I'm saying and I hear what you're saying, but at the end of the day (November) you'll be voting for someone that represents a political party - that party has a platform at which they model their ideals... most likely it will be a democrat or a republican left standing.

So anyway, I'm starting to like Meg (I think)... who else could get away with having big ankles and wearing a pair of Mary Janes down at the border?