Tonight the hot-button issue du jour is border security and illegal immigration. Hopefully it’s come across in my writings that I’m an immigration hawk, so amnesty does not play here.
At the end of this post, I will also devote space to “catching up” GOP hopeful Robert Banks with the rest of the field. He didn’t embellish his website until last week, so I have to cover what he says about previous issues after I take care of the immigration portion for all the candidates, including him.
I think this time I’ll allow the last to be first and start with John Leo Walter, whose position starts with border security.
Andy Harris devotes probably his largest issues page to the subject.
Incumbent Wayne Gilchrest has this to say:
Wayne has voted for tough immigration legislation including measures to secure our borders with more border control agents and the construction of effective barriers, while opposing proposals to grant blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. Wayne believes that securing our borders is critical to fight against terrorism, and to protect our domestic economy and American workers. Wayne has also co-sponsored legislation to make English the “Official” language of the United States.
I’ll welcome Robert Banks to the fray by recounting his statement:
I do not believe in amnesty for illegal immigrants – no matter what value they have to our economy. Breaking the law is breaking the law. We cannot afford to reward illegal immigrants with a “free pass.” At the same time, we cannot afford to provide healthcare, education, and welfare to those who have chosen to remain citizens of other countries while enjoying our freedoms and benefits.
Immigration reform begins with real border control and law enforcement to ensure our nation’s security. Until we secure the border and effectively enforce the immigration laws on the books, illegal immigration will continue – and I find that unacceptable.
Once again, I refer to Joe Arminio‘s most recent tome for his stance:
How should the immigration problem be solved? New legislation would set legal immigration numbers at the appropriate lower level. (Elsewhere in his book Arminio suggests a number per year of 0.1% of the total population, which translates to about 300,000 immigrants annually.) What is called attrition through law enforcement would enforce such legislation. There would be random searches. Law breaking businesses would be prosecuted. Illegal immigrants would be rounded up and sent back, deep beyond our own borders. In time, fewer buslinesses and fewer foreigners would attempt to breach the immigration laws.
For the Democrats, Frank Kratovil makes it almost a clean sweep of candidates on what’s arguably the most important issue to a number of Eastern Shore voters.
This is a key issue for me, and there’s 25 points up for grabs. Surprisingly, all of those I review will get at least a few.
John Leo Walter has a very sound immigration plan and one I can’t disagree with, except I think that more pressure needs to be placed on the employer side. He leaves that step out and to me it’s right up there with border security. However, he still earns 15 points.
The same can be said for Andy Harris, who has a lot of specifics with the exception of dealing with that part of the equation. Yes, we know the Chamber of Commerce types will scream bloody murder, but that’s the breaks. He also gets 15 points for his efforts.
This is Wayne Gilchrest’s best issue by far with me. With a couple exceptions, Gilchrest has voted about the same as I would have. Probably his only hiccup (and it’s a big one) is co-sponsoring a bill decried as “amnesty” by challenger Andy Harris. True, nothing I read in this bill precludes an illegal immigrant from getting a “blue card”. I’ll give Wayne 13 points based on his voting record.
Robert Banks has much the same message as the others, but less specific – sort of like a carbon copy. But a copy’s never as good as the original, so Banks gets 12 points from me.
I find Arminio’s position interesting in that he goes about the problem from the inside out. He addresses the employer portion but not the border security. The part about “random searches” needs to stress probable cause in order to not violate the Fourth Amendment but the idea is sound. Where Arminio loses me is the extremely tight lid on legal immigration that he proposes. And without border security to stop those who may not be looking for work but for targets of opportunity, the cycle would be more difficult to stop. His solution is still worth 14 points though.
Quite surprisingly for a Democrat, Kratovil comes across as a border hawk. Obviously he’s playing to the local Democrat base on this subject, one that stands far to the right of most of their comrades nationally when it comes to immigration. And as a prosecutor, he’s seemingly frustrated by the revolving door of the legal system when it comes to these lawbreakers. Although it comes somewhat close to promising pork, if Kratovil can prudently follow through with providing required resources to our district to combat the illegal immigration problem he has a winning strategy on his hands. Believe it or not, on this one issue he presents the best arguments for himself – but for a little bit of a lack of specifics he’d get the full point allotment; instead I’ll give him 20 points.
Before I get to the totals, I’m going to backtrack and briefly review what Robert Banks has to say. Since his platform is one web page, I can save myself the copying and pasting and refer readers here for where he stands in toto.
Banks addresses four of my previous issues: trade and job creation (worth 11 points), energy (up to 17 possible points), entitlements (good for up to 19 points) and taxation (21 points). So a lot is riding on how I feel about where he stands.
I’ll start with job creation. Unfortunately, while Banks notes the GOP has generally followed pro-growth policies and has a general disposition toward being tilted in favor of business over government, he’s not specific at all about how he would improve the policies in place now. He gets just one point here.
The same goes for his energy policy. I’m happy he’s owned several SUV’s and it’s good to think about alternative energy, but I’m decidedly against a lot of government “investment” in that field, preferring the private sector lead the way as they know the market best. I also am a bit leery about how renewable and alternative fuels become more accessible because I get the hunch he’s talking about more ethanol and that’s not the long-term answer. I grant him just three points.
Again, I take issue with Robert on his entitlement stance, in particular how he seems to like Medicare Part D. It was an program that we didn’t need at a scale that was too large, and now that it’s here impossible to kill. Agreed, we do not need government-controlled healthcare rationing but once the Part D program gets too big isn’t that what we’ll have in that particular instance? Out of 19 points, I’m going to deduct seven because of this stance that leaves the door open for more and bigger entitlements.
Regarding what I call the role of government, Banks makes a curious choice. Of all the waste and outright fraud that goes on with earmarks and the like, he states:
My first order of business will be to help enact legislation to assess the fiscal management of the War on Terror…I believe we owe it to their families in the U.S. to reassess whether we could be getting the same results for less money.
Is this a backdoor plan to deny funding to the troops? I hope not. Other than that, he preaches accountability without being specific. I’ll leave this as no points either way since the answer doesn’t impress me and leaves me with that key question.
Now I can do the standings with all five GOP hopefuls:
- Andy Harris, 59.5 points
- John Leo Walter, 55 points
- Joe Arminio, 15 points
- Robert Banks, 9 points
- Wayne Gilchrest, no points
For the moment, Democrat Frank Kratovil is above water with 1 point, mostly because he’s stayed silent on the majority of issues and has one outstanding area. Christopher Robinson maintained his score of -34.
The final installment will talk about our candidates’ thoughts on the Long War and any other intangible issues I find with them.
